them they should So that though these words were spoken of Sacramental manducation as sometimes it is expounded yet there is reality enough in the spiritual sumption to verifie these words of Christ without a thought of any bodily eating his flesh And that we may not think this Doctrine dropt from S. Austin by chance he again affirms dogmatically Qui discordat à Christo nec carnem ejus manducat nec sanguinem bibit etiamsi tantae rei sacramentum ad judicium suae praesumptionis quotidiè indifferenter accipiat He that disagrees from Christ that is disobeys him neither eats his flesh nor drinks his blood although to his condemnation he every day receive the Sacrament of so great a thing The consequent of which words is plainly this that there is no eating of Christ's flesh or drinking his blood but by a moral instrument faith and subordination to Christ the sacramental external eating alone being no eating of Christ's flesh but the Symbols and Sacrament of it 22. Lastly Suppose these words of Christ The bread which I shall give is my flesh were spoken literally of the Sacrament what he promised he would give he perform'd and what was here expressed in the future tense was in his time true in the present tense and therefore is alwayes presently true after consecration It follows that in the Sacrament this is true Panis est corpus Christi The bread is the body of Christ. Now I demand whether this Proposition will be owned It follows inevitably from this Doctrine If these words be spoken of the Sacrament But it is disavowed by the Princes of the party against us Hoc tamen est impossibile quòd panis sit corpus Christi It is impossible that the bread should be Christ's body saith the Gloss of Gratian and Bellarmine sayes it cannot be a true Proposition In quâ subjectum supponit proâ—pane praedicatum autem pro corpore Christi Panis enim corpus Domini res diversissimae sunt The thing that these men dread is lest it be called bread and Christ's body too as we affirm it unanimously to be and as this Argument upon their own grounds evinces it Now then how can they serve both ends I cannot understand If they will have the bread or the meat which Christ promis'd to give to be his flesh then so it came to pass and then it is bread and flesh too If it did not so come to pass and that it is impossible that bread should be Christ's flesh then when Christ said the bread which he would give should be his flesh he was not to be understood properly of the Sacrament But either figuratively in the Sacrament or in the Sacrament not at all either of which will serve the end of truth in this Question But of this hereafter By this time I hope I may conclude that Transubstantiation is not taught by our Blessed Lord in the sixth Chapter of Saint John Johannes de tertiâ Eucharisticâ coenâ nihil quidem scribit eò quod caeteri tres Evangelistae ante illum eam plenè descripsissent They are the words of Stapleton and are good evidence against them SECT IV. Of the Words of Institution 1. MULTA mala oportet interpretari eos qui unum non rectè intelligere volunt said Irenaeus they must needs speak many false things who will not rightly understand one The words of consecration are Praecipuum fundamentum totius controversiae atque adeò totius hujus altissimi mysterii said Bellarmine the greatest ground of the whole Question and by adhering to the letter the Mystery is lost and the whole party wanders in eternal intricacies and inextricable Riddles which because themselves cannot untie they torment their sense and their reason and many places of Scripture whilst they pertinaciously stick to the impossible letter and refuse the spirit of these words The Words of Institution are these S. Matth. 26.26 Jesus took bread and blessed it and brake it and gave it to the Disciples and said Take eat this is my body And he took the cup and gave thanks and gave it to them saying Drink ye all of it for this is my blood of the New Testament which is shed for many for the remission of sins S. Luke 22.19 And he took bread and gave thanks and brake it and gave to them saying This is my body which is given for you this do in remembrance of me Likewise also the cup after Supper saying This cup is the New Testament in my blood which is shed for you S. Mark 14.22 Jesus took bread and blessed it and gave to them and said Take eat this is my body And he took the cup and when he had given thanks he gave it to them and they all drank of it and he said to them This is my blood of the New Testament which is shed for many 1 Cor. 11.23 The Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread And when he had given thanks he brake it and said Take eat This is my body which is broken for you this do in remembrance of me After the same manner also he took the cup when he had supped saying This cup is the New Testament in my blood This do ye as often as ye drink it in remembrance of me 2. These words contain the Institution and are wholly called the words of Consecration in the Latine Church Concerning which the consideration is material Out of these words the Latine Church separates Hoc est corpum meum This is my body and say that these words pronounced by the Priest with due intention do effect this change of the bread into Christs body which change they call Transubstantiation But if these words do not effect any such change then it may be Christs body before the words and these may only declare what is already done by the prayers of the Holy man or else it may become Christ's body only in the use and manducation and as it will be uncertain when the change is so also it cannot be known what it is If it be Christ's body before those words then the literal sence of these words will prove nothing it is so as it will be before these words and made so by other words which refer wholly to use and then the praecipuum fundamentum the pillar and ground of Tranbsubstantiation is supplanted And if it be only after the words and not effected by the words it will be Christ's body only in the reception Now concerning this I have these things to say 3. First By what Argument can it be proved that these words Take and eat are not as effective of the change as Hoc est corpus meum This is my body If they be then the taking and eating does consecrate and it is not Christ's body till it be taken and eaten and then when that 's done it is so no more and besides that reservation circumgestation adoration
corpus meum viz. spiritualiter than to say hoc est that is sub his speciebus est corpus meum And this was the sence of Ocham the Father of the Nominalists it may be held that under the species of bread there remains also the substance because this is neither against reason nor any authority of the Bible and of all the manners this is most reasonable and more easie to maintain and from thence follow fewer inconveniences than from any other Yet because of the determination of the Church viz. of Rome all the Doctors commonly hold the contrary By the way observe that their Church hath determined against that against which neither the Scripture nor reason hath determined 2. The case is clearer in the other kind as in transition I noted above 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hic calix I demand to what 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hic This does refer What it demonstrates and points at The text sets the substantive down 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 this cup that is the wine in this cup of this it is that he affirmed it to be the blood of the New Testament or the New Testament in his blood that is this is the sanction of the everlasting Testament I make it in my blood this is the Symbol what I do now in sign I will do to morrow in substance and you shall for ever after remember and represent it thus in Sacrament I cannot devise what to say plainer than that this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 points at the chalice Hoc potate merum So Juvencus a Priest of Spain in the reign of Constantine Drink this wine But by the way this troubled some body and therefore an order was taken to corrupt the words by changing them into Hunc potate meum but that the cheat was too apparent And if it be so of one kind it is so in both that is beyond all question Against this Bellarmine brings argumentum robustissimum a most robustious argument By 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or cup cannot be meant the wine in the cup because it follows 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This Cup is the New Testament in my blood which was shed for you referring to the cup for the word can agree with nothing but the cup therefore by the cup is meant not wine but blood for that was poured out To this I oppose these things 1. Though it does not agree with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yet it must refer to it and is an ordinary 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of case called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and it is not unusual in the best masters of Language 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Demosthenes so also Goclenius in his Grammatical problemes observes another out of Cicero Benè autem dicere quod est peritè loqui non habet definitam aliquam regionem cujus terminis septa teneatur Many more he cites out of Plato Homer and Virgil and me thinks these men should least of all object this since in their Latin Bible Sixtus Senensis confesses and all the world knows there are innumerable barbarisms and improprieties hyperbata and Antipâ—oses But in the present case it is easily supplyed by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is frequently understood and implyed in the article 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is in my bloud which is shed for you 2. If it were referred to cup then the figure were more strong and violent and the expression less litteral and therefore it makes much against them who are undone if you admit figurative expressions in the institution of this Sacrament 3. To what can 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 refer but to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This cup and let what sence soever be affixed to it afterwards if it do not suppose a figure then there is no such thing as figures or words or truth or things 4. That 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must refer to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 appears by S. Matthew and S. Mark where the word is directly applyed to bloud S. Paul uses not the word and Bellarmine himself gives the rule verba Domini rectiùs exposita à Marco c. When one Evangelist is plain by him we are to expound another that is not plain and S. Basil in his reading of the words either following some ancienter Greek copy or else mending it out of the other Evangelists changes the case into perfect Grammar and good Divinity 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 6. Thirdly symbols of the blessed Sacrament are called bread and the cup after Consecration that is in the whole use of them This is twice affirmed by S. Paul The Cup of blessing which we bless is it not the communication so it should be read of the bloud of Christ the bread which we break is it not the communication of the body of Christ as if he had said This bread is Christs body though there be also this mystery in it This bread is the communication of Christs body that is the exhibition and donation