or understand it we lose our labour Quomodo enim id fiat ne in mente intelligere nec linguâ dicere possumus sed silentio firmâ fide id suscipimus We can perceive the thing by faith but cannot express it in words nor understand it with our mind said S. Bernard Oportet igitur it is at last after the steps of the former progress come to be a duty nos in sumptionibus Divinorum mysteriorum indubitatam retinere fidem non quaerere quo pacto The summe is this The manner was defined but very lately there is no need at all to dispute it no advantages by it and therefore it were better it were left at liberty to every man to think as he please for so it was in the Church for above a thousand years together and yet it were better men would not at all trouble themselves concerning it for it 's a thing impossible to be understood and therefore it is not fit to be inquired after This was their sence and I suppose we do in no sence prevaricate their so pious and prudent counsel by saying the presence of Christ is reall and spirituall because this account does still leave the Article in his deepest mystery not only because spiritual formalities and perfections are undiscernable and incommensurable by natural proportions and the measures of our usual notices of things but also because the word spiritual is so general a term and operations so various and many by which the Spirit of God brings his purposes to pass and does his work upon the soul that we are in this specifick term very far from limiting the Article to a minute and special manner Our word of spiritual presence is particular in nothing but that it excludes the corporal and natural manner we say it is not this but it is to be understood figuratively that is not naturally but to the purposes and in the manner of the Spirit and spiritual things which how they operate or are effected we know no more than we know how a Cherubin sings or thinks or by what private conveyances a lost notion returns suddenly into our memory and stands placed in the eye of reason Christ is present spiritually that is by effect and blessing which in true speaking is rather the consequent of his presence than the formality For though we are taught and feel that yet this we profess we cannot understand and therefore curiously inquire not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 said Justin Martyr it is a manifest argument of infidelity to inquire concerning the things of God How or after what manner And in this it was that many of the Fathers of the Church laid their hands upon their mouths and revered the Mystery but like the remains of the sacrifice they burnt it that is as themselves expound the allegory it was to be adored by Faith and not to be discussed with reason knowing that as Solomon said Scrutator Majestatis opprimetur à gloriâ He that pries too far into the Majesty shall be confounded with the Glory 3. So far it was very well and if error or interest had not unravelled the secret and looked too far into the Sanctuary where they could see nothing but a cloud of fire Majesty and Secrecy indiscriminately mixt together we had kneeled before the same Altars and adored the same mystery and communicated in the same rites to this day For in the thing it self there is no difference amongst wise and sober persons nor ever was till the manner became an Article and declared or supposed to be of the substance of the thing But now the state of the question is this 4. The doctrine of the Church of England and generally of the Protestants in this Article is That after the Minister of the holy mysteries hath ritely prayed and blessed or consecrated the bread and the wine the symbols become changed into the body and blood of Christ after a Sacramental that is in a spiritual real manner so that all that worthily communicate do by faith recive Christ really effectually to all the purposes of his passion The wicked receive not Christ but the bare symbols only but yet to their hurt because the offer of Christ is rejected and they pollute the blood of the Covenant by using it as an unholy thing The result of which doctrine is this It is bread and it is Christs body It is bread in substance Christ in the Sacrament and Christ is as really given to all that are truly disposed as the symbols are each as they can Christ as Christ can be given the bread and wine as they can and to the same real purposes to which they are designed and Christ does as really nourish and sanctifie the soul as the elements do the body It is here as in the other Sacrament for as there natural water becomes the laver of regeneration so here bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ but there and here too the first substance is changed by grace but remains the same in nature 5. That this is the doctrine of the Church of England is apparent in the Church Catechism affirming the inward part or thing signified by the consecrated bread and wine to be The body and blood of Christ which are verily and indeed taken and received of the faithful in the Lords Supper and the benefit of it to be the strengthening and refreshing of our souls by the body and blood of Christ as our bodies are by the bread and wine and the same is repeated severally in the exhortation and in the prayer of the address before the consecration in the Canon of our Communion verily and indeed is reipsâ that 's really enough that 's our sence of the Real Presence and Calvin affirms as much saying In the Supper Christ Jesus viz. his body and blood is truly given under the signs of bread and wine And Gregory de Valentiâ gives this account of the doctrine of the Protestants that although Christ be corporally in Heaven yet is he received of the faithful communicants in this Sacrament truly both spiritually by the mouth of the mind through a most near conjunction of Christ with the soul of the receiver by faith and also sacramentally with the bodily mouth c. And which is the greatest testimony of all we who best know our own minds declare it to be so 6. Now that the spiritual is also a real presence and that they are hugely consistent is easily credible to them that believe that the gifts of the holy Ghost are real graces and a Spirit is a proper substance and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are amongst the Hellenists 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 intelligible things or things discerned by the mind of a man are more truly and really such and of a more excellent substance and reality than things only sensible And therefore when things spiritual are signified by materials the thing under the figure is called true
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
called of Adam bone of his bone and the rods changed into serpents are still called rods or else because it sometimes was bread therefore so it is called after just as we say The blind see the lame walk the harlots enter into the kingdome of heaven Which answer although Bellarmine mislikes yet lest any others should be pleased with it I have this certain confutation of it that by the Roman Doctrine the bread is wholly annihilated and nothing of the bread becomes any thing of the holy body and the holy body never was bread not so much as the matter of bread remaining in the change It cannot therefore be called bread unless it be bread at least not for this reason For if the body of Christ be not bread then neither ever was it bread neither was it made of bread and therefore these cannot be the reasons because they are not true But in the instances alledged the denomination still remains because the change was made in the same remaining matter or in the same person or they were to be so again as they were before nothing of which can be affirmed of the Eucharist by their doctrine therefore these instances are not pertinent 2. Others answer that the holy Body is called Bread because it seems to be so just as the effigies and forms of Pomegranates of Bulls of Serpents of Cherubims are called by the names of those creatures whom they do resemble I reply that well they may because there is there no danger of being deceived by such appellations no man will suppose them other than the pictures and so to speak is usual and common But in the matter of the holy Eucharist it ought not to be called bread for the likeness to bread unless it were bread indeed because such likeness and such appellation are both of them a temptation against that which these men call an article of faith but rather because it is like bread and all the world are apt to take it for such it ought to have been described with caution and affirmed to be Christ and God and not to be bread though it seem so But when it is often called Bread in Scripture which name the Church of Rome does not at all use in the mystery and is never called in Scripture the Son of God or God or Christ which words the Church of Rome does often use in the mystery it is certain that it is called bread not because it is like bread but because it is so indeed * And indeed upon such an answer as this it is easie to affirm an apple to be a Pigeon and no apple for if it be urged that all the world calls it an apple it may be replyed then as now It is true they call it an apple because it is like an apple but indeed it is a Pigeon 3. Some of them say when it is called bread it is not meant that particular kind of nourishment but in general it means any food and so only represents Christs body as a celestial divine thing intended some way to be our food Just as in S. John 6. Christ is called the bread that came down from heaven not meaning material bread but divine nourishment But this is the weakest of all because this which is called bread is broken is eaten hath the accidents of bread and all the signs of his proper nature and it were a strange violence that it should here signify any manner of food to which it is not like and not signify that to which it is so like * Besides this bread here signifies as wine or chalice does in the following words now that did signifie the fruit of the Vine that special manner of drink Christ himself being the Interpreter and therefore so must this mean that special manner of food 9. Sixthly If after the blessing the bread doth not remain but as they affirm be wholly annihilated then by blessing God destroys a creature which indeed is a strange kind of blessing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith Suidas verb. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 When God blesses he confirms his words with deeds and gives all sorts of good to that which he blesses And certain it is that although blessing can change it it must yet change it to the better and so we affirm he does for the bread besides the natural being by being blessed becomes the body of Christ in a sacramental manner but then it must remain bread still or else it receives not that increase and change but if it be annihilated and becomes nothing it is not Christs body in any sence nor in any sence can pretend to be blessed To which add the words of S. Austin Ille ad quem non esse non pertinet non est causa deficiendi id est tendendi ad non esse He that is the fountain of all being is not the cause of not being much less can his blessing cause any thing not to be It follows therefore that by blessing the bread becomes better but therefore it still remains 10. Seventhly That it is bread of which Christ affirmed This is my body and that it is bread after consecration was the doctrine of the Fathers in the Primitive Church I begin with the words of a whole Council of Fathers In Trullo at Constantinople decreeing thus against the Aquarii In Sanctis nihil plus quà m corpus Christi offeratur ut ipse dominus tradidit hoc est panis vinúm aquâ mixtum In the holy places or offices let nothing more be offered but the body of Christ as the Lord himself delivered that is bread and wine mingled with water So Justin Martyr 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 We are taught that the food made eucharistical the food which by change nourishes our flesh and bloud is the flesh and bloud of Jesus incarnate 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we do not receive it as common bread No for it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it is made Sacramental and Eucharistical and so it is sublimed to become the body of Christ. But it is natural food still and that for two reasons 1. Because still he calls it bread not common bread but extraordinary yet bread still Card. Perron says it follows not to say it is not common bread therefore it is bread so as of those which appeared as men to Abraham we might say they were not common men but it follows not that they were men at all So the Holy Ghost descending like a Dove upon the blessed Jesus was no common Dove and yet it follows not it was a Dove at all I reply to this that of whatsoever you can say it is extraordinary in his kind of that you may also affirm it to be of that kind as concerning the richest scarlet if you say this is no ordinary colour you suppose it to be a colour so the Corinthian brass was no common brass and the Colossus was no common Statue and Christmas day is no
utramque substantiam praesentium munerum alimento tribue quaesumus ut eorum corporibus nostris subsidium non desit mentibus The present gifts were appointed for the nourishment both of soul and body Who please may see more in Macarius 27. Homily and Ammonius in his Evangelical harmony in the Bibliotheca PP and this though it be decryed now adays in the Roman Schools yet was the doctrine of Scotus of Durandus Ocham Cameracensis and Biel and those men were for Consubstantiation that Christs natural body was together with natural bread which although I do not approve yet the use that I now make of them cannot be denied me it was their doctrine that after consecration bread still remains after this let what can follow But that I may leave the ground of this argument secure I add this that in the Primitive Church eating the Eucharistical bread was esteemed a breaking the fast which is not imaginable any man can admit but he that believes bread to remain after consecration and to be nutritive as before but so it was that in the second age of the Church it was advised that either they should end their station or fast at the communion or defer the communion to the end of the station as appears in Tertullian de Oratione cap. 14. which unanswerably proves that then it was thought to be bread and nutritive even then when it was Eucharistical and Picus Mirandula affirms that if a Jew or a Christian should eat the Sacrament for refection it breaks his fast The same also is the doctrine of all those Churches who use the Liturgies of S. James S. Mark and S. Chrysostome who hold that receiving the holy communion breaks the fast as appears in the disputation of Cardinal Humbert with Nicetas about 600 years ago The summ of all is this If of bread Christ said This is my body because it cannot be true in a proper natural sence it implying a contradiction that it should be properly bread and properly Christs body it must follow That it is Christs body in a figurative improper sence But if the bread does not remain bread but be changed by blessing into our Lords body this also is impossible to be in any sence true but by affirming the change to be only in use virtue and condition with which change the natural being of bread may remain For he that supposes that by the blessing the bread ceases so to be that nothing of it remains must also necessarily suppose that the bread being no more it neither can be the body of Christ nor any thing else For it is impossible that what is taken absolutely from all being should yet abide under a certain difference of being and that that thing which is not at all should yet be after a certain manner Since therefore as I have proved the bread remains and of bread it was affirmed This is my body it follows inevitably that it is figuratively not properly and naturally spoken of bread That it is the flesh or body of our Lord. SECT VI. Est corpus meum 1. THE Next words to be considered are Est corpus This is my body and here begins the first Topical expression Est that is significat or repraesentat exhibet corpus meum say some This is my body it is to all real effects the same to your particulars which my body is to all the Church it signifies the breaking of my body the effusion of my blood for you and applies my passion to you and conveys to you all the benefits as this nourishes your bodies so my body nourishes your souls to life eternal and consigns your bodies to immortality Others make the trope in Corpus so that Est shall signify properly but Corpus is taken in a spiritual sence sacramental and Mysterious not a natural and presential whether the figure be in Est or in Corpus is but a question of Rhetorick and of no effect That the proposition is tropical and figurative is the thing and that Christs natural body is now in heaven definitively and no where else and that he is in the Sacrament as he can be in a Sacrament in the hearts of faithful receivers as he hath promised to be there that is in the Sacrament mystically operatively as in a moral and divine instrument in the hearts of receivers by faith and blessing this is the truth and the faith of which we are to give a reason and account to them that disagree But this which is to all the purpose which any one pretends can be in the sumption of Christs body naturally yet will not please the Romanists unless Est Is signifie properly without trope or metonymie and corpus be corpus naturale Here then I joyn issue It is not Christs body properly or naturally for though it signifies a real effect yet it signifies the body figuratively or the effects and real benefits 2. Now concerning this there are very many inducements to infer the figurative or tropical interpretation 1. In the language which our blessed Lord spake there is no word that can express significat but they use the word Is the Hebrews and the Syrians always joyn the names of the signs with the things signified and since the very essence of a sign is to signifie it is not an improper elegancy in those languages to use Est for significat 2. It is usual in the Old Testament as may appear to understand est when the meaning is for the present and not to express it but when it signifies the future then to express it the seven fat cows seven years the seven withered ears shall be seven years of famine 3. The Greek interpreters of the Bible supply the word est in the present tense which is omitted in the Hebrew as in the places above quoted but although their Language can very well express signifies yet they follow the Hebrew Idiom 4. In the New Testament the same manner of speaking is retained to declare that the nature and being of signs is to signifie they have no other esse but significare and therefore they use est for significat The Seed is the word the Field is the World the Reapers are the Angels the Harvest is the End of the World the Rock is Christ I am the Door I am the Vine my Father is the husbandman I am the way the truth and the life Sarah and Agar are the two Testaments the Stars are the Angels of the Churches the Candlesticks are the Churches and many more of this kind we have therefore great and fair and frequent precedents for expounding this est by significat for it is the style of both the Testaments to speak in signs and representments where one disparate speaks of another as it does here the body of Christ of the bread which is the Sacrament especially since the very institution of it is representative significative and commemorative For so said our
these 4. Origen says that the Christian people drinketh the blood of Christ and the flesh of the word of God is true food What then so say we too but it is Spiritual food and we drink the blood Spiritually He says nothing against that but very much for it as I have in several places remarked already 5. But how can this expound the other words Christian people eat Christs flesh and drink his blood therefore when Origen says the material part the Symbolical body of Christ is eaten naturally and cast into the draught he means not the body of Christ in his material part but the accidents of bread the colour the taste the quantity these are cast out by the belly Verily a goodly argument if a man could guess in what mood and figure it could conclude 6. When a man speaks distinctly and particularly it is certain he is easier to be understood in his particular and minute meaning than when he speaks generally But here he distinguishes a part from a part one sence from another the body in one sence from the body in another therefore these words are to expound the more general and not they to expound these unless the general be more particular than that that is distinguished into kinds that is unless the general be a particular and the particular be a general 7. Amalarius was so amus'd with these words and discourse of Origen that his understanding grew giddy and he did not know whether the body of Christ were invisibly taken up into Heaven or kept till our death in the body or expired at letting of blood or exhal'd in air or spit out or breath'd forth our Lord saying That which enters into the mouth descends into the belly and so goes forth into the draught The man was willing to be of the new opinion of the Real Presence because it began to be the mode of the Age. But his folly was soberly reproved by a Synod at Carisiacum about the time of Pope Gregory the Fourth where the difficulty of Origens argument was better answered and the Article determined that the bread and wine are spiritually made the body of Christ which being a meat of the mind and not of the belly is not corrupted but remaineth unto everlasting life 8. To expound these words of the accidents of bread only and say that they enter into the belly and go forth in the draught is a device of them that care not what they say for 1. It makes that the ejectamentum or excrement of the body should consist of colour and quantity without any substance 2. It makes a man to be nourished by accidents and so not only one substance to be changed into another but that accidents are changed into substances which must be if they nourish the body and pass in latrinam and then beyond the device of Transubstantiation we have another production from Africa a transaccidentisubstantiation a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 3. It makes accidents to have all the affections of substances as motion substantial corruption alteration that is not to be accidents but substances For matter and form are substances and those that integrate all physical and compound substances but till yesterday it was never heard that accidents could Yea but magnitude is a material quality and ground or subject of the accidents So it is said but it is nonsence For besides that magnitude is not a quality but a quantity neither can it be properly or truly said to be material but imperfectly because it is an affection of matter and however it is a contradiction to say that it is the ground of qualities for an accident cannot be the fundamentum the ground or subject of an accident that is the formality and definition of a substance as every young scholar hath read in Aristotles Categories so that to say that it is the ground of accidents is to say that accidents are subjected in magnitude that is that magnitude is neither a quantity nor quality but a substance 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 An accident always subsists in a subject says Porphyrie 9. This answer cannot be fitted to the words of Origen for that which he calls the quid materiale or the material part in the Sacrament he calls it the Symbolical body which cannot be affirmed of accidents because there is no likeness between the accidents the colour the shape the figure the roundness the weight the magnitude of the host or wafer and Christs body and therefore to call the accidents a Symbolical body is to call it an unsymbolical Symbol an unlike similitude a representment without analogy But if he means the consecrated bread the whole action of consecration distribution sumption manducation this is the Symbolical body according to the words of S. Paul He that drinks this cup and eats this bread represents the Lords death it is the figure of Christs crucified body of his passion and our redemption 10. It is a strange expression to call accidents a body 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 says Aristotle a body may be called white but the definition or reason of the accident can never be affirmed of a body I conclude that this argument out of the words of our blessed Saviour urged also and affirmed by Origen do prove that Christs body is in the Sacrament only to be eaten in a Spiritual sence not at all in a Natural lest that consequent be the event of it which to affirm of Christs glorified body in the natural and proper sence were very blasphemy 2. The next argument from Scripture is taken from Christs departing from this world his going from us the ascension of his body and soul into Heaven his not being with us his being contained in the Heavens So said our blessed Saviour Vnless I go hence the Comforter cannot come and I go to prepare a place for you The poor ye have always but me ye have not always S. Peter affirms of him that the Heavens must receive him till the time of restitution of all things Now how these things can be true of Christ according to his humane nature that is a circumscribed body and a definite soul is the question And to this the answer is the same in effect which is given by the Roman Doctors and by the Vbiquitaries whom they call Hereticks These men say Christs humane nature is every where actually by reason of his hypostatical union with the Deity which is every where the Romanists say no it is not actually every where but it may be where and is in as many places as he please for although he be in Heaven yet so is God too and yet God is upon earth eodem modo says Bellarmine in the same manner the Man Christ although he be in Heaven yet also he can be out of Heaven where he please he can be in Heaven and out of Heaven Now these two opinions are concentred in the main impossibility that is that Christs body can
the accidents of a body were not communicable to a Spirit but how easily might they have been deceived if it had pleased God to invest other substances with new and stranger accidents For though a Spirit hath not flesh and bones they may represent to the eyes and hands the accidents of flesh and bones and if it could in the matter of faith stand with the goodness and wisdom of God to suffer it what certainty could there be of any Article of our religion relating to Christs humanity or any proposition proved by miracles To this instance the man that must answer all I mean Bellarmine ventures something saying it was a good argument of our blessed Saviour Handle and see that I am no Spirit That which is handled and seen is no Spirit But it is no good argument to say This is not seen not handled therefore it is no body and therefore the body of Christ may be naturally in the Sacrament though it is not seen nor handled To this I reply 1. That suppose it were true what he said yet it would also follow by his own words This is seen bread and is handled so therefore it is bread Hoc enim affirmativè colligitur This is the affirmative consequent made by our blessed Lord and here confessed to be certain It being the same collection It is I for by feeling and seeing you shall believe it to be so and it is bread for by feeling and seeing and tasting and smelling it you shall perceive it to be so To which let this be added That in Scripture it is as plainly affirmed to be bread as it is called Christs body Now then because it cannot be both in the proper and natural sence but one of them must be figurative and tropical since both of the appellatives are equally affirm'd is it not notorious that in this case we ought to give judgment on that side which we are prompted to by common sense If Christ had said only This is my body and no Apostle had told us also that it is bread we had reason to suspect our senses to be deceived if it were possible they should be but when it is equally affirmed to be bread as to be our Lords body and but one of them can be naturally true and in the letter shall the testimony of all our senses be absolutely of no use in casting the ballance The two affirmatives are equal one must be expounded tropically which will you chuse Is there in the world any thing more certain and expedite than that what you see and feel and taste naturall and proper should be judged to be that which you see and feel and taste naturally and properly and therefore that the other be expounded tropically since you must expound one of the words tropically I think it is not hard to determine whether you ought to do it against your sense or with it But it is also remarkable that our blessed Lord did not only by feeling and seeing prove it to be a body but by proving it was his body he proved it was himself that is by these accidents representing my person ye are not led into an error of the person any more than of the kind of substance See my hands and my feet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that it is even I my self this I noted lest a silly escape be made by pretending these accidents only proved Christ to be no Spirit but a body and so the accidents of bread declare a latent body meaning the body of Christ For as the accidents of a body declare the substance of a body so the particular accidents of this kind declare this kind of this person declare this person For so our blessed Saviour proved it to be himself in particular and if it were not so the deceit would pass from one thing to another and although it had not been a Spirit yet it might be John the Baptist risen from the dead or Moses or Elias and not Jesus their dear Lord. Besides if this had been all that Jesus had intended only to prove he was no spectrum but a body he had not done what was intended For put case it had been a Spirit and had assumed a body as Bellarmine in the very next Paragraph forgetting himself or else being entangled in the wildernesses of an inconsistent discourse affirms that in Scriptures the Israelites did sometimes see and then they were not deceived in touching or seeing a body for there was a body assumed and so it seemed to Abraham and Lot but then suppose Jesus Christ had done so and had been indeed a Spirit in an assumed body had not the Apostles been deceived by their feeling and seeing as well as the Israelites were in thinking those Angels to be men that came to them in humane shapes how had Christs arguments been pertinent and material how had he proved that he was no Spirit by shewing a body which might be the case of a Spirit but that it is not consistent with the wisdom and goodness of God to suffer any illusion in any matter of sense relating to an Article of Faith 5. Secondly It was the case of the Christian Church once not only to rely upon the evidence of sense for an introduction to the religion but also to need and use this argument in confirmation of an Article of the Creed For the Valentinians and the Marcionites thought Christs body to be fantastical and so denied the Article of the Incarnation and if arguments from sense were not enough to confute them viz. that the Apostles did see and feel a body flesh and blood and bones how could they convince these misbelievers for whatsoever answer can be brought against the reality of bread in the Eucharist all that may be answered in behalf of the Marcionites for if you urge to them all those places of Scripture which affirm Christ to have a body they answer it was in Scripture called a body because it seem'd to be so which is the answer Bellarmine gives to all those places of Scripture which call it bread after consecration And if you object that if it be not what it seems then the senses are deceived They will answer a Jesuit being by and prompting them the senses were not deceived because they only saw colour shape figure and the other accidents but the inward sense and understanding that is the man was deceived when he thought it to be the body of a man for under those accidents and appearances there was an Angel or a Divinity but no Man and now upon the grounds of Transubstantiation how can they be confuted I would fain know 6. But Tertullian disputing against them uses the argument of sense as the only instrument of concluding against them infallibly Non licet nobis in dubium sensus istos revocare c. It is not lawful to doubt of our senses lest the same doubt be made concerning Christ lest peradventure it should
