Fathers nay you haue not so much for this Negatiue Doctrin which vpon that account proue nothing because they are as dark for your sence as the Doctrin is which you would proue by them 5. For example You may allege some passages out of S. Austin chiefly that contra Adimant C. 12. Our Lord doubted not to say This is my body when he gaue à sign of his body The obuious sense whereof without torturing the Text is thus Our Lord gaue vnto his Disciples the Consecrated species and accidents of bread which were à sign of his Body there contained and doubted not to say that what he gaue them vnder those accidents was really his body Let now any one probably inferr that his S. Austin's words fauour not Sectaries sacred body was not then present vnder the accidents of bread because S. Austin saith those accidents were à sign of his body not absent for à sign or figure implies not the absence of the thing signified by it Well but grant contrary to truth all you can wish The words at most are ambiguous and therefore no fit Principle to ground an article of faith as is now noted You may next allege that known Testimony in Theodorets Dialogues The Mystical signes after the sanctification recede not from their nature but remain in their first substance figure and form are seen and touched as before I answer Theoderet plainly speaks of the Mystical signes More of Theoderet afterward which are seen and touched not of the inward substance of bread and wine which are no immediate obiect of our senses those signes recede not from their nature but remain in their form and figure as before and t' is Catholick Doctrin whereof more presently But grant the vtmost The words are only dubious and therefore insufficient to assure vs of an article of Faith when contrary to the receiued Doctrin of the present Church I assert yet more Though any Father should say That the substance and nature of bread and wine cease not to bee there is nothing yet concluded against vs for by these words substance or nature the outward Massinesse or Corpulency of bread and wine may be well vnderstood which as Theoderet saies remain The reason is In ordinary Speech we often giue to qualities which flow from the essence or nature of à thing the very name of the thing it self Thus we say an excessiue heat is fire à Massy heauiness is lead or à stone wheras heat and heauiness in common philosophy are only natural qualities or properties distinct from each substance respectiuely Such locutions were they found are at most dubious but we stand in no need of any far-fetch't glosses 6. Lastly Tertullians speech lib. 4. contra Marcio cap. 39. ex Cap. 21. Lucae contain's no difficulty Christ taking bread into his hands and distributing it to his Disciples made the same his body Tertullians sense most plain and easy saying this is my Body That is à figure of my body Obserue the words Made the same his body and all is clear What did he make so I answer That bread which in the old Testament was à figure of his body according to the words of the Prophet Mittamus lignum in panem eius Let vs put wood into his bread that is à Cross into his body he makes now in the new law most truely and really his body Whoeuer read's Tertullian will find this to bee the genuine sense of his whole Discourse in the place cited where first he ieer's Marcion Faciebat ad vanitatem Marcionis vt panis Crucifigeretur Then saies Marcion vnderstand's not that bread in the old Testament was à figure of Christ's body as the Prophet Ierimie speak's Conijciamus lignum in panem eius scilicet They are Tertullian's own words Crucem in Corpus eius That is à Cross into his body See Pamelius his learned notes vpon this passage chiefly n. 662. and. 667. and you will easily free Tertullian from all ambiguity in Speech There are yet other Authorities much weaker produced by Sectaries but these now quoted seem sufficient for my chief aime whereof more presently In the interim I expect from these men à clamorous reply 7. They will certainly tell vs the sense and explication now giuen to these Fathers are no more but meer vnproued guesses or A reply of sectaries answered thoughts of our fancy I might first answer This sense immediatly flowes from the plain words which we admit according to the rigid grammatical signification of euery particular sentence But let vs waue this and ask whether the contrary sense of sectaries be any more but meerly their vnproued glosses or thoughts of fancy I say they are so and consequently as dark and wholly obscure as that Negatiue Proposition is which should be proued by them They storm and say the sense is clear for them I stifly deny it and assert the conttary They perhaps will vrge me to proue my sense I vrge them to proue theirs which cannot be done by the Fathers own words without à surer Principle For you see the words occasion the quarrel but that which is the cause of our dissentions can neuer end them or bring vs to any acquiescency without à further Principle And thus we stand Andabatarum more winking and fighting The one saies Yea The other No. without fruit or further progress and are yet farr from ending difficulties 8. Now here is that which I would haue all to reflect on for it is of mighty importance viz. That controuersies between the A reflection necessary for all that write Controuersies Catholick and à sectary cannot but be an endles work if both endeauour to decide them by Principles and vary as much about the sense of those Principles which are supposed to end the Dispute as we do about the very matter in question This is euer so whilst the sectary reiect's an infallible Church or her vniuersal Tradition Obserue well The matter now in question is Whether Christ be really present in the blessed Sacrament We allege his own Sacred words The Sectary saies we mistake the sense and consequently will not haue the difficulty decided that way To know the Truth both of vs examin all the other passages in Scripture relating to the Mystery both read the originals and the different versions both compare Text and text together nothing is yet ended Still we stand at variance about the sense which should decide matters between vs. Next we read the Holy Fathers for our Sectaries like not Tradition they produce their How Disputes are made endless Testimonies we interpret We produce ours They also interpret Obserue well I say Are we not as much at variance about the sense of these Fathers which are supposed à Principle to end our debates as about the very meaning of Gods word And doth not the matter in question still remain vndecided Most euidently yes Therefore vnless some other means be afforded whereby we may come
