〈◊〉 in that which is the figure or representation of the body and blood of Christ for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not taken in your sense for the external accidents which you call the species but for that which doth figure or represent for in his next Catechetical discourse he calls the bread and wine 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the figure of the body and blood of Christ and this Theophylact and those who assert Transubstantiation deny that the bread and wine are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For where there are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 there must be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which must answer to them if Cyril therefore makes the bread and wine to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he must make the body and blood of Christ to be the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and consequently they cannot be the very body and blood of Christ in your sense This 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here have the same signification and are the same with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and so when he saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 his meaning cannot be under the accidents of bread and wine the body and blood of Christ is present in your sense for he speaks of such a presence as hath relation to the receiver and not to the elements for he saith Vnder the type of bread and wine the body and blood of Christ is given to thee For otherwise it had been far more to his purpose to have said absolutely that under the species of bread and wine the body and blood of Christ is substantially present but when he saith only that it is given to the receiver it doth not belong to such a corporeal presence as you dream of but to such a real and spiritual presence whereby believers are make partakers of the body and blood of Christ. And therefore Cyril is in this well explained by that of Tertullian Hoc est corpus meum id est figura corpus mei This is my body i. e. the figure of my body which is the same with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and by that of S. Austin Non dubitavit Dominus dicere Hoc est corpus meum cum daret signum corporis sui Christ did not scruple to say This is my body when he gave the figure of his body And elsewhere speaking of Judas his being present ad convivium in quo corporis sanguinis sui figuram discipulis commendavit tradidit at that Supper in which Christ commended and delivered to his Disciples the figure of his body and blood So that hitherto there is nothing in the testimony of Cyril importing Transubstantiation But it may be you think there is more force in it where he saith That we must not believe our senses that that which we see is not bread though it seem to the tast to be so c. As to which I answer That this place of Cyril must be explained by that which went before it wherein he said That we must not judge it to be meer bread and meer wine For although sense be a sufficient judge of that which it sees and tasts yet it cannot be a judge of that which is exhibited by that which is seen and tasted therefore though to the tast it seems to be nothing but common bread and wine yet they ought to believe that it is the communion of the body and blood of Christ. So that this is not to be understood of the elements themselves but of the mystical and sacramental nature of them And as Cardinal Perron hath observed It is an usual thing for the greater Emphasis sake to deny that to be which is meant only respectively or to express the affirmation and denyal of some qualities by the affirmation or denyal of the substances themselves as in that of Tully Memmius semper est Memmius for one that in S. Ambrose Ego non sum ego for the other and in many other instances to the same purposes in which he saith Though the substance seem to be denied yet only some quality is understood by it So when Cyril here saith That bread is not bread c. he means not by it any alteration of the substance of it but that it is not that common bread which it was before and as our sight and tast judge it still to be And what he saith here of the bread in the Eucharist he said the same before of the Chrism where he compares them both together For saith he do not think that to be meer oyntment for as the bread of the Eucharist after the invocation of the Holy Spirit is no longer bread but the body of Christ so this holy oyntment is no longer meer or common oyntment after it is consecrated but a gift of Christ and the Holy Spirit being effectual through the presence of his divine nature May not you then as well prove a Transubstantiation here as in the Eucharist since he parallels these two so exactly together And so elsewhere he speaks concerning Baptism That they ought not to look on it as meer water but as spiritual grace so that he means not a substantial change in the Eucharist any more than in the other but only relative and sacramental Neither can any thing more be inferred from your testimonies out of your last Authour S. Ambrose there being nothing at all in the words you produce which implies any substantial change in the elements for although it be only sacramental yet it may be truly said It is no longer that which nature hath framed it viz. meer bread and wine but that which the benediction of consecration hath made it to be which I grant to be the body and blood of Christ but not in your gross and corporeal sense So S. Chrysostome saith of Baptism That its virtue is so great it doth not suffer men to be men Will you therefore say it transubstantiates them But you add further out of him that he saith The force of benediction is greater than that of nature seeing by that nature it self is often changed And so we assert too that the force of benediction far exceeds that of nature which can so alter common elements as by the use of them to make us partakers of the body and blood of Christ. Your last words are out of the counterfeit S. Ambrose which are only general viz. this bread is bread before the words of the Sacrament but when consecration comes of bread it is made the flesh of Christ. This we deny not but the dispute is about the sense in which it is made so whether by a substantial change of the bread into the body of Christ and that this cannot be this Authour's meaning appears by those known words which are used by him speaking of the efficacy of Christs power in the Sacrament whereby he can make ut sint quae erant in aliud commutentur that they might be what