to have been the established resolved doctrine of the Primitive Church this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not necessary Because although no argument can prove it Catholick but a consent yet if some as learned as holy as orthodox do dissent it is enough to prove it not to be Catholick As a proposition is not universal if there be one or three or ten exceptions but to make it universal it must be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it must take in all 2. Secondly None of the Fathers speak words exclusive of our way because our way contains a Spiritual sence which to be true our adversaries deny not but say it is not sufficient but there ought to be more But their words do often exclude the way of the Church of Rome and are not so capable of an answer for them 3. Thirdly When the saying of a Father is brought out of which his sence is to be drawn by argument and discourse by two or three remote uneasie consequences I do not think it fit to take notice of those words either for or against us because then his meaning is as obscure as the article it self and therefore he is not fit to be brought in interpretation of it And the same also is the case when the words are brought by both sides for then it is a shrewd sign the Doctor is not well to be understood or that he is not fit in those words to be an umpire and of this Cardinal Perron is a great example who spends a volume in folio to prove S. Austin to be of their side in this article or rather not to be against them 4. Fourthly All those testimonies of Fathers which are as general indefinite and unexpounded as the words of Scripture which are in question must in this question pass for nothing and therefore when the Fathers say that in the sacrament is the body and blood of Christ that there is the body of our Lord that before consecration it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 meer bread but after consecration it is verily the body of Christ truly his flesh truly his blood these and the like sayings are no more than the words of Christ This is my body and are only true in the same sence of which I have all this while been giving an account that is by a change of condition of sanctification and usage We believe that after consecration and blessing it is really Christs body which is verily and indeed taken of the faithful in the Lords Supper And upon this account we shall find that many very many of the authorities of the Fathers commonly alledged by the Roman Doctors in this question will come to nothing For we speak their sence and in their own words the Church of England expressing this mystery frequently in the same forms of words and we are so certain that to eat Christs body Spiritually is to eat him really that there is no other way for him to be eaten really than by Spiritual manducation 5. Fifthly when the Fathers in this question speak of the change of the Symbols in the holy Sacrament they sometimes use the words of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Greek Church conversion mutation transition migration transfiguration and the like in the Latin but they by these do understand accidental and Sacramental conversions not proper natural and substantial Concerning which although I might refer the Reader to see it highly verified in David Blondels familiar elucidations of the Eucharistical controversie yet a shorter course I can take to warrant it without my trouble or his and that is by the confession of a Jesuit and of no mean same or learning amongst them The words of Suarez whom I mean are these Licet antiqui Pp. c. Although the ancient Fathers have used divers names yet all they are either general as the names of conversion mutation transition or else they are more accommodated to an accidental change as the name of Transfiguration and the like only the name of Transelementation which Theophylact did use seems to approach nearer to signify the propriety of this mystery because it signifies a change even of the first elements yet that word is harder and not sufficiently accommodate For it may signify the resolution of one element into another or the resolution of a mixt body into the elements He might have added another sence of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Transelementation For Theophylact uses the same word to express the change of our bodies to the state of incorruption and the change that is made in the faithful when they are united unto Christ. But Suarez proceeds But Transubstantiation does most properly and appositely signifie the passage and conversion of the whole substance into the whole substance So that by this discourse we are quitted and made free from the pressure of all those authorities of the Fathers which speak of the mutation conversion transition or passage or transelementation transfiguration and the like of the bread into the body of Christ these do or may only signifie an accidental change and come not home to their purpose of Transubstantiation and it is as if Suarez had said the words which the Fathers use in this question make not for us and therefore we have made a new word for our selves and obtruded it upon all the world But against it I shall only object an observation of Bellarmine that is not ill The liberty of new words is dangerous in the Church because out of new words by little and little new things arise while it is lawful to coyn new words in divine affairs 6. Sixthly To which I add this that if all the Fathers had more unitedly affirmed the conversion of the bread into Christs body than they have done and had not explicated their meaning as they have done indeed yet this word would so little have help'd the Roman cause that it would directly have overthrown it For in their Transubstantiation there is no conversion of one thing into another but a local succession of Christs body into the place of bread A change of the Vbi was not used to be called a substantial conversion But they understood nothing of our present 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they were not used to such curious nothings and intricate falshoods and artificial nonsence with which the Roman Doctors troubled the world in this question But they spake wholly another thing and either they did affirm a substantial change or they did not If they did not then it makes nothing for them or against us But if they did mean a proper substantial change then for so much as it comes to it makes against us but not for them for they must mean a change of one substance into another by conversion or a change of substances by substitution of one in the place of another If they meant the latter then it was no conversion of one into another and then they expressed not what they meant
manner of speaking to Hoc not to corpus meum which are the words immediately preceding and so most proper for the relation and that the sence is This figure of my body is my body that is this which was a figure in the Old Testament is now a substance To this I reply 1. It must mean this which is present is my body not this figure of my body which was in the Old Testament but this which we mean in the words of consecration and then it is no hyperbaton which is to be supplied with quod erat This which was for the nature of a hyperbaton is to make all right by a meer transposition of the words as Christus mortuus est i. e. unctus place unctus before mortuus and the sentence is perfect but it is not so here without the addition of two words it cannot be and if two words may be added we may make what sence we please But 2. suppose that figura corporis does refer to Hoc yet it is to be remembred that Hoc in that place is one of the words of the institution or consecration and then it can have no sence to evacuate the pressure of his words 3. Suppose this reference of the words to be intended then the sence will be This figure of my body is my body the consequent of which is that which we contend for that the same which is called his body is the figure of his body the one is the subject the other the predicate and then it affirms all that is pleaded for as if we say Haec effigies est homo we mean it is the effigies of a man and so in this This figure of my body is my body by the rule of denominatives signifies This is the figure of my body 4. In the preceding words Tertullian says the Pascha was the type of his passion this Pascha he desired to eat This Pascha was not the lamb for he was betrayed the night before it was to be eaten professus se concupisâ—entiâ concupisse edere Pascha ut suum indignum enim ut quid alienum concupisceret Deus he would eat the Passeover of his own figuram sanguinis sui salutaris implere concupiscebat he desir'd to fulfil the figure that is to produce the last of all the figures of his healing blood Now this was by eating the Paschal Lamb that is himself for the other was not to be eaten that night Now then if the eating or delivering himself to be eaten that night was implere figuram sanguinis sui he then did fulfil the figure of his blood therefore figura corporis mei in the following words must relate to what he did that night that therefore was the figure but the more excellent because the nearest to the substance which was given really the next day this therefore as S. Gregory Nazianzen affirms was the most excellent figure the Paschal lamb it self being figura figurae the figure of a figure as I have quoted him in the sequel And it is not disagreeing from the expression of Scripture saying that the law had 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a shadow but not the very image that was in the ceremonies of the law this in the Sacraments of the Gospel Christ himself was the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the thing it self but the image was more than the shadow though less than the substance 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was the word by which the Fathers expressed this nearer configuration 5. Whereas it is added it had not been a figure nisi veritatis esset corpus to my sence clears the question for therefore Christs body which he was cloathed withall was a true body else this could not be a figure of it But therefore this which was also a figure could not be the true body of which it was a figure 6. That which Fisher adds that Tertullians drift was to shew that whereas in the old Testament bread was the figure of the body of Christ as appears by the words of the Prophet Mittamus lignum in panem ejus i. e. crucem in corpus ejus Christ in the new Testament made this figure really to be his body This I conceive to make very much against Tertullians design For he proves that therefore Christ might well call bread his body that was no new thing for it was so also in the old figure and therefore may be so now But that this was no more than a figure he adds If therefore he made bread to be his body because he wanted a true body then bread was delivered for us and it would advance the vanity of Marcion that bread was crucified No this could not be but therefore he must mean that as of old in the Prophet and in the Passeover so now in the last supper he gave the same figure and therefore that which was figured was real viz. his crucified body Now suppose we should frame this argument out of Tertullians medium and suppose it to be made by Marcion The body of Christ was delivered for the sins of the world c. you Catholicks say that bread is the body of Christ therefore you say that bread was delivered for the sins of the whole world and that bread was crucified for you and that bread is the son of God what answer could be made to this out of Tertullian but by expounding the minor proposition figuratively We Catholicks say that the Eucharistical bread is the body of Christ in a figurative sence it is completio or consummatio figurarum the last and most excellent of all figures But if he should have said according to the Roman fancy that it is the natural body of Christ it would have made rare triumphs in the Schools of Marcion But that there may be no doubt in this particular hear himself summing up his own discourses in this question Proinde panis calicis Sacramento jam in Evangelio probavimus corporis sanguinis Dominici veritatem adversùs phantasma Marcionis Against the phantasm of Marcion we have proved the verity of Christs body and blood by the Sacrament of bread and wine 7. This very answer I find to be Tertullians own explication of this affair for speaking of the same figurative speech of the Prophet Jeremy and why bread should be called his body he gives this account Hoc lignum Jeremias tibi insinuat dicturis praedicans Judaeis Venite mittamus lignum in panem ejus utique in corpus sic enim Deus in Evangelio quoque vestro revelavit panem corpus suum appellans ut hinc jam eum intelligas corporis sui figuram pani dedisse cujus retro corpus in panem prophetis figuravit ipso domino hoc Sacramentum postea interpretaturo For so God revealed in your Gospel calling bread his body that hence thou mayest understand that he gave to bread the figure of his body whose body anciently the Prophet figured by bread afterwards the Lord himself
But the thing is this Biel reckon'd three opinions which in Lombards time were in the Church the first of Consubstantiation which was the way which long since then Luther followed The second that the substance of bread is made the flesh of Christ but ceases not to be what it was But this is not the Doctrine of Transubstantiation for that makes a third opinion which is that the substance of bread ceases to be and nothing remains but the accident Quartam opinionem addit Magister that is Peter Lombard adds a fourth opinion that the substance of bread is not converted but is annihilated this is made by Scotus to be the second opinion Now of these four opinions all which were then permitted and disputed Peter Lombard seems to follow the second but if this was his opinion it was no more for he could not determine whether that were the truth or no. But whether he does or no truly I think it is very hard for any man to tell for this question was but in the forge not polished not made bright with long handling And this was all that I affirm'd out of the Master of Sentences I told of no opinion of his at all but that in his time they did not know whether it viz. the doctrine of Transubstantiation were true or no that is the generality of the Roman Catholicks did not know and he himself could not define it And this appears unanswerably by Peter Lombards bringing their several sentiments in this Article and they that differ in their judgments about an Article and yet esteem the others Catholick may think what they please but they Cannot tell certainly what is truth But then as for Peter Lombard himself all that I said of him was this that he could not tell he could not determine whether there was any substantial change or no. If in his after discourse he declares that the change is of substances he told it for no other than as a meer opinion if he did let him answer for that not I for that he could not determine it himself expresly said it in the beginning of the eleventh distinction And therefore these Gentlemen would better have consulted with truth and modesty if they had let this alone and not have made such an outcry against a manifest truth Now let me observe one thing which will be of great use in this whole affair and demonstrate the cange of this doctrine These three opinions were all held by Catholicks and the opinions are recorded not only by Pope Innocentius 3. but in the Gloss of the Canon Law it self For this opinion was not fix'd and setled nor as yet well understood but still disputed as we see in Lombard and Scotus And although they all agreed in this as Salmeron observes of these three opinions as he cites them out of Scotus that the true body of Christ is there because to deny this were against the faith and therefore this was then enough to cause them to be esteem'd Catholicks because they denied nothing which was then against the â—aith but all agreed in that yet now the case is otherwise for whereas one of the opinions was that the substance of bread remains and another opinion that the substance of bread is annihilated but is not converted into the body of Christ now both of these opinions are made heresie and the contrary to them which is the third opinion pass'd into an article of faith Quod vero ibi substantia panis non remanet jam etiam ut articulus fidei definitum est conversionis sive transubstantiationis nomen evictum So Salmeron Now in Peter Lombards time if they who believed Christs real presence were good Catholicks though they believed no Transubstantiation or Consubstantiation that is did not descend into consideration of the manner why may they not be so now Is there any new revelation now of the manner Or why is the way to Heaven now made narrower than in Lombards time For the Church of England believes according to one of these opinions and therefore is as good a Catholick Church as Rome was then which had not determined the manner Nay if we use to value an Article the more by how much the more Ancient it is certainly it is more honourable that we should reform to the Ancient model rather than conform to the new However this is also plainly consequent to this discourse of Salmeron The abettâ—râ— of those three opinions some of them do deny something that is of faith therefore the faith of the Church of Rome now is not the same it was in the days of Peter Lombard Lastly this also is to be remark'd that to prove any ancient Author to hold the doctrine of Transubstantiation as it is at this day an Article of faith at Rome it is not enough to say that Peter Lombard or Durand or Scotus c. did say that where bread was before there is Christs body now for they may say that and more and yet not come home to the present Article and therefore E. W. does argue weakly when he denies Lombard to say one thing viz. that he could not define whether there was a substantial change or no which indeed he spake plainly because he brings him saying something as if he were resolv'd the change were substantial which yet he speaks but obscurely And the truth is this question of Transubstantiation is so intricate and involved amongst them seems so contrary to sense and reason and does so much violence to all the powers of the soul that it is no wonder if at first the Doctors could not make any thing distinctly of it However whatever they did make of it certain it is they more agreed with the present Church of England than with the present Church of Rome for we say as they said Christs body is truly there and there is a conversion of the Elements into Christs body for what before the Consecration in all sences was bread is after Consecration in some sence Christs body but they did not all of them say that the substance of bread was destroyed and some of them denied the conversion of the bread into the flesh of Christ which whosoever shall now do will be esteemed no Roman Catholick And therefore it is a vain procedure to think they have prov'd their doctrine of Transubstantiation out of the Fathers also if the Fathers tell us That bread is chang'd out of his nature into the body of Christ that by holy invocation it is no more common bread that as water in Cana of Galilee was chang'd into wine so in the Evangelist wine is changed into blood That bread is only bread before the sacramental words but after consecration is made the body of Christ. For though I very much doubt all these things in equal and full measures cannot be prov'd out of the Fathers yet suppose they were yet all this comes not up to the Roman
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
sufficient in this excuse For if eating Christ by faith be a thing of all times then it is also of the future and no difference of time is so apt to express an Eternal truth as is the future which is alwayes in flux and potential signification But the secret of the thing was this the Arguments against the sacramental sence of these words drawn from the following verses between this and the 51. verse could not so well be answered and therefore Bellarmine found out the trick of confessing all till you come thither as appears in his Answer to the ninth Argument that of some Catholicks However as to the Article I am to say these things 1. That very many of the most learned Romanists affirm that in this Chapter Christ does not speak of sacramental or oral manducation or of the Sacrament at all Johannes de Ragusio Biel Cusanus Ruard Tapper Cajetan Hessels Jansenius Waldensis Armachanus save only that Bellarmine going to excuse it sayes in effect that they did not do it very honestly for he affirms that they did it that they might confute the Hussites and the Lutherans about the Communion under both kinds and if it be so and not be so as it may serve a turn It is so for Transubstantiation and it is not so for the half Communion we have but little reason to rely upon their judgment or candor in any exposition of Scripture But it is no new thing for some sort of men to do so The Heretick Severus in Anastasius Sinaita maintained it lawful and even necessary 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to occasions and emergent heresies to alter and change the Doctrines of Christ and the Cardinal of Cusa affirmed it lawful diversly to expound the Scriptures according to the times So that we know what precedents and authorities they can urge for so doing and I doubt not but it is practised too often since it was offered to be justified by Dureus against Whitaker 2. These great Clerks had reason to expound it not to be meant of sacramental manducation to avoid the unanswerable Argument against their half Communion for so Christ said Vnless ye eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood ye have no life in you It is therefore as necessary to drink the Chalice as to eat the Bread and we perish if we omit either And their new whimsie of Concomitancy will not serve the turn because there it is sanguis effusus that is sacramentally powred forth blood that is powred forth not that is in the body 2. If it were in the body yet a man by no concomitancy can be said to drink what he only eats 3. If in the Sacramental body Christ gave the blood by concomitancy then he gave the blood twice which to what purpose it might be done is not yet revealed 4. If the blood be by concomitancy in the body then so is the body with the blood and then it will be sufficient to drink the Chalice without the Host as to eat the Host without the Chalice and then we must drink his Flesh as well as eat his Blood which if we could suppose to be possible yet the precept of eating his Flesh and drinking his Blood were not observed by drinking that which is to be eaten and eating that which is to be drunk But certainly they are fine Propositions which cannot be true unless we can eat our drink and drink our meat unless bread be wine and wine be bread or to speak in their stile unless the body be the blood and the blood the body that is unless each of the two Symboles be the other as much as it self as much that which it is not as that which it is And this thing their own Pope Innocentius the third and from him Vasquez noted and Salmeron who affirmed that Christ commanded the manner as well as the thing and that without eating and drinking the precept of Christ is not obeyed 3. But whatever can come of this yet upon the account of these words so expounded by some of the Fathers concerning oral manducation and potation they believed themselves bound by the same necessity to give the Eucharist to Infants as to give them Baptism and did for above seven Ages together practise it And let these men that will have these words spoken of the Eucharist answer the Argument Bellarmine is troubled with it and instead of answering increases the difficulty and concludes firmly against himself saying If the words be understood of eating Christ's body spiritually or by faith it will be more impossible to Infants for it is easier to give them intinctum panem bread dipt in the Chalice than to make them believe To this I reply that therefore it is spoken to Infants in neither sence neither is any law at all given to them and no laws can be understood as obligatory to them in that capacity But then although I have answered the Argument because I believe it not to be meant in the Sacramental sence to any nor in the Spiritual sence to them yet Bellarmine hath not answered the pressure that lies upon his cause For since it is certain and he confesses it that it is easier that is it is possible to give Infants the Sacrament it follows that if here the Sacrament be meant Infants are obliged that is the Church is obliged to minister it as well as Baptism there being in vertue of these words the same necessity and in the nature of the thing the same possibility of their receiving it But then on the other side no inconvenience can press our interpretation of spiritual eating Christ by faith because it being naturally impossible that Infants should believe they cannot be concerned in an impossible Commandment So that we can answer Saint Austin's and Innocentius his Arguments for communicating of Infants but they cannot 4. If these words be understood of Sacramental manducation then no man can be saved but he that receives the holy Sacrament For unless ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood ye have no life in you if it be answered that the holy Sacrament must be eaten in act or in desire I reply that is not true because if a Catechumen desires Baptism only in the Article of his death it is sufficient to salvation and they dare not deny it 2. Fools young persons they that are surprised with sudden death cannot be thought to perish for want of the actual susception or desire 3. There is nothing in the words that can warrant or excuse the actual omission of the Sacrament and it is a strange deception that these men suffer by misunderstanding this distinction of receiving the Sacrament either in act or desire For they are not opposite but subordinate members differ only as act and disposition and this disposition is not at all required but as it
divinae vocationi Because the Word was made flesh therefore he was desired for life to be devoured by hearing to be ruminated or chewed by the understanding to be digested by faith For a little before he called his flesh also celestial bread still or all the way urging by an allegory of necessary food the memory of their Fathers who preferrd the bread and flesh of Egypt before the Divine calling 11. S. Athanasius or who is the Author of the Tractate upon the words Quicunque dixerit verbum in filium hominis in his works saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. The things which he speaks are not carnal but spiritual For to how many might his body suffice for meat that it should become the nourishment of the whole World But for this it was that he put them in mind of the ascension of the Son of man into Heaven that he might draw them off from carnal and corporal sences and that they might learn that his flesh which he called meat was from above heavenly and spiritual nourishment For saith he the things that I have spoken they are spirit and they are life 12. But Origen is yet more decretory in this affair Est in novo Testamento litera quae occidit eum qui non spiritualiter ea quae dicuntur adverterit si enim secundùm literam sequaris hoc ipsum quod dictum est Nisi manducaveritis carnem meam biberitis sanguinem meam occidit haec litera If we understand these words of Christ Unless ye eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood literally this letter kills For there is in the new Testament a letter that kills him who does not spiritually understand those things which are spoken 13. S. Ambrose not only expounds it in a spiritual sence but plainly denyes the proper and natural Non iste panis est qui vadit in corpus sed ille panis vitae aeternae qui animae nostrae substantiam sulcit That is not the bread of life which goes into the body but that which supports the substance of the soul And fide tangitur fide videtur non tangitur corpore non oculis comprehenditur this bread is touch'd by faith it is seen by faith and without all peradventure that this is to be understood of eating and drinking Christ by faith is apparent from Christ's own words verse 35. I am the bread of life he that cometh to me shall not hunger and he that believeth on me shall not thirst coming to Christ is eating him believing him is drinking his blood It is not touch'd by the body it is not seen with the eyes S. Chrysostom in his 47. Homily upon this Chapter of S. John expounds these words in a spiritual sence for these things saith he are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 such as have in them nothing carnal nor any carnal consequence 14. S. Austin gave the same exposition Vt quid paras dentes ventrem crede manducasti and again Credere in eum hoc est manducare panem vivum Qui credit in eum manducat 15. Theophylact makes the spiritual sence to be the only answer in behalf of our not being Canibals or devourers of mans flesh as the men of Capernaum began to dream and the men of Rome though in better circumstances to this day dream on Putabant isti quòd Deus cogeret 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quia enim nos hoc spiritualiter intelligimus neque carnium voratores sumus imò sanctificamur per talem cibum non sumus carnis voratores The men of Capernaum thought Christ would compel them to devour mans flesh But because we understand this spiritually therefore we are not devourers of mans flesh but are sanctified by this meat Perfectly to the same sence and almost in the very words Theodorus Bishop of Hieraclea is quoted in the Greek Catena upon John 16. It were easie to add that Eusebius calls the words of Christ his flesh and blood 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that so also does S. Hierom saying that although it may be understood in mystery tamen veriùs corpus Christi sanguis ejus sermo scripturarum est that so does Clemens Alexandrinus that S. Basil sayes that his Doctrine and his mystical coming is his flesh and blood that S. Bernard sayes to imitate his life and communicate with his passion is to eat his flesh But I decline for the present to insist upon these because all of them excepting S. Hierom only may be supposed to be mystical Expositions which may be true and yet another Exposition may be true too It may suffice that it is the direct sence of Tertullian Origen Athanasius S. Ambrose S. Austin and Theophylact that these woâ—ds of Christ in the sixth of S. John are not to be understood in the natural or proper but in the spiritual sence The spiritual they declare not to be the mystical but the literal sence and therefore their testimonies cannot be eluded by any such pretence 17. And yet after all this suppose that Christ in these words did speak of the Sacramental manducation and affirm'd that the bread which he would give should be his flesh what is this to Transubstantiation That Christ did speak of the Sacrament as well as of any other mystery of this amongst others that is of all the wayes of taking him is to me highly probable Christ is the food of our souls this food we receive in at our ears mouth our hearts and the allusion is plainer in the Sacrament than in any other external right because of the similitude of bread and eating which Christ used upon occasion of the miracle of the loaves which introduc'd all that discourse But then this comes in only as it is an act of faith for the meat which Christ gives is to be taken by faith himself being the Expounder Now the Sacraments of Baptism and the Eucharist being acts and Symbols and consignations of faith and effects of believing that is of the first and principal receiving him by faith in his words and submission to his Doctrine may well be meant here not by vertue of the words for the whole form of expression is Metaphorical not at all proper but by the proportion of reason and nature of his effect it is an act or manner of receiving Christ and an issue of faith and therefore is included in the mystery The food that Christ said he would give is his flesh which he would give for the life of the world viz. to be crucified and killed And from that verse forward he doth more particularly refer to his death for he speaks of bread only before or meat 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but now he speaks of flesh and blood 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 bread and drink and therefore by Analogy he may allude to the Sacrament which is his similitude and representation but this is but the meaning of the
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
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
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.