of it not Christs body formally but virtually and effectively it makes us communicate with Christs body in all the effects and benefits A like expression we have in Valerius Maximus where Scipio in the feast of Jupiter is said Graccho Communicasse concordiam that is consignasse he communicated concord he consigned it with the sacrifice giving him peace and friendship the benefit of that communication and so is the cup of benediction that is when the cup is blessed it communicates Christs blood and so does the blessed bread for to eat the bread in the New Testament is the sacrifice of Christians they are the words of S. Austin Omnes de uno pane participamus so S. Paul we all partake of this one bread Hence the argument is plain That which is broken is the communication of Christs body But that which is broken is bread therefore bread is the communication of Christs body The bread which we break those are the words 7. Fourthly The other place of S. Paul is plainer yet Let a man examine himself and so let him eat of that bread and drink of that cup. And so often as ye eat this bread and drink this cup ye declare the Lords death till he come and the same also vers 27. three times in this chapter he calls the Eucharist Bread It is bread sacramental bread when the communicant eats it But he that in the Church of Rome should call to the Priest to give him a piece of bread would quickly find that instead of bread he should have a stone or something as bad But S. Paul had a little of the Macedonian simplicity calling things by their own plain names 8. Fifthly against this some little things are pretended in answer by the Roman Doctors 1. That the holy Eucharist or the sacred body is called bread because it is made of bread as Eve is
does not mean they receive him not at all Just as we say when a man eats but a little he does not eat for as good never a jot as never the better This I say is not a sufficient escape 1. Because S. Austin opposes sacramental receiving to the true and real and says that the wicked only receive it sacramentally but not the thing whose Sacrament it is so that this is not a proposition of degrees but there is a plain opposition of one to the other 2. It is true S. Austin does not say that the wicked do not receive Christ at all for he says they receive him sacramentally but he says they do not at all receive him truly and the wicked man cannot say he does and he proves this by unanswerable arguments out of Scripture 3. This excuse will not with any pretence be fitted with the sayings of the other Fathers nor to all the words of S. Austin in this quotation and much less in others which I have and shall remark particularly this that he calls that which the wicked eat nothing but signum corporis sanguinis His words are these Ac per hoc qui non manet in Christo in quo non manet Christus procul dubio non manducat spiritualiter carnem non bibit sanguinem licèt carnaliter visibiliter premat dentibus signum corporis sanguinis he does not eat the body and drink the blood spiritually although carnally and visibly he presses with his teeth the sign of the body and blood Plainly all the wicked do but eat the sign of Christs body all that is to be done beyond is to eat it spiritually There is no other eating but these two and from S. Austin it was that the Schools received that famous distinction of Panis Dominus and Panis Domini Judas received the bread of the Lord against the Lord But the other Apostles received the bread which was the Lord that is his body But I have already spoken of the matter of this argument in the third Paragraph num 7. which the Reader may please to add to this to make it fuller 10. Ninthly Lastly In the words of Institution and Consecration as they call them the words which relate to the consecrated wine are so different in the Evangelists and S. Paul respectively as appears by comparing them together that 1. It does not appear which words were literally spoken by our blessed Saviour for all of them could not be so spoken as they are set down 2. That they all regarded the sence and meaning of the mystery not the letters and the syllables 3. It is not possible to be certain that Christ intended the words of any one of them to be consecratory or effective of what they signifie for every one of the relators differ in the words though all agree in the things as the Reader may observe in the beginning of the fourth Paragraph where the four forms are set by each other to be compared 4. The Church of Rome in the consecration of the Chalice uses a form of words which Christ spake not at all nor are related by S. Matthew or S. Mark or S. Luke or S. Paul but she puts in some things and changes others her form is this Hic est enim calix sanguinis mei novi aeterni Testamenti mysterium fidei qui pro vobis pro multis effundetur in remissionem peccatorum For this is the chalice of my blood of the New and eternal Testament the mystery of faith which shall be shed for you and for many for the remission of sins what is added is plain what is altered would be very material if the words were consecratory for they are not so likely to be operative and effective as the words of Christ recited by S. Matthew and S. Mark this is my blood and if this had not been the ancient form used in the Church of Rome long before the doctrine of Transubstantiation was thought of it is not to be imagined that they would have refused the plainer words of Scripture to have made the Article more secret the form less operative the authority less warrantable the words less simple and natural But the corollary which is natural and proper from the particulars of this argument is that the mystery was so wholly spiritual that it was no matter by what words it were expressed so the spirit of it were retained and yet if it had been an historical natural proper sence that had been intended it ought also in all reason to have been declared or much more effected by a natural and proper and constant affirmative But that there is nothing spoken properly is therefore evident because there are so many predications and all mean the same mystery Hic est sanguis meus N. Testamenti and Hic calix est N. Testamentum in meo sanguine and Hic est calix sanguinis mei in the Roman Missal all this declares it is mysterium fidei and so to be taken in all sences and those words are left in their Canon as if on purpose either to prevent the literal and natural understanding of the other words or for the reducing the communicants to the only apprehensions of faith It is mysterium fidei not sanguis naturalis a mystery of faith not natural blood For supposing that both the forms used by S. Matthew and S. Luke respectively could be proper and without a figure and S. Matthews Hic est sanguis Testamenti did signifie This is the divine promise for so Bellarmine dreams that Testament there signifies and that in S. Lukes words This cup is the Testament it signifies the instrument of the Testament for so a Will or a Testament is taken either for the thing willed or the Parchment in which it is written yet how are these or either of these affirmative of the wine being transubstantiated into blood It says nothing of that and so if this sence of those words does avoid a trope it brings in a distinct proposition if it be spoken properly it is more distant from giving authority to their new doctrine and if the same word have several sences then in the sacramental proposition as it is described by the several Evangelists there are several predicates and therefore it is impossible that all should be proper And yet besides this although he thinks he may freely say any thing if he covers it with a distinction yet the very members of this distinction conclude against his conclusion for if Testament in one place be taken for the instrument of his Testament it is a tropical loquution just as I say my bible meaning my book is the word of God that is contains the word of God it is a Metonymie of the thing containing for that which it contains But this was more than I needed and therefore I am content it should pass for nothing SECT VIII Of the Arguments of the Romanists from Scripture 1.
in our first access to Christ because they for whom Christ and his Martyr S. Stephen prayed were not yet converted and so were to be saved by Baptismal Repentance Then the Power of the Keys is exercised and the gates of the Kingdom are opened then we enter into the Covenant of mercy and pardon and promise faith and perpetual obedience to the laws of Jesus and upon that condition forgiveness is promised and exhibited offer'd and consign'd but never after for it is in Christianity for all great sins as in the Civil Law for theft Qui eâ mente alienum quid contrectavit ut lucrifaceret tametsi mutato consilio id Domino postea reddidit fur est nemo enim tali peccato poenitentiâ suâ nocens esse desinit said Vlpian and Gaius Repentance does not here take off the punishment nor the stain And so it seems to be in Christianity in which every baptized person having stipulated for obedience is upon those terms admitted to pardon and consequently if he fails of his duty he shall fail of the grace 8. But that this objection may proceed no further it is certain that it is an infinite lessening of the mercy of God in Jesus Christ to confine pardon of sins only to the Font. For that even lapsed Christians may be restored by repentance and be pardoned appears in the story of the incestuous Corinthian and the precept of S. Paul to the spiritual man or the Curate of souls If any man be overtaken in a fault ye which are spiritual restore such a man in the spirit of meekness considering thy self lest thou also be tempted The Christian might fall and the Corinthian did so and the Minister himself he who had the ministery of restitution and reconciliation was also in danger and yet they all might be restored To the same sence is that of S. James Is any man sick among you let him send for the Presbyters of the Church and let them pray over him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 although he was a doer of sins they shall be forgiven him For there is an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a sin that is not unto death And therefore when S. Austin in his first Book de Sermone Dei had said that there is some sin so great that it cannot be remitted he retracts his words with this clause addendum fuit c. I should have added If in so great perverseness of mind he ends his life For we must not despair of the worst sinner we may not despair of any since we ought to pray for all 9. For it is beyond exception or doubt that it was the great work of the Apostles and of the whole new Testament to engage men in a perpetual repentance For since all men do sin all men must repent or all men must perish And very many periods of Scripture are directed to lapsed Christians baptized persons fallen into grievous crimes calling them to repentance So Simon Peter to Simon Magus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Repent of thy wickedness and to the Corinthian Christians S. Paul urges the purpose of his legation We pray you in Christ's stead be ye reconciled to God The Spirit of God reprov'd some of the Asian Churches for foul misdemeanours and even some of the Angels the Asian Bishops calling upon them to return to their first love and to repent and to do their first works and to the very Gnosticks and filthiest Hereticks he gave space to repent and threatned