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 praedicate 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 aequivocal 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 praedicate 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 sense and the truth but his sense 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 prophecy 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 bloud 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 treates 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 fabric of this mystery he must have said Pag. 296. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 thing figured the one visible and the other invisible and this is it which I affirmed to be the sense of Iustin Martyr Oratio 2. in Pascha And it is more perfectly explicated by Saint Greg. Naz. calling the Paschal 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 bloud so are we taught that that very nourishment on which by the prayers of his word thanks are given by which our flesh and bloud are nourished by change is the flesh and bloud of the incarnate Iesus 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 * Sic solemâ—â— loqui ficut panis est vita corporis ita verbum Dei est vita animae Non scil eundem conversionis aut nutriendi modum connot ando sed similem analogicum effectum â—triusque nutrimenti observando 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 proves 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 sense which the Church of Rome at this day will not allow and if it were allowed it would follow that Christs 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 Iustin Martyr Lib. 4. c. 34. lib. 5. c. 2. 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 A. L. 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 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 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 bloud 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 bloud as is the institute of the new Testament 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 figns on the Table but then that I 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 bloud 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 Lib. 5. c. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 bloud Et lib. 8. c. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Et Paulo post 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And again By the wine which is the symbol of his bloud he purges the old sins of them who were baptized into his death and believe in his bloud 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 bloud 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 Dissuasive in these words Macarius homil 27. In the Church is offered bread and wine the Antitype of his flesh and bloud and they that partake of the bread that appears do spiritually eat the flesh of Christ. * Pag. 22. A. L. saith Macarius saith not so but rather the contrary viz. bread and wine exhibiting the Exemplar or an antitype his flesh and bloud 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 Dissuasive 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 Pag. ibid. 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 10. 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 10. 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 * Hujus sacrificii caro sanguis ante adventum Christi per victimas similitudinum promittebatur in passione Christi per ipsa◠veritatem reddebatur po◠ascensum Christi per sacramentum memoriae celebratur lib. 20. c. 21. contr Faustum Manich. All these words and divers others of S. Austin I knit together into 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
their religion by this and so great a scandal to Jews and Turks that they hate Christianity it self for that very reason it is a strange pertinacy in the Church of Rome to retain this practice for so little pretensions of good and with so evident a mischief To which if this be added that many of the ruder people do down-right worship the image without a distinction or scruple or difference and that for ought we know many souls perish by such practices which might be secur'd by the taking away the images and forbidding the superstition I for my part cannot imagine how the Guides of souls can answer it to God or satisfie their consciences in their so vilely and cheaply regarding Souls and permitting them to live in danger and die in sin for no spiritual good which can accrue to the Church which can countervail the danger much less the loss of one Soul However it will be very hard from any principle of Christian Religion to prove it is a damnable sin not to worship Images but every man that can read hath very much to say that to worship them is a provocation of God to anger and to jealousie 6. Thus also it must needs be confessed that it is more safe for the Church of God to give the Holy Communion in both kinds then but in one and Bellarmine's foolish reason of the Wine sticking to lay mens Beards is as ridiculous as the doctrine it self is unreasonable and if they would shave Lay-mens Beards as they do the Clergy it would be less inconvenience than what they now feel and if there be no help for it they had better lose their Beards than lose their share of the Bloud of Christ. And what need is there to dispute such uncertain and unreasonable propositions as that Christ's Bloud is with the Body by way of Concomitancy as if the Sacrament were not of Christ's Body broken and the Bloud poured out and as if in case it be so Christ did not know or not consider it but for all that instituted the Supper in both kinds And what more is gotten by the Host alone than by that and the Chalice too And what can be answered to the pious desires of so many Nations to have the Chalice restored when they ask for nothing but their part of the Legacy which Christ left them in his Testament And the Church of Rome which takes upon her to be sole Executrix or at least Overseer of it tells them that the Legacy will do them no good and keeps it from them by telling them It is not necessary nay it is worse than so for when in the time of the Council of Trent instance was made that leave might be given to such as desire it the Oracle was utter'd by the Cardinal of Alexandria Concil Trident. lib. 5. A. D. 1561. Sub Pio Quaâ—â—â— but was given after the old manner so that no man was the better For no man was capable of receiving the favour but he that profess'd he did not believe it necessary and then there could be no great reason to desire it He that thought he needed it could not receive it and he that found no want of it in all reason would not be importunate for it and then he should be sure not to have it So that in effect there were two sorts of persons denyed it Those that required it and those that did not require it And to what Christian grace to referre the wisdom and piety of this answer I cannot yet learn Neither can I yet imagine why the Cardinal S. Angelo should call Giving the Cup to the Laity Ibid. a giving them a Cup of deadly poyson since certain it is that the Bloud of Christ is a savour of life and not of death and as the French Embassadour replied The Apostles who did give it were not impoysoners and the many ages of the primitive Church did receive it with very great emolument and spiritual comfort To this I know it will be said by some who cannot much defend their Church in the thing it self That it is no great matter and if all things else were accorded this might be dispens'd withall and the Pope could give leave to the respective Churches to have according as it might be expedient and fit for edification But this will not serve the turn For first the thing it self is no small matter but of greatest concernment It is the Sacramental Bloud of Christ. The Holy Bread cannot be the Sacrament of the Bloud and if Christ did not esteem it as necessary to leave a Sacrament of his Bloud as of his Body he would not have done it and if he did think it as necessary certainly it was so But 2. Suppose the matter be small why then shall a Schism be made by him that would be thought the Great Father of Christians and all Christendom almost displeas'd and offended rather than he will comply with their desires of having nothing but what Christ left them If the thing