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
Ep. 7. Si manifestissimae certaeque rationi velut Scripturarum Sanctarum objicitur authoritas non intelligit qui hoc facit non Scripturarum illarum sensum ad quem penetrare non potuit sed suum potiùs objicit veritati nec quod in eis sed quod in seipso velut pro eis invenit opponit He that opposes the authority of the holy Scriptures against manifest and certain reason does neither understand himself nor the Scripture Indeed when God hath plainly declared the particular the more it seems against my reasons the greater is my obedience in submitting but that is because my reasons are but Sophismes since truth it self hath declared plainly against them but if God hath not plainly declared against that which I call reason my reason must not be contested by a pretence of Faith but upon some other account Ratio cum ratione concertet 3. Secondly But this is such a fine device that it can if it be admitted warrant any literal interpretation against all the pretences of the world For when Christ said If thy right eye offend thee pluck it out Here are the plain words of Christ And Some make themselves Eunuches for the kingdom of Heaven Nothing plainer in the Grammatical sence and why do we not do it because it is an unnatural thing to mangle our body for a Spiritual cause which may be supplied by other more gentle instruments Yea but reason is not to be heard against the plain words of Christ and the greater our reason is against it the greater excellency in our obedience that as Abraham against hope believed in hope so we against reason may believe in the greatest reason the Divine revelation and what can be spoken against this 4. Thirdly Stapleton confuting Luthers opinion of Consubstantiation pretends against it many absurdities drawn from reason and yet it would have been ill taken if it should have been answered that the doctrine ought the rather to be believed because it is so unreasonable which answer is something like our new Preachers who pretend that therefore they are Spiritual men because they have no learning they are to confound the wise because they are the weak things of the world and that they are to be heard the rather because there is the less reason they should so crying stinking fish that men may buy it the more greedily But I will proceed to the particulars of reason in this Article being contented with this that if the adverse party shall refuse this way of arguing they may be reproved by saying they refuse to hear reason and it will not be easie for them in despite of reason to pretend faith for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 unreasonable men and they that have not faith are equivalent in S. Pauls expression 5. First I shall lay this prejudice in the Article as relating to the discourses of reason that in the words of institution there is nothing that can be pretended to prove the conversion of the substance of bread into the body of Christ but the same will infer the conversion of the whole into the whole and therefore of the accidents of the bread into the accidents of the body And in those little pretences of Philosophy which these men sometimes make to cousen fools into a belief of the possibility they pretend to no instance but to such conversions in which if the substance is changed so also are the accidents sometimes the accident is chang'd in the same remaining substance but if the substance be changed the accidents never remain the same individually or in kind unless they be symbolical that is are common to both as in the change of elements of air into fire of water into earth Thus when Christ changed water into wine the substances being chang'd the accidents also were alter'd and the wine did not retain the colour and taste of water for then though it had been the stranger miracle that wine should be wine and yet look and taste like water yet it would have obtained but little advantage to his doctrine and person if he should have offer'd to prove his mission by such a miracle For if Christ had said to the guests To prove that I am come from God I will change this water into wine well might this prove his mission but if while the guests were wondring at this he should proceed and say wonder ye not at this for I will do a stranger thing than it for this water shall be changed into wine and yet I will so order it that it shall look like water and taste like it so that you shall not know one from the other Certainly this would have made the whole matter very ridiculous and indeed it is a strange device of these men to suppose God to work so many prodigious miracles as must be in Transubstantiation if it were at all and yet that none of these should be seen for to what purpose is a miracle that cannot be perceived It can prove nothing nor do any thing when it self is not known whether it be or no. When bread is turned into flesh and wine into blood in the nourishment of our bodies which I have seen urg'd for the credibility of Transubstantiation The bread as it changes his nature changes his accidents too and is flesh in colour and shape and dimensions and weight and operation as well as it is in substance Now let them rub their foreheads hard and tell us it is so in the holy Sacrament For if it be not so then no instance of the change of Natural substances from one form to another can be pertinent For 1. Though it be no more than is done in every operation of a body yet it is always with change of their proper accidents and then 2. It can with no force of the words of the institution be pretended that one ought to be or can be without the other For he that says this is the body of a man says that it hath the substance of a humane body and all his consequents that is the accidents and he that says this is the body of Alexander says besides the substance that it hath all the individuating conditions which are the particular accidents and therefore Christ affirming this to be his body did as much affirm the change of accidents as the change of substance because that change is naturally and essentially consequent to this Now if they say they therefore do not believe the accidents of bread to be changed because they see them remain I might reply Why will they believe their sense against faith since there may be evidence but here is certainty and it cannot be deceived though our eyes can and it is certain that Christ affirmed it without distinction of one part from another of substance from his usual accidents This is my body Hoc Hîc Nunc and Sic. Now if they think their eyes may be credited for
for it is as he says a conversion in which both the terms remain in the same place that is in which there are two things not converted but not one that is but it is a thing of which there never was any example But then if we ask what conversion it is after a great many fancies and devices contradicting each other at last it is found to be adductive and yet that adductive does not change the place but signifies a substantial change and yet adduction is no substantial change but accidental and yet this change is not accidental but adductive and substantial O rem ridiculam Cato jocosam It is a succession not a conversion and Transubstantiation for it is Corpus ex pane confectum a body made of bread and yet it was made before the bread was made but it is made of it as day of night not tanquam ex materiâ but tanquam ex termino not as of matter but as of a term from whence say they but that is a direct motion or succession not a substantial change For that I may use the words of Faventinus What is the formal term of this action of Transubstantiation or conversion Not the body of Christ for that is the material term the formal term is that Christs body should be contained under the Species of bread and wine Hoc autem totum est accidentale nihil addit in re nisi praesentiam realem sub speciebus But all this is accidental and nothing real but that he becomes present there For since the body of Christ relates to the accidents only accidentally it cannot in respect of them have any substantial manner of being different from that which it had before it was Eucharistical And it is no otherwise than if water on the ground were annihilated or removed or corrupted and some secret way changed from thence and in the place of it Snow should descend from Heaven or Honey or Manna it were hard to call this Conversion or Transubstantiation Just as if we should say that Augustus Caesar was converted into his successor Tiberius and Moses into Joshua and Elias into Elisha or the sentinel is substantially changed into him that relieves him 38. Twelfthly Lastly if we consider the changes that are incident to the accidents of bread and wine they would afford us another heap of incommodities for besides that accidents cannot subsist without their proper subjects and much less can they become the subjects of other accidents for what they cannot be to themselves they cannot be to others in matter of supply and subsistence it being a contradiction to say insubsistent subsistencies Besides this I say If Christs body be not invested with these accidents how do they represent it or to what purpose do they remain If they be the investiture of Christs body then the body is changed by the mutation of the accidents But however I would fain know whether an accident can be sowre or be burnt as Hesychius affirms they used in Jerusalem to do to the reliques of the holy Sacrament or can accidents make a man drunk as Aquinas supposes the Sacramental wine did the Corinthians of whom S. Paul says One is hungry and another is drunken I am sure if it can it is not the blood of Christ For Mr. Blands argument in Queen Maryes time concluded well in this instance That which is in the chalice can make a man drunk But Christs blood cannot make a man drunk Therefore that which is in the chalice is not Christs blood To avoid this they must answer to the major and say that it does not supponere universalitèr for every thing in the chalice does not make a man drunk for in it there are accidents of bread and the body besides and they do inebriate not this that is to say a man may be drunk with colour and quantity and a smell when there is nothing that smells for indeed if there were a substance to be smelt it might but that accidents can do it alone is not to be supposed unless God should work a miracle to make a man drunk which to say I think were blasphemy But again can an accidental form kill a man But the young Emperour of the house of Luxemburgh was poysoned by a consecrated wafer and Pope Victor the third had like to have been and the Arch-Bishop of York was poysoned by the chalice say Mathew Paris and Malmsbury And if the body be accidentally moved at the motion of accidents then by the same reason it may accidentally become mouldy or sowre or poysonous which methinks to all Christian ears should strike horrour to hear it spoken I will not heap up more instances of the same kind of absurdities and horrid consequences of this doctrine or consider how a man or a mouse can live upon the consecrated wafers as Aimonius tells that Lewis the fair did for forty days together live upon the Sacrament and a Jew or a Turk could live on it without a miracle if he had enough of it and yet cannot live upon accidents it being a certain rule in Philosophy Ex iisdem nutriuntur mixta ex quibus fiunt and a man may as well be made of accidents and be no substance as well as be nourished by accidents without substance Neither will I inquire how it is possible that we should eat Christs body without touching it or how we can be said to touch Christs body when we only touch and tast the the accidents of bread or lastly how we can touch the accidents of bread without the substance so to do being impossible in nature Tangere n. tangi nisi corpus nulla potest res said Lucretius and from him Tertullian in his 5 chapt of his book De animâ These and divers other particulars I will not insist upon But instead of them I argue thus from their own grounds if Christ be properly said to be touch'd and to be eaten because the accidents are so then by the same reason he may be properly made hot or cold or mouldy or dry or wet or venomous by the proportionable mutation of accidents if Christ be not properly taken and manducated to what purpose is he properly there so that on either hand there is a snare But it is time to be weary of all this and inquire after the doctrine of the Church in this great question for thither at last with some seeming confidence they do appeal Thither therefore we will follow SECT XII Transubstantiation was not the Doctrine of the Primitive Church COncerning this Topick or Head of argument I have some things to premise 1. First In this question it is not necessary that I bring a Catalogue of all the ancient writers For although to prove the doctrine of Transubstantiation to be Catholick it is necessary by Vincentius Lirinensis his rules and by the nature of the thing that they should all agree yet to shew it not
for conversion which was their word could signifie nothing of that But if they meant the change of substance into substance properly by conversion then they have confuted the present doctrine of Transubstantiation which though they call a substantial change yet an accident is the terminus mutationis that is it is by their explication of it wholly an accidental change as I have before discoursed for nothing is produced but Vbiquity or Presentiality that is it is only made present where it was not before And it is to be observed that there is a vast difference between Conversion and Transubstantiation the first is not denied meaning by it a change of use of condition of sanctification as a Table is changed into an Altar a House into a Church a Man into a Priest Matthias into an Apostle the Water of the River into the Laver of Regeneration But this is not any thing of Transubstantiation For in this new device there are three strange affirmatives of which the Fathers never dream'd 1. That the natural being of bread is wholly ceased and is not at all neither the matter nor the form 2. That the accidents of bread and wine remain without a subject their proper subject being annihilated and they not subjected in the holy body 3. That the body of Christ is brought into the place of the bread which is not chang'd into it but is succeeded by it These are the constituent propositions of Transubstantiation without the proof of which all the affirmations of conversion signifie nothing to their purpose or against ours 7. Seventhly When the Fathers use the word Nature in this question sometimes saying the Nature is changed sometimes that the Nature remains it is evident that they either contradicted each other or that the word Nature hath amongst them diverse significations Now in order to this I suppose if men will be determined by the reasonableness of the things themselves and the usual manners of speech and not by prejudices and prepossessions it will be evident that when they speak of the change of Nature saying that bread changes his nature it may be understood of an accidental change for that the word Nature is used for a change of accidents is by the Roman Doctors contended for when it is to serve their turns particularly in their answer to the words of Pope Gelasius and it is evident in the thing for we say a man of a good nature that is of a loving disposition It is natural to me to love or hate this or that and it is against my nature that is my custome or my affection But then as it may signifie accidents and a Natural change may yet be accidental as when water is chang'd into ice wine into vinegar yet it is also certain that Nature may mean substance and if it can by the analogie of the place or the circumstances of speech or by any thing be declared when it is that they mean a substance by using the word nature it must be certain that then substance is meant when the word nature is used distinctly from and in opposition to accidents or when it is explicated by and in conjunction with substance which observation is reducible to practice in the following testimonies of Theodoret Gelasius and others Immortalitatem dedit naturam non abstulit says S. Austin 8. Eighthly So also Whatsoever words are used by the ancient Doctors seemingly affirmative of a substantial change cannot serve their interest that now most desire it because themselves being pressed with the words of Natura and Substantia against them answer that the Fathers using these words mean them not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not naturally but Theologically that is as I suppose not properly but Sacramentally by the same account when they speak of the change of the bread into the substance of Christs body they may mean the change of substance not naturally but sacramentally so that this ought to invalidate the greatest testimony which can be alledged by them because themselves have taken from the words that sence which only must have done them advantage for if Substantia and Natura always mean naturally then their sentence is oftentimes positively condemned by the Fathers if this may mean Sacramentally then they can never without a just answer pretend from their words to prove a Natural Substantial change 9. Ninthly But that the words of the Fathers in their most hyperbolical expressions ought to be expounded Sacramentally and Mystically we have sufficient warrant from themselves affirming frequently that the name of the thing signified is given to the sign S. Cyprian affirms ut significantia significata eisdem vocabulis censeantur the same words represent the sign and the thing signified The same is affirmed by S. Austin in his Epistle ad Bonifacium Now upon this declaration of themselves and of Scripture whatsoever attributes either of them give to bread after consecration we are by themselves warranted against the force of the words by a metaphorical sence for if they call the sign by the name of the thing signified and the thing intended is called by the name of a figure and the figure by the name of the thing then no affirmative of the Fathers can conclude against them that have reason to believe the sence of the words of institution to be figurative for their answer is ready the Fathers and the Scriptures too call the figure by the name of the thing figurated the bread by the name of flesh or the body of Christ which it figures and represents 10. Tenthly The Fathers in their alledged testimonies speak more than is allowed to be literally and properly true by either side and therefore declare and force an understanding of their words different from the Roman pretension Such are the words of S. Chrysostom Thou seest him thou touchest him thou eatest him and thy tongue is made bloody by this admirable blood thy teeth are fastned in his flesh thy teeth are made red with his blood and the Author of the book de coenâ Domini attributed to S. Cyprian Cruci haeremus c. We stick close to the cross we suck his blood and fasten our tongue between the very wounds of our Redeemer and under his head may be reduced very many other testimonies now how far these go beyond the just positive limit it will be in the power of any man to say and to take into this account as many as he please even all that go beyond his own sence and opinion without all possibility of being confuted 11. Eleventhly In vain will it be for any of the Roman Doctors to alledge the words of the Fathers proving the conversion of bread into Christs body or flesh and of the wine into his blood since they say the same thing of us that we also are turned into Christs flesh and body and blood So S. Chrysostom He reduces us into the same mass
and by Gregory de Valentiâ The words are these Panis iste quem Dominus discipulis porrigebat non effigie sed naturâ mutatus omnipotentiâ verbi factus est caro sicut in personâ Christi c. The bread which the Lord gave to his disciples is changed not in shape but in nature being made flesh by the omnipotency of the word and as in the person of Christ the humanity was seen and the divinity lay hid so in the visible Sacrament the divine essence after an ineffable manner pours it self forth that devotion about the Sacraments might be religion and that a more sincere entrance may be opened to the truth whereof the body and the blood are Sacraments even unto the participation of the Spirit not unto the consubstantiality of Christ. This testimony as Bellarmine says admits of no answer But by his favour it admits of many 1. Bellarmine cites but half of those words and leaves out that which gives him answer 2. The words affirm that that body and blood are but a Sacrament of a reality and truth but if it were really and naturally Christs body then it were it self veritas corpus and not only a Sacrament 3. The truth of which these are Sacramental is the participation of the Spirit that is a Spiritual communication 4. This does not arrive ad Consubstantialitatem Christi to a participation or communion of the substance of Christ which it must needs do if bread were so changed in nature as that it were substantially the body of Christ. 5. These Sermons of S. Cyprians title and name are under the name also of Arnoldus Abbot of Bonavilla in the time of S. Bernard as appears in a M S. in the Library of All-Souls Colledge of which I had the honour sometimes to be a Fellow However it is confessed on all sides that this Tractate is not S. Cyprians and who is the Father of it if Arnoldus be not cannot be known neither his age nor reputation His style sounds like the eloquence of the Monastery being direct Friers Latin as appears by his honorificare amaricare injuriare demembrare sequestrare attitulare spiritalitas t◠supplico and some false latin besides and therefore he ought to pass for nothing which I confess I am sorry for as to this question because to my sence he gives us great advantage in it But I am content to lose what our cause needs not I am certain they can get nothing by him For if the authority were not incompetent the words were impertinent to their purpose but very much against them only let me add out of the same Sermon these words Panis iste communis in carnem sanguinem mutatus procurat vitam incrementum corporibus ideóque ex consueto effectu fidei nostra adjuta infirmitas sensibili argumento edocta visibilibus Sacramentis inesse vitae aeternae effectum non tam corporali quà m spirituali transitione nos cum Christo uniri That common bread being changed into flesh and blood procures life and increment to our bodies therefore our infirmity being helped with the usual effect of faith is taught by a sensible argument that the effect of eternal life is in visible Sacraments and that we are united to Christ not so much by a corporal as by a Spiritual change If both these discourses be put together let the authority of the writer be what it will the greater the better 23. In the dialogues against the Marcionites collected out of Maximus in the time of Commodus or Severus or thereabouts Origen is brought in speaking thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If as the Marcionites say Christ had neither flesh nor blood of what flesh or of what blood did he giving bread and the chalice as images command his disciples that by these a remembrance of him should be made 24. To the same purpose are the words of Eusebius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He gave to his disciples the Symbols of Divine oeconomie commanding the image or type of his own body to be made and again 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 They received a command according to the constitution of the new Testament to make a memory of this sacrifice upon the table by the symbols of his body and healthful blood 25. S. Ephrem the Syrian Patriarch of Antioch is dogmatical and decretory in this question 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The body of Christ received by the faithful departs not from his sensible substance and is undivided from a spiritual grace He adds the similitude and parity of baptism to this mystery for even baptism being wholly made Spiritual and being that which is the same and proper of the sensible substance I mean of water saves and that which is born doth not perish I will not descant upon these or any other words of the Fathers I alledge for if of their own natural intent they do not teach our doctrine I am content they should pass for nothing 26. S. Epiphanius affirming man to be like God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in some image or similitude not according to Nature illustrates it by the similitude of the blessed Sacrament We see that our Saviour took into his hands as the Evangelist hath it that he arose from supper and took those things and when he had given thanks he said This is mine and this we see it is not equal it is not like not to the image in the flesh not to the invisible Deity not to the proportion of members for this is a round form 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and cannot perceive any thing or is insensible according to power or faculty and he would by grace say This is mine and this and every man believes the word that is spoken for he that believeth not him to be true is fallen from grace and salvation Now the force of Epiphanius his argument consisting in this that we are like to God after his image but yet not according to nature as the Sacramental bread is like the body of Christ it is plain that the Sacramental species are the body of Christ and his blood 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to the image or representment not according to Nature but according to Grace 25. Macarius his words are plain enough 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In the Church is offered bread and wine the antitype of his flesh and of his blood and they that partake of the bread that appears do spiritually eat the flesh of Christ. 26. S. Gregory Nazianzen speaking of the Pascha saith Jam potestatis participes erimus c. Now we shall be partakers of the Paschal supper but still in figure though more clear than in the old law For the legal passeover I will not be afraid to speak it was a more obscure figure of a figure S. Ambrose is of the same perswasion Fac nobis hanc oblationem ascriptam rationabilem acceptabilem quod est
figura corporis sanguinis Domini nostri Jesu Christi Make this ascribed oblation reasonable and acceptable which is the figure of the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ. And again Mira potentia c. it is a wonderful power of God which makes that the bread should remain what it is and yet be changed into another thing And again How much more operative is the word of Christ that the things be what they were and yet be changed into another and so that which was bread before consecration now is the body of Christ Hoc tamen impossibile est ut panis sit corpus Christi Sed haec verba ad sanum intellectum sunt intelligenda ita solvit Hugo saith the Gloss in Gratian which is an open defiance of the doctrine of S. Ambrose affirming it to be impossible But because these words pinch severely they have retrenched the decisive words and leave out sint and make them to run thus that the things be changed into another which corruption is discovered by the citation of these words in Paschasius Guitmond Bertram Algerus Ivo Carnotensis Gratian and Lombard But in another place he calls the mystical chalice the type of the blood and that Christ is offered here in imagine in type image or representation in coelo in veritate the truth the substance is in heaven And again This therefore truly is the Sacrament of his flesh Our Lord Jesus himself says this is my body Before the blessing by the words it was named another species or kind after the consecration the body of Christ is signified 27. S. Chrysostome is brought on both sides and his Rhetorick hath cast him on the Roman side but it also bears him beyond it and his divinity and sober opinions have fixt him on ours How to answer the expressions hyperbolical which he often uses is easie by the use of rhetorick and customs of the words But I know not how any man can sensibly answer these words For as before the bread is sanctified we name it bread but the Divine grace sanctifying it by the means of the Priest it is freed from the name of bread but it is esteemed worthy to be called the Lords body although the nature of bread remains in it To the same purpose are those words on the Twenty second Psalm published amongst his works though possibly they were of some other of that time or before or after it matters not to us but much to them for if he be later and yet esteemed a Catholick as it is certain he was and the man a-while supposed to be S. Chrysostome it is the greater evidence that it was long before the Church received their doctrine The words are these That table he hath prepared to his servants and his maidens in their sight that he might every day shew us in the Sacrament according to the order of Melchisedeck bread and wine to the likeness of the body and blood of Christ. To the same purpose is that saying in the Homilies of whoever is the Author of that opus imperfectum upon S. Mat. Si igitur haec vasa c. If therefore these vessels being sanctified it be so dangerous to transfer them to private uses in which the body of Christ is not but the mystery of his body is contained how much more concerning the vessels of our bodies c. Now against these testimonies they make an out-cry that they are not S. Chrysostoms works and for this last the book is corrupted and they think in this place by some one of Berengarius's scholars for they cannot tell Fain they would believe it but this kind of talk is a resolution not to yield but to proceed against all evidence for that this place is not corrupted but was originally the sence of the Author of the Homilies is highly credible by the faith of all the old MS. and there is in the publick Library of Oxford an excellent MS. very ancient that makes faith in this particular but that some one of their scholars might have left these words out of some of their copies were no great wonder though I do not find they did but that they foisted in a marginal note affirming that these words are not in all old copies an affirmation very confident but as the case stands to very little purpose But upon this account nothing can be proved from sayings of Fathers For either they are not their own works but made by another or 2. They are capable of another sence or 3. The places are corrupted by Hereticks or 4. It is not in some old copies which pretences I am content to let alone if they upon this account will but transact the question wholly by Scripture and common sence 5. It matters not at all what he is so he was not esteemed an Heretick and that he was not it is certain since by themselves these books are put among the works of S. Chrysostom and themselves can quote them when they seem to do them service All that I infer from hence is this that whensoever these books were writ some man esteemed a good Catholick was not of the Roman perswasion in the matter of the Sacrament therefore their opinion is not Catholick But that S. Chrysostom may not be drawn from his right of giving testimony and interpretation of his words in other places in his 23 Homily upon the first of the Corinthians which are undoubtedly his own he saith As thou eatest the body of the Lord so they viz. the faithful in the old Testament did eat Manna as thou drinkest blood so they the water of the rock For though the things which are made be sensible yet they are given spiritually not according to the consequence of nature but according to the grace of a gift and with the body they also nourish the soul leading unto faith 28. The next I produce for evidence in this case is S. Austin concerning whom it is so evident that he was a Protestant in this Article that truly it is a strange boldness to deny it and upon equal terms no mans mind in the world can be known for if all that he says in this question shall be reconcilable to Transubstantiation I know no reason but it may be possible but a witty man may pretend when I am dead that in this discourse I have pleaded for the doctrine of the Roman Church I will set his words down nakedly without any Gloss upon them and let them do by themselves as much as they can Si enim Sacramenta quandam similitudinem c. For if the Sacraments had not a certain similitude of those things whereof they are Sacraments they were no Sacraments at all But from this similitude for the most part they receive the things themselves As therefore according to a certain manner the Sacrament of the body of Christ is the body of Christ the Sacrament of the blood of
