the infallibility or the authority of the Church but upon an implicite Faith you can no more establish a building than you can number that which is not Besides this an implicite Faith in the Articles of the Church of Rome is not sense it is not Faith at all that is not explicite Faith comes by hearing and not by not hearing and the people of the Roman Church believe one proposition explicitely that is that their Church cannot erre and then indeed they are ready to believe any thing they tell them but as yet they believe nothing but the infallibility of their Guides and to call that Faith which is but a readiness or disposition to have it is like filling a man's belly with the meat he shall eat to morow night an act of Understanding antedated But when it is consider'd in it's own intrinsick nature and meaning it effects this proposition that these things are indeed no objects of that Faith by which we are to be sav'd for it is strange that men having the use of reason should hope to be sav'd by the merit of a Faith that believes nothing that knows nothing that understands nothing but that our Faith is completed in the essential notices of the Evangelical Covenant in the propositions which every Christian man and woman is bound to know and that the other propositions are but arts of Empire and devices of Government or the Scholastick confidence of Opinions something to amuse consciences and such by which the mystick persons may become more knowing and rever'd than their poor Parishioners 3. The Church of Rome determines trifles and inconsiderable propositions and adopts them into the family of faith Of this nature are many things which the Popes determine in their chairs and send them into the world as oracles What a dangerous thing would it be esteem'd to any Roman Catholick if he should dare to question Whether the Consecration of the Bread and Wine be to be done by the prayer of the Priest or by the mystick words of Hoc est corpus meum said ove the Elements For that by the force of those words said with right intention the bread is transsubstantiated Lib. 1. de Sacr. Euchar. cap. 12. Sect. Est igitur and made the body of Christ Ecclesia Catholica magno consensu docet said Bellarmine so it is also in the Council of Florence in the Instruction of the Armenians Lib. 1. Sent. dist 8. so it is taught in the Catechism of the Council of Trent so it is agreed by the Master of the Sentences and his Scholars by Gratian and the Lawyers and so it is determin'd in the law it self Cap. Cum Martha extr de celebratione Missarum And yet this is no certain thing and not so agreeable to the spirituality of the Gospel to suppose such a change made by the saying so many words And therefore although the Church does well in using all the words of Institution at the Consecration for so they are carefully recited in the Liturgies of S. James S. Clement S. Basil S. Chrysostom S. Ambrose the Anaphora of the Syrians Inter Evangelistas quae omittuntur ab uno supplentur ab alio Innocentius de offic in the Universal Canon of the Ethiopians only they do not do this so carefully in the Roman Missal but leave out words very considerable words which S. Luke and S. Paul recite viz. which is broken for you Missae l. 3. c. 17. or which is given for you and to the words of Consecration of the Chalice they add words which Christ did not speak in the Institution and Benediction yet besides this generally the Greek Fathers and divers of the Latine do expressly teach that the Consecration of the elements is made by the prayers of the Church recited by the Bishop or Priest For the Scripture tells us that Christ took the bread he blessed it and brake it and gave it to them saying Take eat It is to be supposed that Christ consecrated it before he gave it to them and yet if he did all the Consecration was effected by his Benediction of it And if as the Romanists contend Christ gave the Sacrament of the Eucharist to the two Disciples at Emmaus it is certain there is no record of any other Consecration but by Christs blessing or praying over the elements It is indeed possible that something more might be done than was set down but nothing less and therefore this Consecration was not done without the Benediction and therefore Hoc est corpus meum alone cannot do it at least there is no warrant for it in Christs Example And when S. Peter in his Ministery did found and establish Churches Orationum ordinem quibus oblata Deo sacrificia consecrantur à S. Petro primò fuisse institutum said Isidore Remigius Hugo de S. Victore and Alphonsus à Castro S. Peter first instituted the order of Prayers by which the sacrifices offer'd to God were consecrated and in the Liturgy of S. James after the words of Institution are recited over the Elements there is a Prayer of Consecration O Lord make this Bread to be the body of thy Christ c. Which words although Bellarmine troubles himself to answer as Cardinal Bessarion did before him yet we shall find his answers to no purpose expounding the prayer to be onely a Confirmation or an Amen to what was done before for if that Consecration was made before that Prayer how comes S. James to call it Bread after Consecration And as weak are his other answers saying The Prayer means that God would make it so to us not in it self which although S. James hath nothing to warrant that Exposition yet it is true upon another account that is because the Bread becomes Christs body onely to us to them who communicate worthily but never to the wicked and it is not Christs body but in the using it and that worthily too And therefore his third Answer which he uses first is certainly the best and that is the answer which Bessarion makes That for ought they know the order of the words is chang'd and that the Prayer should be set before not after the words of Consecration Against which although it is sufficient to oppose that for ought they or we know the order is not chang'd for to this day and always so far as any record remains the Greeks kept the same order of the words and the Greek Fathers had their sentiment and doctrine agreeable to it And as in S. James his Liturgy so in the Missal said to be of S. Clement the same order is observed and after the words of the Institution or Declaration God is invocated to send his Holy Spirit to make the oblation to become the body and bloud of Christ. And in pursuance of this Justin Martyr calls it Apol. 2. lib. 8. cont Celsum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Origen 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ad quorum preces
a Dove because if this be model'd into a right proposition nihil supponit there is no subject in it for it cannot in this case be said This Dove is no common Dove but this which is like a Dove is not a common Dove and these persons which look like men are not common men And the rule for this and the reason too is Non entis nulla sunt praedicata To which also this may be added that in the proposition as C. Perron expresses it the negation is not the adjective but the substantive part of the praedicate It is no common Dove where the negative term relates to the Dove not to common It is no Dove and the words not common are also aequivocal and as it can signifie extraordinary so it can signifie Natural But if the subject of the proposition be something real then the consequent is good as if you bring a Pigeon from Japan all red you may say This is no common Pigeon and your argument is still good therefore it is a Pigeon So if you take sugred bread or bread made of Indian wheat you saying this is no common bread do mean it is extraordinary or unusual but it is bread still and so if it be said this bread is Eucharistical it will follow rightly therefore this is bread For in this case the praedicate is only an infinite or Negative term but the subject is suppos'd and affirm'd And this is also more apparent if the proposition be affirmative and the terms be not infinite as it is in the present case This bread is Eucharistical I have now I suppose clear'd the words of Justin M. and expounded them to his own sense and the truth but his sense will further appear in other words which I principally rely upon in this quotation For speaking that of the Prophet Isai Panis dabitur ei aqua ejus fidelis he hath these words It appears sufficiently That in this prophecy he speaks of bread which our Lord Christ hath deliver'd to us to do 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for a memorial that he is made a body for them that believe in him for whose sake he was made passible and of the Cup which for the recordation of his bloud he delivered to them to do that is give thanks or celebrate the Eucharist These are the words of Justin Where 1. According to the first simplicity of the primitive Church he treates of this mystery according to the style of the Evangelists and S. Paul and indeed of our Blessed Lord himself commanding all this whole mystery to be done in memory of him 2. If S. Justin had meant any thing of the new fabric of this mystery he must have said Pag. 296. