AN ANSWER TO A DISCOURSE AGAINST Transubstantiation  
Hic est Filius meus dilectus— Ipsum audite.  
This is my beloved Son— Hear ye Him,  Matth. 17. 5. 
Permissu Superiorum.  
LONDON, Printed by Henry Hills, Printer to the King's Most Excellent Majesty, for His Household and Chapel. 1687.   

Introduction.  
IF public Applause, and popular Acclamations of your own Party, are to be believed, your Discourse against Transubstantiation has sufficiently showed, that the Scriptures cannot clearly demonstrate this miraculous Change; nor the perpetual belief thereof in the Christian Church, illustrate it; and that there are all the reasons in the World against it. Yet if a serious consideration, and weighing of your Arguments in the Scale of Justice, be the Deciders of the present Debate, we shall find neither Scripture, nor belief of the Primitive Church, nor any reason in the World, against Transubstantiation. And therefore in Christian Duty, I think myself obliged, to endeavour, after my poor manner, a discovery of your winning Artifices, and a removal of your plausible Appearances; dividing this following Answer into two Parts. In my first, I'll examine, whether there be any tolerable ground for Transubstantiation. And my second, is designed to counterpoise (as you think) your Invincible Objections.   

PART I.  
I Sub-divide my First Part into five Sections, comprehending the five pretended grounds, one or more of which, you suppose the Church of Rome builds this Doctrine on. First, The Authority of Scripture. Or Secondly, the perpetual belief of this Doctrine 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 authorize Transubstantiation.  
BEfore I begin to discuss whether Scripture authorize Transubstantiation: I think it convenient to premise two Reflections, 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 unparallelled exaggeration. It was almost 300 years before this misshapen Monster of Transubstantiation could be licked into that Form 
Page 25.  in which it is now settled and established in the Church of Rome. Bold Assertions ought to be supported with great Proofs: And Monstrous Vilifications of the Divine Goodness expiated with more than ordinary Repentance. Heaven forbid, that our Blessed Saviour should ever prove a misshapen Monster, even to those who most oppose revealed Truth expressed in Transubstantiation.  
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 
St. Hil. cont. const. Aug. Die prius, si rectè disputas, nolo adversus nova venena novas medicamentorum comparationes.  Enemies; or take fresh Counsels against new Treasons; or drink Counterpoison against venomous Infections? Nor was St. Athanasius' Interrogation 
St. Athan. d. cum Ario coram Probo. Nominis ne offenderis novitate, anetiam ret ipsius veritate, quae hoc est sortita vocabulum.  of less force: Are you offended at the newness of the Name? or afraid 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 
Vincent. Lyr. in Commonit. Ecclesia plerunque propter intelligentiae lucem, non novum fidei sensum novae appellationis proprietate signat. Nic. 1. in Sym.  to signify more pathetically the true Sense of Faith. Thus did the first Ecumenical Council write 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Consubstantial, and the Arians could not digest the hardness of the Word. Thus did the Ephesian Prelates style the B. Virgin, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Mother of God, which was 
Con. Ephes. anat. 1. Conc. Later. decret. 1211. an.  no softer to the Nestorians. And thus did the Lateran Bishops subscribe to Transubstantiation, and the Berengarians and Modern opposers of the Roman truth, expostulate with us for this Word, and modestly term it a misshapen Monster.  
Second Reflection upon the Evidence of Sense.  
Here you bring in Aristotle, who long since hath pronounced, There aught to be no dispute of the matter of Sense. I beg Pardon if I am not at leisure, to digress with you towards Paganism. Neither can I think you serious, when you quote the Philosopher's determination, for the Mystery of the Lords Supper, who never professed a revealed Religion, and died many Hundred years before Christianity was Promulgated and Established. Nor do I apprehend the least danger to be overburdened, 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 various Perfections; so likewise are their Objects distinguished. The 
* Aristotle.  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 Substance. How could Aristotle pronounce, the matter of Sense was never to be disputed, when 'twas always to be pried 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 Taste wanting. All this is granted. Unless then you perplex and embroil the Question, Sense reposes, without violation, quiet and contented in its own Objects.  
Nor ought you to believe, that Reason can securely, without Error, always determine in Natural Sciences, according to the received impression, from the visible Sign, or Object of Sense. This Maxim is given to Novices entering the list of dialectics, and admitted by the Sect of Peripatetics. So Reason enlarges the greatness of the Sun, and assures us, it far exceeds in bigness the Terrestrial Orb, tho' Sense enclose it in the small circumference of a Ball.  
Sense indeed and Reason combining together, and following the prescript of Logic, are the proper deciders of Philosophical contestations. Sense pleads for no more, and if the Reason of Aristotle survived, it would be abundantly satisfied with this voluntary concession.  
If for all this you resolve to seat Reason in the Chair of Judicature, 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 
Gen. 8. v. 2.  mistake, and assured him they were Angels. Reason affirmed what descended in the shape of a Dove, was that Innocent Creature: 
Luke 3. 22.  Revelation reform the Judgement, and intimated it was the Holy Ghost. Reason regards the Species of Bread as inherent to the proper Substance: Revelation changes that Substance into the Body of Christ. Abraham saw the figure and shape of Men, and yet the Substance of Man was wanting. The Feathers in appearance exhibited a Dove; the real Substance was supplied 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 Revelation, 
Ex nihilo nil fit.  which teaches the whole Universe was Created of nothing. 'Twas a Principle, There's no return from Privation, to the Habit, from Death to Life; and this persuasion ceases, acknowledging our Saviour's Resurrection.  
Reason's reluctancy proceeding from Senses information, must yield to the Power of Revelation, or we must cease to be Christians. Thus Julian Apostatised, and derided Christians 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 
St. Greg. Orat. 3.  in the Second Centurie relates the same of the 
St. Clem. Alex. 2. Stom. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Greek Philosophers, and confutes them by this Definition of Supernatural Faith: Faith which the Greeks look upon as vain and unreasonable, is a voluntary Anticipation, a Pious yielding, the Substance of things which are hoped for, and an evidence of what is not seen, according to the Divine Apostle. Faith is First according to this Ancient Father, a voluntary Anticipation of Reason; and you wilfully Anticipate Faith by Reason. Secondly, Faith is a pious Assent to Divine Testimony; and you boldly contradict our Saviour's own words. Thirdly, It is the Substance of things hoped 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 declares, 
St. Ambr. Super illud Psal. Omnia opera ejus in fide. Non creditur Philosophis, creditur Piscatoribus.  We believe Fishermen; we do not Believe Philosophers.  
St. Cyril of Alexandria, conceived it impossible 
St. Cyr. apud St. Maxim. To 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  to believe where Reason intermixes inquiries.  
St. Chrysostom avowed the very letting of an, 
St. Chrys. in Joan. 6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  How can it be, is a beginning of incredulity.  
St. Augustin avers, that if we first demonstrate 
St. Aug. tract. 27. in Joan. Nec cognoscare, nec credere valemus.  and afterwards believe, we become both Ignorant and Incredulous.  
And our B. Saviour adds the heavy burden of Condemnation, 
Mark c. 16.  as we read in St. Mark, Who will not Believe, shall be Condemned.  
This is sufficient to show, 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 examine;  
Whether Scripture Authorize Transubstantiation?  
You say we pretend for this Doctrine the Authority of Scripture in those words of our Saviour, this is my Body. So likewise do we pretend for the same Doctrine, the Authority of Scripture from the 6 Chapter of St. John, which you passing over in silence as inconsiderable, I shall endeavour to manifest, as of great importance.  
Let us not mix confusedly the thing which our Saviour promises to give, and the manner of receiving the Gift. A worthy receiving the Gift▪ is Spiritually by Faith. This is not contested. The Question is, What is the thing promised to be given, 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 himself, 
John 6. from the Greek.  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 Saviour's 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? 
vers. 62.   
If I should now return your Sense of the Sacrament for a reply to our B. Saviour, and say, we understand the Promise given of your Flesh, to be Eaten in Figure only, not in Substance; would not the Reader strait subsume, Then only the Figure of his Body ascended into Heaven, and so void our B. Saviour's 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 
vers. 63.  they were promised to receive in the Sacrament, and this Spirit is truly Christ, God and Man.  
The Flesh profiteth nothing, if we believe St. Austin; as Science, according to St. Paul, puffeth up: Science all alone, barren of Charity; for so properly, 
St. Aug. tract. 27. in Joan. Accedat Spiritus ad carnem, quomodo accedit Charitas ad Scientiam & prodest plurimum: nam si caro nihil prodesset, verbum caro non fieret. St. Paul 1. Cor. 8. Scientia inflat.  Science puffeth up. Add Charity to Science with the Divine Apostle, and then Science Flourishes and is Fruitful. The Body of Christ as a mortal and fading Creature profiteth nothing. Join 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 literal Exposition, says, when Christ called himself 
St. Cyr. 6. in Joan. lib. 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  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 Sacrament, 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 Idolising with Sense, they are not sensible how Christ promised to give himself in the Sacrament; they question the very Gift itself, and endeavour to make good these two things,  
1st. That there's no necessity of understanding these words of our Saviour, This is my Body, in the sense of Transubstantiation.  
2ly. That there is a great deal of Reason to understand them otherwise. These two general Arguments deserve to be the Subject of two Chapters.  

CHAP. I. Of the necessity of understanding our Saviour's 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 controversy. 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 Saviour's words, can be taken in the Sense of the Roman Catholic Assertion, this must be; either because, there are no Figures in Scripture; 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 Saviour's 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 
Exod. 24. Heb. 9 v. 20.  hath enjoined 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. 
Luke 22.   
This Miraculous concord of the Old and New Covenant: This repetition of the very same Phrase, is an Evidence beyond denial, that the former was a Symbol of the latter. And since you cannot understand the latter of Christ's Blood spilt on the Cross; Because you pretend St. Luke says, his Blood was then shed, which is shed for many, which preceded the Crucifiction: 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 broke, and what he gave to his Disciples, 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 assures, what was blessed, broken, and given, was his Body, saying, This is my Body. If it was then Bread, as the Evangelists 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 adding 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 Acceptation 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 itself, without difficulty, and after a facile and intelligible Method. He's Wisdom itself, and knew how to Phrase his Thought. He's Omnipotent, and so can surmount what Human Frailty might conceive as impossible. He's Goodness itself, 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 designed to signify, that the Eucharistical Bread was only the Figure of his Body, it would surprise us what inclined 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 Doctrine from revelation) 
St. Paul, 1 Cor. 11.  not constrained, nor combining to join in expression, yet to repeat 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 confirmation.   

