JOHN BARCLAY HIS DEFENCE OF THE MOST Holy Sacrament OF THE EUCHARIST, TO THE SECTARIES OF THE TIMES·S  
BOOK II. CHAP. II.  
Englished by a Person of Quality.  
With Allowance.  
LONDON, Printed by Mary Thompson at the Entrance into Old-Spring-Garden near Charring-Cross: And Sold by Matthew Turner at the Holy-Lamb in Holbourn; And John Lane at the Corner of Wild-street, 1688·   

OF THE MOST Holy Sacrament OF THE EUCHARIST·  

CHAP. II.  
LET us now speak a little of the Eucharist, if in treating of so great a Subject it may be lawful to say but little. Do not thou, O Lord, leave us, to whom thou hast left thyself; but restore Sight to the blinded Sectaries, that they may courageously acknowledge this thy Gift, which is so wonderfully great, that they believe it not only above themselves to Receive, but also above thee to Give. For, as nothing more frequently deters the Jews from embracing the Christian Faith, than their being obliged to believe in it, that the living GOD, the GOD of Abraham, became Man, led a mortal Life, and died on a Cross: So nothing more offends many of our Sectaries than the Excellency of this Sacrament, whilst they cannot persuade themselves, the Bounty of CHRIST could ever make him stoop so low, as to permit that very Body to be held in the Hands of Priests, and received by the Mouths of Sinners, which, having been once extended on the Cross, now sits in Glory at the Right-hand of the Father.  
But there is not, O ye Sectaries, any greater prejudice against you, than the universal Agreement of all Christians in their Belief of the Eucharist at such time, as you first began to appear, and the exceeding great Disagreement amongst yourselves in this your Error. Is it probable, that there was then no Church in the World, which had a right Belief of this Sacrament? Or must we think, the Spirit of Truth resides in you, who in this so great Affair contest more fiercely with one another, than with Us? All Christians in the World, Latins, Greeks, Armenians, Abyssines and Muscovites, had at that time one and the same Sense of that Sacred Mystery. They all, I say, (except a few Hussites in Bohemia, who as they were none of Ours, so neither are they Yours, there not being any amongst you altogether of this Opinion concerning the Eucharist) agreed with Us (and still do) that under the Species or Appearance of Bread and Wine the Body and Blood of CHRIST are really Concealed; that there is no Bread, no Wine remaining; that the Eucharist is therefore to be Adored, because there is in it no other Substance but CHRIST himself.  
But you, O ye Sectaries, were nothing moved with this general Consent of Christians. You departed from them all, that is, you resolved to be Heretics. Nor did you all take one way; but having once left the well known Path of the Church, You wandered in your own Inventions: So that if any one inquires, what your Thoughts are of the Eucharist, you are fain to tell him a long Story, which in the end wants an Oedipus to unfold it. For so numerous are your Dissensions concerning this Point, that there are reckoned amongst you above forty different Opinions, altogether contrary to each other. Nay farther, you do not sufficiently explain, or to speak more truly, do not well understand, what the several Sects amongst you hold. Those of you which follow Luther, confess, that our Lord's Body is really contained in this Sacrament, though they think withal the Bread still to remain. The Hugonots, English Protestants, and other Calvinists affirm on the contrary, that it is nothing but mere Bread; because, say they, CHRIST is sitting at the Right-hand of the Father, and therefore cannot be in several places. Others think otherwise; But these two are the most eminent Opinions amongst you. Let us now see, how absurd they both are.  
The Lutherans confessing CHRIST's Body to be really present, deny nevertheless, that 'tis to be Adored. And behold, how excellently they Reason! For, say they, CHRIST instituted not this Sacrament, that it might be Adored, but that it might feed our Souls. Why do they not also say, that Kings and Princes ride a Hunting for Recreation, and not to be Reverenced by their Subjects: And that they are therefore mistaken, who, when they meet their King, as he is Hunting, pay him the Respect, due to their Sovereign? CHRIST was on the Cross, That he might save the Souls of many, and bear the Reproach, which was due to us; not that he might be there Adored. Hadst thou, O Lutheran, been then present, wouldst thou have thought it a Crime to have Prostrated thyself on Earth, and Adored him hanging on the Cross. What madness is it in thee, not to Adore CHRIST, wherever he is; who, wherever he is, is GOD, the Disposer of thy Life, and Judge of thy Soul?  