extermination to them if they did not do it speedily For 10. Baptism is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the admission of us to the Covenant of Faith and Repentance or as Mark the Anchoret call'd it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the introduction to repentance or that state of life that is full of labour and care and amendment of our faults for that is the best life that any man can live and therefore repentance hath its progress after baptism as it hath its beginning before for first repentance is unto baptism and then baptism unto repentance And if it were otherwise the Church had but ill provided for the state of her sons and daughters by commanding the baptism of Infants For if repentance were not allowed after then their early baptism would take from them all hopes of repentance and destroy the mercies of the Gospel and make it now to all Christendom a law of works in the greater instances because since in our infancy we neither need nor can perform repentance if to them that sin after baptism repentance be denied it is in the whole denied to them for ever to repent But God hath provided better things for us and such which accompany salvation 11. For besides those many things which have been already consider'd our admission to the holy Sacrament of the Lords Supper is a perpetual entertainment of our hopes because then and there is really exhibited to us the body that was broken and the blood that was shed for remission of sins still it is applied and that application could not be necessary to be done anew if there were not new necessities and still we are invited to do actions of repentance to examine our selves and so to eat all which as things are order'd would be infinitely useless to mankind if it did not mean pardon to Christians falling into foul sins even after baptism 12. I shall add no more but the words of S. Paul to the Corinthians Lest when I come again my God will humble me among you and that I shall bewail many who have sinn'd already and have not repented of the uncleanness and fornication and lasciviousness which they have committed Here is a fierce accusation of some of them for the foulest and the basest crimes and a reproof of their not repenting and a threatning them with censures Ecclesiastical I suppose this article to be sufficiently concluded from the premises The necessity of which proof they only will best believe who are severely penitent and full of apprehension and fear of the Divine anger because they have highly deserved it However I have serv'd my own needs in it and the need of those whose consciences have been or shall be so timorous as mine hath deserved to be But against the universality of this doctrine there are two grand objections The one is the severer practice and doctrine of the Primitive Church denying repentance to some kind of sinners after baptism The other the usual discourses and opinions concerning the sin against the Holy Ghost Of these I shall give account in the two following Sections SECT III. Of the Difficulty of obtaining Pardon The Doctrine and Practice of the Primitive Church in this Article 13. NOvatianus and Novatus said that the Church had not power to minister pardon of sins except only in Baptism which proposition when they had well digested and considered they did thus explicate That there are some capital sins crying and clamorous into
but is an affirmation of the manner though in disputation it be made the predicate of a proposition and the opposite member of a distinction That body which was crucified is not that body that is eaten in the Sacrament if the intention of the proposition be to speak of the eating it in the same manner of being but that body which was crucified the same body we do eat if the intention be to speak of the same thing in several manners of being and operating and this I noted that we may not be prejudiced by words when the notion is certain and easie And thus far is the sence of our doctrine in this Article 12. On the other side the Church of Rome uses the same words we do but wholly to other purposes affirming 1. That after the words of consecration on the Altar there is no bread in the Chalice there is no wine 2. That the accidents that is the colour the shape the bigness the weight the smell the nourishing qualities of bread and wine do remain but neither in the bread nor in the body of Christ but by themselves that is so that there is whiteness and nothing white sweetness and nothing sweet c. 3. That in the place of the substance of bread and wine there is brought the natural body of Christ and his blood that was shed upon the Cross. 4. That the flesh of Christ is eaten by every Communicant good and bad worthy and unworthy 5. That this is conveniently properly and most aptly called Transubstantiation that is a conversion of the whole substance of bread into the substance of Christs natural body of the whole substance of the wine into his blood In the process of which doctrine they oppose spiritualiter to sacramentaliter and realiter supposing the spiritual manducation though done in the Sacrament by a worthy receiver not to be sacramental and real 13. So that now the question is not Whether the symbols be changed into Christs body and blood or no For it is granted on all sides but whether this conversion be Sacramental and figurative or whether it be natural and bodily Nor is it whether Christ be really taken but whether he be taken in a spiritual or in a natural manner We say the conversion is figurative mysterious and Sacramental they say it is proper natural and corporal we affirm that Christ is really taken by Faith by the Spirit to all real effects of his passion they say he is taken by the mouth and that the spiritual and the virtual taking him in virtue or effect is not sufficient though done also in the Sacrament Hic Rhodus his saltus This thing I will try by Scripture by Reason by Sense and by Tradition SECT II. Transubstantiation not warrantable by Scripture 1. THE Scriptures pretended for it are S. John 6. and the words of institution recorded by three Evangelists and S. Paul Concerning which I shall first lay this prejudice that by the confession of the Romanists themselves men learned and famous in their generations nor these places nor any else in Scripture are sufficient to prove Transubstantiation Cardinal Cajetan affirms that there is in Scripture nothing of force or necessity to infer Transubstantiation out of the words of institution and that the words seclusâ Ecclesiae authoritate setting aside the decree of the Church are not sufficient This is reported by Suarez but he says that the words of Cajetan by the command of Pius V. were left out of the Roman Edition and he adds that Cajetanus solus ex catholicis hoc docuit He only of their side taught it which is carelesly affirmed by the Jesuite for another Cardinal Bishop of Rochester John Fisher affirmed the same thing for speaking of the words of institution recorded by S. Matthew he says Neque ullum hîc verbum positum est quo probetur in nostrâ missâ veram fieri carnis sanguinis Christi praesentiam There are no words set down here viz. in the words of institution by which it may be proved that in our Mass there is a true presence of the flesh and blood of Christ. To this I add a third Cardinal Bishop of Cambray de Aliaco who though he likes the opinion because it was then more common that the substance of bread does not remain after consecration yet ea non sequitur evidenter ex Scripturis it does not follow evidently from Scripture 2. To these three Cardinals I add the concurrent testimony of two famous Schoolmen Johannes Duns Scotus who for his rare wit and learning became a Father of a Scholastical faction in the Schools of Rome affirms Non extare locum ullum Scripturae tam expressum ut sine Ecclesiae declaratione evidenter cogat Transubstantiationem admittere There is no place of Scripture so express that without the declaration of the Church it can evidently compel us to admit Transubstantiation And Bellarmine himself says that it is not altogether improbable since it is affirmed à doctissimis acutissimis hominibus by most learned and most acute men The Bishop of Eureux who was afterwards Cardinal Richelieu not being well pleased with Scotus in this question said that Scotus had only considered the testimonies of the Fathers cited by Gratian Peter Lombard Aquinas and the Schoolmen before him Suppose that But these testimonies are not few and the witty man was as able to understand their opinion by their words as any man since and therefore we have the in-come of so many Fathers as are cited by the Canon-Law the Master of the sentences and his Scholars to be partly a warrant and none of them to contradict the opinion of Scotus who neither believed it to be taught evidently in Scripture nor by the Fathers 3. The other Schoolman I am to reckon in this account is Gabriel Biel. Quomodo ibi sit corpus Christi an per conversionem alicujus in ipsum an sine conversione incipiat esse corpus Christi cum pane manentibus substantiâ accidentibus panis non invenitur expressum in Canone Bibliae How the body of Christ is there whether by conversion of any thing into it or without conversion it begin to be the body of Christ with the bread the accidents and the substance of the bread still remaining is not found expressed in the Canon of the Bible Hitherto I could add the concurrent Testimony of Ocham in 4. q. 6. of Johonnes de Bassolis who is called Doctor Ordinatissimus but that so much to the same purpose is needless and the thing is confessed to be the opinion of many writers of their own party as appears in Salmeron And Melchior Canus Bishop of the Canaries amongst the things not expressed in Scripture reckons the conversion of the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ. 4. If it be said that the Churches determination is a better interpreter of Scripture than they it
