An answer to A discourse against transubstantiation

PART I. (Book 1)

I Sub-divide my First Part into five Sections, comprehen∣ding the five pretended grounds, one or more of which, you suppose the Church of Rome builds this Doctrin on. First, The Authority of Scripture. Or Secondly, the perpetual belief of this Doctrin in the Christian Church. Or Thirdly, the Authority of the Church to make, or declare an Article of Faith. Or Fourthly, the absolute Necessity of such a Change, for the benefit of those who receive this Sacrament. Or Fifthly, to magnify the Power of the Priest.

SECT. I. Whether Scripture authorise Transubstantiation.

BEfore I begin to discuss whether Scripture authorise Tran∣substantiation: I think it convenient to premise two Re∣flections, upon two considerable Circumstances, delivered in your Introduction.

First Reflection upon the word Transubstantiation.

In the very first entrance of your Discourse, you complain it is a hard word; and afterwards increase your complaint with this unparallel'd exaggeration. It was almost 300 years before this mishapen Monster of Transubstantiation could be lick'd into that Form * 1.1 in which it is now setled and established in the Church of Rome. Bold Assertions ought to be supported with great Proofs: And Mon∣strous Vilifications of the Divine Goodness expiated with more than ordinary Repentance. Heaven forbid, that our Blessed Saviour should ever prove a mishapen Monster, even to those who most oppose revealed Truth expressed in Transubstan∣tiation.

A hard word, and who can endure it; a new word, and who will admit it? St. Hilary answers you in this Reply to the Arian

Heretics, importuning the primitive Church of Christ with the like expressions, Say rather, if you speak wisely, will you not wage new Wars against new * 1.2 Enemies; or take fresh Counsels against new Treasons; or drink Counterpoison against veno∣mous Infections? Nor was St. Athanasius's Inter∣rogation * 1.3 of less force: Are you offended at the newness of the Name? or affraid of the verity of the Mystery?

The sentiment of these two great Ornaments of the Church, is the common Practice of whole Sacred Antiquity; according to the Golden Sentence of Vincentius Lyrinensis, The Church ordinarily appropriates some new term * 1.4 to signifie more pathetically the true Sense of Faith. Thus did the first Oecumenical Council write 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Consubstantial, and the Arians could not digest the hardness of the Word. Thus did the Ephesian Pre∣lates stile the B. Virgin, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Mother of God, which was * 1.5 no softer to the Nestorians. And thus did the Lateran Bishops sub∣cribe to Transubstantiation, and the Berengarians and Modern opposers of the Roman truth, expostulate with us for this Word, and modestly term it a Mishapen Monster.

Second Reflection upon the Evidence of Sense.

Here you bring in Aristotle, who long since hath pronounced, There ought to be no dispute of the matter of Sense. I beg Par∣don if I am not at leisure, to digress with you towards Paga∣nism. Neither can I think you serious, when you quote the Philosopher's determination, for the Mystery of the Lords Sup∣per, who never professed a revealed Religion, and died many Hundred years before Christianity was Promulgated and Esta∣blished. Nor do I apprehend the least danger to be overbur∣den'd, with the heavy matter of Sense, when my way leads to the Sublime matter of Revelation.

You cannot deny, Sense, Reason, and Faith, are three va∣rious Perfections; so likewise are their Objects distinguished. The * 1.6 Stagyrite never pretended Sense should reach farther than to the Accidents and Appearance of things. And Reasons employ was the contemplation of Essence, Nature, and Sub∣stance.

How could Aristotle pronounce, the matter of Sense was never to be disputed, when 'twas always to be pry'd into, and regulated by Reason?

Yet we do not dispute with you, the Prerogative of Sense in the Mystery of the Sacrament. For we see the outward shape and appearance of Bread and Wine; nor is Tast wanting. All this is granted. Unless then you perplex and embroil the Que∣stion, Sense reposes, without violation, quiet and contented in its own Objects.

Nor ought you to believe, that Reason can securely, without Error, always determin in Natural Sciences, according to the received impression, from the visible Sign, or Object of Sense. This Maxim is given to Novices entring the list of Dialecticks, and admitted by the Sect of Peripateticks. So Reason enlarges the greatness of the Sun, and assures us, it far exceeds in bigness the Terrestrial Orb, tho' Sense inclose it in the small circum∣ference of a Ball.

Sense indeed and Reason combining together, and following the prescript of Logick, are the proper deciders of Philosophi∣cal contestations. Sense pleads for no more, and if the Reason of Aristotle surviv'd, it would be abundantly satisfi'd with this voluntary concession.

If for all this you resolve to seat Reason in the Chair of Judi∣cature, even where Revelation intervenes, Divine Authority will easily rescue Christian Religion from the information of Sense. Reason following the Dictamen of outward existence, told Abraham, what appeared were Men; Revelation corrected the * 1.7 mistake, and assured him they were Angels. Reason affirmed what descended in the shape of a Dove, was that Innocent Crea∣ture: * 1.8 Revelation reformed the Judgment, and intimated it was the Holy Ghost. Reason regards the Species of Bread as inherent to the proper Substance: Revelation changes that Substance in∣to the Body of Christ. Abraham saw the figure and shape of Men, and yet the Substance of Man was wanting. The Fea∣thers in appearance exhibited a Dove; the real Substance was supply'd with the presence of the Holy Ghost.

Again, it was a Maxim of Philosophy, what is, was from something. And this Evidence vanishes at the sight of Revela∣tion, * 1.9 which teaches the whole Universe was Created of no∣thing. 'Twas a Principle, There's no return from Privation, to

the Habit, from Death to Life; and this perswasion ceases, ac∣knowledging our Saviours Resurrection.

Reasons reluctancy proceeding from Senses information, must yield to the Power of Revelation, or we must cease to be Christians. Thus Julian Apostatised, and derided Christi∣ans that they were so stupid, to blindfold Reason with the bare word of a Crede, you must Believe. This in St. Gregory Nazianzen is recorded. St. Clement * 1.10 in the Second Centurie relates the same of the * 1.11 Greek Philosophers, and confutes them by this Definition of Supernatural Faith: Faith which the Greeks look upon as vain and unreasona∣ble, is a voluntary Anticipation, a Pious yielding, the Substance of things which are hop'd for, and an evidence of what is not seen, according to the Divine Apostle. Faith is First according to this Ancient Father, a voluntary Antici∣pation of Reason; and you wilfully Anticipate Faith by Reason. Secondly, Faith is a pious Assent to Divine Testimony; and you boldly contradict our Saviours own words. Thirdly, It is the Substance of things hop'd for; and you reply there's nothing to be hoped for of Substance in the Sacrament. Lastly, Faith is an Evidence of things not seen; and you contend Reason evidences the contrary.

Reason rather with St. Ambrose, who de∣clares, * 1.12 We believe Fisher-men; we do not Believe Philosophers.

St. Cyril of Alexandria, conceived it impossi∣ble * 1.13 to believe where Reason intermixes inquiries.

St. Chrysostom avow'd the very letting of an, * 1.14 How can it be, is a beginning of incredulity.

St. Augustin avers, that if we first demon∣strate * 1.15 and afterwards believe, we become both Ignorant and Incredulous.

And our B. Saviour adds the heavy burden of Condemnati∣on, * 1.16 as we read in St. Mark, Who will not Believe, shall be Condemned.

This is sufficient to shew, that Reason in matters of Religion ought to take her information, not from Sense, but from the proposal of God and Divine Scriptures. Now I examin;

Whether Scripture Authorise Transubstantiation?

You say we pretend for this Doctrin the Authority of Scri∣pture in those words of our Saviour, this is my Body. So likewise do we pretend for the same Doctrin, the Authority of Scripture from the 6 Chapter of St. John, which you passing over in silence as inconsiderable, I shall endeavor to manifest, as of great im∣portance.

Let us not mix confusedly the thing which our Saviour pro∣mises to give, and the manner of receiving the Gift. A wor∣thy receiving the Gift▪ is Spiritually by Faith. This is not con∣tested. The Question is, What is the thing promised to be gi∣ven, whether the true Body of Christ or not?

Our Saviour gives two Promises, both of the same thing, his own Substance; both contained in the 51 verse of St. John, the Bread that I will give, is my Flesh; behold the Promise of him∣self, * 1.17 in the Sacrament: And, which I will give for the life of the World, intimates the Promise of himself to the Cross. The Promises are distinguished; the Substance is the same; because the same Spirit of Truth which delivers two Promises, assures one Substance. What is then this Bread which Christ promised to give in the Sacrament? Christ answers it is my Flesh, and that Flesh which he will give for the life of the World. Was this a piece of Bread, or the true substantial Body of Christ?

This is peculiarly seconded from our Saviours appeasing the murmur of the Capharnait's, and raising their Incredulity to the Mystery of his Flesh, by presaging the resuscitation of his own dead Body, What if ye shall see the Son of Man ascend up where he was before? * 1.18

If I should now return your Sense of the Sacrament for a re∣ply to our B. Saviour, and say, we understand the Promise gi∣ven of your Flesh, to be Eaten in Figure only, not in Substance; would not the Reader straight subsume, Then only the Figure of his Body ascended into Heaven, and so void our B. Saviours Argument, and destroy the Miraculous Ascension?

Another discontent succeeding among the Jews, caused our Saviour to instance once more the Power of his Divinity. It is the Spirit that quickeneth, the Flesh profiteth nothing. This Spirit * 1.19 they were promised to receive in the Sacrament, and this Spi∣rit is truly Christ, God and Man.

The Flesh profiteth nothing, if we believe St. Austin; as Sci∣ence, according to St. Paul, puffeth up: Science all alone, barren of Charity; for so proper∣ly, * 1.20 Science puffeth up. Add Charity to Sci∣ence with the Divine Apostle, and then Sci∣ence Flourishes and is Fruitful. The Body of Christ as a mortal and fading Creature profit∣eth nothing. Joyn God to Man, and the Flesh of Christ profiteth exceedingly. Thus it profited on the Cross, and profiteth in the Sacrament.

St. Cyril of Alexandria giving the same lite∣ral Exposition, says, when Christ called himself * 1.21 Spirit, he did not by this deny, that he was Flesh; and so concludes, that this Spirit was Christ himself.

If this Spirit then be Christ, who Promised to give in the Sa∣crament, what he Promised to give for the life of the World, on the Cross; who will question that he did not perform what he promised? Or would promise what he could not effect? 'Tis dangerous to limit the Power of the Deity; 'tis impious to question the Promise of God.

And yet alas! some Men are so enamoured with what they can feel to have some Substance in it, that Idolizing with Sense, they are not sensible how Christ promised to give himself in the Sacrament; they question the very Gift it self, and endea∣vor to make good these two things,

1st. That there's no necessity of understanding these words of our Sa∣viour, This is my Body, in the sense of Transubstantiation.

2ly. That there is a great deal of Reason to understand them other∣wise. These two general Arguments deserve to be the Subject of two Chapters.

CHAP. I. Of the necessity of understanding our Saviours Words in the Sense of Transubstantiation.

IF there be any such necessity; you pretend it must be, either 1st. Because there are no Figurative expressions in Scripture, or else because a Sacrament admits of no Figure. 2ly. You are willing to stand to the plain concession of a great Number of the most Learned

Writers of the Church of Rome in this controversie. These two main Proofs shall be considered in the following Articles.

Article 1. Examen of your First Proof.

I Know not upon what account you say, that if our Saviours words, can be taken in the Sense of the Roman Catholic As∣sertion, this must be; either because, there are no Figures in Scri∣pture; or because, a Sacrament admits of no Figure. Had any of our Authors made use of such Reasons, or inclined the least this way, you would not have omitted such Authority. But if you Write what you have not Read, for the pretended ground of Transubstantiation; I'm sure you have not Writ what you have Read, for the real understanding thereof. I shall remind you of some few Motives, which induce Roman Catholics to believe our Saviours words can import no less than the verity of Transubstantiation.

FIRST MOTIVE.

The Written Law shadowed future Truth, and this Truth was Christ. So we read Moses sprinkled with Blood, the Book, and People, saying, This is the Blood of the Testament which God * 1.22 hath enjoyned unto you. The Blood of the Ancient Covenant was the Figure of the Blood of Jesus Christ in the Sacrament. This appears from the words of our Saviour in the Institution; This is my Blood of the New Testament, which is shed for many. * 1.23

This Miraculous concord of the Old and New Covenant: This repetition of the very same Phrase, is an Evidence be∣yond denyal, that the former was a Symbol of the latter. And since you cannot understand the latter of Christs Blood spilt on the Cross; Because you pretend St. Luke says, his Blood was then shed, which is shed for many, which preceded the Crucificti∣on: It follows necessarily to be understood, of the true Blood of Christ in the Sacrament. Because a Figure is not without the Reality, nor a Shadow without a true Body.

SECOND MOTIVE.

As it is true that Jesus took Bread, so are we taught, that he blessed it. And what he brake, and what he gave to his Disci∣ples, was without doubt, what he had blessed or consecrated. The Question is, what this was? None of the Evangelists say, that he gave Bread; they say Jesus took Bread, and Jesus as∣sures, what was blessed, broken, and given, was his Body, saying, This is my Body. If it was then Bread, as the Evange∣lists note, Jesus took Bread; and after the Divine Benediction or Consecration became his Body, as Jesus affirms, this is my Body: Then without extorting or racking of Scripture, without ad∣ding figurative Glosses, (and wicked is the Man who superads to Scripture) the facile sense of Scripture readily leads to the plain Article of Transubstantiation.

THIRD MOTIVE.

The Circumstances of our Saviour urge for the Literal Ac∣ceptation of This is my Body. For Jesus spoke to his Apostles; to his dearest Friends; preparing to bid his last Adieu; and then, if ever, Sincerity discloses it self, without difficulty, and after a facile and intelligible Method. He's Wisdom it self, and knew how to Phrase his Thought. He's Omnipotent, and so can surmount what Human Frailty might conceive as im∣possible. He's Goodness it self, and cannot deceive us. And therefore said what it was, and what he said was true.

FOURTH MOTIVE

Is the conformity of Scriptures. For if Christ had ever de∣sign'd to signifie, that the Eucharistical Bread was only the Fi∣gure of his Body, it would surprize us what inclin'd him to make use of this Speech, this is my Body; and after such a choice, to leave it barely without explanation, when he so carefully taught his Disciples the true meaning of many easier Parables: 'Twould astonish us, finding the three Evangelists with St. Paul (who testifies he received the same Doctrin from revelation) * 1.24 not constrain'd, nor combining to joyn in expression, yet to re∣peat

all the same words, without the Least alteration. And we read in Latin, Greek, Syriac, Arabic, all Versions and Languages, nothing but the same expression, and equal con∣firmation.

FIFTH MOTIVE.

The very same Interpretation of other Scriptural Passages, wherein are grounded the chief Articles of Christian Belief, en∣forces the sequel of Transubstantiation.

For, I believe, adhering to Scripture as the Rule of Faith, that this Passage, the word was made Flesh, imports a Substantial * 1.25 Union. I believe the consubstantiality of the Son with the Father, * 1.26 included in these words, I and my Father are one. I believe one Divine Essence of three distinct Persons revealed, in These three are one. Upon these Testimonies of Holy Writ Substantially un∣derstood, I quietly repose my belief of the Incarnation of our Saviour; the Son's Divinity; and of the sole and undivided nature of the Blessed Trinity.

This Method is further secur'd by the consent of all those who are, and pretend to be true Members of Christ's Religion.

Now if I follow this Determination, so authorized, and so certain; if I follow this motive of my own Conviction in other like Articles, extending the same uncontrol'd Interpretation, to this is my Body, I must necessarily grant this Inference, this is my Substantial Body. Thus my Faith seeks to be one; as Scrip∣ture is one, and God one Truth.

As this literal Reflection is sincere and pious; the figurative Explanation of our Saviour's Words wants no Fallacy nor Im∣piety. For, if I may presume to give this sense to our Saviour's Words, this is not my Substantial Body, this Presumption ought to be strongly grounded, as allowable, just, and in Equi∣ty to be follow'd. And if so, then I may lawfully give the same exposition to the three alledg'd Articles. For the Scripture ur∣ges not more out of this Passage, The word was made Flesh, the substantial connexion of the Second Person with Human Na∣ture; or out of these words, I and my Father are one, the iden∣tity of the Son with the Father; or out of, these Three are one, the unity of Nature in three Divine Persons; than out of this is my Body, the Substantial Body of Christ.

If therefore I might lawfully understand our Saviour's words in an empty figurative exposition, saying, this is not my Sub∣stantial Body, I might rightly deduce (following the same in∣terpretation) then the word was not substantially made Flesh, and so deny the Mystery of the Incarnation; I and my Father are not substantially one, and so prosess Arianism; These three are not substantially one; and so dividing the Divine Nature, constitute many Gods. Can such a figurative Explanation be thought a sincere part of the True Religion, which under∣mines, and utterly destroys the whole Fabrick of Christianity? And ought not my own Motive in the most considerable My∣steries of Christianity, contained in Scripture, be to me the same in the determination of the true Sense of This is my Body?

SIXTH MOTIVE.

The true sense of our Saviour's words may be gathered from the Doctrin which the Learned and Ancient Fathers main∣tain'd against incroaching Heresie.

What if I should now advance, that the Successors of the Apostles upbraided Heretics for denying the Eucharist to be the Flesh of Christ, that Flesh which suffered for us upon the Cross; would you not look upon it as an invincible underta∣king? and yet the glorious Martyr St. Ignatius, elected Bishop of Antiochia thirty eight years after our Saviour's Passion, plain∣ly delivers. They (certain Heretics, whose Names he thought convenient not to men∣tion) * 1.27 do not receive Eucharists, or Sacrifices, be∣cause they do not confess that the Eucharist is the Flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which Flesh suf∣fered for our sins, and which the Father raised a∣gain by his benignity. Nor is it enough to say, these Heretics could not admit the Eucharist to be a Figure, because they deny'd that Christ had true Flesh. This perchance is true. But it is not here the sense of the Martyr, who says expresly, that they reject Eucharists, because they do not confess, that the Eucharist is that Flesh which suffered for our sins. The Flesh which suffered for us, and rose again, was it a Figure, or was it true Flesh?

If I should affirm that the Language of the Second Century, spoke after the same manner, and told us that they were taught the Eucharist was not common Bread, but was the Flesh of our Saviour made Man, and Jesus incarnate; would you not reply it was a Roman Invention? And yet St. Justin the Martyr leaves this convincing Testimony. We do not receive these things as common Bread, or common Drink: But as by the word of God Jesus Christ * 1.28 our Saviour being incarnate, had both Flesh and Blood for our Salvation: so are we taught that this Food, by which (chang'd by digestion in our Bo∣dies, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) our Flesh and Blood are nourish'd, Eucharistated [or transformed] by the prayer of this Divine Word, is the Flesh and Blood of that Incar∣nate Jesus. If for all this you should reply, that the Euchari∣stic Food is onely figuratively the Flesh and Blood of Christ; then might the Reader likewise aver, Christ being incarnate had onely figuratively both Flesh and Blood. For 'tis more to say, the blessed Bread is the Flesh and Blood of Incarnate Jesus, because this Speech implies a substantial change, than to say, Jesus being incarnate had both Flesh and Blood, because this Speech can signifie no more than a substantial Union. And to say less in either, is to diminish and change the Martyr's Sense.

