Proposition of which so palpable a Contradiction is predicated must needs be under some other Signification besides it's Literal one because this Predicate so peremptorily Negative is not Bread and so determin'd positively but Christs Body are so evident and plain that they are not capable of being misconstrued especially being Predicates which always limit and determin the Subject So that Bread is so call'd because it once was Bread as Moses his Rod tho' chang'd into a Serpent was notwithstanding call'd a Rod because it had been so and still appears to the Senses to be Bread as the Father here tells us with this Reduplication for fear of mistake yet it is not Bread. I cannot use plainer words to explicate the Father than his own He that can make Protestantism out of these Texts may expound Bellarmin and the Council of Trent when they please and make them Protestants too As to your Demand that we should shew that the Substance of Bread ceases I think you never need have it shewn plainer than in the words before you which say that that which seems Bread is not Bread I suppose by Substance of Bread you mean the Being of Bread therefore the Being ceasing the Substance must cease but the Being ceases according to this Text for that which was Bread is not Bread therefore the Substance ceases and there is a change which you grant wonderful and what can this change be but this Substance ceasing to be is chang'd into another Substance which we call Transubstantiation And yet Because St. Cyprian lies here before us I will shew you a Quotation out of him where he says that Bread is chang'd not only in Effigie or Similitude but in Nature being by the Omnipotent Power of God made Flesh Dr. I wonder you should quote that place out of St. Cyprian which is notoriously known to be none of his for the Manuscript of that Work is now in Oxford Library and bears the Name of another Author some Hundred Years younger than St. Cyprian Cath. But do you acknowledge that the words quoted out of this Work be it whose it will do signifie Transubstantiation Drs. We do not deny but that many Authors of latter Ages have writ very odly of that Point and we do think this among the rest one of them Cath. This is the first time that ever we heard of any such Manuscript of this work in Oxford and yet I have met with many Protestants that have made it their business to prove it none of St. Cyprians and 't is much that none of them should ever hear of this Manuscript and urge it if it were so evidently known to be another Man's and whose and of what Age. But this I am sure that Cocus the famous Man for excepting against places brought by Catholics for their Doctrins do's impugn this Book chiefly from Bellarmin's Confessions who indeed do's say that it may seem to be none of St. Cyprians but adds immediately after that it was the work of some Learned Man of the same Age as our Adversaries acknowledge to which Cocus says nothing and therefore may well be thought to allow it Mr. Fulk against the Rhemish Testament upon 1 Cor. cap. 7. fol. 282. says the Author de Coena Domini which is the Work now mentioned was not in time much Inferior to Cyprian And Erasmus a great Man with the Protestants in his Annotations annexed to St. Cyprians Works Printed at Basil 1558. fol. 287. affirmeth it to be the Work of some Learned Man of that Age so that taking Cocus his silence to what Bellarmin says and Mr. Fulk and Erasmus their plain affirmations of the Age of this Work to be worth any thing and taking this Doctors Confession that the words in this Work are odd as savoring of Transubstantiation you have an Argument of Transubstantiation in St. Cyprians Age or at least of a time not much inferior Gentlem. to the Doctor Sir I have observ'd the Discourse as well as I could and I find the great Point in Dispute is what the Fathers held a great while ago As to the Doctrin in debate you have brought places of both sides which we must consider more at leisure but at present will you be pleas'd to Answer me a Question or two which occur to me to ask Dr. With all my Heart Gent. How long is it since Transubstantiation the word I mean has been Establish'd Dr. Ever since the Lateran Council about 450 Years ago Gent. Did the Church understand the word Transubstantiation then to signifie any new Doctrin or only to express the very self same Doctrin which they believ'd before Dr. We do believe that the word was not taken to signifie any thing but what was believ'd before Gent. When did the Church begin to believe that Doctrin which it seems it did believe at and before the Lateran Council and thought then well express'd by the word Transubstantiation Dr. We confess we cannot tell for great Errors arrive often from little beginnings and do grow up insensibly Gent. How long was it after the Lateran Council before this Doctrin was complain'd of Dr. About three hundred years Gent. How came we to discern this to be an Error three hundred years after which our Forefathers held for a Truth three hundred years together in express Terms and no body knows how much longer they held the same thing in other Terms Is it not much an Error could be so general and so long maintain'd without any