But this Opinion of the Lutherans, which asserts the Bread to remain in the Eucharist, is no less contrary to Scripture, than to the Doctrine of the Primitive Church. For if the Bread and CHRIT's Body were both there, CHRIST would not have said, This, but here, is my Body; nor yet would he have said, The Bread, but In the Bread, which I will give is my Flesh. And if the Church in the Apostles Time had not believed with Us, that there is no Substance of Bread remaining in the Eucharist, St. Justin Martyr would not have written, that this Sacrament, after the words of Consecration are pronounced, Is the Flesh and Blood of that Incarnate Jesus; but that after the Consecration, that Flesh and that Blood are added to the Eucharistical Bread and Wine: Nor yet would St. Cyril of Jerusalem have used these words, This which We see, is not Bread, though the taste thinks it to be Bread; but 'tis the Body of CHRIST; But he would rather have taught Us, that the Bread, which is seen, is Bread, and the Taste not deceived in it; but that with the Bread is joined CHRIT's Body.  
Nor do the Calvinists talk more wisely, when they say, that CHRIST's Body is not really present in the Sacrament; but yet that we are really Partakers of it. An Opinion so Foolish, and so Destructive to itself, that they themselves understand it not. For tell me, O Sectary, canst thou really receive CHRIST's Body, and CHRIST not be really present? But thou sayst, He is always in Heaven; and cannot be in several places at once. Thou then being only on Earth, and he only in Heaven, how can his Body really come to thee? And when at the same Instant thou Communicat'st at London, another at Geneva, by what Art can it be effected, that ye should be really Fed with CHRIST's Body, if CHRIST cannot be really present in two places at once?  
Wilt thou say, that thy Soul by Faith flies up into Heaven, and is there really Fed with this Holy Food? This is nothing to the purpose. For though thou mayst by Faith, by Thought, by Will mount above the Stars, and Converse in the midst of Heaven; yet art thou still really on Earth: Nor is any part of thee; that is, either thy Mind, or Body really in Heaven, there to receive Nourishment. Shouldst thou never so Seriously fix thy Thoughts on Rome, or on Jerusalem; couldst thou be therefore said to be really at Rome, or in Jerusalem? It remains therefore, that thou show, how thy Soul, which ascends not really into Heaven, can be really Fed with the Flesh of CHRIST, unless CHRIST be truly and really on Earth, and there also in many places at one and the same time, since many of you at the very same moment Communicate both in England and France.  
But thou wilt Reply, thou art indeed ignorant of the manner; yet certainly know'st, that thou art Fed. Is it so? If thou know'st not, by what means these things are done, than art thou not sure, but it may be by Transubstantiation. Why then dost thou with so great Boldness and Fury inveigh against it? But be it, that thou know'st not the Manner; yet thou at lest know'st, that the Manner is such, as may not in Thought and Faith only, but in very Deed, join thee to CHRIST's Body, or else thou must confess, that thou dost not indeed receive CHRIST's Body.  
For thou sayst, that by Faith thou eatest our Lord's Body. Now what dost thou mean by these words? That thou by Faith hold'st and believest, Virtue so to flow into thy Soul from the Body of CHRIST, who is in Heaven, that thou art thereby in some sort united to him? But this, O Sectary, is not really to receive CHRIST's Body, 'tis at most to receive it but imaginarily. For that Power, and those Virtues, which thou sayest, flow from CHRIST into thee, are not indeed CHRIST's Body: And thou believest that thou receivest really nothing else. Nor dost thou, I suppose, eat these Virtues. Why therefore to elude the Sentence of the Fathers, who testify, That CHRIST's Flesh and Blood is in very deed received; do you make use of such vain Deceits, saying, that you also hold the same? But if thou sayest, that thou by Faith apprehendest, and believest CHRIST's Body to be really Communicated to thee; I answer, that this Faith of thine is, even in thine own Judgement, false and ridiculous, as making thee believe, that which is not: Since in thy Opinion our Lord's Body is no where but in Heaven, and thou art really no where but on Earth.  
But because thou frequently appeal'st to the Scriptures, come and let us hear, what they say. In St. Matthew (Chap. xxvi.) our Saviour says, This is my Body, this is my Blood: In St. Mark (Chap. xiv.) This is my Body, this is my Blood: In St. Luke (Chap. xxii.) This is my Body; this is the Chalice of the New Testament in my Blood: In St. John (Chap. vi.) Unless ye shall eat the Flesh of the Son of Man, and drink his Blood, ye shall not have Life in you: And St. Paul in his first Epistle to the Corinthians (ch. xi.) pronounces him who comes unworthily to the Eucharist, Guilty of the Body and Blood of our Lord. These are plain Words, no perplexed Testimonies, nor things mentioned but once. 〈◊〉 which being clearly vanquished, you presently fly to 〈◊〉 exposition; whereas, when any thing seems to fav●● you, ye stick close to the letter, refuse all Interpretation, and cry out, we must adhere to the Word of GOD. As if you were the sole Judges, and had Authority, at your pleasure, one while to decide by the bare Text of Scripture, without admitting any Expositor; and soon after to appeal to Interpretations, and those only of your own Invention.  