If I should instance the Third Age was a faithful Imitator of the precedent; so dividing between the Divine Mystery, and the Grace of the Mystery, that the Body of Man received the Body and Blood of Christ, and the Soul was replenished with the Grace of Faith, or effect of the Sacrament; would you not be surprized at the acknowledgment of what was given in Communion? And yet Tertullian furnishes us with a sufficient manifestation of this Truth; Saying, Our Flesh is sed with the Body and Blood of Christ, that * 1.29 our Soul may be filled with God.

Again, These words, Our Flesh is fed with the Body and Blood of Christ, cannot be deluded in an eating by Faith, because the Body of Man is incapable of an act of Faith.

If I should continue the Fathers of the Fourth Century, when the Church was beautified, and enriched with an innu∣merable Offspring of Pious and Learned Children; If I should alledge how these worthy Champions of Christian Purity forbid

Posterity to judge of the Sacrament by Tast, and taught them the Body was given them under the Species of Bread; and as Christ changed Water into Wine, so did he Wine into his own Blood; would you not swear this Language was unknown in those times? And yet both the Greek and Latin Church con∣spire in this Doctrin. Hearken to that Grecian Prelate St. Cyril of Jerusalem, and acknowledge the plain truth of these words. Do not judge the thing * 1.30 by Tast, but by Faith. Under the species of Bread is given to thee the Body; and under the species of Wine is given to thee the Blood. Christ formerly changed Water into Wine; and is he not to be be∣lieved, changing Wine into his Blood?

Nor are these words of the Learned Latin Bishop Gaudentius of less force. Jesus giving to * 1.31 his Disciples Bread and Wine, said, this is my Bo∣dy: Let us believe, it is what he said. Truth is incapable of Error. The Creator of all Nature, and Lord, who produces Bread from the Earth, made again of this Bread (because he can, and promised) his proper Body; and because he did make Wine of Water, of Wine he makes his Blood. I know there are several Expressions and Comparisons in the Fathers, which only declare a spiritual change effected in the worthy Receiver. But do not the foregoing Authorities prove something more, a change not in the Receiver, but in the thing received? and this can be no less than a substantial one. For when Catholics argue, that as Christ changed Water into Wine, so does he Bread into his Body: Protestants readily deny the sequel, because this would be to profess Transubstan∣tiation. If this reasoning of Catholics include a substantial change of the Bread into Christ's Body, as you grant; how comes it to pass, that the very same words, and very same rea∣son in the Father's Writings, must have quite another interpre∣tation? If the Fathers had design'd to have writ for Transubstan∣tiation, they could but have said what they do, and you might still explicate them in a spiritual sense, or wrested interpretation.

If I should urge on, that I rightly profess the consecrated Bread transfigur'd and transelemented into the Body of Christ; would you not exclaim, these are as hard and mishapen words as that of Transubstantiation? and yet many Fathers of this

fourth Age after Christ, use the same Expressions. Witness this Language of St. Ambrose, As often as we receive * 1.32 the Sacraments, which by the Mystery of Prayer are transfigurated into Flesh and Blood; witness this Speech of St. Gregory Nyssene. I properly believe * 1.33 the Bread sanctified, by the word of God, to be changed into the Body of God the Word. And this is effected, the nature of what appears being trans∣elemented, by vertue of benediction, into the Body of the word Christ.

I close up this Motive with the decision of the Synod in Egypt, celebrated before the second Oecumenical Council, to both which presided St. Cyril of Alexandria. These Fathers compo∣sing a Creed, inserted these words in the end of their Introdu∣ction, This is the Faith of the Catholic and Apostolic Church, in which the East and West agree. Then immmediatly follows their Creed, divided into many Articles. What if their Seventh Article should decree the Flesh received in the Sacra∣ment to be the very Flesh of Christ, which made one Person and two Natures in one Son; and not two Sons, one of God, Divine; and another of the Blessed Virgin, Human, as Nesto∣rius Heretically taught; you could require nothing more for Transubstantiation. And yet these are their words, We do not receive in the Sacrament our Sa∣viour's * 1.34 Flesh, as common Flesh: God forbid. Nor again, as the Flesh of a Sanctified Man, or associa∣ted to the Word by unity of Dignity, but as the true vivificative, and proper Flesh of the Word himself; truly the Flesh of him, who for our sake was made, and called the Son of Man.

The Council admitting with Nestorius what was received to be true Flesh, defines against the Heretic (who pretended our Saviour, as he was the Son of the Virgin Mary, had not only a Nature, but likewise a Human Person, and so constituted two Persons in Christ) that we do not receive this as common Flesh, or the Flesh of an ordinary Person.

Secondly, The Council adds, Nor as the Flesh of a Sanctified Man, or associated to the Word by the unity of Dignity, which ex∣cluded

that accidental Union, by which the Nestorians joyned together two Persons, that of the Son of God, and that of the Son of Man, in one Christ.

Thirdly, The Council declares, they receive it as the all-vivi∣ficating, and proper Flesh of the Word, that Word who was made and called Man, professing one Person in Christ, to whom this Hu∣man Nature properly belonged.

Now if all this were to be expounded of a Figure, what wre∣sting would there be of this Article? And how could the Coun∣cil conclude the proper Flesh of Christ was that of the Divine Word, one Person and two Natures, and speak of neither, but of a pure Figure? The Sacrament might have been a Fi∣gure of the Passion, and yet two distinct Persons admitted in Christ.

SEVENTH MOTIVE.

The Council of Trent declares, that because Jesus Christ our Redeemer, truly said, that 'twas his own Body, which under * 1.35 the appearance of Bread he offered and gave to his Disciples, the Church of God was alwaies perswaded, that this wonderful change was operated by the conversion of the substance of Bread into the Substance of Christ's precious Body, and therefore renews the Canon of Transubstantiation.

And You know, that as our Saviour commanded his Apostles to preach the Gospel, so did he oblige the People to receive the promulgated Word, and be obedient to their Pastors. The obligation of this obedience, will last to the end of the world: and consequently in the mean time will be still due, to the true Successors of the Apostles, with whom Christ had pro∣mised to remain till the consummation of the World. You cannot deny but the Romish Church has true succession from Christ and his Apostles, and we are sure you have left this So∣ciety of true Successors.

Obedience therefore to the true Successors of the Apostles, who have defined this Catholic verity, obliges me, in the last in∣stance to believe, this is my Body, can import no less than the sense of Transubstantiation.

I think a slight consideration of the foregoing motives, easily shews Catholics pretend not, as you would have them, that if

Transubstantiation can be, it must be, either because there are no Figures in Scripture, or because a Sacrament admits of no Figures. You seem to be perswaded of this, your self, turning these imaginarie Reasons against the Roman Catholic Assertion. But alass! they are no more against, than they were for Transub∣stantiation. For our Saviour's words may be literally true, and yet many Figures admitted in Scripture. There may be given many Spiritual interpretations of the sacred Text, and yet this passage, the Word was made Flest, litterally signifie that the se∣cond Person of the Blessed Trinity was substantially Man. There are questionless in the old and new Testament many Figures, and neither lookt upon as a meer Figure. There may be then many Figures in Holy Writ, and this is my Body, not at all be concerned in these figurative interpretations.

Nor is your second reason more efficacious than the former. For these words, this is my Body, literally received, are not at all prejudiced, by an outward sign or Figure of a Sacrament. The very notion of a Sacrament in St. Austin's opinion, shews * 1.36 part, and hides the remainder. What appears in the Sacra∣ment of the Altar, is a sign, an accidental shape, or resem∣blance, and this is the object of Sense. What is understood and believed, can be no less than what our Blessed Saviour warrants us of, his own Body. How then is the substance of the Elements not changed, because the Eucharist is a Sacrament, and a Sacra∣ment is a Sign? A Man is an Image of God, yet a Substance. * 1.37 The Divine Son is a Figure of his Father's Substance: and who can wrest from him the same Substance with his Eternal Father? 'Tis true, it was an Arian Error, the Son's an Image; therefore not God. Is your Illation stronger, the Eucharist is a Sacra∣ment or Sign, therefore it is not the Substance? This Error ought to correct yours. Now this is my Body may be taken, I think, in the sense of Transubstantiation, and the Eucharist remain a Sacramental Sign, or resemblance.

Had you foreseen this Answer, I presume you woul have smothered this instance, viz. When he gave the Cup, he said, this Cup is the New Testament in my Blood, where first the Cup is put for the Wine, and if any thing be changed, it must be the Cup.

The speedy quitting of the contested Proposition, this is my Body, is a ready confession that you were unable to discover therein couch'd any Figurative exposition, and so hasten to

busie your Reader with a Metonymy contain'd in the word Cup, put for Wine.

Had this been so, how easily could sense and reason have unfolded, what appeared difficult? But why do I say, difficult? It is our common Language, to ask for a Cup or Glass, when we mean Drink. Nor was the Phrase amongst the Jews otherwise. This is cleared from the Triple repetition of the same Phrase in S. Paul to the Corinthians, Drink this Cup. If this then was the proper * 1.38 speech, and our Saviour did not speak improperly, who could be so remote from Sense, to guess, the Cup or Chalice was to be drunk? Would you not think that person extravagant, who hearing you ask (in a place where People were drinking Wine) for a Glass, should apprehend you would swallow down the Glass, and so the Vessel be turn'd into your Substance? Which must be true, if it be false, that Sense and Reason without the support of some father assistance, could be deceived in so facile and usual an expression, of a Cup or Glass, put for Wine. If then the Holy Ghost had used in Scripture the Cup for Wine; I know not who could have refused such a Figure. And be∣cause I find no Metonymy, no Figure couch'd in this is my Body, I exclude all Figurative insinuations.

I said if the Holy Ghost had put the Cup for Wine. Wine you say, the Divine Spirit writes Blood, and so the Cup is metony∣mically put for the contained Drink, in the Chalice, or Blood. For what we read in St. Luke, This Cup the New Testament in * 1.39 my Blood, is equivalent to, this Blood, and so the Cup is Blood. If you suspect the supposal, harken how St. Matthew Phrases it, * 1.40 This is my Blood of the New Testament; which is repeated by St. Mark, and who dare contradict two Divine Testimonies?

If the Spirit of God was careful to plain so small a Nicety, in so familiar a Phrase, is it credible that he would have omit∣ted, the most important in the World? which he has done, if this is my Body be but a Figure of his Body, since the Scripture discovers nothing to diminish the reality of Christ's true Body.

What you add, if any thing be chang'd, it is the Cup into the Co∣venant, is very strange. Till you make this good by Reason, or evince it from Scripture, give me leave not to credit your Authority. And if you think the word Testament, in this passage this Cup or Blood is the New Testament, excludes real Blood, * 1.41 St. Paul proves quite the contrary, demonstrating, if there be

a Testament, there must be true Blood, and so concludes, Where∣upon neither the first Testament, was dedicated without Blood, and without sheding of Blood is no remission.

Lastly, You urge, besides his Blood which is said to be shed, which was not till his Passion, which followed the Institution and first Cele∣bration of this Sacrament.

We do not dispute with you the actual effusion of Christ's natural Blood, which was a sanguinary Sacrifice. But can you deny that in those words you alledge from St. Luke, where Christ's Blood is said to be shed, is contained a mystical Sacrifice? St. Austin calls this, the Oblation of Christ's Body on the Altar: * 1.42 St. Cyprian four times in the same Epistle, the Dominical Sacrifice: St. Gregorie Nazianzen, the unbloody Sacrifice. Two Sacrifices we acknowledge with the holy Fathers, different in manner, not distinct in substance. The same Blood spilt naturally once up∣on the Cross, and mystically offered daily on the Altar. Be∣cause the same Caracteristical mark of true Blood is attributed to both the Sacrifices. (Viz.) the remission of Sins by effusion of Blood. Hence St. Matthew speaking of Christ's Blood in the Sacrament, says, that it is shed for many for remission of sins. And St. Paul in the foregoing lines, without sheding of Blood is no remission.

Article II. Examen of your Second Proof.

YOU are willing to stand in the second instance, to the plain concession of many learned Roman Catholic Writers, con∣cerning the necessity of understanding our Saviour's words in the sense of Transubstantiation. And because you begin with the concession of the acute Schoolman, let us examin what was the opinion of Scotus.

Scotus distinguishing two sorts or Classes of People, the wor∣thy and unworthy Receivers, thus delivers himself. It is undoubtedly to be held, the Good not * 1.43 only Sacramentally, but also Spiritually receive; the Bad, only Sacramentally; that is, subjoyns Sco∣tus, under the visible species, the Flesh of Christ, that Flesh which was born of the Virgin Mary;

they do not mystically receive the benefit of the Sa∣crament. This he proves from St. Gregorie the Great's determination, the true Flesh and true Body of Christ is received by Sinners and unworthy Communicants, in essence not in benefit. Then * 1.44 Scotus quotes St. Austin for the same evidence, and concludes with the testimony of St. Paul, to the same purpose.

This acute Schoolman asking afterwards (q. 3.) whether * 1.45 the Bread be changed into the Body of Christ: Answers, (num. 13.) that it is changed into the Body of Christ.

'Tis true, he brings in one objecting (n. 4. & n. 7.) that our Saviour's Words may receive a more facile Sense than that of Transubstantiation.

And Scotus replies, the more difficile sense is not to be admitted, if * 1.46 it be not true; but if it be true, and can be proved evidently to be so, then the more difficile ought to be chosen; and this is the case of the pre∣sent Article.

He pushes on the resumpt. But why did the Church prefer the more difficile sense, when she might have chosen a more facile in appearance?

I answer, says Scotus, the Scriptures are expoun∣ded * 1.47 by the same Spirit, by which they were dictated; and 'tis to be supposed, the Catholic Church expoun∣ded them by the same Spirit, by which truth is de∣livered, taught by the Spirit of truth, for it was not in the power of the Church to make that true, but in the power of God the institutor.

Now what is this to your purpose? For if you take the con∣cession of Scotus, you must profess both the real Presence and Transubstantiation.

And this necessarily deduc'd from Scripture. Because the Scripture efficaciously moved the Church to declare for the same Doctrin, according to Scotus's words; it was not in the power of the Church, to make that true or not true. The Church then necessarily followed Scriptural evidence. And what was necessarily compulsive to the Church, was not otherwise to

Scotus, who tacitly intimated the cogent necessity of Scriptures Authority, for the real change of the substance of Bread into the Body of Christ, instancing it was determined by the Church for Transubstantiation.

Bellarmin was of Opinion, that according to the two literal sen∣ses of this is my Body read in the acute School-man, the sole evi∣dence of Scripture, could not in Scotus's mind, abstracting from the declaration and universal practice of the Church, evidently compel the admittance of Transubstantiation.

Bellarmin was severe enough upon Scotus. Yet he diminished much this severity, saying, * 1.48 the acute Schoolman added, (because the Catholic Church has declared in a general Council, the true meaning of Scripture) Transubstantiation may ma∣nifestly be proved from Scripture so declared. But of what mind Scotus was, the foregoing Page will sufficiently remind the unprejudic'd Reader.

Nor can you conclude Bellarmin himself, granted evidence of Scripture was wanting for the Roman Cause, because he said Scotus's assertion was not altogether improbable. In like manner you may argue, against the strongest Demonstration in nature. You may frankly concede an acute Objection, not altogether improbable, and notwithstanding this Concession, stick fast to the former Evidence of your Demonstration. This is Bellar∣min's case, as the following words out of the same place testifie. For although, adds Bellarmin, Scripture, which we have heretofore alledged, may seem so clear to us * 1.49 that it can compel a moderate man, ther's evi∣dence of Scripture for Transubstantiation, and Bellarmin's opinion; Yet the acuteness of bright understandings leaves some doubt: This is what is not altogether improbable.

But we ought to reflect, these words of Bellarmin, not altoge∣ther Improbable, are grounded upon a meer supposal of two lite∣ral Senses, which touches not our Controversie. For Bellarmin plainly denies, a figurative Exposition probable of our Saviours words, speaking of things as they are instituted. For thus he argues, These words, this is my Body, necessarily infer, either the true change of Bread as Catholics be∣lieve; * 1.50 or a metaphorical mutation, as Calvinists con∣tend.

This Calvinistical Sense he had already, declared as improbable, saying, we will gene∣rally demonstrate that 'tis not probable our Saviour * 1.51 would figuratively speak. And for the Lutherans Error holding both substance of Bread and the Body together in the Sacrament, he says it * 1.52 shares not in the sense of our Saviour's words. Thus the true change of Bread into the Body of Christ naturally follows according to Bellarmin, from the plain and evident Text of Scripture.

Durandus divides the substance of Bread into Matter and Form. * 1.53 Then adds, the Bread is converted by conseration into the Bo∣dy of our Lord; and the Form perishing, the Matter is ani∣mated with the Soul of Christ. A strange manner of Explication. But what doth this avail your cause? For if the Form of Bread perishes in Durandus's explication, and the Matter be animated with the Soul of Christ, the remaining Accidents can neither claim Matter nor Form of Bread, and so the whole Substance of Bread is wanting.

But Durandus calls your Sentiment, holding Bread remains * 1.54 after Consecration, the Doctrin of profane Novelty.

Suarez and Vasquez, treat Durandus, as one Divine doth a∣nothers Opinion. But you might have well omitted their names, for one that is moderately learn'd in Divinity, knows how copiously they both shew from Scripture and Fathers, the Roman Catholic Doctrin.

Occham. You have not faithfully delivered this Divine's Au∣thority, * 1.55 who thus answers to the second Query. I say that in the Sacrament is true Transubstantiation.

Then he delivers four manners of understanding this Tran∣substantiation. 1. That the Bread may remain with the Body. 2. That the Substance of the Bread may suddenly be removed away. 3. That it may return to Matter the common subject of all, or receive some other Form. 4. That it may be reduced to nothing. He admits all four as possible. The first man∣ner he prefers in these words, which are your Objection, The first manner may be held, because * 1.56 it is neither repugnant to Reason, nor to Scripture, and is more reasonable, and easier than the other

(three) manners. These are Scholastic Opinions. And therefore this Divine leaving them, ad∣heres to the true sense of Transubstantiation in these following words; Yet because we find ex∣tant the Churches determination contrary to this ex∣position, and all Doctors universally hold that the * 1.57 substance of Bread remains not there, (in the Sa∣crament;) Therefore I also hold, that the sub∣stance of Bread remains not, but the species of Bread, and with this outward shape of Bread coexistent the Body of Christ. Will you acknowledge what this Divine holds and professes?

Gabriel Biel. You have corrupted Biel. * 1.58 These are his words; Although it be expresly deli∣vered in Scripture that the Body of Christ is truly contain'd under the species of Bread, yet we find not express in the Canon of the Scripture, how the Bo∣dy of Christ is there, whether by conversion of some thing into himself, or whether without conversion, the Body begins to be with the Bread, the substance and accidents of Bread remaining.

This Author is so far from speaking, what you force him to say, as to any thing expressed in Scripture, a man may believe that the substance of Bread and Wine doth remain after consecration; that he proves we ought to believe the contrary sense contained in Scrip∣ture. And this upon two accounts.

1. Although the manner of Christ's existence in the Sacra∣ment, be not in this Divine's opinion, evidently couch'd, yet it is sufficiently particularized, in the Canon of the Scripture. For if this which was Bread, is Christ's Body, according to our Savi∣our's words this is my Body, and Christ's true Body be there ex∣presly delivered in Scripture, as Biel affirms, it necessarily fol∣ows, that the Substance of Bread is changed. For how can this (which was Bread) be Christ's true Body, and not lose its own substance?