Opposition or Notice taken of its Birth or Origin Dr. It was not so General but that some oppos'd it as the Waldenses but it is not strange that an Error should be general and long maintain'd for the Church of Rome says that the Greek Church err'd generally and long in teaching that the Holy Ghost proceeds not from the Son. Cath. But the Church of Rome never taught that the whole Catholic Church err'd in teaching that Doctrin for though that part which is now call'd the Greek Church be condemn'd for that Error yet we know how and when it began and who oppos'd it we know that very many of the Greeks never consented to it but did then and have always since continued in Communion with the Church of Rome so that that Error was so far from being general that it was always oppos'd by the Latin Church and great part of the Greeks too whereas no Body oppos'd Transubstantiation but known Heretics who began before the Lateran Council we speak of and were condemn'd by it and were such as the Waldenses a People as I suppose you would be loath to own for your Predecessors And that all the World should consent so quietly all at one time to adore that for God which the day before was universally believ'd to be but a piece of Bread and was us'd accordingly and no Man living in the World take notice when this was done nor upon what occasion or give it the least Opposition is a Miracle
manifest from the Histories which they themselves have read and the general Confessions which they themselves have met withal from very many even learned Protestants That the Pope of Rome was at least Patriarch of the West and as such had Patriarchal Authority at least over the Church of England and therefore was allow'd to be the proper Judge of Ecclesiastical Matters the very day before the foresaid Declaration was made and therefore was the only proper Judge of the said Declaration and the Authors of it whether it were well and legally made And this said Judge having judicially determin'd the said Declaration to be Schismatical condemned it legally and justly Excommunicated the Authors Most certainly a Declaration made by every one that pretends Power to make one is not presently lawful because it is pretended to be so The late long Parliament pretended to declare That the Supream Power of England was in the People and that the said People might Judge and Depose the King whenever he misused that Power which the People entrusted him withal and we know what followed upon it I hope the Doctor will not justifie that Declaration nor can he shew a disparity between this and the other both being made by those who were universally esteem'd at the time they made them Subjects and Inferiors to those against whose Authority they made them in those very Points concerning which they did then declare Drs. The Pope was never content to be esteem'd barely the Patriarch of the West and there is great difference between the two Declarations that in Hen. Eighth's time against the Pope and that in King Charles the First 's time against his Majesty Cath. It matters not now whether the Pope were content or no to be barely esteem'd Patriarch of the West if he had reason to challenge more that no ways justifies you Do you allow that he was Patriarch If you do answer the difficulty and say how his Inferiors came by a Power to Depose him and as to the difference between the two Declarations you must shew it us before we believe there is any Gentlemen to the Doctors Sirs we do not doubt but that the Pope was allow'd some Authority in England before the Separation we do not therefore desire to dispute that but supposing he had not you separated your selves from the great Body of all Christians United before in one Communion we desire to know what cause you could have for that Drs. We had cause to separate for that the Communion from which we separated taught false Faith and were guilty of Idolatry I instance particularly in their Doctrin of Transubstantiation and their Adoring the Host Cath. To the Company Tho' you may be pleas'd to remember that we did at first deny that any particular person and the same holds of particular Diocesses Provinces and Nations all which United make but one Catholic Church and therefore the biggest of them all to be consider'd only as a Member of the whole Body has Power to judge and condemn the Doctrins and Practices of the whole Church as false or Idolatrous when the Body against this Member says that the said Doctrins or Practices are Orthodox and Catholic so as to have lawful cause to separate from the said whole Communion without being guilty of criminal Schism That what we said of a particular Person holds to a Nation or any Inferior Authority to a Superior is evident upon supposition that God has requir'd and commanded that his Church be one which could not be if a Secular Sovereign Power has Authority to break its Unity upon pretence of judging any one of it's Doctrins or Practices false or Idolatrous For if one may another may and then Swisserland may have as many Religions and Communions as Cantons and the World as many Churches as Secular Sovereigns tho' God has said he will have but One And here in England the Bishops may as