of the Mass Colain Print 1620. dedicated to our late Soueraign Charles the first then Prince of wales Tract 2. Sect. 8. P. 208. and sect 11. page chiefly 252. Hauing perused both the Gentleman wondred his little book passed ouer so slightly the main thing considerable in this Dialogue and that no word of answer was returned to the obseruations of Mr. Brereley adding it would do well to make the truth à little better known which is my intent at present 13. First it cannot be doubted but that the Eutychian Two Contrary positions Heretick concealed vnder the name of Eranistes held our Lords whole Sacred body after his Ascension changed into his Diuinity Contrariwise Theoderet called Orthodoxus oppugn's the Heresy and saith Christs body remain's as it was before true humane nature most glorious and not conuerted into the Diuinity Again all who haue read the Dialogue know well that the context to our present purpose is as followes After the Orthodox had professed his belief of the Holy Eucharist to be the true body and blood of Christ Eranistes the Heretick begin's his plea. In good time has't thou mentioned these Diuine Mysteries for from them I will shew Where the Hereticks seek's aduantage thee that our Lord's body is changed into an other nature Answer therefore to my question Ortho. I will answer Eran How call'st thou that which is offered before the inuocation of the Priest Ortho I may not speak plainly for it is likely some are present not yet admitted to the Mysteries Eran Answer darkly or aenigmatically Ortho It is yet when offered that meat which is made vp of such seeds Eran And how do we call the other sign or Symbole Ortho That is also à common name which signifies à kind of drink or cup. Eran But after the Sanctification how dos't thou call them Ortho The body and blood of Christ Eran And dos't thou belieue that thâ—â— What the Orthodox and the Heretick belieued receiues't the body and blood of Christ Ortho 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So I belieue Here vpon Eranistes infer's As therefore the Symbols of our Lords body and blood are one thing before the Priests inuocation and after his inuocation are changed and made other things euen so the Lords body is changed into the Diuine substance 14. Stay à little Gentle Reader and speak your thoughts freely Is it not euident from this part of the Dialogue the rest you shall haue presently that both the Heretick and the Orthodox did here suppose the verity of Christs real presence in the sacrament as à known Doctrin receiued in the Church The Heretick supposed it otherwise he had been more than sensless to haue proued his pretended Transubstantiation of Christs humane nature into the Godhead by vrging à parity taken from that other Doctrin of the Transubstantiation of bread into Christs body His inference had been without life most languishing had he drawn the false Doctrin of his conceited change from an other as false viz. From no real change made in the bread after consecration For how lame an inference would this haue been Bread in the Sacrament remain's as it was before substantially bread only deputed to à holy vse that is not really changeâ— The Heretick supposes à true Change in bread according to the Catholick Principle at all yet from thence I will conclude that Christs humane nature is really changed into the substance of his Diuinity As who should say Because bread is not substantially changed into Christs body I will infer that the humane nature is changed into the Godhead which is pure nonsense And as greâ— Nonsense would it haue been had he only supposed the extrinsid sacramental change of Protestants or from thence drawn his inference that Christs body was really changed into his Diuinity For the most which can be inferred out of this sacramental changâ— only is that Christ's humane nature admit's in like manner oâ— some new extrinsecal denomination 15. Now that Theoderet or the Orthodox supposes also the known Doctrin of the Church in this Mystery is manifest vpon these grounds 1. You see how he was prouoked by the Heretick to deny the real presence and change of bread into Christs body After sanctification how do'st thou call them Again Do'st thou belieue that thou takes the body and blood of Christ c Obserue I beseech you Might not Theoderet thus strongly pressed haue quite ouerthrown his Aduersaries argument had he belieued as Protestants belieue that the inward substance of bread is not changed into Christs body For vpon this supposition he should haue replied Thou ask'st me what these things are after sanctification I answer they are substantially bread Theoderet also supposes à real change and wine though signes of Christs body and blood I answer I take not Orally the true body and blood of Christ but bread and wine only made à Sacrament If therefore they still remain bread and wine as before I acquit my self clearly and render thy argument forcelesse for thou cans't not infer because I and the Church hold bread and wine not substantially changed in the Sacrament That Christs humane nature is really and substantially changed into the Diuinity But Theoderet as you hear return's no such answer but positiuely asserts the contrary plainly enough They are the body and blood of Christ I receiue that body and blood c. Though he warily forbeares to express the change too significantly because perhaps of some present not yet admitted to the Mysteries Again And here is my 2. ground Theoderet who was an Orthodox Father penned this Dialogue and therefore as the learned Brereley obserues neither could nor would haue propounded Clear reasons proue that supposâ—tion the hereticks Argument vpon the Churches then receiued Doctrin of Transubstantiation which we see manifestly done had that Doctrin been then strange vnknown or reputed false Much less could he haue wrote as he doth That the Symbols after the Priest's inuocation are changed and made other things had our Sectaries Doctrin of no Transubstantiation been then taught by the Church and reputed true 3. Theoderet's great circumspection was needlesse I may not speak openly for it is likely some are present c. If he had belieued no other presence of Christ in the Sacrament than that which Protestants call Sacramental He might well without scruple in that opinion haue declared their sense and said openly The Sacrament before consecration was à plain piece of bread and so it is substantially bread afterward Thou speakest improperly Erâ—nistes whilst thou supposest the Symbols changed and made other things I tell thee they are not changed intrinsecally but totally remain in their inward substance as they were only signifying Christ body and blood as they are deputed to à holy vse Thus the Orthodox should haue both answered and excepted against his Aduersary had Protestant Doctrin been in those dayes owned by Christians but he goes on in à quite different