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the bread made his body though this also would not have done their work for them but when he says he gave the bread only for the remembrance of his being made a body the bread must needs be the sign figure and representation of that body 3. Still he calls it bread even then when Christ gave it still it is wine when the Eucharist is made when the faithful have given thanks and if it be bread still we also grant it to be Christs body and then there is a figure and the thing figured the one visible and the other invisible and this is it which I affirmed to be the sense of Iustin Martyr Oratio 2. in Pascha And it is more perfectly explicated by Saint Greg. Naz. calling the Paschal Lamb a figure of a figure of which I shall yet give an account in this Section But to make this yet more clear 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. We do not receive these as common bread or common drink but as by the word of God Jesus Christ our Lord was made flesh and for our salvation had flesh and bloud so are we taught that that very nourishment on which by the prayers of his word thanks are given by which our flesh and bloud are nourished by change is the flesh and bloud of the incarnate Iesus Here S. Justin compares the consecration of the Eucharist by prayer to the incarnation of Christ the thing with the thing to shew it is not common bread but bread made Christs body he compares not the manner of one with the manner of the other as Cardinal Perron would fain have it believed * Sic solemâ—â— loqui ficut panis est vita corporis ita verbum Dei est vita animae Non scil eundem conversionis aut nutriendi modum connot ando sed similem analogicum effectum â—triusque nutrimenti observando for if it were so it would not only destroy an article of Christian faith but even of the Roman too for if the changes were in the same manner then either the man is Transubstantiated into God or else the bread is not Transubstantiated into Christs body but the first cannot be because it would destroy the hypostatical Union and make Christ to be one nature as well as one person but for the latter part of the Dilemma viz. that the bread is not Transubstantiated whether it be true or false it cannot be affirmed from hence and therefore the Cardinal labours to no purpose and without consideration of what may follow But now these words make very much against the Roman hypothesis and directly proves the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the consecrated bread that is after it is consecrated to be natural nourishment of the body and therefore to be Christs body only spiritually and Sacramentally unless it can be two substances at the same time Christs body and bread in the Natural sense which the Church of Rome at this day will not allow and if it were allowed it would follow that Christs body should be Transubstantiated into our body and suffer the very worst changes which in our eating and digestion and separation happen to common bread This argument relies upon the concurrent testimony of many of the ancient Fathers besides Iustin Martyr Lib. 4. c. 34. lib. 5. c. 2. especially S. Irenaeus and certainly destroys the whole Roman article of Transubstantiation for if the Eucharistical bread nourishes the body then it is still the substance of bread for accidents do not nourish and quantity or quality is not the subject or term of Nutrition but reparation of substance by a substantial change of one into another But of this enough Eusebius is next alledged in the Dissuasive but his words though pregnant and full of proof against the Roman hypothesis are by all the Contra-scribers let alone A. L. only one of them says that the place of the quotation is not rightly mark'd for the first three chapters are not extant well but the words are and the last chapter is which is there quoted and to the 10. chapter the Printer should have more carefully attended and not omit the Cypher which I suppose he would if he had foreseen he should
they please but they cannot tell certainly what is truth But then as for Peter Lombard himself all that I said of him was this that he could not tell he could not determine whether there was any substantial change or no. If in his after discourse he declares that the change is of substances he told it for no other than as a meer opinion if he did let him answer for that not I for that he could not determine it himself expressely said it in the beginning of the eleventh distinction And therefore these Gentlemen would better have consulted with truth and modesty if they had let this alone and not have made such an outcry against a manifest truth Now let me observe one thing which will be of great use in this whole affair and demonstrate the change of this doctrine These three opinions were all held by Catholics Innocent de offic Mis. part 3. cap. 18. and the opinions are recorded not only by Pope Innocentius 3. but in the gloss of the Canon Law it self Cap. cum Martha in gloss â—â—trav de celebr miss For this opinion was not fix'd and setled nor as yet well understood but still disputed as we see in Lombard and Scotus And although they all agreed in this as Salmeron observes of these three opinions as he cites them out of Scotus that the true body of Christ is there because to deny this were against the faith and therefore this was then enough to cause them to be esteemed Catholics because they denied nothing which was then against the faith but all agreed in that yet now the case is otherwise for whereas one of the opinions was that the substance of bread remains and another opinion that the substance of bread is annihilated but is not converted into the body of Christ now both of these opinions are made heresie and the contrary to them which is the third opinion pass'd into an article of faith Vbi supra Quod vero ibi substantia panis non remanet jam etiam ut articulus fidei definitum est conversionis sive transubstantiationis nomen evictum So Salmeron Now in Peter Lombards time if they who believed Christs real presence were good Catholics though they believed no Transubstantiation or Consubstantiation that is did not descend into consideration of the manner why may they not be so now Is there any new revelation now of the manner Or why is the way to Heaven now made narrower than in Lombards time For the Church of England believes according to one of these opinions and therefore is as good a Catholic Church as Rome was then which had not determined the manner Nay if we use to value an article the more by how much the more Ancient it is certainly it is more honourable that we should reform to the Ancient model rather than conform to the new However this is also plainly consequent to this discourse of Salmeron The abettors of those three opinions some of them do deny something that is of faith therefore the faith of the Church of Rome now is not the same it was in the days of Peter Lombard Lastly this also is to be remark'd that to prove any ancient Author to hold the doctrine of Transubstantiation as it is at this day an article of faith at Rome it is not enough to say that Peter Lombard or Durand or Scotus c. did say that where bread was before there is Christs body now for they may say that and more and yet not come home to the present article and therefore E. W. does argue weakly when he denies Lombard to say one thing viz. that he could not define whether there was a substantial change or no which indeed he spake plainly because he brings him saying something as if he were resolv'd the change were substantial which yet he speaks but obscurely And the truth is this question of Transubstantiation is so intricate and involved amongst them seems so contrary to sense and reason and does so much violence to all the powers of the soul that it is no wonder if at first the Doctors could not make any thing distinctly of it However whatever they did make of it certain it is they more agreed with the present Church of England than with the present Church of Rome for we say as they said Christs body is truly there and there is a conversion of the Elements into Christs body for what before the Consecration in all senses was bread is after Consecration in some sense Christs body but they did not all of them say that the substance of bread was destroyed and some of them denied the conversion of the bread into the flesh of Christ which whosoever shall now do will be esteemed no Roman Catholick E. W. pag. 37. And therefore it is a vain procedure to think they have prov'd their doctrine of Transubstantiation out of the Fathers also if the Fathers tell us That bread is chang'd out of his nature into the body of Christ that by holy invocation it is no more common bread that as water in Cana of Galilee was chang'd into wine so in the Evangelist wine is changed into bloud That bread is only