well wave the Arch-bishops Authority private persons pretend to Judge and Censure the Bishops Power and Authority or any one Man controul the Authority of his Pastor Tho' this we deny'd at first and might therefore well refuse to proceed till the Doctors had prov'd that a single Person might condemn a whole Church's Doctrin legally or a lesser Authority judge and censure a greater yet because perhaps this Method may have been propos'd by your selves we are content to do any thing for your satisfaction but then you must be pleas'd considering our Communion at the time of the Separation was infinitly greater than the Reformers as Learned and as Holy for ought any body knows and in possession for many hundred years of the Doctrins and Practices now condemn'd by these Reformers to demand more clear and evident proofs against our Doctrins than we bring for them for upon but equal proof we that are forty to one and every whit as learned as the others especially having receiv'd what we profess from our Fore-fathers from Christs time for ought any body knows for no body can say when what we hold and practise begun have no reason to submit to so much a less number at the charge of so great a confusion as must needs happen and God's Command of Unity be broke into the bargain You must therefore demand the most evident proofs that Nature can admit of to prove those Doctrins of theirs upon which they ground their Separation or else it will be criminal Schism and you must desert their Communion If they attempt to prove it from Scripture they must not bring obscure passages out of it to oppose or interpret clear ones for that is not to explicate but to confound not to draw Light and Truth out of Scripture but to cast more Darkness upon it Neither can an obscure and doubtful Title lawfully or reasonably cast any Body out of the possession of a belief for which he has clear and evident ones to shew They must therefore bring Texts that prove their Points in Terms for their interpretation is no more to be allow'd of than ours and Scripture ought to be taken literally where the literal sense does not imply a contradiction Note It may be reasonably suppos'd that these undeniable Principles were the cause why the Doctors as it will appear in all this Conference would never venture upon any citation of the Scripture to prove their Doctrin for which they separated from the Roman Church acknowledged then universally for the true Church but were forc'd to fly to some obscure Sentences of the Fathers even which will yet appear to make more for the Roman Church than for the Reformers Drs. All Scriptures ought not to be expounded literally which do not imply a Contradiction in a literal sense I am a Vine ought not to be expounded literally yet it implies no Contradiction or at least no more than this Christ is Bread. Cath. I am a Vine does imply a Contradiction for Christ cannot be Christ and a Vine at the same time Christ
is Bread is also a Contradiction but where is that Proposition in Scripture or what Catholic in the World holds it We say that which was Bread ceases to be Bread and becomes the Body of Christ which is no more a Contradiction than to say that which was Water ceases to be Water and becomes Wine Drs. That Text you build your Faith upon This is my Body implies a Contradiction for it must signifie This Bread is my Body which is as much a Contradiction as Christ is a Vine or Christ is Bread which you have acknowledg'd already for a Contradiction or else it must be an identical enuntiation and signifie This my Body is my Body Cath. This Bread is my Body is a Contradiction but cannot be meant in the Text for in all Languages but English where the word which signifies this is alter'd according to the different Gender the Antecedent is of to which this word should relate it is always put in the Neuter Gender hoc in Latin and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Greek which it could not be if it were to agree with Bread or have relation to it that being always Masculin as panis in Latin and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Greek therefore to say this Bread in the Latin or Greek Language would be false Grammer and English I suppose has no reason to govern the other Languages but they it they being more and old against one and new Nor need it be This Body is my Body the Particle this is a Pronoun demonstrative signifying only some exterior Object undetermind'd as to its Nature or Name without some other additional Word as this is a Horse this is a Hat are I hope proper Speeches and therefore no Identical Enuntiations This only supposes an Object existing and expos'd to Sense and determin'd by the following word Hat or Horse of what Nature and Quality it is Besides This is my Body is an Efficient Proposition and is the cause of the change which is not wrought till the Proposition be compleated and therefore this is not determin'd till the whole be pronounc'd Drs. It is impossible it should be taken in your sense for Transubstantiation cannot be without a Miracle and no Miracle can be without appearing so to Sense Nay it would destroy all possibility of judging of any other Miracle they being not to