true signification in this place giuen 22. Ab omni specie mala abstinete vos The sense is Abstain not only from inward malice but and here mark the opposition from all Shew or semblance of euil And when S. Cyril saith Orat 4. Mystag vnder the Type or species of bread is giuen the body of our Lord he euidently distinguisheth the Form or shape of bread from its substance And so S. Cyprian doth in the words alleged Corporalis Substantiae retinens Speciem retaining the exteriour shape or form of à Corporeal substance and mote plainly thus The bread being changed not in its outward Form and semblance but in it's inward nature and substance by the Omnipotency of the word is made flesh 8. Mr Stilling again page 570. in his Answer to S. Cyprian This common bread is changed into flesh and blood saith we Protestants do not deny à Sacramental change of the bread into the flesh and blood of Christ but only that substantial change which ye Papists assert Pray you Sr tell me what is the Terminus à quo and the Terminus ad quem of this your mysterious change You acknowledg some thing Protestants cannot say what is changed into Christ's body changed into the flesh and blood of Christ Is the substance of bread the terminus à quo or that which is changed into the flesh No t' is too plain Popery Is bread made à Sacrament or à Sign of Christ's body changed into the flesh of Christs Euidently no for neither the Sacrament nor that which you call à Sign of Christ's body is changed into flesh Note well the Emphasis of your own words of something changed into the flesh of Christ and say on Gods name what it is You may reply you speak only of à Mystical and Sacramental change That 's not to the purpose now the Emphasis of your words point at something created or increated changed into the flesh and blood of Christ tell vs plainly what that is or in good earnest your expression fal's too short of any intelligible sense 9. In case you run on trifling with your Mystical and Sacramental change only made vpon the accidents or substance of bread the Author now cited positiuely asserts more viz. Panis non effigie sed naturâ mutatus The bread which our Lord gaue to his Disciples being changed not in Outward form and appearance but in its inward nature and substance by the Omnipotency of the word is made flesh where 't is plain your extrinsecal sacramental change passing only vpon the accidents of bread or on the substance S Cyprian reiects the Protestants extrinsecâ—l Change which you say remains is excluded and à Real Conuersion of the inward substance of bread is positiuely asserted by S. Cyprian You Answer Some great Criticks haue assured you that the place is corrupted and that the ancient Manuscripts read otherwise Non effigie nec naturâ mutatus neither changed in outward form nor substance You see to what desperate shifts these men are driuen T is wonderful they cite not some great Criticks for à Contrary lection of Christs words Hoc non est corpâ— meum This is not my body Well I say first if those nameless and vnknown Criticks err and the Author speak sense as we now read without the Critiscism Non effigie sed naturâ mutatus not changed in outward form but in its nature Transubstantiation is asserted and your contrary Doctrin is condemned I say 2. This Criticism is improbable and not only turn 's the words out of sense into pure Nonsense but moreouer implies an impossibility I 'le shew you how The Criticism will haue vs read thus Panâ— iste quem Dominus Discipulis porrigebat non effigie nec naturâ mutatâ— Omnipotentiâ verbi factus est Caro. This bread which our Lord gaue to his Disciples being changed neither in its outward form nor inward substance is by the Omnipotency of the word made flesh Obserue well This bread remaining bread in outward shew and inward A Criticism exploded substance is made the flesh of the Son of God An vtter impossibility For no more can bread remaining bread in shape and substance be made flesh factus est caro than Lots wife remaining what She was flesh and blood in outward form and inward substance be made à pillar of salt The Omnipotent power of God cannot change one substance remaining what it is into an other T' is true Luther said Christs body was really present with bread but neuer thought of making bread remaining bread to be that other substance of Christs body 10. Mr Stillingfleet tell 's vs more P. 572. that Substance and nature with the Fathers and we confess it are not alwayes taken properly but sometimes more largely for Accidents Why therefore may not these words Sed natura mutatus in S. Cyprians Context bear that improper sense I Answer and ask first Why may they not also be taken properly When they clearly deliuer à Doctrin conformable to à whole learned Church and your contrary forced gloss hath no Principle to stand on but fancy Had you any ancient Orthodox Church vniuersal Tradition or the plain consent of Fathers for what you assert you might speak more boldly and I would then say S. Cyprians words are false but without such helps to torture à Text as you do to turn good sense into nonsense and this without proof or Principle is more then intolerable Now here reflect à little on what hath been often noted You say the words are improper and render your sense I say they are proper and significantly speak what the Church teaches Pray Answer By what Principle shall you and I come to à decision of this one difficulty Hitherto if nothing be added we haue no more but our two contrary iarring opinions And are not Controuersies may this strain hold made an endles work To add more I Answer 2. If this Author speak sense Not changed in its outward form but in nature Your gloss is Nonsense Obserue well He speakes of The reason why we reiect it bread held in à Priests hand and saith first This bread is not changed in its outward form or Accidents Then he put 's his Aduersatiue Sed. but it is changed in nature and substance If therefore Nature here signifies as you would haue it the outward form or accidents of bread you must read the words thus Bread is not changed in its nature and Substance yet it is changed in nature and substance which is non-sense I proue it Nature and substance with you import the exteriour form or Accidents of bread bread is not changed in this exteriour nature and substance saith the Author yet you say it is changed in this very nature and substance Yet more S. Cyprian asserts à change in one thing not in an other I ask what is changed and what is not changed If the exteriour Accidents of bread as contra distinguished from the Sectaries cannot say what