enough to exercise his Faith needed nothing else to try it but your Doctrine of Transubstantiation But you say The term indeed was first authorised by the Council of Lateran as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by that of Nice but for the thing it self signified by this term which is a real conversion of the substance of bread into the body of Christ and of wine into his blood 't is clear enough that it was ever held for a Divine truth If you prove but that I will never quarrel with you about the term call it Transubstantiation or what you will but we do not think it so clear as not to want proofs stronger for the belief of it then all the repugnancies of sense and reason are against it For it is a vain thing for you to attempt to prove so unreasonable a Doctrine as this is by some few lame citations of Fathers unless you can first prove that the Authority of them is so great as to make me believe any thing they say though never so contrary to sense and reason If you could bring some places of the Fathers to prove that we must renounce absolutely the judgement of sense believe things most contradictions to reason yet you must first shew that the evidence they bring is greater then that of sense or reason Or that I am more bound to believe them then I am to believe the greatest evidence of sense or reason When you say In these cases we must submit reason to Faith we acknowledge it when it is no manifest contradiction in things so obvious to sense or reason that the asserting it will destroy the use of our faculties and make us turn absolute Scepticks for then Faith must be destroyed too For may not a man question as well whether his hearing may not deceive him as his sight and by that means he may question all the Tradition of the Church and what becometh of his Faith then and if his sight might deceive him in a proper object of it Why might not the Apostles sight deceive them in the body of Christ being risen from the grave And if a man may be bound to believe that to be false which his sense judges to be true what assurance can be had of any miracles which were wrought to confirm the Christian Doctrine and therefore his Lordship might well say That Transubstantiation is not consistent with the grounds of Christian Religion But of this I have spoken already That which I am now upon is not how far reason is to be submitted to Divine Authority in case of certainty that there is a Divine Revelation for what I am to believe but how far it is to be renounced when all the evidence which is brought is from the Authority of the Fathers So that the Question in short is Whether there be greater evidence that I am bound to believe the Fathers in a matter contrary to sense and reason or else to adhere to the judgement of them though in opposition to the Fathers Authority And since you do not grant their Authority immediately Divine since you pretend not to places as clear out of them as the judgement of sense and reason is in this case since you dare not say that all the Fathers are as much agreed about it as the senses of all mankind are about the matter in dispute I think with men who have not already renounced all that looks like reason this will be no matter of Controversie at all From whence it follows that supposing the Fathers were as clear for you as they are against you in this subject yet that would not be enough to perswade us to believe so many contradictions as Transubstantiation involves in it meerly because the Fathers delivered it to us I speak not this as though I did at all fear the clearness of any Testimony you can produce out of them but to shew you that you take not a competent way to prove such a Doctrine as Transubstantiation is For nothing but a stronger evidence than that of sense and reason can be judged sufficient to oversway the clear dictates of both This being premised I come to consider the clear evidence you produce out of Antiquity for this Doctrine and since you pretend to so much choice in referring us to Bellarmin and Gualtierus for more I must either much distrust your judgement or suppose these the clearest to be had in them and therefore the examination of these will save the labour of searching for the rest And yet it is the great unhappiness of your cause that there is scarce one of all the Testimonies you make use of but either its Authority is slighted by some of your own writers or sufficient reasons given against it by many of ours Your first is of St. Cyprian or at least an Authour of those first ages of the Church who speaking of the Sacrament of the Eucharist saith This common bread chang'd into flesh and blood giveth life And again The bread which our Lord gave to his Disciples being chang'd not in its outward form or semblance but in its inward nature or substance by the omnipotency of the word is made flesh As to this Testimony there are two things to be considered the authority and the meaning of it For its Authority you seem doubtful your self whether S. Cyprian's or no since Bellarmin and others of your own deny it but at least you say an Authour of those first ages of the Church but you bring no evidence at all for it Bellarmin grants that he is younger then St. Augustine and others say that none mention him for 800 years after St. Cyprians time And the abundance of barbarisms which that book is so full fraught with manifest that it is of a much later extraction then the time it pretends to But the matter seems to be now out of question since the Book is extant in the King of France's Library with an Inscription to Pope Adrian and a MSS. of it is in the Library of All-Souls in Oxford with the same Inscription and the name of Arnaldus Bonavillacensis who was St. Bernards co-temporary and lived in the twelfth Century And those who have taken the pains to compare this Book with what is extant of the same Authour in the Bibliotheca Patrum not only observe the very same barbarisms but the same conceptions and expressions about the Sacrament which the other hath Although therefore I might justly reject this testimony as in all respects incompetent yet I shall not take that advantage of you but supposing him an Authour as ancient as you would have him I say he proves not the thing you bring him for For which two things must be enquired into 1. What kind of presence of Christ he asserts in the Sacrament 2. What change he supposes to be made in the Elements For your Doctrine asserts That there is a conversion of the whole substance of bread and
disproves even in that very sentence from whence those words are cited if you had given them us at large For saith he that common bread being chang'd into flesh and blood procures life and increase to our bodies and therefore from the usual effect of things the weakness of our Faith is helped being taught by a sensible argument that the effect of eternal life is in the visible Sacraments and that we are not united to Christ so much by a Corporal as Spiritual union In which words he compares the sign and the thing signified together that as the bread being Sacramentally changed into the flesh and blood of Christ doth yet really give life and nourishment to our bodies which certainly is far enough from that substantial change into the body of Christ which you assert so by that effect of the sign it self upon our bodies our Faith is helped the better to understand the efficacy of the thing signified upon our souls in order to eternal life there being as real though spiritual union between Christ and Believers as there is between the bread and our bodies And that this is the plain and unsophisticated meaning of this Authour in these words I dare appeal to the impartial judgement of any intelligent Reader By which we see Those first words of the change of the bread into the flesh and blood of Christ must be understood of a sacramental and not a substantial change But your other is the great and as Bellarmin thinks unanswerable place which you thus render The bread which our Lord gave to his Disciples being changed not in its outward form and semblance but in its inward nature and substance by the omnipotency of the word is made flesh As to which place I must tell you first that there are very shrewd suspicions of some unhandsome dealings with it for some great Criticks have assured us that the place is corrupted and that the ancient MSS. read it quite otherwise