But come on: What do you object against us? Arguments you say, taken out of the Scriptures. First, that the Eucharist is sometimes in the Scripture called Bread and Wine. Next, that CHRIST said in St. John (chap. vi.) It is the Spirit that quickeneth, the Flesh profiteth nothing. The words, which I have spoken unto you, are Spirit and Life. Lastly, That CHRIST sits at the Right-hand of the Father, and shall come from thence to Judge the quick and the dead. But I answer, that these words are more obscure, than those you would have explained by them, to wit, This is my Body; my Flesh is Meat indeed. Now what kind of Philosophy is this, to explain one Obscurity by a greater; or, that I may speak more truly, to gather the Sense of a clear place from a dark one? But what, if we should say, that these Places, you object against us, are to be interpreted by those, we have alleged? What if we deny, that you have any more Right to expound them, than we? You bring only doubtful Arguments, and such, as will be turned upon yourselves. Nor will it be any great labour briefly to solve them all.  
The Eucharist, you say, is in the Scriptures called Bread and Wine. Therefore the Scriptures, you say, acknowledge Bread and Wine to be truly in that Sacrament. Proceed, Sectary, and by the same Argument more closely press us in this manner. The Catholics in their Discourses and Prayers frequently call the Eucharist Bread: They believe therefore, that there is in it true Bread; and not only our Lord's Body. Is not the reason and strength of the Argument the same? Why will you rather make the Scriptures, when they mention the Eucharist by the Name of Bread and Wine, to assert true Bread and Wine to be therein, than us Catholics, when we call it by the same Names?  
Give me leave therefore thus to retort this Argument upon you. In the Catholic Church we often term the Eucharist Bread and Wine; and yet believe not any Substance of Bread or Wine to be therein. Therefore it cannot from the Scriptures, using the same Names, be concluded, that they acknowledge true Bread and Wine to remain in it. Lay aside, Sectary, the prejudice of thy Faction, and tell me, whether thou art not more justly overthrown by the same Argument, with which thou assaulted'st us. For, that we often style this Sacrament Bread and Wine, is so well known to those, who live amongst us, that 'twere Impudence to deny it, and gross Ignorance not to know it. How often do we desire, that not only the Eating, but the Effect of this Bread may be granted us? How often do we beg of GOD the Father, that this Bread may be to us not a pledge of Death, but of Glory? And all this by Similitudes and Figures. Which kind of Speeches you yourselves also do not deny to be frequent in Holy Writ. So St. Bernard (whom none can without blushing deny to be ours) calls the Eucharist Bread, when in his first Sermon on the sixth Sunday after Pentecost distinguishing Bread into several Species, he says, Moreover the seventh kind of Bread is the Eucharist, because our Saviour says, the Bread, which I give, is my Flesh for the Life of the World. We therefore with the Scriptures call this Sacrament Bread: Both because, as the Natural Man lives by Bread, so does the Spiritual Man by the Eucharist. To signify which, CHRIST commanded it to be made of Bread and Wine, and many of the Fathers by Our daily Supersubstantial Bread, which we are taught to Pray for, understand this Heavenly Food. And also, because it is in the Form of Bread; but principally because 'twas Bread before. For we often call a thing, that now is, by the Name it formerly had. And how often have you heard from our Writers the Example of Aaron's Rod, which, being turned into a Serpent, was certainly no longer a Rod, unless you will say, that GOD rather put an Illusion on Pharaoh's Eyes, than by a real Miracle admonished him of his Majesty; and yet even than it was called a Rod: to wit, Because it had from a Rod been changed into a Serpent: And they all cast down their Rods, which were turned into Serpents; but Aaron 's Rod devoured their Rods, Exod. Chap. seven. But not to say much against so weak an Argument. The Scriptures call the Eucharist Bread: Be it so. The Ancient Fathers have often done the same: And we also do the same. Why then may we not be believed to think with those, with whom we speak?  