be discern'd but by Sense which cannot be rely'd upon if it may be deceiv'd in this Cath. A Miracle may be and yet not appear to Sense to be so yet ought to be believ'd For the hypostatical Union was never discern'd by Sense yet is believ'd a true Miracle so that your first Proposition is false To your second I pray say whether it be possible for God to make a thing appear to Sense to be what it is not Then supposing it possible may not God discover to Man that he has made a thing to appear one thing and to be another as well as he has discover'd that the Divinity was united to Christs Humanity tho' no such thing appear'd If he may and do's ought I to believe Gods Word against my own Senses or my Senses against Gods Word Notwithstanding this my Senses shall judge of a Miracle at all times unless when God assures me upon his Word that his Omnipotency has interpos'd between my Senses and their Natural Object Drs. But we will shew you by the Fathers and not of the first 300 years but since that your Doctrin was not held neither in the Greek nor Latin Church Cath. We do expect you should shew us by the Scripture and Fathers of all Ages and do not care to be complemented or spar'd as to the first 300 years if you have any Authority from those times let us see them and very clearly that your contrary Doctrin was held else you cannot be justified or excused from Schism in your separation Dr. It is sufficient to shew against you that your Doctrin has not had that constant Succession you boast of And that I will do by producing Instances plain and clear that your Doctrin was not maintain'd in one certain Age since Christ Cath. Tho' that can never justifie your separation or make your Communion safe for if it were not safe to stay in the Roman Communion because a Doctrin believ'd by them was in one Age since Christs time not believ'd it can never be safe to abide in yours where many Doctrins are now believ'd which you acknowledge were not believ'd by the true Church for many Hundred years together Yet let us hear your proofs Dr. I will shew you a Homily us'd in the Saxon Church from which you shall see how that Church and your Augustin agree in this Doctrin Cath. At least 't is some kindness to grant Augustin to be ours who Converted England above 1000 years ago Narr Truly the Homily we did never see before nor never heard of it nor do we know what credit it bears nor can I remember the words exactly but in the first place the Doctor quoted for he produc'd two the sense was that the Bread and Wine which the Priest Consecrated at Mass was turn'd into the True Body and Blood of Christ which Text we pray'd the Doctor to read in English which he did and after a little stumble at the word Missam he told us he car'd not tho' he render'd it Mass which he did This very Quotation we urg'd against him but he told us this must be explain'd by another in which he brought us the same or like words again concerning the change but at the end of the Sentence were these words in a distinct remarkable Character not Corporally but Spiritually Where or by whom this Book was Printed we could not learn or what Authority it was of but it might very well be Authentick for all that distinction it being frequently us'd by Modern Catholics who are not deny'd to hold the Doctrin of Transubstantiation They commonly say that it is not chang'd Corporally taking Corporally to signifie carnally as the Capharnaits understood our Blessed Lord when he spoke of this Mystery but Spiritually taking that to signfie as St. Paul uses the word Spiritual speaking of the Resurrection where he says it is sown a natural Body it rises a Spiritual Body there is a natural Body and there is a Spiritual Body Now if this way of speaking be frequently us'd by those who are notwithstanding such an expression confess'd to hold Transubstantiation why must it signifie more evidently the contrary Doctrin in this Author than it do's in others especially when this Author delivers the Roman Doctrin in this point in his other expressions as evidently and plainly as can be and cites the Mass as the Doctor confesses But he stood not much upon this Question but laid his whole stress upon two others Dr. I will prove now evidently that your Doctrin was contradicted in the fifth Age both by the Greek and Latin Church nay by a Pope of Rome
himself For Gelasius disputing against the Eutychians who maintain'd that the Human Nature of Christ was chang'd into the Divine Nature so that there was but one nature in Christ confuted their Heresie by shewing that the Human Nature was no more chang'd into the Divine Nature than Bread was chang'd into the Body of Christ that is not at all for Gelasius has these express words Certe Sacramenta quae sumimus corporis sanguinis Christi divina res est propter quod per eadem efficimur divinae consortes naturae tamen esse non desinit substantia vel natura panis vini certe imago similitudo corporis sanguinis in actione mysteriorum celebrantur which is in English thus Truly the Sacraments of the Body and Blood of Christ which we take is a Divine thing and by them we are made partakers of the Divine Nature and yet the Substance or Nature of Bread and Wine do