FIFTH MOTIVE.  
The very same Interpretation of other Scriptural Passages, wherein are grounded the chief Articles of Christian Belief, enforces 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 
Joan. in Evang. c. 1.  Union. I believe the consubstantiality of the Son with the Father, 
Joan. 10. v. 30. Ep. 1. Joan. cap. 5.  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 understood, 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 secured 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 Scripture 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 Impiety. 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 Equity to be followed. And if so, than I may lawfully give the same exposition to the three alleged Articles. For the Scripture urges not more out of this Passage, The word was made Flesh, the substantial connexion of the Second Person with Human Nature; or out of these words, I and my Father are one, the identity 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 Substantial Body, I might rightly deduce (following the same interpretation) than 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 profess 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 undermines, and utterly destroys the whole Fabric of Christianity? And ought not my own Motive in the most considerable Mysteries of Christianity, contained in Scripture, be to me the same in the determination of the true Sense of This is my Body?   

six MOTIVE.  
The true sense of our Saviour's words may be gathered from the Doctrine which the Learned and Ancient Fathers maintained against encroaching Heresy.  
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 undertaking? and yet the glorious Martyr St. Ignatius, elected Bishop of Antiochia thirty eight years after our Saviour's Passion, plainly delivers. They (certain Heretics, whose Names he thought convenient not to mention) 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (or as others read, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. St. Ignat. Ep. ad Smyrnaeos.  do not receive Eucharists, or Sacrifices, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the Flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which Flesh suffered for our sins, and which the Father raised again by his benignity. Nor is it enough to say, these Heretics could not admit the Eucharist to be a Figure, because they denied that Christ had true Flesh. This perchance is true. But it is not here the sense of the Martyr, who says expressly, 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 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. St. Just. Apol. 2. in the end.  our Saviour being incarnate, had both Flesh and Blood for our Salvation: so are we taught that this Food, by which (changed by digestion in our Bodies, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) our Flesh and Blood are nourished, Eucharistated [or transformed] by the prayer of this Divine Word, is the Flesh and Blood of that Incarnate Jesus. If for all this you should reply, that the Eucharistic Food is only figuratively the Flesh and Blood of Christ; then might the Reader likewise aver, Christ being incarnate had only 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 signify 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 surprised at the acknowledgement of what was given in Communion? And yet Tertullian furnishes us with a sufficient manifestation of this Truth; Saying, Our Flesh is said with the Body and Blood of Christ, that 
Tertull. de Resurr. Carnis, c. 8. Caro Corpore & Sanguine Christi vescitur, ut Anima de Deo saginetur.  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 innumerable Offspring of Pious and Learned Children; If I should allege how these worthy Champions of Christian Purity forbid Posterity to judge of the Sacrament by Taste, 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 conspire in this Doctrine. Harken to that Grecian Prelate St. Cyril of Jerusalem, and acknowledge the plain truth of these words. Do not judge the thing 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. St. Cyr. Hier. Catech. 4. Mystag.  by Taste, 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 believed, changing Wine into his Blood?  
Nor are these words of the Learned Latin Bishop Gaudentius of less force. Jesus giving to 
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.  his Disciples Bread and Wine, said, this is my Body: 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 Transubstantiation. 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 reason in the Father's Writings, must have quite another interpretation? If the Fathers had designed to have writ for Transubstantiation, 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 transfigured and transelemented into the Body of Christ; would you not exclaim, these are as hard and misshapen 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 
Lib. 4. de Fide, c. 5. In carnem transfigurantur & Sanguinem.  the Sacraments, which by the Mystery of Prayer are transfigurated into Flesh and Blood; witness this Speech of St. Gregory Nyssene. I properly believe 
St. Greg. Nyss. Tom. 3. Orat. Cat. c. 37. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  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 transelemented, by virtue 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 Ecumenical Council, to both which presided St. Cyril of Alexandria. These Father's composing a Creed, inserted these words in the end of their Introduction, This is the Faith of the Catholic and Apostolic Church, in which the East and West agree. Then immediately follows their Creed, divided into many Articles. What if their Seventh Article should decree the Flesh received in the Sacrament 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 Nestorius Heretically taught; you could require nothing more for Transubstantiation. And yet these are their words, We do not receive in the Sacrament our Saviour's 
Syn. Egypt. Prov. Alex. Profess. Fid. Tom. 3. Conc. General. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Flesh, as common Flesh: God forbid. Nor again, as the Flesh of a Sanctified Man, or associated 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 excluded that accidental Union, by which the Nestorians joined 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-vivificating, and proper Flesh of the Word, that Word who was made and called Man, professing one Person in Christ, to whom this Human Nature properly belonged.  
Now if all this were to be expounded of a Figure, what wresting would there be of this Article? And how could the Council 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 Figure 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 
Sess. 13. c. 4. Ideo persuasum semper in Ecclesia Dei fuit.  the appearance of Bread he offered and gave to his Disciples, the Church of God was always persuaded, 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 promised 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 Society of true Successors.  
Obedience therefore to the true Successors of the Apostles, who have defined this Catholic verity, obliges me, in the last instance 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 shows 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 persuaded of this, yourself, turning these imaginary Reasons against the Roman Catholic Assertion. But alas! they are no more against, than they were for Transubstantiation. 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, literally signify that the second Person of the Blessed Trinity was substantially Man. There are questionless in the old and new Testament many Figures, and neither looked upon as a mere 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, shows 
St. Aug. Apud St. Fulgentio. & de divers. Dicuntur Sacramenta quia aliud videtur, aliud intelligitur.  part, and hides the remainder. What appears in the Sacrament of the Altar, is a sign, an accidental shape, or resemblance, 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 Sacrament is a Sign? A Man is an Image of God, yet a Substance. 
St. Paul, Heb. 1. v. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  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 Sacrament 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 will 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 couched any Figurative exposition, and so hasten to busy your Reader with a Metonymy contained 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 than was the proper 
1 Cor. 11.  speech, and our Saviour did not speak improperly, who could be so remote from Sense, to guests, 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 turned 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 because I find no Metonymy, no Figure couched 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 metonymically put for the contained Drink, in the Chalice, or Blood. For what we read in St. Luke, This Cup the New Testament in 
St. Luke 22.  my Blood, is equivalent to, this Blood, and so the Cup is Blood. If you suspect the supposal, hearken how St. Matthew Phrases it, 
Matth. 26. Mark 14.  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 omitted, 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 changed, it is the Cup into the Covenant, 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, 
Ad Heb. c. 9 v. 18.  St. Paul proves quite the contrary, demonstrating, if there be a Testament, there must be true Blood, and so concludes, Whereupon neither the first Testament, was dedicated without Blood, and without shedding 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 Celebration 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 allege 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: 
St. Aug. Civit. Dei, l. 17. c. 10. St. Cyp. l. 2. Ep. 3. ad Caeci. St. Greg. Or. 3. advers. Julian. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  St. Cyprian four times in the same Epistle, the Dominical Sacrifice: St. Gregory 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 upon the Cross, and mystically offered daily on the Altar. Because 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 shedding 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, concerning 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 examine what was the opinion of Scotus.  
Scotus distinguishing two sorts or Classes of People, the worthy and unworthy Receivers, thus delivers himself. It is undoubtedly to be held, the Good not 
Indubitanter tenendum est à bonis sumi, non modo Sacramentaliter, sed & Spiritualiter. Amalts verò tantùm Sacramentaliter, id est, sub Sacramento, scilicet, sub visibili specie, Christi carnem de Virgin sumptam & Sanguinem pro nobis fusum sumi: sed non mysticam, quae tantùm bonorum est. Scor. l. 4. d. 9 q. 1. B.  only Sacramentally, but also Spiritually receive; the Bad, only Sacramentally; that is, subjoins Scotus, 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 Sacrament. This he proves from St. Gregory 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 
St. Greg. Mag. apud. Scot Est quidem indignè sumentibus vera Christi caro, & verus Sanguis, sed essentiâ, non salubri efficaciâ.  Scotus quotes St. Austin for the same evidence, and concludes with the testimony of St. Paul, to the same purpose.  
This acute Schoolman ask afterwards (q. 3.) whether 
Convertitur in Corpus Christ.  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 
N. 15. Non estaliquis articulus arctandus ad intellectum difficilem, nisi ille intellectus sit verus; sed si verus est, & probatur evidenter esse verum, oportet secundùm illum intellectum tenere Articulum— Sic autem supponitur de intellectu hujus Articuli.  it be not true; but if it be true, and can be proved evidently to be so, than the more difficile aught to be chosen; and this is the case of the present Article.  
He bushes 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 expounded 
Ab eo Spiritu expositae sunt Scripturae, à quo conditae sunt. Non enim in potestate Ecclesiae fuit, facere illud verum vel non verum, sed Dei instituentis, sed illum à Deo traditum Ecclesia explicavit, directa in hoc, ut creditur Spiritu veritatis, l. 4. d. 11. q. 3. n. 15.  by the same Spirit, by which they were dictated; and 'tis to be supposed, the Catholic Church expounded them by the same Spirit, by which truth is delivered, 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 concession of Scotus, you must profess both the real Presence and Transubstantiation.  
And this necessarily deduced from Scripture. Because the Scripture efficaciously moved the Church to declare for the same Doctrine, according to Scotus' 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 senses of this is my Body read in the acute School-man, the sole evidence of Scripture, could not in Scotus' 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, 
Bellarminus, l. 3. c. 23. Tertio addit (scil. Scotus) quia Ecclesia Catholica in generali concilio Scripturam declaravit, ex Scriptura sic declarata, manifest probari Transubstantiationem.  the acute Schoolman added, (because the Catholic Church has declared in a general Council, the true meaning of Scripture) Transubstantiation may manifestly be proved from Scripture so declared. But of what mind Scotus was, the foregoing Page will sufficiently remind the unprejudiced Reader.  
Nor can you conclude Bellarmin himself, granted evidence of Scripture was wanting for the Roman Cause, because he said Scotus' 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 Bellarmin's case, as the following words out of the same place testify. For although, adds Bellarmin, Scripture, which we have heretofore alleged, may seem so clear to us 
Etiamsi Scriptura, quam nos supra adduximus, videtur nobis tam clara, ut possit urgere hominem non protervum; tamen an it a sit, meritò dubitari potest, cum homines acutissimi, qualis Scotus, contrarium sentiant. Lib. 3. c. 23. de Euch.  that it can compel a moderate man, there's evidence 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 altogether Improbable, are grounded upon a mere supposal of two literal Senses, which touches not our Controversy. For Bellarmin plainly denies, a figurative Exposition probable of our Saviour's 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 believe; 
L. 3. c. 19 Haec verba necessariò inferunt, aut veram mutationem panis, ut volunt Catholici, aut mutationem Metaphoricam, ut volunt Calvinistae.  or a metaphorical mutation, as Calvinists contend. This Calvinistical Sense he had already, declared as improbable, saying, we will generally demonstrate that 'tis not probable our Saviour 
L. 1. c. 9 In universim demonstrabimus, non esse probabile, Dominum figura te loqui voluisse.  would figuratively speak. And for the Lutherans Error holding both substance of Bread and the Body together in the Sacrament, he says it 
L. 3. c. 19 Nullo modo Lutheranorum Sententiam admittunt.  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. 
Duran. 4 d. 11. q. 3.  Then adds, the Bread is converted by conseration into the Body of our Lord; and the Form perishing, the Matter is animated 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' 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 
De Corp. & Sang. Domini. Profanae novitatis dogma.  after Consecration, the Doctrine of profane Novelty.  
Suarez and Vasquez, treat Durandus, as one Divine doth another's Opinion. But you might have well omitted their names, for one that is moderately learned in Divinity, knows how copiously they both show from Scripture and Fathers, the Roman Catholic Doctrine.  
Occam. You have not faithfully delivered this Divine's Authority, 
In. 4. Sent. q. 6. Dico quod in Altari est vere. Transubstantiatio.  who thus answers to the second Query. I say that in the Sacrament is true Transubstantiation.  
Then he delivers four manners of understanding this Transubstantiation. 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 manner he prefers in these words, which are your Objection, The first manner may be held, because 
Occam. Ibidem. Primus Medus potest teneri, quia non repugnat rationi, nec alicui Authoritati. Bibliae, & est rationabilior, & facilior ad tenendum inter omnes modos—— Quia tamen determinatio Ecclesiae in contrarium existit, sicut patet extra de sum. Trin. de Fid.  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, adheres to the true sense of Transubstantiation in these following words; Yet because we find extant the Church's determination contrary to this exposition, and all Doctors universally hold that the 