Nor is the Arrow of any greater force, they shoot against us from these words of our Lord: It is the Spirit which quickeneth, the Flesh profiteth nothing. For if they will have them simply understood, That the Flesh of Christ profiteth nothing; I would ask them, why they then say, that our Lord's Body is received by them in the Eucharist: Nay, why CHRIST said, Unless ye shall Eat the Flesh of the Son of Man, and Drink his Blood, ye shall not have Life in you. Do they think that CHRIST contradicted himself? Or will they deny it to have been always believed in the Church, that CHRIST's Flesh profiteth the Receiver? They must ever be fain to distinguish between the manner, how our Lord's Flesh, being received, profits, and how it profits not. They must, to wit, acknowledge, that the Capharnaits hearing CHRIST's Words, fancied to themselves some gross, unworthy, and carnal manner, in which he would affirm, he should be eaten: My Flesh so taken, as you in yourselves imagine, profits not: I will give myself in a more Noble and Spiritual manner than you believe. and being by you taken for Food, will quicken your Souls. And thus of the manner of taking, and not merely of the taking itself, did CHRIST say, The Flesh profiteth nothing. Let us now see the Force of your Argument. CHRIST says, His Flesh taken as the Capharnaits fancied, will profit nothing: Therefore, say you, it will not profit, being taken in such manner, as the Catholics believe: But thou must first, O Sectary, prove, that we think, as the Capharnaits did, and that we will not hear the Spirit, which quickens. Now both these are false. The Capharnaits, as is manifest from the Scriptures, had no higher conceit of our Saviour's words, than that he promised, His Body should be eaten as other Meats; that it should be divided into parts, taste like Flesh, and being taken Consume. We in a Spiritual quickening Sense believe, that CHRIST is indeed truly and really present in the Eucharist. but after a Spiritual and Incomprehensible manner; that he is received by us, whole, inviolate, and never consuming. Thus will there be a mutual agreement between those words of our Lord, by which he asserts, that His Flesh is truly given for Meat; and those others, by which he shows, that, if you understand this matter Carnally with the Capharnaits, The Flesh profiteth nothing. Now if you deny, that the Flesh of our Lord is any way profitable, you will contradict those words, Unless ye shall Eat the Flesh of the Son of Man, ye shall not have Life in you. But if you say, that 'tis in some manner, but not in that Capharnaitical one, both received and profitable: This indeed we shall readily grant, but shall withal add, that this Holy manner is in our Church, and that neither these Texts, nor any other, have any thing to the contrary.  
You say lastly, that the Scriptures often affirm, that CHRIST is, and shall be in Heaven, till he shall come in great Majesty at the end of the World: And that therefore he cannot be on Earth, in the Eucharist, in the Hands of the Priests. The Answer is ready. CHRIST is and shall be in Heaven in that great and visible Majesty till the end of the World. He is not seen publicly by us in that Brightness, nor is he yet so much as Conversant amongst us, to receive those Offices, which may be indeed profitable to a Body. Such, as St. Mary Magdalen performed, when she Anointed him, and in respect of which our Saviour said, The poor you have always with you; but me you have not always. He will not therefore come down from Heaven In the Glory of His Majesty till the calling of all Men to Judgement. But he is often present at our Affairs in another manner, after another Fashion, with lesser State; he is, I say, often truly and really present with us here on Earth. He appeared in the way to St. Paul, as he was going to Damascus, and spoke to him in the way. So says Ananias to St. Paul (Act. ix.) Our Lord JESUS hath sent me, who appeared to thee in the way, as thou camest. And Barnabas declared to the Apostles, How Paul had seen our Lord in the way, and that he had spoken to him. And (Acts xxxiii.) Now the night following our Lord, standing by him, said, Be constant, for as thou hast testified of me in Jerusalem, so must thou testify at Rome also. And lastly, (Act. xxvi.) I am JESUS, whom thou Persecutest. But arise, and stand upon thy feet: For to this end have I appeared to thee, that I may ordain thee a Minister and Witness of those things, which thou hast seen, and of those things, in which I will appear to thee. And say not, that, 'twas an Angel, who having taken CHRIST's shape, appeared to St. Paul For to let pass its being distinguished in the Acts of the Apostles, when our Saviour or when an Angel appeared to St. Paul, he himself has in his first Epistle to the Corinthians (Chap. xv.) taken away the doubt, where, after he had, to prove CHRIST's Resurrection to them, affirmed him to have been seen after his rising again by his Apostles and Disciples, he adds, And last of all he was seen of me also, as of an Abortive. Now 'tis certain, that this his being seen of St. Paul was not till some years after the day of his Ascension: For St. Paul was a long time a Persecutor, not an Apostle. 'Tis certain also, that 'twas not an Angel, but CHRIST himself, who thus appeared to St. Paul: Since he affirms him to have been the same, that was seen by St. Peter and the other Apostles, to assure them of his Resurrection. For sure thou wilt not say, that 'twas an Angel, and not our Lord himself, that appeared to the Apostles during the forty days, which were between the Pasch and his Ascension. Childish moreover would St. Paul's Argument be, were it thus to be understood, that CHRIST was undoubtedly risen, because he had seen an Angel in CHRIST's Shape. Our Lord was then really present on Earth with St. Paul, and has been so with several other Saints. He is really also present with us in the Sacrament, but covered with the Form of a Creature, and under Vails, that conceal the Creator.  