Christ is the blood of Christ so the Sacrament of faith is Now suppose a stranger to the tricks of the Roman Doctors a wise and a discerning man should read these words in S. Austin and weigh them diligently and compare them with all the adjacent words and circumstances of the place I would desire reasonably to be answered on which side he would conclude S. Austin to be if in any other place he speaks words contrary that is his fault or forgetfulness but if the contrary had been the doctrine of the Church he could never have so forgotten his Religion and Communion as so openly to have declared a contrary sence to the same Article Non hoc corpus quod videtis manducaturi estis c. You are not to eat this body which you see so he brings in Christ speaking to his disciples or to drink that blood which my crucifiers shall pour forth I have commended to you a Sacrament which being spiritually understood shall quicken you and Christ brought them to a banquet in which he commended to his disciples the figure of his body and blood * For he did not doubt to say This is my body when he gave the sign of his body * Quod ab omnibus sacrificium appellatur c. That which by all men is called a sacrifice is the sign of the true sacrifice in which the flesh of Christ after his assumption is celebrated by the Sacrament of remembrances But concerning S. Austins doctrine I shall refer him that desires to be further satisfied to no other record than their own Canon Law Which not only from S. Austin but from divers others produces testimonies so many so pertinent so full for our doctrine and against the dream of Transubstantiation that it is to me a wonder why it is not clapped into the Indices expurgatorii for it speaks very many truths beyond the cure of their Glosses which they have changed and altered several times But that this matter concerning S. Austin may be yet clearer his own third book de doctrinâ Christianâ is so plain for us in this question that when Frudegardus in the time of Charles the Bald had upon occasion of the dispute which then began to be hot and interested in this question read this book of S. Austin he was changed to the opinion of a Spiritual and mysterious presence and upon occasion of that his being perswaded by S. Austin Paschasius Ratberdus wrote to him as of a question then doubted of by many persons as is to be seen in his Epistle to Frudegardus I end this of S. Austin with those words of his which he intends by way of rule for expounding these and the like words of Scripture taken out of this book of Christian doctrine Locutio praeceptiva c. A preceptive speech forbidding a crime or commanding something good or profitable is not figurative but if it seems to command a crime or forbid a good then it is figurative Vnless ye eat the flesh of the son of man c. seems to command a wickedness it is therefore a figure commanding us to communicate with the passion of our Lord and sweetly and profitably to lay it up in our memory that his flesh was crucified and wounded for us I shall not need to urge that this holy Sacrament is called Eucharistia carnis sanguinis The Eucharist of the body and blood by Irenaeus Corpus symbolicum typicum by Origen In typo sanguis by S. Jerome similitudo figura typus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 images enigmaes representations expressions exemplars of the Passion by divers others that which I shall note here is this that in the Council of Constantinople it was publickly professed that the Sacrament is not the body of Christ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not by nature but by representment for so it is expounded 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the holy image of it and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Eucharistical bread is the true image of the natural flesh and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 A figure or image delivered by God of his flesh and a true image of the incarnate dispensation of Christ. These things are found in the third Tome of the Sixth Action of the second Nicene Council where a pert Deacon ignorant and confident had boldly said that none of the Apostles or Fathers had ever called the Sacrament the image of Christs body that they were called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 antitypes before consecration he grants but after consecration they are called and are and are believed to be the body and blood of Christ properly which I suppose he might have learned of Damascene who in opposition to the Iconoclasts would not endure the word Type or Image to be used concerning the holy Sacrament for they would admit no other image but that he in defiance of them who had excommunicated him for a worshipper of Images and a half Sarazin would admit any Image but that but denied that to be an Image or Type of Christ de fide l. 4. c. 14. For Christ said not This is the Type of my body but it is it But however this new question began to branle the words of Type and Antitype and the manner of speaking began to be changed yet the Article as yet was not changed For the Fathers used the words of Type and Antitype and Image c. to exclude the natural sence of the Sacramental body and Damascene and Anastasius Sinaita and some others of that Age began to refuse those words lest the Sacrament be thought to be nothing of reality nothing but an Image And that this really was the sence of Damascene appears by his words recited in the Acts of the second Council of Nice affirming that the Divine bread is made Christs body by assumption and inhabitation of the Spirit of Christ in the same manner as water is made the laver of regeneration But however they were pleased to speak in the Nicene assembly yet in the Roman Edition of the Councils the Publishers and Collectors were wiser and put on this marginal note 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The holy gifts are oftentimes called types and figures even after consecration particularly by Gregory Nazianzen and S. Cyril of Hierusalem I remember only one thing objected to this testimony of so many Bishops that they were Iconoclasts or breakers of images and therefore not to be trusted in any other Article So Bellarmine as I remember But this is just as if I should say that I ought to refuse the Lateran Council because they were worshippers of Images or defenders of Purgatory Surely if I should I had much more reason to refuse their sentence than there is that the Greeks should be rejected upon so slight a pretence nay for doing that which for ought appears was in all their circumstances their duty in a high
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 that they contain in them the mystery of his body and blood Isidore Bishop of Sevil says Panis quem frangimus c. The bread which we break is the body of Christ who saith I am the living bread But the wine is his blood and that is it which is written I am the true vine But bread because it strengthens our body therefore it is called the body of Christ but wine because it makes blood in our flesh therefore it is reduced or referred to the blood of Christ. But these visible things sanctified by the holy Ghost pass into the Sacrament of the Divine body Suidas in the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Christ calls the Church his body and by her as a man he ministers but as he is God he receives what is offered But the Church offers the symbols of his body and blood sanctifying the whole mass by the first fruits Symbola i. e. Signa says the Latin version The bread and wine are the signs of his body and his bloud 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so Suidas Hesychius speaking of this mystery affirms Quòd simul panis caro est It is both bread and flesh too Fulgentius saith Hic calix est novum Testamentum i. e. Hic calix quem vobis trado novum Testamentum significat This cup is the new Testament that is it signifies it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 said Procopius of Gaza He gave to his disciples the image of his own body 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 said the scholiast upon Dionysius the Areopagite These things are symbols and not the truth or verity and he said it upon occasion of the same doctrine which his Author whom he explicates taught in that Chapter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. The Divine symbols being placed upon the Altar by which Christ is signified and participated But this only I shall remark that Transubstantiation is so far from having been the Primitive doctrine that it was among Catholicks fiercely disputed in the time of Charles the Bald about the year 880. Paschasius wrote for the Substantial conversion Rabanus maintain'd the contrary in his answer to Heribaldus and in his writing to Abbot Egilo There lived in the same time in the Court of Charles the Emperor a country-man of ours Jo. Scot called by some Jo. Erigena who wrote a book against the substantial change in the Sacrament He lived also sometimes in England with King Alfred and was surnamed the wise and was a Martyr saith Possevinus and was in the Roman Calender his day was the fourth of the Ides of November as is to be seen in the Martyrologie published at Antwerp 1586. But when the controversie grew publick and noted Charles the Bald commanded Bertram or Ratran to write upon the question being of the Monastery of Corbey he did so and defended our doctrine against Paschasius the book is extant and may be read by him that desires it but it is so intire and dogmatical against the substantial change which was the new doctrine of Paschasius that Turrian gives this account of it to cite Bertram what is it else but to say that Calvins heresie is not new and the Belgick expurgatory Index professeth to use it with the same equity which it useth to other Catholick writers in whom they tolerate many errors and extenuate or excuse them and sometimes by inventing some device they do deny it and put some fit sence to them when they are opposed in disputation and this they do lest the Hereticks should talk that they forbid and burn books that make against them You see the honesty of the men and the justness of their proceedings but the Spanish expurgatory Index forbids the book wholly with a penitus auferatur I shall only add this that in the Church of England Bertrams doctrine prevailed longer and till Lanfrancks time it was permitted to follow Bertram or Paschasius And when Osbern wrote the lives of Odo Arch-bishop of Canterbury Dunstan and Elphege by the command of Lanfranck he says that in Odo's time some Clergy-men affirmed in the Sacrament bread and wine to remain in substance and to be Christs body only in figure and tells how the Arch-bishop prayed and blood dropped out of the Host over the Chalice and so his Clerks which then assisted at Mass and were of another opinion were convinced This though he writes to please Lanfranck who first gave authority to this opinion in England and according to the opinion which then prevailed yet it is an irrefragable testimony that it was but a disputed Article in Odo's time no Catholick doctrine no Article of Faith nor of a good while after for however these Clerks were fabulously reported to be changed at Odo's miracle who could not convince them by the Law and the Prophets by the Gospels and Epistles yet his successor he that was the fourth after him I mean Aelfrick Abbot of S. Albans and afterwards Arch-bishop of Canterbury in his Saxon Homily written above 600 years since disputes the question and determines in the words of Bertram only for a Spiritual presence not natural or substantial The book was printed at London by John Day and with it a letter of Aelfrick to Wulfin Bishop of Schirburn to the same purpose His words are these That housel that is the blessed Sacrament is Christs body not bodily but spiritually not the body which he suffered in but the body of which he spake when he blessed bread and wine to Housel the night before his suffering and said by the blessed bread This is my body And in a writing to the Arch-bishop of York he said The Lord halloweth daily by the hand of the Priest bread to his body and wine to his blood in spiritual mystery as we read in books And yet notwithstanding that lively bread is not bodily so nor the self same body that Christ suffered in I end this with the words of the Gloss upon the Canon Law Coeleste Sacramentum quod verè repraesentat Christi carnem dicitur corpus Christi sed impropriè unde dicitur suo modo scil non rei veritate sed significati mysterio ut sit sensus vocatur Christi corpus i. e. significatur The heavenly Sacrament which truly represents the flesh of Christ is called the body of Christ but improperly therefore it is said meaning in the Canon taken out of S. Austin after the manner to wit not in the truth of the thing but in the mystery of that which is signified so that the meaning is it is called Christ body that is Christs body is signified which the Church of Rome well expresses in an ancient Hymn Sub duabus speciebus Signis tantùm non rebus Latent res eximiae Excellent things lie under the two species of bread and wine which are only signs not the things whereof they are signs But the Lateran Council struck all dead before which Transubstantiatio non
but the confession and acknowledgment of the greatest Doctors of the Church of Rome Scotus sayes that before the Lateran Council Transubstantiation was not an Article of Faith as Bellarmine confesses and and Henriquez affirms that Scotus sayes it was not ancient insomuch that Bellarmine accuses him of ignorance saying he talk'd at that rate because he had not read the Roman Council under Pope Gregory the Seventh nor that consent of Fathers which to so little purpose he had heap'd together Rem transubstantiationis Patres ne attigisse quidem said some of the English Jesuits in Prison The Fathers have not so much as touch'd or medled with the matter of Transubstantiation and in Peter Lombard's time it was so far from being an Article of Faith or a Catholick Doctrine that they did not know whether it were true or no And after he had collected the Sentences of the Fathers in that Article he confess'd He could not tell whether there was any substantial change or no. His words are these If it be inquir'd what kind of conversion it is whether it be formal or substantial or of another kind I am not able to define it Only I know that it is not formal because the same accidents remain the same colour and taste To some it seems to be substantial saying that so the substance is chang'd into the substance that it is done essentially To which the former Authorities seem to consent But to this sentence others oppose these things If the substance of Bread and Wine be substantially converted into the Body and Blood of Christ then every day some substance is made the Body or Blood of Christ which before was not the body and to day something is Christ's Body which yesterday was not and every day Christ's Body is increased and is made of such matter of which it was not made in the Conception These are his words which we have remark'd not only for the Arguments sake though it be unanswerable but to give a plain demonstration that in his time this Doctrine was new not the Doctrine of the Church And this was written but about fifty years before it was said to be decreed in the Lateran Council and therefore it made haste in so short time to pass from a disputable Opinion to an Article of Faith But even after the Council Durandus as good a Catholick and as famous a Doctor as any was in the Church of Rome publickly maintain'd that even after consecration the very matter of bread remain'd And although he sayes that by reason of the Authority of the Church it is not to be held yet it is not only possible it should be so but it implies no contradiction that it should be Christ's Body and yet the matter of bread remain and if this might be admitted it would salve many difficulties which arise from saying that the substance of bread does not remain But here his reason was overcome by authority and he durst not affirm that of which alone he was able to give as he thought a reasonable account But by this it appears that the Opinion was but then in the forge and by all their understanding they could never accord it but still the Questions were uncertain according to that old Distich Corpore de Christi lis est de sanguine lis est Déque modo lis est non habitura modum And the Opinion was not determin'd in the Lateran as it is now held at Rome but it is also plain that it is a stranger to Antiquity De Transubstantiatione panis in corpus Christi rara est in Antiquis scriptoribus mentio said Alphonsus à Castro There is seldom mention made in the ancient Writers of transubstantiating the bread into Christ's Body We know the modesty and interest of the man he would not have said it had been seldom if he could have found it in any reasonable degree warranted he might have said and justified it There was no mention at all of this Article in the Primitive Church And that it was a meer stranger to Antiquity will not be deny'd by any sober person who considers That it was with so much uneasiness entertained even in the corruptest and most degenerous times and argued and unsetled almost 1300. years after Christ. And that it was so will but too evidently appear by that stating and resolution of this Question which we find in the Canon Law For Berengarius was by Pope Nicolaus commanded to recant his error in these words and to affirm Verum corpus sanguinem Domini nostri Jesu Christi sensualiter non solùm in sacramento sed in veritate manibus sacerdotum tractari frangi fidelium dentibus atteri That the true Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ sensually not only in Sacrament but in truth is handled by the Priests hands and broken and grinded by the teeth of the faithful Now although this was publickly read at Rome before an hundred and fourteen Bishops and by the Pope sent up and down the Churches of Italy France and Germany yet at this day it is renounc'd by the Church of Rome and unless it be well expounded sayes the Gloss will lead into a heresie greater than what Berengarius was commanded to renounce and no interpretation can make it tolerable but such an one as is in another place of the Canon Law Statuimus i. e. abrogamus nothing but a plain denying it in the sence of Pope Nicolas But however this may be it is plain they understood it not as it is now decreed But as it happened to the Pelagians in the beginning of their Heresie they spake rudely ignorantly and easily to be reprov'd but being asham'd and disputed into a more sober understanding of their hypothesis spake more warily but yet differently from what they said at first so it was and is in this Question at first they understood it not it was too unreasonable in any tolerable sence to make any thing of it but experience and necessity hath brought it to what it is But that this Doctrine was not the Doctrine of the first and best Ages of the Church these following testimonies do make evident The words of Tertullian are these The bread being taken and distributed to his Disciples Christ made it his Body saying This is my Body that is the figure of my Body SECT II. Of PVRGATORY THAT the doctrine of Purgatory as it is taught in the Roman Church is a Novelty and a part of their New Religion is sufficiently attested by the words of the Cardinal of Rochester and Alphonsus à Castro whose words I now add that he who pleases may see how these new men would fain impose their new fancies upon the Church under pretence and title of Ancient and Catholick verities The words of Roffensis in his eighteenth article against Luther are these Legat qui velit Graecorum veterum commentarios nullum quantum
if he had foreseen he should have been written against by so learned an adversary But to let them agree as well as they can the words of Eusebius out of his last chapter I translated as well as I could the Greek words I have set in the Margent that every one that understands may see I did him right and indeed to do my Adversary right when he goes about to change not to mend the translation he only changes the order of the words but in nothing does he mend his own matter by it for he acknowledges the main Question viz. that the memory of Christs sacrifice is to be celebrated in certain signs on the Table but then that l may do my self right and the question too whosoever translated these words for this Gentleman hath abused him and made him to render 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as if it were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and hath made 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be governed by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is so far off it and hath no relation to it and not to be governed by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with which it is joyn'd and hath made 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be governed by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when it hath a substantive of its own 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and he repeats 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 once more than it is in the words of Eusebius only because he would not have the Reader suppose that Eusebius call'd the consecrated Elements the symbols of the body and blood But this fraud was too much studied to be excusable upon the stock of humane infirmity or an innocent perswasion But that I may satisfie the Reader in this Question so far as the testimony and doctrine of Eusebius can extend he hath these words fully to our purpose First our Lord and Saviour and then after him his Priests of all Nations celebrating the spiritual sacrifice according to the Ecclesiastick Laws by the bread and the wine signifie the mysteries of his body and healing blood And again By the wine which is the symbol of his blood he purges the old sins of them who were baptized into his death and believe in his blood Again he gave to his Disciples the symbols of the divine Oeconomy commanding them to make the image figure or representation of his own body And Again He received not the sacrifices of blood nor the slaying of divers beasts instituted in the Law of Moses but ordained we should use bread the symbol of his own body So far I thought fit to set down the words of Eusebius to convince my Adversary that Eusebius is none of theirs but he is wholly ours in the doctrine of the Sacrament S. Macarius is cited in the Disswasive in these words In the Church is offered bread and wine the Antitype of his flesh and blood and they that partake of the bread that appears do spiritually eat the flesh of Christ. A. L. saith Macarius saith not so but rather the contrary viz. bread and wine exhibiting the Exemplar or an antitype his flesh and blood Now although I do not suppose many learned or good men will concern themselves with what this little man says yet I cannot but note that they who gave him this answer may be asham'd for here is a double satisfaction in this little answer First he puts in the word exhibiting of his own head there being no such word in S. Macarius in the words quoted 2. He makes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be put with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by way of apposition expresly against the mind of S. Macarius and against the very Grammar of his words And after all he studies to abuse his Author and yet gets no good by it himself for if it were in the words as he hath invented it or some body else for him yet it makes against him as much saying bread and wine exhibite Christs body which is indeed true though not here said by the Saint but is directly against the Roman article because it confesses that to be bread and wine by which Christs body is exhibited to us but much more is the whole testimony of S. Macarius which in the Disswasive are translated exactly as the Reader may see by the Greek words cited in the Margent There now only remains the authority of S. Austin which this Gentleman would fain snatch from the Church of England and assert to his own party I cited five places out of S. Austin to the last of which but one he gives this answer that S. Austin hath no such words in that book that is in the Tenth book against Faustus the Manichee Concerning which I am to inform the Gentleman a little better These words that which by all men is called a sacrifice is the sign of the true sacrifice are in the tenth book of S. Austin de C. D. cap. 5. and make a distinct quotation and ought by the Printer to have been divided by a colume as the other But the following words in which the flesh of Christ after his assumption is celebrated by the Sacrament of remembrance are in the 20. book cap. 21. against Faustus the Manichee All these words and divers others of S. Austin I knit together in a close order like a continued discourse but all of them are S. Austins words as appears in the places set down in the Margent But this Gentleman car'd not for what was said by S. Austin he was as well pleased that a figure was false Printed but to the words he hath nothing to say To the first of the other four only he makes this crude answer that S. Austin denied not the real eating of Christs body in the Eucharist but only the eating it in that gross carnal and sensible manner as the Capharnaites conceiv'd To which I reply that it is true that upon occasion of this error S. Austin did speak those words and although the Roman error be not so gross and dull as that of the Capharnaites yet it was as false as unreasonable and as impossible And be the occasion of the words what they are or can be yet upon this occasion S. Austin spake words which as well confute the Roman error as the Capharnaitical For it is not only false which the men of Capernaum dreamt of but the antithesis to this is that which S. Austin urges and which comes home to our question I have commended to you a Sacrament which being spiritually understood shall quicken you But because S. Austin was the most diligent expounder of this mystery among all the Fathers I will gratifie my Adversary or rather indeed my Unprejudicate Readers by giving some other very clear and unanswerable evidences of the doctrine of S. Austin agreeing perfectly with that of our Church At this time after manifest token of our liberty hath shin'd in the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ we are not burdened with the heavy operation of signs
peculiar grace and vertue was signified by the symbol of wine and it was evident that the chalice was an excellent representment and memorial of the effusion of Christs blood for us and the joyning both the symbols signifies the intire refection and nourishment of our souls bread and drink being the natural provisions and they design and signifie our redemption more perfectly the body being given for our bodies and the blood for the cleansing our souls the life of every animal being in the blood and finally this in the integrity signifies and represents Christ to have taken body and soul for our redemption For these reasons the Church of God always in all her publick communions gave the chalice to the people for above a thousand years This was all I would have remarked in this so evident a matter but that I observed in a short spiteful passage of E. W. Pag. 44. a notorious untruth spoken with ill intent concerning the Holy Communion as understood by Protestants The words are these seeing the fruit of Protestant Communion is only to stir up faith in the receiver I can find no reason why their bit of bread only may not as well work that effect as to taste of their wine with it To these words 1. I say that although stirring up faith is one of the Divine benefits and blessings of the Holy Communion yet it is falsely said that the fruit of the Protestant Communion is only to stir up faith For in the Catechism of the Church of England it is affirmed that the body and blood of Christ are verily and indeed taken and received of the faithful in the Lords Supper and that our souls are strengthened and refreshed by the body and blood of Christ as our bodies are by the bread and wine and that of stirring up our faith is not at all mention'd So ignorant so deceitful or deceiv'd is E. W in the doctrine of the Church of England But then as for his foolish sarcasm calling the hallowed Element a bit of bread which he does in scorn he might have considered that if we had a mind to find fault whenever his Church gives us cause that the Papists wafer is scarce so much as a bit of bread it is more like Marchpane than common bread and besides that as Salmeron acknowledges anciently Olim ex pane uno sua cuique particula frangi consueverat that which we in our Church do was the custom of the Church out of a great loaf to give particles to every communicant by which the Communication of Christs body to all the members is better represented and that Durandus affirming the same thing says that the Grecians continue it to this day besides this I say the Author of the Roman order says Cassander took it very ill that the loaves of bread offered in certain Churches for the use of the sacrifice should be brought from the form of true bread to so slight and slender a form which he calls Minutias nummulariarum oblatarum scraps of little penies or pieces of money and not worthy to be called bread being such which no Nation ever used at their meals for bread But this is one of the innovations which they have introduc'd into the religious Rites of Christianity and it is little noted they having so many greater changes to answer for But it seems this Section was too hot for them they loved not much to meddle with it and therefore I shall add no more fuel to their displeasure but desire the Reader who would fully understand what is fit to be said in this Question to read it in a book of mine which I called Ductor dubitantium or the Cases of Conscience only I must needs observe that it is an unspeakable comfort to all Protestants when so manifestly they have Christ on their side in this Question against the Church of Rome To which I only add that for above 700. years after Christ it was esteemed sacriledge in the Church of Rome to abstain from the Cup and that in the ordo Romanus the Communion is always describ'd with the Cup how it is since and how it comes to be so is too plain But it seems the Church hath power to dispence in this affair because S. Paul said that the Ministers of Christ are dispensers of the mysteries of God as was learnedly urg'd in the Council of Trent in the doctrine about this question SECT V. Of the Scriptures and Service in an unknown Tongue THE Question being still upon the novelty of the Roman doctrines and Practices I am to make it good that the present article and practice of Rome is contrary to the doctrine and practice of the Primitive Church To this purpose I alledged S. Basil in his Sermon or book de variis scripturae locis But say my adversaries there is no such book Well! was there such a man as S. Basil If so we are well enough and let these Gentlemen be pleas'd to look into his works printed at Paris 1547. by Carola Guillard and in the 130. page he shall see this Book Sermon or Homily in aliquot scripturae locis at the beginning of which he hath an exhortation in the words placed in the Margent there we shall find the lost Sheep The beginning of it is an exhortation to the people congregated to get profit and edification by the Scriptures read at morning prayer the Monitions in the Psalms the precepts of the Proverbs Search ye the beauty of the history and the examples and add to these the precepts of the Apostles But in all things joyn the words of the Gospel as the Crown and perfection that receiving profit from them all ye may at length turn to that to which every one is sweetly affected and for the doing of which he hath received the grace of the Holy Spirit Now this difficulty being over all that remains for my own justification is that I make it appear that S. Chrysostom S. Ambrose S. Austin Aquinas and Lyra do respectively exhort to the study of the Scriptures exhorting even the Laity to do so and testifie the custom of the Ancient Church in praying in a known tongue and commending this as most useful and condemning the contrary as being useless and without edification I shall in order set down the doctrine they deliver in their own words and then the impertinent cavils of the adversaries will of themselves come to nothing S. Chrysostom commenting upon S. Pauls words concerning preaching and praying for edification and so as to be understood coming to those words of S. Paul If I pray with my tongue my spirit prayeth but my mind is without fruit you see saith he how a little extolling prayer he shews that he who is such a one viz. as the Apostle there describes is not only unprofitable to others but also to himself since his mind is without fruit Now if a man praying what he understands not does
4 deprecations and 5 prayers and 6 intercessions and 7 giving of thanks will warrant and commend as so many parts of duty all the portions of the English Liturgy 34. If it were worth the pains it were very easie to enumerate the Authors and especially the occasions and time when the most minute passages such I mean as are known by distinct appellatives came into the Church that so it may appear our Liturgy is as ancient and primitive in every part as it is pious and unblameable and long before the Church got such a beam in one of her eyes which was endeavoured to be cast out at the Reformation But it will not be amiss to observe that very many of them were inserted as Antidotes and deleteries to the worst of Heresies as I have discours'd already and such was that clause through Jesus Christ our Lord who liveth and reigneth with thee in the unity of the holy Spirit ever one God and some other phrases parallel were put in in defiance of the Macedonians and all the species of the Antitrinitarians and used by S. Ambrose in Millain S. Austin in Africa and Idacius Clarus in Spain and in imitation of so pious precedents the Church of England hath inserted divers clauses into her Offices 35. There was a great instance in the administration of the blessed Sacrament For upon the change of certain clauses in the Liturgy upon the instance of Martin Bucer instead of the bloud of our Lord Jesus Christ which was given for you preserve your body and soul unto everlasting life was substituted this take and eat this in remembrance c. and it was done lest the people accustomed to the opinion of Transubstantiation and the appendant practices should retain the same doctrine upon intimation of the first clause But in the beginning of Queen Elizabeths reign when certain persons of the Zuinglian opinion would have abused the Church with Sacramentary doctrine and pretended the Church of England had declared for it in the second clause of 1552 the wisdom of the Church thought it expedient to joyn both the clauses the first lest the Church should be suspected to be of the Sacramentary opinion the latter lest she should be mistaken as a Patroness of Transubstantiation And both these with so much temper and sweetness that by her care she rather prevented all mistakes than by any positive declaration in her prayers engaged her self upon either side that she might pray to God without strife and contention with her brethren For the Church of England had never known how to follow the names of men but to call Christ only her Lord and Master 36. But from the inserting of these and the like clauses which hath been done in all ages according to several opportunities and necessities I shall observe this advantage which is in many but is also very signally in the English Liturgy we are thereby enabled and advantaged in the meditation of those mysteries de quibus festivatur in sacris as the Casuists love to speak which upon solemn days we are bound to meditate and make to be the matter and occasion of our address to God for the offices are so ordered that the most indifferent and careless cannot but be reminded of the mystery in every Anniversary which if they be summ'd up will make an excellent Creed and then let any man consider what a rare advantage it will be to the belief of such propositions when the very design of the Holy-day teaches the hard handed Artizan the name and meaning of an Article and yet the most forward and religious cannot be abused with any semblances of superstition The life and death of the Saints which is very precious in the eyes of God is so remembred by his humble and afflicted handmaid the Church of England that by giving him thanks and praise God may be honoured the Church instructed by the proposition of their example and we give testimony of the honour and love we owe and pay unto Religion by the pious veneration and esteem of those holy and beatified persons 37. Certain it is that there is no part of Religion as it is a distinct vertue and is to be exercised by interiour acts and forms of worship but is in the offices of the Church of England For if the Soul desires to be humbled she hath provided forms of Confession to God before his Church if she will rejoyce and give God thanks for particular blessings there are forms of thanksgiving described and added by the Kings authority upon the Conference at Hampton-Court which are all the publick solemn and foreseen occasions for which by Law and order provision could be made if she will commend to God the publick and private necessities of the Church and single persons the whole body of Collects and devotions supplies that abundantly if her devotion be high and pregnant and prepared to fervency and importunity of congress with God the Litanies are an admirable pattern of devotion full of circumstances proportionable for a quick and an earnest spirit when the revolution of the Anniversary calls on us to perform our duty of special meditation and thankfulness to God for the glorious benefits of Christs Incarnation Nativity Passion Resurrection and Ascension blessings which do as well deserve a day of thanksgiving as any other temporal advantage though it be the pleasure of a victory then we have the offices of Christmass the Annunciation Easter and Ascension if we delight to remember those holy persons whose bodies rest in the bed of peace and whose souls are deposited in the hands of Christ till the day of restitution of all things we may by the Collects and days of Anniversary festivity not only remember but also imitate them too in our lives if we will make that use of the proportions of Scripture allotted for the festival which the Church intends to which if we add the advantages of the whole Psalter which is an intire body of devotion by it self and hath in it forms to exercise all graces by way of internal act and spiritual intention there is not any ghostly advantage which the most religious can either need or fancy but the English Liturgy in its entire constitution will furnish us withal And certainly it was a very great wisdom and a very prudent and religious Constitution so to order that part of the Liturgy which the ancients called the Lectionarium that the Psalter should be read over twelve times in the year the Old Testament once and the New Testament thrice beside the Epistles and Gospels which renew with a more frequent repetition such choice places as represent the entire body of faith and good life There is a defalcation of some few Chapters from the entire body in the order but that also was part of the wisdom of the Church not to expose to publick ears and common judgments some of the secret rites of Moses's Law or the more mysterious prophecies of the New