2. He expounds the Scripture after this same manner from the Lateran Council, St. Austin, St. Ambrose, and then concludes, From these and many other * 1.59 authorities of Saints, 'tis held that the Body of Christ is in the Sacrament by Transubstantiation of

the substance of Bread and Wine into the Body and Blood of Christ. Does this favour the Prote∣stants?

You named, but expressed not Melchior * 1.60 Canus's authority, who says, the Body and Blood of Christ was offered in the Sacrifice, and * 1.61 his proof is the evident Testimony of St. Luke. This I think prejudices us not in the least.

Petrus Ab Alliaco. You have misrepresented Ab Alliaco, who disputing upon meer possibilities, proposes (among others) two Questions. First, Whether it is not possible that the Body of Christ may remain united to the substance of Bread in the Sa∣crament. Secondly, Whether the substance of Bread may not be suddenly removed away by divine power, the accidents only remaining with Christ's Body. This Divine thinks nei∣ther impossible, and prefers the first as more rational and con∣formable to Scriptures. These are his words. 'Tis possible the Body of Christ may assume the sub∣stance * 1.62 of Bread, and this manner is not repugnant to reason, or to the authority of Scripture; it is more easie and more rational than that manner, which pretends the substance of Bread leaves the accidents. Now for the second. It is not impossible to God, that the substance of Bread may be suddenly elsewhere * 1.63 convey'd, the species remaining in the place coex∣istent to the Body of Christ; this manner would not be so rational as the first. All this is upon pos∣sibilities.

But not to enlarge in Scholastic Opinions, when matters of Faith are debated, Cannot I dispute of what is possible, but you will necessarily deduce I deny the being of what is actu∣ally present? If I should say, 'tis possible God may create another World, and People it with another Generation of Creatures; can you deduce from this, that there is no neces∣sity of admitting any Men alive at this present in the whole Universe?

Cajetan, 'Tis true writ, the Scripture did not evidently en∣force the Roman Catholic Tenet. Great Wits speak some∣times * 1.64 without consideration. Yet the Good Cardinal retracted afterwards his Error in these words. We can prove Christ's real

presence from the words of the Gospel. And thus in some manner amended, as Soto remarks, what was before amiss.

You instance the words you object out of Cajetan, in the Ro∣man Edition, are expunged by order of Pope Pius V. I Answer, a worthy remark to demonstrate the vigilancy of the Roman See was not wanting to blot out Innovation in its very first rise and appearance.

Bishop Fisher, that glorious Martyr of the Church of Rome, * 1.65 confesseth, we cannot prove from the bare words of Scripture, that Priests consecrate the true Body and Blood of Christ.

I shall not dispute whether this concern our present Contro∣versie or not; but I'le beg you'll take the following Explication of the Pious Bishop; that is, continues the holy Martyr in the same place, not because this thing is now doubt∣ful, * 1.66 but because the certainty of this Doctrin cannot be gathered so strongly from the bare words of the Gospel, as from the Father's Interpretation, toge∣ther with the continued practice of so long a time sur∣viving in succeeding Posterity.

The blessed Bishop gives us this reason, why he provoked to the Fathers, lest any one should (says he) pertinaciously adhere to the pure words of Scripture, despising Fathers Authorities, as Luther did.

If this will not suffice, I'le translate, when you require it, the * 1.67 Fourth Chapter of this same Book, wherein Bishop Fisher proves the Bread changed into Christ's Body from the three E∣vangelists. And I'le rank your Objections collected from Lu∣ther's Instances, and Oecolampadius's Objections on one Page, and on the opposite place Bishop Fisher's Solutions to them both in vindication of the Roman Catholic Assertion.

I finish this Scholastic Disceptation with this Querie, Whether you would not think it weakness in me disputing for Transub∣stantiation, to use in my own defence these words of yours, which somewhat favour my undertaking. I readily acknow∣ledge * 1.68 the Fathers do, and that with great reason, very much magnify, and frequently speak of a great Sacramental Change made by the Divine Benediction. If from hence I should vigorously assert, you gran∣ted the Fathers were for the Substantial Change, because since you admit a wonderful Change made by the Divine Benedicti∣on, and that the Species remain unaltered, the Change must be

acknowledged in the Substance of Bread and Wine; would you not condemn this weakness, and appeal to the other parts of your Treatise to manifest this Impossibility? And yet all these Schoolmen actually write (in those very Places you mention) a∣gainst the Sectarists, or Roman Opposers. And almost every one of them, produce from Scripture and Fathers, more Rea∣sons for, than you have done Objections against Transubstanti∣ation. I appeal to your own Judgment conscious of this Truth. And you know, that if you do follow their Writings, and imi∣tate the Religion, they professed and died in, you must declare yo••••self a Member of the Roman Catholic Church.

CHAP. II. Whether there be any reason to understand our Saviour's words contrary to the sense of Transubstantiation.

YOU are sure there are a great many Reasons; and are not scant of them. These may be reduced to five Heads, Parables, Similitudes, the Context of St. Matthew, St. Paul to the Corinthians, and the Silence of the Apostles at the Instituti∣on. I follow this order, and examin in so many Articles, these considerable Reasons against Transubstantiation.

Article I. Whether Parables exclude the sense of Transubstantiation.

'TIS a Maxim among Divines, No Efficacious Argument can be drawn from Parables. This Calvin acknow∣ledges. * 1.69 And St. Austin goes farther, admo∣nishing the Donatists, n'er to endeavour an e∣stablishment * 1.70 * 1.71 of Dogm's from Scriptural Passa∣ges, which are obscure, or ambiguous, or figurative: which if true, the sense of Transubstantiation, will not in the least be prejudic'd, by your Objections from Parables.

You first object this Parable of Christ. I am the Door. I an∣swer * 1.72 the 7th verse explicates. I am the Door of the Sheep. And he 6th verse, This Parable spake Jesus unto them. What more

pressing a figurative understanding of this passage, I am the door? But when we read, This is my Body, we cannot over-see, which shall be given for you, which maintains the Reality.

You instance, Christ said, I am the true Vine: I answer, the Cy∣riac * 1.73 interprets, I am the Vine of truth. Descend to the 5th Verse, and Christ says, I am the Vine, as, you are the Branches: both a full Attestation of a Parable. But where Jesus tells me, the Bread * 1.74 which I will give is my Flesh, and that Flesh which I will give for the life of the World, what more conclusive for the Catholic Interpretation?

You urge, St. Paul says, Ye are the Body of Christ. I an∣swer; * 1.75 the Apostle declares, Verse 13. we are spiritually; For by one Spirit we are baptized into one Body. But where Christ said, my Flesh is meat indeed, I find added many repetitions which in∣crease a confirmation of the true Substance.

You finish, They drank of the Rock which followed them, and that Rock was Christ.

I answer, you are afraid to be just, excluding the word Spiri∣tual. * 1.76 For we read, v. 3. Our Fore-fathers all eat the same spiri∣tual Meat, v. 4. and did drink all the same spiritual Drink; for they drank of that spiritual Rock, and that Rock was Christ. What if for a threefold word, Spiritual, in the precedent, I find a triple evi∣dence of the true substance of Christ in the Sacrament, which necessarily requires the strictly literal and divine sense of our Blessed Saviour's words? St. Luke confirms, which is shed for you. St. Mark, shed for many. St. Matthew, for the remission of sins.

Article II. Whether Similitudes exclude the sense of Transubstantiation.

IF it be well known, as you write, that in the Hebrew Language things are commonly said to be that which they do signifie; It is not less evident, that the four Similitudes you heap together, are not prejudicial to the Catholic Exposition of our Saviour's words. These Similitudes shall be delivered in single Paragraphs.

Paragraph I. Similitude of Pharao's Dream.

YOU object, Joseph, expounding Pharao's Dream to him, * 1.77 says, The seven good Kine are seven Years.

I answer: We consider some things as Signs, and others as Substances. The Sign is reasonably called the Thing, and yet it is not, what it represents; so the Portrait of a King, is said to be the King, that is, only represents his Majesty. But if we consider a thing as a Substance, we cannot in common Language affirm, it to be, what it is not. So Prudence will not give us leave to say, a Pen is Paper, because a Pen is not reckon'd a∣mong representative Signs. Josepth reasonably affirm'd the seven Kine are seven Years, and so Pharao understood him that they were seven in Representation, because they both knew the di∣scourse was of Signs, as the Scripture testifies, ver. 13. And Pha∣raoh said unto Joseph, in my Dream, behold I stood upon the bank of the River, and behold there came up out of the River seven Kine.

Our Saviour's Expression, this is my Body, is as far distant from this Example, as the real institution of the Sacrament, from the Narrative of a Dream; and therefore ought not to be understood as the like Expression. But what connexion be∣tween Pharao's Dream, and the change of Bread in the Sacra∣ment? As much as betwixt the same Dream and our Saviour's being Substantially Man. If I should then argue thus, as you do, Joseph called the seven Kine, seven Years (which Language is usual a∣mong the Hebrews) that is, signified seven Years, and so would a∣ny man of sense understand the like expression: Therefore when St. John says the Word was made Flesh, that is, was a Figure os a Man or Phantasm, is such a Deduction, that no Language but Hebrew can be able to make it out.

Paragraph II. Of one who never heard of Transubstantiation.

THIS Similitude is very pleasant, as if we should go to Pa∣gans, to know what is our own Religion. However you believe, that he that never heard of Transubstantiation, would never ima∣gine any such thing to be meant by our Saviour's words. And I believe a great Number of these who saw our Saviour himself, deny'd he was God. You believe the Bread only signifies Christ's Body, because you will bilieve so; I distinguish what Christ distin∣guished; and because he said, this is my Body, I believe it was his Body; and because he commanded us to do this hereafter, for a memorial of his Death and Passion, we obey him. Is not this to follow Scripture?

You are sure it would never have entred into any Man's mind, to have thought, that our Saviour did literally hold himself in his hands, and give away himself from himself with his own hand. And I am sure, what cannot enter into Man's thought, the Di∣vine power and Omnipotency can, and has operated.

It entred into St. Austin's mind, explicating this Scriptural Passage, as he thought, in the Septuagint,—he was carried in his hands. Thus to propose your Objection. How could this be understood of Man? for who is * 1.78 * 1.79 carried in his own hands? a Man may be supported in others hands, none is the burthen of his own hands. The Saint Answers: We find not the li∣teral sense fulfilled in David, in Christ we acknow∣ledge it, for Christ was carried in his hands, when recommending his own very Body, he said, this is my Body, for he car∣ried that Body in his hands.

It entred into the thought of our Blessed Redeemer to make use of the like Argument, before he gave us the Promise, of gi∣ving himself entirely in the Sacrament. For did he not in that miraculous Multiplication of five Loaves, in the sixth Chapter of St. John, feeding five thousand Persons, give the five Loaves * 1.80 in some manner from the Loaves themselves? The Fragments, says St. Hilarie, succeeded to * 1.81 Fragments, and always broken, always deceived

the Breaker's hand. For the Quantity of five Loaves was given, * 1.82 and the like Quantity still remained. Which Rabanus thus ele∣gantly expressed, they were multiplied by being diminished.

This Argument of our Blessed Saviour; if it did not con∣vince the Obstinate Jews, it ought to prevail with Christians, or at least silence them from saying, how can he give himself from himself.

Paragraph III. Similitude of the Passover.

YOU compare with our Saviour's words, the ancient Form of the Passover, used by the Jews from Ezra's time, as St. Justin Martyr, tells us, This Passover is our Saviour and our Refuge; Not that, say you, they * 1.83 believed the Pascal Lamb, to be substantially changed into God, who delivered them, out of the Land of Egypt, or into the Messias, whom they expected.

Strange method! and dangerous way of allegation! tending to the depression of Christianity. Our blessed Saviour and the Divine Apostles verify the sincere and literal truth of the new Testament, as figurated, and symbolized in the Law, Prophets and Psalms: and you scrupling this Order, Judaize with the Hebrews, and will have the Law of Grace figurative, because the written Law is full of Similitudes and Representations.

And stranger remark of yours, that the Jews did not believe the Paschal Lamb changed into God or the Messias. How could they imagine the Lamb changed into God, when they knew, God * 1.84 could not receive the least alteration, I am the Lord, and not chang'd? or into the Messias, when change of one thing into an∣other supposes both their existences, and the Messias was not yet born? The Israelites only then could believe the Passover a bare Representation, to put them in mind of that Salvation, which God wrought for their Fathers in Egypt.

But if St. Justin say, The Passover is our Saviour, would you desire a more plain exposition, than the very following words, that is, our Refuge? * 1.85

And if this Speech of St. Justin, were in it self somewhat ob∣scure, This Passover is our Saviour; The same Ceremonie deli∣vered

in Exodus by Moses varying the Phrase of the Passover, is a sure Rule for understanding any such like Expression upon this account. For there we read, it is the Lord's Passover. The Sep∣tuagint * 1.86 translate, It is the Passover to the Lord. Nor was this Ex∣pression unknown to the Hebrews, The Passover to the Lord.

Paragraph IV. Similitude of a Deed.

YOU tell us that a Deed or Writing under Hand and Seal, is the conveyance of a real Estate, and truly and really to all effects and purposes of Law, as if the very material House and Lands themselves, could be, and were actually delivered into your hands.

If our Cause were pleaded at the Bar, the Law, it seems, you think, would make us the losers. But if Scriptures be the Sentence, I know not why we should refuse to acknowledge what God is pleased to bestow on us. He tells us what he gives, is his own Body; why will you not believe him? * 1.87

And to come close to your Objection, Do you not by the passing of the Deed really and truly receive the Possession of the Substantial House, Lands, and Revenues in Specie? You would little value the Writing, if you did not. So likewise the Sacrament conveys to the Receivers, the Possession of the Substantial Body and Blood of our Saviour.

Article III. Upon the Context of St. Matthew.

YOU pretend that it was true Wine which our Saviour drank of, and communicated. I Answer, not after Consecration. You * 1.88 urge our Saviour said; I will not henceforth drink of this fruit of the Vine, this was true Wine. I Answer, that although we cannot collect from St. Matthew clearly, whether these last words of our Saviour belonged to the Consecrated or not Consecrated Wine, yet that clearness which St. Matthew's shortness feems to want, St. Luke abundantly supplies, describing the order of the Passover, and delivering the Institution of the Sacrament. So where we read in St. Matthew? I will not drink of the fruit of the * 1.89

Vine: St. Luke interprets, and his Interpretation is true, the fruit of the Vine before Consecration, at the Supper of the Passover. With desire, says our Saviour, I have desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer. For I say unto you, I will not any more eat thereof, until it be fulfilled in the Kingdom of God. And he took the Cup, and gave thanks, and said, take this and divide among your selves, for I say unto you, I will not drink of the fruit of the Vine, untill the Kingdom of God shall come. Is not this a plain repetition of St. Matthew's words? And here ended the Passover or Pas∣chal Supper. The Institution of the Sacrament immediately followed while they sate at Table, and therefore St. Luke con∣tinues; And he took Bread—likewise also the Cup after Supper, saying, This Cup is the New Testament, in my Blood, which is shed for you. Here is the Eucharistic Cup, which had nothing to do with the fruit of the Vine that was used before Consecration at the Paschal Supper.

Article IV. The Sense of St. Paul to the Corinthians. * 1.90

THUS St. Paul speaks of this Sacrament. The Cup of Bles∣sing which we bless, is it not the Communion of the Blood of Christ? The Bread which we break, is it not the Communion of the Body of Christ?

These words, the Bread which we break, signifie the Sacrament. For instead of them, we read in the Acts of the Apostles, accor∣ding to the Syriac Version, the Eucharist.

Now for the meaning of the word Communion. Some will have it to be taken for Distribution. Thus the word Communion, is equi∣valent to doth Communicate, and makes this Sense; The distribution of the Sacrament, doth it not communicate to us the (true) Body of Christ? Thus if I stould say, that the distribution of Bread in usual eating, is the Communion of Bread, would not any Man of Sense understand this to be meant of true Bread?

Others, notwithstanding this natural Exposition, in the be∣half of the Roman Catholic Assertion, will have the word Communion, to signifie the Substance of Bread. If it must signifie Substance, let us deal fairly, and in the place of Communion, substi∣tute the word Substance; and so we shall easily see to what this Substance belongs. The Bread which we break, is it not the * 1.91 Substance of the Body of Christ?

Neither can the Church of Rome as well argue from the fol∣lowing Verse 17. For we being many are one Bread, and one Body; that all Christians are substantially chang'd, first into Bread, and then into the Natural Body of Christ, as you will have it; Because we see no Reason in the World for this. And the Divine Apo∣stle instructs us otherwise, declaring the precise and only Rea∣son of this Unity; For we are all Partakers of the same Body. 'Tis Participation, not any Substantial Change in our selves makes us one in Christ. Nor is a pressing Example wanting in the Apostle, to the same purpose; are not they (the Pagans) which eat of the Sacrifices, Partakers of the Altar?

You instance, the same Apostle speaking of the Consecration of the Elements, still calls them the Bread, and the Cup, in three Verses together.

This is Acute and Subtile. But each Witty Contrivance is not true. It is not true, St. Paul calls the Consecrated Elements, the Bread and the Wine. We read indeed in three Verses toge∣ther, the bare word of Bread attributed to the Eucharist, as of∣ten as you eat this Bread; and this is all we read; which may be said without any prejudice to the Substantial Change. And this for two Reasons, both dictated by the Holy Ghost. First, By reason of the outward appearance of Bread. Secondly, Be∣cause it formerly was Bread.

The First Reason St. Luke authorises in the Acts. Behold two * 1.92 Men stood by them in white apparel. Here the bare Name of Man is attributed to Angels, and Angels are only Men in appearance.

The Second Reason is deduced from two Substantial Con∣versions. We read in Exodus, They cast down every Man his Rod, * 1.93 and they became Serpents, but Aaron's Rod swallowed up the Rods of the Magicians. And in St. John, when the Ruler of the Feast had tasted the Water that was Wine. He tasted Water, and the Wa∣ter was Wine; The Serpent is called a Rod, and was a Ser∣pent: because the Serpent, and the Wine, were formerly a Rod and Water.

It is then true, that the bare Name of bread may be attribu∣ted to the Eucharist without any prejudice of the Substantial Change of Bread into the true Body of Christ.

And if it be not true that St. Paul says, the Consecrated Ele∣ments are Bread and Wine; it is true that St. Paul calls the Consecrated Bread Christ's Body. Jesus took Bread, and when he * 1.94

had given thanks, brake it, and said, take, eat, * 1.95 this is my Body, which is broken for you. So does St. Chrysostom; What is the Bread? the Body of * 1.96 Christ. So does St. Ambrose; This Bread is Flesh.

You resume, this is my Body which is broken, cannot be literal∣ly understood of his Natural Body broken, because his Body was then whole and unbroken.

I answer, how can you contradict our Saviour, who says, this is my Body which is broken? And if it be Christ's Body, 'tis his real Body: for he had no Phantasm or imaginary Body. Nor did I ever hear that Christ had two real Bodies. But the same Body may have two different existences, a Natural, and Supernatural Existence. For if God can give a Natural Exi∣stence to what is not, can what is, hinder God from adding a Supernatural Existence?