to the Receiuer Speak out Sir What is it that has relation to the Receiuer only The very body and blood of Christ vnder the Type of bread and wine which are changed out of their nature as water was at Cana in Galilee These substances of his body and blood as really present work their effect in à worthy Receiuer where you euidently see that the Real Presence of Christ's Sacred body and blood is presupposed to the effect or to grace wrought in à Soul Therefore to talk of à presence which hath relation to à Receiuer only without the true supposed real verity of Christ body and blood present is no more then à peruerse and an improbable Gloss if S. Cyril speak sense 18. Your next Gloss vpon these words It is not bread though it seem to the tast to be bread but the Body of Christ is worse if worse can be For you only frigidly say Hereby is meant no alteration i◠the Substance of it but only that it is not That common Bread it was before Sir the contrary is now demonstratiuely proued against The change made in Chrism wholly different from that in the Eucharist you But you hope to help your self by an Instance which S. Cyril hath of Chrism in his 3. Mystag Pag. 525. where he Seem's to Parallel the change made in Chrism or holy oyntment with the Change of bread in the Eucharist By the way If Chrism be so sacred à thing it is à shame you haue no more vse of it in your Church but let that pass and mark the Parallel and your own mistake with it A change there is in both bread and common ointment but as different in Themselues as they are differently expressed by this Father The one change is Real and intrinsecal made in the Substance of bread and wine The change of common ointment is not so but Moral into à grace or Gift or Christ S Cyrills words take away all ambiguity See saith he That thou think not this ointment to be common or meer ointment For as the bread of the Eucharist after the Inuocation of the Holy Spirit is no longer common bread but the body of Christ here is the real change So this holy ointment is no longer naked or common ointment after it is consecrated 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 S. Cyrill's words denote the difference but à grace or Gift of Christ and the Holy spirit which operates through the presence of the Diuinity Here is the other and à quite different change Bread is made the body of Christ Chrism his holy and sacred Gift The Parallel or parity therefore as I now said lies in this That both bread and Common ointment are changed from what they were and this is enough for Cyrills intent who only proues Chrism to be à holy thing but it fail's when he positiuely and expresly diuersifies the nature of these changes of bread into Christs body of Common ointment only into à grace or à gift of Christ And Hence Sr your Question whether we may not as well proue à Transubstantiation in the Chrism as we do in the Eucharist is both fond and friuolous We Answer No because the real change of bread into Christ's body fully expresseth Transubstantiation the Terminus à quo and ad quem being Real and Substantial The other Change of ointment into à Gift of Christ denotes à moral change quite different and nothing like the other which is most real S. Ambrose next cited no less abused then others 19. Your next and last Gloss abuses S. Amb. De ijs qui initiantur C. 9. who saith Bread is no longer that which Nature has framed it but that which the Benediction of Consecration has made it You Answer It is the body of Christ but not in our gross sense Pray Sr Inform vs à little of your more quaint meaning Say how bread is Christs body if it still remains as substantially bread after the Benediction as water in Baptism remain's substantially water Doth the water wherewith an infant is washed cease to be water because it is à Sacrament No certainly yet bread if S. Ambrose speak truth ceaseth to be that which nature framed it You endeauour to make These words forceles because S. Chrisost in Act Hom. 23. saith of Baptism I'ts virtue is so great that it suffer's not men to be men and then you wisely ask whether we will grant it Transubstantiat's them Friuolous The Saint only speaks of the virtue of Baptism which as he obserues makes vs sons of Adoption That is it Changes à soul from the miserable state of Sin into à happy state of grace and so permit's not men once infected with that leprosy to be men as they were before vnregenerate And therefore he adds in the ensaing words The great power of the Holy Ghost is that it Transform's our Manners and makes them composed What is here of any thing like Transubstantiation or of à ceasing of that which nature hath framed But enough and fully enough of Mr Stillingfleets most improbable glosses so I must and will term them vntil some surer Principle than fancy giues them more strength which shall neuer be 20. To end I 'le say à great Truth Had this Gentleman twenty Cyprians twenty Cyrills twenty Austins as clear and express for his Opinion of the Sacrament as the Testimonies Had this Aduersary so much Authority for hy opinion as wee Produce in behalfe of Catholick Doctrin No man Could belieue any thing now cited are significant for Catholick Doctrin Had he à Church reputed Orthodox which as indubitably mantain'd his Opinion fiue or six ages since as the Catholick Church then held and yet hold's our Catholick Doctrin Finally had he Scripture as plain for his Sign or Figure of Christs body as it is euidently clear for the Real Presence I verily think no prudent man could or would belieue any thing of this great Mystery And consequently all might rationally doubt of euery article in Christian Religion Because Fathers vpon the Supposition are directly contrary to Fathers Church stand's against Curch and Scripture against Scripture But now when he hath not one Clear Testimony of à Father much less the Sentiment of any Orthodox Church nor so much as à word of Scripture contrary to our Catholick Position I must Conclude that his Glosses already laid on these Fathers are not only improbable but more than highly improbable 21. Perhaps Mr Stillingfleet may reply His glosses T' is true because they are the Sentiments of à fallible man are indeed lyable to errour but He bidds me look well to my Refutations and beware of setting to high à value on them whilst I oppose him For my Opposition because I may mistake amount's to no more but to à weake degree of Fallibility so that Hitherto He and I stand vpon equal Terms Answ If the contest be thus much only whether his Glosses are not clearly refuted the Iudicious Reader after à due