and the material part is opposed to it as less true or real The examples of this are not infrequent in Scripture The Tabernacle into which the high Priest entred was a type or a figure of Heaven Heaven it self is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the true Tabernacle and yet the other was the material part And when they are joyned together that is when a thing is expressed by a figure 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 True is spoken of such things though they are spoken figuratively Christ the true light that lighteneth every man that cometh into the world He is also the true vine and verè cibus truly or really meat and Panis verus è coelo the true bread from Heaven and spiritual goods are called the true riches and in the same Analogy the spiritual presence of Christ is the most true real and effective the other can be but the image and shadow of it something in order to this for if it were in the Sacrament naturally or corporeally it could be but in order to this spiritual celestial and effective presence as appears beyond exception in this that the faithful and pious communicants receive the ultimate end of his presence that is spiritual blessings The wicked who by the affirmation of the Roman Doctors do receive Christs body and blood in the natural and corporal manner fall short of that for which this is given that is of the blessings and benefits 7. So that as S. Paul said He is not a Jew who is one outwardly neither is that circumcision which is outwardly in the flesh But he is a Jew which is one inwardly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that 's the real Jew and the true circumcision that which is of the heart and in the spirit and in this sence it is that Nathaniel is said to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 really and truly an Israelite so we may say of the blessed Sacrament Christ is more truly and really present in spiritual presence than in corporal in the Heavenly effect than in the natural being this if it were at all can be but the less perfect and therefore we are to the most real purposes and in the proper sence of Scripture the more real defenders of the real presence of Christ in the Sacrament for the spiritual sence is the most real and most true and most agreeable to the Analogy and style of Scripture and right reason and common manner of speaking For every degree of excellency is a degree of being of reality and truth and therefore spiritual things being more excellent than corporal and natural have the advantage both in truth and reality And this is fully the sence of the Christians who use the Aegyptian Liturgy Sanctifica nos Domine noster sicut sanctificasti has oblationes propositas sed fecisti illas non fictas that 's for real quicquid apparet est mysterium tuum spiritale that 's for spiritual To all which I add the testimony of Bellarmine concerning S. Austin Apud Augustinum saepissimè illud solum dici tale verè tale quod habet effectum suum conjunctum res enim ex fructu aestimatur itaque illos dicit verè comedere corpus Christi qui utiliter comedunt They only truly eat Christs body that eat it with effect for then a thing is really or truly such when it is not to no purpose when it hath his effect And in his eleventh Book against Faustus the Manichee Chap. 7. he shews that in Scripture the words are often so taken as to signifie not the substance but the quality and effect of a thing So when it is said Flesh and blood shall not inherit the Kingdom of God that is corruption shall not inherit and in the resurrection our bodies are said to be spiritual that is not in substance but in effect and operation and in the same manner he often speaks concerning the blessed Sacrament and Clemens Romanus affirms expresly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This is to drink the blood of Jesus to partake of the Lords immortality 8. This may suffice for the word real which the English Papists much use but as appears with less reason than the Sons of the Church of England and when the real presence is denied the word real is taken for Natural and does not signifie transcendenter or in his just and most proper signification But the word substantialiter is also used by Protestants in this question which I suppose may be the same with that which is in the Article of Trent Sacramentaliter praesens Salvator substantiâ suâ nobis adest In substance but after a sacramental manner which words if they might be understood in the sence in which the Protestants use them that is really truly without fiction or the help of fancy but in rei veritate so as Philo calls spiritual things 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 most necessary useful and material substances it might become an instrument of an united confession And this is the manner of speaking which S. Bernard used in his Sermon of S. Martin where he affirms In Sacramento exhiberi nobis veram carnis substantiam sed spiritualiter non carnaliter In the Sacrament is given us the true substance of Christs body or flesh but not carnally but spiritually that is not to our mouths but to our hearts not to be chewed by teeth but to be eaten by faith But they mean it otherwise as I shall demonstrate by and by In the mean time it is remarkable that Bellarmine when he is stating this question seems to say the same thing for which he quotes the words of S. Bernard now mentioned for he says that Christs body is there truly substantially really but not corporally Nay you may say spiritually and now a man would think we had him sure but his nature is labile and slippery you are never the nearer for this for first he says it is not safe to use the word spiritually nor yet safe to say he is not there corporally lest it be understood not of the manner of his presence but to the exclusion of the nature For he intends not for all these fine words that Christs body is present spiritually as the word is used in Scripture and in all common notices of usual speaking but spiritually with him signifies after the manner of spirits which besides that it is a cousening the world in the manner of expression is also a direct folly and contradiction that a body should be substantially present that is with the nature of a body naturally and yet be not as a body but as a spirit with that manner of being with which a spirit is distinguished from a body In vain therefore it is that he denies the carnal manner and admits a spiritual and ever after requires that we believe a carnal presence even in the very manner But this caution and exactness in the use of the
word spiritual is therefore carefully to be observed lest the contention of both parties should seem trifling and to be for nothing We say that Christs body is in the Sacrament really but spiritually They say it is there really but spiritually For so Bellarmine is bold to say that the word may be allowed in this question Where now is the difference Here by spiritually they mean present after the manner of a Spirit by spiritually we mean present to our Spirits only that is so as Christ is not present to any other sense but that of Faith or spiritual susception but their way makes his body to be present no way but that which is impossibe and implies a contradiction a body not after the manner of a body a body like a spirit a body without a body and a sacrifice of body and blood without blood corpus incorporeum cruor incruentus They say that Christs body is truly present there as it was upon the Cross but not after the manner of all or any body but after that manner of being as an Angel is in a place That 's there spiritually But we by the real spiritual presence of Christ do understand Christ to be present as the Spirit of God is present in the hearts of the Faithful by blessing and grace and this is all which we mean besides the tropical and figurative presence 9. That which seems of hardest explication is the word corporaliter which I find that Melanchthon used saying corporaliter quoque communicatione carnis Christi Christum in nobis habitare which manner of speaking I have heard he avoided after he had conversed with Oecolampadius who was able then to teach him and most men in that question but the expression may become warrantable and consonant to our doctrine and means no more than really and without fiction or beyond a figure like that of S. Paul in Christ dwelleth the fulness of the Godhead bodily upon which S. Austin says In ipso inhabitat plenitudo Divinitatis corporaliter quia in Templo habitaverat umbraliter and in S. Paul 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are opposed which are a shadow of things to come but the body is of Christ that is the substance the reality the correlative of the type and figure the thing signified and among the Greeks 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies solidare to make firm real and consistent but among the Fathers 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or body signifies 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 every thing that is produced from nothing saith Phavorinus that is every thing that is real extra non ens that hath a proper being so that we receiving Christ in the Sacrament corporally or bodily understand that we do it really by the ministery of our bodies receiving him unto our souls And thus we affirm Christs body to be present in the Sacrament not only in type or figure but in blessing and real effect that is more than in the types of the Law the shadows were of the Law but the body is of Christ. And besides this the word corporally may be very well used when by it is only understood a corporal sign So S. Cyril of Jerusalem in his third Catechism says that the holy Ghost did descend corporally in the likeness of a Dove that is in a type or representment of a Doves body for so he and many of the Ancients did suppose and so he again uses the word Jesus Christ as a man did inspire the holy Spirit corporally into his Apostles where by corporally it is plain he means by a corporal or material sign or symbol viz. by breathing upon them and saying receive ye the holy Ghost In either of these sences if the word be taken it may indifferently be used in this question 10. I have been the more careful to explain the question and the use of these words according to our meaning in the question for these two reasons 1. Because until we are agreed upon the signification of the words they are equivocal and by being used on both sides to several purposes sometime are pretended as instruments of union but indeed effect it not but sometimes displease both parties while each supects the word in a wrong sence And this hath with very ill effect been observed in the conferences for composing the difference in this question particularly that of Poissy where it was propounded in these words Credimus in usu coenae Dominicae verè reipsâ substantialiter sen in substantiâ verum corpus sanguinem Christi spirituali ineffabili modo esse exhiberi sumi à fidelibus communicantibus Beza and Gallasius for the Reformed and Espencaeus and Monlucius for the Romanists undertook to propound it to their parties But both rejected it for though the words were not disliked yet they suspected each others sence But now that I have declared what is meant by us in these words they are made useful in the explicating the question 2. But because the words do perfectly declare our sence and are owned publickly in our doctrine and manner of speaking it will be in vain to object against us those sayings of the Fathers which use the same expressions for if by vertue of those words really substantially corporally verily and indeed and Christs body and blood the Fathers shall be supposed to speak for transubstantiation they may as well suppose it to be our doctrine too for we use the same words and therefore those authorities must signifie nothing against us unless these words can be proved in them to signifie more than our sence of them does import and by this truth many very many of their pretences are evacuated 11. One thing more I am to note in order to the same purposes that in the explication of this question it is much insisted upon that it be inquired whether when we say we believe Christs body to be really in the Sacrament we mean that body that flesh that was born of the Virgin Mary that was crucified dead and buried I answer I know none else that he had or hath there is but one body of Christ natural and glorified but he that says that body is glorified which was crucified says it is the same body but not after the same manner and so it is in the Sacrament we eat and drink the body and blood of Christ that was broken and powred forth for there is no other body no other blood of Christ but though it is the same which we eat and drink yet it is in another manner And therefore when any of the Protestant Divines or any of the Fathers deny that body which was born of the Virgin Mary that which was crucified to be eaten in the Sacrament as Bertram as S. Hierome as Clemens Alexandrinus expresly affirm the meaning is easie they intend that it is not eaten in a natural sence and then calling it corpus spirituale the word spiritual is not a substantial predication
second or third remove if here Christ begins to change the particulars of his discourse it can primarily relate to nothing but his death upon the Cross at which time he gave his flesh for the life of the world and so giving it it became meat the receiving this gift was a receiving of life for it was given for the life of the world The manner of receiving it is by faith and hearing the word of God submitting our understanding the digesting this meat is imitating the life of Christ conforming to his doctrine and example and as the Sacraments are instruments or acts of this manducation so they come under this discourse and no otherwise 18. But to return This very allegory of the word of God to be called meat and particularly Manna which in this Chapter Christ particularly alludes to is not unusual in the old Testament 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith Philo 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Moses said unto them This is the word which the Lord hath given us to eat This is the word which the Lord hath ordained you see what is the food of the soul even the eternal Word of God c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Word of God the most honourable and eldest of things is called Mana and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The soul is nourished by the Word qui pastus pulcherrimus est animorum 19. And therefore now I will resume those testimonies of Clemens Alexandrinus of Eusebius S. Basil S. Hierome and S. Bernard which I wav'd before all agreeing upon this exposition that the word of God Christs doctrine is the flesh he speaks of and the receiving it and practising it are the eating his flesh for this sence is the literal and proper and S. Hierom is express to affirm that the other exposition is mystical and that this is the more true and proper and therefore the saying of Bellarmine that they only give the mystical sence is one of his confident sayings without reason or pretence of proof and whereas he adds that they do not deny that these words are also understood literally of the Sacrament I answer it is sufficient that they agree in this sence and the other Fathers do so expound it with an exclusion to the natural sence of eating Christ in the Sacrament particularly this appears in the testimonies of Origen and Saint Ambrose above quoted to which I add the words of Eusebius in the third book of his Theologia Ecclesiastica expounding the 63. verse of the sixth of Saint John he brings in Christ speaking thus Think not that I speak of this flesh which I bear and do not imagine that I appoint you to drink this sensible and corporal blood But know ye that the words which I have spoken are spirit and life Nothing can be fuller to exclude their interpretation and to affirm ours though to do so be not usual unless they were to expound Scripture in opposition to an adversary and to require such hard conditions in the sayings of men that when they speak against Titius they shall be concluded not to speak against Cajus if they do not clap their contrary negative to their positive affirmative though Titius and Cajus be against one another in the cause is a device to escape rather than to intend truth and reality in the discourses of men I conclude It is notorious and evident what Erasmus notes upon this place Hunc locum veteres interpretantur de doctrinâ coelesti sic enim dicit panem suum ut frequenter dixit sermonem suum The Ancient Fathers expound this place of the heavenly doctrine so he calls the bread his own as he said often the word to be his And if the concurrent testimonies of Origen Tertullian Clemens Alexandrinus S. Basil Athanasius Eusebius S. Hierom S. Ambrose S. Austin Theophylact and S. Bernard are a good security for the sence of a place of Scripture we have read their evidence and may proceed to sentence 20. But it was impossible but these words falling upon the allegory of bread and drink and signifying the receiving Christ crucified and communicating with his passion in all the wayes of Faith and Sacrament should also meet with as allegorical expounders and for the likeness of expression be referr'd to sacramental manducation And yet I said this cannot at all infer Transubstantiation though sacramental manducation were only and principally intended For if it had been spoken of the Sacrament the words had been verified in the spiritual sumption of it for as Christ is eaten by faith out of the Sacrament so is he also in the Sacrament as he is real and spiritual meat to the worthy Hearer so is he to the worthy Communicant as Christ's flesh is life to all that obey him so to all that obediently remember him so Christ's flesh is meat indeed however it be taken if it be taken spiritually but not however it be taken if it be taken carnally He is nutritive in all the wayes of spiritual manducation but not in all the wayes of natural eating by their own confession nor in any by ours And therefore it is a vain confidence to run away with the conclusion if they should gain one of the premises But the truth is this It is neither properly spoken of the Sacrament neither if it were would it prove any thing of Transubstantiation 21. I will not be alone in my assertion though the reasonableness and evidence would bear me out Saint Austin saith the same Spiritualiter intelligite quod loquutus sum vobis Non hoc corpus quod videtis manducaturi estis Sacramentum aliquod commendavi vobis spiritualiter intellectum vivificabit nos That which I have spoken is to be understood spiritually ye are not to eat that body which ye see I have commended a Sacrament to you which being understood spiritually will give you life where besides that he gives testimony to the main question on our behalf he also makes sacramentally and spiritually to be all one And again Vt quia jam similitudinem mortis ejus in baptismo accipimus similitudinem quoque sanguinis carnis sumamus ita ut veritas non desit in sacramento ridiculum nullum fiat in Paganis quod cruorem occisi hominis bibamus That as we receive the similitude of his Death in Baptism so we may also receive the likeness of his Flesh and Blood so that neither truth be wanting in the Sacrament nor the Pagans ridiculously affirm that we should drink the blood of the crucified Man Nothing could be spoken more plain in this Question We receive Christ's body in the Eucharist as we are baptized into his death that is by figure and likeness In the Sacrament there is a verity or truth of Christ's body and yet no drinking of blood or eating of flesh so as the Heathen may calumniate us by saying we do that which the men of Capernaum thought Christ taught
elevation of it must of themselves fall to the ground it will also follow that it is Christ's body only in a mystical spiritual and sacramental manner 4. Secondly By what Argument will it so much as probably be concluded that these words This is my body should be the words effective of conversion and consecration That Christ used these words is true and so he used all the other but did not tell which were the consecrating words nor appoint them to use those words but to do the thing and so to remember and represent his death And therefore the form and rites of consecration and ministeries are in the power of the Church where Christ's Command does not intervene as appears in all the external ministeries of Religion in Baptism Confirmation Penance Ordination c. And for the form of consecration of the Eucharist S. Basil affirms that it is not delivered to us 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. The words of Invocation in the manifestation or opening the Eucharistical bread and cup of blessing which of all the Saints hath left us for we are not content with these which the Apostles and the Evangelists mention but before and after we say other things which have great efficacy to this mystery But it is more material which Saint Gregory affirms concerning the Apostles Mos Apostolorum fuit ut ad ipsam solummodò orationem Dominicam oblationis hostiam consecrarent The Apostles consecrated the Eucharist only by saying the Lords Prayer To which I add this consideration that it is certain Christ interposed no Command in this case nor the Apostles neither did they for ought appears intend the recitation of those words to be the Sacramental consecration and operative of the change because themselves recited several forms of institution in Saint Matthew and Saint Mark for one and Saint Luke and Saint Paul for the other in the matter of the Chalice especially and by this difference declared there is no necessity of one and therefore no efficacy in any as to this purpose 5. Thirdly If they make these words to signifie properly and not figuratively then it is a declaration of something already in being and not effective of any thing after it For else est does not signifie is but it shall be because the conversion is future to the pronunciation and by the confession of the Roman Doctors the bread is not transubstantiated till the um in meum be quite out till the last syllable be spoken But yet I suppose they cannot shew an example or reason or precedent or Grammar or any thing for it that est should be an active word And they may remember how confidently they use to argue against them that affirm men to be justified by a fiducia and perswasion that their sins are pardoned saying that saith must suppose the thing done or their belief is false and if it be done before then to believe it does not do it at all because it is done already The case is here the same They affirm that it is made Christ's body by saying it is Christ's body but their saying so must suppose the thing done or else their saying so is false and if it be done before then to say it does not do it at all because it is done already 6. Fourthly When our blessed Lord took bread he gave thanks said Saint Luke and Saint Paul he blessed it said Saint Matthew and Saint Mark 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 making it Eucharistical 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that was consecrating or making it holy it was common bread unholy when he blessed it and made it Eucharistical for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was the same with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the word in Justin and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 bread and wine food made Eucharistical or on which Christ had given thanks Eucharistia sanguinis corporis Christi so Irenaeus and others and Saint Paul does promiscuously use 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and in the same place the Vulgar Latin renders 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by benedictionem and therefore Saint Paul calls it the cup of blessing and in this very place of Saint Matthew Saint Basil reads 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 instead of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 either in this following the old Greek Copies who so read this place or else by interpretation so rendring it as being the same and on the other side Saint Cyprian renders 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the word used in the blessing the Chalice by benedixit Against this Smiglecius the Jesuite with some little scorn sayes it is very absurd to say that Christ gave thanks to the bread and so it should be if 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 blessing and giving of thanks were all one But in this he shewed his anger or want of skill not knowing or not remembring that the Hebrews and Hellenist Jews love abbreviature of speech and in the Epistle to the Hebrews Saint Paul uses 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to appease or propitiate our sins instead of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to propitiate or appease God concerning our sins and so is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 only that by this means God also makes the bread holy blessed and eucharistical Now I demand what did Christ's blessing effect upon the Bread and the Chalice any thing or nothing If no change was consequent it was an ineffective blessing a blessing that blessed not if any change was consequent it was a blessing of the thing in order to what was intended that is that it might be Eucharistical and then the following words this is my body this is the blood of the New Testament or the New Testament in my blood were as Cabasilas affirms 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by way of history and narration and so the Syriack Interpreter puts them together in the place of S. Matthew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 blessing and giving of thanks when he did bless it he made it Eucharistical 7. Fifthly The Greek Church universally taught that the Consecration was made by the prayers of the ministring man Justin Martyr calls it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Nourishment made Eucharistical by prayer and Origen calls it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 bread made a body a holy thing by prayer 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so Damascen by the invocation and illumination of the Holy Ghost 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they are changed into the body and blood of Christ. But for the Greek Church the case is evident and confessed For the ancient Latine Church Saint Hierom reproving certain pert Deacons for insulting over Priests uses this expression for the honour of Priests above the other Ad quorum preces Christi corpus sanguisque conficitur by their prayers the body and blood of Christ is in the Sacrament
And Saint Austin calls the Sacrament prece mysticâ consecratum But concerning this I have largely discoursed in another place But the effect of the consideration in order to the present Question is this that since the change that is made is made not naturally or by a certain number of syllables in the manner of a charm but solemnly sacredly morally and by prayer it becomes also the body of our Lord to moral effects as a consequent of a moral instrument 8. Sixthly And it is considerable that since the ministeries of the Church are but imitations of Christ's Priestood which he officiates in Heaven since he effects all the purposes of his graces and our redemption by intercession and representing in the way of prayer the Sacrifice which he offered on the Cross it follows that the ministeries of the Church must be of the same kind operating in the way of prayer morally and therefore wholly to moral purposes to which the instrument is made proportionable And if these words which are called the words of Consecration be exegetical and enunciative of the change that is made by prayers and other mystical words it cannot be possibly inferred from these words that there is any other change made than what refers to the whole mystery and action and therefore Take eat and this do are as necessary to the Sacrament as Hoc est corpus and declare that it is Christ's body only in the use and administration and therefore not natural but spiritual And this is yet more plain by the words in the Hebrew Text of Saint Matthew Take eat this which is my body plainly supposing the thing to be done already not by the exegetical words but by the precedents the mystick prayer and the words of institution and use and to this I never saw any thing pretended in answer But the force of the Argument upon supposition of the premises is acknowledged to be convincing by an Archbishop of their own Si Christus dandâ— consecravit c. If Christ giving the Eucharist did consecrate as Scotus affirmed then the Lutherans will carry the victory who maintain that the body of Christ is in the Eucharist only while it is used while it was taken and eaten And yet on the other side if it was consecrated when Christ said Take eat then he commanded them to take bread and to eat bread which is to destroy the Article of Transubstantiation So that in effect whether it was consecrated by those words or not by those words their new Doctrine is destroyed If it was not consecrated when Christ said Take eat then Christ bid them take bread and eat bread and they did so But if it was consecrated by those words Take eat then the words of consecration refer wholly to use and it is Christ's body only in the taking and eating which is the thing we contend for And into the concession of this Bellarmine is thrust by the force of our Argument For to avoid Christ's giving the Apostles that which he took and brake and blessed that is breâ—d the same case being governed by all these words he answers Dominum accepisse benedixisse panem sed dedisse panem non vulgarem sed benedictum benedictione mutatum The Lord took bread and blessed it but he gave not common bread but bread blessed and changed by blessing and yet it is certain he gave it them before the words which he calls the words of Consecration To which I add this consideration that all words spoken in the person of another are only declarative and exegetical not operative and practical for in particular if these words hoc est corpus meum were otherwise then the Priest should turn it into his own not into the body of Christ. Neither will it be easie to have an answer not only because the Greeks and Latines are divided in the ground of their argument concerning the mystical instrument of consecration But the Latines themselves have seven several opinions as the Archbishop of Caesarea de capite Fontium hath enumerated them in his nuncupatory Epistle to Pope Sixtus Quintus before his book of divers treatises and that the consecration is made by this is my body though it be now the prevailing opinion yet that by them Christ did not consecrate the elements was the express sentence of Pope Innocent 3. and Innocent 4. and of many ancient Fathers as the same Archbishop of Caesarea testifies in the book now quoted and the Scholasticks are hugely divided upon this point viz. Whether these words are to be taken materially or significatively the expression is barbarous and rude but they mean whether they be consecratory or declarative Aquinas makes them consecratory and his authority brought that opinion into credit and yet Scotus and his followers are against it and they that affirm them to be taken significatively that is to be consecratory are divided into so many opinions that they are not easie to be reckoned only Guido Brianson reckons nine and his own makes the tenth This I take upon the credit of one of their own Archbishops 9. But I proceed to follow them in their own way whether Hoc est corpus meum do effect or signify the change yet the change is not natural and proper but figurative sacramental and spiritual exhibiting what it signifies being real to all intents and purposes of the Spirit and this I shall first shew by discussing the words of institution first those which they suppose to be the consecratory words and then the other 10. Hoc est corpus meum Concerning which form of words we must know that as the Eucharist it self was in the external and ritual part an imitation of a custome and a sacramental already in use among the Jews for the major domo to break bread and distribute wine at the Passeover after supper to the eldest according to his age to the youngest according to his youth as it is notorious and known in the practice of the Jews so also were the very words which Christ spake in this changed subject an imitation of the words which were then used This is the bread of sorrow which our Fathers eat in Egypt This is the Passeover and this Passeover was called the body of the Paschal Lamb nay it was called the body of our Saviour and our Saviour himself 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 said Justin Martyr dial cum Tryph. And Esdras said to the Jews This passeover is our Saviour and This is the body of our Saviour as it is noted by others So that here the words were made ready for Christ and made his by appropriation by meum he was the Lamb slain from the beginning of the world he is the true Passeover which he then affirming called that which was the Antitype of the Passeover the Lamb of God His body the body of the true Passeover to wit in the same sacramental sence in which the like words were affirmed in