Now these Words, which is broken, cannot be understood of the Natural Existence of our Saviour's Body hanging on the Cross, for there his Body was unbroken; whence that of St. Chry∣sistom, we may see this in the Eucharist, and the contrary on the * 1.97 Cross, His bones shall not be broken.

Nor is it hard to conceive, how the Body of Christ may be said to be broken in the Sacrament. For as a Substance is said to be visible, by reason of the visible accidents which environ it; Thus we commonly say, I saw a Man, and yet nor Soul, nor Substance of the Body, but only the shape and outward appearance of the Substance, was the object of the Eye. So likewise Christ's Body in the Sacrament, takes the denominati∣on of broken from the Species of Bread, which is truly divided.

Article V. The Silence of the Apostles at the Institution.

YOU ought not to be surprised if the Disciples (frequently full of Questions and Objections) should make no difficulty of this matter, when our Saviour instituted the Sacrament: not so much as ask our Saviour, How can these things be? or tell him, We see this to be Bread and Wine, and thy Body distinct from both.

My reason is, because when the Jews and the Disciples were blamed for these inquiries, at the promise of our Saviour;

the Apostles (assisted with Divine Grace) gave credit to our Sa∣viour's Words. And if they believed the Promise, why should they be disquieted at the Institution?

We read after these words in St. John, (where the Promise of Christ in the Sacrament is given, The Bread which I will give is my Flesh:) This Passage, the Jews therefore strove amongst themselves, saying, how can this man give us his Flesh to eat?

This Jewish Opposition was seconded with the murmur of Christ's Disciples, many therefore of his Disciples when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying, who can hear it?

This murmur after all our Saviour's Arguments to settle the Jews in the belief of what was promised, ended in a plain deser∣tion or leaving of Jesus, from that time many of his Disciples went and walked no more with him.

Here is the reluctancy you sought for, and the Objections you demanded in the Apostles. But do you think this Resistance was laudable in the Jews? Do you believe this Opposition was commendable in the Disciples? Or rather, to be disturbed at our Saviour's Ordination and Assertion, Is it not the beginning of Incredulity? And yet for all this, you raise Sense, and erect it as an Idol to the Peoples Devotions. Bewitching Sense! whose Allurements intice the greatest Integrity of Noblest Souls, and would win too their Thoughts, if less than a God interposed.

Hence this Speech of St. Hilary, that great Persecutor of Arianism. There is folly in decla∣ring * 1.98 for Jesus Christ, had we not received from him, this Lesson of Truth. Jesus says the Bread is tru∣ly Flesh, and the Wine is truly Blood; after this Declaration ther's left no place to doubt of the verity of his Flesh and Blood.

St. Ambrose opposes to the restless importu∣nity * 1.99 of Sense, the prerogative of the Deity; Lest asking of God what we expect from man, rea∣son of things, we should entrench upon Divine Pre∣rogatives. And what more unworthy than to believe men in Testimonies they give one of another, and to despise God in those he speaks of himself?

St. Chrysostom adds, We speak of God, and you ask how this can be? * 1.100 do you not tremble at the excess of your Temerity?

Our Blessed Saviour himself reprehended his Disciples, fol∣lowing * 1.101 what Sense suggested at the proposal of the Sacrament, in these words, doth this offend you?

Finally, The pious Christian guides his unruly Sense in the journey towards Heaven, by the steady Reyns of true Faith.

Thus the Apostles overcoming their own stubborness, be∣came supple and obedient to God's Promise and Power, infi∣nitely active beyond Human Imagination, and they all joyned in St. Peter's confession, And we believe, and are sure thou art Christ * 1.102 the Son of the living God.

Thus Divine Faith another time prevailed with St. Peter * 1.103 (when Sense, Reason, and the fury of the Sea, contradicted) to press the Waves with his Feet; and hardned the watry E∣lement, into a solid Passage. The way to Heaven is still by Faith.

From all which it must needs be very evident to any Man, who will piously search into Truth, how little reason there is to un∣derstand our Saviour's Words otherwise than in the sense of Transubstantiation.

SECT. II. Of the perpetual belief of this Doctrin in the Christian Church.

I Have already manifested how the Roman Catholic Church, rightly pretends as an evidence, that the Fathers of the Pri∣mitive Ages interpreted our Saviour's Words in the sense of Transubstantiation. But what Authors have been so fortunate in their Writings, that the contrived endeavours of others, have not cull'd out some places, not so dark in themselves, as they are shaded with smothered Representations? These your In∣dustry, with no small increase, has compacted together. Af∣ter this great Task, you are pleased to shew, when the Doctrin of Transubstantiation first came in. And finally, you undertake to give a Solution to the pretended Demonstration of Mr. Ar∣nauld a learned man in France. These three Subjects shall be the Mattter of so many Chapters.

CHAP. I. Whether any of the Fathers are against Transubstantiation.

REflection is the cause of Knowledge: Division leads to Re∣flection. I'll therefore divide your selected Testimonies, that they may be the consideration of so many distinct Articles.

Article I. Upon St. Justin Martyr.

YOU begin unfortunately with St. Justin, whom you make expresly to say, that our * 1.104 blood and flesh are nourished by the conversion of that Food, which we receive in the Sacrament.

I find no such thing in the holy Martyr. 'Tis true, I read these words, By which Food (chang'd in our Bodies, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) our Blood and Flesh are nourished. What then? Bread and Wine taken out of the Sacrament, nourish, according to this Passage, Flesh and Blood, which all the World will allow of. And I shall believe St. Justin says no more, till you can prove it from the Saint's own Testimonie. But why do I say Testimonie, when the Passage you cite, is nothing but a bare Parenthesis? I could heap up a great many such weaknesses, collected out of your Discourse, if the World were not already too much troubled with such trivial Reflections. I'll take li∣berty to add one more considerable, viz. If natural digestion can change Bread and Wine into the proper Substance of our Bodies, how easy will it be to Nature's Author, to change one thing into another, Bread into the Body of Christ? Nor can any moderate Man imagin any thing less, when the Devil himself tempted Christ to change one Substance into another, Stones into Bread, as a Strategem to find out, whether he was God.

Look likewise into the Book of Genesis, and you'll find that the sole Word of God, gave, in the beginning of Creation, a Being to all Nature: and how much more difficult is it, to make all things of nothing, than to change one thing into ano∣ther?

Does not this evidence the possibility of Transubstantia∣tion? I thank you for this Objection.

Article II. Upon St. Irenaeus.

NOR are you more fortunate in St. Irenaeus, who speaking * 1.105 of the Sacrament, says. The Bread which is from the Earth receiving the Divine Invocation, is now no longer common Bread, but the Eucharist, consisting of two things, the one earthly, the other heavenly. For, what is earthly, may not unfitly be called the species of Bread; and what is heavenly, Christ himself. Or what if I should attribute this earthly thing to Christ's Humanity, and the heavenly thing to Christ's Divinity, the Sacrament would be rightly said, consisting of two things, the one earthly, the other heavenly? I am sure the Proper Substance of Bread, is nothing but Common Bread; And yet St. Irenaeus affirms, this ceases af∣ter Consecration; receiving the Divine Invocation, 'tis no longer Common Bread, it is not what it was before.

You instance, and elsewhere he hath this Passage; when * 1.106 therefore the Cup that is mixt, and the Bread that is broken, receives the Word of God, it becomes the Eucharist of the Body and Blood of Christ, of which the substance of our Flesh is increased, and subsists.

St. Irenaeus discourses not here of a natural, but of some spiri∣tual increase of Flesh and Blood. For he says, our Flest is in∣creased with the Bread, as it becomes the Body and Blood of Christ, in which sense precisely, 'tis only supernatural Food.

Bread, as it is supernatural Food, or the true Body of Christ in the Sacrament, increases the Soul with Grace; and Flesh and Blood with a Legitimacy of Immortality. These two great Benefits are neatly delivered, as the proper effects of Christ's substantial presence in the Sacrament, * 1.107 in these words of the Nyssene Doctor; As the dire consequence of Poyson is by Counterpoyson pre∣vented; so the wholsome remedy, which operates our Salvation, entring the Bowels of Man, thence every-where diffuses its force and vivification. What is this (wholsome) remedy? That Body which Jesus exhibited stronger than Death, and

which was the beginning of Life. What can more evince Christ's substantial Presence, to be the productive Cause of Sacramental Grace, than to testifie, this Adorable Body, which died for us, is in ours, as a wholsome remedy, there communicating Vir∣tue, and dispensing heavenly Treasures?

So is the same true Body of Christ present in the Sacrament, the cause effective of our future Incorruption in Glory; and in∣creases in this sense the substance of Flesh and Blood, with a be∣ginning of Immortality; as appears from the following Lines of the same Father. Jesus, * 1.108 according to the dispensation of Grace, enters by Flesh into those who believe, mixing himself with the Body of the Faithful, that Man may become Partaker of Incorruption, by the union with this Immortal Body.

This second benefit in St. Irenaeus's mind increases the Sub∣stance of Flesh and Blood, giving a beginning of resurrection to the Body: Or, to use this Saint's Example; As a grain of Wheat dissolved in earth, rises by the * 1.109 power of God with much increase; so Flesh and Blood receiving in the Sacrament from the presence of Christ's Immortal Body, the living Seed of Incor∣ruption, rise (when dissolved by death) increased with Immortality.

This agrees well with St. Irenaeus's design, demonstrating in the place objected, that our Bodies are capable of Resurrection, because we receive in the Sacrament the true Body of Christ, that Body which consists of Flesh, Blood and Bones. How can they deny, says he, the Flesh to be capable of the Gift of God? For we are Members of his Body, of his Flesh, and of his Bones. This is not spoken of a Spiritual or Metaphorical Man, for a Spirit has nei∣ther Bone nor Flesh, but it is delivered according to the disposition of Man, which consists of Flesh, of * 1.110 Nerves, and Bones, which is nourished with the Cha∣lice, which is his Blood, and increased with the Bread, which is his Body. Do not Flesh, Nerves, Bones and Blood, belong to a true Substantial Body?

You add St. Irenaeus's words, preserved by Oecumenius, when the * 1.111 Greeks had taken some Servants of the Christian Catecumeni (that is,

such as were disposed, but not yet baptized) and afterwards ur∣ged them by violence, to tell them some of the secrets of the Christians. These Servants having nothing to say, that might gratifie those who of∣fered violence to them, except only that they had heard from their Ma∣sters, that the Divine Communion was the Blood and Body of Christ; they thinking, that it was really Blood and Flesh, declared as much to those who question'd them. The Greeks taking this as it really were done by the Christians, discovered it to others of the Greeks, who here∣upon put Sanctus and Blandina to the torture, to make them confess it. To whom Blandina boldly answered, how would they endure to do this, who by way of exercise (or abstinence) do not eat that Flesh which may lawfully be eaten?

Now if we consider Blandina's Answer, we shall find therein contained, a pious denyal of what was objected, and a Christi∣an reserve of what was received in the Sacrament. A pious denial of eating the Flesh and Blood of a Child, as the Greeks (and all Pagans) conceived, after a carnal manner, which shall be more amply discoursed hereafter. And this caused Blandina to say, How could they be guilty of such a heinous eating? who abstain, upon fasting days from Flesh which may lawfully be eaten? A Chri∣stian reserve, not discovering the Mystery to Pagans, which was esteemed a betraying of Religion.

Thus Tharsilius the Acholyt, as venerable Beda relates, having * 1.112 the blessed Sacrament about him, was seized on by the Barba∣rians, and martyr'd, because he refused to shew it.

St. Ambrose declares the discovery of the My∣stery to those who were not baptized, pass'd not * 1.113 for an instruction, but for a sort of Treason in Reli∣gion.

St. Cyril says, We speak not clearly of the Mystery to the Catecume∣ni, * 1.114 and we are often constrained, to make use of such Expressions; which are understood by the Faithful instructed, and do not offend other Assistants. Such was Blandina's Reply, which neither offended the Greeks, nor betrayed the Mystery.

Article III. Upon Tertullian.

TErtullian proves against Marcion, as you write, the Heretique, * 1.115 That the Body of our Saviour, was not a meer Phantasm and Appearance, but a real Body, because the Sacrament is a Figure, and an Image of his Body. His Words are these; The Bread which our Saviour took, and gave to his Disciples, he made his own Body, saying, this is my Body, that is, the Figure of my Body. But it could not have been a Figure of his Body, if there had not been a true and real Body.

Tertullian, often sententious, and difficult in ex∣pression, as Lactantius and St. Jerom affirm, * 1.116 may easily be misunderstood, and misrepre∣sented. * 1.117

This Father's design here, is to confute the Marcionites, who defended that the God of the Old Testament, was opposite to God the Father of Christ, Author of the New Law. He makes good this undertaking, proving the perfect agreement of both Testaments, completed in Jesus, who did not abolish, but fulfil the Law, when he changed the Shadow into a Body, the Figure into Truth, As Tertullian phrases it, in his Fisth Book against Marcion.

This Accomplishment he shew'd from that of Jeremy, where * 1.118 we read how the Jews fast'ned to the Cross the Bread of Christ, that is, his Body. This he evidenced, because Bread in the Old Law, was a Figure of Christ's Body. These are his Words, It is what God has revealed in * 1.119 your own Gospel, calling Bread his Body, making known by this, that Christ, whose Body the Prophet represented in Bread, long before he fulfilled this Fi∣gure, gave from this very time (of the Prophecy) Bread to be the Figure of his Body.

These Words, Christ gave the Bread, even from the time of Jeremy, to be the Figure of his Body, represent Christ as Master; and these others, Jeremy represented in Bread the Body of Christ, exhibit the Prophet as Minister. Both testifie, that Bread was a Figure in the Written Law; and the Subordination of Jeremy

to Jesus, proves the concord of Christ with the ancient Testa∣ment, which was Tertullian's peculiar Task.

The same he pursues in the place by you cited, Bread, (He * 1.120 made his own Body, saying, this is my Body,) that is, a Figure in the Prophet of Christ's Body. This sense agrees well with the foregoing Tenor of this learned Father's Discourse. 2. These following Words are another Confirmation, But it would not have been a Figure of his Body, if there was not a true Body. He does not say, it was not a Figure, he says, it would not have been a Figure in the Old Law. 3. Marcion argues for you, but why did he call Bread his Body, and not something else? Tertullian answers, that he argued thus, not knowing Bread was an ancient Figure of the Body of Christ, as we learn * 1.121 from Jeremy. 4. He confirms the same in these Words, You may likewise acknowledge the * 1.122 Old Figure of Blood in Wine.

It follows also from hence, that our Saviour's Body, was not a Phantasm or an Appearance, which was another of the Mar∣cionits Errors, but a real Body; not that the Sacrament, as you would have it, but that Bread in the Old Law, as I have demonstrated, was a Figure and Image of his Body in the Sa∣crament; which must be a true Body; otherwise there is a Fi∣gure of a Figure, which your own party will not allow of Nor could it, adds Tertullian, have been a Figure of his Body, if there had not been a true and real Body.

If for all this you will pretend, that as Bread in the Prophet was a Figure, so likewise is Bread still in the Eucharist a Figure of Christ's Body; I may without prejudice to the Catholic Be∣lief, humour you so far, as to grant the Sacramental Bread is a Figure, but a Figure joyned to the Reality. For if you will say, what you find not in Tertullian, that the Bread in the Sacra∣ment is a Figure of Christ's Body, you cannot deny but you read in this Father, that Christ made the Bread his Body, as we read in St. John, he made Water Wine. The Sacrament may then be a Fi∣gure, and the true Body.

Thus he proves the same thing to be called a Figure, and yet to be the same substance, instancing, the Word is God, and * 1.123 an Image too. The Catholic Church only disallows those Fi∣gures, which exclude the true Substance of Christ's Body pre∣sent in the Sacrament.

You urge a second Testimony from the same Author, using this Argument against the Sceptics, who rejected the certainty * 1.124 of Sense, He might be deceived in the voice from Heaven, in the smell of the Oyntment, with which he was anointed against his burial, and in the taste of the Wine, which he consecrated in the remembrance of his Blood. These last Words are somewhat changed; Tertullian says, he tasted not another * 1.125 Savour of Wine which he consecrated in remem∣brance of his Blood.

This learned Father established two Principles. 1. That Christ was truly Man. And 2. That his Operations were real like other Mens.

The First Verity, was not here Tertullian's Theme. This he vindicated against Marcion, where he proved that Christ was not a Phantasm, or Appearance.

The Second Verity Tertullian here made good, against the Sceptics. For if the sound of the Voice from Heaven was not imaginary, if the Smell of the Perfume was not Odorife∣rous, and if there was not another Tast of the Wine, which was consecrated in remembrance of Christ's Blood; then these O∣perations of our Saviour were not distinct from vulgar Sensa∣tion, like those Impressions other Men naturally receive, sin∣cere, real, and without delusion. All Catholics grant as much, and none will deny the same Tast of Wine after Consecration. But the Tast is not the Substance of Wine.

The Substance of Wine is not here spoken of. And the knowledge of Substance is the proper endeavour of Reason. Senses care is to search into the certainty of Colour, Tast, Ac∣cidents and Appearances, which was Tertullian's Province against the Sceptics.

The whole Controversie then between us is left by this Obje∣ction entire and untouched.

Article IV. Upon Origen.

ORigen, on his Comment on St. Matthew, speaking of the Sacrament, hath this Passage; That Food which is sanctified by the Word of God, and Prayer, as to that of it which is material,

goeth into the Belly, and is cast out into the Draught, which none surely will say (as you remark) of the Body of Christ.

But some have said it of the Body of Christ, which they thought was conveyed under the shape of material Accidents of Bread into the Draught: which Sense, if admitted to be Ori∣gen's, the Learned Cardinal Peron might say without injury, Origen talks like an Heretic. * 1.126

The same Illustrious Cardinal doubts whether this be the Work of Origen; because he says, Erasmus was the first that produced this Old Fragment; where he had it, no Body knows; and this not a Fragment, but only a Version thereof, and cautioned by himself.

Sixtus Senensis suspects this Testimony of Origen was depraved * 1.127 by Heretics. Genebrard is of the same Opinion.

These Critical Censures take all assurance from your Obje∣ction, rendring it either dubious, or depraved, or heretical.

Moreover, if Origen in this Passage, should downright pre∣scribe the Catholic Belief of the change of Bread into the Body of Christ, this ought not to disquiet any sober Inquirer. Be∣cause his chief Error was the exclusion of the literal Sense in Scripture. Whereupon Lirinensis calls Origen the Interpreter * 1.128 of Scripture after a new manner. St. Epiphanious complains he turned all into Allegories. Theophilus says, he supplants by Shades and Images the Truths of Scripture. And the Church in the Fifth Oecumenical Council, peculiarly anathematised his Works.

Finally, If I should answer, by what is material is understood only the material Accidents of Bread and Wine which go in∣to the Belly, and are cast into the Draught, what inconvenience would follow, from your Objection? No more, than what follows from what the same Father adds by way of explication, It is not the matter of the Bread, but the Word which is spoken over it, which profiteth him who worthily eateth the Lord; and this (he says) he had spoken, concerning the Typical and Symbolical Body. So that the Matter of Bread receives the Word of God spoken over it, and this Word, as it changes the Substance of Bread, so doth it profit the worthy Receiver; and this Word Origen calls the Typical and Symbolical Body of Christ, because the Word is Spiritual Food. Thus the fame Father, in his Homilies up∣on Leviticus proves Christ's Flesh to be true Meat, because all

his Speech is true Food. And he adds St. Peter, St. Paul, and all * 1.129 the Apostles are Food, will you conclude from hence, the Apo∣stles were not true Men?