the Mosaical Passeover SECT V. 1. HOC This That is this bread is my body this cup or the wine in the cup is my blood concerning the chalice there can be no doubt it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hic calix this chalice and as little of the other The Fathers refer the Pronoun demonstrative to bread saying that of bread it was Christ affirmed This is my body which I shall have in the sequel more occasion to prove for the present these may suffice Christus panem corpus suum appellat saith Tertullian Nos audiamus panem quem fregit Dominus esse corpus salvatoris so S. Hierome 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so S. Cyril of Alexandria called bread his flesh Theodoret saith that to the body he gave the name of the symbol and to the symbol the name of his body 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 therefore signifies this bread and it matters not that bread in the Greek is of the masculine gender for the substantive being understood not expressed by the rule of Grammar the adjective must be the neuter gender and it is taken substantively Neither is there any inconvenience in this as Bellarmine weakly dreams upon as weak suggestions For when he had said that hoc is either taken adjectively or substantively he proceeds not adjectively for then it must agree with the substantive which in this case is masculine bread being so both in Greek and Latine But if you say it is taken substantively as we contend it is he confutes you thus If it be taken substantively so that hoc signifies this thing and so be referred to bread then it is most absurd because it cannot be spoken of any thing seen that is of a substantive unless it agrees with it and be of the same gender that is in plain English It is neither taken adjectively nor substantively not adjectively because it is not of the same gender not substantively because it is not of the same gender that is because substantively it is not adjectively But the reason he adds is as frivolous because no man pointing to his brother will say hoc est frater meus but hic est fraâ—er meus I grant it But if it be a thing without life you may affirm it in the neuter gender because it being of neither sex the subject is supplyed by thing so that you may say hoc est aqua this is water so in S. Peter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 this is grace and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But of a person present you cannot say so because he is present and there is nothing distinct from him neither re nor ratione in the thing nor in the understanding and therefore you must say hic not hoc because there is no subject to be supposed distinct from the predicate But when you see an image or figure of your brother you may then say hoc est frater meus because here is something to make a subject distinct from the predicate This thing or this picture this figure or this any thing that can be understood and not expressed may make a neuter gender and every School-boy knows it so it is in the blessed Sacrament there is a Subject or a thing distinct from Corpus This bread this which you see is my body and therefore is in Hoc no impropriety though bread he understood 2. To which I add this that though bread be the nearest part of the thing demonstrated yet it is not bread alone but sacramental bread that is bread so used broken given eaten as it is in the institution and use 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 this is my body and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 refers to the whole action about the bread and wine and so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may be easily understood without an impropriety And indeed it is necessary that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 this should take in the whole action on all sides because the bread neither is the natural body of Christ nor yet is it alone a sufficient symbol or representment of it But the bread broken blessed given distributed taken eaten this is Christs body viz. as Origens expression is typicuâ— symbolicúmque corpus By the way give me leave to express some little indignation against those words of Bellarmine which cannot easily be excused from blasphemy saying that if our Lord had said of the bread which the Apostles saw and knew to be bread This is my body absurdissima esset locutio it had been a most absurd speech So careless are these opiniators of what they say that rather than their own fond opinions should be confuted they care not to impute non-sence to the eternal Wisdom of the Father And yet that Christ did say this of bread so ordered and to be used Hoc est corpus meum besides that the thing is notorious I shall prove most evidently 3. First That which Christ broke which he gave to his disciples which he bid them eat that he affirmed was his body What gave he but what he broke what did he break but that which he took what did he take accepit panem saith the Scripture he took bread therefore of bread it was that he affirmed it was his body Now the Roman Doctors will by no means endure this for if of bread he affirmed it to be his body then we have cleared the Question for it is bread and Christs body too that is it is bread naturally and Christs body spiritually for that it cannot be both naturally they unanimously affirm And we are sure upon this Article for disparatum de disparato non praedicatur propriè It is a rule of nature and essential reason If it be bread it is not a stone if it be a Mouse it is not a Mule and therefore when there is any predication made of one diverse thing by another the proposition must needs be improper and figurative And the Gloss of Gratian disputes it well If bread be the body of Christ viz. properly and naturally then something that is not born of the Virgin Mary is the body of Christ and the body of Christ should be both alive and dead Now that Hoc This points to bread besides the notoriousness of the thing in the story of the Gospels in the matter of fact and S. Paul calling it bread so often as I shall shew in the sequel it ought to be certain to the Roman Doctors and confessed because by their Doctrines when Christ said Hoc This and a while after it was bread because it was not consecrated till the last syllable was spoken To avoid this therefore they turn themselves into all the opinions and disguises that can be devised Stapleton says that Hoc This does only signifie the predicate and is referred to the body so as Adam said This is flesh of my flesh and bone of my bone Hoc not this rib but this thing this predicate So Hic est filius
common day yet these negatives suppose the affirmative of their proper subject Corinthian brass is brass Colossus is a statue and Christmas day is a day But if you affirm of a counterfeit or of an image or a picture by saying it is no common thing you deny to it the ordinary nature by diminution but if it have the nature of the thing then to say it is not common denies the ordinary nature by addition and eminency the first says it is not so at all the second says it is more than so and this is taught to every man by common reason and he could have observed it if he had pleased for it is plain Justin said this of that which before the Consecration was known to be natural bread and therefore now to say it was not common bread is to say it is bread and something more 2. The second reason from the words of Justin to prove it to be natural food still is because it is that by which our blood and our flesh is nourished by change Bellarmine says that these words by which our flesh and blood is nourished mean by which they use to be nourished not meaning that they are nourished by this bread when it is Eucharistical But besides that this is gratis dictum without any colour or pretence from the words of Justin but by a presumption taken from his own opinion as if it were impossible that Justin should mean any thing against his doctrine besides this I say the interpretation is insolent Nutriuntur i. e. solent nutriri as also because both the verbs are of the present tense 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The flesh and blood are nourished by bread and it is the body of Christ that is both in conjunction so that he says not as Bellarmine would have him Cibus ille ex quo carnes nostrae ali solent cum prece mysticâ consecratur efficitur corpus Christi but Cibus ille quo carnes nostrae aluntur est corpus Christi The difference is material and the matter is apparent but upon this alone I rely not To the same purpose are the words of Irenaeus Dominus accipiens panem suum corpus esse confitebatur temperamentum calicis suum sanguinem confirmavit Our Lord taking bread confessed it to be his body and the mixture of the cup he confirmed to be his blood Here Irenaeus affirms to be true what Bellarmine says non potest fieri cannot be done that in the same proposition bread should be the subject and body should be the praedicate Irenaeus sayes that Christ said it to be so and him we follow But most plainly in his fifth Book Quando ergo mixtus calix fractus panis percipit verbum dei fit Eucharistia sanguinis corporis Christi ex quibus augetur consistit carnis nostrae substantia Quomodo carnem negant capacem esse donationis Dei qui est vita aeterna quae sanguine corpore Christi nutritur and a little after he affirms that we are flesh of his flesh and bone of his bones and that this is not understood of the spiritual man but of the natural disposition or temper quae de calice qui est sanguis ejus nutritur de pane qui est corpus ejus augetur and again eum calicem qui est creatura suum sanguinem qui effusus est ex quo auget nostrum sanguinem eum panem c. qui est creatura suum corpus confirmavit ex quo nostra auget corpora it is made the Eucharist of the bread and the body of Christ out of that of which the substance of our flesh consists and is encreased by the bread which he confirmed to be his body he encreases our bodies by the blood which was poured out he encreases our blood that is the sence of Irenaeus so often repeated And to the same purpose is that of Origen 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The bread which is called the Eucharist is to us the symbol of thanksgiving or Eucharist to God So also Tertullian acceptum panem distributum discipulis suis corpus suum fecit He made the bread which he took and distributed to his disciples to be his body But more plainly in his Book De Coronâ militis Calicis aut panis nostri aliquid decuti in terram anxiè patimur we cannot endure that any of the cup or any thing of the bread be thrown to the ground The Eucharist he plainly calls bread and that he speaks of the Eucharist is certain and Bellarmine quotes the words to the purpose of shewing how reverently the Eucharist was handled and regarded The like is in S. Cyprian Dominus corpus suum panem vocat sanguinem suum vinum appellat Our Lord calls bread his body and wine his blood So John Maxentius in the time of Pope Hormisda The bread which the whole Church receives in memory of the Passion is the body of Christ. And S. Cyril of Jerusalem is earnest in this affair since our Lord hath declared and said to us of bread This is my body who shall dare to doubt it which words I the rather note because Cardinal Perron brings them as if they made for his cause which they most evidently destroy For if of bread Christ made this affirmation that it is his body then it is both bread and Christs body too and that is it which we contend for In the Dialogues against the Marciâ—nites collected out of Maximus Origen is brought in proving the reality of Christs flesh and blood in his incarnation by this argument If as these men say he be without flesh and bloud 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Of what body and of what bloud did he command the images or figures giving the bread and cup to his Disciples that by these a remembrance of him should be made But Acacius the successor of Eusebius in his Bishoprick calls it bread and wine even in the very use and sanctification of us Panis vinúmque ex hâc materiâ vescentes sanctificat the bread and wine sanctifies them that are fed with this matter In typo sanguinis sui non obtulit aquam sed vinum so S. Hierome he offered wine not water in the type representment or sacrament of his bloud To the same purpose but most plain are the words of Theodoret 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In the exhibition of the mysteries he called bread his body and the mixture in the chalice he called bloud So also S. Austin Serm. 9. De diversis The Eucharist is our daily bread but we receive it so that we are not only nourished by the belly but also by the understanding And I cannot understand the meaning of plain Latin if the same thing be not affirmed in the little Mass-book published by Paulus 5. for the English Priests Deus qui humani generis