non effigie nec naturâ mutatus which is so far from your purpose that it is directly against it and this seems far more consonant to the following words For saith he as in the person of Christ the humanity was seen but the divinity lay hid so in the visible Sacrament the divine essence doth infuse it self after an unexpressible manner In which it is considerable how he doth parallel these two together for as the humane nature of Christ did substantially remain notwithstanding the presence of the divine nature so to make good the parallel the substance of Bread and Wine must remain too and that because he doth not say That the body of Christ is present which might exclude the substance of the elements but the divine essence which only imports a spiritual and real presence And when he saith That the Bread is neither changed in its form or nature when by the Omnipotency of God it is made flesh i. e. as to the real communion which believers have of the body of Christ which is an act of divine power as well as goodness he saith no more than Theodoret Ephraim and Gelasius do expresly speak For saith Theodoret The mystical symbols after Consecration go not out of their own nature but remain in their former substance figure and shape and are visible and tangible as they were before Which words considering the occasion and importance of them are so express as nothing can be more And in his former Dialogue he gives an account Why the external symbols are called by the names of the body and blood of Christ not by changing their natures but by superadding Grace to nature which is the same with that our Authour saith here Though neither figure nor nature be changed yet by Gods Omnipotency it is made flesh that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Theodoret and this omnipotentia Dei here importing the same thing To the same purpose Ephraim the famous Patriarch of Antioch speaks in Photius For saith he the body of Christ which is received by believers doth not lose its sensible substance and yet is inseparable from spiritual Grace And so Gelasius as plainly as either of the foregoing asserts That the Sacraments of the body and blood of Christ which we receive are a divine thing through and by which we are made partakers of the divine nature which answers to the Omnipotency of God by which it is made flesh in our Authour and yet it doth not cease to be the substance or nature of Bread and Wine which is the same with the former clause That the Bread is not changed in figure or nature So that the ancient reading of this place is not only consonant to the other parts of his discourse but asserts no more than is in express terms said by genuine and unquestionable Authours who plainly overthrew your Doctrine of Transubstantiation For these testimonies being so express for the remaining of the substance of Bread and Wine after Consecration are of far greater force against it than the highest expressions concerning the change of the elements can make for it For in these they speak their judgements clearly and punctually against Hereticks and speak that which is absolutely inconsistent with Transubstantiation but in their other they speak mystically and sacramentally and their most lofty expressions must be understood by the nature and design of their discourse which is to represent symbolical things in the most lively and affecting manner But when our Adversaries are urged with the former testimonies they then tell us That substance and nature are not alwaies taken properly but sometimes at large for the accidents or use of things but although this can never be applied to the places of the foregoing Authours in their disputations with the Eutychian Hereticks yet from thence we are furnished by themselves with a further answer to this place So that although we admit of the present reading non effigie sed naturâ mutatus yet since by their own confession nature doth not alwaies import the substance of a thing they cannot in any justice or reason from hence inferr a substantial change Let them then take their choice Whether are the words of substance and nature in the Fathers alwaies to be taken properly or no If they must be taken so we have three unquestionable testimonies of ancient Fathers directly against Transubstantiation and we only lose the testimony of an uncertain Authour built upon an uncertain reading and contrary to other expressions in the same book If they be not then from the change of nature here expressed no such thing as a substantial change can be inferred but only accidental upon consecration in regard of the sacramental use and effect of it Which that it is nothing strange in Antiquity might be easily proved but that our Adversaries confession saves me the labour of it The second Testimony is of Gregory Nyssen out of whose Catechetical Oration you produce these words With good reason do
we believe that the Bread being sanctified by God's Word is changed into the body of the Word of God and a little after The nature of the things we see being trans-elemented into him I might here tell you What Exceptions are taken against this book as not being genuine not only by Protestants as Fronto Ducaeus would have it because of these expressions but by others too But I will not insist on this because I see no sufficient reason to question the Authority of it yet I know not how you can excuse it from some interpolations since he therein mentions Severus an heretical Acephalist who lived not till after Gregory's time yet for the main of the book I say as Casaubon doth that it is Opus planè eximium si paucos navos excipias An excellent piece in the general and becoming its Authour some few escapes excepted And the design of it being to shew that Christian Religion hath nothing absurd or unreasonable in it it would be very strange that he should assert so absurd and unreasonable a Doctrine as Transubstantiation is But there is nothing tending to that in the places cited but only the use of those two words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for the main force of all you say depends upon them So that if we can give a good account of them without any Transubstantiation there remains no difficulty at all in these words of Gregory Nyssen For we deny not that there is a change in the elements after Consecration but we say It is a sacramental and you That it is a substantial change and this you offer to prove from these two words here used in reference to the Eucharist The argument commonly formed by your Authours from the first words is Whatsoever is changed is not what it was before which we readily grant so far as the change is but still it remains to be proved that the substance is changed in it self But it were easie to shew that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in multitudes of places of the Fathers is used for an accidental and relative change and Gregory Nyssen himself very frequently uses the word where it is capable of no other sense as when he saith Of the shining of Moses his face that it was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a change to that which was more glorious and when he affirms the souls of men by the Doctrine of Christ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be changed into that which is more divine And in this same Catechetical Oration he uses it several times to the same purpose about the change which shall be in glorified bodies and the change of mens souls by Regeneration But I