XX.  He had been at first much prejudiced against the opinion of the Romish Church concerning the real presence.  We may judge of it by the letter which he wrote June 7, 1622, to Episcopius[595].  “I think, says he to him, that you would do well to confute those who with Cassander believe that one may disapprove the errors of the Romish Church, and yet not be obliged to separate from her communion.  Two points especially appear to me to deserve discussion:  the first is, whether an action lawful in itself, as the adoration during the time of the supper, ceaseth to be so on account of the error of the Ministers of the Church, who would have this adoration referred to the visible signs.”

In process of time he departed from the manner of speaking at least of the Ministers.  He acknowledged[596] that in the Eucharistical bread some change is made, which the ancient Latin Church called Transfiguration, and the modern Transubstantiation:  when Jesus Christ, being sacramentally present, favours us with his substance, as the Council of Trent speaks, the appearances of bread and wine remain, and in their place succeed the body and blood of Christ.

It is certain that he did not approve of the sentiments of the Calvinists concerning the Eucharist:  he reproached them with their contradictions[597].  “The Disciples of Calvin, says he, speak very differently on this subject in their Confessions and in their disputes:  you will hear them say in their confessions, that they really, substantially, and essentially partake of Christ’s body and his blood; in their disputes they maintain that Christ is received only spiritually by faith.  The ancients go much farther, admitting a real incorporation of Jesus Christ with us, and the reality of Christ’s natural body, as St. Hilarius speaks.”

Thus Grotius was persuaded the term transubstantiation, adopted by the Council of Trent, was capable of a good interpretation[598]:  but it is not clear however, that, though he admitted the expressions used by the Catholic Church, he was of her opinion.  After approving the term transubstantiation, he adds[599], “And because what is spiritual among the Jews is called real, the terms really, substantially, and essentially, are used in the Protestant Confessions, and by their Doctors.”  It is plain from what he subjoins, that he sought rather to unite different sentiments by means of equivocal expressions, than by an exact Creed, which might be susceptible of only one sense.  “We must not condemn, says he, those who assure us that the Eucharist is but the sign of the body of Jesus Christ, since St. Augustine, with several other Fathers, speak in this manner; and the sacrament is defined to be the visible sign of an invisible grace.”