bread before the sacramental words but after consecration is made the body of Christ. For though I very much doubt all these things in equal and full measures cannot be prov'd out of the Fathers yet suppose they were yet all this comes not up to the Roman Article of Transubstantiation All those words are true in a very good sense and they are in that sense believ'd in the Church of England but that the bread is no more bread in the natural sense and that it is naturally nothing but the natural body of Christ that the substance of one is passed into the substance of the other this is not affirmed by the Fathers neither can it be inferred from the former propositions if they had been truly alledged and therefore all that is for nothing and must be intended only to cosen and amuse the Reader that understands not all the windings of this labyrinth In the next place I am to give an account of what passed in the Lateran Council upon this article For says E. W. Pag. 37. the doctrine of Transubstantiation was ever believed in the Church though more fully and explicitely declared in the Lateran Council But in the Dissuasive it was said Letter to a friend pag. 18. that it was but pretended to be determined in that Council where many things indeed came then in consultation yet nothing could be openly decreed Nothing says Platina that is says my Adversary nothing concerning the holy land and the aids to be raised for it but for all this there might be a decree concerning Transubstantiation To this I reply that it is as true that nothing was done in this question as that nothing was done in the matter of the Holy War for one was as much
The Question is made What is meant by it They that have a mind to it understand it easily enough it was a declaration of the coming of the Messias into the world the great proof that Jesus of Nazareth was the Shiloh or he that was to come For whereas the Jews were the Inclosure and peculiar people of God at the comming of the Messias it should be so no more but the Gentiles being called and the sound of the Gospel going into all the world it was no more the Church of the Jews but Ecclesia totius mundi the Church of the Universe the Universal or Catholick Church of Jews and Gentiles of all people and all Languages Now this great and glorious mystery we confess in this Article that is we confess that God hath given to his Son the Heathen for an Inheritance and the utmost parts of the world for a possession that God is no respecter of persons Acts 10. 35. but in every Nation he that feareth him and worketh righteousness is accepted with him This is the plain sense of the Article and renders the Article also highly considerable and represents it as Fundamental and it is agreeable with the very Oeconomy of the Gospel and determines one of the greatest questions that ever were in the world the dispute between the Jews and Gentiles and is not only easie and intelligible but greatly for Edification Now then let us see how the Church of Rome by her Head and Members expound or declare this Article I believe the Holy Catholick Church so it is in the Apostles Creed I believe one Holy Catholick and Apostolick Church so the Nicene Creed Here is no difference and no Commentary but the same thing with the addition of one word to the same sense onely it includes also the first Founders of this Catholick Church as if it had been said I believe that the Church of Christ is disseminated over the world and not limited to the Jewish pale and that this Church was founded by the Apostles upon the rock Christ Jesus But the Church of Rome hath handled this Article after another manner she hath explain'd it so clearly that no wise man can believe it she hath declar'd the Article so as to make it a new one and made an addition to it that destroys the principal Sanctam Catholicam Apostolicam Romanam Ecclesiam omnium Ecclesiarum Matrem Magistram agnosco I acknowledge the holy Catholick and Apostolick Roman Church the Mother and Mistress of all Churches And at the end of this declaration of the Creed it is added as at the end of the Athanasian This is the true Catholick faith without which no man can be saved And this is the Creed of Pope Pius the fourth enjoyn'd to be sworn by all Ecclesiasticks secular or Religious Now let it be considered Whether this Declaration be not a new Article and not onely so but a destruction to the old 1. The Apostolical Creed professes to believe the Catholick or Universal Church The Pope limits it and calls it the Catholick Roman Church that by all he means some and the Vniversal means but particular But besides this 2. It is certain this must be a piece of a new Creed since it is plain the Apostles did no more intend the Roman Church should be comprehended under the Catholick Church than as every other Church which was then or should be after And why Roman should be put in and not the Ephesine the Caesarean or the Hierosolymitan it is not to be imagined 3. This must needs be a new Article because the full sense and mystery of the old Article was perfect and complete before the Roman Church was in being I believe the holy Catholick Church was an Article of faith before there was any Roman Church at all 4. The interposing the Roman into the Creed as equal and of the extent with the Catholick is not onely a false but a malicious addition For they having perpetually in their mouths That out of the Catholick Church there is no Salvation and now against the truth simplicity interest and design of the Apostolical Creed having made the Roman and Catholick to be all one they have also establish'd this doctrine as virtual part of the Creed that out of the Communion of the Church of Rome there is no Salvation to be hoped for and so by this means damn all the Christians of the world who are not of their Communion and that is the far biggest part of the Catholick Church 5. How intolerable a thing it is to put the word Roman to expound Catholick in the Creed when it is confess'd among * Driedo de dogmat Eccl. lib. 4. c. 3. p. 3. themselves that it is not of faith that the Apostolick Church cannot be separated from the Roman and * Lib. 4. de Pontif. Rom. c. 4. Sect. At secundum Bellarmine proves this because there is neither Scripture nor Tradition that affirms it and then if ever they be separated and the Apostolick be remov'd to Constantinople then the Creed must be chang'd again and it must run thus I believe the holy Catholick and Apostolick Constantinopolitan Church 6. There is in this declaration of the Apostolical Creed a manifest untruth decreed enjoyn'd profess'd and commanded to be sworn to and that is that the Roman Church is the Mother of all Churches when it is confessed that S. Peter sate Bishop at Antioch seven years before his pretended coming to Rome and that Hierusalem is the Mother of all Churches For the Law went forth out of Sion and the Word of the Lord from Hierusalem Apud Baron AD. 382. n 15. and therefore the Oecumenical Council of Constantinople in the Consecration of S. Cyril said Vide etiam S. Basil tom 2. ep 30. Greg. Theol. We shew unto you Cyril the Bishop of Jerusalem which is the Mother of all other Churches The like is said of the Church of Cesarea with an exception onely of Jerusalem quae prope mater omnium Ecclesiarum fuit ab initio nune quoque est nominatur quam Christiana respublica velut centrum suum circulus undique observat How this saying of S. Gregory the Divine can consist with the new Roman Creed I leave it to the Roman Doctors to consider In the mean time it is impossible that it should be true that the Roman Church is the Mother of all Churches not onely because it is not imaginable she could beget her own Grand-mother but for another pretty reason which Bellarmine hath invented Though the Ancients every where call the Roman Church the Mother of all Churches Lib. 1. de Rom. and that all Bishops had their Consecration and Dignity from her Pontif. c. 23. Sect. Secunda ratio yet this seems not to be true but in that sense because Peter was Bishop of Rome he ordain'd all the Apostles and all other Bishops by himself or by others Otherwise since