into blood as if one should now deny the Real and substantial change of that water into wine Consequently they renounce both the parity and open sense of the words And which is euer to be noted wilfully do so when they haue nothing like à sure Principle distinct from their gloss to ground their denial on Contrariwise the Catholick in this debate denies no express sense of any Fathers Testimony but only makes Inquiry into the Signification of words which are confessedly dubious Take here one instance Gelasius saith The substance or nature of bread and wine cease not to be First I make no account of this Gelasius Author of the book De duobus naturis Christi Contra Eutich He was not that holy Pope so called but rather Gelasins Cizicenus as Bellarmine notes de Scriptoribus Eccl Howeuer these two particles substance and nature may ex placito indifferently signify either the inward substance or outward Massinesse of bread and wine for natural qualities which flow from an Essence haue or often sustain as was noted aboue the name of that Essence they come from Now the Catholick renounceth no obuious sense but only contends that Nature and substance may signify as is most Of Gelasius How much his authority is worth vsual the outward corpulent forms of bread and wine which cease not to be And he giues this signification to these two words because Scripture Church and the Fathers wheron his Doctrin irrefragably depends forceth him to it And he doth well when it cannot be proued by any probable Principle that Gelasius relates to the inward substance of bread and wine Thus much may be said if that authority were worth any thing Read I beseech you Brereley In his Lyturgy of the Masse cited aboue pag 259. you shall find there this Authority most exactly examined and that in very truth this Gelasius who euer he was speaking against the Eutichians as Theoderet did vndeniably defends our Catholick Doctrin of the Real presence and Transubstantiation also Open the book and read you will be satisfyed I cannot dwell longer on these long since defeated Obiections 18. There is yet an other Reply Sectaries may say we suppose all this while Scripture and Fathers clear for our Catholick Doctrin The Supposition is denied because they quote t' is true not many but some Fathers and Scripture also to countenance their new opinion By the way here is occasion again to reflect on what is often noted viz. We quote Scripture and Fathers and they explicate all They cite also and we do the like and if nothing but à Return of explications thus pass from one to the other we are as much iarring as we were before without hope of ending Controuersies this way Now my Answer to the first part of the Obiection is We Catholicks suppose nothing but only The answer to an other reply take the very words of Scripture and Fathers in à literal sense and say their expressions are exactly conformable to the Doctrin of the Roman Catholick Church which was neuer censured by any Orthodox society of Christians Vpon these Principles therefore Scripture Church and Fathers we stand immoueable To that which followes I Answer Sectaries haue not one syllable of Scripture in fauour of their Nouelty and to omit à rehearsal of those triuial Arguments drawn from certain passages where they conceiue the Sacrament is called bread the fruit of the vine c. I conuince my Assertion by the positiue ground abready established which none shall ouerthrow If this be the true sense of Scripture when An Argument which Sectaries Cannot solue it speaks of the Blessed Sacrament Christ who is aboue in heauen is not really present on the Altar but in his sign only Or that the bread after Consecration is really what it was before natural bread only deputed to à holy vse If this I say be the true sense of Gods word Christs Orthodox Church expresly deliuered it to Christians as the true meaning of the Holy Ghost some few ages before Luthers Reuolt for then their was an Orthodox Church on earth But no Orthodox Church then taught so or sensed Scripture as Sectaries do now Therefore vnless that Church was ignorant and knew not the meaning of Scripture or Malicious and concealed it from Christians our Sectaries sense is not Scripture To confirm this Reason All know that the Roman Catholick Church then as well as now absolutly renounced the sense which Sectaries force out of Scripture and for that cause was not say they Orthodox in this particular Doctrin but no other Church confessedly Orthodox taught it at that time Therefore it was not thought the Scriptures true meaning All I would say is briefly laid forth thus 19. The true Church of Christs euer deliuers the true sense of Scripture at least in weighty and fundamental Matters so much Protestants grant But No true Church deliuered this their sense three or four ages before Luthers reuolt Ergo it was not the true meaning of the Holy Ghost but à whimsy lately inuented This Argument I hold demonstratiue You will perhaps ask What is that these men can pretend to hauing neither Scripture nor Orthodox Church to rely on I 'le tell you in à word They allege How Sectaries endeauour te solue it first two or three weak and ambiguous Sentences of Fathers which the Catholick admit's not in the sense of Nouellists yet according to the clear plain and obuious signification of words as is now declared and He prudently giues this signification to ambiguous words because the Doctrin he owns stand's firm vpon other indubitable Principles Scripture Church and Fathers The Sectary euidently wants such Principles and therefore vapors as well as he can with à few most weak and vnconcluding Authorities The next thing relyed on is much worse and purely nothing but fancy He reads Scripture and those euident Testimonies of Fathers as manifest for our Church Doctrin as it is clear that the Church teaches it and these forsooth he endeauours to obscure by à number of his own improbable glosses without the least shadow of any distinct Principle which giues so much as à Colour to his fancied interpretations You shall see this truth most manifestly proued in the ensuing Chapter CHAP. XIII Mr Stillingfleet grosly abuseth the Fathers that assert the Real Presence His vnprincipled glosses are not only dubious and therefore worth nothing but moreouer highly improbable 1. THough I am very loath to spend time on trifles and as vnwilling to catch flies as Mr Stilling is to kill them T' is his own phrase yet I must do so in some measure or permit à number of foule improbabilities to pass vnexamined which are laid forth in à pretended Rational account of Protestancy I shall only entertain you with à few of the Grosser sort wauing many of lesser moment and I doe thus much to defend à Christian Verity which my very Soul Adores For I am well assured If our