not cease to be and truly the Image and Similitude of the Body and Blood of Christ are celebrated in the action of the Mysteries Where it is evident that the substance of Bread and Wine is not chang'd into the Body and Blood of Christ Theodoret proves the same thing for he says the Mystical Signs after Consecration do not recede from their Nature but do remain in their former Substance Figure and Form and may be seen and touch'd as before this evidently contradicts Transubstantiation Cath. To the Company We desire you to remember that you must have clear proofs to justifie the Alteration much clearer than those in possession can bring for the Doctrin they continue to hold and which the others would Reform Be pleas'd to consider these two Quotations here brought I suppose the clearest they have if not all they have and if they do not appear clear against them I am confident they will appear either Non-sense or Contradictions and far enough from being clearer for them than any we can bring for our Doctrin which yet they ought to be to excuse their Schism from being wilful and Criminal We will examin Theodoret first He writes against Eutyches as the Doctor has told you which he do's by way of Dialogue between Eranistes an Eutychian and Orthodoxus which is himself in these words Eranist It happens luckily that you speak of the Divine Mysteries for even from that very thing I will shew you that the Body of our Lord is chang'd into another Nature answer me therefore to what I ask Orthodox I will answer Eran. What do you call that Gift which is brought before the Invocation of the Priest Orth. That which is made Nourishment of a certain Grain Eran. How do we call the other Sign Orth. A Common Name which signifies a kind of Drink Eran. But after Consecration what do you call them Orth. The Body of Christ and the Blood of Christ Eran. And do you believe that you are made Partaker of the Body and Blood of Christ Orth. I do believe it Eran. As therefore the Symbol of the Lord's Body and Blood are one thing before the Invocation of the Priest and after the Invocation are chang'd and are made another thing So the Body of our Lord after Assumption is chang'd into the Divine Substance Orth. Thou art catch'd in the Net which thou thy self hast woven For the Mystical Signs after Consecration do not recede from their Nature but do remain in their former Substance and Figure and Form and may be touch'd as before but are understood to be what they are made and are believ'd and are Ador'd as being the same things which they are believ'd Cath. I pray be pleas'd to ask the Doctor whether this whole Discourse now cited be not built and founded upon the Supposition of Transubstantiation Drs. I do acknowledge the Argument is founded upon that Supposition but it is brought by an Heretic an Eutychian which is not much for the credit of your Doctrin Cath. Yes we account it much for the credit of our Doctrin that you cannot name any Age in which you are not forc'd to allow that it was Profess'd You say it was Profess'd in this Age only by Heretics Make that out if you can more clear than I will the contrary I do assure you your two Quotations will not do it as I will shew you presently but the contrary seems evident viz. That the Heretics did not differ from the Catholics in this Point For Eutyches who was Condemn'd at a General Council for maintaining one Nature only in Christ would certainly have been Condemn'd at the same time for holding Transubstantiation had it been esteem'd an Error by that Age especially so Absurd Monstrous and Idolatrous an one as Doctor calls it in his new Book but he was not Condemn'd nor so much as Accus'd of Error in this Point either by Council or any particular Writer of those many which have wrote against him and yet you do acknowledge that he and his Adherents held Transubstantiation Besides you confess that his Argument was against an Orthodox Catholic founded upon this Supposition therefore most certainly he took it for granted that the Catholics allow'd the Supposition for it would have been ridiculous to dispute upon a Supposition which he knew his Adversary deny'd I should account it absurd for me to argue against a Protestant upon supposition of Transubstantiation which I know they deny and so it would have been in Eranist if he had not known that his Adversary own'd that Doctrin which he made the Foundation of his Argument Besides Theodoret himself an Orthodox Catholic making this Discourse by way of Dialogue would make himself ridiculous to frame it upon a Supposition which he deny'd After all this the place now cited is so far from being so clear against us as it ought to be to vanquish our standing Possession that the Century-Writers of Magdeburg who were great Enemies of Popery and Transubstantiation do condemn Theodoret of that Doctrin from this very place and do say he speaks dangerously of the Lords Supper in saying that after Consecration the Symbols of our Lords Body and Blood are changed and made another thing And the words next after these which you quote as such clear ones against our Doctrin must either import Idolatry according to the aforesaid new Book or Nonsense if they do not imply the Actual Presence of Christs Person by Transubstantiation for he says they the Mystical Signs are understood what they are made and believ'd and are Ador'd as being the same things they are believ'd So that the whole Sense is thus The Symbols of our Lord's Body and Bloud are one thing before and another after Consecration yet they continue so in their Nature Substance Figure and Form as to be seen and touch'd as before but are understood to be what they are made by Consecration and are Believ'd and are Ador'd as being the same thing they are believ'd i. e. notwithstanding they are