Et communiter omnes Doctores ten nt quod ibi non remanet substantia panis, ideo etiam teneo quod non remanet ibi substantia panis, sed illa species, & quod illi coëxistat Corpus Christi.  substance of Bread remains not there, (in the Sacrament;) Therefore I also hold, that the substance 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. 
Biel in Canon Missae, Lect. 40. Quamvis expresse tradatur in Scriptura quod Christi Corpus sub speciebus panis continetur, tamen quomodo ibi sit Christi Corpus, an per conversionem alicujus in ipsum, aut sine conversione incipiat esse Corpus Christi cum pane, manentibus substantia & accidentia panis, non invenitur expressum in Canone Bibliae.  These are his words; Although it be expressly delivered in Scripture that the Body of Christ is truly contained under the species of Bread, yet we find not express in the Canon of the Scripture, how the Body 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 Scripture. And this upon two accounts.  
1. Although the manner of Christ's existence in the Sacrament, be not in this Divine's opinion, evidently couched, yet it is sufficiently particularised, in the Canon of the Scripture. For if this which was Bread, is Christ's Body, according to our Saviour's words this is my Body, and Christ's true Body be there expressly delivered in Scripture, as Biel affirms, it necessarily follows, 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 
Ibidem. Ex his & aliis plurimis Authoritatibus Sanctorum habetur, quod Corpus Christi est in Sacramento, per Transubstantiationem substantiae panis & vini in Corpus & Sanguinem Christi.  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 Protestants?  
You named, but expressed not Melchior 
Mel. Canus de focis Com. l. 12. c. 13.  Canus' authority, who says, the Body and Blood of Christ was offered in the Sacrifice, and 
Extat apud Lucam Scriptum apertissimum Testimonium ad hujus rei Probationem.  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 mere 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 Sacrament. 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 neither impossible, and prefers the first as more rational and conformable to Scriptures. These are his words. 'Tis possible the Body of Christ may assume the substance 
Petrus ab Al. 4. Sent. q. 6. Possibile est Corpus Christi assumere substantiam panis, nec repugnat rationi, nec authoritati Bibliae; imò est facilior ad-intelligendam, & rationabilior, quam ille modus, qui ponit quod substantia deserat accidentia.  of Bread, and this manner is not repugnant to reason, or to the authority of Scripture; it is more easy 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 
Non est impossibile Deo, quod substantia panis subitò sit alibi, remanentibus speciebus in ●odem loco, & eye coexistere Corpus Christi. Ille tamen modus non esset ita rationabilis, sicut prius.  conveyed, the species remaining in the place coexistent to the Body of Christ; this manner would not be so rational as the first. All this is upon possibilities.  
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 actually 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 necessity of admitting any Men alive at this present in the whole Universe?  
Cajetan, 'Tis true writ, the Scripture did not evidently enforce the Roman Catholic Tenet. Great Wits speak sometimes 
Cajet. in 4. d. 29. a. 2. In Coena Domini.  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 Roman 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, 
Cont. cap. Baby. c. 10. N. 2.  confesseth, we cannot prove from the bare words of Scripture, that Priests consecreate the true Body and Blood of Christ.  
I shall not dispute whether this concern our present Controversy or not; but I'll beg you'll take the following Explication of the Pious Bishop; that is, continueth the holy Martyr in the same place, not because this thing is now doubtful, 
Non quod res haec jam ambigua sit, sed quod ejus certitudo, non tàm habeatur ex Evangelii verbis, quam Patrum Interpretatione, simul & usu tanti temporis, quem illi posteris reliquerunt.  but because the certainty of this Doctrine cannot be gathered so strongly from the bare words of the Gospel, as from the Father's Interpretation, together with the continued practice of so long a time surviving 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 Father's Authorities, as Luther did.  
If this will not suffice, I'll translate, when you require it, the 
Cap. 4. de cap. Babyl. Adu. Oecolamp.  Fourth Chapter of this same Book, wherein Bishop Fisher proves the Bread changed into Christ's Body from the three Evangelists. And I'll rank your Objections collected from Luther's Instances, and Oecolampadius' 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 Transubstantiation, to use in my own defence these words of yours, which somewhat favour my undertaking. I readily acknowledge 
Page 11.  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 granted the Fathers were for the Substantial Change, because since you admit a wonderful Change made by the Divine Benediction, 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) against the Sectarists, or Roman Opposers. And almost every one of them, produce from Scripture and Fathers, more Reasons for, than you have done Objections against Transubstantiation. I appeal to your own Judgement conscious of this Truth. And you know, that if you do follow their Writings, and imitate the Religion, they professed and died in, you must declare yourself 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 Institution. I follow this order, and examine 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 acknowledges. 
Ins. Cal. 4. c. 17. p. 21.  And St. Austin goes farther, admonishing the Donatists, ne'er to endeavour an establishment 
St. Aug. cont. Petilian. 16.  
Ne stabilire posse putent ulla dogmata iis qui solum vel obscure, vel ambiguè vel figuratê dicuntur in Scriptures.  of Dogms from Scriptural Passages, which are obscure, or ambiguous, or figurative: which if true, the sense of Transubstantiation, will not in the least be prejudiced, by your Objections from Parables.  
You first object this Parable of Christ. I am the Door. I answer 
John 10.  the 7th verse explicates. I am the Door of the Sheep. And he 6th verse, This Parable spoke 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 oversee, which shall be given for you, which maintains the Reality.  
You instance, Christ said, I am the true Vine: I answer, the Cyriac 
John 15.  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 
John 6.  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 answer; 
1 Cor. 12.  the Apostle declares, Verse 13. we are spiritually; For by one Spirit we are baptised into one Body. But where Christ said, my Flesh is meat indeed, I find added many repetitions which increase 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 Spiritual. 
1 Cor. 10.  For we read, v. 3. Our Forefathers all eat the same spiritual 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 evidence 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 signify; 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 Pharaoh 's Dream.  
YOU object, Joseph, expounding Pharao's Dream to him, 
Gen. 41. 26.  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 reckoned among representative Signs. Josepth reasonably affirmed the seven Kine are seven Years, and so Pharaoh understood him that they were seven in Representation, because they both knew the discourse was of Signs, as the Scripture testifies, ver. 13. And Pharaoh 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 between Pharao's Dream, and the change of Bread in the Sacrament? 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 among the Hebrews) that is, signified seven Years, and so would any 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 Pagans, to know what is our own Religion. However you believe, that he that never heard of Transubstantiation, would never imagine any such thing to be meant by our Saviour's words. And I believe a great Number of these who saw our Saviour himself, denied he was God. You believe the Bread only signifies Christ's Body, because you will bilieve so; I distinguish what Christ distinguished; 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 entered 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 Divine power and Omnipotency can, and has operated.  
It entered 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 
St. Aug. in Psal. 33. Conc. 1.  
Quomodo intelligitur in ipso David secundùm literam non invenimus, in Christo autem invenimus. Ferebatur enim Christus in manibus, quando commendans ipsum Corpus suum, ait, hoc est Corpus meum.  carried in his own hands? a Man may be supported in others hands, none is the burden of his own hands. The Saint Answers: We find not the literal sense fulfilled in David, in Christ we acknowledge it, for Christ was carried in his hands, when recommending his own very Body, he said, this is my Body, for he carried that Body in his hands.  
It entered into the thought of our Blessed Redeemer to make use of the like Argument, before he gave us the Promise, of giving 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 
John. 6.  in some manner from the Loaves themselves? The Fragments, says St. Hilary, succeeded to 
St. Hill. Fragmentis fragmenta succedunt, & fallunt semper perfracta frangentes.  Fragments, and always broken, always deceived the Breaker's hand. For the Quantity of five Loaves was given, 
Raban. de Sang. Dom. c. 3. Minuendo multiplicabantur.  and the like Quantity still remained. Which Rabanus thus elegantly expressed, they were multiplied by being diminished.  
This Argument of our Blessed Saviour; if it did not convince 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 
St. Justin. Dial. cum Trypho p. 297. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  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 symbolised 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 
Malac. 3. Ego Dominus & non mutor.  could not receive the least alteration, I am the Lord, and not changed? or into the Messias, when change of one thing into another 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? 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.   
And if this Speech of St. Justin, were in itself somewhat obscure, This Passover is our Saviour; The same Ceremony delivered 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 Septuagint 
Exod. 12. Sept. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉▪  translate, It is the Passover to the Lord. Nor was this Expression 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? 
Corpus meum.   
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 
Chap. 26.  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 seems 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 
Chap. 22.  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 yourselves, for I say unto you, I will not drink of the fruit of the Vine, until the Kingdom of God shall come. Is not this a plain repetition of St. Matthew's words? And here ended the Passover or Paschal Supper. The Institution of the Sacrament immediately followed while they sat at Table, and therefore St. Luke continues; 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 IU. The Sense of St. Paul to the Corinthians. 
1 Cor. 10.   
THUS St. Paul speaks of this Sacrament. The Cup of Blessing 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, signify the Sacrament. For instead of them, we read in the Acts of the Apostles, according 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 equivalent 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 should 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 behalf of the Roman Catholic Assertion, will have the word Communion, to signify the Substance of Bread. If it must signify Substance, let us deal fairly, and in the place of Communion, substitute the word Substance; and so we shall easily see to what this Substance belongs. The Bread which we break, is it not the 
* Communion.  Substance of the Body of Christ?  
Neither can the Church of Rome as well argue from the following Verse 17. For we being many are one Bread, and one Body; that all Christians are substantially changed, 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 Apostle instructs us otherwise, declaring the precise and only Reason of this Unity; For we are all Partakers of the same Body. 'Tis Participation, not any Substantial Change in ourselves 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 Subtle. 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 together, the bare word of Bread attributed to the Eucharist, as often 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, Because it formerly was Bread.  
The First Reason St. Luke authorises in the Acts. Behold two 
Acts 1. 20.  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 Conversions. We read in Exodus, They cast down every Man his Rod, 
Exod. 7. 12.  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 Water was Wine; The Serpent is called a Rod, and was a Serpent: because the Serpent, and the Wine, were formerly a Rod and Water.  
It is then true, that the bare Name of bread may be attributed 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 Elements are Bread and Wine; it is true that St. Paul calls the Consecrated Bread Christ's Body. Jesus took Bread, and when he 
1 Cor. 11.  had given thanks, broke it, and said, take, eat, 
St. Chrys. Hic 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  this is my Body, which is broken for you. So does St. Chrysostom; What is the Bread? the Body of 
St. Ambr. l. 2. de Fide, c. 4. Panis hic Caro est.  Christ. So does St. Ambrose; This Bread is Flesh.  
You resume, this is my Body which is broken, cannot be literally 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 Existence 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. Chrysistom, we may see this in the Eucharist, and the contrary on the 
Ibidem. Os ejus non conteretur.  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 denomination 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 Saviour'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 desertion 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 People's Devotions. Bewitching Sense! whose Allurements entice 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 declaring 
L. 1. St. Hil. de Trin. c. 8. Deveritate Carnis & Sanguinis ejus non relictus est ambigendi locus, nunc & ipsius Domini professione & fide nostra, vere Caro est & vere Sanguis est.  for Jesus Christ, had we not received from him, this Lesson of Truth. Jesus says the Bread is truly Flesh, and the Wine is truly Blood; after this Declaration there's left no place to doubt of the verity of his Flesh and Blood.  
St. Ambrose opposes to the restless importunity 
St. Amb. de Abra. Patriarcha, quam indignum est Humanis Testimoniis de alio credamus, Dei oraculis de se non credamus?  of Sense, the prerogative of the Deity; Lest ask of God what we expect from man, reason of things, we should entrench upon Divine Prerogatives. 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? 
St. Chrys. hîc, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  do you not tremble at the excess of your Temerity?  
Our Blessed Saviour himself reprehended his Disciples, following 
John 6. 62.  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 reins of true Faith.  
Thus the Apostles overcoming their own stubborness, became supple and obedient to God's Promise and Power, infinitely active beyond Human Imagination, and they all joined in St. Peter's confession, And we believe, and are sure thou art Christ 
Verse 69.  the Son of the living God.  
Thus Divine Faith another time prevailed with St. Peter 
Matth. 14.  (when Sense, Reason, and the fury of the Sea, contradicted) to press the Waves with his Feet; and hardened the watery Element, 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 understand our Saviour's Words otherwise than in the sense of Transubstantiation.     