need not insist more on this since I produced before the confession of Suarez that such expressions are more accommodated to an accidental mutation Neither is there any more strength in the other word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 though Suarez thinks this comes nearer the matter and you confidently say What can here be signified by trans-elementation of the nature of the outward element but that which the Church now stiles Transubstantiation I will therefore shew you what else is signified by that word which Gregory used which cannot be properly rendred trans-elementation for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth not come from the Noune 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but from the Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the Greeks expound 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as you may see in Suidas and others So that it imports not a substantial but an accidental change too and in that sense Gregory Nyssen uses it to express Regeneration by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 those who are trans-elemented by Regeneration Would you say those who are transubstantiated by it So that neither of these Testimonies import any more than that there is a sacramental change in the elements after Consecration by which believers are made partakers of the body and blood of Christ which is no more than we assert and falls far short of your Doctrine of Transubstantiation Your third Testimony is of S. Cyril of Hierusalem which you would make us believe is so full and clear that no Catholick could express his own or the Churches belief of this mystery in more full plain and effectual terms Neither shall I here stand to dispute the reasons on which those Mystagogical discourses under his name are questioned but proceed to the consideration of the Testimony it self Which lyes in these words He that changed water into wine by his sole will at Cana in Galilee doth he not deserve our belief that he hath also changed wine into blood Wherefore let us receive with all assurance of Faith the body and blood of Jesus Christ. Seeing under the species of bread the body is given and under the species of wine his blood is given c. knowing and holding for certain that the bread which we see is not bread though it seem to the tast to be bread but the body of Jesus Christ likewise that the wine which we see though to the sense it seem to be wine is not wine for all that but the blood of Jesus Christ. This testimony you have patched together out of several places in that Oration very warily leaving out that which would sufficiently clear the meaning of S. Cyril in the words you cite out of him For it is evident that his design is to perswade the Catechumens from whom the mysterious presence of Christs body in the Sacrament was wont to be concealed that the bread and wine were not meer common elements but that they were designed for a greater and higher use to exhibit the body and blood of Christ to believers And therefore he saith expresly Do not consider them as meer bread and wine for they are the body and blood of Christ according to his own words By which it is plain he speaks of the body and blood of Christ as sacramentally and not corporeally present for he doth not oppose the body and blood of Christ to the substance of bread and wine but to meer bread and wine i. e. that they should not look on the bread and wine as naked signs but as signa efficacia and that there is a real presence of Christ in and with them to the souls of believers And this is it which he saith That they ought not to make a question of since Christ said This is my body and this is my blood For if he could by his will turn the water into wine Shall we not believe him that he can change his wine into his blood And after adds That under the symbols of bread and wine the body and blood of Christ is given that thou mayest be a partaker both of his body and blood You render this under the species or form of bread and wine in Cyril it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
as his reason but the departing from the Institution of Christ and this is done by one as well as the other But he adds That there was a precept for that Do this And so say we was there as plain for the other Drink ye all of this So that the parity of reason is evident for the one as well as the other Upon the same ground doth Pope Julius afterwards condemn the using milk instead of wine because contrary to Christs Institution and so he doth the dipping the bread in the Chalice From whence we inferr that they looked on Christs Example and Institution in the administration to be unalterable But most express is the Testimony of Pope Gelasius who finding some from the remainders of Manichaism did abstain from the Cup gives express order That they who were infected with this odde superstition either should receive the whole Sacrament or abstain wholly from it because the dividing one and the same mystery cannot be done without great sacriledge To this Bellarmin tells us two Answers are commonly given one That these words are meant of Priests another That they relate only to those superstitious persons but both of them are sufficiently taken off by the reason assigned which is not fetched either from their Priesthood or Superstition but only from the Institution of Christ that it would be sacriledge to part those things which Christ by his Institution had joyned together Thus we see the sense of the Church is clear not only for the practice but the command too and the sinfulness of the violation of it Although to you one would think it were wholly needless to prove any more than the Vniversal Practice since the Tradition of the Church is equal with you with an unwritten word but that is when it makes for your purpose and not otherwise For in this case though the Institution be express the universal practice of the Church for at least a thousand years unquestionable yet because it contradicts the present sense and practice of your Church all this signifies nothing at all with you So true is it that it is neither Scripture nor Antiquity which you really regard but Interest and the Present Church And what Cusanus like a downright man spake out in this case is that you must all at last take sanctuary in That the Scriptures must be interpreted according to the current practice of the Church and therefore it is no wonder if they be interpreted at one time one way and another time another way And though this seem a very great absurdity yet it is no more than is necessary to be said by such who maintain things so contrary to Scripture and the practice of former ages of the Church But you are so far from thinking this contrary to the practice of the Church in former ages that you say Not only in S. Thomas his time but in all times of the Church it was both publickly allowed and commonly by some practised even in Churches to receive under one kind only A bold Assertion and which is confidently denied by very many of your own Communion For not only Cassander often confesses that for above a thousand years after Christ no instance can be produced of publick Communion in one kind But Father Barns acknowledges not only that Communion in both kinds is much more agreeable to Scripture Fathers and the Vniversal Church but that per se loquendo jure divino praescribitur taking it in it self it is commanded by a Divine Law But I know these men are too honest for