And dost thou still say, thou doubtest, whether the Body, which is in Heaven, can be also on Earth? Assuredly, Sectary, it can. Our Lord's Body can be at one time in two several places: And if in two, why not in Infinite? For what hinders our Bodies, that they cannot be at once in several places? Is it not the condition of our Nature? But why cannot he, who framed our Nature, change also its Laws? This is the humble Learning, this is the Christian Philosophy of the Primitive Church. St. Ambrose (lib. 11 Hexam. cap. 11.) has this Expression: Since his Word is the beginning of Nature, he may by right assume the giving the Law to Nature, who gave it its Original. And again (lib. 3. Hexam cap. 11.) The Word of GOD is the efficient Cause of Nature. But this perhaps thou canst not sufficiently comprehend: No more indeed canst thou comprehend GOD; and yet GOD is is not therefore less GOD. If thou measurest the Works of GOD by the extent of thy Understanding, how weak, how obscure, how depending on thyself thou wilt make him! Thy Strength of Understanding depends on him, and not his Power on thy Understanding.  
But is there any greater difficulty in granting one Body to be in several Places, than two Bodies to be in one; or admitting, as the Ppilosophers speak, A Penetration of Dimensions? The difficulty is altogether equal. Now CHRIST brought his revived Body through Stone, Which was very great at the Door of the Monument, that is, he showed, there might be a Penetration of Dimensions, whenever he pleased: For the Stone was not rolled away by the Angel, till St. Mary Magdalen came to Anoint our Lord. Mary Magdalen came, and the other Marry to see the Sepulchre: And behold there was a great Earthquake: For the Angel of our Lord descended from Heaven, and coming rolled back the Stone, and sat upon it, etc. And the Angel Answering, said to the Women, Fear not you, Mat. chap. 28. After Christ came to his Disciples through close and solid Walls. And when it was late that day, the first of the Sabbaths, and the Doors were shut, where the Disciples were gathered together for fear of the Jews, JESUS came, and stood in the midst, etc. Joh. chap. 20. Again, JESUS came, the Doors being shut, and stood in the midst.  
Here some of you are not ashamed to pretend certain unworthy Trifles, that CHRIST perhaps came in at the Window, or descended by the Tunnel of the Chimney, or opened the Doors, which before were shut: An impudent saying, proceeding, if I am not mistaken, from men, who seek to gain Repute by inconsiderate Cavilling. Is it then to no purpose, that we hear these Words so carefully repeated: When the Doors were shut: The Doors being shut? To what end did St. John use these Words, but to signify CHRIST's miraculous Entrance, at which himself was present? Why did he not add, that he came in at the Window, or the Chimney, or by opening the Doors, the shutting of which he had so distinctly noted: That he entered then, O Sectary, the Doors being shut, is nothing else, but that he entered against the Laws of Nature through the said Doors. Moreover, says St. Hierom in his first Book against Jovinian, He so entered the Doors being shut, which the Nature of Humane Bodies suffers not: Shall we therefore deny that our Lord and St. Peter had true Bodies, because contrary to Nature they walked on the Waters? St. Ambrose on the four and twentieth Chapter of St. Luke's Gospel has these Words: But St. Thomas had just cause of Admiration, when he saw a Body brought in through Places unpassable to Bodies, all things being shut, and no place broken. And 'twas therefore a Miracle, how a Corporal Nature should introduce itself through an in penetrable Body, by an invisible Passage, in a visible appearance, easy to be touched, hard to be understood. And in the same place, Though St. Peter believed the Resurrection, yet might he be troubled, when he saw our Lord on a sudden with his Body come in upon them into those places, which were encompassed with locked Doors, and close Walls.  
Nor did CHRIST at his Resurrection only, but at his Birth also show this Penetration of Dimensions, coming into the World from the Womb of his most Holy Mother without violating the Enclosers of her Virginity. St. Augustin in his two and twentieth Book of the City of GOD (chap. 8.) relates to this purpose a famous Miracle, hapening in his time. He says, That Patronia a Carthaginian Matron, had obtained from a Jew a certain Ring, which she wore bound to her naked Body with a Girdle for the Cure of her Disease. That, she going afterwards in Pilgrimage to the Relics of St. Stephen; the Ring which she wore, fell from her whole and unhurt; the Girdle to which it was tied, remaining whole also; that the Judaical Remedy might by a Christian Miracle be removed from this Woman before she was healed through the Martyr's Intercession. He further adds, They believe not this, who believe not, that our Lord JESUS was brought forth without detriment to his Mother's Virginity, and went in to his Disciples the Doors being shut. But let them indeed inquire of this, and if they find it true, believe those. She is a Woman of Quality, nobly Born, nobly Married, and dwelling at Carthage; The largeness of the City, and the Dignity of the Person will not suffer the Truth to be concealed from the Enquirers. The Martyr himself, by whose Intercession she was Cur●d, certainly believed in the Son of her, who remains a Virgin; in Him, who went in to his Disciples, the Doors being shut.  
