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
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
Substance of Bread and Wine taken strictly and philosophically do remain But the Internal Substance of Bread and Wine may well pass into the Divine Substance and yet the Exterior Nature and Substance of Bread and Wine signifying the Properties and Accidents of Bread and Wine may well remain And that this must be the Sense of the Father is plain enough from his own words for he says absolutely and without any limitation That they pass into the Divine Substance which must be meant of the Interior Substance of Bread and Wine if any for 't is clear the Exterior remains and does not pass But then again he qualifies too the Nature which he says remains and calls it the Property of their Nature remaining Which Expression does as we think clear the distinction and determins to which side the strict and to which the popular Sense ought to be apply'd At least we are sure there can be no clear Evidence from hence against us which yet we must have before we can be remov'd from the long possession which we have had of a Doctrin and Practice of such concern as this Drs. The Exposition now given cannot be possibly the Fathers meaning for that that Sense would quite enervate the force of the Answer for the Answer must be proper to the Argument which it is intended to Answer and to the Point which the Argument was made use of to prove Now the Point to be prov'd was the Doctrin of the Eutychians viz. That the Human Nature of Christ was chang'd into the Divine to prove which the Eutychians urg'd the change in the Sacrament and from thence urg'd to the change of the Natures to which the Father answer'd that there was no change in the Sacrament nor no more change in the Natures than there was in the other This must needs be the meaning of the Father Cath. The Exposition above given by us makes the Fathers words very much more a proper Answer to the Eutychians Argument than they could be otherways for whereas he asserted an absolute and total Conversion of the Human Nature in Christ into the Divine so that it was wholly devour'd and swallow'd up by it like a drop of Hony by the Sea and endeavor'd to illustrate it from the change of the Bread and Wine in the Sacrament into the Body and Blood of Christ as a Point acknowledg'd by both Parties to this the Father answer'd that the very Instance he gave was against himself for that after the change in the Sacrament there were still two Natures remaining viz. the Nature of Christs Body in the strict Sense and the Nature of Bread as above Explicated for the Natural Properties in the popular Sense And this being sufficient to retort the Eutychian's Argument upon himself by shewing him there was not such a change in the Sacrament as he vainly imagin'd in the Incarnation it was all that was necessary for the Father's design in that place For as for the Interior change himself acknowledged it as well as the Eutychian Are these all the Authorities you have Dr. These are enough for they are very plain Cath. We will leave that to judgment But withal we hope the Company will remember they must be much plainer than any we can bring for our selves We therefore desire now to shew some for us And because we will shew how truly the Doctor has asserted That in an Age since the first 300 years this Doctrin was generally contradicted and the contrary Doctrin viz. that of the Church of England generally profess'd and taught for that he must be suppos'd to have design'd to prove or else he do's nothing in Justification of his Separation and has pitch'd upon the fifth Century to make good his Assertion we will insist particularly upon the Authority of Fathers of that very Century And first we desire him to consider St. Austin Tom. 8. in Psal 98. Printed at Venice An. 1584. Where he says Exaltate Dominum Deum nostrum adorate Scabellum pedum ejus quoniam sanctum est Quid habemus adorare Scabellum pedum ejus sed videte Fratres quid nos jubeat adorare Alio loco Scriptura dicit coelum mihi sedes est terra autem scabellum pedum meorum Ergo terram nos jubet adorare quia alio loco dixit quod sit scabellum Dei quomodo adorabimus terram cum dicat aperte Scriptura Dominum Deum tuum adorabis hic dicit Adorate scabellum pedum ejus Exponens autem mihi quid sit scabellum pedum ejus dicit Terra autem scabellum pedum meorum Anceps factus sum timeo adorare terram ne damnet me qui fecit coelum terram Rursum timeo non adorare scabellum pedum Domini mei quia Psalmus mihi dicit Adorate scabellum pedum ejus Quaero quid sit scabellum pedum ejus dicit mihi Scriptura Terra scabellum pedum meorum Fluctuans converto me ad Christum quia ipsum quaero hic invenio quomodo sine impietate adoretur terra sine impietate adoretur scabellum pedum ejus Suscepit enim de terra terram quia caro de terra est de carne Mariae carnem accepit quiain ipsa carne hic ambulavit ipsam carnem nobis manducandam ad salutem dedit nemo autem illam carnem manducat nisi prius adoraverit inventum est quomodo adoretur tale scabellum pedum Domini non solum non peccemus adorando sed peccenius non adorando We desire the Doctor will be pleas'd to put this place of