you to own them but as to the universal practice of the Church it is confessed by Ruardus Alphonsus à Castro Lindanus and many others But we need no more than your S. Thomas himself even in that very place where you say He rather makes for you than against you for when he saies that Providè in quibusdam Ecclesiis observatur ut populo sanguis non detur It was a custom providently observed in some Churches not to give the Sacrament in the form of wine to the Laity He thereby shews indeed that in his time about A. D. 1260. this custom did in some places obtain but yet so that the universal practice had been to the contrary for so much is confessed by him in his Commentaries on S. John where his words are secundum antiquam in Ecclesiâ consuetudinem omnes sicut communicabant corpori ita communicabant sanguini quod etiam adhuc in quibusdam Ecclesiis servatur According to the anceint custom of the Church all did communicate in both kinds which as yet is observed in some Churches Now Whether the universal practice of the Church in former times or the practice of some Churches in his time were more agreeable to the Divine Institution we may appeal to Aquinas himself who elsewhere gives this account Why the elements of bread and wine were made use of and delivered severally That they might denote a complete refection and fully represent the death and passion of our Saviour On the same accounts Bonaventure and Alensis make both kinds necessary to the Integrity of the Sacrament And the latter who was Master to the two former saies expresly That whole Christ is not contained sacramentally under either kinds but his flesh under that of bread and his blood under that of wine Than which nothing can be more destructive to the Doctrine of Concomitancy And it is learnedly proved by Pet. Picherellus that the bread was appointed to represent not the body in its compleat substance but the meer flesh when the blood is out of it according to the division of the Sacrifices into flesh and blood from whence it appears that the Sacrifice of Christs death cannot be represented meerly by one kind and that whole Christ is not contained under one in the administration of it And therefore Alensis rightly determines that the res Sacramenti cannot be perfectly represented by one kind and thence sayes He that receives but in one kind doth not receive the Sacrament perfectly No wonder therefore that he tells us That some religious persons in his time when the contrary custom through the superstition of people had somewhat prevailed did earnestly desire that the Sacrament might again be received in both kinds Thus we see when this custom did begin reason and argument was still against it and nothing pleaded for it but only some superstitious fears of some accidental effusions of the blood of Christ. But you are the man who would still perswade us That Communion in one kind was not only publickly allowed but by some practised even in Churches in all times of the Church And therefore in reason we must give attendance to your impregnable demonstrations of it For otherwise say you How is it possible that the Manichees should find liberty and opportunity to communicate amongst Catholicks in Catholick Churches without being perceived since they never drank
wine nor communicated under the form of wine as 't is certain they frequently did in S. Leo 's time and after But you have very unhappily light of this for your first proof which is so evident against you For Leo who mentions the Manichees communicating in Catholick Churches tells the Catholicks What way they might discern them from themselves viz. that though they received the bread yet they refused the wine by which saith he you may discover their sacrilegious hypocrisie and by that means they may be expelled out of the society of Catholicks You were therefore very ill advised to make choice of this for your argument which makes it plain that all Catholicks did receive in both kinds and that the Manichees might be thereby known that they did not And if it were the custom for the Catholicks sometimes to receive in both kinds and sometimes not which is all the shift Bellarmin hath and the Manichees not at all this could be no note of distinction between them for although the Manichees might not receive at one time they could not tell but they might at another Now Leo's intention being to give such a note of distinction that they might not receive at all among them it evidently follows that all the Catholicks did constantly receive in both kinds and that they were only Manichees who did abstain from the Cup. For that Story which Bellarmin insists on and you referr to of the woman who being a Macedonian Heretick yet pretending to communicate with the Catholicks had the bread which her Maid brought with her and which she took instead of the Eucharist turned into a stone in her mouth upon which she runs presently to the Bishop and with tears confessed her fault as we take it wholly upon the Faith of Sozomen from whom Nicephorus transcribes it so I cannot imagine what it proves for your purpose unless it be that they in whose mouths the bread turns into a stone too will hardly have patience till the Cup be administred to them For so both Sozomen and Nicephorus relate it that immediately upon her feeling it to be a stone she ran to the Bishop and shewed him the stone acknowledging with tears her miscarriage But besides this you bring several Instances from the Communion of Hermites in the wilderness of travellers on their journeys of sick persons in their beds and private Communions in houses and lastly little Children in the Church and at home in their Cradles which communicated in form of wine only And Are not all these invincible proofs that there was a publick solemn administration of the Communion in one kind publickly allowed in Churches in all times When you can prove that the Communion of Hermites was in the Church or that they did not receive as well the wine as the bread in the wilderness or that such Communion was approved by the Church That the Communion of Travellers was not meer Communion in Prayers as Baronius and Albaspinaeus assert without any participation of the Eucharist at all or if it were that it was only a participation in one kind against which Albaspinaeus gives many reasons That the Communion of the sick was without wine when Justin Martyr saith That both bread and wine were sent to the absent when Eusebius tells us That the bread given to Serapion was dipt when S. Hierom saith of Exuperius That he preserved the blood in a glass for the use of the sick That Private Communions were without wine since Gregory Nazianzen saith his Sister Gorgonia preserved both the symbols of the body and blood of Christ and Albaspinaeus confesses that one might be carried home as well as the other or that these were approved by the Church since Durantus saith That the use of Private Communions coming up by persecutions were abrogated afterwards and are expresly condemned by the Council of Caesar-Augusta about the year 381. and the first Council of Toledo about A. D. 400. Lastly that the Communion of Infants was only in one kind either in the Church or at home or that this Communion of Infants which the Council of Trent condemns was a due administration of the Eucharist When I say you have proved all these things the utmost you can hence inferr is only that in some rare cases and accidental occasions Communion in one kind was allowed of But what is all