the Churches declaration to compel us to admit of it Now then for the quotations themselves I hope I shall give a fair account 1. The words quoted Lect. 40. in Can. Missae are the words of Biel when he had first affirmed that Christs body is contained truly under the bread and that it is taken by the faithful all which we believe and teach in the Church of England he adds Tamen quomodo ibi sit Christi corpus an per conversionem alicujus in ipsum that is the way of Transubstantiation an sine conversione incipiat esse Corpus Christi cum pane manentibus substantia accidentibus panis non invenitur expressum in Canone Biblii and that 's the way of Consubstantiation so that here is expressely taught what I affirm'd was taught that the Scriptures did not express the doctrine of Transubstantiation and he adds that concerning this there were Anciently divers opinions Thus far the quotation is right But of this man there is no notice taken But what of Scotus He saith no such thing well suppose that yet I hope this Gentleman will excuse me for Bellarmines sake who says the same thing of Scotus as I do and he might have found it in the Margent against the quotation of Scotus if he had pleas'd Lib. 3. de Euchar c. 23. His words are these Secondly he saith viz. Sect. Secundò dicit Scotus that there is not extant any place of Scripture so express without the declaration of the Church that it can compel us to admit of Transubstantiation And this is not altogether improbable For though the Scriptures which we brought above seem so clear to us that it may compel a man that is not wilful yet whether it be so or no it may worthily be doubted since most learned and acute men such as Scotus eminently was believe the contrary Well! But the Gentleman can find no such thing in Ocham I hope he did not look far for OCham is not the man I mean however the printer might have mistaken but it is easily pardonable because from O. Cam. meaning Odo Cameracensis it was easie for the printer or transcriber to write Ocam as being of more public name But the Bishop of Cambray is the man that followed Scotus in this opinion Vbi suprae and is acknowledged by Bellarmine to have said the same that Scotus did he being one of his docti acutissimi viri there mentioned Contra. Captiv Now if Roffensis have the same thing too Babyl c. 1. this Author of the letter will have cause enough to be a little ashamed And for this I shall bring his words speaking of the whole institution of the Blessed Sacrament by our Blessed Saviour he says Neque ullum hic verbum positum est quo probetur in nostra Missa veram fieri carnis sanguinis Christi praesentiam I suppose I need to say no more to verifie these citations but yet I have another very good witness to prove that I have said true and that is Salmeron who says that Scotus out of Innocentius reckons three opinions not of heretics Tom. 9. tract 16. p. 108. p. â—10 but of such men who all agreed in that which is the main but he adds Some men and writers believe that this article cannot be proved against a heretic by Scripture alone or reasons alone Lib. 1. de Euchar c. 34. And so Cajetan is affirm'd by Suarez and Alanus to have said and Melchior Canus perpetuam Mariae virginitatem conversionem panis vini in corpus sanguinem Christi non ita expressa in libris Canonicis invenies Page 37. vide Letter p. 18. sed adeo tamen certa in fide sunt ut contrariorum dogmatum authores Ecclesia haereticos judicarit So that the Scripture is given up for no sure friend in this Q. the article wholy relies upon the authority of the Church viz. of Rome who makes faith and makes heresies as she please But to the same purpose is that also which Chedzy said in his disputation at Oxford In what manner Christ is there whether with the bread Transelemented or Transubstantiation the Scripture in open words tells not But I am not likely so to escape Pag. 38. for E. W. See also the letter to a friend p. 19. talkes of a famous or rather infamous quotation out of Peter Lombard and adds foul and uncivil words which I pass by but the thing is this that I said Petrus Lombardus could not tell whether there was a substantial change or no. I did say so and I brought the very words of Lombard to prove it and these very words E. W. himself acknowledges Si autem quaeritur qualis fit ista conversio an formalis an substantialis vel alterius generis definire non sufficio I am not able to define or determine whether that change be formal or substantial So far E. W. quotes him but leaves out one thing very material viz. whether besides formal or substantial it be of another kinde Now E. W. not being able to deny that Lombard said this takes a great deal of useless pains not one word of all that he says being to the purpose or able to make it probable that Peter Lombard did not say so or that he did not think so But the thing is this Biel reckon'd three opinions which in Lombards time were in the Church the first of Consubstantiation which was the way which long since then Luther followed The second that the substance of bread is made the flesh of Christ but ceases not to be what it was But this is not the doctrine of Transubstantiation for that makes a third opinion which is that the substance of bread ceases to be and nothing remains but the accident Quartam opinionem addit Magister that is Peter Lombard adds a fourth opinion that the substance of bread is not converted but is annihilated this is made by Scotus to be the second opinion Now of these four opinions all which were then permitted and disputed Vbi supra Peter Lombard seems to follow the second but if this was his opinion it was no more for he could not determine whether that were the truth or no. But whether he does or no truly I think it is very hard for any man to tell for this question was but in the forge not polished not made bright with long handling And this was all that I affirm'd out of the Master of Sentences I told of no opinion of his at all but that in his time they did not know whether it viz. the doctrine of Transubstantiation were true or no that is the generality of the Roman Catholics did not know and he himself could not define it And this appears unanswerably by Peter Lombards bringing their several sentiments in this article and they that differ in their judgements about an article and yet esteem the others Catholic may think what
these Gentlemen will not believe me let them believe their own friends But first let it be consider'd what I said viz. that he maintain'd viz. in disputation that even after consecration the very matter of bread remain'd 2. That by reason of the Authority of the Church it is not to be held 3. That nevertheless it is possible it should be so 4. That it is no contradiction that the matter of bread should remain and yet it be Christs body too 5. That this were the easier way of solving the difficulties That all this is true I have no better argument than his own words which are in his first question of the eleventh distinction in quartum numb 11. n. 15. For indeed the case was very hard with these learned men who being pressed by authority did bite the file and submitted their doctrine but kept their reason to themselves and what some in the Council of Trent observed of Scotus was true also of Durandus and divers other Schoolmen with whom it was usual to deny things with a kind of courtesie And therefore Durandus in the places cited though he disputes well for his opinion yet he says the contrary is modus tenendus de facto But besides that his words are as I understand them plain and clear to manifest his own hearty perswasion yet I shall not desire to be believed upon my own account for fear I be mistaken but that I had reason to say it Summa l. 8. c. 23. p. 448. lit C in Marg. Henriquez shall be my warrant Durandus dist qu. 3. ait esse probabile sed absque assertione c. He saith it is probable but without assertion that in the Eucharist the same matter of bread remains without quantity And a little after he adds out of Cajetan Paludanus and Soto that this opinion of Durandus is erroneous but after the Council of Trent it seems to be heretical And yet he says it was held by Aegidius and Euthymius who had the good luck it seems to live and die before the Council of Trent otherwise they had been in danger of the inquisition for heretical pravity But I shall not trouble my self further in this particular Lib. 3. de Euchar cap. 13. I am fully vindicated by Bellarmine himself who spends a whole Chapter in the confutation of this error of Durandus viz. that the matter of bread remains he endeavours to answer his arguments and gives this censure of him Itaque sententia Durandi haeretica est Therefore the sentence of Durandus is heretical although he be not to be called a heretic because he was ready to acquiesce in the judgment of the Church So Bellarmine who if he say true that Durandus was ready to submit to the judgement of the Church then he does not say true when he says the Church before his time had determined against him but however that I said true of him when I imputed this opinion to him Bellarmine is my witness Thus you see I had reason for what I said and by these instances it appears how hardly and how long the doctrine of Transubstantiation was before it could be swallowed But I remember that Salmeron tells of divers who distrusting of Scripture and reason had rather in this point rely upon the tradition of the Fathers and therefore I descended to take from them this armour in which they trusted And first to ease a more curious inquiry which in a short dissuasive was not convenient I us'd the abbreviature of an adversaries confession For Alphonsus à Castro confess'd that in ancient writers there is seldom any mention made of Transubstantiation Letter p. 21. one of my adversaries says