These than are the Scripture Histories of our Lord's Nativity and Resurrection; this the Primitive Church's Sense of those Histories; that two Bodies may, GOD commanding it, be together in the same place; or, to speak with the Phylosopbers, that there may be a Penetration of Dimensions by the Divine Power. Now 'tis certainly no less repugnant to humane Sense and Nature, that two Bodies should be thus together in one place, than that one should be at the same time in many. The difficulty on both sides is not only alike, but the very same. The Church has always acknowledged both of them above the force of Nature, but below the Power of GOD, having ever taught her Children, that CHRIST both penetrated the Walls, and is present in the Blessed Sacrament in several places at once.  
But there are three things, which you, O Sectaries, cannot well digest: The Name of Mass, the Eucharists being termed a Propitiatory Sacrifice, and lastly the Doctrine of Transubstantiation. The Mass is to you so hateful a Word, that the Hating of it is amongst you a token of Love. And yet, were it not, that I confine myself to that briefness, I began with, it might abundantly be shown, that this Holy Word has always been used to signify the Celebration of the Eucharist. 'Tis now about thirteen hundred years, since the time of St. Ambrose, who in his Epistle to Marcellina, says, I began to say Mass: And soon after, I began to Pray unto GOD in the Oblation, that he would help, etc. St. Telesphorus Pope and Martyr, who might for his Age have seen St. John the Apostle, testifies the Mass to have been in his Time, ordaining many things in the Celebration of it: Which very thing the Sectaries themselves confess. For the Magdeburgians in their second Century (cap. 10.) blame him for Multiplying Masses, increasing their Ceremonies, and tying them to a certain time. Behold, how, whilst they unwarily accuse Telesphorus, they acknowledge the Antiquity of the Mass: Confessing even the Name to have been used in the very beginning of the Primitive Church. But whatever becomes of the Name, let us consider the thing itself.  
We say, that the Celebration of the Mass is a Sacrifice truly and properly Propitiatory. You, or rather some of you deny it; for the more Learned agree, at least tacitly, with us. Isaac Casaubon but few Months before his Death being in the Presence Chamber of the most Serene King of Great Britain, I fell in Discourse with him, as did also another Gentleman, a Courtier, but no Catholic; whom, were it necessary, I could easily Name. Passing from one thing to another, we happened amongst the rest upon the Eucharist, which I earnestly defending, You need not, (said Casaubon) take all this pains, I willingly profess, and do assert it to be manifest from the Rites of the Ancient Church, that the Eucharist is a Sacrifice; and not only a Sacrifice of Praise, as many amongst us would have it, but a Propitiatory Sacrifice; Sacrificium 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. These were his very Words: Thus did he in two Languages express, what kind of Sacrifice he thought it to be. I was not a little glad to hear him; whilst the third person, who was present at our Discourse, wondered at this his Opinion, affirming, that he was more startled at these words, than at an hundred Arguments of the Papists. He can testify the Truth of this, being still alive, and daily attending on the King. And he has been so far from being a Catholic, that it cannot be feared, he would advantage us by speaking contrary to the Truth.  
And the Oblation indeed of the Eucharist is so frequently by the Fathers called Sacrifice, that the Sectaries no longer dispute with us about the Name; but only about what is to be understood by it. It cannot, (says Kemnitius) be denied, that the Ancients, when they spoke of the Celebration of the Lords Supper, used the words Sacrifice, Immolation, Oblation, Host, and Victim; as also the Verbs to Offer, Sacrifice, and Immolate. Hear therefore, Sectary, but St. Augustin alone, and thou wilt say, that the Church in his Age used not these Words as borrowed or Figuratively taken, but understood them in their proper, true and usual Sense; that the Eucharist is a true Sacrifice, properly so called, and Propitiatory not for the Living only, but also for the Dead.  