this to the proving that the stated solemn administration of the Eucharist in one kind was ever practised much less allowed within a thousand years after Christ. And yet if you could prove that you fall short of vindicating your Church unless you add this which you never so much as touch at viz. That it was ever in all that time thought lawful to forbid the celebration of the Eucharist in both kinds Prove but this which is your only proper task and I say as his Lordship doth in another case You shall be my Apollo for ever We proceed to a fourth errour which is the Invocation of Saints defined by the Council of Trent As to which that which his Lordship saith may be reduced to three things 1. That those expressions of the Fathers which seem most to countenance it are but Rhetorical flourishes 2. That the Church then did not admit of the Invocation of Saints but only of the commemoration of Martyrs 3. That the Doctrine of the Roman Church makes the Saints more then Mediatours of Intercession To these three I shall confine my discourse on this subject and therefore shall follow you close in your Answers to them For the first When you are proving that the Fathers expressions were not Rhetorical flourishes you would fain have your own accounted so For say you How can it seem to any that duly considers it but most extreamly partial and strange to term so many exhortations so many plain and positive assertions so many Instances Examples Histories Reports and the like which the Fathers frequently use and afford in this kind and that upon occasions wherein dogmatical and plain delivery of Christian Doctrine and truth is expected nothing but flourishes of wit and Rhetorick And after you call these meer put-off's as before you had said That when any thing in the Fathers is against us then it is Rhetorick only when against you then it is dogmatical and the real sense of the Fathers But these are only General words fit only to deceive such who believe bold affirmations sooner then solid proofs This is a thing must be tryed by particulars because it is on both sides acknowledged that the Fathers did many times use their Rhetorick and that such things are uttered by them in their Panegyrical Orations especially which will not abide a severe tryal Doth not Bellarmin confess that St. Chrysostome doth often hyperbolize and Sixtus Senensis say as much of others that in the heat of their discourses they are carried beyond what they would have said in a strict debate But who are better
That to reform what is amiss in Doctrine or Manners is as lawful for a particular Church as it is to publish and promulgate any thing that is Catholick in either And your Question Quô judice lies alike against both And yet I think saith he It may be proved that the Church of Rome and that as a particular Church did promulgate an orthodox truth which was not then Catholickly admitted in the Church namely the procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son If she erred in this fact confess her errour if she erred not Why may not another particular Church do as she did From whence he inferrs That if a particular Church may publish any thing that is Catholick where the whole Church is silent it may reform any thing that is not Catholick where the whole Church is negligent or will not Now to this you answer 1. That this procession from the Son was a truth alwaies acknowledged in the Church but what concerns that and the time of this Article being inserted into the Creed have been so amply discussed already that I shall not cloy the reader with any repetition having fully considered whatever you here say concerning the Article it self or its addition to the Creed 2. You answer That the consequence will not hold that if a particular Church may in some case promulgate an orthodox truth not as yet Catholickly received by the Church then a particular Church may repeal or reverse any thing that the whole Church hath already Catholickly and definitively received Surely no. Yet this say you is his Lordships and the Protestants case You do well to mention an egregious fallacy presently after these words for surely this is so For doth his Lordship parallel the promulgating something Catholick and repealing something Catholick together Surely no. But the promulgating something true but not Catholickly received with the reforming something not Catholick Either therefore you had a mind to abuse his Lordships words or to deceive the reader by beging the thing in Question viz. that all those which we call for a Reformation of were things Catholickly and definitively received by the whole Church which you know we utterly deny But you go on and say That thence it follows not that a particular Church may reform any thing that is not Catholick where the whole Church is negligent or will not because this would suppose errour or something uncatholick to be taught or admitted by the whole Church To put this case a little more plainly by the former Instance Suppose then that the Worship of God under the symbols of the Calves at Dan and Bethel had been received generally as the visible worship of the Tribes of Judah and Benjamin as well as the rest Doth not this Answer of yours make it impossible that ever they should return to the true Worship of God For this were to call in question the truth of Gods Promise to his Church and to suppose something not Catholick to be received by the whole Church And so the greater the corruptions are the more impossible it is to cure them and in case they spread generally no attempts of Reformation can be lawful which is a more false and paradoxical Doctrine than either of those which you call so And the truth is such pretences as these are are fit only for a Church that hateth to be reformed for if something not good in it self should happen in any one age to overspread the visible Communion of all particular Churches this only makes a Reformation the more necessary so far is it from making it the more disputable For thereby those corruptions grow more dangerous and every particular Church is bound the more to regard its own security in a time of general Infection And if any other Churches neglect themselves What reason is it that the rest should For any or all other particular Churches neglecting their duty is no more an argument that no particular Church should reform it self than that if all other men in a Town neglect preserving themselves from the Plague then I am bound to neglect it too But you answer 3. That all this doth not justifie the Protestants proceedings because they promulged only new and unheard of Doctrines directly contrary to what the Catholick Church universally held and taught before them for Catholick Truths This is the great thing in Question but I see you love best the lazy trade of begging things which are impossible to be rationally proved But yet you would seem here to do something towards it in the subsequent words For about the year of our Lord 1517. when their pretended Reformations began was not the real presence of our Saviours body and blood in the Eucharist by a true substantial change of Bread and Wine generally held by the whole Church Was not the real Sacrifice of the Mass then generally believed Was not Veneration of Holy Images Invocation of Saints Purgatory Praying for the dead that they might be eased of their pains and receive the full remission of their sins generally used and practised by all Christians Was not Free will Merit of good works