is either sepulchrum or sepultura the grave or the burial but either of them is a figure and it is so much used in sacramental and mystick propositions that they are all so or may be so ut baptismus sepulchrum sic hoc est corpus meum saith S. Austin And this is also observed in Gentile rites 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So Homer The slain Lambs and the wine were the Sacrament the faithful oaths that is the rite and mysterie of their sanction they were oaths figuratively 6. Fourthly But to save the labour of more instances S. Austin hath made the observation and himself gives in a list of particulars solet autem res quae significat ejus rei nomine quam significat nuncupari septem spicae septem anni sunt non enim dixit septem annos significant multa hujusmodi Hinc est quod dictum erat Petra erat Christus non enim dixit Petra significat Christum sed tanquam hoc esset quod utique per substantiam non erat sed per significationem The thing which signifies is wont to be called by that which it signifies the seven ears of corn are seven years he did not say they signified seven years but are and many like this Hence it is said the rock was Christ for he said not the rock signifies Christ but as if the thing were that not which it were in his own substance but in signification Pervulgatum est in Scripturâ ut res figurata nomen habeat figurae saith Ribera That this is no usual thing is confessed on all hands So is that of Exodus the Lamb is the Passeover and this does so verifie Saint Austins words that in the New Testament the Apostles asked our Lord Where wilt thou that we prepare to eat the Passeover that is the Lamb which was the remembrance of the Passeover as the blessed Eucharist is of the death of Christ. To this instance Bellarmine speaks nothing to purpose for he denies the Lamb to signifie the Passeover or the passing of the Angel over the houses of Israel because there is no likelihood between the Lamb and the Passeover and to make the business up he says the Lamb was the Passeover By some straining the Lamb slain might signifie the slaying the Egyptians and remember their own escape at the time when they first eat the Lamb But by no straining could the Lamb be the thing especially if for the dissimilitude it could not so much as signifie it how could it be the very same to which it was so extreamly unlike but he always says something though it be nothing to the purpose and yet it may be remembred that the eating the Lamb was as proper an instrument of remembrance of that deliverance as the eating consecrated bread is of the passion of our blessed Lord. But it seems the Lamb is the very passeover as the very festival day is called the Passeover so he And he says true in the same manner but that is but by a trope or figure for the feast is the feast of the Passeover if you speak properly it is the Passeover by a Metonymie and so is the Lamb. And this instance is so much the more apposite because it is the fore-runner of the blessed Eucharist which succeeded that as Baptism did Circumcision and there is nothing of sence that hath been or I think can be spoken to evade the force of this instance nor of the many other before reckoned 8. Fifthly And as it is usual in all Sacraments so particularly it must be here in which there is such a heap of tropes and figurative speeches that almost in every word there is plainly a trope For 1. Here is the Cup taken for the thing contained in it 2. Testament for the legacy given by it 3. This is not in recto but in obliquo This that is not this which you see but this which you do not see This which is under the species is my dody 4. My body but not bodily my body without the forms and figure of my body that is my body not as it is in nature not as it is in glory but as it is in Sacrament that is my body Sacramentally 5. Drink ye that is also improper for his blood is not drunk properly for blood hath the same manner of existing in the chalice as it hath in the Paten that is is under the form of wine as it is under the form of bread and therefore it is in the veins not separate say they and yet it is in the bread as it is in the chalice and in both as upon the Cross that is poured out so Christ said expresly for else it were so far from being his blood that it were not so much as the Sacrament of what he gave so that the wine in the chalice is not drunk because it is not separate from the body and in the bread it cannot be drunk because there it is not in the veins or if it were yet is made as a consistent thing by the continent but is not potable now that which follows from hence is that it is not drunk at all properly but figuratively and so Mr. Brerely confesses sometimes and Jansenius There is also an impropriety in the word given for shall be given is poured out for shall be poured out in broken for then it was not broken when Christ spake it and it cannot be properly spoken since his glorification Salmeron allows an Enallage in the former and Suarez a Metaphor in the latter Frangi cùm dicitur est Metaphorica locutio And this is their excuse why in the Roman missal they leave out the words which is broken for you for they do what they please they put in some words which Christ used not and leave out something that he did use and yet they are all the words of institution And upon the same account there is another trope in eat and yet with a strange confidence these men wonder at us for saying the sacramental words are tropical or figurative when even by their own confession and proper grounds there is scarce any word in the whole institution but admits an impropriety And then concerning the main predication This is my body as Christ called bread his body so he called his body bread and both these affirmatives are destructive of Transubstantiation for if of bread Christ affirmed It is his body by the rule of disparates it is figurative and if of his body he affirmed it to be bread it is certain also and confessed to be a figure Now concerning this besides that our blessed Saviour affirmed himself to be the bread that came down from heaven calling himself bread and in the institution calling bread his body we have the express words of Theodoret 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Christ gave to his body the name of the Symbol and to the
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
is as it was crucified as it was our sacrifice And this is so wholly agreeable to the nature of the thing and the order of the words and the body of the circumstances that it is next to that which is evident in it self and needs no further light but the considering the words and the design of the Institution especially since it is consonant to the style of Scripture in the Sacrament of the Passeover and very many other instances it wholly explicates the nature of the mystery it reconciles our duty with the secret it is free of all inconvenience it prejudices no right nor hinders any real effect it hath or can have and it makes the mystery intelligible and prudent fit to be discoursed of and inserted into the rituals of a wise Religion 8. Seventhly He that receives unworthily receives no benefit to his body or to his soul by the holy Sacrament that is agreed on all sides therefore he that receives benefit to his body receives it by his worthy communicating therefore the benefit reaching to the body by the holy Eucharist comes to it by the soul therefore by the action of the soul not the action of the body therefore by faith not by the mouth whereas on the contrary if Christs body natural were eaten in the Sacrament the benefit would come to the body by his own action and to the soul by the body All that eat are not made Christs body and all that eat not are not disintitled to the resurrection the Spirit does the work without the Sacrament and in the Sacrament when 't is done The flesh profiteth nothing And this argument ought to prevail upon this account Because as is the nutriment so is the manducation If the nourishment be wholly spiritual then so is the eating But by the Roman doctrine the body of Christ does not naturally nourish therefore neither is it eaten naturally but it does nourish spiritually and therefore it is eaten only spiritually And this doctrine is also affirmed by Cajetan though how they will endure it I cannot understand Manducatur verum corpus Christi in Sacramento sed non corporalitèr sed spiritualitèr Spiritualis manducatio quae per animam fit ad Christi carnem in Sacramento existentem pertingit The true body of Christ is eaten in the Sacrament but not corporally but spiritually The spiritual manducation which is made by the soul reaches to the flesh of Christ in the Sacrament which is very good Protestant doctrine And if it be absurd to say Christs body doth nourish corporally why it should not be as absurd to say we eat it corporally is a secret which I have not yet been taught As is our eating so is the nourishing because that is in order to this therefore if you will suppose that natural eating of Christs body does nourish spiritually yet it must also nourish corporally let it do more if it may but it must do so much just as the waters in baptism although the waters are symbolical and instrumental to the purifying of the soul yet because the waters are material and corporeal they cleanse the body first and primarily so it must be in this Sacrament also if Christs body were eaten naturally it must nourish naturally and then pass further but that which is natural is first and then that which is spiritual 9. Eighthly For the likeness to the argument I insert this consideration by the doctrine of the ancient Church wicked men do not eat the body nor drink the blood of Christ. So Origen Si fieri potest ut qui malus adhuc perseveret edat verbum factum carnem cùm sit verbum panis vivus nequaquam scriptum fuisset Quisquis ederit panem hunc vivet in aeternum If it were possible for him that perseveres in wickedness to eat the word made flesh when it is the word and the living bread it had never been written Whosoever shall eat this bread shall live for ever So S. Hilary Panis qui descendit de coelo non nisi ab eo accipitur qui Dominum habet Christi membrum est The bread that came down from Heaven is not taken of any but of him who hath the Lord and is a member of Christ. Lambunt Petram saith S. Cyprian They lick the Rock that is eat not of the food and drink not of the blood that issued from thence when the Rock was smitten They receive corticem sacramenti furfur carnis saith S. Bernard the skin of the Sacrament and the bran of the flesh But Ven. Bede is plain without an allegory Omnis infidelis non vescitur carne Christi An unbelieving man is not fed with the flesh of Christ the reason of which could not be any thing but because Christ is only eaten by faith But I reserved S. Austin for the last So then these are no true receivers of Christs body in that they are none of his true members For to omit all other allegations they cannot be both the members of Christ and the members of an harlot and Christ himself saying He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood dwelleth in me and I in him sheweth what it is to receive Christ not only sacramentally but truly for this is to dwell in Christ and Christ in him For thus he spoke as if he had said He that dwelleth not in me nor I in him cannot say he eateth my flesh or drinketh my blood In which words if the Roman Doctors will be judged by S. Austin for the sence of the Church in this Question and will allow him in this point to be a good Catholick 1. He dogmatically declares that the wicked man does not eat Christs body truly 2. He does eat it sacramentally 3. That to eat with effect is to eat Christs body truly to which if they please to add this That to eat it spiritually is to eat it with effect it follows by S. Austins doctrine that spiritually is really and that there is no true and real body of Christ eaten in the Sacrament but by the faithful receiver or if you please receive the conclusion in the words of S. Austin Tunc erit unicuique corpus sanguis Christi si quod in sacramento sumitur in ipsâ veritate spiritualiter manducetur spiritualiter bibatur then to each receiver it becomes the body and blood of Christ if that which is taken in the Sacrament be in the very truth it self spiritually eaten and spiritually drunk which words of S. Austin Bellarmine upon another occasion being to answer in stead of answering grants it and tells that this manner of speaking is very usual in S. Austin the truest answer in all his books but whether it be for him or against him he ought to have considered Neither can this be put off with saying that the wicked do not truly eat Christ that is not to any benefit or purpose but that this
be said he was deceived when he said I saw Satan like lightning fall from Heaven or when he heard the voice of his Father testifying concerning him or lest he should be deceived when he touched Peters wives mother by the hand or that he smelt another breath of ointment and not what was offered to his burial Alium postea vini saporem quod in sanguinis sui memoriam consecravit or tasted another taste of wine which he consecrated to the memory of his blood And if the Catholick Christians had believed the substantial natural presence of Christs body in the Sacrament and consequently disbelieved the testimony of four senses as the Church of Rome at this day does seeing smelling tasting feeling it had been impudence in them to have reproved Marcion by the testimony of two senses concerning the verity of Christs body And supposing that our eyes could be deceived and our taste and our smelling yet our touch cannot for supposing the organs equally disposed yet touch is the guardian of truth and his nearest natural instrument all sensation is by touch but the other senses are more capable of being deceived because though they finally operate by touch variously affected yet their objects are further removed from the Organ and therefore many intermedial things may intervene and possibly hinder the operation of the sense that is bring more diseases and disturbances to the action but in touch the object and the instrument joyn close together and therefore there can be no impediment if the instrument be sound and the object proper And yet no sense can be deceived in that which it always perceives alike The touch can never be deceived and therefore a testimony from it and three senses more cannot possibly be refused and therefore it were strange if all the Christians for above 1600 years together should be deceived as if the Eucharist were a perpetual illusion and a riddle to the senses for so many ages together and indeed the fault in this case could not be in the senses and therefore Tertullian and S. Austin dispute wittily and substantially that the senses could never be deceived but the understanding ought to assent to what they relate to it or represent For if any man thinks the staff is crooked that is set half way in the water it is the fault of his judgment not of his sense for the air and the water being several mediums the eye ought to see otherwise in air otherwise in water but the understanding must not conclude falsly from these true premises which the eye ministers For the thicker medium makes a fraction of the species by incrassation and a shadow and when a man in the yellow Jaundies thinks every thing yellow it is not the fault of his eye but of his understanding for the eye does his office right for it perceives just as is represented to it the species are brought yellow but the fault is in the understanding not perceiving that the species are stained near the eye not further off When a man in a fever thinks every thing bitter his taste is not deceived but judges rightly for as a man that chews bread and aloes together tastes not false if he tastes bitterness so it is in the sick mans case the juice of his meat is mingled with choler and the taste is acute and exact by perceiving it such as it is so mingled The purpose of which discourse is this that no notices are more evident and more certain than the notices of sense but if we conclude contrary to the true dictate of senses the fault is in the understanding collecting false conclusions from right premises It follows therefore that in the matter of the Eucharist we ought to judge that which our senses tell us For whatsoever they say is true for no deceit can come by them but the deceit is when we believe something besides or against what they tell us especially when the organ is perfect and the object proper and the medium regular and all things perfect and the same always and to all men For it is observable that in this case the senses are competent judges of the natural being of what they see and taste and smell and feel and according to that all the men in the world can swear that what they see is bread and wine but it is not their office to tell us what they become by the institution of our Saviour for that we are to learn by faith that what is bread and wine in nature is by Gods ordinance the Sacrament of the body and blood of the Saviour of the world but one cannot contradict another and therefore they must be reconciled both say true that which Faith teaches is certain and that which the senses of all men teach always that also is certain and evident for as the rule of the School says excellently Grace never destroys nature but perfects it and so it is in the consecration of bread and wine in which although we are more to regard their signification than their matter their holy imployment than their natural usage what they are by grace rather than what they are by nature that they are Sacramental rather than that they are nutritive that they are consecrated and exalted by religion rather than that they are mean and low in their natural beings what they are to the spirit and understanding rather than what they are to the sense yet this also is as true and as evident as the other and therefore though not so apt for our meditation yet as certain as that which is 7. Thirdly Though it be a hard thing to be put to prove that bread is bread and that wine is wine yet if the arguments and notices of sense may not pass for sufficient an impudent person may without possibility of being confuted out-face any man that an Oyster is a Rat and that a Candle is a pig of Lead and so might the Egyptian Soothsayers have been too hard for Moses for when they changed rods into Serpents they had some colour to tell Pharaoh they were Serpents as well as the rod of Moses But if they had failed to turn the water into blood they needed not to have been troubled if they could have born down Pharaoh that though it looked like water and tasted like water yet by their inchantment they had made it verily to be blood And upon this ground of having different substances unproper and disproportioned accidents what hinders them but they might have said so and if they had how should they have been confuted But this manner of proceeding would be sufficient to evacuate all reason and all science and all notices of things and we may as well conclude snow to be black and fire cold and two and two to make five and twenty 8. But it is said although the body of Christ be invested with unproper accidents yet sometimes Christ hath appeared in his own shape and blood
and flesh hath been pull'd out of the mouths of the communicants and Plegilus the Priest saw an Angel shewing Christ to him in form of a child upon the Altar whom first he took in his arms and kissed but did eat him up presently in his other shape in the shape of a Wafer Speciosa certè pax Nebulonis ut qui oris praebuerat basium dentium inferret exitium said Berengarius It was but a Judas kiss to kiss with the lip and bite with the teeth But if such stuffe as this may go for argument we may be cloyed with them in those unanswerable Authors Simeon Metaphrastes for the Greeks and Jacobus de Voragine for the Latin who make it a trade to lye for God and for the interest of the Catholick cause But however I shall tell a piece of a true story In the time of Soter Pope of Rome there was an Impostor called Mark 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that was his appellative and he 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 pretending to make the Chalice of wine and water Eucharistical saying long prayers over it made it look red or purple that it might be thought that grace which is above all things does drop the blood into the Chalice by invocation Such as these have been often done by humane artifice or by operation of the Devil said Alexander of Ales. If such things as these were done regularly it were pretence enough to say it is flesh and blood that is in the Eucharist but when nothing of this is done by God but Hereticks and Knaves Juglers and Impostors hoping to change the Sacrament into a charm by abusing the spiritual sence into a gross and carnal against the authority of Scripture and the Church reason or religion have made pretences of those things and still the Holy Sacrament in all the times of ministration hath the form and all the perceptibilities of bread and wine as we may believe those Impostors did more rely upon the pretences of sense than of other arguments and distrusting them did flye to these as the greater probation so we rely upon that way of probation which they would have counterfeited but which indeed Christ in his institution hath still left in the nature of the symbols viz. that it is that which it seems to be and that the other superinduc'd predicate of the body of Christ is to be understood only in that sence which may still consist with that substance whose proper and natural accidents remain and are perceived by the mouth and hands and eyes of all men To which this may be added that by the doctrine of the late Roman Schools all those pretences of real appearances of Christs body or blood must be necessarily concluded to be Impostures or aery phantasmes and illusions because themselves teach that Christs body is so in the Sacrament that Christs own eyes cannot see his own body in the Sacrament and in that manner by which it is there it cannot be made visible no not by the absolute power of God Nay it can be neither seen nor touched nor tasted nor felt nor imagined It is the doctrine of Suarez in 3. Tho. disp 53. Sect. 3. and disp 52. Sect. 1. and of Vasquez in 3. t. 3. disp 191. n. 22. which besides that it reproves the whole Article by making it incredible and impossible it doth also infinitely convince all these apparitions if ever there were any of deceit and fond illusion I had no more to say in this particular but that the Roman Doctors pretend certain words out of S. Cyrils fourth mystagogique Catechism against the doctrine of this Paragraph Pro certissimo habeas c. Be sure of this that this bread which is seen of us is not bread although the taste perceives it to be bread but the body of Christ For under the species of bread the body is given to thee under the species of wine the blood is given to thee Here if we will trust S. Cyrils words at least in Bellarmine's and Brerely's sence and understand of them before you will believe your own eyes you may For S. Cyril bids you not believe your sense For taste and sight tells you it is bread but it is not But here is no harm done 2. For himself plainly explains his meaning in his next Catechism Think not that you taste bread and wine saith he No what then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but the antitypes of the body and blood and in this very place he calls bread 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a type 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and therefore it is very ill rendred by the Roman Priests by Species which signifies accidental forms for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies no such thing but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is not S. Cyrils word 3. He says it is not bread though the taste feel it so that is it is not meer bread which is an usual expression among the Fathers Non est panis communis says Irenaeus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 says Justin Martyr just as S. Chrysostome says of Baptismal water it is not common water and as S. Cyril himself says of the sacramental bread 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it is not meer bread 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but the Lords body For if it were not that in some sence or other it were still meer bread but that it is not But this manner of speaking is not unusual in the holy Scriptures that restrained and modificated negatives be propounded in simple and absolute forms I have given them statutes which are not good Ezek. 20.25 I will have mercy and not sacrifice Hos. 6.6 They have not rejected thee but me 1 Sam. 8.7 It is not you that speak but the Spirit of my Father I came not to send peace but a sword S. Mat. 10.20 34. He that believeth on me believeth not on me but on him that sent me And If I bear witness of my self my witness is not true S. John 5.31 which is expresly confronted by S. John 8.14 Though I bear record of my self yet my record is true which shews manifestly that the simple and absolute negative in the former place must in his signification be restrained So S. Paul speaks usually Henceforth I know no man according to the flesh 2 Cor. 5.16 We have no strife against flesh and blood Ephes. 6.12 And in the ancient Doctors nothing more ordinary than to express limited sences by unlimited words which is so known that I should lose my time and abuse the Readers patience if I should heap up instances So Irenaeus He that hath received the Spirit is no more flesh and blood but Spirit And Epiphanius affirms the same of the flesh of a temperate man It is not flesh but is changed into Spirit so we say of a drunken man and a furious person He is not a man but a beast And they speak thus particularly in the matter of the holy Sacrament as appears in the instances above
Indeed Mr. Brerely hath got an ignorant fancy by the end which I am now to note and wipe off He saies that the Primitive Christians were scandalized by the Heathen to be eaters of the flesh of a child which in all reason must be occasioned by their doctrine of the manducation of Christs flesh in the Sacrament and if this be true then we may suspect that they to wipe of this scandal might remove their doctrine as far from the objection as they could and therefore might use some lessening expressions To this I answer that the occasions of the report were the sects of the Gnosticks and the Peputians The Gnosticks as Epiphanius reports bruised a new born infant in a mortar and all of them did communicate by eating portions of it and the Montanists having sprinkled a little child with meal let him blood and of that made their Eucharistical bread and these stories the Jews published to disrepute if they could the whole religion but nothing of this related to the doctrine of the Christian Eucharist though the bell always must tinkle as they are pleased to think But this turned to advantage of the truth and to the clearing of this Article For when the scandal got foot and run abroad the Heathens spared not to call the Christians Cannibals and to impute to them anthropophagy or the devouring humane flesh and that they made Thyestes's Feast who by the procurement of Atreus eat his own children Against this the Christian Apologists betook themselves to a defence Justin Martyr says the false devils had set on work some vile persons to kill some one or other to give colour to the report Athenagoras in a high defiance of the infamy asks Do you think we are murtherers for there is no way to eat mans flesh unless we first kill him Octavius in Minutius Felix confutes it upon this account We do not receive the blood of beasts into our food or beverage therefore we are infinitely distant from drinking mans blood And this same Tertullian in his Apologetick presses further affirming that to discover Christians they use to offer them a black pudding or something in which blood remained and they chose rather to die than to do it and of this we may see instances in the story of Sanctus and Blandina in the ecclesiastical histories Concerning which it is remarkable what Oecumenius in his Catena upon the 2 chap. of the first Epistle of S. Peter reports out of Irenaeus The Greeks having taken some servants of Christians pressing to learn something secret of the Christians and they having nothing in their notice to please the inquisitors except that they had heard of their Masters that the divine communion is the blood and body of Christ they supposing it true according to their rude natural apprehensions tortur'd Sanctus and Blandina to confess it But Blandina answered them thus How can they suffer any such thing in the exercise of their Religion who do not nourish themselves with flesh that is permitted All this trouble came upon the act of the forementioned hereticks the report was only concerning the blood of an infant not of a man as it must have been if it had been occasioned by the Sacrament but the Sacrament was not so much as thought of in this scrutiny till the examination of the servants gave the hint in the torture of Blandina Cardinal Perron perceiving much detriment likely to come to their doctrine by these Apologies of the primitive Christians upon the 11. anathematism of S. Cyril says that they deny anthropophagy but did not deny Theanthropophagy saying that they did not eat the flesh nor drink the blood of a meer man but of Christ who was God and Man which is so strange a device as I wonder it could drop from the pen of so great a wit For this would have been a worse and more intolerable scandal to affirm that Christians eat their God and sucked his blood and were devourers not only of a man but of an immortal God But however let his fancy be confronted with the extracts of the several apologies which I have now cited and it will appear that nothing of the Cardinals fancy can come near their sence or words for all the business was upon the blood of a child which the Gnosticks had kill'd or the Montanists tormented and the matter of the Sacrament was not in the whole rumour so much as thought upon 15. Lastly Unless there be no one objection of ours that means as it says but all are shadows and nothing is awake but Bellarmine in all his dreams or Perron in all his laborious excuses if we be allowed to be in our wits and to understand Latin or Greek or common sence unless the Fathers must all be understood according to their new nonsence answers which the Primitive Doctors were so far from understanding or thinking of that besides that it is next to impudence to suppose they could mean them their own Doctors in a few ages last past did not know them but opposed and spake some things contrary and many things divers from them I say unless we have neither sense nor reason nor souls like other men it is certain that not one nor two but very many of the Fathers taught our doctrine most expresly in this article and against theirs * And after all whether the testimonies of the Doctors be ancient or modern it is advantage to us and inconvenient for them For if it be ancient it shews their doctrine not to be from the beginning if it be modern it does it more for it declares plainly the doctrine to be but of yesterday now I am very certain I can make it appear not to have been the doctrine of the Church not of any Church whose records we have for above a thousand years together 16. But now in my entry upon the testimonies of Fathers I shall make my way the more plain and credible if I premise the testimonies of some of the Roman Doctors in this business And the first I shall name is Bellarmine himself who was the most wary of giving advantage against himself but yet he says Non esse mirandum c. it is not to be wondred at if S. Austin Theodoret and others of the ancients spake some things which in shew seem to favour the hereticks when even from Jodocus some things did fall which by the adversaries were drawn to their cause Now though he lessens the matter by quaedam and videantur and in speciem seemingly and in shew and some things yet it was as much as we could expect from him with whom visibilitèr if it be on our side must mean invisibilitèr and statuimus must be abrogamus But I rest not here Alphonsus à Castro says more De transubstantiatione panis in corpus Christi rara est in antiquis Scriptoribus mentio The ancient writers seldom mention the change of the substance of bread into