SECT. II. Of the perpetual belief of this Doctrine in the Christian Church.  
I Have already manifested how the Roman Catholic Church, rightly pretends as an evidence, that the Fathers of the Primitive 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 culled out some places, not so dark in themselves, as they are shaded with smothered Representations? These your Industry, with no small increase, has compacted together. After this great Task, you are pleased to show, when the Doctrine of Transubstantiation first came in. And finally, you undertake to give a Solution to the pretended Demonstration of Mr. Arnauld a learned man in France. These three Subjects shall be the Matter of so many Chapters.  

CHAP. I. Whether any of the Fathers are against Transubstantiation.  
REflection is the cause of Knowledge: Division leads to Reflection. 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 expressly to say, that our 
St. Justin. Apol. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  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 (changed in our Bodies, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) 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 Saints own Testimony. But why do I say Testimony, 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 liberty 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 imagine 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 another? Does not this evidence the possibility of Transubstantiation? I thank you for this Objection.   

Article II. Upon St. Irenaeus.  
NOR are you more fortunate in St. Irenaeus, who speaking 
L. 4. c. 37.  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 after 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 
L. 5. c. 2.  therefore the Cup that is mixed, 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 spiritual increase of Flesh and Blood. For he says, our Flest is increased 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, 
Catech 37. Oportet autem sicut exitiale, ita etiam salutare medicamentum admitti intra viscera hominis, ut per illa distribuatur in universum Corpus, virtus ejus quod fert opem. Quid hoc ergo est? nihil aliud quam illud Corpus, quod & morte ostensum fuit esse potentius & nostrae Vitae fuit initium.  in these words of the Nyssene Doctor; As the dire consequence of Poison is by Counterpoison prevented; so the wholesome remedy, which operates our Salvation, entering the Bowels of Man, thence everywhere diffuses its force and vivification. What is this (wholesome) 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 testify, this Adorable Body, which died for us, is in ours, as a wholesome remedy, there communicating Virtue, 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 increases in this sense the substance of Flesh and Blood, with a beginning of Immortality; as appears from the following Lines of the same Father. Jesus, 
Eâ de cautâ per suae Gratiae dispensationem, se per Carnem inserit, omnibus credentibus, commissus & contemperatus corporibus credentium, quibus substantia est ex pane & vino, ut unione cum eo quod est immortal, sit etiam homo particeps incorruptionis.  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' mind increases the Substance of Flesh and Blood, giving a beginning of resurrection to the Body: Or, to use this Saints Example; As a grain of Wheat dissolved in earth, rises by the 
St. Irenaeus. Quemadmodum granum tritici decidens in terram, & dissolutam multiplex surgit per Spiritum Dei, sic & nostra Corpora Corpore Christi nutrita & reposita in terram, & resoluta, resurgent in suo tempore.  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 Incorruption, rise (when dissolved by death) increased with Immortality.  
This agrees well with St. Irenaeus' 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 neither Bone nor Flesh, but it is delivered according to the disposition of Man, which consists of Flesh, of 
L. 5. c. 2. De ea dispositione quae est secundum hominem, quae ex Carnibus & Nervis & Ossibus consistit, quae de Calais, qui est Sanguis ejus nutritur, & de Pane, qui est Corpus ejus, augetur.  Nerves, and Bones, which is nourished with the Chalice, 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 
Apud Oecum. in 1 Pet. 3.  Greeks had taken some Servants of the Christian Catecumeni (that is, such as were disposed, but not yet baptised) and afterwards urged them by violence, to tell them some of the secrets of the Christians. These Servants having nothing to say, that might gratify those who offered violence to them, except only that they had heard from their Masters, 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 questioned them. The Greeks taking this as it really were done by the Christians, discovered it to others of the Greeks, who hereupon 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 denial of what was objected, and a Christian 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 Christian reserve, not discovering the Mystery to Pagans, which was esteemed a betraying of Religion.  
Thus Tharsilius the Acholyt, as venerable Beda relates, having 
V. Bede Martyr, 18. Octr.  the blessed Sacrament about him, was seized on by the Barbarians, and martyred, because he refused to show it.  
St. Ambrose declares the discovery of the Mystery to those who were not baptised, passed not 
St. Amb. l. de Novis Baptis. c. 1. Prodidisse potius quam edidisse existimaremur.  for an instruction, but for a sort of Treason in Religion.  
St. Cyril says, We speak not clearly of the Mystery to the Catecumeni, 
St. Cyril, Hier. Cat. 6.  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 Martion, as you write, the Heretic, 
Adu. Martion. l. 4. p. 57 edit. Rigal.  That the Body of our Saviour, was not a mere 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 expression, as Lactantius and St. Jerom affirm, 
Lact. de Divin. Inst. l. 5. c. 1.  may easily be misunderstood, and misrepresented. 
St. Hierom. de Inst. Mon. ad Paul Tom. 1. Creber in sententiis difficilis in loquendo.   
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 Martion.  
This Accomplishment he showed from that of Jeremy, where 
Jer. Mittamus lignum in Panem ejus.  we read how the Jews fastened 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 
Tertul. l. 3. c. 19 Contra. Marc. Sic enim Deus in Evangelio quoque vestro revelavit, Panem Corpus suum appellans, ut & hinc jam tum intelligas Corporis sui figuram Pane dedisse, cujus retro Corpus in Pane Propheta Figuravit.  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 Figure, 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 testify, that Bread was a Figure in the Written Law; and the Subordination of Jeremy to Jesus, proves the concord of Christ with the ancient Testament, which was Tertullian's peculiar Task.  
The same he pursues in the place by you cited, Bread, (He 
Lib. 4.  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. Martion 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 
Lib. 4. c. 40. Non intelligens veterem fuisse istam Figuram Corporis Christi dicentis per Jeremiam.—  from Jeremy. 4. He confirms the same in these Words, You may likewise acknowledge the 
Ut autem & Sanguinis veterem Figuram in Vino recognoscas.  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 Marcionits' 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 Sacrament; which must be a true Body; otherwise there is a Figure 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 Belief, humour you so far, as to grant the Sacramental Bread is a Figure, but a Figure joined to the Reality. For if you will say, what you find not in Tertullian, that the Bread in the Sacrament 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 Figure, 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 
L. 5. contra Marc. Deus est & Effigies.  an Image too. The Catholic Church only disallows those Figures, which exclude the true Substance of Christ's Body present in the Sacrament.  
You urge a second Testimony from the same Author, using this Argument against the Sceptics, who rejected the certainty 
L. de cap. 17.  of Sense, He might be deceived in the voice from Heaven, in the smell of the Ointment, 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 
Non alium postea Vini saporem quod consecravit in Sanguinis sui memoriam.  Savour of Wine which he consecrated in remembrance of his Blood.  
This learned Father established two Principles. 1. That Christ was truly Man. And 2. That his Operations were real like other men's.  
The First Verity, was not here Tertullian's Theme. This he vindicated against Martion, 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 Odoriferous, and if there was not another Taste of the Wine, which was consecrated in remembrance of Christ's Blood; then these Operations of our Saviour were not distinct from vulgar Sensation, like those Impressions other Men naturally receive, sincere, real, and without delusion. All Catholics grant as much, and none will deny the same Taste of Wine after Consecration. But the Taste 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, Taste, Accidents and Appearances, which was Tertullian's Province against the Sceptics.  
The whole Controversy then between us is left by this Objection entire and untouched.   