this is not spoken of the thing but of the name of Transubstantiation but if a Castro meant this only of the word he spake weakly when he said that the name or word was seldom mention'd by the Ancients 1. Because it is false that it was seldom mention'd by the Ancients for the word was by the Ancient Fathers never mention'd 2. Because there was not any question of the word where the thing was agreed and therefore as this saying so understood had been false so also if it had been true it would have been impertinent 3. It is but a trifling artifice to confess the name to be unknown and by that means to insinuate that the thing was then under other names It is a secret cosenage of an unweary Reader to bribe him into peace and contentedness for the main part of the Question by pleasing him in that part which it may be makes the biggest noise though it be less material 4. If the thing had been mention'd by the Ancients they need not would not ought not to have troubled themselves and others by a new word to have still retained the old proposition under the old words would have been less suspicious more prudent and ingenious but to bring in a new name is but the cover for a new doctrine and therefore S. Paul left an excellent precept to the Church to avoid prophanas vocum novitates the prophane newness of words that is it is fit that the mysteries revealed in Scripture should be preached and taught in the words of the Scripture and with that simplicity openness easiness and candor and not with new and unhallowed words such as is that of Transubstantiation 5. A Castro did not speak of the name alone but of the thing also de transubstantiatione panis in Corpus Christi of the Transubstantiation of bread into Christs body of this manner of conversion that is of this doctrine now doctrines consist not in words but things however his last words are faint and weak and guilty for being convinc'd of the weakness of his defence of the thing he left to himself a subterfuge of words But let it be how it will with a Castro whom I can very well spare if he will not be allowed to speak sober sense and as a wise man should we have better and fuller testimonies in this affair That the Fathers did not so much as touch the matter or thing of Transubstantiation said the Jesuits in prison as is reported by the Author of the modest discourse And the great Erasmus who liv'd and died in the Communion of the Church of Rome and was as likely as any man of his age to know what he said gave this testimony in the present Question In synaxi transubstantiationem sero definivit Ecclesia In priorem Epist ad Corinthios citante etiam Salmeron tom 9. tract 16. p. 108. re nomine veteribus ignotam In the Communion the Church hath but lately defin'd Transubstantiation which both in the thing and in the name was unknown to the Ancients Now this was a fair and friendly inducement to the Reader to take from him all prejudice Videat lector Picherellum exposit verborum institutionis coenae Domini ejusdem dissertationem de Missâ
which might stick to him by the great noises of the Roman Doctors made upon their pretence of the Fathers being on their side yet I would not so rely upon these testimonies but that I thought fit to give some little Essay of this doctrine out of the Fathers themselves To this purpose is alleged Justin M. saying of the Eucharist that it was a figure which our Lord commanded to do in remembrance of his Passion These were quoted not as the words but as the doctrine of that Saint and the Letter will needs suppose me to mean those words which are as I find in 259 and 260. page of the Paris edition 1615. The oblation of a Cake was a figure of the Eucharistical bread which the Lord commanded to do in remembrance of his Passion These are Justins words in that place with which I have nothing to do as I shall shew by and by But because Card. Perron intends to make advantage of them I shall wrest them first out of his hands and then give an account of the doctrine of this holy man in the present article both out of this place and others 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The oblation of a Cake was a figure of the bread of the Eucharist which our Lord deliver'd us to do therefore says the Cardinal the Eucharistical bread is the truth since the Cake was the figure or the shadow To which I answer that though the Cake was a figure of the Eucharistical bread yet so might that bread be a figure of something else Just as baptism I mean the external rite which although it self be but the outward part and is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or figure of the inward washing by the spirit of grace and represents our being buried with Christ in his death yet it is an accomplishment in some sense of those many figures by which according to the doctrine of the Fathers it was prefigured Such as in S. Peter the waters of the deluge in Tertullian were the waters of Jordan into which Naaman descended in S. Austin the waters of sprinkling These were types and to these baptism did succeed and represented the same thing which they represented and effected or exhibited the thing it did represent and therefore in this sense they prefigur'd baptism And yet that this is but a figure still we have S. Peters warrant The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us not the putting away the filth of the flesh 1 Pet. 3. 21. but the answer of a good conscience towards God The waters of the floud were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a type of the waters of baptism the waters of baptism were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is a type answering to a type and yet even here there is a typical representing and signifying part and beyond that there is the veritas or the thing signified by both So it is in the oblation of the Cake and the Eucharistical bread that was a type of this and this the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or correspondent of that a type answering to a type a figure to a figure and both of them did and do respectively represent a thing yet more secret For as S. Austin said these and those are divers in the sign but equal in the thing signified divers in the visible species but the same in the intelligible signification those were promissive and these demonstrative or as others express it those were pronunciative and these of the Gospel are contestative A. D. 1547. So Friar Gregory of Padua noted in the Council of Trent And that this was the sense of Justin M. appears to him that considers what he says 1. He does not say the Cake is a type of the bread but the oblation of the Cake that is that whole rite of offering a Cake after the Leper was cleansed in token of thankfulness and for his legal purity was a type of the bread of the Eucharist which for the remembrance of the passion which he suffer'd for these men whose minds are purged from all perverseness Jesus Christ our Lord commanded to make or do To do what To do bread or to make bread No but to make bread to be Eucharistical to be a memorial of the Passion to represent the death of Christ so that it is not the Cake and the bread that are the type and the Antitype but the oblation of the Cake was the figure and the Celebration of Christs memorial and the Eucharist are the thing presignified and prefigur'd But then it remains that the Eucharistical bread is but the instrument of a memorial or recordation which still supposes something beyond this and by this to be figured and represented For as the Apostle says Our Fathers did eat of the same spiritual meat that is they eat Christ but they eat him in figure that is in an external symbol so do we only theirs is abolished and ours succeeds the old and shall abide for ever Nay the very words us'd by Justin M. do evince this it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when it is an Eucharist it is still but bread and therefore there is a body of which this is but an outward argument a vehicle a chanel and conveyance and that is the body of Christ for the Eucharistical bread is both bread and Christs body too For it is a good argument to say this is bread Eucharistical therefore this is bread and if it be bread still it must be a figure of the bread of life and this is that which I affirmed to be the sense of Justin M. The like expression to this is in his second Apology It is not common bread meaning that it is sanctified and made Eucharistical But here it may be the argument will not hold it is not common bread therefore it is bread for I remember that Cardinall Perron hath some instances against this way of arguing For the Dove that descended upon Christs head was not a common Dove and yet it follows not therefore this was a Dove The three that appeared to Abraham were not common men therefore they were men it follows not This is the sophistry of the Cardinal for the confutation of which I have so much Logic left as to prove this to be a fallacy and it will soon appear if it be reduc'd to a regular proposition This bread is not common therefore this bread is extraordinary bread A propositione tertii adjecti ad propositionem secundi adjecti valet consequentia si subjectum supponat realiter Reg. Dialect Vide Sect. 5. n. 10. Of Christs real presence and spiritual but therefore this is bread still here the Consequence is good and is so still when the subject of the proposition is something real and not in appearance only Because whatsoever is but in appearance and pretence is a Non-Ens in respect of that real thing which it counterfeits And therefore it follows not This is not a common dove therefore it is