the Father into English that the Company may judge of the Sense of it especially at the latter end which is chiefly to our purpose Dr. I will it is thus Wavering I turn my self to Christ because I seek him here and I find how the Earth may be Ador'd without impiety without impiety his Foot-stool may be Ador'd For of Earth he took Earth because Flesh is of Earth and he took Flesh of the Flesh of the Virgin Mary and because he walked here in that Flesh and gave that Flesh to us to Eat for our Salvation but no Man Eats that Flesh unless he first Adores we have found out how such a Footstool of our Lord may be Ador'd and not only not sin by Adoring but we sin by not Adoring This is the English of the words quoted which makes nothing against us for we in the Church of England do always Adore when we do receive Cath. What do you Adore when you receive Do you Adore that which you do receive If you do then that which you receive is the Flesh of Christ or you are Idolaters as lately great pains has been taken to prove If you do not Adore that which you receive as the Object of your Adoration but something else then you will find that St. Austin is against you for that he Ador'd the Footstool that is the Flesh i. e. that Flesh which
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
The Sum of a CONFERENCE Had between TWO DIVINES OF THE Church of England And Two CATHOLIC LAY-GENTLEMEN At the Request and for the Satisfaction of Three Persons of Quality August 8. 1671. Publisht with Allowance LONDON Printed by Henry Hills Printer to the King 's Most Excellent Majesty for His Houshold and Chappel for him and Matthew Turner 1687. THE PUBLISHER TO THE READER SInce Printing of Conferences seems now in Vogue I will venture to be in the new Mode I have so good an Example of it before me that I hope no body will take it ill if I follow it In the Year 1676. there happen'd a Conference about Points of Religion between some Protestant Divines and some Roman-Catholic Gentlemen which after a long silence has been now lately set out the second time in a fine Dress and with a long Preface This gave me the Curiosity to seek further into those Matters and meeting accidentally with a Copy of another Conference held in 1671. wherein some of the same Persons were concern'd I thought good to present you with it By it 's plain Expressions and unstudied Discourse you may easily judge it to be the naked Truth of what was then spoken Peruse it and think seriously of it The Sum of a Conference had between Two Divines of the Church of England and Two Catholic Lay-Gentlemen at the Request and for the Satisfaction of Three Persons of Quality Aug. 8. 1671. THE Persons for whom the Conference was intended desir'd the Subject might be Schism Subject agreed Drs. It is fit we presuppose some Principles before we enter into dispute Cath. Content Dr. 1. Schism is a wilful Separation from the Communion of the Church without cause Cath. Tho' we know very well there can be no cause of Schism yet we will admit to come quickly to the Question your notion of Schism with these words without cause in your Definition of it Dr. 2. Another Principle is Men may without Crime separate from a Communion in which they cannot continue without Sin. Cath. Agreed Dr. 3. There are certain Laws antecedent to Communion by which every particular person ought to judge what Communion he ought to be of or forsake Cath. We do admit that there are external Motives antecedent to Communion which do induce and oblige a particular person to choose the Communion of which he ought to be a Member and to which he ought being a Member to submit in Faith and Government of which every particular person may and ought to judge But we do deny that the interior Doctrins or general Practices of a Communion are subject to the Judgment of every particular Man so that every private person judging this or that Doctrin or Practice to be False Heretical or Idolatrous tho' the Communion of which he is a Member judges it Catholic and Orthodox has lawful cause to separate himself from that Communion without being guilty of Criminal Schism for without this Distinction there could be no such thing as Schism in the World. Dr. You must prove us guilty of Criminal Schism Cath. We will. In the year 1517 you wilfully separated from the Communion of the Church without cause Ergo you are Criminal Schismatics Dr. I do deny that the Separation in the year 1517 do's concern us nor do we think our selves oblig'd to defend or justifie it we do only maintain that the Church of England is not guilty of Criminal Schism Cath. The same Argument presses the Church of England as the Lutherans Let it be therefore put thus In King Hen. the 8th Ed. the 6th or Queen Elizabeths Days date the Birth of your Church from what time you please you wilfully separated from the Communion of the Church without cause Ergo you the Church of England are guilty of Criminal Schism Dr. I deny your Antecedent we did not separate without cause Cath. I prove it If you had lawful cause you can assign it but you cannot assign any lawful cause Ergo you did separate without cause Dr. I will assign the cause It was thus In the Year of Henry the 8th the