his natural body then it was naturally broken and his bloud was actually poured forth before the passion for he gave 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 his body was delivered broken his bloud was shed Now those words were spoken either properly and naturally and then they were not true because his body was yet whole his bloud still in the proper channels or else it was spoken in a figurative and sacramental sence and so it was true as were all the words which our blessed Saviour spake for that which he then ministred was the Sacrament of his Passion 3. Secondly If Christ gave his body in the natural sence at the last Supper then it was either a sacrifice propitiatory or it was not If it was not then it is not now and then their dream of the Mass is vanished if it was propitiatory at the last Supper then God was reconciled to all the world and mankind was redeemed before the Passion of our blessed Saviour which therefore would have been needless and ineffective so fearful are the consequents of this strange doctrine 4. Thirdly If Christ gave his body properly in the last Supper and not only figuratively and in sacrament then it could not be a representment or sacrament of his Passion but a real exhibition of it but that it was a Sacrament only appears by considering that it was then alive that the Passion was future that the thing was really to be performed upon the Cross that then he was to be delivered for the life of the world In the last Supper all this was in type and sacrament because it was before and the substance was to follow after 5. Fourthly If the natural body of Christ was in the last Supper under the accidents of bread then his body at the same time was visible and invisible in the whole substance visible in his person invisible under the accidents of bread and then it would be inquired what it was which the Apostles received what benefits they could have by receiving the body naturally or whether it be imaginable that the Apostles understoood it in the literal sence when they saw his body stand by unbroken alive integral hypostatical 6. Fifthly If Christs body were naturally in the Sacrament I demand whether it be as it was in the last Supper or as upon the Cross or as it is now in Heaven Not as in the last Supper for then it was frangible but not broken but typically by design in figure and in Sacrament as it is evident in matter of fact 2. Not as on the Cross for there the body was frangible and broken too and the blood spilled and if it were so now in the Sacrament besides that it were to make Christs glorified body passible and to crucifie the Lord of life again it also were not the same body which Christ hath now for his Body that he hath now is spiritual and incorruptible and cannot be otherwise much less can it be so and not so at the same time properly and yet be the same body 3. Not as in Heaven where it is neither corruptible nor broken for then in the Sacrament there were given to us Christs glorified body and then neither were the Sacrament a remembrance of Christs death neither were the words of Institution verified This is my body which is broken besides in this we have Bellarmines confession Neque enim ore corporali sumi potest corpus Christi ut est in coelo But then if it be remembred that Christ hath no other body but that which is in Heaven and that can never be otherwise than it is and so it cannot be received otherwise properly it unanswerably follows that if it be received in any other manner as it must if it be at all it must be received not naturally or corporally but spiritually and indeed By a figure or a sacramental spiritual sence all these difficulties are easily assoiled but by the natural never 7. Sixthly At the last Supper they eat the blessed Eucharist but it was not in remembrance of Christs death for it was future then and therefore not then capable of being remembred any more than a man can be said to remember what will be done to morrow it follows from hence that then Christ only instituted a Sacrament or figurative mysterious representment of a thing that in the whole use of it was variable by heri and cras and therefore never to be naturally verified but on the Cross by a proper and natural presence because then it was so and never else at that time it was future and now it is past and in both it is relative to his death therefore it could not be a real exhibition of his body in a natural sence for that as it could not be remembred then so neither broken now that is nothing of it is natural but it is wholly ritual mysterious and sacramental For that this was the sacrament of his death appears in the words of Institution and by the preceptive words Do this in remembrance of me And in the reason subjoyned by S. Paul 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. For so often as ye eat this bread and drink this cup ye shew the Lords death till he come Therefore when Christ said This is my body given or broken on my part taken eaten on yours it can be nothing else but the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the sacramental image of his death to effect which purpose it could not be necessary or useful to bring his natural body that so the substance should become his own shadow the natural presence be his own Sacrament or rather the image and representment of what he once suffered His body given in the Sacrament is the application and memory of his death and no more that as Christ in Heaven represents his death in the way of intercession so do we by our ministery but as in Heaven it is wholly a representing of his body crucified a rememoration of his crucifixion of his death passion by which he reconciled God and man so it is in the Sacrament after our manner This is my body given for you that is This is the Sacrament of my death in which my body was given for you For as Aquinas said in all sciences words signifie things but it is proper to Theology that things themselves signified or expressed by voices should also signifie something beyond it This is my body are the sacramental words or those words by which the mystery or the thing is sacramental it must therefore signifie something beyond these words and so they do for they signifie the death which Christ suffered in that body It is but an imperfect conception of the mystery to say it is the Sacrament of Christs body only or his blood but it is ex parte rei a Sacrament of the death of his body and to us a participation or an exhibition of it as it became beneficial to us that
THUS I have by very many arguments taken from the words and circumstances and annexes of the Institution or Consecration proved that the sence of this mystery is mysterious and spiritual that Christs body is eaten only sacramentally by the body but really and effectively only by faith which is the mouth of the soul that the flesh profiteth nothing but the words which Christ spake are spirit and life And let it be considered Whether besides a pertinacious resolution that they will understand these words as they found in the letter not as they are intended in the spirit there be any thing or indeed can be in the nature of the thing or circumstances of it or usefulness or in the different forms of words or the Analogy of the other discourses of Christ that can give colour to their literal sence against which so much reason and Scripture and arguments from Antiquity do contest This only I observe that they bring no pretence of other Scriptures to warrant this interpretation but such which I have or shall wrest out of their hands and which to all mens first apprehensions and at the very first sight do make against them and which without curious notion and devices cannot pretend on their side as appears first in the tenth Chapter of the first Epistle to the Corinthians Verses 16 17. 2. Out of which I have already proved that Christs body is not taken in the natural sence but in the spiritual But when Bellarmine had out of the same words forced for himself three arguments proving nothing to save any man the labour of answering them he adds at the end of them these words Sed tota difficultas est as corporaliter realiter propriè sumatur sanguis caro an solùm significativè spiritualiter Quod autem corporaliter propriè probari posset omnibus argumentis quibus suprà probavimus propriè esse intelligenda verba illa institutionis Hoc est corpus meum That is after his arguments out of the first Epistle to the Corinthians were ended all the difficulty of the question still remained and that he was fain to prove by Hoc est corpus meum and the proper arguments of that but brings nothing from the words of S. Paul in this Chapter But to make up this also he does corrodere scrape together some things extrinsecal to the words of this authority as 1. That the literal sence is to be presumed unless the contrary be proved which is very true but I have evidently proved the contrary concerning the words of Institution and for the words in this Chapter if the literal sence be preferred then the bread remains after Consecration because it is called bread 2. So the Primitive Saints expounded it which how true it is I shall consider in his own place 3. The Apostle calling the Gentiles from their sacrificed flesh proposes to them a more excellent banquet but it were not more excellent if it were only a figure of Christs body so Bellarmine which is a fit cover for such a dish for 1. We do not say that in the Sacrament we only receive the sign and figure of Christs body but all the real effects and benefits of it 2. If we had yet it is not very much better than blasphemy to say that the Apostles had not prevailed upon that account For if the very figure and sacrament of Christs body be better than sacrifices offered to Devils the Apostle had prevailed though this sentence were true that in the Sacrament we receive only the figure And thus I have for all that is said against it made it apparent that there is nothing in that place for their corporal presence 3. There is one thing more which out of Scripture they urge for the corporal presence viz. He that eateth and drinketh unworthily eateth and drinketh damnation to himself not discerning the Lords body and he shall be guilty of the body and blood of Christ. Where they observe that they that eat unworthily do yet eat Christs body because how else could they be guilty of it and condemned for not discerning it 4. To this I answer many things 1. S. Paul does not say He that eateth and drinketh Christs body and blood unworthily c. but indefinitely He that eateth and drinketh c. yet it is probable he would have said so if it had been a proper form of speech because by so doing it would have layed a greater load upon them 2. Where S. Paul does not speak indefinitely he speaks most clearly against the Article in the Roman sence for he calls it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The cup of the Lord and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 this bread and he that eats this bread unworthily is guilty of the body and blood of Christ and now these comminatory phrases are quitted from their pretence but yet they have their proper consideration Therefore 3. Not discerning the Lords body is not separating it from profane and common usages not treating it with addresses proper to the mystery To which phrase Justin gives light in these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we do not receive it as common bread and common drink but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. but nourishment made Eucharistical or blessed by the word of Prayer and so it is the body and blood of the Lord. 4. It is the body of the Lord in the same sence here as in the words of institution which I have evinced to be exegetical sacramental and spiritual and by despising the sacrament of it we become guilty of the body and blood of Christ. Reus erit corporis sanguinis Christi qui tanti mysterii sacramentum despexerit saith S. Hierome And it is in this as Severianus said concerning the statutes of Theodosius broken in despight by the Antiochians 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If you abuse the Kings Image the affront relates to your Prince 5. The unworthy receiver is guilty of the body and blood of Christ not naturally for that cannot now be and nothing is a greater probation of the spiritual sence of the words in this place than this which they would intice into their party For Christs body is glorified and not capable of natural injury but the evil communicant is guilty of the body and blood of Christ just as relapsing Christians are said by the same Apostles to crucifie the Lord of life again and put him to an open shame which I suppose they cannot do naturally or corporally One is as the other that is both are tropical or figurative 5. These are all that they pretend from Scripture and all these are nothing to their purpose but now besides what I have already said I shall bring arguments from other Scriptures which will not so easily be put off SECT IX Arguments from other Scriptures proving Christs Real Presence in the Sacrament to be only Spiritual not Natural 1. THE first is taken from those words of our