have been written against by so learned an adversary But to let them agree as well as they can the words of Eusebius Demonstr Evang. l. 1. c. ult 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Apostle received a command according to the constitution of the N. T. to make a memory of this sacrifice upon the table by the symbols of his body and healthful bloud So the words are translated in the Dissuasive But the letter translates them thus Seeing therefore we have received the memory of this sacrifice to be celebrated in certain signs on the Table and the memory of that body and healthful bloud as is the institute of the new Testament out of his last chapter I translated as well as I could the Greek words I have set in the Margent that every one that understands may see I did him right and indeed to do my Adversary right when he goes about to change not to mend the translation he only changes the order of the words but in nothing does he mend his own matter by it for he acknowledges the main Question viz. that the memory of Christs sacrifice is to be celebrated in certain figns on the Table but then that I may do my self right and the question too whosoever translated these words for this Gentleman hath abused him and made him to render 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as if it were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and hath made 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be governed by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is so far off it and hath no relation to it and not to be governed by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with which it is joyn'd and hath made 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be governed by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when it hath a substantive of its own 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and he repeats 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 once more than it is in the words of Eusebius only because he would not have the Reader suppose that Eusebius call'd the consecrated Elements the symbols of the body and bloud But this fraud was too much studied to be excusable upon the stock of humane infirmity or an innocent perswasion But that I may satisfie the Reader in this Question so far as the testimony and doctrine of Eusebius can extend he hath these words fully to our purpose Lib. 5. c. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 First our Lord and Saviour and then after him his Priests of all Nations celebrating the spiritual sacrifice according to the Ecclesiastick Laws by the bread and the wine signifie the mysteries of his body and healing bloud Et lib. 8. c. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Et Paulo post 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And again By the wine which is the symbol of his bloud he purges the old sins of them who were baptized into his death and believe in his bloud Again he gave to his Disciples the symbols of the divine Oeconomy commanding them to make the image figure or representation of his own body 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And again He received not the sacrifices of bloud nor the slaying of divers beasts instituted in the Law of Moses 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but ordained we should use bread the symbol of his own body So far I thought fit to set down the words of Eusebius to convince my Adversary that Eusebius is none of theirs but he is wholly ours in the doctrine of the Sacrament S. Macarius is cited in the Dissuasive in these words Macarius homil 27. In the Church is offered bread and wine the Antitype of his flesh and bloud and they that partake of the bread that appears do spiritually eat the flesh of Christ. * Pag. 22. A. L. saith Macarius saith not so but rather the contrary viz. bread and wine exhibiting the Exemplar or an antitype his flesh and bloud Now although I do not suppose many learned or good men will concern themselves with what this little man says yet I cannot but note that they who gave him this answer may be asham'd for here is a double satisfaction in this little answer First he puts in the word exhibiting of his own head there being no such word in S. Macarius in the words quoted 2. He makes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be put with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by way of apposition expresly against the mind of S. Macarius and against the very Grammar of his words And after all he studies to abuse his Author and yet gets no good by it himself for if it were in the words as he hath invented it or some body else for him yet it makes against him as much saying bread and wine exhibite Christs body which is indeed true though not here said by the Saint but is directly against the Roman article because it confesses that to be bread and wine by which Christs body is exhibited to us but much more is the whole testimony of S. Macarius which in the Dissuasive are translated exactly as the Reader may see by the Greek words cited in the Margent There now only remains the authority of S. Austin Pag. ibid. which this Gentleman would fain snatch from the Church of England and assert to his own party I cited five places out of S. Austin to the last of which but one he gives this answer that S. Austin hath no such words in that book that is in the 10. book against Faustus the Manichee Concerning which I am to inform the Gentleman a little better These words that which by all men is called a sacrifice is the sign of the true sacrifice are in the 10. book of S. Austin de C. D. cap. 5. and make a distinct quotation and ought by the Printer to have been divided by a colume as the other But the following words in which the flesh of Christ after his assumption is celebrated by the sacrament of remembrance are in the 20. book cap. 21. against Faustus the Manichee * Hujus sacrificii caro sanguis ante adventum Christi per victimas similitudinum promittebatur in passione Christi per ipsa◠veritatem reddebatur po◠ascensum Christi per sacramentum memoriae celebratur lib. 20. c. 21. contr Faustum Manich. All these words and divers others of S. Austin I knit together into a close order like a continued discourse but all of them are S. Austins words as appears in the places set down in the Margent But this Gentleman car'd not for what was said by S. Austin he was as well pleased that a figure was false Printed but to the words he hath nothing to say To the first of the other four only he makes this crude answer that S. Austin denied not the real eating of Christs body in the Eucharist but only the eating it in that gross carnal and sensible manner as the Capharnaites conceiv'd To which I reply that it is true that upon occasion of this error S. Austin did speak those words and although the Roman error
be not so gross and dull as that of the Capharnaites yet it was as false as unreasonable and as impossible And be the occasion of the words what they are or can be yet upon this occasion S. Austin spake words which as well confute the Roman error as the Capharnaitical For it is not only false which the men of Capernaum dreamt of but the antithesis to this is that which S. Austin urges and which comes home to our question I have commended to you a sacrament which being spiritually understood shall quicken you But because S. Austin was the most diligent expounder of this mystery among all the Fathers I will gratifie my Adversary or rather indeed my Unpraejudicate Readers by giving some other very clear and unanswerable evidences of the doctrine of S. Austin agreeing perfectly with that of our Church At this time after manifest token of our liberty hath shin'd in the resurrection of our Lord Iesus Christ De doctr Christ. lib. 3. cap. 9. we are not burdened with the heavy operation of signs but some few instead of many but those most easie to be done and most glorious to be understood and most pure in their observation our Lord himself and the Apostolical discipline hath delivered such is the sacrament of Baptism and the celebration of the body and bloud of our Lord which when every one takes he understands whether they may be referr'd that he may give them veneration not with carnal service but with a spiritual liberty For as to follow the letter and to take the signs for the things signified by them is a servile infirmity so to interpret the signs unprofitably is an evil wandring error But he that understands not what the sign signifies but yet understandeth it to be a sign is not press'd with servitude But it is better to be press'd with unknown signs so they be profitable than by expounding them unprofitably to thrust our necks into the yoke of slavery from which they were brought forth All this S. Austin spake concerning the sacramental signs the bread and the wine in the Eucharist and if by these words he does not intend to affirm that they are the signs signifying Christs body and bloud let who please to undertake it make sense of them for my part I cannot To the same purpose are these other words of his Epist. 