Parliament declared That the Right of Reforming the Church of this Kingdom was in the King upon which the King did reform and upon this Reformation the Pope did Excommunicate the King and Kingdom which Excommunication was confirm'd by another Pope in Queen Elizabeths days so that the Pope by Excommunicating made the Schism and not we by Reforming Cath. The Declaration above mentioned and the Reformation thereupon were antecedent to the Excommunication so that you must prove that the Parliament had just Power and Authority to make that Declaration and to Reform upon it and that they did indeed Reform and not spoil the Doctrin they undertook to mend for if it had not all its Proceedings were unjust and criminal and Excommunication was but the just and proper Punishment for that Crime And then sure it would be reckoned very strange to say That a lawful Authority punishing an Offender is made guilty of the Crime it punishes by inflicting that Punishment Dr. The Parliament did not ascribe any new Power to the King but only declar'd that the same was in him which all Ages appropriated to their Kings and was allow'd by all And I can shew from time to time that the Popes Authority has been refus'd and his Legats forbid entrance into the Kingdom several times Cath. I pray shew substantially if you can that the Church of England before the Reformation did never at any time accept or which is positive did at all times refuse the Pope all sort of Authority and Superiority over them else to quarrel sometimes with his Authority or some part of it or stop his Legats might be just For that it is possible for a Power which has lawful Authority to challenge and demand some sort of Authority which is more than what is lawfully his and in such case the Inferiors may at least remonstrate to their Superiors if not oppose them in such unlawful Demands and this might be the case between the Pope and the King of England at some particular time At other times Inferiors might be stubborn and disobedient and for a time deny that to their Superiors which is really due Therefore to say that the Kings of England did for a time oppose the Pope in some things is not enough to prove the Declaration aforesaid which was universal denying him all Authority whatsoever to be no ascribing of new Power but only a Declaration that the same Power was in That King which all Ages appropriated to their Kings and was allow'd by all but the contrary to what is now demanded to be prov'd and must be prov'd before that Declaration can excuse the Declarers from the guilt of causeless Separation and consequently Criminal Schism and consequently of deserving justly Excommunication is so evident that I appeal to these present worthy persons who are to judge in this point whether this be not sufficiently
chang'd they appear to our Sense as to their Nature Substance c. to be seen and touch'd as before but are believ'd to be somewhat else i. e. what they are made And this Belief is not Chimerical or Imaginary but the things are really what they are believ'd to be and for that they are so are Ador'd so that they must be really chang'd into Christ's Body for else they could not be Ador'd without Idolatry The very Words as they lay convinc'd the Magdeburgenses that Theodoret held Transubstantiation and I suppose had not these two Words Nature and Substance been in the Quotation but only Figure and Form we had never heard of it at this time If therefore I shew you that Nature and Substance are frequently taken to signifie that which is as consistent with our Exposition and the Catholic meaning of Theodoret as Figure and Form in this place are I shall not only make it cease to be clear against us but also shew that it will be clear for us Nature and Substance do sometimes signifie what the Philosophers call properly Substance as distingush'd from Accidents i. e. Matter and Form. And thus taken it can be no Object of Sense can neither be seen nor touch'd Sometimes it signifies the Properties natural Qualities and Accidents with which those Substances are cloathed Physicians frequently say that they have the Substance of Herbs in their Medicins when they have only the Vertue of those Herbs and not all the Matter and Form So we say of Meat that it has but little Juice or Substance when it has but little Vertue or good natural Qualities The Fathers say that the Substance of Man was deprav'd by Original Sin i. e. the Inclinations and natural Affections St. Paul says that by Nature we are the Children of Wrath that the Gentiles by Nature perform the Law In all which Speeches and a hundred other Nature and Substance do not signifie strictly as Philosophers use those Words when they are oppos'd to Accidents but Popularly and Vulgarly and signifie no more than Properties Conditions Qualities c. Now supposing Theodoret to take Substance and Nature in this place in the latter Sense and to mean by them no more than the exterior Substance or visible and sensible Qualities of Bread and Wine the Text is evidently for us And that the Father must take the Words in this popular Sense is evident from the whole Discourse For he says first That before Consecration they are one thing and after