expounding the Sacrament Nothing needs to be plainer By the way let me observe this that the words cited by Tertullian out of Jeremy are expounded and recited too but by allusion For there are no such words in the Hebrew Text which is thus to be rendred Corrumpanus veneno cibum ejus and so cannot be referred to the Sacrament unless you will suppose that he fore-signified the poysoning the Emperour by a consecrated wafer But as to the figure this is often said by him for in the first book against Marcion he hath these words again nec reprobavit panem quo ipsum corpus suum repraesentat etiam in Sacramentis propriis egens mendicitatibus creatoris He refused not bread by which he represents his own body wanting or using in the Sacraments the meanest things of the Creator For it is not to be imagined that Tertullian should attempt to perswade Marcion that the bread was really and properly Christs body but that he really delivered his body on the Cross that both in the old Testament and here himself gave a figure of it in bread and wine for that was it which the Marcionites denied saying on the cross no real humanity did suffer and he confutes them by saying these are figures and therefore denote a truth 8. However these men are resolved that this new answer shall please them and serve their turn yet some of their fellows great Clerks as themselves did shrink under the pressure of it as not being able to be pleased with so laboured and improbable an answer For Harding against Juel hath these words speaking of this place which interpretation is not according to the true sence of Christs words although his meaning swerve not from the truth And B. Rhenanus the author of the admonition to the Reader De quibusdam Tertulliani dogmat◠seems to confess this to be Tertullians error Error putantium corpus Christi in Eucharistiâ tantùm esse sub figurâ jam olim condemnatus The error of them that think the body of Christ is in the Eucharist only in a figure is now long since condemned But Garetius Bellarmine Justinian Coton Fevardentius Valentia and Vasquez in the recitation of this passage of Tertullian very fairly leave out the words that pinch them and which clears the article and bring the former words for themselves without the interpretation of id est figura corporis mei I may therefore without scruple reckon Tertullian on our side against whose plain words no real exception can lye himself expounding his own meaning in the pursuance of the figurative sence of this mystery 20. Concerning Origen I have already given an account in the ninth Paragraph and other places casually and made it appear that he is a direct opposite to the doctrine of Transubstantiation And the same also of Justin Martyr Paragraph the fifth number 9. Where also I have enumerated divers others who speak upon parts of this question on which the whole depends whither I refer the Reader Only concerning Justin Martyr I shall recite these words of his against Tryphon Figura fuit panis Eucharistiae quem in recordationem passionis facere praecepit The bread of the Eucharist was a figure which Christ the Lord commanded to do in remembrance of his passion 21. Clemens Alexandrinus saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. The blood of Christ is twofold the one is carnal by which we are redeemed from death the other spiritual viz. by which we are anointed And this is to drink the blood of Jesus to be partakers of the incorruption of our Lord. But the power of the word is the Spirit as blood is of the flesh Therefore in a moderated proposition and convenience wine is mingled with water as the Spirit with a man And he receives in the Feast viz. Eucharistical tempered wine unto faith But the Spirit leadeth to incorruption but the mixture of both viz. of drink and the word is called the Eucharist which is praised and is a good gift or grace of which they who are partakers by faith are sanctified in body and soul. Here plainly he calls that which is in the Eucharist Spiritual blood and without repeating the whole discourse is easie and clear And that you may be certain of S. Clement his meaning he disputes in the same chapter against the Encratites who thought it not lawful to drink wine 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. For be ye sure he also did drink wine for he also was a man and he blessed wine when he said Take drink 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This is my blood the blood of the vine for that word that was shed for many for the remission of sins it signifies allegorically a holy stream of gladness 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but that the thing which had been blessed was wine he shewed again saying to his disciples I will not drink of the fruit of this vine till I drink it new with you in my fathers kingdom Now S. Clement proving by Christs sumption of the Eucharist that he did drink wine must mean the Sacramental Symbol to be truly wine and Christs blood allegorically that holy stream of gladness or else he had not concluded by that argument against the Encratites Upon which account these words are much to be valued because by our doctrine in this article he only could confute the Encratites as by the same doctrine explicated as we explicate it Tertullian confuted the Marcionites and Theodoret and Gelasius confuted the Nestorians and Eutychians if the doctrine of Transubstantiation had been true these four heresies had by them as to their particular arguments relating to this matter been unconfuted 22. S. Cyprian in his Tractate de unctione which Canisius Harding Bellarmine and Lindan cite hath these words Dedit itaque Dominus noster c. Therefore our Lord in his table in which he did partake his last banquet with his disciples with his own hands gave bread and wine but on the cross he gave to the souldiers his body to be wounded that in the Apostles the sincere truth and the true sincerity being more secretly imprinted he might expound to the Gentiles how wine and bread should be his flesh and blood and by what reasons causes might agree with effects and diverse names and kinds viz. bread and wine might be reduced to one essence and the signifying and the signified might be reckoned by the same words and in his third Epistle he hath these words Vinum quo Christi sanguis ostenditur wine by which Christs blood is showen or declared Here I might cry out as Bellarmine upon a much slighter ground Quid clariùs dici potuit But I forbear being content to enjoy the real benefits of these words without a triumph But I will use it thus far that it shall outweigh the words cited out of the tract de coenâ Domini by Bellarmine by the Rhemists by the Roman Catechism by Perron
the mystical signes recede from their nature for they abide in their proper substance figure and form and may be seen and touched c. So the humanity of Christ and a little after So that body of Christ hath the ancient form figure superscription and to speak the summe of all the substance of the body although after the resurrection it be immortal and free from all corruption Now these words spoken upon this occasion to this purpose in direct opposition to a contradicting person but casting his Article wholly upon supposition of a substantial change and opposing to him a ground contrary to his upon which only he builds his answer cannot be eluded by any little pretence Bellarmine and the lesser people from him answer that by nature he understands the exterior qualities of nature such as colour taste weight smell c. 1. I suppose this but does he mean so by Substantia too 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Does he by substance mean accidents but suppose that a while yet 2. If he had answered thus how had Theodoret confuted the Eutychians For thus says Eranistes As the bread is changed in substance into the body of Christ so is the humanity into the divinity yea but says Theodoret according to Bellarmine The substances of bread is not changed for the colour the shape the bigness and the smell remain or thus the accidents remain which I call substance for there are two sorts of substances substances and accidents and this latter sort of substances remain but not the former and so you are confuted Eranistes But what if Eranistes should reply if you say all of bread is changed excepting the accidents then my argument holds for I only contend that the substance of the humanity is changed as you say the substance of bread is To this nothing can be said unless Theodoret may have leave to answer as otherwise men must But now Theodoret answered that the substance of bread is not changed but remains still and by substance he did mean substance and not the accidents for if he had he had not spoken sence Either therefore the testimony of Theodoret remaineth unsatisfied by our adversaries or the argument of the Eutychians is unanswered by Theodoret. 