At least, if this will not do, you resolve to do the bu∣siness by drawing out of the same Homily, a killing Letter of the New Testament. For if, says Origen, we take according to the Letter, that which is said, except ye eat my Flesh, and drink my Blood, this Letter kills.

This Letter except ye eat my Flesh, (understood of the Substan∣tial presence of Christ's Body after a Sacramental manner, in∣visible to Sense, under the species of Bread,) is what gives life in the Catholic Church, according to that of St. John, who shall eat my Flesh, shall live for ever. * 1.130

If Roman Catholics be out of danger, the blow must fall else where. It falls upon the Capharnaits, who following the naked Letter, carnally thought our Saviour would give his Flesh to be served in as common Meat, and cut in Pieces. It falls upon those who literally adhering to what they see, be∣lieve they receive, what it seems to be, Bread. Upon both these it falls.

If we follow, saith Origen, the Letter, and expound it either according to the Jews acceptation * 1.131 (were not these the Capharnaity,) or accor∣ding to what it seems commonly to be, (are you not of this Number) I blush to confess what is writ in the Law. Thus you strike at Catholics with the Killing Letter of Origen, and wound your self together with the Capharnaits.

For your warlike Argument give me leave to propose two peaceable ones, out of the same Father.

The First is in his Homilies upon Numbers, where he compares the Figure with the Figu∣rated, * 1.132 the Manna with the Body of Christ; * 1.133 The Manna was in Figure Food. Now in rea∣lity the Flesh of the Word God is true Meat. And what was first in the Figure designed, is now com∣pleated in truth and reality.

The Second is contained in these Words, * 1.134 When you receive the Holy Food and Incorruptible Banquet, when in the Bread and Cup of life, you

eat and drink the Body and Blood of our Lord, then our Lord enters under your roof; do you therefore humbling your self imitate the Centurion, and say, Lord, I am not worthy thou shouldst enter under my Roof, for where he enters unworthily, there he en∣ters in Judgment with the Receiver. This holy Food cannot be the substance of Bread, because Origen calls it an incorruptible Banquet; Bread is not such. Nor can it be a bare typical Figure of the Lord; for when the Centurion said, O Lord, I am not worthy, 'twas our own Saviour present. And if this Humiliation, O Lord, I am unworthy, be attributed to any thing but our Saviour there pre∣sent, how can you excuse it from Idolatrie? Finally, this Lord invocated, enters into the wicked, which cannot be by Faith. For your Church, teaches unworthy Receivers are not parta∣kers of the Lord in the Sacrament by Faith.

Article V. Ʋpon St. Cyprian.

YOU object St. Cyprian hath a whole Epistle to Caecilius against those who gave the Communion in Water, with∣out Wine mingled with it; and his main Ar∣gument against them is this, that the Blood of * 1.135 Christ with which we are redeemed and quickned, cannot seem to be in the Cup when Wine is wanting to the Chalice, by which the Blood of Christ is re∣presented.

Very well. It is Wine in representation, and the Blood of Christ is in the Cup by propriety or essence; for it is that Blood with which we were redeemed and quickned, according to St. Cy∣prian.

You argue afterwards from these other Words of the same Saint, by the Water the People is understood; by Wine the Blood of Christ is shew'n; but when in the Cup Water is mingled with Wine, the People are united to Christ; so that you deduce, according to this Argument, Wine in the Sacramental Cup, is no otherwise changed into the Blood of Christ, than the Water mixed with it is changed into the People, which are said to be united to Christ.

I shall not be strictly put to it, for an Answer, after I have * 1.136 thus proposed St. Cyprian's mind. St. Cyprian compares here the Jews to Wine, the Gentiles to Water, at the Marriage of Ca∣naan. The want of Wine marked out the Jews, who refused to embrace the Law of Christ; The plentifulness of Water re∣presented the Gentiles converted to Christianity. Hence Wa∣ter comes in the Sacrament to design the Elected People, Wine the Blood of Christ, and both mixt in the Chalice, the union of the People with Christ. Now to your Argument. And that I may the better convince you, give me leave to make use of your Logic.

Water is the People as Wine is Christ; then as we receive Christ by Faith in the Sacrament, so do we the People: And consequently the People sanctify the Soul as Christ doth in the Eucharist. Are you not ashamed of your Sophism? Or rather, how durst you equalize the People with Christ, Sinners with their Saviour, Man with God?

Again, Wine signified the Jews, according to St. Cyprian, and Water the Gentiles; now deduce from hence, the Water was not changed into Wine at the Marriage of Canaan, as you have done from the like instance, that the mixed Chalice is not changed into Christ's Body and Blood.

Article VI. Upon St. Augustin.

THE variety of Testimonies you gather from St. Augustin, cannot well without perplexity, be considered altogether. I'll endeavour to decline this Confusion, examining each one of them in so many Paragraphs.

Paragraph I.

YOU pitch first upon this Expression of St. Austin's in his * 1.137 Book against Adimantus the Manichee, Our Lord did not doubt to say this is my Body, when he gave the sign of his Body.

Adimantus endeavours to demonstrate the God of the Old Te∣stament prohibited eating of Blood, grounding himself upon this Principle of Duteronomy, Blood is the Soul of the Flesh, there∣by * 1.138

to prejudice that Soul, which Jesus declared in the Gospel, was not lyable to corporal harm or punishment.

St. Augustin replys, the Old Law speaks of the Animal Soul, * 1.139 and the Words of Christ are only understood of the Rational. Secondly, the Holy Doctor tells him, that Blood is called the Soul, only because it is the Sign of the Soul. This he confirms (accommodating himself to the Language of the Manichees, who were of opinion, that Bread, Corn and Grapes, naturally signified Christ's Body) with this Instance, our Saviour did not doubt to say, this is my Body, when he gave (in the Manichees O∣pinion) the Sign of his Body. The Manichees Opinion was not St. Austin's. And he therefore forewarns us to call in question Faith, because he made use of * 1.140 the Manichee's Principle in their own confuta∣tion.

Paragraph II.

SAINT Austin speaking of Judas, whom our Lord admitted * 1.141 to his last Supper, has these Words, in which he recommen∣ded and delivered to his Disciples, the Figure of his Body. Language, say you with exclamation, which would now be censured for Heresie in the Church of Rome.

I'm confident you are already persuaded to the contrary. And I know not any Sect, which holds a Figure incompatible with the reality. I shall cite two of your Learned Patrons; Peter Martyr says, A Figure, as far forth as 'tis a Figure, is not repug∣nant * 1.142 to the presence of the thing. And Calvin before him granted, a Figure doth not exclude the thing figurated. The Lutherans are * 1.143 not of a contrary mind. And if you'll be pleased to look either into the Ancient or Modern Divines among Catholics, you'll find the same acknowledgment. Paschasius formerly gave this answer to Frudegardus, instancing St. Austin's Testimony, These are, Replys Paschasius, Mystical things, in which is the verity of * 1.144 Flesh and Blood, and none others than Christ's, yet in a Mysterie, and Figure, and the Words of this Mystery are called a Figurative Speech; so Christ himself is called, by the Apostle, a Figure, though Christ be the Truth. Algerus illustrates the same, with this Reflection upon * 1.145 St. John Baptist, He was called a Prophet, and more than a Prophet. So the Sacrament is a Figure, and more than a Figure. To

these I add of the Modern Catholic School∣men. a 1.146 Ruardus, b 1.147 Melderus, d 1.148 Cardi∣nal Alen, e 1.149 Suarez, f 1.150 Gordon, g 1.151 Gonet. And I never read any that held the contrary. And I conclude with this of St. Austin; The Blessed Virgin did not onely conceive Christ spiritu∣ally by Faith, consenting to the Angelical Salutation, but also conceived him corporally, in her own Womb. How then doth the spiritual reception by Faith exclude the substantial Com∣munion of Christ's Body in St. Austin's Opinion?

Paragraph III.

IN the Third Place you cite his Comment on the 98th Psalm, where treating of the scandal which the Disciples took at that saying of our Saviour, except ye eat the Flesh of the Son of man, and drink his Blood, he brings in our Saviour speaking thus to them, ye must understand spiritually, what I have said unto you, ye are not to eat this Body which ye see, and to drink this Blood which shall be shed by those that shall crucify me, I have commended a certain Sa∣crament to you, which being Spiritually understood, will give you Life.

This is as much as to say, be not scandalized, that I told you, ye shall eat my Flesh, and drink my Blood, ye shall not eat it as ye imagine, in the shape you see it, bruzing, cutting, dige∣sting my Flesh. I Speak of a Sacrament, when I commend the eating of my Body; 'Tis this Sacrament you shall tast, touch, and see in outward appearance. The Spiritual intelli∣gence by Faith will (discovering there my Body remaining in∣visibly) vivify you. What more conformable to the Doctrine of Transubstantiation?

This I shall endeavour to manifest in examining the sense of these two Propositions, which contain the force of your Argu∣ment. 1. Ye must understand spiritually what I have said. 2. Ye are not to eat the Body which ye see.

The Word Spiritually, excluding the Carnal sense of the Ca∣pharnaits, establishes a miraculous or a supernatural under∣standing. So when St. Paul says, Isaac was born according to the * 1.152 Spirit, He did not deny by this, that Isaac was born of the Flesh; but declared that the Power of God was required to fecundate

the barrenness of his Mother. In like manner, when St. Au∣stin names this Word Spiritually, or Word of Spirit, he does not deny that the Bread is Flesh, but intimates that the power of God is required to quicken Bread into the Body of Christ. And thus the first Proposition, Ye must understand what I have said spiritually, does not at all diminish the reality of Christ's Sub∣stance in the Sacrament.

The Second Proposition, Ye are not to eat this Body which ye see, properly denotes the Quality or divers existence of Christ's Bo∣dy. Thus St. Ambrose said that the change of Life is suffici∣ent to verify this Speech, I am not I, I justified, am not I a sin∣ner, * 1.153 and yet I am the same man in substance.

Thus St. Lanfrancus answered Berengarius, alledging the same Passage which you object out of St. Austin, 'Tis not the same, if we consider the manner of Christ's * 1.154 existence in the Sacrament, 'tis the same if we re∣gard * 1.155 the Substance.

Thus the very same Passage is cited in Gratian with this addition, Ye are not to eat this Body which ye see, I have recommended a cer∣tain * 1.156 Sacrament to you, which being Spiritually un∣derstood * 1.157 will give you Life, ye are to eat him, and not to eat him, ye are to eat him visibly (under the species of Bread) ye are not to eat him visibly in the shape of Flesh.

And lest we should doubt of the reality of his Flesh in the Sa∣crament, St. Austin has left us this invincible Argument, in the same Place of your Objection, He will (says this Father) give us that Flesh, which he received from Mary, in which he walked on Earth, and * 1.158 which is first to be adored, before we receive it. Language which the Church of England will censure for Heresie!

Paragraph IV.

YOU instance this Testimony, According to that Flesh which * 1.159 was born of the Virgin Mary, ye shall not have me, He is ascen∣ded up into Heaven and is not here.

The forementioned Solution satisfies this Objection, for we are not to have him in his Natural Existence, we are to receive him in a Sacramental Existence.

Thus the variation of state and change of life caused the great Apostle to say, there were two Bodys in man, The Animal Bo∣dy, * 1.160 and the Spiritual Body; The Animal Body is a poor Passen∣ger upon Earth, strugling with Passions, and restless Agitations. The Spiritual Body, is the glorified Corps, when Soul and Bo∣dy meet in Eternity. It is sown a Natural Body, says St. Paul, it * 1.161 shall rise a Spiritual Body. Which St. Austin thus expresses, It is sown a Corruptible Body, it rises an Incorruptible Body.

The divers existence of Christ's Flesh, in Heaven, and on the Cross, was sufficient to St. Jerom, to call it a Divine Body, * 1.162 and a Terrene Body. These two Bodies are but one in Sub∣stance, the same in Heaven, the same on the Cross, the same which the Virgin brought forth, and the same in the Sacrament, Who eats, says St. Austin, of this Flesh let him first adore it. Adora∣tion testifies what it is.

Paragraph V.

YOU alledge this Similitude from St. Austin, As the Sacra∣ment of the Body of Christ is in some manner or sense Christs Bo∣dy, * 1.163 and the Sacrament of his Blood, is the Body of Christ, so the Sa∣crament of Faith, (meaning Baptism) is Faith, which the gloss, * 1.164 of the Canon Law, thus expounds. It's called the Body of Christ, that is, it signifies the Body of Christ.

Boniface inquiring how Infants, when they are baptized, are said to believe, and renounce the Devil, was thus instructed by St. Austin; A Sacrament, or holy sign, is honoured for the most part with the names of the things themselves, by reason of which Similitude the Sacrament of Faith, (Baptism) may be called Faith, which Infants receiving are said to believe. This Answer exacting a confirmation, obliged the holy Prelate, pitch∣ing upon the Similitude of the Sacrament, to cast his Eyes pre∣cisely on the sole outward appearance of the Symbols, which in some manner or sense, are Christ's Body and Blood. Not ac∣cording to the truth of the thing, as the Gloss notes; or as St. An∣selme exxpresses, the visible appearance of Bread is not the Body of the Lord, except as the Canon * 1.165 Law expounds it, improperly and after some man∣ner, as it signifies and contains the Body of Christ.

What is signified or contained is the Mysterie, which is not prejudiced by the foregoing Speech? For a Mysterie properly speaking, is some invisible thing. Such is that of St. Paul, If I know all Mysteries or hidden * 1.166 things. And the Roman Orator expressed * 1.167 himself after the same manner, when he said, Keep this secret, as a Mystery.

The visible appearance then of Bread, though not the true Bo∣dy of Christ, may be called improperly Christ's Body; and yet the thing signified or contained under this appearance be the true Body of Christ. Or as Faith infused by baptismal rege∣neration, to use St. Austin's comparison, is true Faith; so the thing received in the Sacrament, is the true Body of Christ.

Paragraph VI.

YOU add this remarkable Passage of St. Austin, cited by Gratian; As we receive the similitude of his Death in Baptism, * 1.168 so we may also receive the likeness of his Flesh and Blood; and so nei∣ther may truth be wanting in the Sacrament, nor Pagans have occasion to make us ridiculous for drinking of the Blood of one that was slain.

St. Austin here delivers the strict Practice of the Church in his days, hiding from the Pagans the Mystery of the Sacrament; and adds this Reason, in the same place: If the Disciples of our Lord could not patiently receive what our Lord said, how will these Incredulous endure us teach∣ing * 1.169 the same Doctrine? But of this more here∣after.

Nor does this Learned Father more exclude the reality of Flesh, calling it the likness of Flesh: Than St. Paul, saying, * 1.170 Christ appeared whilst he lived, and conversed with Sinners upon Earth, in the likeness of Man, deny'd that he was truly Man.

'Tis true, many Dissenters from the Catholic Church, and Hereticks, grounding themselves on this Scriptural Passage, Christ appeared in the likeness of Man, eagerly taught, that he was a Phantasm, or Appearance, not a natural Man, compo∣sed of Flesh and Bone. And you, their Faithful Imitator, gloss after the same manner, not upon Scripture, but upon a single Passage of one Father, and this too borrowed from Gratian.

But with how little reason you gloss after this manner, these following Passages of S. Austin, taken out of the same Gratian, will farther demonstrate. a 1.171 The First is part of the Canon, where∣in your Objection is contained. These are his Words, What exteriorly appears (in the Sacra∣ment) is a Figure; the Truth is the Body and Blood of Christ, made of the Substance of Bread and Wine. b 1.172 The Second Passage is, We faith∣fully confess it is before Consecration, Bread and Wine, which Nature made; but after Consecra∣tion, the Flesh and Blood of Christ, which Bene∣diction consecrated. c 1.173 The Third is the mean∣ing of that Passage of our Saviour, The Bread which I will give, in the 6th of St. John; which words determine in St. Austin's mind, How Christ is Bread, not only as he is the Word, which gives all things life; but also according to the Flesh assumed for the life of the World. Is this not real Flesh?

Paragraph VII.

YOU mention but one more Testimony, but so clear a one, as it is impossible any man in his wits, that had believed Tran∣substantiation, could have uttered. It is in his Treatise, de Doctrina Christiana, where laying down several Rules, for the right un∣derstanding of Scripture, he gives this for one. If the Speech be a Precept forbidding some heinous wickedness, or commanding us to do good, it is not figurative; if the contrary, it is figurative; for ex∣ample, except ye eat the Flesh of the Son of Man, and drink his Blood, ye have no life in you: this seems to command a heinous Crime, therefore it is a Figure, commanding us to communicate of the Passion of our Lord.

If I should deny, that St. Austin speaks here of receiving the Sacrament, you would be puzled to find out a warrant for your famous Assertion. For many Learned Writers judici∣ously remark, that these words, except ye eat of my Flesh, in Saint Austin's Sense may be thus explicated, except ye eat it by Faith, by Piety, by Good Works, which is a Spiritual Communion (out of the Sacrament) of the Passion of our Lord. And if this

be true, as it is more than probably so, St. Austin says here what all Catholics profess; For we all say we may communi∣cate spiritually of the Passion of Christ by Faith believing in Je∣sus, when we receive not the Sacrament; and yet we believe in the Doctrine of Transubstantiation.

But if you will still keep this Holy Father, whose Learning has always been the Admiration of Mankind, out of his wits, to use your Phrase; a slight reflection, supposing he speaks here of Sacramental Communion, will help him to return to himself, and reconcile him to the Catholic Affirmation.

I think one of a mean Capacity can distinguish the manner of eating, and the thing eaten. Which if true, St. Austin may li∣terally understand the thing eaten in the Sacrament, to be the true Flesh of Christ, God and Man; and yet at the same in∣stant hold, that the manner of eating this Flesh, (to which this Passage, except ye eat my Flesh, has referenee) is Spiritual. For although the true Body be taken in the shape of Bread, into the Mouth, and let down into the Stomack, yet it is not ground with the Teeth, or separated in pieces. We are taught after a Spiritual manner to eat the Flesh of the Son of Man. Lissen to the Voice of God, and you'l hear the Gospel mention eating a Man, take, eat, this is my Body. The manner is Spiri∣tual, * 1.174 for the Body is given in the shape of Bread; and in this Sense St. Austin calls these words, except ye eat my Flesh, a figu∣rative Speech. The Substance or the thing eaten is not here mentioned by the Saint. But it is the true Body of Christ, as the same Saint assures us * 1.175 else-where in these Lines; We believe (in the * 1.176 Sacrament) with faithful heart and mouth the Mediator of God and Man, Christ Jesus, giving us his Body to be eaten, and his Blood to be drank, although it appear more horrible to eat, than to kill Human Flesh; to drink, than to spill Human Blood.