Consecration they are chang'd and made another thing Now if they be chang'd and made another thing the change must be either in the Interior or Exterior Substance but it is most plain they are not chang'd in the Exterior Substance for as to that they remain visibly the same and do not recede from their Nature as Sense assures us Ergo it must be in their Interior Substance which is not liable to Sense and therefore as the Father in this very place says They are seen and touch'd as before but are believ'd to be another thing i. e. what they are made and are ador'd as being what they are believ'd The Doctor has told you in the late Book I mentioned the danger of adoring any thing but God therefore according to him this Father must hold these Symbols he here speaks of to be chang'd into the Body of our Lord before they become the Object of Adoration or else he must be guilty of Idolatry in teaching that something besides God ought to be Ador'd i. e. Worship'd with Divine Honor. As to the place quoted out of Gelasius the same distinction above of the sense of the Words Nature and Substance solves that And that there must be such a distinction in the Words of this Father is most evident for without that he contradicts himself in the Words quoted for he has two Words five times in ten lines and if in all these Places they must signifie strictly the Father talks Nonsense and so far enough from being a good Authority to justifie a Separation But if the Words must be taken in divers Senses and it not being evident which Sense is applicable to this or that place then it is at least uncertain and dark and consequently not fit as not being so clear as it should to justifie a Separation But if the Place it self from its own terms disposes us to apply the strict Sense in this or that Part and the popular Sense in this or that other so as to countenance Transubstantiation then this Quotation will be very far from doing them any Service Now let us consider the Words He says By the Sacrament we are made Partakers of the Divine Nature yet the Substance or Nature of Bread and Wine do not cease to be If Nature must be taken strictly and philosophically in both places then we are made Partakers of the Divine Nature strictly and philosophically and not only effectually or virtually then the Divine Nature must be actually there and yet the Nature of Bread and Wine will not cease to be there so that this perhaps thus far might favour Lutheranism but can no way help the Church of England Then follow these words And surely the Image and Similitude of the Body and Blood of Christ are celebrated in the Action of those Mysteries We do own this Expression and do acknowledge it is frequent amongst the Fathers to say that the blessed Sacrament is a Figure of Christ's Passion and that the Exterior Substances which we see are a Figure to us of the Interior Substance of Christ's Body and Blood which we see not but are to believe to be contain'd under those Species Then he goes on and says Therefore it appears evidently enough to us that that is to be understood by us in our Lord Christ himself which we profess in the Image of him Observe that Image is here us'd as we said above We celebrate and take them and even as they pass into this to wit the Divine Substance by the Power of the Holy Spirit remaining notwithstanding in the Property of their Nature c. We spoke to the signification of the Word Nature above speaking to the foregoing Words of this Father Now let us consider the Word Substance which the Protestants must have to signifie strictly and philosophically in the Words before or else this Quotation proves nothing But that being suppos'd they must shew us that it signifies otherways in these last Words They pass into the Divine Substance or else they must grant that it signifies strictly here also and then it is Nonsense for it amounts to thus much The Elements of Bread and Wine pass into the Divine Substance strictly and philosophically and we are made partakers of the Divine Nature strictly c. Yet the Substance and Nature of Bread and Wine do not cease to be strictly and philosophically Can any Body understand this What does pass into the Divine Substance Nothing sure if the Nature and
is eaten for it were impossible to think that the Father could be in that doubt and trouble which he expresses about the Question whether Christ were to be Ador'd or no He is concern'd about the Footstool which he endeavors to make so plain that he repeats the same thing over and over again and tells his fear of Adoring or not Adoring At length he says By Footstool because Earth is the Footstool is meant Christs Flesh in which Flesh he walk'd here which very Flesh he gave to us to Eat which very Flesh no Man Eats but he first Adores what The Flesh of Christ sure And if that Flesh he gave to Eat be the same Flesh he took from our Blessed Lady and in which he walk'd as the Father says here most absolutely then surely Flesh to be Eaten is as much the Object of Adoration as that he took and walked in which I hope the Doctor will not deny but was to be Ador'd So that now says the Father having just before spoken of the Flesh which Christ gave us to Eat and which