measure so that in effect they are refused for being good Christians But after this it happened again that the words of type and image were disliked in the question of the holy Sacrament by the Emperor Charles the great his Tutor Alcuinus and the Assembly at Frankfort but it was in opposition to the Council of Constantinople that called it the true image of Christs body and of the Nicene Council who decreed the worship of Images for if the Sacrament were an Image as they of CP said then it might be lawful to give reverence and worship to some Images for although these two Synods were enemies to each other yet the proposition of one might serve the design of the other but therefore the Western Doctors of that age speaking against the decree of this did also mislike the expression of that meaning that the Sacrament is not a type or image as a type is taken for a prefiguration a shadow of things to come like the legal ceremonies but in opposition to that is a body and a truth yet still it is a Sacrament of the body a mystery which is the same in effect with that which the Fathers taught in their so frequent using these words of Type c. for 750. years together And concerning this I only note the words of Charles the Emperor Ep. ad Alcuinum after the Synod Our Lord hath given the Bread and the Chalice in figurâ corporis sui sui sanguinis in the figure of his body and blood But setting the authority aside for if these men of CP be not allowed yet the others are and it is notorious that the Greek Fathers did frequently call the bread and wine 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the Latin Fathers call them signs similitudes figures types images therefore there must be something pretended to stop this great out-cry and insupportable prejudice of so great so clear authority After many trials as that by antitypes they mean exemplars that it is only before consecration not after and such other little devices of which they themselves quickly grew weary at last the craftiest of them came to this that the body of Christ under the Species might well be said to be the sign of the same body and blood as it was on the Cross so Bellarmine That 's the answer and that they are hard put to it you may guess by the meanness of the answer For besides that nothing can be like it self Idem non est simile the body as it is under the Species is glorified immortal invisible impassible indivisible insensible and this is it which he affirms to be the sign that is which is appointed to signifie and represent a body that was humbled tormented visible mortal sensible torn bleeding and dying So that here is a sign nothing like the thing signified and an invisible sign of a visible body which is the greatest absurdity in nature and in the use of things which is imaginable but besides this this answer if it were a proper and sensible account of any thing yet it is besides the mark for that the Fathers in these allegations affirm that the Species are the signs that is that bread and wine or the whole Sacrament is a sign of that body which is exhibited in effect and Spiritual power they dreamt not this dream it was long before themselves did dream it They that were but the day before them having as I noted before other fancies I deny not but the Sacramental body is the sign of the true body crucified but that the body glorified should be but a sign of the true body crucified is a device fit for themselves to fancy To this sence are those words cited by Lombard and Gratian out of S. Austin in the sentences of Prosper Caro ejus est quam formâ panis opertam in Sacramento accipimus sanguis quem sub specie vini potamus Caro viz. Carnis sanguis sacramentum est sanguinis carne sanguine utroque invisibili intelligibili spirituali significatur corpus Christi visibile plenum gratiae divinae majestatis That is It is his flesh which under the form of bread we receive in the Sacrament and under the form of wine we drink his blood Now that you may understand his meaning he tells you this is true in the Sacramental or Spiritual sence only for he adds flesh is the Sacrament of flesh and blood of blood by both flesh and blood which are invisible intelligible and Spiritual is signified the visible body of Christ full of grace and Divine majesty In which words here is a plain confutation of their main Article and of this whimsie of theirs For as to the particular whereas Bellarmine says that Christs body real and natural is the type of the body as it was crucified S. Austin says that the natural body is a type of that body which is glorified not the glorified body of the crucified 2. That which is a type is flesh in a spiritual sence not in a natural and therefore it can mean nothing but this That the Sacramental body is a figure and type of the real 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And this thing is noted by the Gloss of Gratian. Caro i. e. species carnis sub qua latet corpus Christi c. The flesh that is the Species of it under which it lies are the Sacrament of the flesh so that the being of a Sacrament of Christs body is wholly relative to the Symbols not to the body as if the body were his own sign and his own Sacrament 30. Next to this heap of testimonies I must repeat the words of Theodoret and Gelasius which though known in this whole question yet being plain certain and unanswerable relying upon a great Article of the religion even the union of the two natures of Christ into one person without the change of substances must be as sacred and untouched by any trifling answer as the Article it self ought to be preserved The case was this The Eutychian Hereticks denied the natures of Christ to be united in one person that is they denied him to be both God and Man saying his humanity was taken into his divinity after his ascension The Fathers disputing against them say the substances remain intire though joyned in the person The Eutychians said this was impossible But as in the Sacrament the bread was changed into Christs body so in the ascension was the humanity turned into the divinity To this Theodoret answers in a Dialogue between the Eutychians under the name of Eranistes and himself the Orthodox Christ honoured the symbols and signs which are seen with the title of his body and blood not changing the nature but to nature adding grace The words are not capable of an answer if we observe that he says there is no change made but only grace superadded in all things else the things are the same And again For neither do
error and ignorance I hope will dispose them to receive a pardon But yet that also supposes them criminal And though I would not for all the world be their accuser or the aggravator of the crime yet I am not unwilling to be their remembrancer that themselves may avoid the danger For though Jacob was innocent in lying with Leah in stead of Rachel because he had no cause to suspect the deception yet if Penelope who had not seen Vlysses in twenty years should see one come to her nothing like Vlysses but saying he were her husband she should give but an ill account of her chastity if she should actually admit him to her bed only saying if you be Vlysses or upon supposition that you are Vlysses I admit you For if she certainly admits him of whom she is uncertain if he be her husband she certainly is an adulteress Because she having reason to doubt ought first to be satisfied of her question Since therefore besides the insuperable doubts of the main Article it self in the practice and the particulars there are acknowledged so many ways of deception and confessed that the actual failings are frequent as I shewed before out of Pope Adrian it will be but a weak excuse to say I worship thee if thou be the Son of God but I do not worship thee if thou beest not consecrated and in the mean time the Divine worship is actually exhibited to what is set before us At the best we may say to these men as our blessed Saviour to the woman of Samaria Ye worship ye know not what but we know what we worship For concerning the action of adoration this I am to say That it is a fit address in the day of solemnity with a Sursum corda with our hearts lift up to Heaven where Christ sits we are sure at the right hand of the Father for Nemo dignè manducat nisi priùs adoraverit said S. Austin No man eats Christs body worthily but he that first adores Christ. But to terminate the Divine worship to the Sacrament to that which we eat is so unreasonable and unnatural and withal so scandalous that Averroes observing it to be used among the Christians with whom he had the ill fortune to converse said these words Quandoquidem Christiani adorant quod comedunt sit anima mea cum Philosophis Since Christians worship what they eat let my soul be with the Philophers If the man had conversed with those who better understood the Article and were more religious and wise in their worshippings possibly he might have been invited by the excellency of the institution to become a Christian. But they that give scandal to Jews by their Images and leaving out the second Commandment from their Catechisms give offence to the Turks by worshipping the Sacrament and to all reasonable men by striving against two or three Sciences and the notices of all mankind We worship the flesh of Christ in the mysteries saith S. Ambrose as the Apostles did worship it in our Saviour For we receive the mysteries as representing and exhibiting to our souls the flesh and blood of Christ So that we worship it in the sumption and venerable usages of the signs of his body But we give no Divine honour to the signs We do not call the Sacrament our God And let it be considered whether if the Primitive Church had ever done or taught that the Divine worship ought to be given to the Sacrament it had not been certain that the Heathen would have retorted most of the arguments upon their heads by which the Christians reproved their worshipping of Images The Christians upbraided them with worshipping the works of their hands to which themselves gave what figure they pleased and then by certain forms consecrated them and made by invocation as they supposed a Divinity to dwell there They objected to them that they worshipped that which could neither see nor hear nor smell nor taste nor move nor understand that which could grow old and perish that could be broken and burned that was subject to the injury of Rats and Mice of Worms and creeping things that can be taken by enemies and carried away that is kept under lock and key for fear of Thieves and sacrilegious persons Now if the Church of those ages had thought and practised as they have done at Rome in these last ages might not they have said Why may not we as well as you do not you worship that with Divine honours and call it your God which can be burnt and broken which your selves form into a round or a square figure which the Oven first hardens and then your Priests consecrate and by invocation make to be your God which can see no more nor hear nor smell than the silver and gold upon our Images Do not you adore that which Rats and Mice eat which can grow mouldy and sowre which you keep under locks and bars for fear your God be stoln Did not Lewis the Ninth pawn your God to the Soldan of Egypt insomuch that to this day the Egyptian Escutcheons by way of triumph bear upon them a pix with a wafer in it True it is that if we are beaten from our Cities we carry our Gods with us but did not the Jesuits carry your Host which you call God about their necks from Venice in the time of the Interdict And now why do you reprove that in us which you do in your selves What could have been answered to them if the doctrine and accidents of their time had furnished them with these or the like instances In vain it would have been to have replied Yea but ours is the true God and yours are false gods For they would easily have made a rejoynder and said that this is to be proved by some other argument in the mean time all your objections against our worshipping of Images return violently upon you Upon this account since none of the witty and subtle adversaries of Christianity ever did or could make this defence by way of recrimination it is certain there was no occasion given and therefore those trifling pretences made out of some sayings of the Fathers pretending the practice of worshipping the Sacrament must needs be Sophistry and illusion and can need no particular consideration But if any man can think them at all considerable I refer him to be satisfied by Mich. le Faucheur in his voluminous confutation of Card. Perron I for my part am weary of the infinite variety of argument in this question and therefore shall only observe this that antiquity does frequently use the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 venerable adorable worshipful to every thing that ought to be received with great reverence and used with regard to Princes to Laws to Baptism to Bishops to Priests to the ears of Priests the Cross the Chalice the Temples the words of Scripture the Feast of Easter and upon the same account by which it
but some few instead of many but those most easie to be done and most glorious to be understood and most pure in their observation our Lord himself and the Apostolical discipline hath delivered such is the Sacrament of Baptism and the celebration of the body and blood of our Lord which when every one takes he understands whither they may be referr'd that he may give them veneration not with carnal service but with a spiritual liberty For as to follow the letter and to take the signs for the things signified by them is a servile infirmity so to interpret the signs unprofitably is an evil wandring error But he that understands not what the sign signifies but yet understandeth it to be a sign is not press'd with servitude But it is better to be press'd with unknown signs so they be profitable than by expounding them unprofitably to thrust our necks into the yoke of slavery from which they were brought fâ—â—th All this S. Austin spake concerning the sacramental signs the bread and the wine in the Eucharist and if by these words he does not intend to affirm that they are the signs signifying Christs body and blood let who please to undertake it make sence of them for my part I cannot To the same purpose are these other words of his Christ is in himself once immolated and yet in the Sacrament he is sacrificed not only in the solemnities of Easter but every day with the people Neither indeed does he lye who being ask'd shall answer that he is sacrificed For if the Sacraments have not a similitude of those things of which they are Sacraments they were altogether no Sacraments but commonly for this similitude they take the names of the things themselves sicut ergo secundum quendam modum c. As therefore after a certain manner the Sacrament of the body of Christ is the body of Christ the Sacrament of the blood of Christ is the blood of Christ so the Sacrament of Faith viz. Baptism is Faith Christ is but once immolated or sacrificed in himself but every day in the Sacrament that properly this in figure that in substance this in similitude that naturally this sacramentally and spiritually But therefore we call this mystery a sacrifice as we call the Sacrament Christs body viz. by way of similitude or after a certain manner for upon this account the names of the things are imputed to their very figures This is S. Austins sence which indeed he frequently so expresses Now I desire it may be observed that oftentimes when S. Austin speaking of the Eucharist calls it the body and blood of Christ he oftentimes adds by way of explication that he means it in the Sacramental figurative sence but whenever he calls it the figure or the Sacrament of Christs body he never offers to explain that by any words by which he may signifie such a real or natural being of Christs body there as the Church of Rome dreams of but he ought not neither would be have given offence or Umbrage to the Church by any such incurious and loose handling of things if the Church in his age had thought of it otherwise than that it was Christs body in a Sacramental sence Though I have remark'd all that is objected by A. L. yet E. W. is not satisfied with the quotation out of Greg. Naz. not but that he acknowledges it to be right for be sets down the words in Latin but they conclude nothing against Transubstantiation Why so because though the Paschal was a type of a type a figure of a figure yet in S. Gregories sence Christ concealed under the species of bread may be rightly called a figure of its own self more clearly hereafter to be shewed us in Heaven To this pitiful answer the reply is easie S. Gregory clearly enough expresses himself that in the immolation of the Passeover Christ was figured that in the Eucharist he still is figured there more obscurely here more clearly but yet still but typically or in figure nunc quidem adhuc typicè here we are partakers of him typically Afterwards we shall see him perfectly meaning in his Fathers Kingdom So that the Saint affirms Christ to be receiv'd by us in the Sacrament after a figurative or typical manner and therefore not after a substantial as that is oppos'd to figurative Now of what is this a type of himself to be more clearly seen in Heaven hereafter It is very true it is so for this whole ceremony and figurative ritual receiving of Christs body here does prefigure our more excellent receiving and enjoying him hereafter but then it follows that the very proper substance of Christs body is not here for figure or shadow and substance cannot be the same to say a thing that is present is a figure of it self hereafter is to be said by no man but him that cares not what he says Nemo est sui ipsius imago saith S. Hilary and yet if it were possible to be otherwise yet it is a strange figure or sign of a thing that what is invisible should be a sign of what is visible Bellarmine being greatly put to it by the Fathers calling the Sacrament the figure of Christs body says it is in some sence a figure of Christs body on the Cross and here E. W. would affirm out of Naz. that it is a figure of Christs body glorified Now suppose both these dreamers say right then this Sacrament which whether you look forwards or backwards is a figure of Christs body cannot be that body of which so many ways it is a figure So that the whole force of E. W's answer is this that if that which is like be the same then it is possible that a thing may be a sign of its self and a man may be his own picture and that which is invisible may be a sign to give notice to come see a thing that is visible I have now expedited this topick of Authority in this Question amongst the many reasons I urged against Transubstantiation which I suppose to be unanswerable and if I could have answered them my self I would not have produc'd them these Gentlemen my adversaries are pleas'd to take notice but of one But by that it may be seen how they could have answered all the rest if they had pleased The argument is this every consecrated wafer saith the Church of Rome is Christs body and yet this wafer is not that wafer therefore either this or that is not Christs body or else Christ hath two natural bodies for there are two Wafers To this is answered the multiplication of wafers does not multiply bodies to Christ no more than head and feet infer two souls in a man or conclude there are two Gods one in Heaven and the other in Earth because Heaven and Earth are more distinct than two wafers To which I reply that the soul of man is in the head and feet as
jure humano and yet they shall be bound jure Divino to believe it to be just and specially since the causes of so scandalous an alteration are not set down in the decree of any Council and those which are set down by private Doctors besides that they are no record of the Church they are ridiculous weak and contemptible But as Granatensis said in the Council of Trent this affair can neither be regulated by Scripture nor traditions for surely it is against both but by wisdom wherein because it is necessary to proceed to circumspection I suppose the Church of Rome will always be considering whether she should give the chalice or no and because she will not acknowledge any reason sufficient to give it she will be content to keep it away without reason And which is worse the Church of Rome excommunicates those Priests that communicate the people in both kinds but the Primitive Church excommunicates them that receive but in one kind It is too much that any part of the Church should so much as in a single instance administer the Holy Sacrament otherwise than it is in the institution of Christ there being no other warrant for doing the thing at all but Christs institution and therefore no other way of learning how to do it but by the same institution by which all of it is done And if there can come a case of necessity as if there be no wine or if a man cannot endure wine it is then a disputable matter whether it ought or not to be omitted for if the necessity be of Gods making he is suppos'd to dispence with the impossibility But if a man alters what God appointed he makes to himself a new institution for which in this case there can be no necessity nor yet excuse But suppose either one or other yet so long as it is or is thought a case of necessity the thing may be hopefully excus'd if not actually justified and because it can happen but seldom the matter is not great let the institution be observed always where it can But then in all cases of possibility let all prepared Christians be invited to receive the body and blood of Christ according to his institution or if that be too much at least let all them that desire it be permitted to receive it in Christs way But that men are not suffered to do so that they are driven from it that they are called heretick for saying it is their duty to receive it as Christ gave it and appointed it that they should be excommunicated for desiring to communicate in Christs blood by the symbol of his blood according to the order of him that gave his blood this is such a strange piece of Christianity that it is not easie to imagine what Antichrist can do more against it unless he take it all away I only desire those persons who are here concerned to weigh well the words of Christ and the consequents of them He that breaketh one of the least of my Commandments and shall teach men so and what if he compel men so shall be called the least in the Kingdom of God To the Canon last mentioned it is answered that the Canon speaks not of receiving the sacrament by the communicants but of the consummating the sacrifice by the Priest To this I reply that it is true that the Canon was particularly directed to the Priests by the title which themselves put to it but the Canon medles not with the consecrating or not consecrating in one kind but of receiving for that is the title of the Canon The Priest ought not to receive the body of Christ without the blood and in the Canon it self Comperimus autem quod quidam sumpta corporis sacri portione à calice sacrati cruoris abstineant By which it plainly appears that the consecration was intire for it was calix sacrati cruoris the consecrated chalice from which out of a fond superstition some Priests did abstain the Canon therefore relates to the sumption or receiving not the sacrificing as these men love to call it or consecration and the sanction it self speaks indeed of the reception of the Sacrament but not a word of it as it is in any sence a sacrifice aut integra sacramenta percipiant aut ab integris arceantur So that the distinction of sacrament and sacrifice in this Question will be of no use to the Church of Rome For if Pope Gelasius for it was his Canon knew nothing of this distinction it is vainly applied to the expounding of his words but if he did know of it then he hath taken that part which is against the Church of Rome for of this mystery as it is a sacrament Gelasius speaks which therefore must relate to the people as well as to the Priest And this Canon is to this purpose quoted by Cassander And 2. no man is able to shew that ever Christ appointed one way of receiving to the Priest and another to the people The law was all one the example the same the Rule is simple and Uniform and no appearance of difference in the Scripture or in the Primitive Church so that though the Canon mentions only the Priest yet it must by the same reason mean all there being at that time do difference known 3. It is call'd sacriledge to divide one and the same mystery meaning that to receive one without the other is to divide the body from the blood for the dream of concomitancy was not then found out and therefore the title of the Canon is thus express'd Corpus Christi sine ejus sanguine sacerdos non debet accipere and that the so doing viz. by receiving one without the other cannot be without sacriledge 4. Now suppose at last that the Priests only are concern'd in this Canon yet even then also they are abundantly reprov'd because even the Priests in the Church of Rome unless they consecrate communicate but in one kind 5. It is also remarkable that although in the Church of Rome there is great use made of the distinction of its being sometime a sacrifice sometime only a sacrament as Frier Ant. Mondolphus said in the Council of Trent yet the arguments by which the Roman Doctors do usually endeavour to prove the lawfulness of the Half-communion do destroy this distinction viz. that of Christs ministring to the Disciples at Emaus and S. Paul in the Ship in which either there is no proof or no consecration in both kinds and consequently no sacrifice for there is mention made only of blessing the bread for they receiv'd that which was blessed and therefore either the consecration was imperfect or the reception was intire To this purpose also the words of S. Ambrose are severe and speak clearly of communicants without distinction of Priest and People which distinction though it be in this article nothing to the purpose yet I observe it to prevent such trifling cavils which my
the image of the Earthly we shall also bear the image of the Heavenly Now this I say That flesh and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of Heaven neither doth corruption inherit incorruption This Discourse of the Apostle hath in it all these propositions which clearly state this whole Article There are two great heads of Mankind the two Adams the first and the second The first was framed with an earthly body the second had viz. after his resurrection when he had died unto sin once a spiritual body The first was Earthly the second is Heavenly From the first we derive an Earthly life from the second we obtain a Heavenly all that are born of the first are such as he was naturally but the effects of the Spirit came only upon them who are born of the second Adam From him who is earthly we could have no more than he was or had the spiritual life and consequently the Heavenly could not be derived from the first Adam but from Christ only All that are born of the first by that birth inherit nothing but temporal life and corruption but in the new birth only we derive a title to Heaven For flesh and blood that is whatsoever is born of Adam cannot inherit the Kingdom of God And they are injurious to Christ who think that from Adam we might have inherited immortality Christ was the Giver and Preacher of it he brought life and immortality to light through the Gospel It is a singular benefit given by God to mankind through Jesus Christ. 3. Upon the affirmation of these premises it follows That if Adam had stood yet from him we could not have by our natural generation obtained a title to our spiritual life nor by all the strengths of Adam have gone to Heaven Adam was not our representative to any of these purposes but in order to the perfection of a temporal life Christ only is and was from eternal ages designed to be the head of the Church and the fountain of spiritual life And this is it which is affirmed by some very eminent persons in the Church of God particularly by Junius and Tilenus that Christus est fundamentum totius praedestinationis all that are or ever were predestinated were predestinated in Christ Even Adam himself was predestinated in him and therefore from him if he had stood though we should have inherited a temporal happy life yet the Scripture speaks nothing of any other event Heaven was not promised to Adam himself therefore from him we could not have derived a title thither And therefore that inquity of the School-men Whether if Adam had not sinned Christ should have been incarnate was not an impertinent Question though they prosecuted it to weak purposes and with trifling arguments Scotus and his Scholars were for the affirmative and though I will not be decretory in it because the Scripture hath said nothing of it nor the Church delivered it yet to me it seems plainly the discourse of the Apostle now alledged That if Adam had not sinned yet that by Christ alone we should have obtained everlasting life Whether this had been dispensed by his Incarnation or some other way of oeconomy is not signified 4. But then if from Adam we should not have derived our title to Heaven though he had stood then neither by his Fall can we be said to have lost Heaven Heaven and Hell were to be administred by another method But then if it be enquired what evil we thence received I answer That the principal effect was the loss of that excellent condition in which God placed him and would have placed his posterity unless sin had entred He should have lived a long and lasting life till it had been time to remove him and very happy Instead of this he was thrown from those means which God had designed to this purpose that is Paradise and the trees of life he was turned into a place of labour and uneasiness of briars and thorns ill air and violent chances nova febrium terris incubuit cohors the woman was condemned to hard labour and travel and that which troubled her most obedience to her Husband his body was made frail and weak and sickly that is it was leâ—t such as it was made and left without remedies which were to have made it otherwise For that Adam was made mortal in his nature is infinitely certain and proved by his very eating and drinking his sleep and recreation by ingestion and egestion by breathing and generating his like which immortal substances never do and by the very tree of life which had not been needful if he should have had no need of it to repair his decaying strength and health 5. The effect of this consideration is this that all the product of Adam's sin was by despoiling him and consequently us of all the superadditions and graces brought upon his nature Even that which was threatned to him and in the narrative of that sad story expressed to be his punishment was no lessening of his nature but despoiling him of his supernaturals And therefore Manuel Pelaeologus calls it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the common driness of our nature and he adds 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by our Fathers sin we fell from our Fathers graces Now according to the words of the Apostle As is the earthly such are they that are earthly that is all his posterity must be so as his nature was left in this there could be no injustice For if God might at first and all the way have made man with a necessity as well as a possibility of dying though men had not sinned then so also may he do if he did sin and so it was but this was effected by disrobing him of all the superadded excellencies with which God adorned and supported his natural life But this also I add that if even death it self came upon us without the alteration or diminution of our nature then so might sin because death was in re naturali but sin is not and therefore need not suppose that Adam's nature was spoiled to introduce that 6. As the sin of Adam brought hurt to the body directly so indirectly it brought hurt to the soul. For the evils upon the body as they are only felt by the soul so they grieve and tempt and provoke the soul to anger to sorrow to envy they make weariness in religious things cause desires for ease for pleasure and as these are by the body always desired so sometimes being forbidden by God they become sins and are always apt to it because the body being a natural agent tempts to all it can feel and have pleasure in And this is also observed and affirmed by S. Chrysostom and he often speaks it as if he were pleased in this explication of the Article 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Together with death entred a whole troop of affections or passions For when the body became mortal then of necessity it did admit desires
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Reason taught him well but Nature constrain'd him to the contrary his affections were stronger than his reason 2. And it is no wonder that while flesh and blood is the prevailing ingredient while men are in the state of conjunction and the soul serves the body and the necessities of this are more felt than the discourses of that that men should be angry and lustful proud and revengeful and that they should follow what they lust after not what they are bidden to do For passions and affections are our first governours and they being clearly possessed of all mankind in their first years have almost secured to themselves the soul of man before reason is heard to speak And when she does speak she speaks at first so little and so low that the common noises of fancy and company drown her voice This I say is the state of Nature And therefore Lactantius brings in a Pagan complaining Volo equidem non peccare sed vincor Indutus enim sum carne fragili imbecillâ Haec est quae concupiscit quae irascitur quae dolet quae mori timet Itáque ducor incertus pecco non quia volo sed quia cogor Sentio me ipse peccare sed necessitas fragilitatis impellit cui repugnare non possum I would fain avoid sin but I am compelled I am invested with a frail and weak flesh This is it which lusteth which is angry which grieves which fears to die Therefore I am led uncertainly and I sin not because I will but because I am constrained I perceive that I do ill but the necessity of my weakness drives me on and I cannot resist it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I know well and perceive the evils that I go upon and they are horrid ones but my anger is greater than my reason So Medea in the Tragedy This is the state of a natural man in his meer naturals especially as they are made worse by evil customs and vile usages of the world 3. Now this is a state of infirmity and all sins against which there is any reluctancy and contrary desires of actual reason are sins of infirmity But this infirmity excuses no man for this state of infirmity is also a state of death for by this S. Paul expressed that state from which Christ came to redeem us 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when we were yet in infirmity or without strength in due time Christ died for us that is when when we were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 impious or sinners such as the world was before it was redeemed before Christ came These are the sick and weak whom Christ the great Physician of our souls came to save This infirmity is the shadow of death and it signifies that state of mankind which is the state of nature not of original and birth but in its whole constitution as it signifies not only the natural imperfection but the superinduc'd evil from any principle all that which is oppos'd to Grace 4. To this state of Nature being so pitiable God began to find a remedy and renewed the measures of vertue and by a law made them more distinct and legible and impos'd punishments on the transgressors For by little and little the notices of natural reason were made obscure some were lost some not attended to all neglected some way or other till God by a law made express prohibition of what was unreasonable forbidding us to desire what before was unfit and unnatural and threatning them that did things unlawful But this way by reason of the peevishness of men succeeded not well but men became worse by it For what the law did forbid without the threatning of any penalty they took for an advice only and no severe injunction And those Commandments which were established with a threatning to the transgressors they expounded only by the letter and in the particular instance and in the outward act 5. Before the Law men allowed to themselves many impieties which reason indeed mark'd out to be such but no law had forbidden them in express letter They thought it lawful to seduce and tempt another mans wife and invite her to his house and conjugation so he did not steal or force her away but if they found a coldness between her and her husband they would blow the coals and enkindle an evil flame It is supposed that Herod did so to Herodias his brother Philip's wife even after the law They would not by violence snatch the estate from a young prodigal heir but if he were apt they would lend him money and nurse his vice and intangle his estate and at last devour it They would not directly deny to pay the price of a purchase but they would detain it or divert it or pay it in trifling summs or in undesir'd commodities This was Concupiscere rem alienam They did not steal but coveted it and so entred indirectly and this God seeing forbad it by a law For I had not known lust or desires to be a sin saith S. Paul but that the law said Thou shalt not covet 6. But because the law only forbad lustings but imposed no penalty they despis'd it and those things which were forbidden with an appendent penalty they would act them privately For if they avoided the notice of the Criminal Judge they fear'd not the face of an angry God and this Lactantius observ'd of them Metus legum non scelera comprimebat sed licentiam submovebat Poterant enim leges delicta punire conscientiam munire non poterant Itaque quae antè palà m fiebant clam fieri coeperunt circumscribi etiam jura For all the threatnings of the Law they were wicked still though not scandalous vile in private and wary in publick they did circumscribe their laws and thought themselves bound only to the letter and obliged by nothing but the penalty which if they escaped they reckoned themselves innocent Thus far the law instructed them and made them afraid But for the first they grew the more greedy to do what now they were forbidden to desire The prohibition of the law being like a damm to the waters the desire swells the higher for being check'd and the wisdom of Romulus in not casting up a bank against parricide had this effect that until the end of the second Punick war which was almost DC years there was no example of one that kill'd his Father Lucius Ostius was the first And it is certain that the Easterlings neither were nor had they reason to be fond of Circumcision it was part of that load which was complain'd of by the Apostles in behalf of the Jewish Nation which neither they nor their Fathers could bear and yet as soon as Christ took off the yoke and that it was forbidden to his Disciples the Jews were as fond of it as of their pleasures and fifteen Bishops of Jerusalem in immediate