belief of Christ's real Presence in the Eucharist be an errour Christ and his Church and innumerable Fathers also haue deceiued vs. 2. One Authority alleged against Mr. Stillingfleet you haue in his own page 568. And t' is à known passage of S. Cyprian de Caena Dmi or of some other Author not much inferiour to him if we belieue Mr Fulk against the Rhem's Testament In 1. Cor. 11. and Erasmus his Annotations vpon S. Cyprian Basil print anno S. Cyprians Authority examined 1558. fol. 287. Mr Stilling contend's it is of à later Date yet is pleased by an Addition of his glosses to vnsense the words as well as he can and at last make them to speak Protestancy 3. The Authors words are These This common bread changed into flesh and blood giues life The bread which our lord gaue to his Disciples being Changed Non effigie sed naturâ not in outward form or semblance but in its inward nature or substance by the Omnipotency of the word is made flesh 4. Mr Stilling Asserts all this proues not Transubstantiation first because the Author Saith Christs words Vnless ye eate the flesh Mr stillingfleets reasoning not solid and drink the blood of the son of God you shall haue no life in you are not to be vnderstood after à Carnal sense Answ That 's true yet your Inference Sir is most improbable The Principle you must rely on is None are to think as the Capharnits did witness S. Austin that they were to cut into pieces Christs Sacred flesh and eate that as we do Common meats And your inference ill deduced run's thus Therefore the inward substance of bread is not changed into his body This inference I say is null for both these are eternal truths and well consist together Bread is changed into Christs body yet we neither cut that body à pieces or eate it as the Capharnits grossly imagined 5. He argues again and more improbably This Author saith he by the effects attributed to the Sacrament calling it His second Argument more slight food which nourished to immortallity cannot possibly be conceiued to speak if Christ's Corporal presence because we Catholicks confess Christs body remain's no longer in our body then the Accidents of bread and wine are there I verily think the man was busied with other thoughts when he wrot these lines For what sense haue we here Christ's Sacred body really present giues grace and is no longer present then the Accidents of bread and wine remain Ergo bread and wine are not Really changed into his body This I say is à most improbable inference For the effects of the Sacrament which imply the production of Grace may and must stand with Christ's real Presence though that production of grace Sacramentally giuen last's no longer then his Blessed body is vnder the forms of bread and wine 6. But an other doughty Argument is drawn out of S. Cyprian's words which Mr. Stilling cites in his Margent Sed immortalitatis alimonia datur à Communibus cibis differens corporalis substantiae retinens speciem sed virtutis diuinae inuisibili efficientiâ probans adâ—sse presentiam His third Argument proues nothing And He vnworthyly renders them thus in English That immortal Nourishment is giuen vs which differs from common food that it retain's the Nature of à Corporeal substance but prouing the presence of à Diuine power by its inuisible efficiency So that saith he what presence of Diuine power is there is shewed in regard of the effects of it not in regard of any substantial change of the bread into the body of Christ Sr I vtterly deny your prooflesse So That and say your deduction is more then improbable This Author saith expresly common bread changed into flesh by the omnipotency of the word giueth life and immortal nourishment which is Diuine grace and therefore the Diuine power appeares in both first in the substantial change of bread into Christs body next in the effect or production of grace in à worthy Receiuer and you improbably conclude it shewes it self in regard of the effects only 7. Like one half guilty of iugling you goe on I know you will quarrel with me for rendring Corporalis substantiae retinens speciem By retaining the Nature of à Corporeal substance Answ I do so indeed and will proue you à cheat for your pains First because you make this Author speak nonsense for if Corporalis substantiae The fallacy discouered retinens Speciem may be Englished By retaining the nature of à Corporeal substance you may as well render it by retaining the substance of à corporeal substance because nature and substance are here synomima's And if this be sense we haue à pretty Tautology or rather non-sense with it thus It differ's from Common food yet retains the substance of Corporeal substance or common food and in real truth is still natural bread or Common food Wheras if we read It differ's from common food yet retain's the outward forms or external Accidents of à Corporeal substance or common food the sense is good clear and open to euery Reader But we must go on You contend that the word Species in this place Signifies Nature or à solid body and not the external Accidents because Species anâ—nariae Species largitionales Curator Specierum whereof we read in the Ciuil law express the substance of things not the Accidents and so S. Ambrose must be vnderstood when speaking of our Sauiours changing water into wine he faith Vt rogatus ad nuptias aquae substanâ—â—am in vini speciem commutaret Now no man will say that he changed the substance of water into the external Accidents of wine but into the nature of wine Therefore Species may sometimes signify substance Answ All this is true yet nothing to the purpose What the word Species signifies for can you or any man proue because Species signisies sometimes kind or substance that it alwaies doth so We read in Scripture Daniel 13. Species decepit te Isa 53. non est ei Species neque decor Daniel 10. Species mea immutata 1. Tim. 3. Habentes Speciem pietatis c. Will you translate Nature or substance hath deceiued thee There was no nature or substance in Christ of whom the Prophet speaks My nature or substance is changed Hauing piety in nature or substance All is ridiculous and therefore though Species may sometimes signify substance or kind vnless that signification hold vniuersally these instances of Species annonariae and Species vini proue nothing You will ask perhaps because the word is ambiguous how we may know whether in our present Controuersy Species signifies shape form Accidents or substance Answ This rule is certain when the word Species stand's in opposition or is distinguished from an inuisible Nature or essence it must of necessity signify the external shape or form of à thing and not the substance So when the Apostle exhorts vs. 1. Thess 5. The