Every word almost instances a new Argument, for the truth of the Flesh. This oral receiving with mouth God and Man; This horror of eating and drinking Flesh and Blood; this Antithesis between eating and killing, drinking and spilling, terminated to the same substance, leaves not the least scruple to doubt, that the thing eaten is real Flesh and Blood. And pray what horror

would there be, to eat an Image of Flesh? or what Language speaks of killing the Figure of a Man? The same Saint, in his Exposition on the 33d Psalm, hath this Pas∣sage; * 1.177 He's truly our Lord, who truly gave us his Body to eat, in which he so much suffered. Else∣where he says, the Faithful receive into their * 1.178 mouth that Blood which redeemed them. And in his 27th Treatise on St. John, speaking of St. Peter's Confession, I find this remarkable Sentence; You are Christ the Son of the living * 1.179 God, and what you give in your Flesh and Blood, is nothing else but your own self.

Now you must acknowledge the way I have prescribed, or find some other expedient, to reconcile St. Austin's Wit with the Doctrine of Transubstantiation, or all the World will ima∣gine, you put your own to a desperate adventure.

Article VII.

YOU mention two Testimonies out of Theodoretus's Dia∣logues between a Catholic under the name of Orthodoxus, and a Heretic under the name of Eranistes, who maintai∣ned with the Eutichians, that the Humanity of Christ after the Ascension, was changed into the Divinity. I'll examine each apart.

Paragraph I. The Dispute of Orthodoxus and Eranistes in the First Dialogue.

ORthodoxus undertakes to shew that the Humanity of Christ alwaies remain'd. This he proves, because the Huma∣nity was a Vail or Garment to the Divinity, as we read in Ge∣nesis, where Jacob prophecy'd of the Messias, He washed his * 1.180 Garment in Wine, and his Cloaths in the Blood of the Grape. Era∣nistes replys, this is understood literally of his proper Habit, with which he was cloathed upon Earth. Orthodoxus resumes, that Jesus called himself the Vine; and the Fruit of the Vine, is Wine; and the Blood of our Saviour is called the Blood of the Vine. And if our Saviour be called the Vine, and the

Fruit of the Vine, is Wine; and from the side of our Saviour ran Fountains of Blood, on the rest of his Body: The Prophet rightly foretold that He washed his Robe in Wine, and his Cloths in the Blood of the Grape. Again speaking to Eranistes, he pursues with another Simile, Jesus called his Body Bread, and his Flesh Wheat; But in the institution of the Sacrament he called Bread his Body, and Wine his Blood; Though naturally the Body is called the Body, and Blood is called Blood; but our Saviour changing the Names, gave to his Body the Name of Symbol, and to the Symbol or Sign, the Name of his Body. Eranistes urges to know the cause of this change of Names. Or∣thodoxus answers, Nothing more easie to the Faithful. For he would have those who partake of the Divine Mysteries, not to attend to the nature of things, which are seen, but by the change of Names, to believe the change which is made by Grace; for he who called that, which by nature is a Body, Wheat and Bread, and again called himself the Vine, he honoured the Symbol with the name of his Body and Blood, not changing nature, but adding Grace to nature. This is a full view of the matter in debate.

We ought to reflect, that as Theodoretus compares here Scrip∣tural passages, wherein they resemble one another, and conse∣quently acknowledges the Similitude of the already mention'd Expressions. So also was he not ignorant of their differences. And therefore he said, Jesus * 1.181 changed the Names, that by their change the Faithful might believe, that alteration which Grace effected.

The change of names is acknowledged to proceed from a change made in the Sacrament. For he obliges the Faithful to believe a change which is made, not in the nature of things which are seen, for the natural Signs or outward appearances remain; it must be then in some inward thing, not seen, or Substance of the Symbol effected by Grace, or the Word of God. This in another place he professes in these Words, Christ gave his preti∣ous Body not only to the Eleven Apostles, but also to the Traytor Judas. This cannot be properly Grace added to Nature, for Judas recei∣ved his own condemnation. It must be then the Body of Christ * 1.182 made by Grace of the Substance of Bread, and added to the Nature or remaining appearance of the Signs which was given to the Traytor.

Paragraph II. Upon the continuation of the same Discourse in the Second Dialogue.

ORthod. What are those Symbols, which the Priest offers to God? Eranist. They are Symbols of the Body and Blood of our Lord. Orthod. Of the true Body? Eranist. Of the true Bo∣dy. Orthod. Very right. Eranist. Very well. Orthod. If these Divine Mysteries represent the true Body, the true Body of Christ is not changed into the Divinity. Eranistes perceiving himself caught, cunningly retorts the Argument, in the like manner. How do you call these Symbols after consecration? Orthod. The Body and Blood of Christ. Eranist. Do you believe you receive the Body and Blood of Christ? Orthod. I do believe. Eranist. There∣fore as the Symbols of our Lord's Body and Blood, are one thing before the invocation of the Priest, but after the invocation are changed and become another thing, so the Body of our Lord after his as∣cension, is changed into the Divine Substance.

If Orthodoxus had not believed that the Symbols were truly changed in Substance after consecration, how could Eranistes have deduced the change of the Human Nature into the Divine Substance? He could not argue this out of his own prin∣ciple. For admitting no Body of Christ in Heaven, how could he pretend a real Body of Christ in the Sacrament? whence the Protestant Centuriators say, Theodoretus dangerously * 1.183 affirms, that the Symbols of the Body and Blood of Christ after the in∣vocation of the Priest are changed, and become another thing.

Orthodoxus answers, you are caught in your own net, because the Mystical Symbols after Consecration do not pass out of their own Nature, for they remain in their former Substance, Figure and Appearance, and may be seen and handled even as before.

As Bread is properly said to have Substance and Nature, which are neither seen, nor handled; so likewise the Accidents of Bread may be said, though not so commonly, to have their own Nature and Substance, which may be seen and handled. * 1.184 Whence that of St. Austin, What is not a Substance is nothing at all. 'Tis in this sense Orthodoxus holds, the substance of the Symbols remains. And lest we should doubt what this substance is, he tells us 'tis Figure and Appearance. Nor is this a constrained in∣terpretation:

For what more usual, when we have uttered some word, either harsh in expression, or difficult to be under∣stood, than forthwith to add another, softer in Language, and more obvious to the Hearer. Thus Theodoretus saying, They re∣main in their former substance, adds, that is, they remain in their for∣mer Figure and appearance, and may be seen and handled, even as be∣fore. Nor are these latter Expressions referable to Substance, strictly taken for the inward thing, because this properly, is neither seen nor handled.

Now if you ask what these Symbols are interiorly, Theodoretus * 1.185 confesses, they are, what they were made, Christ's Body. And they are believed and adored as being those very things which they are be∣lieved. Which Words, if the Bread be not substantially chan∣ged into Christ's Body, teach plain Idolatry.

Nor could Orthodoxus say the interiour Substance of the Sym∣bols, was not changed, in his own Opinion; for this he had al∣ready granted, in these Words, They are changed and become after consecration another thing.

Orthodoxus pretends indeed that he caught his Adversary in his own Net. But this was not because Eranistes believed the Substance of the Symbols was not changed into Christ's Body; for he thought Christ's Body was no where extant. How then was he caught in his own Net? He was caught in his own Net, because these Mystical Symbols, were not changed in appear∣ance, (for after consecration they may be seen and handled) and they were Symbols still of Christ's true Body, which Eranistes had formerly granted; and therefore there was a true Body of Christ; and so the Body of Christ was not changed into the Divinity, as Orthodoxus had argued. Thus Eranistes was caught in his own Net.

Nor ought Theodoretus to be censured for Singularity, in giving the Name of Nature and Substance, to accidental Beings. For St. Hilary gives the same to Proprieties; Saying, That the Flames * 1.186 in the Babilonian Furnace, lost their Nature, though the Substance of the Fire remained.

Innocent the Third, that Venerable Pope and Father of the Church, under whom was defined the Doctrin of Transub∣stantiation, frankly concedes the Natural Proprieties of Bread remain, ut paneitas. And Cardinal Pole, another great Vin∣dicator of the same Tenet, says, Though there be only Flesh and

Blood in the Sacrament, notwithstanding the Na∣ture * 1.187 of the Wine may be tasted. I would have you likewise argue, that these Authors are a∣gainst Transubstantiation.

Article VIII. Upon Gelasius the Pope.

THESE Words of Gelasius, The Substance of Bread and Wine, doth not cease to be, are already satisfied by what I have said to Theodoretus, that is, the outward shape of Bread remains. And if these Words immediately following what you objected, had been cited, the difficulty would have been removed. They (the inward Substance of Bread and Wine) pass by the operation of the Holy Ghost into a Divine Nature, yet remaining in the propriety of their Nature. It is only the Proprieties of the Nature of the Bread and Wine, the Colour, and the Tast, that remain. The Substance is changed; For how could the inward Substance of Bread and Wine pass by Divine operation into Christ's Body, and not cease to be? how can a Protestant pass into the Roman Catholic Church, and become a pious Member thereof, and not truly cease to be a Protestant?

This Gelasius is not the learned Pope Gelasius; and I need not * 1.188 labour to prove this. Your own Critics write, that that Treatise de duabus naturas, whence you borrowed this Objection, belongs to some other of the same Name. I shall instance only one reason. This Author ranks the Works of Eusebius Caesariensis among those of the Orthodox Fathers, which cannot be said of the pious and learned Pope Gelasius, who numbers the same Eusebius in his own Authentic Works, with Apocryphal Wri∣ters. There is then not one of our Popes against Transubstan∣tiation: And if you cannot alledg one Pope from the beginning of Christianity, who teaches contrary to what is now profes∣sed in the Roman Church, concerning this contested Article of Faith, is it not a great Argument that it was alwaies taught in the Church of God?

Article IX. Upon Facundus.

FAcundus the African Bishop, justifying Theodorus Mopsuestenus, * 1.189 who had said, That Christ also received the adoption of Sons, reasons thus, Christ vouchsafed to receive the Sacrament of Adoption, both when he was circumcised and baptized; and the Sacrament of A∣doption may be called Adoption, as the Sacrament of his Body and Blood is by us called his Body and Blood.

The intern Grace of the Holy Ghost received in Baptism, properly constitutes us the true Sons adoptive of God, which could not be conferr'd on our Saviour; for he was enriched with the plenitude of perfection, and was the natural Son of God. Yet Christ may be said, Facundus urges, to receive the Adop∣tion of Sons, because he vouchsafed to receive Baptism, the Sa∣crament of Adoption. Then seeking an Example to verify that Baptism may be called Adoption, though it was not, but only contain'd the Grace of Adoption, was forced instancing the Blessed Sacrament, barely to consider the Sacrament in the outward Species of Bread in the Eucharist, which may be cal∣led the Body and Blood of Christ; because it contains the Body and Blood of Christ. What is contain'd in Baptism, is it not the proper Grace of Adoption? and what is con∣tained in the Consecrated Species, is the true Body and Blood of Christ.

Can any after this believe, that what you have objected, pre∣judices in the least the Universal and received Doctrin of the Christian Church, of Bread and Wine substantially chang'd in the Sacrament into the proper and true Body and Blood of Christ?

What you repeat by way of Appendix, the Names of some Catholic Divines, is inconsiderable. Only this I can say, you might have more prudently omitted them in your own behalf, than chang'd their Words in detriment to the * 1.190 Catholic Doctrin. For Scotus only says, that the truth of some Articles, is more explicit or manifest in the Lateran Decrees, than it was in the Symbols of the Apostles, or in the Athanasian Creed,

or that of Nice; and in a word, what ever is here defin'd (in the Council of Lateran) is to be held as a sincere part of our Faith.

Durandus does not say, that he would have been of a contra∣ry Opinion, had not the Church defin'd for Transubstantia∣tion; but only tacitly insinuates, that he would have made use of the Bread and Wine, remaining with the Body of Christ in the Sacrament, which was possible to God, though really false, in order to solve some Objections, had not the Canon of the Church interven'd. Nor ought we to be sur∣prised at this. For Durandus ordinarily walked * 1.191 on the brink of Faith in Assertions, and there∣fore * 1.192 merited the Title of Temerarius Doctor in the Church of God. These are his Words, The Sub∣stance of Bread and Wine is changed into the substance of the Body and Blood of Christ; yet although this be really true, it was possible to God that the Body of Christ might have been in the Sacrament, with the * 1.193 Substance of Bread, which is not really true, for the Church has decreed the contrary, and she is presum'd not to err in her decisions; Therefore holding the Bread chang'd into Christ's Body, I answer to the contrary Objections.

Tunstal Bishop of Durham says, from the beginning of Chri∣stianity, no body doubted of the real presence of Christ in the Sacrament, and that the Learned Ancient Writers look'd upon the manner, how the Bread passed into Christ's Body, as in∣scrutable and not to be searched into, lest we should seem to tempt Christ with the Capernaits, doubting how this can be? But through God-almighty's pow∣er, * 1.194 to whom nothing is impossible, the change of Bread into Christ's Body (by Transubstantiation) seem'd to Innocent the Third, and those who sat with him in Council, to agree most with these Words of Christ, This is my Body. And he censures those who deny this change, with impudent boldness, and opposes them to Christ; saying, If we be∣lieve them (who profess your Error) neither * 1.195 Christ nor the Holy Ghost, can change Bread into the Substance of Christ's Body, whose Word made all things of nothing.

Tell me what was Erasmus's Thought, and I'le answer what Religion he was of. In some places he favours the Lutherans, oftentimes he's a Catholic; I am sure he's not a Protestant in that Epistle to Conradus; If you are persuaded there's nothing besides * 1.196 Bread and Wine in the Sacrament, I had rather be torn in pieces, than profess what you profess.

If Alphonsus say ther's seldom mention in Ancient Writers * 1.197 concerning Transubstantiation, these seldom Intimations are sufficient to shew, that 'twas always taught in the Church of God, which ought to convince any unbyased Understanding.

CHAP. II. An Account of the coming in of Transubstantiation.

I Have already done this to your hand. 'Twas instituted by our Saviour. I suppose then you mean a particular Account of the coming in of the Error against Transubstantiation, and by what attempts and degrees it was advanced against the Ro∣mish Church.

The first Opposers of this Doctrin, were the Capharnaits, who scandaliz'd at our Saviour's Promise, cry'd out, How can this Man give us his Flesh to eat? This was seconded with the Complaint of his own Disciples; This is a hard saying, and who can hear it? Both were taxed with Incredulity, as St. John * 1.198 writes in his Sixth Chapter. And St. Austin calls them Here∣tics, Judas heading them as their Prince and Leader, in whom, without our envy, you may triumph and glory. How often have you been incredulous with the Capharnaits, saying, How can he give us his Flesh? How often with the unfaithfull Disci∣ples murmured, who can endure this Doctrin?

A second attempt was, as St. Paul delivers, made by the Co∣rinthians, * 1.199 who not distinguishing the Body of our Lord in the Sacrament, from Bread and Wine, became incredulous, Not believing. Not believing what? St. Austin replies, the true Body of Christ to be contain'd in the Eucharist.

A third Essay must be acknowledged in the Simonits, Me∣nandrians, Gnostics, and Marcionists, who placing in Christ only a Phantasm, indirectly rejected the verity of Christ's true Body and Blood in the Sacrament.

A fourth Opposition was from some of the Arians, who thirsting after Spiritual Grace, were not solicitous for any Cor∣poral Presence, as we learn from St. Cyril, and St. Gregory Na∣zianzen. * 1.200

In the Year 740. we read of certain Heretics meeting toge∣ther * 1.201 for the taking away of Images, who gave this reason; That our Lord having left no Image of himself but Bread, which is the Image of his Body, we ought to make no other Image of our Lord. This Con∣venticle, which then was esteemed Heretical in the Christian World, you mention, make Orthodox, and oppose it to the Doctrin of Transubstantiation.

You are here again mistaken, for there was no Sect of Men who professed at this time in any place of the World your Opinion against Transubstantiation. For these Heretics taking the word Image interiourly, for the Substance it self; said, that as our Saviour deified Flesh which suf∣fered * 1.202 for man's redemption, so (constituting the Eu∣charistic Bread, not a false Image of his natural Flesh) he did ordain it should be made, the Priest * 1.203 mediating by the sanctification of the Holy Ghost, his Divine Body. These Words, as containing the Roman Belief, were approved in the Nicene Synod. Nor did the Writers of the Roman Church, condemning their Heresie which pul∣led * 1.204 down and destroyed Images, charge them with any disbelief of the real Presence, or Transubstantiation.

These Iconoclast Heretics indiscreetly naming the Bread the Image of the Body of Christ, gave probably occasion to the fol∣lowing Writers to dispute how it was an Image. Amongst whom Scotus Erigena, towards the end of the Eight, or begin∣ning of the Ninth Century, went so far, that he said, 'twas only an Image of the Body. Scarce had he broach'd this new Do∣ctrin, but he was straight censured by the Writers of those Times.

Hincmarus accused him that he called the Sacra∣ment a remembrance only of the true Body and Blood * 1.205 * 1.206 of Christ. Prudentius Bishop of Troy, and Ebbo Prelat of Grenoble, confuted the same Erigena. Nor did this Scotus decline the sinister Opinion of Pope Nicholas, in his Letter to Charles the Bald, Scotus's great Patron and Friend. Yet we never read that Scotus ever reply'd in defence of his Er∣ror, and so seem'd in some manner to retract what before he had imprudently spoken. His Followers were but few, and those too, taught this Error underhand, so fearfully, that no body could accuse them of open Heresie, or convince them not to be Catholics. Thus this Infant Embrio of Error covered in the Shell of darkness, was at length hatch'd and brought forth by Berengarius in the twelfth Age.

Berengarius was born at Tours in France. After he had finished the ordinary courses of Studies, he taught Grammar and Phi∣losophy. Then he was made Treasurer in St. Martin's Church. About the Year 1149, he went for Angers, where he was kindly entertained, and constituted by Bruno the Arch Bishop, his Arch∣deacon. Here he began to sow several Errors; Viz. That Chil∣dren were not to be baptized; that Marriage might be dissolved; that our Saviour could not enter in where his Disciples were, The Door's shut; as we learn from Guitmundus, Theoduinus, * 1.207 and St. Anselm. He added a fourth Error, which is to our present purpose, That the con∣secrated * 1.208 * 1.209 Bread was only a Figure of Christ's Body. Which, that he might the better maintain, he kept poor Boys to School, educating them in all manner of Learning, that so by mony and interest, he might have many at his command. But alas all in vain, for this Error no sooner was vented, but it was opposed by many Learned Writers. Among these, were St. Lanfrancus, St. Anselm, a 1.210 Guitmundus, Durandus, Algerus, b 1.211 Adel∣mannus, Hugo Lingonensis, Humbertus, c 1.212 Petrus Cluniacensis, d 1.213 Euthymius, e 1.214 Hugo Victorinus, f 1.215 Petrus Lombardus. And the same Berenga∣rius more than once abjured his Error, which during his life was nine times condemned in nine several Councils. The first at Rome un∣der Leo the Ninth. The Second at Vercells. The Third in the

Convent of Brion, according to the desires of Henry Duke of Nor∣mandy, to whom he fled for protection. The Fourth at Paris. The Fisth at Tours, by order from Pope Victor. The Sixth at Rome under Nicholas the Second. The Seventh at Poictous in France. The Eighth at Rome under Gregory the Seventh. The Ninth at Bourdeaux, under Hugo Bien Bishop and Legat of the * 1.216 See Apostolic in France. This we have from the Writers of those times cited in Baronius. The last abjuration of this Here∣sie made by Berengarius, was real. For after ten years Penance, he died peaceably in the Bosom of the Church. This we have from a 1.217 William of Malemsbury, b 1.218 Mathew Paris, Vincentius Bellovacensis; and what is most convincing, we read in an Old Manuscript, in St. Martin's at Tours, these Words, Obiit Magi∣ster Berengarius, Grammaticus fidelis, et vere Catholicus. An. Dom. 1186. Many of those whom he had perverted, imitated his pious return to the Church, and his Penance. Others more unfortunate, propogated this Figurative Exposition, and Ex∣clusion of Christ's Body in the Sacrament, after the best man∣ner, Industry could invent, and Craft execute.