He relates therefore in the ninth Book of his Confessions (Ch. 11.) that his dying Mother spoke thus, Lay this Body any where, let not the Care of it trouble you in the least: This only I desire of you, that when you shall be present at our Lord's Altar, you will there remember me. And again, (Chap. 13.) he says of her, She thought not of having her Body Sumptuously Buried, etc. She commanded us not this, but only requested, that she might be remembered at thy Altar, where she had without one days Intermission constantly served, whence she knew the Holy Victim to be dispensed, by which the Handwriting that was against us, is blotted out. He had also before (Chap. 12.) said more plainly; Behold, when her Corpse was carried out, we went and returned without Tears. Nor did I so much as weep at those Prayers, we poured forth to thee, when the Sacrifice of our Redemption was offered for her; her Body now being placed near the Grave, before it was deposited therein, as the Custom there is; but I was all the day in secret exceeding sad, etc. Thou hearest now, O Sectary, not only St. Augustin's Mother, not only St. Augustin, but the very Custom and Sense of the Church in that Age. When the Sacrifice of our Redemption was offered for her. Here thou hast three things: That the Oblation of the Eucharist is a Sacrifice; that 'tis also Propitiatory. For in vain, or impiously would the Church offer a Sacrifice to our Lord for the Dead, which could not render him Propitious to them. Thou hast lastly, The Church in that Age, wherein, you are wont to say, she was yet Pure, by Public Consent Praying for the Dead. Hence the Matter is so clear and certain, that the Blindness of those is to be lamented, who refuse so clear a Light.  
Now what is their Complaint against Transubstantiation? Does the Word offend them? Or the Thing, that is signified by this Word? They say, 'tis a Popish Fiction, sprung up under Innocent III. in the Lateran Council. To wit, Because Transubstantiation is there manifestly Decreed. Now, I ask, Sectary, if Pope Innocent delivered this Faith to us, who delivered it to the Greeks? For certainly they wholly agree with us in this matter. Would they, who have rejected our Communion, who hate the very Name of the Roman Pontiffs, have all generally admitted, and inviolably held such a Doctrine, of so great moment, so newly (as you would have it) devised by the Latins? But they have not the Word Transubstantiation. What then? They hold and believe th● Thing. For they believe that the Bread and Wine after Consecration cease to be such, and that instead of them succeed the true Body and Blood of our Lord. Why then may we not believe, that the Roman Church holds still the same Faith, which she held, before the Word Transubstantiation came into use; when the Greeks at this very day use not the Word Transubstantiation, and yet have in this matter altogether the same Belief with the Romans? Was not the Holy Trinity believed to be Homousian or Consubstantial, before the Word Homousian was ever taken up? What matter is it, if some Significative Word, lately found out by Divines, be received into use, as long as the thing signified by it, was before part of the Christian Faith, though expressed in other Words and Phrases?  
Now that the Christians before the time of Innocent the III. had the same Belief of the Eucharist, as we now have, may be easily shown from approved Authors, who preceded Innocent. St. Bernard died fifty years, before Innocent the III. was advanced to the Pontificat. Now what can be more express than these words of his in his Sermon on our Lord's Supper? This is truly an Heavenly Favour, this is certainly an abundant Grace, this is surely a supper excellent Glory, that a Priest should hold his GOD, and with his Hand give him to others. But left he should repeal these Testimonies by such frivolous Exceptions, as you for the most part use (pretending, that an universal Darkness had then overshadowed all Mankind, and driven them into many and great Errors) let us go back to those Ages, which were even in your own Judgement uncorrupted.  
We have already given you not only the Judgement of St. Augustin, but also the Opinion and Practice of the Church described by him: That the Eucharist is a Victim, whereby our Sins are effaced; that 'tis a Sacrifice; that 'tis a Propitiation, which is offered to GOD for the Dead. You require those, that are more Ancient than St. Augustin? St. Justin Martyr the very next Age after the the Apostles in his second Apology to the Emperor, has these Words. As by the Word of GOD our Saviour JESUS CHRIST was Incarnate, and took Flesh and Blood for our Salvation: So we are taught, that by Prayers taken from GOD's Word the Eucharist, by him made Food, with which our Blood and Flesh are through mutation nourished, is the Flesh and Blood of that Incarnate JESUS. St. Hilary, who lived in the third Age of the Church, says in his eighth Book of the Trinity, There is no room to doubt of the Truth of the Flesh and Blood: For now both by the Profession of our Lord himself, and our own Faith, it is truly Flesh, and truly Blood. St. Gregory Nyssen of the same Age in his Catechetical Oration (chap. 37.) We rightly believe, that the Bread, sanctified by the Word of GOD, is truly changed into the Body of GOD the Word. St. Chrysostom in his two and fiftieth Homily on St. Matthew speaks thus, Why should he disdain to give thee his Body, who did more, that is, laid down his Life for thee? Let us hear therefore, Priests, as well as others; how great, how admirable a thing is granted us; let us hear, I Pray, and tremble, he has delivered us Flesh, he has set before us himself Immolated. And St. Cyril of Jerusalem, more Ancient than St. Chrysostom, says in his fourth Catechism, That a Christian Man knows, and certainly holds, this Bread, which is seen by us, not to be Bread, though the Taste thinks it to be Bread, but the Body of CHRIST; and the Wine, which is beheld by us, though it seem Wine to the Sense of Tasting, yet not to be Wine, but the Blood of CHRIST? What needs many Words? No Age of the Primitive Church, none of the Fathers dissented. The Testimonies of all Ages and Writers have been formerly given thee by such, as have thought good to handle this Argument more at large.  