and Justification by Charity or inherent Grace and not by Faith only universally taught and believed in all Churches of Christendom Yea even among those who in some few other points dissented from the Pope and the Latin Church To what purpose then doth the Bishop urge that a particular Church may publish any thing that is Catholick This doth not justifie at all his Reformation he should prove that it may not only add but take away something that is Catholick from the Doctrine of the Church for this the pretended Reformers did as well in England as elsewhere His Lordship never pretends much less disputes that any particular Church hath a power to take away any thing that is truly Catholick but the ground why he supposeth such things as those mentioned by you might be taken away is because they are not Catholick the Question then is between us Whether they were Catholick Doctrines or not this you attempt to prove by this medium Because they were generally held by the whole Church at the time of the Reformation To which I answer 1. If this be a certain measure to judge by what was Catholick and what not then what doth not appear to have been Catholick in this sense it was in our Churches power to reject and so it was lawful to reform our selves as to all such things which were not at the time of the Reformation received by the whole Church And what think you now of the Popes Supremacy your Churches Infallibility the necessity of Coelibate in the Clergy Communion in one kind Prayer in an unknown tongue Indulgences c. Will you say That those were generally received by the Church at the time of the Reformation If you could have said so no doubt you would not have omitted such necessary points and some of which gave the
wine into the substance of the natural body and blood of Christ and that this conveniently properly and most aptly is call'd Transubstantiation Now if this Authour speaks wholly of a real but spiritual presence of Christ and if he asserts that the substance of bread and wine do remain still you can have no pretence at all left that this Authour asserts your Doctrine of Transubstantiation For the first he expresly saith That these things must not be understood after a carnal sense viz. unless ye eat the flesh and drink the blood of the Son of man ye shall have no life in you for Christ himself hath said His words are spirit and life And nothing can be more evident then that this Authour speaks not of any corporeal but spiritual presence of Christ by the effects which he attributes to it calling it inconsumptibilem cibum that food which cannot be consumed and the reason he gives of it is because it feeds to eternal life and therefore he saith it is immortalitatis alimonia that which nourisheth to immortality which cannot possibly be conceived of the corporal presence of Christ since you confess the body of Christ remains no longer in the body then the accidents of the bread and wine do And after he tells us What the feeding upon the flesh of Christ is viz. our hunger and desire of remaining in Christ by which the sweetness of his Love is so imprinted and melted as it were within us that the savour of it may remain in our palat and bowels penetrating and diffusing it self through all the recesses of soul and body And so just before he saith Christ did Spiritualinos instruere documento instruct us by a spiritual lesson that we might know that our abiding in him is our eating of him and our drinking a kind of incorporation by the humility of our obedience the conjunction of our wills the union of our affections And in another place denyes That there is any corporal union between Christ and us but a spiritual and therefore adds afterwards As often as we do these things we do not sharpen our teeth to bite but break and divide the holy bread by a sincere Faith All which and many other places in that Authour make it plain that he doth not speak of such a corporal presence as you imagine but of a real but spiritual presence of Christ whereby the souls of Believers have an intimate union and conjunction with Christ which he calls Societatem germanissimam in which respect they have communion with the body of Christ. But I need mention but one place more to explain his meaning in which he fully asserts the spiritual presence of Christ and withall that the substance of the elements doth remain That immortal nourishment is given us which differs from common food that it retains the nature of a corporeal substance but proving the presence of a Divine power by its invisible efficiency So that what presence of Divine power there is is shewed in regard of the effects of it not in regard of any substantial change of the bread into the body of Christ for in reference to that efficiency he calls it immortal nourishment and afterwards That as common bread is the life of the body so this supersubstantial bread is the life of the soul and health of the mind But I know you will quarrel with me for rendring corporalis substantiae retinens speciem by retaining the nature of a corporal substance for you would fain have species to signifie only the accidents of a corporeal substance to remain This being therefore the main thing in dispute if I can evince that species signifies not the bare external accidents but the nature of a corporeal substance then this Authour will be so far from asserting that he will appear point-blank against your Doctrine of Transubstantiation Now I shall prove that species was not taken then for the meer external shape and figure but for the solid body it self especially of such things as were designed for nourishment Thence in the Civil Law we read of the species annonariae and of the species publicae largitionales and fiscales and those who had the care of corn are said to be curatores specierum and thence very often in the Codes of Justinian and Theodosius there is mention of the species vini species olei species tritici But lest you should think it is only used in this sense in the Civil Law not only Cassiodore and Vegetius use it in the same sense for the species tritici and species annonariae but that which comes home to our purpose St. Ambrose uses it where it is impossible to be taken for the meer external accidents but must be understood of the substance it self speaking of Christs being desired to change the water into wine he thus expresses it Vt rogatus ad nuptias aquae substantiam in vini speciem commutaret that he would change the substance of water into the species of wine Will you say that Christ turned it only into the external accidents and not the nature of it So when St. Austin sayes that Christ was the same food to the Jews and us significatione nonspecie he opposes species to a meer type and therefore it imports the substance and reality of the thing And so the translator of Origen opposes the regeneratio in specie to the baptismus in aenigmate and the manna in aenigmate to the manna in specie in both which being opposed to the figure it denotes the reality And one of those Authours whom you cite in the very same Book and Chapter which you cite uses species sanguinis for the substance of blood for he opposes it to the similitudo sanguinis for when the person objects and sayes That after the cup is consecrated speciem sanguinis non video I do not see the nature or substance of blood he answers him Sed similitudinem habet But it hath the resemblance of it for as saith he there is the similitude of his death so there is the similitude of his blood These may be sufficient to shew that species corporalis substantiae does not relate to the external shape and figure but to the nature and reality of it So that his meaning is although it remains still the same substance of bread and wine yet there is such an invisible efficiency of Divine power going along with the use of it as makes it to nourish the souls of men to eternal life And now it will be no matter of difficulty at all to Answer the places you bring out of this Authour The first is This common bread chang'd into flesh and blood giveth life But how little this place makes to your purpose is easie to discern because we do not deny a Sacramental change of the bread into the flesh and blood of Christ but only that substantial change which you assert but that Authour sufficiently