Hence you may gather what diligence the Enemy of Man∣kind used; how often he was forced to repeat, almost the same Stratagems, before the fearful Error durst publickly appear, or was able to stand in any corner of Christendom.

Pray now compare, if you please, the rise of Transubstan∣tiation with the beginning of the opposite contradiction; and acknowledge without prejudice or partiality, which of the two ought to be sincerely embraced. Whether will you believe, Nine several Councils, or Berengarius an Apostate, who yet af∣terwards recanted? Whether the Holy Fathers, who vindicated this Catholic Doctrin, St. Austin, St. Hilary, St. Ambrose, St. Cy∣ril, St. Justin, St. Ignatius Martyr; or the Marcionits, Menan∣drians, Simonits, all Heretics, who deny the Substantial Body of Christ? Whether lastly, you believe St. Paul, or the Erring Corinthians; St. John, or the incredulous Jews; our Blessed Saviour, or the Contradicting Calvinists? I leave you to your own choice, whilst I pursue your third Principle.

CHAP. III. Examen of your Solution given to Mr. Arnauld's Demonstration.

MR. Arnauld, a learned man in France, pretended very rightly, that it was impossible, that our Doctrin, if it had been new, should ever have come in, in any Age, and been received in the Church, and consequently it must of necessity have been the perpetual Belief of the Church in all Ages. For if it had not been always the Doctrin of the Church, when ever it had attempted first to come in, there would have been a great stir and bussle about it, and the whole Christian World would have rose up in opposition to it. But you have shewn no such time, when first it came in, and when any such oppo∣sition was made to it, and therefore it was always the Doctrin of the Church.

It is true, you would fain have me believe, that Rabanus, Archbishop of Mentz, and Heribaldus, Bishop of Auxerre, and Bertram opposed this Doctrin with all their might. But what you have alledg'd from their Writings, do not convince me. Bertram indeed says, the Writers of that Age talked according to their several Opinions, differently about the Mystery of Christ's Body and Blood, and were divided by no small Schism. But what was this Schism? This Schism or difference according to Bertram, precisely consisted in two Questions. First, Whether there was a Figure in the Mystery. Secondly, Whether the Bread that was chang'd into Christ's Body, was the Natural Body of Christ, which was born of the Virgin Mary.

Bertram in the first part of his Treatise undertook to shew, that there was a Figure in the Mystery, as the conclusion of his Discourse in the end evidences in these Terms; From what I have heitherto spoken, 'tis clear, that * 1.219 the Body of Christ, which the Faithful receive into their Mouths, is a Figure, if we regard the visible Species. And lest any one should impeach him of Error in the Sacrament, he straight added, But if we consider the invisible Substance the Body and Blood truly there exist, Grounding himself upon this Principle, that the Substance of Bread

was changed, and the outward appearance only remained, he could not conceive how his Adversaries (who, though they faithfully be∣lieved with Bertram and the Church, that the Bread was changed into the true Body of Christ, yet they deny'd there was any Figure in the Sacrament) could recon∣cile * 1.220 Faith with their Opinion. And this was his Reason; For if the Bread and Wine were another thing than they were before Consecration, they were changed. And if the Substance was changed, the visible species which remained must be a Figure.

Rabanus speaking of the Second Proposition, viz. Whether the Bread, which was changed into the Body of Christ, was the Natural Body of Christ, declares, that it was not the Body of Christ re∣ceived from the Virgin Mary in its natural existence, but that it was the true Body which he received from the Virgin after a Supernatural and Sacramental Permanency.

The first Opinion which he rejects, he charges with Novelty, * 1.221 in the passage you cite, Saying, Some of late not having a right Opinion, concerning the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of our Lord, have said; that this is the Body and Blood of our Lord which was born of the Virgin Mary, and in which our Lord suffered upon the Cross, and rose from the Dead: which Error we have opposed with all our might.

The other, which was the belief of the Church, he thus de∣livers: God effected whatever he would in Heaven and on Earth. From hence he deduces, that Bread is chang'd into the Body of Christ; and therefore adds, it is no other Flesh, no other truly than what was born of the Virgin Ma∣ry, * 1.222 and suffered upon the Cross, and rose from the * 1.223 Sepulcher. And who does not believe this, if he had seen Christ upon the Cross in the likeness of a Servant, how would he have understood he was God, unless * 1.224 Faith had prevailed with him to believe? And in the 42 Chapter of the same Book, he speaks thus; It is the same Flesh, which was given for thee and for all, and hanged upon the Cross, because truth * 1.225 testifies, This is my Body which shall be given for you; and of the Chalice, This is my Blood, which shall be spilt for you, for remission of Sins.

From hence it is plain, that what is now the very Doctrin of the Church of Rome concerning the Sacrament, the two Learned Authors you have alledged, Bertram and Rabanus, ne∣ver oppos'd.

But you tell us, though for a more clear and satisfactory An∣swer to the pretended Demonstration of Mr. Arnauld, you have consented to untie the knot, yet you could without all these pains have cut it. If you strive to cut it with no more skill than you have endeavor'd to untie it, the work must be the labor of some Nobler Champion. 'Tis true, you make use of (in hopes to do the business) Diogenes plain stroke of experience o'recoming Zeno's denial of Motion, by walking before his Eyes. Is then the Doctrin of Transubstantiation not the belief of the Primitive Church, because Diogenes walked before Zeno's Eyes? A wilder Proceeding I never heard of from any Christian Di∣vine; and the bare relation of this matter of Fact, is a full con∣futation thereof.

From the Pagan Philosophers, you run for assistance to the Servants in the Parable, who could not give any punctual ac∣count when the Tares were sown, or by whom: Yet it was ma∣nifest they were mingled with the good Wheat. From hence you hasten to the Civil Wars of our Nation, where at length our King his Gracious Majesty, Charles the Second of Great Brittain, was happily restored to his Crown, without a great deal of fighting and Bloodshed. From this place you take your journy into Turky, and bring down the Grand Visier (inva∣ding Christendom, and besiegeing Vienna) who was not oppo∣sed by the Most Christian King, who had the greatest Army in Christendom in a readiness.

Whilst I ruminate these Similitudes, I cannot easily conceive, how you can joyn our Great Monarch's happy Restauration, in a Simily with Tares, where Wheat was sown, and with the Grand Seigneur invading Christendom, and not give occasion to the Reader to think you either wanted circumspection in the choice of your Arguments, or imprudently left a suspicion of your Loyalty.

And I wonder how a man of your great Wit and Judgment, could prevail with himself to conclude the Nullity of Mr. Ar∣nauld's solid reasoning from Experiences or matters of Fact, that have nothing at all to do with the Sacrament? Why must

Mr. Arnauld's Demonstration be weak and insufficient, because the Christian King, not long since reposed in peace, with his great Army; or some time ago our Gracious Monarch of hap∣py memory, was restored to his Crown; or because St. Mathew wrote the Parable of the Tares? All the Reason in the World is too weak to make good any such way of proceeding. But to answer precisely to what you assimilate them in, (viz. from these Comparisons you would prove, that the Controverted Doctrin might silently have come in, and without opposition, al∣though the particular time and occasion of its first rise, could not be as∣signed;) Did not a considerable part of Christendom with all their might oppose the Turkish Invasion? and if all had been quiet, would not Vienna have been surprised and pilledged? Was all England ignorant of the Restauration of our Gracious Monarch; and were there none to be found to witness his com∣ing in? were not the Tares, as soon as they sprung up, seen and discovered? But no body, except Heretics, ever opposed Tran∣substantiation; No body but Rebels rofe against the right Pre∣rogative of their Prince.

And what has the Parable of the Tares to do with the Bles∣sed Sacrament? The same confidence is sufficient to extend the same Comparison to the rest of our Christian Mysteries, and proves just as much, that is, nothing at all, except Christianity be nothing else but Tares.

SECT. III. Of the Infallible Authority of the Present Church for this Doctrin.

YOU say, the Roman Church made and obtruded upon the World this Article, merely by vertue of her Autho∣rity, Seeing not any sufficient reason, either from Scripture, or Tradi∣tion, for the belief of it.

The Roman Catholic Church never taught any of her Chil∣dren, that She had Power from God to make an Article of Faith. But She teaches us, that two Conditions are required for the constitution of an Article of Faith. First, Revelation from God. Secondly, The Declaration of an Oecumenical Council. Where these two agree, that we are taught, is part of our Belief.

And I shall desire you will only peruse these words of the Council of Trent, which intimate the Reason, why the Church of God declared for Transubstantiation; and I am persuaded you'l believe She did not define this Doctrin, neither warranted with Scripture, nor Tradition. For the Coun∣cil says; Because Christ our Saviour truly said, * 1.226 that was his Body, which under the Species of * 1.227 Bread, he offered; therefore the Church of God was always persuaded, and this Holy Council de∣clares again the same, that by the consecration of Bread and Wine, the whole substance of Bread is changed into the substance of the Body of our Lord, and the whole substance of the Wine into the sub∣stance of the Blood, which Conversion is conveniently and properly called by the Council, Transubstantiation.

SECT. IV. Of the Necessity of such a Change for the benefit of the Re∣ceiver.

THE Spiritual Efficacy of the Sacrament depends upon re∣ceiving the thing, which our Lord instituted, and a right preparation and disposition of mind, which makes it ef∣fectual to those Spiritual Ends, for which it was appointed.

As God might without any Baptismal Water, without any visible Elements, have washed away the Stains of Original Sin, and given Spiritual Regeneration: So could he have made the worthy Receivers true Partakers of the Spiritual Comfort and Benefit design'd to us in the Lord's Supper, without any sub∣stantial change made in the nature of Bread and Wine.

But as we cannot say, the Water in Baptism, and Symbols are unprofitable, as things are instituted by God, and useless for the cleansing of Original Sin: so likewise ought we not to pretend, that the Flesh of Christ is useless, and profiteth no∣thing to the worthy Receiver of the Sacrament, because Christ without this may give us the benefit or fruit of the Sacrament.

God might have pardon'd the World, if his only begotten Son had not undergon so many griefs and anguishes, so much pain, and that ignominious death of the Cross. Yet who dare say this Flesh was not true Flesh, or profited nothing, which redeemed all the World? If it profited on the Cross, why does it not profit in the Sacrament? And if it profit not with∣out Faith, how can it profit those who believe not?

The very thought of our Saviour's Substantial Presence in the Sacrament, strikes much a deeper impression of Devotion in my Soul, than if I reflected on bare Symbols or Signs weakly exciting Faith in me.

And even when a Terrene Prince visits Prisons, or in a So∣lemn Pomp enters the Capital City, his Corporal Presence cu∣stomarily frees many Criminals from Chains, Fetters, and Imprisonments, which the Law would otherwise not have granted, nor the King consented too: And yet one word of command is sufficient to do greater execution.

SECT. V. Of the Power of the Priest.

WE acknowledge a Power in the Priest, which is not in the People. All were not constituted Apostles, all were not Doctors. But we do not acknowledge a Power in the Priest to make God, as you calumniate us: we acknowledge a Power in God to change one Substance into another, Bread into his Body. Till you prove this impossible, (which is impossible to be done;) you'll give us leave to believe God is in the right possession of his Omnipotency, and loses nothing of his Power by your Detraction. And if you count this Miraculous change no Miracle, give it what Title you please; we will not dispute the Name, if you contradict not the thing.

And thus I have dispatched the first part of my Answer, which was to vindicate the real Grounds and Reasons of the Church of Rome, for this Doctrin.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Page 25.
• * 1.2

  St. Hil. cont. const. Aug. Die pri∣us, si rectè disputas, nolo adversus no∣va venena novas medicamentorum comparationes.
• * 1.3

  St. Athan. d. cum Ario coram Probo. Nominis ne offenderis novi∣tate, anetiam ret ipsius veritate, quae hoc est sortita vocabulum.
• * 1.4

  Vincent. Lyr. in Commonit. Eccle∣sia plerunque propter intelligentiae lucem, non novum fidei sensum novae appellationis proprietate signat. Nic. 1. in Sym.
• * 1.5

  Con. Ephes. anat. 1. Conc. Later. decret. 1211. an.
• * 1.6

  Aristotle.
• * 1.7

  Gen. 8. v. 2.
• * 1.8

  Luke 3. 22.
• * 1.9

  Ex nihilo nil fit.
• * 1.10

  St. Greg. Orat. 3.
• * 1.11

  St. Clem. Alex. 2. Stom. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.12

  St. Ambr. Super illud Psal. Omnia opera ejus in fide. Non creditur Phi∣losophis, creditur Piscatoribus.
• * 1.13

  St. Cyr. apud St. Maxim. Tò 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.14

  St. Chrys. in Joan. 6. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.15

  St. Aug. tract. 27. in Joan. Nec cognoscare, nec credere valemus.
• * 1.16

  Mark c. 16.
• * 1.17

  John 6. from the Greek.
• * 1.18

  vers. 62.
• * 1.19

  vers. 63.
• * 1.20

  St. Aug. tract. 27. in Joan. Acce∣dat Spiritus ad carnem, quomodo ac∣cedit Charitas ad Scientiam & pro∣dest plurimum: nam si caro nihil prodesset, verbum caro non fieret. St. Paul 1. Cor. 8. Scientia inflat.
• * 1.21

  St. Cyr. 6. in Joan. lib. 4. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.22

  Exod. 24. Heb. 9. v. 20.
• * 1.23

  Luke 22.
• * 1.24

  St. Paul, 1 Cor. 11.
• * 1.25

  Joan. in Evang. c. 1.
• * 1.26

  Joan. 10. v. 30. Ep. 1. Joan. cap. 5.
• * 1.27

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (or as others read, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. St. Ignat. Ep. ad Smyrnaeos.
• * 1.28

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. St. Just. Apol. 2. in the end.
• * 1.29

  Tertull. de Resurr. Carnis, c. 8. Caro Corpore & Sanguine Christi vescitur, ut Anima de Deo saginetur.
• * 1.30

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. St. Cyr. Hier. Catech. 4. Mystag.
• * 1.31

  Gauden. Epis. Bress. Tract. 2. in Exod. De Pane rursus, quia & potest & promisit, efficit proprium Corpus; & quia de Aqua Vinum fecit, de Vino Sanguinem facit.
• * 1.32

  Lib. 4. de Fide, c. 5. In carnem transfigurantur & Sanguinem.
• * 1.33

  St. Greg. Nyss. Tom. 3. Orat. Cat. c. 37. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.34

  Syn. Aegypt. Prov. Alex. Profess. Fid. Tom. 3. Conc. General. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.35

  Sess. 13. c. 4. Ideo persuasum semper in Ec∣clesia Dei fuit.
• * 1.36

  St. Aug. Apud St. Ful∣gen. & de di∣vers. Dicuntur Sacramenta quia aliud vi∣detur, aliud intelligitur.
• * 1.37

  St. Paul, Heb. 1. v. 3. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.38

  1 Cor. 11.
• * 1.39

  St. Luke 22.
• * 1.40

  Matth. 26. Mark 14.
• * 1.41

  Ad Heb. c. 9. v. 18.
• * 1.42

  St. Aug. Civit. Dei, l. 17. c. 10. St. Cyp. l. 2. Ep. 3. ad Caeci. St. Greg. Or. 3. advers. Julian. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.43

  Indubitanter tenendum est à bo∣nis sumi, non modo Sacramentaliter, sed & Spiritualiter. Amalts verò tantùm Sacramentaliter, id est, sub Sacramento, scilicet, sub visibili specie, Christi carnem de Virgine sumptam & Sanguinem pro nobis fusum sumi: sed non mysticam, quae tantùm bonorum est. Scor. l. 4. d. 9. q. 1. B.
• * 1.44

  St. Greg. Mag. apud. Scot. Est quidem indignè sumentibus vera Christi caro, & verus Sanguis, sed essentiâ, non salubri efficaciâ.
• * 1.45

  Convertitur in Corpus Christ.
• * 1.46

  N. 15. Non est∣aliquis articu∣lus arctandus ad intellectum difficilem, nisi ille intellectus sit verus; sed si verus est, & probatur evidenter esse verum, oportet secundùm illum in∣tellectum tenere Articulum—Sic autem supponitur de intellectu hujus Articuli.
• * 1.47

  Ab eo Spiritu expositae sunt Scrip∣turae, à quo conditae sunt. Non enim in potestate Ecclesiae fuit, facere il∣lud verum vel non verum, sed Dei instituentis, sed illum à Deo tradi∣tum Ecclesia explicavit, directa in hoc, ut creditur Spiritu veritatis, l. 4. d. 11. q. 3. n. 15.
• * 1.48

  Bellarminus, l. 3. c. 23. Tertio addit (scil. Scotus) quia Ecclesia Catholica in generali concilio Scrip∣turam declaravit, ex Scriptura sic declarata, manifeste probari Tran∣substantiationem.
• * 1.49

  Etiamsi Scriptura, quam nos supra adduximus, videtur nobis tam clara, ut possit urgere hominem non proter∣vum; tamen an it a sit, meritò du∣bitari potest, cum homines acutissi∣mi, qualis Scotus, contrarium sen∣tiant. Lib. 3. c. 23. de Euch.
• * 1.50

  L. 3. c. 19. Haec verba necessariò inferunt, aut veram mutationem panis, ut volunt Catholici, aut mu∣tationem Metaphoricam, ut volunt Calvinistae.
• * 1.51

  L. 1. c. 9. In universim demon∣strabimus, non esse probabile, Do∣minum figura te loqui voluisse.
• * 1.52

  L. 3. c. 19. Nullo modo Luthera∣norum Sententiam admittunt.
• * 1.53

  Duran. 4 d. 11. q. 3.
• * 1.54

  De Corp. & Sang. Domini. Profanae novi∣tatis dogma.
• * 1.55

  In. 4. Sent. q. 6. Dico quod in Altari est vere. Transubstan∣tiatio.
• * 1.56

  Occham. Ibidem. Primus Me∣dus potest teneri, quia non repug∣nat rationi, nec alicui Authoritati. Bibliae, & est rationabilior, & fa∣cilior ad tenendum inter omnes mo∣dos——Quia tamen determinatio Ecclesiae in contrarium existit, sicut patet extra de summ. Trin. de Fid.
• * 1.57

  Et communiter omnes Doctores ten nt quod ibi non remanet sub∣stantia panis, ideo etiam teneo quod non remanet ibi substantia panis, sed illa species, & quod illi coëxistat Corpus Christi.
• * 1.58

  Biel in Canon Missae, Lect. 40. Quamvis expresse tradatur in Scrip∣tura quod Christi Corpus sub specie∣bus panis continetur, tamen quomo∣do ibi sit Christi Corpus, an per conversionem alicujus in ipsum, aut sine conversione incipiat esse Corpus Christi cum pane, manentibus sub∣stantia & accidentia panis, non in∣venitur expressum in Canone Bibliae.
• * 1.59