Let me now speak to thee, O Sectary, if thou desirest to be cured. This is one of the greatest Affairs in the Christian Faith, whether in the Eucharist be CHRIST himself, or only Bread, which is the Figure of CHRIST's Body: In so great a matter, and in which to err, is certain Destruction; consider, whether side is supported by the safest Arguments. As to the Scriptures, 'twould be Impudence to affirm, that there are clearer, or even as clear Words for you, as these are for us: This is my Body, this is my Blood: The Bread, which I will give, is my Flesh. Some places therefore are plain and clear of themselves; and others, which want Interpretation, we expound according to the Sentiments of Men certainly great and numerous, whose Wisdom, Learning, and Piety were remarkable; and lastly, as is most agreeable to the Divine Institution, This is my Body. Now if you would understand, what the Sense of the Church was from the Apostles time, it can no way better be understood, than by that of the Fathers, who then lived. But there is not any one of the Fathers, that have written of the Eucharist, whom we approve not, or whom we refuse for our Judge. For though some of them may have sometimes used certain obscure Words, which you also have endeavoured to abuse for the support of your Heresies; yet is there none of them that have spoken thus dubiously, who has not also other Words extant, which are plain and clear for us. Nay, most of them have so written, that asserting our Opinion, they cannot be so much as imagined to have the least Word or Expression, which favours your Heresy. Then, if you have regard to the Consent of Christians, it must be confessed, that not only the Latin and Greek Churches, but all Christians throughout the whole World unanimously agree in our Opinion. So that which way soever you seek for Arguments, there are still more for us: If the Learning of the Persons be respected, we have far the greater part of Men, famous for Knowledge; if Ages, we have unquestionably more; if the number of Men, you may well be ashamed to compare with us.  
Thus being every way inferior to us, you have nothing remaining but your Obstinacy, and vain Incredulity, which with you is called Prudence, or Wisdom, wholly consisting in such kind of Philosophy as this: Can GOD do this; or is it likely, that he would; what Inconveniencies hence arise; how unworthy is this of the Divine Majesty? After the same manner did the Heathens put up Queries against CHRIST, and the Arians against the Trinity. Away with this vain Solicitude: You may possibly sometimes know, why GOD's Works are done; but never how. Give me leave to use the Words of St. Ambrose, Who (says he, 11 Hexam. Chap. 1.) seeing these things, can with his weak understanding search out a possibility of the Reason? All which the Divine Power, not to be comprehended by humane Minds, nor expressed by our Discourses, has knit together by the Authority of his own Will.  
But if thou, O Sectary, art not moved by our Agreement, let the blind Contention, that is among yourselves, startle thee: Since divided into Sects, you with great bitterness contend about the Opinion, you ought to have of this Sacrament. Would to GOD thou knewest, how pleasant it is to prostrate thyself before the Altar, Where the Angels (says St. Chrysosthm in his third Homily on the Epistle to the Ephesians) with Trembling Reverence the Host: How sweet it is there to Adore our Lord, Who (to use St. Augustin's words in his Commentary on the 98 Psalms) walked here in the Flesh, and gave the same Flesh to be eaten by us for our Salvation: How far last it excels all humane Delights to reject vain Circumstances, and believe only the Word of GOD, to which so many foregoing Ages have Assented; to acknowledge that to be our Lord's Body which our Lord himself has affirmed to be his Body; and with a Mouth of Flesh to receive in all due Humility the Flesh of our Lord, that he may nourish our Souls with the effect of the Sacrament, and the Spirit which quickeneth. None shall before the Tyranny of Antichrist deprive the Faithful of these Joys, nor can any one, but he, who has experienced them, comprehend them.   
The End of the second Chapter.   

ADVERTISEMENT.  
THere being many Excellent Pieces of the same Author, containing a Direct, Short, and Full Proof of all those Points commonly Objected to Roman Catholics by Sectaries, as having furnished a pretended Occasion of their Schism: I design God willing, one by one to prepare them for the Press, that the World may see, how unreasonable and groundless are all the Exceptions made against Us; and Manifestly Repugnant to God's Holy Word, and the received Judgement of all Antiquity.