Article IV. Upon Origen.  
Origin, 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 Origen's, the Learned Cardinal Peron might say without injury, Origen talks like an Heretic. 
Peron in Orig.   
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 
Sixtus Sen. Bib. s. l. 6. Geneb. Praef. in Origen.  by Heretics. Genebrard is of the same Opinion.  
These Critical Censures take all assurance from your Objection, rendering it either dubious, or depraved, or heretical.  
Moreover, if Origen in this Passage, should downright prescribe the Catholic Belief of the change of Bread into the Body of Christ, this ought not to disquiet any sober Inquirer. Because his chief Error was the exclusion of the literal Sense in Scripture. Whereupon Lirinensis calls Origen the Interpreter 
Lirin. in Comm. St. Epiph. Haer. 64. Theoph. l. Pasch. 1. Con. Gen. 5. Collat. 8. cap. 11.  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 Ecumenical 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 into 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 upon 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 
Homil. 7. in Levit. Cibus est Petrus & Paulus & omnes Apostoli.  the Apostles are Food, will you conclude from hence, the Apostles were not true Men?  
At least, if this will not do, you resolve to do the business by drawing out of the same Homily, a kill 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 Substantial presence of Christ's Body after a Sacramental manner, invisible 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. 
John 6.   
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, believe 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 
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 tales Leges dederit Deus.  (were not these the Capharnaity,) or according 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 yourself 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 Figurated, 
Hom. 7. in Numb.  the Manna with the Body of Christ; 
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.  The Manna was in Figure Food. Now in reality the Flesh of the Word God is true Meat. And what was first in the Figure designed, is now completed in truth and reality.  
The Second is contained in these Words, 
Homil. 5. In diversa. Quando illud incorruptum accipias epulum, quando vite pane & populo frueris, manduc as & bibis Corpus & Sanguinem Domini. Tunc Dominus subtectum tuum ingreditur, & tu ergo humilians teipsum, imitare hunc Centurionem, & dicito, Domine non sum dignus, ubi enim indigne ingreditur, ibi ad judicium ingreditur accipienti.  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, than our Lord enters under your roof; do you therefore humbling yourself imitate the Centurion, and say, Lord, I am not worthy thou shouldst enter under my Roof, for where he enters unworthily, there he enters in Judgement 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 present, how can you excuse it from Idolatry? Finally, this Lord invocated, enters into the wicked, which cannot be by Faith. For your Church, teaches unworthy Receivers are not partakers of the Lord in the Sacrament by Faith.   

Article V. Upon St. Cyprian.  
YOU object St. Cyprian hath a whole Epistle to Caecilius against those who gave the Communion in Water, without Wine mingled with it; and his main Argument against them is this, that the Blood of 
Nec potest videri Sanguis ejus quo redempti, & vivificati, esse in Calais, quando Vinum desit Calici, quo Christi Sanguis ostenditur. L. 2. Ep. 3. ad Caecilium.  Christ with which we are redeemed and quickened, cannot seem to be in the Cup when Wine is wanting to the Chalice, by which the Blood of Christ is represented.  
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 quickened, according to St. Cyprian.  
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 shown; 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 
Jesus ostendens gentium Populum succedere in locum quem Judaei perdiderant de aqua vinum fecit.  thus proposed St. Cyprian's mind. St. Cyprian compares here the Jews to Wine, the Gentiles to Water, at the Marriage of Canaan. The want of Wine marked out the Jews, who refused to embrace the Law of Christ; The plentifulness of Water represented the Gentiles converted to Christianity. Hence Water comes in the Sacrament to design the Elected People, Wine the Blood of Christ, and both mixed 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 equalise 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 
Contra Adimant. c. 12.  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 Testament prohibited eating of Blood, grounding himself upon this Principle of Duteronomy, Blood is the Soul of the Flesh, thereby 
Deut. 12.  to prejudice that Soul, which Jesus declared in the Gospel, was not liable to corporal harm or punishment.  
St. Augustin replies, the Old Law speaks of the Animal Soul, 
Signum Animae.  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 Opinion) 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 
Lib. 3. de lib. Arb. Nunquid ideo Fides in dubium vocanda vel disserenda est.  the Manichees Principle in their own confutation.   

Paragraph II.  
SAINT Austin speaking of Judas, whom our Lord admitted 
Ennaret. in Ps. 3.  to his last Supper, has these Words, in which he recommended and delivered to his Disciples, the Figure of his Body. Language, say you with exclamation, which would now be censured for Heresy 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 repugnant 
Pet. Mart. contra Gen.  to the presence of the thing. And Calvin before him granted, a Figure doth not exclude the thing figurated. The Lutherans are 
Luth. Admonit. ult.  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 acknowledgement. Paschasius formerly gave this answer to Frudegardus, instancing St. Austin's Testimony, These are, Replies Paschasius, Mystical things, in which is the verity of 
Pasch. Epla. ad Frudeg.  Flesh and Blood, and none others than Christ's, yet in a Mystery, 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 
Alg. l. 1. c. 3.  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 Schoolmen. 
a Art 13.  Ruardus, 
b Sup. Auch.  Melderus, 
d L. 1. de Eucha. cap. 32.  Cardinal allen, 
e 3. p. d. 46. Sect. 4.  Suarez, 
f Contro. 3. cap. 9  Gordon, 
g Sup. Auch. St. Aug. de S. Virg.  Gonet. And I never read any that held the contrary. And I conclude with this of St. Austin; The Blessed Virgin did not only conceive Christ spiritually 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 Communion 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 Sacrament to you, which being Spiritually understood, will give you Life.  
This is as much as to say, be not scandalised, 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, bruising, cutting, digesting my Flesh. I Speak of a Sacrament, when I commend the eating of my Body; 'Tis this Sacrament you shall taste, touch, and see in outward appearance. The Spiritual intelligence by Faith will (discovering there my Body remaining invisibly) 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 Argument. 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 Capharnaits, establishes a miraculous or a supernatural understanding. So when St. Paul says, Isaac was born according to the 
Gal. 4. 29.  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. Austin 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 Substance 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 Body. Thus St. Ambrose said that the change of Life is sufficient to verify this Speech, I am not I, I justified, am not I a sinner, 
L. 2. de Paenia, c. 20. Ego non sum ego.  and yet I am the same man in substance.  
Thus St. Lanfrancus answered Berengarius, alleging the same Passage which you object out of St. Austin, 'Tis not the same, if we consider the manner of Christ's 
L. Avers. Bereng.  existence in the Sacrament, 'tis the same if we regard 
Idem quoad substantiam, non idem quoad modum.  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 certain 
Apud Gratian. de Consecratiove, d. 11.  Sacrament to you, which being Spiritually understood 
Ipsum & non ipsum, Ipsum invisibiliter & non ipsum visibiliter.  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 Sacrament, 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 
De Carne Mariae Carnem accepit, in ipsa Carne hic ambulavit, & ipsam Carnem nobis manducandum dedit, nemo illam Carnem manducat nisi prius adoraverit.  which is first to be adored, before we receive it. Language which the Church of England will censure for Heresy!   

Paragraph IU.  
YOU instance this Testimony, According to that Flesh which 
Tract. 5. in John.  was born of the Virgin Mary, ye shall not have me, He is ascended 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 bodies in man, The Animal Body, 
1 Cor. 15.  and the Spiritual Body; The Animal Body is a poor Passenger upon Earth, struggling with Passions, and restless Agitations. The Spiritual Body, is the glorified Corpse, when Soul and Body meet in Eternity. It is sown a Natural Body, says St. Paul, it 
Epl. 146. Seminatur corruptibile surget incorruptibile.  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, 
Cap. 1. ad Eph. Aliam & aliam.  and a Terrene Body. These two Bodies are but one in Substance, 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. Adoration testifies what it is.   

Paragraph V.  
YOU allege this Similitude from St. Austin, As the Sacrament of the Body of Christ is in some manner or sense Christ's Body, 
Ep. 23. ad Bonifacium.  and the Sacrament of his Blood, is the Body of Christ, so the Sacrament of Faith, (meaning Baptism) is Faith, which the gloss, 
De Consecratione 2. hoc est.  of the Canon Law, thus expounds. It's called the Body of Christ, that is, it signifies the Body of Christ.  
Boniface enquiring how Infants, when they are baptised, 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, pitching upon the Similitude of the Sacrament, to cast his Eyes precisely on the sole outward appearance of the Symbols, which in some manner or sense, are Christ's Body and Blood. Not according to the truth of the thing, as the Gloss notes; or as St. Anselm exxpresses, the visible appearance of Bread is not the Body of the Lord, except as the Canon 
St. Ansel. Tract. de Sacram. Altaris, c. 1. Similitudo illa Panis per se inspecta non est Corpus Domini.  Law expounds it, improperly and after some manner, as it signifies and contains the Body of Christ.  
What is signified or contained is the Mystery, which is not prejudiced by the foregoing Speech? For a Mystery properly speaking, is some invisible thing. Such is that of St. Paul, If I know all Mysteries or hidden 
St. Paul, 1 Cor. 17.  things. And the Roman Orator expressed 
Si noverim Mysteria omnia. 3. De Oratore. Hoc tacitum tanquam Mysterium teneas.  himself after the same manner, when he said, Keep this secret, as a Mystery.  
The visible appearance then of Bread, though not the true Body 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 regeneration, 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, 
Apud Gratian. de Cons. d. 2. sect. utramque.  so we may also receive the likeness of his Flesh and Blood; and so neither 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 teaching 
Si Discipuli patienter ferre nequiverunt quod Dominus Dixit, quomodo ferunt ista increduli?  the same Doctrine? But of this more hereafter.  
Nor does this Learned Father more exclude the reality of Flesh, calling it the likeness of Flesh: Than St. Paul, saying, 
St. Paul, Eph. 2.  Christ appeared whilst he lived, and conversed with Sinners upon Earth, in the likeness of Man, denied that he was truly Man.  
'Tis true, many Dissenters from the Catholic Church, and Heretics, 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, composed 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 Ibidem. Veritas, dum Corpus Christi & Sanguis, virtute Spiritus S. ex Panis & Vini Substantiâ efficitur; figura, quod exterius sentitur.  The First is part of the Canon, wherein your Objection is contained. These are his Words, What exteriorly appears (in the Sacrament) is a Figure; the Truth is the Body and Blood of Christ, made of the Substance of Bread and Wine. 
b De Cons. d. 11. can. 41. Fidelitèr fatemur ante consecrationem esse Panem & Vinum, quod Natura formavit, post consecrationem verò Christi Sanguinem, quod benedictio consecravit.  The Second Passage is, We faithfully confess it is before Consecration, Bread and Wine, which Nature made; but after Consecration, the Flesh and Blood of Christ, which Benediction consecrated. 
c Can. 57 Panis quem ego dabo, determinat quomodo sit Panis, non solum secundum verbum, quo vivunt omnia, sed & secundum Carnem assumptam pro mundi vita.  The Third is the meaning 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 Transubstantiation, could have uttered. It is in his Treatise, de Doctrina Christiana, where laying down several Rules, for the right understanding 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 example, 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 puzzled to find out a warrant for your famous Assertion. For many Learned Writers judiciously 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 communicate spiritually of the Passion of Christ by Faith believing in Jesus, 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 literally understand the thing eaten in the Sacrament, to be the true Flesh of Christ, God and Man; and yet at the same instant 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 Stomach, 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. Listen to the Voice of God, and you'll hear the Gospel mention eating a Man, take, eat, this is my Body. The manner is Spiritual, 
Matth. 26.  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 figurative 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 
L. 2. Contra Advers. Leg. & Proph. c. 9  elsewhere in these Lines; We believe (in the 
Hominem Christum Jesum Carnem snam nobis▪ manducandum bibendumque Sanguinem dantem fideli card, atque ore suscipimus, quamvis horribilius videatur, Humanam Carnem perimere, quam manducare, & Humanum Sanguinem potare, quam fundere.  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 Psalms, hath this Passage; 
In Psal. 33. In quo tanta perpessus est.  He's truly our Lord, who truly gave us his Body to eat, in which he so much suffered. Elsewhere he says, the Faithful receive into their 
Contra Faustum, l. 2. c. 10. Sanguinem quo redempti sunt.  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 
Tract. 27. in John. Tu es Christus Filius Dei vivi, nec das in Carne & Sanguine tuo, nisi teipsum.  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 imagine, you put your own to a desperate adventure.    