  Ibidem. Ex his & aliis plurimis Authoritatibus Sanctorum habetur, quod Corpus Christi est in Sacra∣mento, per Transubstantiationem sub∣stantiae panis & vini in Corpus & Sanguinem Christi.
• * 1.60

  Mel. Canus de focis Com. l. 12. c. 13.
• * 1.61

  Extat apud Lucam Scriptum a∣pertissimum Testimonium ad hujus rei Probationem.
• * 1.62

  Petrus ab Al. 4. Sent. q. 6. Pos∣sibile est Corpus Christi assumere sub∣stantiam panis, nec repugnat ratio∣ni, nec authoritati Bibliae; imò est facilior ad-intelligendam, & ratio∣nabilior, quàm ille modus, qui ponit quod substantia deserat accidentia.
• * 1.63

  Non est impossibile Deo, quod sub∣stantia panis subitò sit alibi, rema∣nentibus speciebus in ••odem loco, & eis coexistere Corpus Christi. Ille tamen modus non esset ita rationa∣bilis, sicut prius.
• * 1.64

  Cajet. in 4. d. 29. a. 2. In Coena Do∣mini.
• * 1.65

  Cont. cap. Baby. c. 10. N. 2.
• * 1.66

  Non quod res haec jam ambigua sit, sed quod ejus certitudo, non tàm habeatur ex Evangelii verbis, quàm Patrum Interpretatione, simul & usu tanti temporis, quem illi poste∣ris reliquerunt.
• * 1.67

  Cap. 4. de cap. Babyl. Adv. Oecolamp.
• * 1.68

  Page 11.
• * 1.69

  Ins. Cal. 4. c. 17. p. 21.
• * 1.70

  St. Aug. cont. Petilian. 16.
• * 1.71

  Ne stabilire posse putent ulla dogmata iis qui solum vel obscure, vel ambiguè vel figuratê dicuntur in Scripturis.
• * 1.72

  John 10.
• * 1.73

  John 15.
• * 1.74

  John 6.
• * 1.75

  1 Cor. 12.
• * 1.76

  1 Cor. 10.
• * 1.77

  Gen. 41. 26.
• * 1.78

  St. Aug. in Psal. 33. Conc. 1.
• * 1.79

  Quomodo intelligitur in ipso Da∣vid secundùm literam non inveni∣mus, in Christo autem invenimus. Ferebatur enim Christus in mani∣bus, quando commendans ipsum Cor∣pus suum, ait, hoc est Corpus meum.
• * 1.80

  John. 6.
• * 1.81

  St. Hill. Fragmentis fragmenta succedunt, & fallunt semper per∣fracta frangentes.
• * 1.82

  Raban. de Sang. Dom. c. 3. Minuendo multiplicaban∣tur.
• * 1.83

  St. Justin. Dial. cum Trypho p. 297. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.84

  Malac. 3. Ego Dominus & non mutor.
• * 1.85

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.86

  Exod. 12. Sept. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉▪
• * 1.87

  Corpus meum.
• * 1.88

  Chap. 26.
• * 1.89

  Chap. 22.
• * 1.90

  1 Cor. 10.
• * 1.91

  Communion.
• * 1.92

  Acts 1. 20.
• * 1.93

  Exod. 7. 12.
• * 1.94

  1 Cor. 11.
• * 1.95

  St. Chrys. Hic 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.96

  St. Ambr. l. 2. de Fide, c. 4. Panis hic Caro est.
• * 1.97

  Ibidem. Os e∣jus non conte∣retur.
• * 1.98

  L. 1. St. Hil. de Trin. c. 8. De¦veritate Carnis & Sanguinis ejus non relictus est ambigendi locus, nunc & ipsius Domini professione & fide nostra, vere Caro est & ve∣re Sanguis est.
• * 1.99

  St. Amb. de Abra. Patriarcha, Quàm indignum est Humanis Testi∣moniis de alio credamus, Dei ora∣culis de se non credamus?
• * 1.100

  St. Chrys. hîc, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.101

  John 6. 62.
• * 1.102

  Verse 69.
• * 1.103

  Matth. 14.
• * 1.104

  St. Justin. Apol. 2. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.105

  L. 4. c. 37.
• * 1.106

  L. 5. c. 2.
• * 1.107

  Catech 37. Oportet autem sicut exitiale, ita etiam salutare medi∣camentum admitti intra viscera ho∣minis, ut per illa distribuatur in universum Corpus, virtus ejus quod fert opem. Quid hoc ergo est? ni∣hil aliud quam illud Corpus, quod & morte ostensum fuit esse potentius & nostrae Vitae fuit initium.
• * 1.108

  Eâ de cautâ per suae Gratiae dis∣pensationem, se per Carnem inserit, omnibus credentibus, commissus & contemperatus corporibus creden∣tium, quibus substantia est ex pane & vino, ut unione cum eo quod est immortale, sit etiam homo particeps incorruptionis.
• * 1.109

  St. Irenaeus. Quemadmodum gra∣num tritici decidens in terram, & dissolutam multiplex surgit per Spi∣ritum Dei, sic & nostra Corpora Corpore Christi nutrita & reposita in terram, & resoluta, resurgent in suo tempore.
• * 1.110

  L. 5. c. 2. De ea dispositione quae est secundum hominem, quae ex Car∣nibus & Nervis & Ossibus consistit, quae de Calice, qui est Sanguis ejus nutritur, & de Pane, qui est Corpus ejus, augetur.
• * 1.111

  Apud Oecum. in 1 Pet. 3.
• * 1.112

  V. Bede Mar∣tyr, 18. Octr.
• * 1.113

  St. Amb. l. de Novis Baptis. c. 1. Prodidisse potius quàm edidisse ex∣istimaremur.
• * 1.114

  St. Cyril, Hier. Cat. 6.
• * 1.115

  Adv. Marcion. l. 4. p. 57. edit. Rigal.
• * 1.116

  Lact. de Divin. Inst. l. 5. c. 1.
• * 1.117

  St. Hierom. de Inst. Mon. ad Paul. Tom. 1. Creber in sententiis diffici∣lis in loquendo.
• * 1.118

  Jer. Mitta∣mus lignum in Panem ejus.
• * 1.119

  Tertul. l. 3. c. 19. Contra. Marc. Sic enim Deus in Evangelio quoque vestro revelavit, Panem Corpus su∣um appellans, ut & hinc jam tum intelligas Corporis sui figuram Pa∣ne dedisse, cujus retro Corpus in Pa∣ne Propheta Figuravit.
• * 1.120

  Lib. 4.
• * 1.121

  Lib. 4. c. 40. Non intelligens ve∣terem fuisse istam Figuram Corporis Christi dicentis per Jeremiam.—
• * 1.122

  Ut autem & Sanguinis veterem Figuram in Vino recognoscas.
• * 1.123

  L. 5. contra Marc. Deus est & Effigies.
• * 1.124

  L. de cap. 17.
• * 1.125

  Non alium postea Vini saporem quod consecravit in Sanguinis sui memoriam.
• * 1.126

  Peron in Orig.
• * 1.127

  Sixtus Sen. Bib. s. l. 6. Geneb. Praef. in Origen.
• * 1.128

  Lirin. in Comm. St. Epiph. Haer. 64. Theoph. l. Pasch. 1. Con. Gen. 5. Collat. 8. cap. 11.
• * 1.129

  Homil. 7. in Levit. Cibus est Petrus & Paulus & om∣nes Apostoli.
• * 1.130

  John 6.
• * 1.131

  Levit. 7. Hom. Si vero adsideamus literae, & secundum hoc: vel quod Judaeis; vel id quod vulgò videtur, accipiamus, quae in lege scripta sunt, erubesco dicere & confiteri, quia ta∣les Leges dederit Deus.
• * 1.132

  Hom. 7. in Numb.
• * 1.133

  Tunc in aenigmate erat Manna Cibus, nunc autem in specie Caro verbi Dei est verus Cibus. Quae in aenigmate designabantur nunc in specie & veritate complentur.
• * 1.134

  Homil. 5. In diversa. Quando illud incorruptum accipias epulum, quando vite pane & populo frueris, manduc as & bibis Corpus & San∣guinem Domini. Tunc Dominus sub¦tectum tuum ingreditur, & tu ergo humilians teipsum, imitare hunc Centurionem, & dicito, Domine non sum dignus, ubi enim indigne in∣greditur, ibi ad judicium ingredi∣tur accipienti.
• * 1.135

  Nec potest videri Sanguis ejus quo redempti, & vivificati, esse in Ca∣lice, quando Vinum desit Calici, quo Christi Sanguis ostenditur. L. 2. Ep. 3. ad Caecilium.
• * 1.136

  Jesus ostendens gentium Popu∣lum succedere in locum quem Judaei perdide∣rant de aqua vinum fecit.
• * 1.137

  Contra Adi∣mant. c. 12.
• * 1.138

  Deut. 12.
• * 1.139

  Signum Ani∣mae.
• * 1.140

  Lib. 3. de lib. Arb. Nunquid ideo Fides in dubium vocanda vel disse∣renda est.
• * 1.141

  Ennaret. in Ps. 3.
• * 1.142

  Pet. Mart. con∣tra Gen.
• * 1.143

  Luth. Admo∣nit. ult.
• * 1.144

  Pasch. Epla. ad Frudeg.
• * 1.145

  Alg. l. 1. c. 3.
• a 1.146

  Art. 13.
• b 1.147

  Sup. Auch.
• d 1.148

  L. 1. de Eucha. cap. 32.
• e 1.149

  3. p. d. 46. Sect. 4.
• f 1.150

  Contro. 3. cap. 9.
• g 1.151

  Sup. Auch. St. Aug. de S. Virg.
• * 1.152

  Gal. 4. 29.
• * 1.153

  L. 2. de Paenia, c. 20. Ego non sum ego.
• * 1.154

  L. Avers. Bereng.
• * 1.155

  Idem quoad substantiam, non idem quoad modum.
• * 1.156

  Apud Gratian. de Consecratioue, d. 11.
• * 1.157

  Ipsum & non ipsum, Ipsum invi∣sibiliter & non ipsum visibiliter.
• * 1.158

  De Carne Mariae Carnem accepit, in ipsa Carne hic ambulavit, & ipsam Carnem nobis manducandum dedit, nemo illam Carnem mandu∣cat nisi prius adoraverit.
• * 1.159

  Tract. 5. in John.
• * 1.160

  1 Cor. 15.
• * 1.161

  Epl. 146. Seminatur cor∣ruptibile sur∣get incorrupti∣bile.
• * 1.162

  Cap. 1. ad Eph. Aliam & ali∣am.
• * 1.163

  Ep. 23. ad Bo∣nifacium.
• * 1.164

  De Consecra∣tione 2. hoc est.
• * 1.165

  St. Ansel. Tract. de Sacram. Al∣taris, c. 1. Similitudo illa Panis per se inspecta non est Corpus Do∣mini.
• * 1.166

  St. Paul, 1 Cor. 17.
• * 1.167

  Si noverim Mysteria omnia. 3. De Oratore. Hoc tacitum tan∣quam Mysterium teneas.
• * 1.168

  Apud Gratian. de Cons. d. 2. sect. utramque.
• * 1.169

  Si Discipuli patienter ferre ne∣quiverunt quod Dominus Dixit, quomodo ferunt ista increduli?
• * 1.170

  St. Paul, Eph. 2.
• a 1.171

  Ibidem. Veritas, dum Cor∣pus Christi & Sanguis, virtute Spi∣ritus S. ex Panis & Vini Sub∣stantiâ efficitur; figura, quod exte∣rius sentitur.
• b 1.172

  De Cons. d. 11. can. 41. Fi∣delitèr fatemur ante consecrationem esse Panem & Vinum, quod Natura formavit, post consecrationem verò Christi Sanguinem, quod benedictio consecravit.
• c 1.173

  Can. 57. Panis quem ego dabo, determinat quomodo sit Panis, non solum secundum verbum, quo vivunt omnia, sed & secundum Carnem assumptam pro mundi vita.
• * 1.174

  Matth. 26.
• * 1.175

  L. 2. Contra Advers. Leg. & Proph. c. 9.
• * 1.176

  Hominem Christum Jesum Car∣nem snam nobis▪ manducandum bi∣bendumque Sanguinem dantem fideli carde, atque ore suscipimus, quam∣vis horribilius videatur, Humanam Carnem perimere, quàm manducare, & Humanum Sanguinem potare, quàm fundere.
• * 1.177

  In Psal. 33. In quo tanta perpes∣sus est.
• * 1.178

  Contra Faustum, l. 2. c. 10. Sanguinem quo redempti sunt.
• * 1.179

  Tract. 27. in John. Tu es Chri∣stus Filius Dei vivi, nec das in Car∣ne & Sanguine tuo, nisi teipsum.
• * 1.180

  Gen. 49.
• * 1.181

  Per nominum mutationem muta∣tioni quae ex gratia facta est fidem adhibere.
• * 1.182

  Comm in Epla. ad Cor.
• * 1.183

  Cent. 5. c. 10. Periculose di∣cit.
• * 1.184

  St. Aug. Enarr. in Psal. 68. Quod nulla substantia est, nihil omnino est.
• * 1.185

  Intelliguntur ea esse quae fa∣cta sunt, & adorantur & creduntur.
• * 1.186

  St. Hilary. Naturam suam amiserunt.
• * 1.187

  Card. Pole, p. 8. c. 3. de Euch. Cum in Dominica mensa sit solùm Caro & Sanguis, nihilominus Vini natura percipiatur.
• * 1.188

  Gelas. de duab. Nat. Bib. Psal. Tom. 4.
• * 1.189

  Facund. p. 144.
• * 1.190

  Scotus, l. 4. & 11. q. 3. n. 18. ad 3. In Concil. Lat. Ubi-explioi∣cite ponitur veritas, aliquorum Credendorum magis explicite quàm habebatur in Symbolo Apostolorum, vel Athanasii, vel Nicaeni, & bre∣viter, quidquid ibi dicitur esse Cre∣dendum, tenendum est esse de sub∣stantia Fidei.
• * 1.191

  Durand. 4. & Numb. 9.
• * 1.192

  Substantia Panis & Vini conver∣titur in substantiam Corporis & Sanguinis Christi. Quamvis iste modus sit de facto, non est tamen negandum quin alius modus fit Deo possibilis, scil. quod remanente sub∣stantia Panis & Vini, Corpus & Sanguis Christi esset in Sacramento.
• * 1.193

  Et Numb. 18. Sed quia hic mo∣dus non debet teneri, de facto, cum Ecclesia determinavit oppositum, quae non presumitur errare in tali∣bus: ideo tenendo de facto aliam partem, respondendum est ad argu∣menta quae sunt in contrarium.
• * 1.194

  Tunstal de Euchar. Sed Omni∣potentia Dei cui nihil est impossibile, his qui cum Innocentio in eo Conci∣lio interfuerunt visum est, quod is modus maxime, cum verbis hisce Christi, hoc est Corpus meum, con∣gruere illis visus est.
• * 1.195

  Si illis credimus, nec Christus, nec Spiritus Sanctus id efficere possit, ut panis in Corporis Christi substan∣tiam transeat.
• * 1.196

  Epistola ad Conradum Pel∣licanum do Euch. Si tibi persuasum est in Synaxi nihil esse praeter Panem & Vinum, ego membratim discerpi malim quam profiteri quod tu profiteris, & omnia perpeti malim, quam tali flagitio contra meam conscien∣tiam admisso ex hac vita migrare.
• * 1.197

  Alph. à Castro de Hers. l. 8.
• * 1.198

  In Psal. 24. & Tract. in Joan. Dux & Anti∣signanus.
• * 1.199

  1 Cor. 11. Non credentes. S. Aug. Ep. 118. c. 3. Non cre∣dentes in Euch. contineri ve∣rum Christum.
• * 1.200

  St. Cyril. Alex. in John, l. 10. c. 13.
• * 1.201

  St. Greg. Naz. Orat. 2. de Paschate.
• * 1.202

  Ex Pseudo-Synodo Iconomacorum An. 740.
• * 1.203

  Eucharistiae Panem, ut non fal∣sam imaginem, naturalis carnis per S. Spiritus adventum Sanctifican∣dum Divinum Corpus fieri voluit mediante Sacerdote.
• * 1.204

  Nic. 2. Dimisso mendacio tan∣gunt paucillum quid veritatem Di∣vinum Corpus dicentes fieri.
• * 1.205

  Hincmarus in Scot.
• * 1.206

  Memoria tantùm veri Corporis & Sanguinis Christi.
• * 1.207

  Januis Clausis.
• * 1.208

  Guit. l. 1. contra Bereng. Theod.
• * 1.209

  Ep. ad Henricum Galliae in Bib. Pp. St. Anf. de Sacram. Altaris, c. 3.
• a 1.210

  In suis Libris de Corpore & Sanguine Domini.
• b 1.211

  In Exempl. ad Bereng.
• c 1.212

  In Ep. adv. Petrum B.
• d 1.213

  In cap. 26. Matth.
• e 1.214

  L. 2. de Sacramento, p. 8. c. 7.
• f 1.215

  L. 4. Sect. d. 11.
• * 1.216

  Baron. ad Ann. 1055, &c.
• a 1.217

  L. 3. de gestis Angl.
• b 1.218

  In Henrico 2. Imp.
• * 1.219

  Bertram de Corpore Domini.

  Ex his omnibus quae hactenus di∣cta sunt, monstratum est, Corpus & Sanguis Christi, quae fidelium ore in Ecclesia percipiuntur, Figurae sunt, securdum Speciem visibilem. At vero secundum invisibilem substantiam, Corpus & Sanguis Christi vere ex∣istunt.
• * 1.220

  Quo credunt destruere compro∣bantur, Corpus etenim, Sanguiném∣que fideliter confitentur, & cum hoc faciunt, non hoc jam esse quod prius fuere procul dubio potestantur, & si aliud sunt quàm fuere mutationem accêpere.
• * 1.221

  Ep. ad Heri∣bald. c. 33.
• * 1.222

  De Sanguine Domini, cap. 3.
• * 1.223

  Non alia Caro est, non alia plane, quam quae nata est de Maria, & passa in cruce & resurrexit de Se∣pulchro.
• * 1.224

  Et cap. 3. At vero quisquis ista non credit, Si vidisset Christum in Cruce in specie servi, quomodo Deum illum intelligeret, nisi per fidem prius credidisset?
• * 1.225

  Cap. 42. Neque aliam Carnem quam quae pro te, & pro omnibus tradita est, pependit in Cruce, quia sic veritas testatur, hoc est Corpus meum, quod pro vobis tradetur, & de Calice, hic enim Sanguis meus est, qui pro vobis effundetur in remissionem peccatorum.
• * 1.226

  Concil. Trid. Sess. 13. cap. 4.
• * 1.227

  Quoniam autem Christus Redem∣ptor noster, Corpus suum id quod sub specie Panis offerebat, vere esse dixit, ideo persuasum semper in Ec∣clesia Deī fuit, idque nunc denuo Sancta haec Synodus declarat per consecrationem Panis & Vini con∣versionem fieri totius substantiae Panis in substantiam Christi Do∣mini nostri, & totius substantiae Vini in substantiam Sanguinis ejus, quae conversio convenienter & proprie à Sancta Catholica Ecclesia Transubstantiatio appellata est.