is here changed wat not interiour substance be changed this interiour substance of bread as distinguished from accidents is not changed and if which is true this interiour substance be changed the form and accidents of bread are not changed Take which you please and talk no more of your Accidental Sacramental change made after consecration For I ask again what is thus Sacramentally changed Are the outward Accidents only changed or made à Sacrament Grant this and it followes you haue but à very lean Lords supper consisting only of à few Accidents after your wordy Consecration which reaches not to the inward substance of bread Consequently this inward substance is not so much as Sacramentally changed For the Author saith one thing is here changed and not an other Imagin therefore He speak's of your extrinsick Sacramental change you will neuer force sense out of his words whilst he laies à change on one thing and excludes it from an other For if he saies the inward substance of bread is Sacramentally changed he denies that to the outward accidents and if he say these Accidents are Sacramentally changed he denies that Sacramental change to the inward substance of bread Let then nature and Substance signify either the accidents or substance of bread as you please let vs also falsly suppose the Author speaks of your Sacramental change only you can neuer make sense of his words One thing is changed but not a◠other By all now said you see Sir how slight your obiection A briefe Answer to à weak obiection is when you Argue Either nature and substance in the Fathers are alwaies taken properly or some times not so but improperly for accidents if alwaies properly we haue three Fathers say you against Transubstantiation If sometimes improperly Nature in this place though we read Non effigie sed natura mutatus may well signify not substance but the outward form or accidents of bread I haue now Answered though Nature or Substance may sometimes haue that signification yet here it cannot because of the euident opposition betwixt that and Accidents and the ineuitable nonsense which followes if nature in this place signifies Accidents But what à loss of time is it to follow these vast improbabilities I must make shorter work with the ensuing Authorities 11. The. 2. Testimony cited P. 572. is that of S. Gregory Nyss Tom. 3. Orati Catech C. 37. and stand's thus in Mr Stilling With good reason do we belieue that the bread being sanctified by Gods word is changed into the body of the word S. Gregory Nyssene abused of God Again The nature of the things we see being changed Or Transelemented into him c. And Mr Stilling Assert's those expressions are vtterly insignificant for Transubstantiation for saith he We Protestants deny not à change in the elements after Consecration but say it is Sacramental and you Papists say it is à Substantial change Answ And we follow the Energy of the plain grammatical sense Bread is changed into the body of the word of God Bread is Transelemented You insist only on an extrinsecal and Sacramental change which you admit in the water of Baptism cast vpon an Infant yet you dare not say that water is Transelemented or changed into an other Substance This to your Confusion S. Gregory assert's in our present Mystery and you say it still remain's to be proued that the substance of bread is changed What trifles are these I proue it by the very words thus Bread is à substance the Saint tell 's you into what it is changed into the very body of the word of God Ergo he saith one substance is changed into an other Here is the proof You yet goe on The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is frequently vsed by the Fathers and S. Gregory himself for an Accidental change when T' is not capable of any other sense So S. Gregory speaking of the shining of Moses face saith it was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Instances impertinently applyed à Change into that which was more glorious Again affirming the soules of men 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be changed into that which is more Diuine by the Doctrin of Christ he can surely intend no other but an Accidental change Answer Had I no more against Mr Stilling but the manifest trifling I here See in à serious matter that alone might most iustly displease Pray Sir reflect Doth S. Gregory by these Instances of Moses face changed into Glory or by the Souls of men changed into that which is Diuine so much as seemingly fauour the meer extrinsecal change which you ascribe to the Sacrament Euidently No. For these changes were Real and intrinsecal in their respectiue Subiects And proued impertinent Glory was really in Moses face as light is now in the sun This fained Sacramental change in the Sacrament is only Moral and extrinsecal Therefore such instances are to no purpose For can you make this probable inference Moses face was intrinsecally changed as the ayr is when it receiues light ergo we haue the like intrinsecal Physical change in the Sacrament when by your Consecration bread is made an outward Sign only of Christ's body Doth that bread really shine like the face of Moses Or will any say when à Counter is set for à Crown as bread with you stand's for Christ's body that it is intrinsecally changed as Moses face was 12. In à word the whole cheat is plain You lay hold of the word Accidental which is ambiguous and may either signify à Real intrinsecal change made in Subiects as is now declared and this with you has no place in the Sacrament or meerly an extrinsecal accidental Denomination whereby bread is made à Sign or Sacrament And this you own which God knowes has no similitude with the Real changes where of S. Gregory speaks Could you make à right Parity you should say That as Moses face was really changed by à glorious light and à Soule by Regeneration so bread after consecration made in trinsecally more glorious is really changed either in its accidents or substance or both But this you cannot pretend to O but it is made à Sacrament and now is what it was not before And you Sr are made à Bachelour of Diuinity and are not as you were before is your face your substance or Accidents so really changed in you that they appear intrinsecally more glorious to men and Angels Well but perhaps the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may be accommodated to à meer extrinsecal Accidental A reply answered change as when one of à common Citizen is made à Magistrate Answ Whether so or no it imports little for in the instances now alleged and in this Testimony of S. Gregory such à signification has no place where the Terminus à quo and ad que◠Bread is changed into Christs body are Real not only Moral intrinsecal not extrinsecal Yet one word more I wonder extremly with what face you