23. Christ is in himself once immolated and yet in the sacrament he is sacrificed not only in the solennities of Easter but every day with the people Neither indeed does he lye who being ask'd shall answer that he is sacrificed For if the sacraments have not a similitude of those things of which they are sacraments they were altogether no sacraments but commonly for this similitude they take the names of the things themselves sicut ergo secundum quendam modum c. As therefore after a certain manner the sacrament of the body of Christ is the body of Christ the sacrament of the bloud of Christ is the bloud of Christ so the sacrament of faith viz. Baptism is faith Christ is but once immolated or sacrificed in himself but every day in the sacrament that properly this in figure that in substance this in similitude that naturally this sacramentally and spiritually But therefore we call this mystery a sacrifice as we call the Sacrament Christs body viz. by way of similitude or after a certain manner for upon this account the names of the things are imputed to their very figures This is S. Austins sense which indeed he frequently so expresses Now I desire it may be observed that oftentimes when S. Austin speaking of the Eucharist calls it the body and blood of Christ he oftentimes adds by way of explication that he means it in the Sacramental figurative sense but when ever he calls it the figure or the Sacrament of Christs body he never offers to explain that by any words by which he may signifie such a real or natural being of Christs body there as the Church of Rome dreams of but he ought not neither would he have given offence or Umbrage to the Church by any such incurious and loose handling of things if the Church in his age had thought of it otherwise than that it was Christs body in a Sacramental sense Though I have remark'd all that is objected by A. L. yet E. W. is not satisfied with the quotation out of Greg. Naz. not but that he acknowledges it to be right P. 41. Orat. 2. in pascha Jam verò paschlis participes erimus nunc quidem adhuc typicè tametsi apertiùs licet quam in veteri legale siquidem pascha nec enim dicere verebor figurae figurae erat obscurior for he sets down the words in Latin but they conclude nothing against Transubstantiation Why so because though the Paschal was a type of a type a figure of a figure yet in S. Gregories sense Christ concealed under the species of bread may be rightly called a figure of its own self more clearly hereafter to be shewed us in heaven To this pitiful answer the reply is easie S. Gregory clearly enough expresses himself that in the immolation of the Passeover Christ was figured that in the Eucharist he still is figured there more obscurely here more clearly but yet still but typically or in figure nunc quidem adhuc typice here we are partakers of him typically Afterwards we shall see him perfectly meaning in his Fathers Kingdom So that the Saint affirms Christ to be receiv'd by us in the Sacrament after a figurative or typical manner and therefore not after a substantial as that is oppos'd to figurative Now of what is this a type of himself to be more clearly seen in heaven hereafter It is very true it is so for this whole ceremony and figurative ritual receiving of Christs body here does prefigure our more excellent receiving and enjoying him hereafter but then it follows that the very proper substance of Christs body is not here for figure or shadow and substance cannot be the same to say a thing that is present is a figure of it self hereafter is to be said by no man but him that cares not what he says Lib. de Synod Nemo est sui ipsius imago saith S. Hilary and yet if it were possible to be otherwise yet it is a strange figure or sign of a thing that what is invisible should be a sign of what is visible De Euchar. l. 2. c. 15. Sect. est igitur tertia Bellarmine being greatly put to it by the Fathers calling the Sacrament the figure of Christs body says it is in some sense a figure of Christs body on the Cross and here E. W. would affirm out of Naz. that it is a figure of Christs body glorified Now suppose both these dreamers say right then this Sacrament which whether you look forwards or backwards is a figure of Christs body cannot be that body of which so
difference in the Scripture or in the Primitive Church so that though the Canon mentions only the Priest yet it must by the same reason mean all there being at that time no difference known 3. It is call'd sacriledge to divide one and the same mystery meaning that to receive one without the other is to divide the body from the bloud for the dream of concomitancy was not then found out and therefore the title of the Canon is thus express'd Corpus Christi sine ejus sanguine sacèrdos non debet accipere and that the so doing viz. by receiving one without the other cannot be without sacriledge 4. Now suppose at last that the Priests only are concern'd in this Canon yet even then also they are abundantly reprov'd because even the Priests in the Church of Rome unless they consecrate communicate but in one kind 5. It is also remarkable that although in the Church of Rome there is great use made of the distinction of its being sometime a sacrifice sometime only a sacrament as Friar Ant. Mondolphus said in the Council of Trent yet the arguments by which the Roman Doctors do usually endeavour to prove the lawfulness of the half communion do destroy this distinction viz. that of Christs ministring to the Disciples at Emaus and S. Paul in the Ship in which either there is no proof or no consecration in both kinds and consequently no sacrifice for there is mention made only of blessing the bread for they receiv'd that which was blessed and therefore either the consecration was imperfect or the reception was intire To this purpose also the words of S. Ambrose are severe and speak clearly of communicants without distinction of Priest and People which distinction though it be in this article nothing to the purpose yet I observe it to prevent such trifling cavils which my Adversaries put me often to fight with His words are these He viz. the Apostle S. Paul saith In Corinth 11. Indignum dicet esse Domino qui alitèr mysterium celebrat quam ab eo traditum est Non enim potest devotus esse qui aliter praesumit quam datum est ab Authore Ideóque praemonet ut secundum ordinem traditum devota mens sit accedentis ad Eucharistiam Domini quoniam futurum est judicium ut quemadmodum accedit unusquisque veddat causas in Die Domini Jesu Christi quia sine disciplinâ traditionis conversationis qui accedunt rei sunt corporis sanguinis Domini that he is unworthy of the Lord who otherwise celebrates the mystery than it was deliver'd by him For he cannot be devout that presumes otherwise than it was given by the Author Therefore he before admonishes that according to the order delivered the mind of him that comes to the Eucharist of our Lord be devout for there is a judgment to come that as every one comes so he may render an account in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ because they who come without the discipline of the delivery or tradition and of conversation are guilty of the body and bloud of our Lord. One of my Adversaries says these words of S. Ambrose are to be understood only of the Priest A. L. p 4. and it appears so by the word celebrat not recipit he that celebrates otherwise than is delivered by Christ. To this I answer that first it is plain and S. Ambrose so expresses his meaning to be of all that receive it for so he says that the mind of him that cometh to the Eucharist of our Lord ought to be devout 2. It is an ignorant conceit that S. Ambrose by celebrat means the Priest only because he only can celebrate For however the Church of Rome does now almost impropriate that word to the Priest yet in the Primitive Church it was no more than recipit or accedit ad Eucharistiam which appears not only by S. Ambrose his expounding it so here Serm. 1. de eleemos but in S. Cyprian speaking to a rich Matron Locuples dives Dominicum celebrare te credis corban omnino non respicis Doest thou who art rich and opulent suppose that you celebrate the Lords Supper or sacrifice