3. Theodoret in these places opposes Nature to Grace and says all remains without any change but of Grace 4. He also explicates Nature by Substance so that it is a Substantial Nature he must mean 5. He distinguishes substance from form and figure and therefore by substance cannot mean form and figure as Bellarmine dreams 6. He affirms concerning the body of Christ that in the resurrection it is changed in accidents being made incorruptible and immortal but affirms that the substance remains therefore by substance he must mean as he speaks without any prodigious sence affixed to the word 7. Let me observe this by the way that the doctrine of the substantial change of bread into the body of Christ was the perswasion of the Heretick the Eutychian Eranistes but denied by the Catholick Theodoret So that if they will pretend to antiquity in this doctrine their plea is made ready and framed by the Eutychian from whom they may if they please derive the original of their doctrine or if they please from the elder Marcosites but it will be but vain to think the Eutychian did argue from thence as if it had been a Catholick ground reason we might have had to suppose it if the Catholick had not denied it But the case is plain as the Sadduces disputed with Christ about the Article of no Spirits no Resurrection though in the Church of the Jews the contrary was the more prevailing opinion so did the Eutychians upon a pretence of a Substantial conversion in the Sacrament which was then their fancy and devised to illustrate their other opinion But it was disavowed by the Catholicks 31. Gelasius was ingaged against the same persons in the same cause and therefore it will be needful to say nothing but to describe his words For they must have the same efficacy with the former and prevail equally Certè Sacramenta c. Truly the Sacraments of the body and blood of Christ which we receive are a Divine thing for that by them we are made partakers of the Divine nature and yet it ceases not to be the substance or nature of bread and wine And truly an image and similitude of the body and blood of Christ are celebrated in the action of the mysteries These are his words concerning which this only is to be considered beyond what I suggested concerning Theodoret that although the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Greek which we render substantia might be apt to receive divers interpretations though in his discourse he confined it to his proper meaning as appears above yet in Gelasius who was a Latin Author the word substantia is not capable of it and I think there is no example where substantia is taken for an accidental nature It may as all other words can suffer alterations by tropes and figures but never signifie grammatically any thing but it self and his usual significations and if there be among us any use of Lexicons or Vocabularies if there be any notices conveyed to men by forms of speech then we are sure in these things and there is no reason we should suffer our selves to be out-faced out of the use of our senses and our reason and our language It is usually here replied that Gelasius was an obscurer person Bishop of Caesarea and not Pope of Rome as is supposed I answer that he was Bishop of Rome that writ the book out of which these words are taken is affirmed in the Bibliotheca PP approved by the Theological faculty in Paris 1576 and Massonius de Episcopis urbis Romae in the life of Pope Gelasius saith that Pope John cited the book de duabus naturis and by Fulgentius it is so too 2. But suppose he was not Pope that he was a Catholick Bishop is not denied and that he lived above a 1000 years ago which is all I require in this business For any other Bishop may speak truth as well as the Bishop of Rome and his truth shall be of equal interest and perswasion But so strange a resolution men have taken to defend their own opinions that they will in despite of all sence and reason say something to every thing and that shall be an answer whether it can or no. 32. After all this it is needless to cite authorities from the later ages It were Indeed easie to heap up many and those not obscure either in their name or in their testimony Such as Facundus Bishop of Hermian in Africa in the year 552. in his ninth book and last Chapter written in defence of Theod. Mopsuest c. hath these words The Sacrament of his body and blood we call his body and blood not that bread is properly his body or the cup his blood
but therefore this is bread still here the Consequence is good and is so still when the subject of the proposition is something real and not in appearance only Because whatsoever is but in appearance and pretence is a Non-Ens in respect of that real thing which it counterfeits And therefore it follows not This is not a common dove therefore it is a Dove because if this be model'd into a right proposition nihil supponit there is no subject in it for it cannot in this case be said This Dove is no common Dove but this which is like a Dove is not a common Dove and these persons which look like men are not common men And the rule for this and the reason too is Non entis nulla sunt praedicata To which also this may be added that in the proposition as C. Perron expresses it the negation is not the Adjective but the substantive part of the predicate It is no common Dove where the negative term relates to the Dove not to common It is no Dove and the words not common are also equivocal and as it can signifie extraordinary so it can signifie Natural But if the subject of the proposition be something real then the consequent is good as if you bring a Pigeon from Japan all red you may say This is no common Pigeon and your argument is still good therefore it is a Pigeon So if you take sugred bread or bread made of Indian wheat you saying this is no common bread do mean it is extraordinary or unusual but it is bread still and so if it be said this bread is Eucharistical it will follow rightly therefore this is bread For in this case the predicate is only an infinite or Negative term but the subject is suppos'd and affirm'd And this is also more apparent if the proposition be affirmative and the terms be not infinite as it is in the present case This bread is Eucharistical I have now I suppose clear'd the words of Justin M. and expounded them to his own sence and the truth but his sence will further appear in other words which I principally rely upon in this quotation For speaking that of the Prophet Isai. Panis dabitur ei aqua ejus fidelis he hath these words It appears sufficiently That in this prophecie he speaks of bread which our Lord Christ hath deliver'd to us to do 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for a memorial that he is made a body for them that believe in him for whose sake he was made passible and of the Cup which for the recordation of his blood he delivered to them to do that is give thanks or celebrate the Eucharist These are the words of Justin Where 1. According to the first simplicity of the primitive Church he treats of this mystery according to the style of the evangelists and S. Paul and indeed of our Blessed Lord himself commanding all this whole mystery to be done in memory of him 2. If S. Justin had meant any thing of the new fabrick of this mystery he must have said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the bread made his body though this also would not have done their work for them but when he says he gave the bread only for the remembrance of his being made a body the bread must needs be the sign figure and representation of that body 3. Still he calls it bread even then when Christ gave it still it is wine when the Eucharist is made when the faithful have given thanks and if it be bread still we also grant it to be Christs body and then there is a figure and the things figured the one visible and the other invisible and this is it which I affirmed to be the sence of Justin Martyr And it is more perfectly explicated by Saint Greg. Naz. calling the Pascal Lamb a figure of a figure of which I shall yet give an account in this Section But to make this yet more clear 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. We do not receive these as common bread or common drink but as by the word of God Jesus Christ our Lord was made flesh and for our salvation had flesh and blood so are we taught that that very nourishment on which by the prayers of his word thanks are given by which our flesh and blood are nourished by change is the flesh and blood of the incarnate Jesus Here S. Justin compares the consecration of the Eucharist by prayer to the incarnation of Christ the thing with the thing to shew it is not common bread but bread made Christs body he compares not the manner of one with the manner of the other as Cardinal Perron would fain have it believed for if it were so it would not only destroy an Article of Christian faith but even of the Roman too for if the changes were in the same manner then either the man is Transubstantiated into God or else the bread is not Transubstantiated into Christs body but the first cannot be because it would destroy the hypostatical Union and make Christ to be one nature as well as one person but for the latter part of the Dilemma viz. that the bread is not Transubstantiated whether it be true or false it cannot be affirmed from hence and therefore the Cardinal labours to no purpose and without consideration of what may follow But now these words make very much against the Roman hypothesis and directly prove the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the consecrated bread that is after it is consecrated to be natural nourishment of the body and therefore to be Christs body only spiritually and Sacramentally unless it can be two substances at the same time Christs body and bread in the Natural sence which the Church of Rome at this day will not allow and if it were allowed it would follow that Christ body should be Transubstantiated into our body and suffer the very worst changes which in our eating and digestion and separation happen to common bread This argument relies upon the concurrent Testimony of many of the ancient Fathers besides Justin Martyr especially S. Irenaeus and certainly destroys the whole Roman Article of Transubstantiation for if the Eucharistical bread nourishes the body then it is still the substance of bread for accidents do not nourish and quantity or quality is not the subject or term of Nutrition but reparation of substance by a substantial change of one into another But of this enough Eusebius is next alledged in the Dissuasive but his words though pregnant and full of proof against the Roman hypothesis are by all the Contra-scribers let alone only one of them says that the place of the quotation is not rightly mark'd for the first three chapters are not extant well but the words are and the last chapter is which is there quoted and to the 10. chapter the Printer should have more carefully attended and not omit the Cypher which I suppose he would