weakness of your Argument For the crimes of Schism and unsoundness of Faith are still as chargeable upon you though we may grant a possibility of Salvation to some in your Church And I cannot possibly discern any difference between the judgment of the Catholicks concerning the Donatists and ours concerning you for if they judged the Donatists way very dangerous because of their uncharitableness to all others so do we of yours but if they notwithstanding that hoped that the misled people among them might be saved that is as much as we dare say concerning you And you very much mistake if you think the contrary For his Lordship no where saith as you would seem to impose upon him That a man may live and dye in the Roman Church and that none of his errours shall hinder salvation whatsoever motives he may know to the contrary But on the other side he plainly saith That he that lives in the Roman Church with a resolution to live and dye in it is presumed to believe as that Church believes And he that doth so I will not say is as guilty but guilty he is more or less of the Schism which that Church first caused by her corruptions and now continues by them and her power together And of all her damnable opinions too and all other sins also which the Doctrine and mis-belief of that Church leads him into Judge you now I pray Whether we think otherwise of those in your Church than the Orthodox did of the Donatists So that if the Argument doth hold for you it would as well have held for them too And therefore his Lordship well inferrs That this Principle That where two parties are dissenting it is safest believing that in which both parties agree or which the adversary confesses may lead men by your own confession into known and damnable Schism and Heresie for such you say the Donatists were guilty of And such his Lordship saith there is great danger of in your Church too for saith he in this present case there 's peril great peril of damnable both Schism and Heresie and other sins by living and dying in the Roman Faith tainted with so many superstitions as at this day it is and their tyranny to boot I pray now bethink your self What difference is there between the Orthodox judgement of the Donatists and ours concerning your Church And therefore the comparison between Petilian the Donatist and his Lordships adversary holds good still for all your Answer depends upon a mistake of Protestants granting a possibility of Salvation as I have already shewed you And in what way soever you limit this agreement you cannot possibly avoid but that it would equally hold as to the Donatists too for the concession was then as great in order to Salvation as it is now But you say Whether he asserts it or no it must needs follow from the Bishops Principles that there can be no peril of damnation by living and dying in the Roman Church because he professedly exempts the Ignorant and grants as much of those who do wittingly and knowingly associate themselves to the gross superstitions of the Roman Church if they hold the Foundation Christ and live accordingly From whence you argue That if neither voluntary nor involuntary superstition can hinder from Salvation then there is confessedly no peril of damnation in your Church And yet his Lordship saith All Protestants unanimously agree in this That there is great peril of damnation for any man to live and dye in the Roman Perswasion And therefore saith he that is a most notorious slander where you say that they which affirm this peril of damnation are contradicted by their own more learned Brethren By which we see the unjustice of your proceeding in offering to wrest his Lordships words contrary to his express meaning and since all your Argument depends upon your adversaries confession you ought to take that confession in the most clear and perspicuous terms and to understand all obscure expressions suitably to their often declared sense Which if you had attended to you would never have undertaken to prove that this Lordship grants that there is no peril of damnation in your Church which he so often disavows and calls it a most notorious slander and a most loud untruth which no ingenuous man would ever have said And even of those persons whom he speaks most favourably of he saith That although they wish for the abolishing the superstitions in use yet all he grants them is a possibility of Salvation but with extreme hazard to themselves by keeping close to that which is superstition and comes so near Idolatry Are these then such expressions which import no peril of damnation in the Roman Church And therefore when he speaks of the possibility of the Salvation of such who associate themselves wittingly and knowingly to the gross superstitions of the Romish Church he declares sufficiently that he means it not of those who do in heart approve of them but only of such who though they are convinced they are gross superstitions yet think they may communicate with those who use them as long as they do not approve of them Which errour of theirs though he looks on it as dangerous yet not as wholly destructive of Salvation But since your Answer to this is That he mistakes very much in supposing such persons to belong to your Church and Communion you are not aware How much thereby you take off from the Protestants Confession since those whom we contend for a possibility of Salvation for are such only whom you deny to be of your Churches Communion and so the Argument signifies much less by your confession than it did before Thus we see how this Argument upon the same terms you manage it against us would have held as well in the behalf of the Donatists against the Communion of the Catholick Church For what other impertinencies you mix here and there it is time now to pass them over since the main grounds of them have been so fully handled before We therefore proceed to the second Answer his Lordship gives to this Argument viz. That if the Principle on which it stands doth hold it makes more for the advantage of Protestants than against them For if that be safest which both parties are agreed in then 1. You are bound to believe with us in the point of the Eucharist For all sides agree in the Faith of the Church of England that in the most blessed Sacrament the worthy Receiver is by his Faith made spiritually partaker of the true and real body and blood of Christ truly and really and of all the benefits of his passion Your Roman Catholicks add a manner of this presence Transubstantiation which many deny and the Lutherans Consubstantiation which more deny If this Argument be good then even for this consent it is safer communicating with the Church of England than with the