Article VII.  
YOU mention two Testimonies out of Theodoretus' Dialogues between a Catholic under the name of Orthodoxus, and a Heretic under the name of Eranistes, who maintained 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 show that the Humanity of Christ always remained. This he proves, because the Humanity was a Veil or Garment to the Divinity, as we read in Genesis, where Jacob prophesied of the Messias, He washed his 
Gen. 49.  Garment in Wine, and his clothes in the Blood of the Grape. Eranistes replies, this is understood literally of his proper Habit, with which he was clothed 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 clothes 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. Orthodoxus answers, Nothing more easy 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 Scriptural passages, wherein they resemble one another, and consequently acknowledges the Similitude of the already mentioned Expressions. So also was he not ignorant of their differences. And therefore he said, Jesus 
Per nominum mutationem mutationi quae ex gratia facta est fidem adhibere.  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 precious Body not only to the Eleven Apostles, but also to the Traitor Judas. This cannot be properly Grace added to Nature, for Judas received his own condemnation. It must be then the Body of Christ 
Comm in Epla. ad Cor.  made by Grace of the Substance of Bread, and added to the Nature or remaining appearance of the Signs which was given to the Traitor.   

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 Body. 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. Therefore 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 ascension, 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 principle. 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 
Cent. 5. c. 10. Periculose dicit.  affirms, that the Symbols of the Body and Blood of Christ after the invocation 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. 
St. Aug. Enarr. in Psal. 68 Quod nulla substantia est, nihil omnino est.  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 interpretation: For what more usual, when we have uttered some word, either harsh in expression, or difficult to be understood, than forthwith to add another, softer in Language, and more obvious to the Hearer. Thus Theodoretus saying, They remain in their former substance, adds, that is, they remain in their former Figure and appearance, and may be seen and handled, even as before. 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 
Intelliguntur ea esse quae facta sunt, & adorantur & creduntur.  confesses, they are, what they were made, Christ's Body. And they are believed and adored as being those very things which they are believed. Which Words, if the Bread be not substantially changed into Christ's Body, teach plain Idolatry.  
Nor could Orthodoxus say the interior Substance of the Symbols, was not changed, in his own Opinion; for this he had already 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 appearance, (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 Being's. For St. Hilary gives the same to Proprieties; Saying, That the Flames 
St. Hilary. Naturam suam amiserunt.  in the Babylonian 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 Doctrine of Transubstantiation, frankly concedes the Natural Proprieties of Bread remain, ut paneitas. And Cardinal Pole, another great Vindicator of the same Tenet, says, Though there be only Flesh and Blood in the Sacrament, notwithstanding the Nature 
Card. Pole, p. 8. c. 3. de Euch. Cum in Dominica mensa sit solùm Caro & Sanguis, nihilominus Vini natura percipiatur.  of the Wine may be tasted. I would have you likewise argue, that these Authors are against 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 Taste, 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 
Gelas. de duab. Nat. Bib. Psal. Tom. 4.  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 Writers. There is then not one of our Popes against Transubstantiation: And if you cannot allege one Pope from the beginning of Christianity, who teaches contrary to what is now professed in the Roman Church, concerning this contested Article of Faith, is it not a great Argument that it was always taught in the Church of God?   

Article IX. Upon Facundus.  
FAcundus the African Bishop, justifying Theodorus Mopsuestenus, 
Facund. p. 144.  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 baptised; and the Sacrament of Adoption 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 conferred 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 Adoption of Sons, because he vouchsafed to receive Baptism, the Sacrament of Adoption. Then seeking an Example to verify that Baptism may be called Adoption, though it was not, but only contained 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 called the Body and Blood of Christ; because it contains the Body and Blood of Christ. What is contained in Baptism, is it not the proper Grace of Adoption? and what is contained in the Consecrated Species, is the true Body and Blood of Christ.  
Can any after this believe, that what you have objected, prejudices in the least the Universal and received Doctrine of the Christian Church, of Bread and Wine substantially changed 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 changed their Words in detriment to the 
Scotus, l. 4. & 11. q. 3. n. 18. ad 3. In Concil. Lat. Ubi-explioicite ponitur veritas, aliquorum Credendorum magis explicite quam habebatur in Symbolo Apostolorum, vel Athanasii, vel Nicaeni, & breviter, quidquid ibi dicitur esse Credendum, tenendum est esse de substantia Fidei.  Catholic Doctrine. 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 defined (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 contrary Opinion, had not the Church defined for Transubstantiation; 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 intervened. Nor ought we to be surprised at this. For Durandus ordinarily walked 
Durand. 4. & Numb. 9  on the brink of Faith in Assertions, and therefore 
Substantia Panis & Vini convertitur in substantiam Corporis & Sanguinis Christi. Quamvis iste modus sit de facto, non est tamen negandum quin alius modus fit Deo possibilis, scil. quod remanente substantia Panis & Vini, Corpus & Sanguis Christi esset in Sacramento.  merited the Title of Temerarius Doctor in the Church of God. These are his Words, The Substance 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 
Et Numb. 18. Sed quia hic modus non debet teneri, de facto, cum Ecclesia determinavit oppositum, quae non presumitur errare in talibus: ideo tenendo de facto aliam partem, respondendum est ad argumenta quae sunt in contrarium.  Substance of Bread, which is not really true, for the Church has decreed the contrary, and she is presumed not to err in her decisions; Therefore holding the Bread changed into Christ's Body, I answer to the contrary Objections.  
Tunstal Bishop of Durham says, from the beginning of Christianity, no body doubted of the real presence of Christ in the Sacrament, and that the Learned Ancient Writers looked upon the manner, how the Bread passed into Christ's Body, as inscrutable 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 power, 
Tunstal de Euchar. Sed Omnipotentia Dei cui nihil est impossibile, his qui cum Innocentio in eo Concilio interfuerunt visum est, quod is modus maxim, cum verbis hisce Christi, hoc est Corpus meum, congruere illis visus est.  to whom nothing is impossible, the change of Bread into Christ's Body (by Transubstantiation) seemed 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 believe them (who profess your Error) neither 
Si illis credimus, nec Christus, nec Spiritus Sanctus id efficere possit, ut panis in Corporis Christi substantiam transeat.  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' Thought, and I'll 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 
Epistola ad Conradum Pellicanum 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 conscientiam admisso ex hac vita migrare.  Bread and Wine in the Sacrament, I had rather be torn in pieces, than profess what you profess.  
If Alphonsus say there's seldom mention in Ancient Writers 
Alph. à Castro de Hers. l. 8.  concerning Transubstantiation, these seldom Intimations are sufficient to show, 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 than 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 Romish Church.  
The first Opposers of this Doctrine, were the Capharnaits, who scandalised at our Saviour's Promise, cried 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 
In Psal. 24. & Tract. in Joan. Dux & Antisignanus.  writes in his Sixth Chapter. And St. Austin calls them Heretics, 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 unfaithful Disciples murmured, who can endure this Doctrine?  
A second attempt was, as St. Paul delivers, made by the Corinthians, 
1 Cor. 11. Non credentes. S. Aug. Ep. 118. c. 3. Non credentes in Euch. contineri verum Christum.  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 contained in the Eucharist.  
A third Essay must be acknowledged in the Simonits', Menandrians, 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 Corporal Presence, as we learn from St. Cyril, and St. Gregory Nazianzen. 
St. Cyril. Alex. in John, l. 10. c. 13.   
In the Year 740. we read of certain Heretics meeting together 
St. Greg. Naz. Orat. 2. de Paschate.  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 Conventicle, which then was esteemed Heretical in the Christian World, you mention, make Orthodox, and oppose it to the Doctrine 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 interiorly, for the Substance itself; said, that as our Saviour deified Flesh which suffered 
Ex Pseudo-Synodo Iconomacorum An. 740.  for man's redemption, so (constituting the Eucharistic Bread, not a false Image of his natural Flesh) he did ordain it should be made, the Priest 
Eucharistiae Panem, ut non falsam imaginem, naturalis carnis per S. Spiritus adventum Sanctificandum Divinum Corpus fieri voluit mediante Sacerdote.  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 Heresy which pulled 
Nic. 2. Dimisso mendacio tangunt paucillum quid veritatem Divinum Corpus dicentes fieri.  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 following Writers to dispute how it was an Image. Amongst whom Scotus Erigena, towards the end of the Eight, or beginning of the Ninth Century, went so far, that he said, 'twas only an Image of the Body. Scarce had he broached this new Doctrine, but he was strait censured by the Writers of those Times.  
Hincmarus' accused him that he called the Sacrament a remembrance only of the true Body and Blood 
Hincmarus in Scot  
Memoria tantùm veri Corporis & Sanguinis Christi.  of Christ. Prudentius Bishop of Troy, and Ebbo Prelate 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' great Patron and Friend. Yet we never read that Scotus ever replied in defence of his Error, and so seemed 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 Heresy, or convince them not to be Catholics. Thus this Infant Embryo of Error covered in the Shell of darkness, was at length hatched 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 Philosophy. 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 Archdeacon. Here he began to sow several Errors; Viz. That Children were not to be baptised; 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, 
Januis Clausis.  and St. Anselm. He added a fourth Error, which is to our present purpose, That the consecrated 
Guit. l. 1. contra Bereng. Theod.  
Ep. ad Henricum Galliae in Bib. Pp. St. Anf. de Sacram. Altaris, c. 3.  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 money 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 In suis Libris de Corpore & Sanguine Domini.  Guitmundus, Durandus, Algerus, 
b In Exempl. ad Bereng.  Adelmannus, Hugo Lingonensis, Humbertus, 
c In Ep. adv. Petrum B.  Petrus Cluniacensis, 
d In cap. 26. Matth.  Euthymius, 
e L. 2. de Sacramento, p. 8. c. 7.  Hugo Victorinus, 
f L. 4. Sect. d. 11.  Petrus Lombardus. And the same Berengarius more than once abjured his Error, which during his life was nine times condemned in nine several Councils. The first at Rome under Leo the Ninth. The Second at vercels. The Third in the Convent of Brion, according to the desires of Henry Duke of Normandy, 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 Legate of the 
Baron. ad Ann. 1055, etc.  See Apostolic in France. This we have from the Writers of those times cited in Baronius. The last abjuration of this Heresy made by Berengarius, was real. For after ten years' Penance, he died peaceably in the Bosom of the Church. This we have from 
a L. 3. de gestis Angl.  William of Malemsbury, 
b In Henrico 2. Imp.  Matthew Paris, Vincentius Bellovacensis; and what is most convincing, we read in an Old Manuscript, in St. Martin's at Tours, these Words, Obiit Magister 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 Exclusion of Christ's Body in the Sacrament, after the best manner, Industry could invent, and Craft execute.  
Hence you may gather what diligence the Enemy of Mankind used; how often he was forced to repeat, almost the same Stratagems, before the fearful Error durst publicly appear, or was able to stand in any corner of Christendom.  
Pray now compare, if you please, the rise of Transubstantiation 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 afterwards recanted? Whether the Holy Fathers, who vindicated this Catholic Doctrine, St. Austin, St. Hilary, St. Ambrose, St. Cyril, St. Justin, St. Ignatius Martyr; or the Marcionits', Menandrians, 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 Doctrine, 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 Doctrine of the Church, when ever it had attempted first to come in, there would have been a great stir and bustle about it, and the whole Christian World would have risen up in opposition to it. But you have shown no such time, when first it came in, and when any such opposition was made to it, and therefore it was always the Doctrine 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 Doctrine with all their might. But what you have alleged 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 changed 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 show, 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 