be but little why do they take a course to make it as they suppose damnation to desire it And if it be said Because it is Heresie to think the Church hath erred all this while in denying it to this the answer will be easie that themselves who did deny it have given the occasion and not they who do desire it neither have all the Christian Churches denyed it for I think none but the Roman Church does and if the Roman Church by granting it now to her own Children will be suppos'd to have erred in denying it to continue this denial will not cure that inconvenience for that which at first was but an Error will now become Heresie if they be pertinacious in the refusal But if it were not for political and humane considerations and secular interests there will be little question but that it will be safer and more agreeable to Christ's institution and the Apostolical doctrine and the primitive practice to grant it lovingly than to detain it sacrilegiously For at least the detention will look like Sacrilege and the granting it cannot but be a Fatherly and pious ministration especially since when it is granted all parties are pleased and no man's authority real or pretended is questioned But whatever become of this consideration which is nothing but a charitable desire and way of peace with our adversaries and a desire to win them by our not intermedling with their unalterable and pertinacious interest yet as to the thing it self it is certain that to communicate in both kinds is justifiable by the institution of Christ and the perpetual practice of the Church for many ages which thing certainly is or ought to be the greatest Rule for the Churches imitation And if the Church of Rome had this advantage against us in any Article as I hope there would not be found so much pertinacy amongst us as to resist the power of such an argument so it is certain there
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 expressely 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 change of this doctrine These three opinions were all held by Catholics Innocent de offic Mis. part 3. cap. 18. and the opinions are recorded not only by Pope Innocentius 3. but in the gloss of the Canon Law it self Cap. cum Martha in gloss â—â—trav de celebr miss 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 esteemed Catholics because they denied nothing which was then against the faith 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 Vbi supra 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 Catholics 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 Catholic 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 abettors 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 senses was bread is after Consecration in some sense 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 E. W. pag. 37. 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 bloud 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 Article of Transubstantiation All those words are true in a very good sense and they are in that sense believ'd in the Church of England but that the bread is no more bread in the natural sense 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. Pag. 37. 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 Letter to a friend pag. 18. 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
well they that Minister as the rest of the believers And no wonder since for their so doing they have the example and institution of Christ by which as by an irrefragable and undeniable argument the Ancient Fathers us'd to reprove and condemn all usages which were not according to it For saith Saint Cyprian If men ought not to break the least of Christs commandments Epist. 63. how much less those great ones which belong to the Sacrament of our Lords passion and redemption or to change it into any thing but that which was appointed by him Now this was spoken against those who refus'd the hallowed wine but took water instead of it and it is of equal force against them that give to the Laity no cup at all but whatever the instance was or could be S. Cyprian reproves it upon the only account of prevaricating Christs institution The whole Epistle is worth reading for a full satisfaction to all wise and sober Christians Ab eo quod Christus Magister praecepit gessit humana novella institutione decedere by a new and humane institution to depart from what Christ our Master commanded and did that the Bishops would not do tamen quoniam quidam c. because there are some who simply and ignorantly In calice Dominico sanctificando plebi ministrando non hoc faciunt quod Jesus Christus Dominus Deus noster sacrificii hujus author Doctor fecit docuit c. In sanctifying the cup of the Lord and giving it to the people do not do what Jesus Christ did and taught viz. they did not give the cup of wine to the people therefore S. Cyprian calls them to return ad radicem originem traditionis Dominicae to the root and original of the Lords delivery Now besides that S. Cyprian plainly says that when the chalice was sanctified it was also ministred to the people I desire it be considered whether or no these words do not plainly reprove the Roman doctrine and practice in not giving the consecrated chalice to the people Do they not recede from the root and original of Christs institution Do they do what Christ did Do they teach what Christ taught Is not their practice quite another thing than it was at first Did not the Ancient Church do otherwise than these men do And thought themselves oblig'd to do otherwise They urg'd the doctrine and example of our Lord and the whole Oeconomy of the Mystery was their warrant and their reason for they always believed that a 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 bloud 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 bloud for the cleansing our souls the life of every animal being in the bloud 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 bloud 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 bloud of Christ as our bodies are by the bread and wine and that of stirring up our faith is not at all mentioned 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 Salmer in 11. Cor. 10. disp 17. pag. 138. 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 Durand ration Divin offic l. 4. c. 53. 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 Cassand liturg c. 27. Sect. Et cum mensa 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 Lib. 2. Chap. 3. Rule 9. 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 dispense in this
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 Unpraejudicate 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 Iesus Christ De doctr Christ. lib. 3. cap. 9. we are not burdened with the heavy operation of signs 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 bloud of our Lord which when every one takes he understands whether 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 forth 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 bloud let who please to undertake it make sense of them for my part I cannot To the same purpose are these other words of his Epist. 23. Christ is in himself once immolated and yet in the sacrament he is sacrificed not only in the solennities 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 bloud of Christ is the bloud 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 sense 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 sense but when ever 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 he 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 sense 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 P. 41. Orat. 2. in pascha Jam verò paschlis participes erimus nunc quidem adhuc typicè tametsi apertiùs licet quam in veteri legale siquidem pascha nec enim dicere verebor figurae figurae erat obscurior for he 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 sense 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 typice 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 Lib. de Synod 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 De Euchar. l. 2. c. 15. Sect. est igitur tertia Bellarmine being greatly put to it by the Fathers calling the Sacrament the figure of Christs body says it is in some sense 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