who regardest not the poor mans basket Celebrat is the word and receive must needs be the signification and so it is in S. Ambrose and therefore I did as I ought translate it so 3. It is yet objected that I translate aliter quam ab eo traditum est otherwise than he appointed whereas it should be otherwise than it was given by him And this surely is a great matter and the Gentleman is very subtle But if he be ask'd whether or no Christ appointed it to be done as he did to be given as he gave it I suppose this deep and wise note of his will just come to nothing But ab eo traditum est of it self signifies appointed for this he deliver'd not only by his hands but by his commandment of Hoc facite that was his appointment Now that all this relates to the whole institution and doctrine of Christ in this matter and therefore to the duplication of the Elements the reception of the chalice as well as the consecrated bread appears first by the general terms qui aliter mysterium celebrat he that celebrates otherwise than Christ delivered 2. These words are a Commentary upon that of Saint Paul He that eats this bread and drinks the Cup of the Lord Unworthily is guilty of the body and bloud of the Lord. Now hence S. Ambrose arguing that all must be done as our Lord delivered says also that the bread must be eaten and the cup drunk as our Lord delivered and he that does not do both does not do what our Lord delivered 3. The conclusion of S. Ambrose is full to this particular They are guilty of the body and bloud of Christ who came without the discipline of the delivery and of conversation that is they who receive without due preparation and not after the manner it was delivered that is under the differing symbols of bread and wine To which we may add that observation of Cassander Disp. 5. de sacra coena and of Vossius that the Apostles represented the persons of all the faithful Christ saying to them take eate he also said Drink ye all of this he said not Eat ye all of this and therefore if by vertue of these words Drink ye all of this the Laity be not commanded to drink it can never be proved that the Laity are commanded to eat Omnes is added to bibite but it is not expresly added to Accipite Comedite Lib. de corp sang Domini cap. 15. and therefore Paschasius Radbertus who lived about eight hundred and twenty years after Christs incarnation so expounds the precept without any haesitation Bibite ex hoc omnes i. e. tam Ministri quam reliqui credentes Drink ye all of this as
well they that Minister as the rest of the believers And no wonder since for their so doing they have the example and institution of Christ by which as by an irrefragable and undeniable argument the Ancient Fathers us'd to reprove and condemn all usages which were not according to it For saith Saint Cyprian If men ought not to break the least of Christs commandments Epist. 63. how much less those great ones which belong to the Sacrament of our Lords passion and redemption or to change it into any thing but that which was appointed by him Now this was spoken against those who refus'd the hallowed wine but took water instead of it and it is of equal force against them that give to the Laity no cup at all but whatever the instance was or could be S. Cyprian reproves it upon the only account of prevaricating Christs institution The whole Epistle is worth reading for a full satisfaction to all wise and sober Christians Ab eo quod Christus Magister praecepit gessit humana novella institutione decedere by a new and humane institution to depart from what Christ our Master commanded and did that the Bishops would not do tamen quoniam quidam c. because there are some who simply and ignorantly In calice Dominico sanctificando plebi ministrando non hoc faciunt quod Jesus Christus Dominus Deus noster sacrificii hujus author Doctor fecit docuit c. In sanctifying the cup of the Lord and giving it to the people do not do what Jesus Christ did and taught viz. they did not give the cup of wine to the people therefore S. Cyprian calls them to return ad radicem originem traditionis Dominicae to the root and original of the Lords delivery Now besides that S. Cyprian plainly says that when the chalice was sanctified it was also ministred to the people I desire it be considered whether or no these words do not plainly reprove the Roman doctrine and practice in not giving the consecrated chalice to the people Do they not recede from the root and original of Christs institution Do they do what Christ did Do they teach what Christ taught Is not their practice quite another thing than it was at first Did not the Ancient Church do otherwise than these men do And thought themselves oblig'd to do otherwise They urg'd the doctrine and example of our Lord and the whole Oeconomy of the Mystery was their warrant and their reason for they always believed that a peculiar grace and vertue was signified by the symbol of wine and it was evident that the chalice was an excellent representment and memorial of the effusion of Christs bloud for us and the joyning both the symbols signifies the intire refection and nourishment of our souls bread and drink being the natural provisions and they design and signifie our redemption more perfectly the body being given for our bodies and the bloud for the cleansing our souls the life of every animal being in the bloud and finally this in the integrity signifies and represents Christ to have taken body and soul for our redemption For these reasons the Church of God always in all her publick communions gave the chalice to the people for above a thousand years This was all I would have remarked in this so evident a matter but that I observed in a short spiteful passage of E. W. Pag. 44. a notorious untruth spoken with ill intent concerning the Holy Communion as understood by Protestants The words are these seeing the fruit of Protestant Communion is only to stir up faith in the receiver I can find no reason why their bit of bread only may not as well work that effect as to taste of their wine with it To these words 1. I say that although stirring up faith is one of the Divine benefits and blessings of the Holy Communion yet it is falsely said that the fruit of the Protestant Communion is only to stir up faith For in the Catechism of the Church of England it is affirmed that the body and bloud of Christ are verily and indeed taken and received of the faithful in the Lords Supper and that our souls are strengthened and refreshed by the body and bloud of Christ as our bodies are by the bread and wine and that of stirring up our faith is not at all mentioned So ignorant so deceitful or deceiv'd is E. W. in the doctrine of the Church of England But then as for his foolish sarcasm calling the hallowed Element a bit of bread which he does in scorn he might have considered that if we had a mind to find fault whenever his Church gives us cause that the Papists wafer is scarce so much as a bit of bread it is more like Marchpane than common bread and besides that as Salmeron acknowledges anciently Salmer in 11. Cor. 10. disp 17. pag. 138. Olim ex pane uno sua cuique particula frangi consueverat that which we in our Church do was the custom of the Church out of a great loaf to give particles to every communicant by which the Communication of Christs body to all the members is better represented Durand ration Divin offic l. 4. c. 53. and that Durandus affirming the same thing says that the Grecians continue it to this day besides this I say the Author of the Roman order says Cassander took it very ill Cassand liturg c. 27. Sect. Et cum mensa that the loaves of bread offered in certain Churches for the use of the sacrifice should be brought from the form of true bread to so slight and slender a form which he calls Minutias nummulariarum oblatarum scraps of little penies or pieces of money and not worthy to be called bread being such which no Nation ever used at their meals for bread But this is one of the innovations which they have introduc'd into the religious Rites of Christianity and it is little noted they having so many greater changes to answer for But it seems this Section was too hot for them they loved not much to meddle with it and therefore I shall add no more fuel to their displeasure but desire the Reader who would fully understand what is fit to be said in this Question Lib. 2. Chap. 3. Rule 9. to read it in a book of mine which I called Ductor dubitantium or the Cases of Conscience only I must needs observe that it is an unspeakable comfort to all Protestants when so manifestly they have Christ on their side in this Question against the Church of Rome To which I only add that for above 700. years after Christ it was esteemed sacriledge in the Church of Rome to abstain from the Cup and that in the ordo Romanus the Communion is always describ'd with the Cup how it is since and how it comes to be so is too plain But it seems the Church hath power to dispense in this