Bertram de Corpore Domini.  
Ex his omnibus quae hactenus dicta 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 existunt.   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 strait 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 believed with Bertram and the Church, that the Bread was changed into the true Body of Christ, yet they denied there was any Figure in the Sacrament) could reconcile 
Quo credunt destruere comprobantur, Corpus etenim, Sanguinémque fideliter confitentur, & cum hoc faciunt, non hoc jam esse quod prius fuere procul dubio potestantur, & si aliud sunt quam fuere mutationem accêpere.  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 received 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, 
Ep. ad Heribald. c. 33.  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 delivers: God effected whatever he would in Heaven and on Earth. From hence he deduces, that Bread is changed into the Body of Christ; and therefore adds, it is no other Flesh, no other truly than what was born of the Virgin Mary, 
De Sanguine Domini, cap. 3.  and suffered upon the Cross, and rose from the 
Non alia Caro est, non alia plane, quam quae nata est de Maria, & passa in cruse & resurrexit de Sepulchro.  Sepulchre. 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 
Et cap. 3. At vero quisquis ista non credit, Si vidisset Christum in Cruse in specie servi, quomodo Deum illum intelligeret, nisi per fidem prius credidisset?  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 
Cap. 42. Neque aliam Carnem quam quae pro te, & pro omnibus tradita est, pependit in Cruse, quia sic veritas testatur, hoc est Corpus meum, quod pro vobis tradetur, & de Calais, hic enim Sanguis meus est, qui pro vobis effundetur in remissionem peccatorum.  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 Doctrine of the Church of Rome concerning the Sacrament, the two Learned Authors you have alleged, Bertram and Rabanus, never opposed.  
But you tell us, though for a more clear and satisfactory Answer 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 endeavoured to untie it, the work must be the labour 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 Doctrine 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 Divine; and the bare relation of this matter of Fact, is a full confutation thereof.  
From the Pagan Philosophers, you run for assistance to the Servants in the Parable, who could not give any punctual account when the Tares were sown, or by whom: Yet it was manifest 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 Britain, was happily restored to his Crown, without a great deal of fight and Bloodshed. From this place you take your journey into Turkey, and bring down the Grand Visier (invading Christendom, and besiegeing Vienna) who was not opposed 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 join our Great Monarch's happy Restauration, in a Simile 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 Judgement, could prevail with himself to conclude the Nullity of Mr. Arnauld'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 happy memory, was restored to his Crown; or because St. Matthew 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 Doctrine might silently have come in, and without opposition, although the particular time and occasion of its first rise, could not be assigned;) 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 coming in? were not the Tares, as soon as they sprung up, seen and discovered? But no body, except Heretics, ever opposed Transubstantiation; No body but Rebel's roof against the right Prerogative of their Prince.  
And what has the Parable of the Tares to do with the Blessed 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 Doctrine.  
YOU say, the Roman Church made and obtruded upon the World this Article, merely by virtue of her Authority, Seeing not any sufficient reason, either from Scripture, or Tradition, for the belief of it.  
The Roman Catholic Church never taught any of her Children, 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 Ecumenical 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'll believe She did not define this Doctrine, neither warranted with Scripture, nor Tradition. For the Council says; Because Christ our Saviour truly said, 
Concil. Trid. Sess. 13. cap. 4.  that was his Body, which under the Species of 
Quoniam autem Christus Redemptor noster, Corpus suum id quod sub specie Panis offerebat, vere esse dixit, ideo persuasum semper in Ecclesia Deī fuit, idque nunc denuo Sancta haec Synodus declarat per consecrationem Panis & Vini conversionem fieri totius substantiae Panis in substantiam Christi Domini nostri, & totius substantiae Vini in substantiam Sanguinis ejus, quae conversio convenienter & proprie à Sancta Catholica Ecclesia Transubstantiatio appellata est.  Bread, he offered; therefore the Church of God was always persuaded, and this Holy Council declares 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 substance 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 Receiver.  
THE Spiritual Efficacy of the Sacrament depends upon receiving the thing, which our Lord instituted, and a right preparation and disposition of mind, which makes it effectual 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 designed to us in the Lord's Supper, without any substantial 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 nothing to the worthy Receiver of the Sacrament, because Christ without this may give us the benefit or fruit of the Sacrament.  
God might have pardoned 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 without 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 Solemn Pomp enters the Capital City, his Corporal Presence customarily 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 Doctrine.    

PART I  
MY Second Part was designed to answer your Objections, which are of so much the less force, because I have already shown, this Doctrine sufficiently warranted with Divine Authority; and this easily weighs down, and overthrows whatever Probabilities Sense can suggest, or Reason invent. These Probabilities you reduce to these two Heads, First, The infinite Scandal of this Doctrine, to the Christian Religion. And Secondly, The monstrous and insupportable Absurdity of it.  

CHAP. I. Of the infinite Scandal of this Doctrine to the Christian Religion.  
AND this upon four accounts. First, by reason of the Stupidity of this Doctrine. Secondly, The real barbarousness of it. Thirdly, The Bloody consequences of it. Fourthly, The danger of Idolatry.  

Article I. Of the Stupidity of this Doctrine.  
TUlly the Roman Orator, says, When we call the Fruits of the Earth Ceres, and Wine 
De Natura Provide. lib. 3. Et quem tam amentem esse put as, qui illud quo vescatur, Deum credat esse?  Bacchus, we use but the common Language, but do you think any man so mad, as to believe what he eats, to be God? I am of Cicero's Opinion. And all reasonable People look upon Poetical Fancies, as Extravagant Reveries. But I hope the Law of Christ, is neither Poetical nor Fabulous. I remember the Poets sing how Minerva the Goddess of Wisdom was born of Jupiter's Understanding. Hearken, says Tertullian, a Fable, but a true one, like to this. The Word of God proceeding from the Thought of his Eternal Father. This Likeness, or Similitude of Poetical invention, diminishes not in the least, the truth of the Son's Divinity. Nor ought the Stupidity of eating God, in Tully's Opinion, ridicule our Saviour's own Words, Take, eat, this is my Body.  
Averröes the Arabian Philosopher, acknowledging in his time this Doctrine, to be the Profession of all Christians, aught to 
Dionys. Carth. in 4. d. 10. a. 1.  make (not what you say, the Church of Rome) the Church of England blush, objecting that the whole Society of Christians then, every where admitted Transubstantiation. I have traveled, says he, over the World, and have found divers Sects, but so sottish a Sect or Law I never found, as is the Sect of Christians, because with their own Teeth they devour God, whom they worship.  
It was great stupidity in the People of Israel, to say, Come let us make us Gods; but it was civilly said of them, Let us make us Gods that may go before us, in comparison of the Church of England, who calumniously make the Catholics say, let us make a God, that we may cat him; when we only say, God has power to change Bread into his Body.  
But the greatest Stupidity of all is, that in all Probability you think those common Juggling Words of Hocus Pocus are nothing else but a corruption, of Hoc est Corpus, by way of a ridiculous Imitation of the Priest of the Church of Rome. I grant this Imitation is very ridiculous. And you are the first Juggler with this Divine Mystery, and with our Saviour's own Words, that ever I read of in my life. But with all the Legerdemain, and Juggling tricks of Falsehood and Imposture, you'll never make me believe you, sooner than I do the Scripture.  
Nay, if Averröes, Cicero, and a whole Progeny of Heathen Philosophers, were as great Jugglers as yourself, and altogether designed to put a Trick upon me, you should never juggle me, by the Grace of God, out of my Faith in Christ.  
And Lastly, If I should ask council of the Philosophers (as you do in the concern of the Sacrament) to know the true cause of this Universe, Heraclitus would tell me Atoms produced it; Pythagoras would send me to the Marriage in Numbers; The Valentinians would bring me to the four Principles, which made the Treatise of Peace between Verity and Silence, Light and Profoundness. But whilst I let them inquire one of another, what gave being to these Atoms? who thought these Numbers? whence came this Verity? what is the Origin of this Silence? the Source of this Light? the Prop of this Profoundness? I rest contented in mind, and instructed with this Passage of Moses; In the beginning God created Heaven and Earth: God is the Cause of all things. Cicero may dispute with his false Gods: And Averröes may deride Christians: A Juggler may laugh at our Saviour's Institution. These words, this is my Body, silences them all, 
St. Aug. de v. Apli. c. 7. Tu disputa, ego credam.  and excites me to say with St. Austin, Dispute You, I will believe.   