no Man Eats without first Adoring I have found out how such a Footstool ought to be Ador'd and that we do not only not sin by Adoring but we sin by not Adoring such a Footstool to wit Flesh which was given us to Eat Besides the Adoration the Doctor speaks of may be given at any time and before any thing as well as Bread and Wine in the Sacrament for if it be only the person of Christ sitting in Heaven which ought to be Ador'd and is Ador'd when we are put in mind of him by such Instruments we might as well fall down and Adore the Person of Christ in Heaven when we see an Image of him because that puts us in mind of him which yet the above named Doctor says is Idolatry or take a piece of common Bread at ones House remembring by it what Christ once did with Bread fall down and Adore before that Bread. Nar. St. Ambrose who was somewhat Elder than St. Austin and his Master has the Plainest Quotations to prove this Point that can possibly be in his Book De iis qui Mysteriis initiantur Cap. 9. in his fourth Book de Sacramentis Cap. 4. Cap. 5. which Books we desir'd but the Doctor being in his own House tho' he confess'd he had the Books he might chuse whether he would let us have them or no. And indeed for one reason or other we had them not nor St. Chrysostom of the same Age out of whom we would have shewn only his 83 d. Homily upon the 26th of St. Matthew and his Sermon of the Eucharist in Encoeniis to prove our Doctrin we would have shewn very many places from that Father but having not these Books nor others we ask'd for we were forc'd to quote some places without Book as one out of St. Gregory Nyss Orat. Catechet Cap. 37. Verbo Dei Sanctificatum panem in Dei Verbi Corpus credo transmutari c. hoc autem fit virtute Benedictionis in illud transelement at â eorum quae apparent naturâ I do believe the Bread Sanctified by the Word of God to be chang'd into the Body of God the Word c. but this is done by the Power of Consecration or blessing the nature of those things which appear being Transelementated into it St. Cyril of Jerusalem we had out of whom we desir'd the Doctor to read these following words in English Cum igitur Christus ipse sic affirmet at que dicat de pane HOC EST CORPUS MEUM Quis deinceps audeat dubitare Ac eodem quoque confirmante ac dicente HIC EST SANGUIS MEUS quis inquam dubitet dicat non esse illius sanguinem Aquam aliquando mutavit in Vinum quod est Sanguini propinquum in Cana Galileae sola voluntate non erit dignus cui credamus quod Vinum in Sanguinem transmutasset Si enim ad nuptias Corporeas invitatus stupendum miraculum operatus est non multo magis Corpus Sanguinem suum Filiis sponsae dedisse illum confitebimur Quare cum omni certitudine Corpus Sanguinem Christi sumamus Nam sub specie Panis datur tibi Corpus sub specie Vini datur Sanguis ut sumpto Corpore Sanguine Christi efficiaris ei comparticeps Corporis Sanguinis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Christopheri erimus hoc est Christum ferentes cum ejus Corpus Sanguinem in membra nostra receperimus atque ita ut beatus Petrus dicit Divinae Naturae consortes efficiemur c. Hoc sciens pro certissimo habens Panem hunc qui videtur à nobis non esse Panem etiamsi gustus Panem esse sentiat sed esse Corpus Christi Vinum quod à nobis conspicitur tametsi sensui gustus Vinum esse videatur non tamen Vinum sed Sanguinem esse Christi Sir if you please I will spare you the trouble and render them my self and pray tell the Company when I wrong the Text The English then of these words is thus When therefore Christ himself affirms and says of Bread THIS IS MY BODY Who afterwards will dare to doubt And the same also confirming and saying THIS IS MY BLOOD Who I say may doubt and say That it is not his Blood He once chang'd Water into Wine which is next to Blood in Cana of Galilee by his only Will and shall he not be worthy that we believe him that he chang'd Wine into his Blood For if being invited to a corporal Wedding he wrought so wonderful a Miracle shall we not much more confess that he gave his Body and Blood to the Sons of his own Spouse Wherefore let us take the Body and Blood of Christ with all assurance for under the Species or Appearance of Bread the Body is given thee and under the Species of Wine the Blood is given so that the Body and Blood of Christ being taken thou art made to him a Fellow-partaker of his Body and Blood. We are made Christophori i. e. Bearers of Christ when we take his Body and Blood into our Members So as blessed St. Peter says We are made Partakers of the Divine Nature c. Knowing this and holding it for most certain that the Bread which we see is not Bread though our Tast judges it to be Bread but the Body of Christ And the Wine which we see though it may appear Wine to our Sense of Tasting yet is not Wine but the Blood of Christ Doctor Is this plain English and is the Father faithfully Translated Drs. We do not deny but the Fathers now cited have the Words quoted in their Writings nor do we deny but that they are well enough English'd but we do confess all they say for we of the Church of England do own and acknowledge a very great Change and Alteration in the Sacrament and do not deny but that the Fathers