but because the Apostle speaking of the Foundation in which Baptism is and is reckoned one of the principal parts in the Foundation there needed no Absolution but Baptismal for they and we believing one Baptism for the Remission of Sins this is all the Absolution that can be at first and in the Foundation The other was secunda post naufragium tabula it came in after when men had made a shipwrack of their good conscience and were as S. Peter says 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 forgetful of the former cleansing and purification and washing of their old sins Secondly It cannot be meant of Ordination and this is also evident 1. Because the Apostle says he would thence-forth leave to speak of the Foundation and go on to perfection that is to higher Mysteries Now in Rituals of which he speaks there is none higher than Ordination 2. The Apostle saying he would speak no more of Imposition of Hands goes presently to discourse of the mysteriousness of the Evangelical Priesthood and the honour of that vocation by which it is evident he spake nothing of Ordination in the Catechism or Narrative of Fundamentals 3. This also appears from the context not only because Laying on of hands is immediately set after Baptism but also because in the very next words of his Discourse he does enumerate and apportion to Baptism and Confirmation their proper and proportioned effects to Baptism illumination according to the perpetual style of the Church of God calling Baptism 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an enlightning and to Confirmation he reckons tasting the Heavenly gift and being made partakers of the Holy Ghost by the thing signified declaring the Sign and by the mystery the Rite Upon these words S. Chrysostom discoursing says That all these are Fundamental Articles that i◠that we ought to Repent from dead works to be Baptized into the Faith of Christ and be made worthy of the gift of the Spirit who is given by Imposition of Hands and we are to be taught the mysteries of the Resurrection and Eternal Judgment This Catechism says he is perfect so that if any man have Faith in God and being baptized is also confirmed and so tastes the Heavenly gift and partakes of the Holy Ghost and by hope of the Resurrection tastes of the good things of the World to come if he falls away from this state and turns Apostate from this whole Dispensation digging down and turning up these Foundations he shall never be built again he can never be Baptized again and never be Confirmed any more God will not begin again and go over with him again he cannot be made a Christian twice If he remains upon these Foundations though he sins he may be renewed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by Repentance and by a Resuscitation of the Spirit if he have not wholly quenched him but if he renounces the whole Covenant disown and cancel these Foundations he is desperate he can never be renewed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the Title and Oeconomy of Repentance This is the full explication of this excellent place and any other ways it cannot reasonably be explicated but therefore into this place any notice of Ordination cannot come no Sence no Mystery can be made of it or drawn from it but by the interposition of Confirmation the whole context is clear rational and intelligible This then is that Imposition of hands of which the Apostle speaks Vnus hic locus abunde testatur c. saith Calvin This one place doth abundantly witness that the original of this Rite or Ceremony was from the Apostles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith S. Chrysostom for by this Rite of Imposition of hands they receiv'd the Holy Ghost Fo◠though the Spirit of God was given extra-regularly and at all times as God was pleas'd to do great things yet this Imposition of hands was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 this was the Ministery of the Spirit For so we receive Christ when we hear and obey his word we eat Christ by Faith and we live by his Spirit and yet the Blessed Eucharist is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the ministery of the Body and Blood of Christ. Now as the Lord's Supper is appointed ritually to convey Christ's Body and Bloud to us so is Confirmation ordain'd ritually to give unto us the Spirit of God And though by accident and by the overflowings of the Spirit it may come to pass that a man does receive perfective graces alone and without Ministeries external yet such a man without a miracle is not a perfect Christian ex statuum vitae dispositione but in the ordinary ways and appointment of God and until he receive this Imposition of hands and be Confirmed is to be accounted an imperfect Christian. But of this afterwards I shall observe one thing more out of this testimony of S. Paul He calls it the Doctrine of Baptisms and Laying on of hands by which it does not only appear to be a lasting ministery because no part of the Christian Doctrine could change or be abolished but hence also it appears to be of Divine institution For if it were not S. Paul had beed guilty of that which our Blessed Saviour reproves in the Scribes and Pharisees and should have taught for Doctrines the Commandments of Men. Which because it cannot be suppos'd it must follow that this Doctrine of Confirmation or Imposition of hands is Apostolical and Divine The Argument is clear and not easie to be reprov'd SECT II. The Rite of Confirmation is a perpetual and never-ceasing Ministery YEA but what is this to us It belong'd to the days of wonder and extraordinary The Holy Ghost breath'd upon the Apostles and Apostolical men but then he breath'd his last recedente gratiâ recessit disciplina when the Grace departed we had no further use of the Ceremony In answer to this I shall 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by divers particulars evince plainly that this Ministery of Confirmation was not temporary and relative only to the Acts of the Apostles but was to descend to the Church for ever This indeed is done already in the preceding Section in which it is clearly manifested that Christ himself made the Baptism of the Spirit to be necessary to the Church He declar'd the fruits of this Baptism and did particularly relate it to the descent of the Holy Spirit upon the Church at and after that glorious Pentecost He sanctified it and commended it by his Example just as in order to Baptism he sanctified the Floud Jordan and all other waters to the mystical washing away of sin viz. by his great Example and fulfilling this righteousness also This Doctrine the Apostles first found in their own persons and Experience and practised to all their Converts after Baptism by a solemn and external Rite and all this passed into an Evangelical Doctrine the whole mystery being signified by the external Rite in the words of the Apostle as before it was by Christ expressing
well as the institution it self 201 § 5. Scotus affirmed that the truth of the Eucharist may be saved without Transubstantiation 234 § 11. Some have been poisoned by receiving the Sacrament of the Eucharist 249 ss 11. The wine will inebriate after consecration therefore it is not bloud 249 § 11. The Marcossians Valentinians and Marcionites though they denied Christ's having a body yet used the Eucharistical Elements 256 § 12. The Council of Trent binds all its subjects to give to the Sacrament of the Altar the same worship which they give to the true God 267 § 13. To worship the Host is Idolatry 268 § 13. They that worship the Host are many times according to their own doctrine in danger of Idolatry 268 269 § 13. Lewis IX pawned the Host to the Sultan of Egypt upon which they bear it to this day in their Escutcheons 270 § 13. The Primitive Church did excommunicate those that did not receive the Eucharist in both kinds Pref. to Diss. pag. 5. The Council of Constance decreed the half Communion with a non obstante to our Lord's institution 302 c. 1. § 6. Authorities to shew that the half Communion was not in use in the Primitive times 303 c. 1. § 6. Of their worshipping the Host 467. Of Communion in one kind onely 469 470. The word Celebrate when spoken of the Eucharist means the action of the people as well as the Priest 530. The Church of God gave the Chalice to the people for above a thousand years 531. The Roman Churche's consecrating a Wafer is a mere innovation 531 532. The Priest's pardon anciently was nothing but to admit the penitent to the Eucharist 839 n. 54. Of the change that is made in us by it 28. b. The Apostles were confirmed after 30. b. Eusebius His testimony against Transubstantiation 259 260 261 § 12. and 300. and 524. Excommunication Neither the Church nor the Presbyters in it had power to excommunicate before they had a Bishop set over them 82 § 21. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Sometimes it was put to signifie Ecclesiastical repentance 830 n. 34. Exorcisms Their exorcisms have been so bad that the Inquisitors have been fain to put them down 333 § 10. The manner of their casting out Devils by exorcism 334 c. 2. § 10. They give Exorcists distinct ordination 336. Exorcism in the Primitive Church signified nothing but Catechizing 30. b. Ezekiel Chap. 18. v. 3. explained 726 n. 61. F. Faith THE folly of that assertion Credo quia impossibile est when applied to Transubstantiation 231 § 11. To make new Articles of faith that are not in Scripture as the Papists do is condemned by the suffrage of the Fathers Pref. to Diss. pag. 4 5. The Church of Rome adopts uncertain and trifling propositions into their faith 462. The doctrine of the Roman Purgatory was no arricle of faith in Saint Augustine's time 506. What faith is and wherein it consists 941 n. 1. New Articles cannot by the Church be decreed 945 n. 12. Faith is not an act of the understanding onely 949 n. 9. By what circumstances faith becomes moral 950 n. 9. The Romanists keep not faith with hereticks 341. Instances of doctrines that are held by some Romanists to be de fide by others to be not de fide 398. What makes a point to be de fide 399. What it is to be an Article of faith 437. Some things are necessary to be believed that are not articles of faith 437. The Apostles Creed was necessary to be believed not necessitate praecepti but medii 438. No new articles as necessary to be believed ought to be added to the Apostles Creed 438 446. The Pope hath not power to make Articles of faith 446 447. Upon what motives most men imbrace the faith 460. The faith of unlearned men in the Roman Church 461. Fasting It is one of the best Penances 860 n. 114. Father How God punisheth the Father's sin upon the Children 725. God never imputes the Father's sin to the Children so as to inflict eternal punishment but onely temporal 725 n. 56. This God doth onely in punishments of the greatest crimes 725 n. 59. and not often 726 n. 60. but before the Gospel was published 726 n. 62. Fathers When Bellarmine was to answer the authority of some Fathers brought against the Pope's universal Episcopacy he allows not the Fathers to have a vote against the Pope 310 c. 1. § 10. No man but J. S. affirms that the Fathers are infallible 372 373 374. The Fathers stile some hereticks that are not 376. Of what authority the opinion of the Fathers is with some Romanists 376 377. They complained of the dismal troubles in the Church that arose upon enlarging Creeds 441. They reproved pilgrimages 293 496. The Primitive Fathers that practised prayer for the dead thought not of Purgatory 501. They made prayer for those who by the confession of all sides were not then in Purgatory 502 503. The Roman doctrine of Purgatory is directly contrary to the doctrine of the Fathers 512. A Reply to that Answer of the Romanists That the writings of the Fathers do forbid nothing else but picturing the Divine Essence 550 554. In what sense the ancient Fathers taught the doctrine of original sin 761 n. 22. How the Fathers were divided in the question of the beatifick vision of souls before the day of Judgement 1007. The practice of Rome now is against the doctrine of S. Augustine and 217 Bishops and all their Successours for a whole age together in the question of Appeals to Rome 1008. One Father for them the Papists value more then twenty against them in that case how much they despise them 1008. Gross mistakes taught by several Fathers ibid. The writings of the Fathers adulterated of old and by modern practices 1010. particularly by the Indices Expurgatorii 1011. Fear To leave a sin out of fear is not sinful but may be accepted 785 n. 37. Figure Ambiguous and figurative words may be allowed in a Testament humane or Divine 210 § 6. A certain Athenian's enigmatical Testament ibid. The Lamb is said to be the Passeover of which deliverance it was onely the commemorative sign 211 § 6. How many figurative terms there are in the words of institution 211 212 § 6. When the figurative sense is to be chosen in Scripture 213 § 6. Flesh. The law of the flesh in man 781 n. 31. The contention between it and the Conscience no sign of Regeneration 782 n. 32. How to know which prevails in the contention 782 n. 5. Forgiving Forgiving injuries considered as a part or fruit of Repentance 849 n. 83. Free-will How the necessity of Grace is consistent with this doctrine 754 n. 15. That mankind by the fall of Adam did not lose it 874. The folly of that assertion We are free to sin but not to good 874. Liberty of action in natural things is better but in moral things it is a weakness 874. G. Galatians CHap. 5.15
commisit confessa poenitens à corpore exivit idcircò misericordiam à Deo consâ—cuta hodiernâ die meretur ab omnibus malis liberari c. Haec multa alia sacerdos ille vidit audivit de secretis alterius vitae * S. Greg. M. lib. 13. in Jâ—bum c. 15. c. 17. * Cum constat quod apud inferos justi non in locis poenalibus sed in superiori quietis sinu tenerentur magna nobis oberitur quaestio quidnam sit quod B. Job asserit Lib. 4. Dialog c. 39. Cap. 46. In summa sacram Eccles. n. 110. Decis cas conscient part 1. lib. 1. c. 6. n. 10. The Letter pag. 14. Biblioth lib. 6. Annot. 259. Lib. 2. p. 186. De purgatoriâ— lib. 1. c. 15. Sect. Ad secundum dico Bellar. lib. 1. c. 11. Sect. de Mahumitanis * In 1 Cor. 3. * Lib. 1. de purgat c. 5. Sect. ex Graecis Sap. 3. v. 6. Lib. 12. tit purgatorium Seâ— Binius tom 4. Concil Art 18. contr Luther * disp 11. Qu. 1. punctum 1. Sect. 5. De locis animarum post mortem * Lib. 8. adv hares tit Indulgentiae Ad Dâ—metrian Sect. 16. Sect. 22. * Pag. 17. * Pag. 32. Donec aevâ— temporalis fine completo ad aeternae vel mortis vel immortalitatis hospitia dividamur Ibid. Sect. 16. Serm. de lapsis Confiteantur singulis vos fratres delictum suum dum adhuc qui dâ—liquit in saeculo est dum admitti confessio ejus potest dum satisfactio remissio facta per sacerdotes apud Dominum grata est S. Dionys. Pag. 32. Justin Martyr resp ad Quest. 75. Pag. 33. Pag. 33. E. W. pag. 36. * Lib. de baptis c. 25. 26. lib. de confirmat c. 5. l. 3. de Euchar c. 6. P. 36. line 29. De bono mortis cap. 4. Pag. 34. S. Greg. Nazianz orat 15. in plagam grandinis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In Psalm Homil. 22. vide etiam homil 26. De Virgin Letter p. 18. P. 18. Lib. 3. de Euchar c. 23. Sect. Secundâ— dicit Vbi supra Contra Captiv Babyl c. 1. Tom. 9. tract 16. p. 108. p. 110. Lib. 1. de Euchar c. 34. Pag. 37. vide Letter p. 18. Pag. 38. See also the letter to a friend p. 19. Vbi supra Innocent de offic Mis. part 3. cap. 18. Cap. cum Martha in gloss Extrav de celebr miss Vbi supra E. W. pag. 37 Pag. 37. Lâ—tter to a friend pag. 18. Ad liberandum terram sanctam de manibus impiorum Extrav de Judâ—is Saracenis Cum sit Vide prâ—fat Later Concil secundum p. Crab. Vide Matth. Paris ad A.D. 1215. Naacteri generat 41. ad eundem annum Et Sabellicum Eâ—â—â—ad 9. lib. 6. Godfridum Monachum ad A. D. 1215. Tract 16. tom 9. p. 110. Lib. 3. de Euchar c. 23. Sect. Vnum tamen Scotus negat doctrinam de conversionâ— transubst esse antiquam Henriquez lib. 8. c. 23. in Marg. ad liter h. Summâ— l. 8. c. 23. p. 448. lit C. in Marg. Lib. 3. de Euchar cap. 13. Letter p. 21. In priorem Epist ad Corinthios citante etiam Salmâ—ron tom 9. tract 16. p. 1087PUNC Videat lector Picherellum exposit veâ—borum institutionis coena Domini ejusdem dissertationem de Missâ 1615. 1 Pet. 3.21 A. D. 1547. A propositione terâ—iâ— adjecti ad propositio nem secundi adjecti vaâ—et consequentia si subjectum supponat realiter Reg. Dialect Vide sect 5. n. 10. Of Christâ— real presence and spiritual Pag. 296. Oratio 2. in Pascha * Sic solemus loqui sicut panis est vita corporis ita verbum Dei est vita animae Non scil eundem conversionis aut nutriendi modum connotando sed similem analogicum effectum utriusque nutrimenti observando Lib. 4. c. 34. lib. 5. c. 2. A. L. Demonstr Evang. l. 1. c. ult 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Apostle received a command according to the constitution of the N. T. to make a memory of this sacrifice upon the Table by the symbols of his body and healthful blood So the words are translated in the Dissuasive But the letter translates them thus Seeing therefore we have received the memory of this sacrifice to be celebrated in certain signs on the Table and the memory of that body and healthful blood as is the institute of the new Testament Lib. 5. c. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Et lib. 8. c. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Et Paulo post 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Macarius homil 27. * Pag. 22. Pag. ibid. * Hujus sacrificii caro sanguis ante adventum Christi per victimas similitudinum promittebatur in passione Christi per ipsam veritatem reddebatur post ascensum Christi per sacramentum memoriae celebratur lib 20. c. 21. contr Faustum Manich De doctr Christ lib. 3. cap. 9. Epist. 23. P. 41. Orat. 2. in Pascha Jam verò Paschalis participes erimus nunc quidem adhuc typicè tametsi apertiùs licet quam in veteri legale siquidem Pascha neâ— enim dicere verebor figurae fâ—gura erat obscurior Lib. de Synod De Euchar. l. 2. c. 15. Sect. est â—gitur tertia E.W. p. 42. In Ps. 33. Lib. 3. de Trin. c. 4. in fine P. Lombard dist 11. lib. 4. ad finem liâ— C. * Christs real and spiritual presence in the Sacrament against the doctrine of Transubstantiation printed at London by R. Royston Sess. 13. Lugduni A.D. 1600. apud Horatium Cardon p. 440. A.D. 1562. Vide Preface to the Disswasive Part 1. Canon comperimus de consecrat dist 2. In consult de sacra Commun In Corinth 11. Indignum dicet esse Domino qui aliter mysterium celebrat quam ab eo traditum est Non enim potest devotus esse qui aliter praesumit quam datum est ab Authore Ideóque praemonet ut secundum ordinem traditum devota mens sit accedentis ad Eucharistiam Domini quoniam futurum est judicium ut quemadmodum accedit unusquisque reddat causaâ— in Die Domini Jesu Christi quia sine disciplinâ traditionis conversationis qui accedunt rei sunt corporis sanguinis Domini A.L. p. 4. Serm. 1. de elecmos Disp. 5. de sacra coena Lib. de corp sang Domini cap. 15. Epist. 63. Salmer in 11. Cor. 10. disp 17. pag. 138. Durand ration Divin offic l. 4. c. 53. Cassand liturg c. 27. Sect. Eâ—â—cum mensa Lib. 2. Chap. 3. Rule 9. E.W. p. 45. and A.L. p. 25. Recordemini quaeso ex his spiritu libus sermonibus qui lecti sunt medicinae Reminiscamini earum quae sunt in psalmis monitionum proverbialia praecepta historiae pulchritudinem exemplaque investigate His addite Apostolica mandata In omnibus vero tanquam coronida perfectionemque verba evangelica conjungite ut ex omnibus utilitatem
or lump neque id fide solùm sed reipsâ and in very deed makes us to be his body So Pope Leo. In mysticâ distributione Spiritualis alimoniae hoc impertitur sumitur ut accipientes virtutem coelestis cibi in carnem ipsius qui caro nostra factus est transeamus And in his 24 Sermon of the Passion Non alia igitur participatio corporis quà m ut in id quod sumimus transeamus There is no other participation of the body than that we should pass into that which we receive In the mystical distribution of the Spiritual nourishment this is given and taken that we receiving the vertue of the heavenly food may pass into his flesh who became our flesh And Rabanus makes the analogie fit to this question Sicut illud in nos convertitur dum id manducamus bibimus sic nos in corpus Christi convertimur dum obedienter piè vivimus As that Christs body is converted into us while we eat it and drink it so are we converted into the body of Christ while we live obediently and piously So Gregory Nyssen 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The immortal body being in the receiver changes him wholly into his own nature and Theophylact useth the same word He that eateth me liveth by me whilst he is in a certain manner mingled with me is transelementated 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or changed into me Now let men of all sides do reason and let one expound the other and it will easily be granted that as we are turned into Christ body so is that into us and so is the bread into that 12. Twelfthly Whatsoever the Fathers speak of this they affirm the same also of the other Sacrament and of the Sacramentals or rituals of the Church It is a known similitude used by S. Cyril of Alexandria As the bread of the Eucharist after the invocation of the holy Ghost is no longer common bread but it is the body of Christ so this holy unguent is no longer meer and common oyntment but it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the grace of Christ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it uses to be mistaken the Chrisme for the Grace or gift of Christ and yet this is not spoken properly as is apparent but it is in this as in the Eucharist so says the comparison Thus S. Chrysostome says that the Table or Altar is as the manger in which Christ was laid that the Priest is a Seraphim and his hands are the tongs taking the coal from the Altar But that which I instance in is that 1. They say that they that hear the word of Christ eat the flesh of Christ of which I have already given account in Sect. 3. num 10. c. As hearing is eating as the word is his flesh so is the bread after consecration in a Spiritual sence 2. That which comes most fully home to this is their affirmative concerning Baptism to the same purposes and in many of the same expressions which they use in this other Sacrament S. Ambrose speaking of the baptismal waters affirms naturam mutari per benedictionem the nature of them is changed by blessing and S. Cyril of Alexandria saith By the operation of the holy Spirit the waters are reformed to a divine nature by which the baptized cleanse their body For in these the ground of all their great expressions is that which S. Ambrose expressed in these words Non agnosco usum naturae nullus est hic naturae ordo ubi est excellentia gratiae Where grace is the chief ingredient there the use and the order of nature is not at all considered But this whole mystery is most clear in S. Austin affirming That we are made partakers of the body and blood of Christ when in Baptism we are made members of Christ and are not estranged from the fellowship of that bread and chalice although we die before we eat that bread and drink that cup. Tingimur in passione Domini We are baptized into the passion of our Lord says Tertullian into the death of Christ saith S. Paul for by both Sacraments we shew the Lords death 13. Thirteenthly Upon the account of these premises we may be secur'd against all the objections or the greatest part of those testimonies from antiquity which are pretended for Transubstantiation for either they speak that which we acknowledg or that it is Christs body that it is not common bread that it is a divine thing that we eat Christs flesh that we drink his blood and the like all which we acknowledge and explicate as we do the words of institution or else they speak more than both sides allow to be literally true or speak as great things of other mysteries which must not cannot be expounded literally that is they speak more or less or diverse from them or the same with us and I think there is hardly one testimony in Bellarmine in Coccius and Perron that is pertinent to this question but may be made invalid by one or more of the former considerations But of those if there be any of which there may be a material doubt beyond the cure of these observations I shall give particular account in the sequel 14. But then for the testimonies which I shall alledge against the Roman doctrine in this article they will not be so easily avoided 1. Because many of them are not only affirmative in the Spiritual sence but exclusive of the natural and proper 2. Because it is easie to suppose they may speak hyperboles but never that which would undervalue the blessed Sacrament for an hyperbole is usual not a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or the lessening a mystery that may be true this never that may be capable of fair interpretations this can admit of none that may breed reverence this contempt To which I add this that the heathens slandering the Christians to be worshippers of Ceres or Liber because of the holy bread and chalice as appears in S. Austins 20 book and 13 chapter against Faustus the Manichee had reason to advance the reputation of Sacramental signs to be above common bread and wine not only so to explicate the truth of the mystery but to stop the mouth of their calumny and therefore for higher expressions there might be cause but not such cause for any lower than the severest truth and yet let me observe this by the way S. Austin answered only thus We are far from doing so Quamvis panis calicis Sacramentum ritu nostro amplectamur S. Austin might have further removed the calumny if he had been of the Roman perswasion who adore not the bread no◠eat it at all in their Synaxes until it be no bread but changed into the body of our Lord. But he knew nothing of that Neither was there ever any scandal of Christians upon any mistake that could be a probable excuse for them to lessen their expressions in the matter Eucharistical
Article of Transubstantiation All those words are true in a very good sence and they are in that sence believ'd in the Church of England but that the bread is no more bread in the Natural sence and that it is naturally nothing but the natural body of Christ that the substance of one is passed into the substance of the other this is not affirmed by the Fathers neither can it be inferred from the former propositions if they had been truly alledged and therefore all that is for nothing and must be intended only to cosen and amuse the Reader that understands not all the windings of this labyrinth In the next place I am to give an account of what passed in the Lateran Council upon this Article For says E. W. the doctrine of Transubstantiation was ever believed in the Church though more fully and explicitely declared in the Lateran Council But in the Dissuasive it was said that it was but pretended to be determined in that Council where many things indeed came then in consultation yet nothing could be openly decreed Nothing says Platina that is says my Adversary nothing concerning the holy land and the aids to be raised for it but for all this there might be a decree concerning Transubstantiation To this I reply that it is as true that nothing was done in this question as that nothing was done in the matter of the Holy War for one was as much decreed as the other For if we admit the acts of the Council that of giving aid to the Holy Land was decreed in the 69. â—anon alias 71. So that this answer is not true But the truth is neither the one nor the other was decreed in that Council For that I may inform this Gentleman in a thing which possibly he never heard of this Council of Lateran was never published nor any acts of it till Cochlaeus published them A. D. 1538. For three years before this John Martin published the Councils and then there was no such thing as the acts of the Lateran Council to be found But you will say how came Cochlaeus by them To this the answer is easie There were read in the Council sixty Chapters which to some did seem easie to others burthensome but these were never approved but the Council ended in scorn and mockery and nothing was concluded neither of faith nor manners nor war nor aid for the Holy Land but only the Pope got mony of the Prelates to give them leave to depart But afterwards Pope Gregory IX put these Chapters or some of them into the Decretals but doth not intitle any of these to the Council of Lateran but only to Pope Innocent in the Council which Cardinal Perron ignorantly or wilfully mistaking affirms the contrary But so it is that Platina affirms of the Pope plurima decreta retulit improbavit Joachimi libellum damnavit errores Almerici The Pope recited 60. heads of decrees in the Council but no man says the Council decreed those heads Now these heads Cochlaeus says he found in an old book in Germany And it is no ways probable that if the Council had decreed those heads that Gregory IX who published his Uncles decretal Epistles which make up so great a part of the Canon Law should omit to publish the decrees of this Council or that there should be no acts of this great Council in the Vatican and that there should be no publication of them till about 300. years after the Council and that out of a blind corner and an old unknown Manuscript But the Book shews its original it was taken from the Decretals for it contains just so many heads viz. LXXII and is not any thing of the Council in which only were recited LX. heads and they have the same beginnings and endings and the same notes and observations in the middle of the Chapters which shews plainly they were a meer force of the Decretals The consequent of all which is plainly this that there was no decree made in the Council but every thing was left unfinished and the Council was affrighted by the warlike preparations of them of Genoa and Pisa and all retir'd Concerning which affair the Reader that desires it may receive further satisfaction if he read the Antiquitates Britannicae in the life of Stephen Lancton out of the lesser History of Matthew Paris as also Sabellicus and Godfride the Monk But since it is become a question what was or was not determined in this Lateran Council I am content to tell them that the same authority whether of Pope or Council which made Transubstantiation an article of faith made Rebellion and Treason to be a duty of Subjects for in the same collection of Canons they are both decreed and warranted under the same signature the one being the first Canon and the other the third The use I shall make of all is this Scotus was observed above to say that in Scripture there is nothing so express as to compel us to believe Transubstantiation meaning that without the decree and authority of the Church the Scripture was of it self insufficient And some others as Salmeron notes affirm that Scripture and Reason are both insufficient to convince a heretick in this article this is to be prov'd ex Conciliorum definitione Patrum traditione c. by the definition of Councils and tradition of the Fathers for it were easie to answer the places of Scripture which are cited and the reasons Now then since Scripture alone is not thought sufficient nor reasons alone if the definitions of Councils also shall fail them they will be strangely to seek for their new article Now for this their only Castle of defence is the Lateran Council Indeed Bellarmine produces the Roman Council under Pope Nicholas the second in which Berengarius was forc'd to recant his error about the Sacrament but he recanted it into a worse error and such which the Church of Rome disavows at this day And therefore ought not to pretend it as a patron of that doctrine which she approves not And for the little Council under Greg. 7. it is just so a general Council as the Church of Rome is the Catholick Church or a particular is an Universal But suppose it so for this once yet this Council medled not with the modus viz. Transubstantiation or the ceasing of its being bread but of the Real Presence of Christ under the Elements which is no part of our question Berengarius denied it but we do not when it is rightly understood Pope Nicholaus himself did not understand the new article for it was not fitted for publication until the time of the Lateran Council and how nothing of this was in that Council determin'd I have already made appear and therefore as Scotus said the Scripture alone could not evict this article so he also said in his argument made for the Doctors that held the first opinion mentioned before out of