neither the words nor the sense bear S. Cyril saith Do not consider them as meer bread and wine Then he tell 's you positiuely what they are For they are the body and blood of Christ Now your Gloss designed for à higher vse to exhibit the body and blood of Christ to Belieuers first Deads the very life of Cyrills words and then run's into nonsense I therefore Ask whether What is bread and wine to exhibit the body and blood of Christ this gloss Bread and wine exhibit the body and blood of Christ to Belieuers saies Bread and wine really changed out of their nature as water was at Cana in Galilee are after that change as really Christs body and blood as that water was really wine after Christs Miracle If your gloss say thus much you are à plain Papist if lesse it s none of S. Cyrills Doctrin for the Saint deliuers this as significantly yea and more fully then I now express it I well vnderstand S. Cyrills sense by his words but for my life I know not what you mean by your particle Exhibit Tell us I beseech you How do bread and wine Exhibit the body and blood of Christ to Belieuers Do they only mind vs of his body and blood A Crucifix representing our Lord bleeding on à Crosse can well serue for so much Do they shew or point vs out à Real presence of the same body and blood vpon the Altar which are now in heauen If so Belieuers haue an obiect of Faith and that truth to fasten on which the Church teaches but if your word Exhibit saies or signifies less then this or only expresses your euer yet concealed Sacramental presence you cheat the world with ambiguous dark Term's and in good earnest know not what you say 15. Answer therefore What is Christs body and blood to be Sacramentally present when really they are not vpon the Altar but absent in Heauen only The question deserues an Answer For you Sr distinguish between à Sacramental and à Corporeal Presence you grant the first and deny the second That which you grant is à Presence of Christs body and biood distinguished from the Catholick Real or as you call it Corporeal Presence Vouchsafe to enlighten vs à little concerning it which you page 574. seem to Our Aduersary is vrged to declare his sense make real There is say you à Real presence of Christ in and with them that is in and with bread and wine to the souls of Belieuers Very good Giue vs I beseech you the total Obiect which these Souls haue before them when they belieue à Real presence of Christ in and with bread and wine vpon the Altar Is this obiect Christ himself whom they pull as it were by Faith out of Heauen at the time they receiue your piece of Bread No. Christ still in Heauen is yet Locally distant and therefore not really present in and with bread and wine Vnless he be in two places at once And Consequently the Faith of these Belieuers has no real Obiect present to fasten vpon Is it that Christ is present in the Signes of bread and wine as Caesar is in his Image Pitiful He is thus present in euery Crucifix though really distant millions of Miles This no way makes him actually there in and with bread and wine as you Assert Doth finally this your Obiectiue presence imply only thus much that Christ by his power though really absent work 's the same effects in à worthy Receiuer as if he were actually there No. For he works the same effects and though absent produceth grace by the Sacrament of Baptism as if he were present dare you Therefore say he is in as peculiar à manner Really present in and with the water of Baptism as he is in this Sacrament in and with bread and wine Yet more Such à Moral The Sectaries Sacramental Presence contradict's all Authority Presence directly contradict's Christ's words This is my body It directly contradict's S. Cyrills words Though it seem to the tast to be bread it is not bread but the Body of Christs It directly contradict's that vnanswerable Truth As water was changed into wine so wine is changed into blood c. 16. And thus Sr you see how impossible it is to giue your poor Belieuers any thing like à Real obiect which may be called à true Real Presence though I hold you obliged to help both them and me to à clear Notion of it Because Christ's Sacred body and blood are Real things you attribute to these two Real things à true real Presence in and with bread and wine which cannot but denominate them really present with these two Substances vpon the Altar Therefore you are obliged to tell me what that is A parte rei which I once more say is impossible For as your Sacramental presence in your sense is à word no man vnderstand's so your Doctrin is as wholy vnintelligible Yet I haue not said all In this your discourse of à Sacramental and Real presence you would fain take some aduantage against vs by other words of S. Cyril Do not consider them as meer bread and wine for they are the body and blood of No aduantage giuen Sectaries by any other words of S. Cyril Christ according to his own word Hence you infer it is plain He speaks of à Sacramental presence for he doth not oppose the body and blood of Christ to the substance of bread and wine but to meer bread id est That they should not look on the bread and wine as naked signes but as Signa efficacia or efficacious signes Answ First The Saint has not à Syllable of either Signes or Signae efficacia Next your Speculation about meer bread is à meer nothing For meer bread is bread without Consecration S. Cyril opposeth the body and blood of Christ present to meer bread Ergo He opposeth them to bread without Consecration but bread without Consecration or meer bread is the very Substance of bread Therefore he opposeth the body and blood of Christ present to the substance of bread vnless you can find the Meerness might one speak so or nakednes of bread distinct from its substance which is not only improbable but impossible 17. Vpon this solid and vndeniable Ground it imports your A meer quibble about à word cause nothing whether 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in S. Cyril signifies Species as it is commonly rendred by Interpreters or as you say that which doth figure or represent for as long as this verity stand's vndoubted that vnder the Type or Species of bread Christ gaue his own body and That that body is opposed to the very Substance of bread the expression is so clear and the same with our Catholick Doctrin that were à hundred Glosses more laid vpon the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 All would not do nor rack it to any contrary meaning You Reply S. Cyril speak's of such à presence as hath relation