Article II. Of the Barbarousness of this Doctrine.  
THE eating Man's Flesh, in its proper shape, is no doubt very barbarous. But I think the eating our Saviour's Flesh under the Species of Bread and Wine, appears barbarous neither to Sense, nor to Reason. 
Theophil. c 6. in John.  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Theophilact asks (in John 6.) Why does it not appear Flesh to us, but Bread? and Answers, lest we should have horror to eat it. And what you 
St Chrys. Hom. 24. in 1. ad Cor. Quid est hoc horribilius? quid autem amabilius.  call horrible, St. Chrysistom calls amiable. For what more Kind than to give himself?  
But you cannot imagine the Ancient Christians ever owned any such Doctrine, because than we should have heard of it from the Adversaries of our Religion in every Page of their Writings.  
This cannot be expected. For very few Pagans concerned themselves with the Rites of Christianity: And of these the most Famous complain Christians concealed the Doctrines they professed. Hence that Murmur of Cecilius in Minutius Felix, Why are the Christians careful to hide and steal their Worship from men's eyes, since Honesty is never ashamed to face Light? And Celsus disgusted 
Apud Origen. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, l. 1. cont. Celsum.  upon the same account, calls our Religion a Clandestine or hidden Doctrine. To which Origen occurs. 'tis true, there are some Points among us not communicated to all the World, nor is this peculiar to Christians. The Philosophers observed two sorts of Principles, some were public and common to all; others were private, and the Science of particular Disciples. 'Tis therefore in vain Celsus undertakes to discover the Secrets of Christians, not knowing in what they consist. St. Austin, and 
St. Aug. Tract. 11. in John.  St. Denys the Areopagite teach the same. And yet whether the Pagans knew them, or knew them not, you will have them revile our Mysteries in every Page of their Writings. 
St. Dionys. Hicr. l. 3. c. 3.   
Nor are you contented with this, for you add, With what confidence would they have set the Cruelty used by Christians in their Sacrament, against their God Saturn's eating his own Children, but that no such Argument was then objected by the Heathens to the Christians, is to a wise Man instead of a thousand Demonstrations, that no such Doctrine was believed.  
Now sure I am nonplussed. For how can I solve an Objection which stands instead of a thousand Demonstrations? What Author will happily fall into my hand, or dictate how our Adversaries gathered from Slaves and Captives a rude Relation of this Mystery, which was matter enough for them to hit us in the Teeth, in requital of Saturn's eating his Children, with the kill and feasting on Flesh and Blood?  
This Passage perchance of Tertullian may suffice any sober Understanding, 
Tertull. Apol. c. 7.  that the Pagans did not omit such a return you seek after; We are (says he) called wicked Infanticides, (Child 
Dicimur Infanticidae & Pabulo crudi—  killers) and nourished with raw Flesh.  
Athanagoras comes nearer, and reminds us how the Pagans with confidence set the cruelty used by Christians, in their Sacrament, if not against the God Saturn's, at least against Thyestes (another like History) eating his own Child. We are impeached, says he, (by Pagans) of Three 
Anathag. in Apol.  horrible Crimes, of taking away the Gods, of Thyestean 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Banquets (eating of a Child,) and of Incests. St. Justin Martyr fits you with Saturn's own Fable. 'Tis reported (says he to the Pagans) we 
St Justin Apol. 1. in fine.  practice Saturn's Mystery; and killing Man, exercise, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  with hands full of gore, all the cruel and bloody Rites of your Idolatry. Now sure I may conclude with you, that because such a thing was then objected by the Heathens to the Christians, it is to a wise Man instead of a thousand Demonstrations, that the Doctrine of Transubstantiation was believed in Primitive Ages, and then modestly vindicated from these foul Aspersions.   

Article III. Of the Bloody Consequences of this Doctrine.  
IF this Doctrine had been the occasion of the most Barbarous and Bloody Tragedies, to use your words, that ever were acted in the World, the Enemies of Christianity would have hit them in the Teeth with these Cruelties of terror, fury and rage; and what endless Triumphs would they have made upon this Subject? But that no such thing was objected by the Heathens, is to a wise Man instead of a thousand Demonstrations. And what you want here of Authority, you supply and make up in a zealous appearance of Devotion, breaking into this Exclamation; O Blessed Saviour! who can imagine that ever Men should kill one another, for not being able to believe contrary to their Senses; for being unwilling to think that thou shouldst make one of the most barbarous things that can be imagined, a Principle of thy Religion; for not flattering the Presumption of the Priest, who says he can make God.  
This is certainly to run headlong into Hell in Heaven's Road, wheedling the People into Blind Ecstasies, with Hypocritically crying out, O Blessed Saviour! But all who says, O Lord, O Lord, 
Non omnis qui dicit Domine, Domine, intrabit in Regnum Caelorum.  shall not enter into the Kingdom of Heaven. Examine your own Prayer, and Reason will find matter enough to discuss, and Conscience more to correct.  
What Catholic ever said, First, That Men should kill one another; Secondly, That the most barbarous thing in the World is a Mystery of Religion; Thirdly, That we flatter the Priest, who says, he can make God?  
These are as true, as your Prayer is without Calumny or Hypocrisy. They are as true, as there were Execrable Murders committed to drive People into this Senseless Doctrine, by no Body, in no Place.  
But they are not as true as the Doctrine of Transubstantiation was delivered by Christ and his Apostles, taught by the Consent of the Fathers, Divinely revealed and propagated to Posterity; and so free from Stupidity, quiet from Cruelty, and a Pious Mystery of our Religion.   

Article IV. Of the Danger of Idolatry.  
IF we should be mistaken, as you suppose, about this Change through the crossness of the Priest (which God forbid it should happen) not pronouncing the words of Blessing or Consecration, we should not at all be guilty of Idolatry For believing only one true God, we profess there is infinite Distance between him and all Creatures: and therefore we cannot so honour any Creature, as we do the true God. Nor is our Intention ever determined by the Will to adore any thing which is not God; So that if the Host were not, through mistake, consecrated by the Priest, the People's Adoration would be terminated in Christ, where e'er he is, because it is directed to God, and not to a Creature. The Pagans, 'tis true, or Persians cannot be excused from Idolatry, in worshipping the Sun, because erring from the knowledge of the true God, they direct their Adoration to what is not God, but a Creature.  
Mr. Thorndyke, one of the great Lights of your Church, was 
Thorndyk 's Present State of Religion, c. 1. p. 7.  so convinced in this point, that he professes, should this Church (of England) declare that the Change, which we call Reformation, is grounded upon this Supposition (of Idolatry in the Church of Rome,) I must then acknowledge that we (Protestants) are the Schismatics.    

CHAP. II. Of the Monstrous Absurdity of this Doctrine.  
TO show the Absurdity of this Doctrine, you are contented to ask these few Questions.  
Question 1. Whether ever any Man have, or ever had greater evidence of the truth of any Divine Revelation, than every Man hath of the Falsehood of Transubstantiation.  
Answer. If we had no surer Evidence of Revealed Truth, than every Man hath of the Falsehood of Transubstantiation, we should have no true Evidence for Christian Religion; And thus by your First Question Christianity would immediately be dispatched out of the World.  
Quest. 2. Supposing the Doctrine had been delivered in Scripture in the same words, which we read in the Council of Trent, You ask, by what stronger Argument could any Man prove to me, that such words were in the Bible, than I can prove to him, that Bread and 〈…〉 Consecration are Bread and Wine still?  
Answer. The Sense of the Council of Trent, and that of the Scriptures are one and the same. If therefore I can but appeal to 〈◊〉 Eyes to prove such words to be in the Bible, as you do appeal to your Senses to prove that Bread and Wine remain after Consecration; what the Scripture says, is evidently true according to the Testimony of Sense; and your Testimony from Sense of the substance of Bread remaining, is evidently false. I have great assurance of this. For St. Paul forbids me to believe an Angel, if he should come down from Heaven, and teach me contrary to what is writ in Scripture. As this is the substance of Bread, and not my Body, is contradictory to, this is my Body. And what Prerogative enjoy you beyond that of an Angel? And if you draw one way with your Evidence of Sense, and Scriptural Evidence from Sense draw another way, is it not evident that your evidence is good for nothing?  
Quest. 3. Whether it be reasonable to imagine, that God should make that a part of Christian Religion, which shakes the main external Evidence and Confirmation of the whole? You mean the Miracles which were wrought by our Saviour and his Apostles, the Assurance whereof did at first depend upon the certainty of Sense?  
Answer. With great Reason and Justice you appeal to the Senses of those, who say, they saw the Miracles which were wrought by our Saviour, and his Apostles; because their Eyes were the proper Witnesses of Miracles: So with the same Reason and Justice I appeal to my Senses to prove, that the words which teach the Doctrine of Transubstantiation are in Scripture, because Paper, Ink, Syllables, and words, are the proper Objects of Seeing, feeling, and hearing. How then does the Catholic Tenet shake the main External Evidence of the Christian Religion, when this external proof of Sense evidences, from Scripture, Transubstantiation?  
Quest. Whether our Saviour's Argument were conclusive or not, proving to his Disciples after his Resurrection, that his Body was risen, Luke 24. 29. Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself, for a Spirit hath not Flesh and Bones, as you see me have.  
And if seeing and handling be an unquestionable Evidence that things are what they appear to our Senses, than the Bread in the Sacrament is not changed into the Body of Christ.  
Answer. Sense, in its own Objects, is frequently certain; and here we may rely on it. According to this Principle, the Argument which our Saviour used, did certainly prove to the Disciples, that what they saw and handled, was his true Body. For affirmation of Flesh and Bones rightly follows from feeling and seeing. These Actions belong properly to the experience of Sense. Besides, we have all this recorded in Scripture. And our Saviour made use of all other Arguments imaginable to confirm the Mystery of his Resurrection.  
In some Circumstances the Senses may deceive us, and then we ought not to rely on them. Thus the Jews, designing to precipitate our Saviour from the top of a Mountain; Jesus, as 
Luke 4.  we read in Scripture, passed through the crowd, and departed, and the whole Multitude, trusting to that Information which Sense gave them, believed he was a Ghost, or Apparition. In like manner, the same true Body of Christ is substantially present in the Sacrament after a Spiritual Existence; and therefore it is not the proper Object of Sense; and so we cannot here rely on our Senses. We must then trust to something else, viz. to the Testimony of Scripture, which is the Rule of Faith, to know surely what Substance or Body lies under the Species, or appearance of Bread.  
Now the Scripture teaches us, that the Bread in the Eucharist is the Body of Christ, This is my Body; and, the Bread which I 
Matth. 26. John 6.  will give is my Flesh. If it be the Flesh of Christ, as we learn from Scripture, than the Substance of Bread remains not; for the remaining Substance, at the same time, cannot be the Substance of Bread, and the Substance of the Body of Christ. Moreover, our Saviour left many other Testimonies in confirmation of this Verity. Our Belief is grounded on our Saviour's Words; and what more secure than to build on this Immovable Rock of Truth.  
Now what shall I say, but that your whole Discourse has been levelled at our Saviour Jesus Christ, and his Testimonies, against which the Gates of Hell shall never prevail.  
And I finish with these words of St. Austin. When the Opinion of Error has prepossessed Man's 
St. Aug. l. 3. de Doct. Christ. c. 13. Si animum praeoccupaverit alicujus erroris opinio, quidquid aliter asseruerit Scriptura figuratum homines arbitrantur.  Mind, whatever Scripture shall say in opposition to his Senses, he supposes a Figurative Interpretation. Oh that this Figurative receiving Christ in the Sacrament, presage not a Figurative embracing of the same in the next World! and so you clipping the Shadow for the true Body, lose for ever Eternal Happiness.  
Ecclesiae Judicio Subjecta sunto.   
FINIS.