in two parts of the body which is one and whole and so is but in one place and consequently is but one soul. But if the feet were parted from the body by other bodies intermedial then indeed if there were but one soul in feet and head the Gentleman had spoken to the purpose But here these wafers are two intire wafers separate the one from the other bodies intermedial put between and that which is here is not there and yet of each of them it is affirm'd that it is Christs body that is of two wafers and of two thousand wafers it is at the same time affirm'd of every one that it is Christs body Now if these wafers are substantially not the same not one but many and yet every one of these many is substantially and properly Christs body then these bodies are many for they are many of whom it is said every one distinctly and separately and in it self is Christs body 2. For his comparing the presence of Christ in the wafer with the presence of God in Heaven it is spoken without common wit or sence for does any man say that God is in two places and yet be the same one God Can God be in two places that cannot be in one Can he be determin'd and number'd by places that sills all places by his presence or is Christs body in the Sacrament as God is in the world that is repletivè filling all things alike spaces void and spaces full and there where there is no place where the measures are neither time nor place but only the power and will of God This answer besides that it is weak and dangerous is also to no purpose unless the Church of Rome will pass over to the Lutherans and maintain the Ubiquity of Christs body Yea but S. Austin says of Christ Ferebatur in manibus suis c. he bore himself in his own hands and what then Then though every wafer be Christs body yet the multiplication of wafers does not multiply bodies for then there would be two bodies of Christ when he carried his own body in his hands To this I answer that concerning S. Austins mind we are already satisfied but that which he says here is true as he spake and intended it for by his own rule the similitudes and figures of things are oftentimes called by the name of those things whereof they are similitudes Christ bore his own body in his own hands when he bore the Sacrament of his body for of that also it is true that it is truly his body in a Sacramental spiritual and real manner that is to all intents and purposes of the holy Spirit of God According to the words of S. Austin cited by P. Lombard We call that the body of Christ which being taken from the fruits of the Earth and consecrated by mystick prayer we receive in memory of the Lords Passion which when by the hands of men it is brought on to that visible shape it is not sanctified to become so worthy a Sacrament but by the spirit of God working invisibly If this be good Catholick doctrine and if this confession of this article be right the Church of England is right but then when the Church of Rome will not let us alone in this truth and modesty of confession but impose what is unknown in Antiquity and Scripture and against common sence and the reason of all the world she must needs be greatly in the wrong But as to this question I was here only to justifie the Disswasive I suppose these Gentleman may be fully satisfied in the whole inquiry if they please to read a book I have written on this subject intirely of which hitherto they are pleas'd to take no great notice SECT IV. Of the Half-Communion WHEN the French Embassador in the Council of Trent A. D. 1561. made instance for restitution of the Chalice to the Laity among other oppositions the Cardinal S. Angelo answered that he would never give a cup full of such deadly poison to the people of France instead of a medicine and that it was better to let them die than to cure them with such remedies The Embassador being greatly offended replied that it was not fit to give the name of poison to the blood of Christ and to call the holy Apostles poisoners and the Fathers of the Primitive Church and of that which followed for many hundred years who with much spiritual profit have ministred the cup of that blood to all the people this was a great and a publick yet but a single person that gave so great offence One of the greatest scandals that ever were given to Christendom was given by the Council of Constance which having acknowledged that Christ administred this venerable Sacrament under both kinds of bread and wine and that in the Primitive Church this Sacrament was receiv'd of the faithful under both kinds yet the Council not only condemns them as hereticks and to be punished accordingly who say it is unlawful to observe the custom and law of giving it in one kind only but under pain of excommunication forbids all Priests to communicate the people under both kinds This last thing is so shameful and so impious that A. L. directly denies that there is any such thing which if it be not an argument of the self-conviction of the man and a resolution to abide in his error and to deceive the people even against his knowledge let all the world judge for the words of the Councils decree as they are set down by Carranza at the end of the decree are these Item praecipimus sub pâ—â—na excommunicationis quod nullus presbyter communicet populum sub utraque specie panis vini I need say no more in this affair To affirm it necessary to do in the Sacraments what Christ did is called heresie and to do so is punished with excommunication But we who follow Christ hope we shall communicate with him and then we are well enough especially since the very institution of the Sacrament in both kinds is a sufficient Commandment to minister and receive it in both kinds For if the Church of Rome upon their supposition only that Christ did barely institute confession do therefore urge it as necessary it will be a strange partiality that the confessed institution by Christ of the two Sacramental species shall not conclude them as necessary as the other upon an Unprov'd supposition And if the institution of the Sacrament in both kinds be not equal to a command then there is no command to receive the bread or indeed to receive the Sacrament at all but it is a mere act of supererogation that the Priests do it at all and an act of favour and grace that they give even the bread it self to the Laity But besides this it is not to be endur'd that the Church of Rome only binds her subjects to observe the decree of abstaining from the cup
Adversaries put me often to sight with His words are these He viz. the Apostle S. Paul saith that he is unworthy of the Lord who otherwise celebrates the mystery than it was deliver'd by him For he cannot be devout that presumes otherwise than it was given by the Author Therefore he before admonishes that according to the order delivered the mind of him that comes to the Eucharist of our Lord be devout for there is a judgment to come that as every one comes so he may render an account in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ because they who come without the discipline of the delivery or tradition and of conversation are guilty of the body and blood of our Lord. One of my Adversaries says these words of S. Ambrose are to be understood only of the Priest and it appears so by the word celebrat not recipit he that celebrates otherwise than is delivered by Christ. To this I answer that first it is plain and S. Ambrose so expresses his meaning to be of all that receive it for so he says that the mind of him that cometh to the Eucharist of our Lord ought to be devout 2. It is an ignorant conceit that S. Ambrose by celebrat means the Priest only because he only can celebrate For however the Church of Rome does now almost impropriate that word to the Priest yet in the Primitive Church it was no more than recipit or accedit ad Eucharistiam which appears not only by S. Ambrose his expounding it so here but in S. Cyprian speaking to a rich Matron Locuples dives Dominicum celebrare te credis corban omnino non respicis Dost thou who art rich and opulent suppose that you celebrate the Lords Supper or sacrifice who regardest not the poor mans basket Celebrat is the word and receive must needs be the signification and so it is in S. Ambrose and therefore I did as I ought translate it so 3. It is yet objected that I translate aliter quam ab eo traditum est otherwise than he appointed whereas it should be otherwise than it was given by him And this surely is a great matter and the Gentleman is very subtle But if he be ask'd whether or no Christ appointed it to be done as he did to be given as he gave it I suppose this deep and wise note of his will just come to nothing But ab eo traditum est of it self signifies appointed for this he deliver'd not only by his hands but by his commandment of Hoc facite that was his appointment Now that all this relates to the whole institution and doctrine of Christ in this matter and therefore to the duplication of the Elements the reception of the chalice as well as the consecrated bread appears first by the general terms qui aliter mysterium celebrat he that celebrates otherwise than Christ delivered 2. These words are a Commentary upon that of S. Paul He that eats this bread and drinks the Cup of the Lord unworthily is guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. Now hence S. Ambrose arguing that all must be done as our Lord delivered says also that the bread must be eaten and the cup drunk as our Lord delivered and he that does not do both does not do what our Lord delivered 3. The conclusion of S. Ambrose is full to this particular They are guilty of the body and blood of Christ who came without the discipline of the delivery and of conversation that is they who receive without due preparation and not after the manner it was delivered that is under the differing symbols of bread and wine To which we may add that observation of Cassander and of Vossius that the Apostles represented the persons of all the faithful and Christ saying to them Take and eat he also said Drink ye all of this he said not Eat ye all of this and therefore if by vertue of these words Drink ye all of this the Laity be not commanded to drink it can never be proved that the Laity are commanded to eat Omnes is added to bibite but it is not expresly added to Accipite Comedite and therefore Paschasius Radbertus who lived about eight hundred and twenty years after Christs incarnation so expounds the precept without any hesitation Bibite ex hoc omnes i. e. tam Ministri quam reliqui credentes Drink ye all of this as well they that minister as the rest of the believers And no wonder since for their so doing they have the example and institution of Christ by which as by an irrefragable and undeniable argument the Ancient Fathers us'd to reprove and condemn all usages which were not according to it For saith S. Cyprian If men ought not to break the least of Christs commandments how much less those great ones which belong to the Sacrament of our Lords passion and redemption or to change it into any thing but that which was appointed by him Now this was spoken against those who refus'd the hallowed wine but took water instead of it and it is of equal force against them that give to the Laity no cup at all but whatever the instance was or could be S. Cyprian reproves it upon the only account of prevaricating Christs institution The whole Epistle is worth reading for a full satisfaction to all wise and sober Christians Abeo quod Christus Magister praecepit gessit humana novella institutione decedere by a new and humane institution to depart from what Christ our Master commanded and did that the Bishops would not do tamen quoniam quidam c. because there are some who simply and ignorantly In calice Dominico sanctificando plebi ministrando non hoc faciunt quod Jesus Christus Dominus Deus noster sacrificii hujus author Doctor fecit docuit c. In sanctifying the cup of the Lord and giving it to the people do not do what Jesus Christ did and taught viz. they did not give the cup of wine to the people therefore S. Cyprian calls them to return ad radicem originem traditionis Dominicae to the root and original of the Lords delivery Now besides that S. Cyprian plainly says that when the chalice was sanctified it was also ministred to the people I desire it be considered whether or no these words do not plainly reprove the Roman doctrine and practice in not giving the consecrated chalice to the people Do they not recede from the root and original of Christs institution Do they do what Christ did Do they teach what Christ taught Is not their practice quite another thing than it was at first Did not the Ancient Church do otherwise than these men do and thought themselves oblig'd to do otherwise They urg'd the doctrine and example of our Lord and the whole Oeconomy of the Mystery was their warrant and their reason for they always believed that a