ten times greater if there be any Degrees in Miracles than this which you cannot believe for its difficulty viz. Transubstantiation especially when we can shew in every Age when any Opposition was made to this Doctrin who they were that did it and what became of them Berengarius was above a hundred years before the Lateran Council yet we can shew that he was oppos'd by Bishops and Fathers of almost all Countries as by Lanfranck of Canterbury Durandus Troaernensis Guitmundus four Bishops of Rome and by the Pastors of all Countries how he recanted three times and how he died Joannes Scotus Erigena who lived about two hundred years before and had laid some Grounds for Berengarius his Error was treated as an Innovator by Hincmarus and others himself forced to retire out of France and his Book not heard of again till two hundred years after and no Man living can tell us when this absurd Doctrin as the Doctor calls it which has had such Success in the World as to obtain Belief universally for several hundred years ever had any Beginning or any considerable Opposition For though the Word Transubstantiation was not commonly us'd before the Council of Lateran it matters not nor makes any new Belief since it has always been the constant practice of the Church in the General Councils when it did condemn Heretical Opinions or decide any Point in debate to expound the true Sense of Scripture upon that very Point by some very significant Word to leave no occasion of Cavilling or Disputing upon its Decisions declaring by an explicit Act and positive Definition what was the true Sense of Soripture and what implicitly all the whole Catholic Church did believe before as it appears in several other Councils as in that of Nice against the Arians where the Word Consubstantial was found out to condemn their Heresie they pretending that the Son was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is of like Substance to the Father when the Council defin'd him to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. of the same Substance or Consubstantial The same you may observe in the Council of Chalcedon where Nestorius was condemn'd by the new distinction of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Gent. Supposing Sir that the Roman Doctrin in this Point be false and their practice Idolatry and yet both were Universal for several Ages together which way can the Church of England pretend to good and lawful Ordination for they pretend to none but what they receiv'd from Idolaters i. e. the Church of Rome Dr. Very well for though they were Idolâ—ters they might give good and lawful Ordinations for the very Church of Rome holds that mortal sin do's not hinder a Bishop or Priest from executing his Function Cath. All Mortal Sins may not hinder a Bishop from executing his Function or giving good and lawful Ordination yet some may For if a Bishop should become a Jew and the same thing may be said if he becomes an Idolater you surely will not allow him to give good and lawful Christian Ordination For that which destroys the Essence of a Church or a Christian must needs disable those it falls upon from giving legal Commissions at least to others to govern the Church or to administer the Sacraments of Christ Drs. There are two sorts of Idolatry one of the Heathens and another if you will have it of the Church of Rome Cath. We will have any thing that you will make evident but when you tell us of two sorts of Idolatries I hope you do not mean Material and Formal Idolatry the first of which if purely such is no Crime We speak all along of Formal Idolatry which you must accuse the Church of Rome of or else 〈◊〉 nothin◠〈◊〉 if you do I pray shew how the naturâ— of formal 〈◊〉 becomes chang'd by its relation to Heathens from what it is when it relates to a Papist I doubt you mean by your two sorts of Idolatry Idolatry which is Idolatry and Idolatry which is not Idolatry like the honest Preacher 〈◊〉 talk'd of three sorts of Seekers one that sought and found another who sought and did not find and a third which neither sought nor found the first Idolatry 〈◊〉 belong to the Heathens and the second the no Idolatry to the Papists And now we shall leave it to the Judgment of this worthy Company to consider how clear and evident you have made it that you had such just Cause to separate from the whole Church as to excuse you from formal or Criminal Schism FINIS A Relation of a Conference Apr. 3. 1676. Theod. Tom. 2. Dial. 2. pag. 236. Edit Colon. 1617. Magd Cent. 5. cap. 4. de Inclinatione Doct. tit de Coena Domini Ibid. Dial. 2. pag. 234. St. Cyp. de Câ—en Domini