THE REAL PRESENCE AND Spirituall OF CHRIST IN THE Blessed Sacrament PROVED Against the DOCTRINE of TRANSUBSTANTIATION.

By Jer. Taylor, D. D.

Oportuit enim certè ut non solùm anima per Spiritum Sanctum in beatam vitam ascenderet, verùmetiam ut rude, atque terrestre hoc corpus cognato sibi gustu, tactu, & cibo ad immortalitatem reduceretur. S. Cyril. in Joh. l. 4. c. 14.
Literam sequi, & signa pro rebus accipere servilis in­firmitatis est. S. August. l. 3. de doct. Christ.

LONDON, Printed by James Flesher, for Richard Royston at Angel in Ivie-lane. 1654.

To the R. R. D. WARNER L. B. R.

Right Reverend Father,

I Am against my Resolution and proper disposi­tion by the over-ruling power of the divine providence which wisely disposes all things, accidentally engaged in the Question of Transubstantiation, which hath already so many times passed by the Fire and under the Saw of Contention: that it might seem, nothing could re­main which had not been already considered, and sifted to the bran. I had been by chance ingaged in a conference with a person of another perswasion, the man not unlearned nor un­wary, but much more confident then I perceived the strength of his argument could warrant; and yet he had some few of the best which their Schools did furnish out and ordinarily minister to their [...], their Emissaries and mi­nisters of temptation to our people. I then began to consider whether there we not much more in the secret of the Question which might not have perswaded him more fiercely then I could then see cause for, or others at least, from whom upon the strength of education he might have derived his confidence; and searching into all the secrets of it, I found infinite reason to reprove the boldnesse of those men, who in the sum of af­fairs [Page]and upon examination will be found to think men damn­ed, if they will not speak non-sense, and disbelieve their eyes and ears, and defie their own reason, and recede from anti­quity, and believe them in whatsoever they dream, or list to obtrude upon the world who hath been too long credulous, or it could never have suffered such a proposition to be be­lieved by so many men against all the demonstration in the world. And certainly, it is no small matter of wonder, that those men of the Roman Church should pretend learning, and yet rest their new articles of faith upon propositions against all learning; that they should ingage their scholars to read and believe Aristotle, and yet destroy his philosophy, and reason by their article; that they should think all the world fools but themselves, and yet talk and preach such things which if men had spoken before this new device arose, they would have been thought mad. But if these men had by chance or interest fallen upon the other opinion which we maintain against them, they would have filled the world with declamations a­gainst the impossible propositions and the [...] of their adversaries; They would have called us dunces, idi­ots, men without souls, without philosophy, without Sense, without Reason, without Logick, destroyers of the very first notions of mankind. But now that they are ingaged upon the impossible side, they proceed with a prodigious boldnesse, and seem to wonder that mankind does not receive from them all their first principles and credit the wildnesse and new notions of their Cataphysicks (for Metaphysicks it is not) their affirmatives and negatives are neither natural, nor above, nor besides nature, but against it in those first principles which are primely credible. For that I may use S. Austins words: Nemo enim huic evidentiae contradicet, nisi quem plus defensare de­lectat quod sentit, quàm quid sentiendum sit invenìre. But I see it is possible for a man to believe any thing that he hath a mind to; and this to me seems to have been permitted to re­prove the vanity of mans imagination, and the confidence of [Page]opinion, to make us humble, apt to learn, inquisitive, and charitable: for if it be possible for so great a company of men of all sorts and capacities to believe such impossible things and to wonder that others do not eandem insaniam insanire, it will concern the wisest man alive, to be inquisitive in the articles of his fierce perswasion, to be diligent in his search, modest in his sentences, to prejudge no man, to reprove the adversaries with meeknesse, and a spirit conscious of humane weaknesse and aptnesse to be abused. But if we remember that Pere Coton Confessor to Henry the IV. of France was wont to say, that he could do any thing when he had his God in his hand and his King at his feet, meaning him at confession, and the other in effigie of the Crucifix or in the Host, we may well perceive that they are not such fools but they will consider the advantages that come to their persons and calling, if they can be supposed to make, with pronouncing four words, bread to become God. Upon the reputation of this great thing the Priests were exempt from from secular Jurisdiction, and vio­lence, in the Councel in Dalmatia held by the Legats of Pope Innocent the third A. D. 1199. Can. 5. upon this account Pope Ʋrban the second in a Councel which he held at Rome (1097) against the Emperour Henry the fourth, took from secular Princes the investiture of Benefices, and advanced the Clergy above Kings, because their hands create God their Creatour, as Simeon Dunelmensis reports Lib. 2. Chron. apud Vigner. Hist. Eccles. And the same horrible words are used in the famous book called Stella Clericorum: where the Priest is called the creator of his Creator; and thence also in­fers his privilege and immunity from being condemned. I will not with any envy and reproach object to them that say­ing of a Bohemian Priest against which John Hus wrote a book on purpose, that before the Priest said his first Mass, he was but the son of God, but afterward he was the Father of God, and the Creator of his body; It was a rude kind of blasphemy, but not much more then that which their severest [Page]men do say, and were never corrected by their expurgatory indices, and is to be seen in Biel on Canon of the Masse, Le­ction. 4. and Pere dè Bessè in his Royal Priesthood; l. 1. c. 3. where the Priest upon the stock of his power is advanced a­bove Angels, and the blessed Virgin her self; which is the big­gest expression which they can devise, unlesse they advance him above God himself. The consequent of this is a double honour, that is, an honour and maintenance in such a manner as may serve the designe of ambition, and fill the belly of covetousnesse.

This was enough to make them willing to introduce it, and (as to them) the wonder ceases, but it is strange the world could receive it; For though men might be willing to believe a thing that would make for their profit and reputation, yet that they should entertain it to their prejudice, as the other part must do, that at so great a price, and with so great a di­minution of their rights, they should suffer themselves to be cousen'd of their reason, is the stranger thing of the two. But to this also, there were many concurrent causes; For, 1. This doctrine entred upon the world in the most barbarous, most ignorant, and most vitious ages of the world; for we know when it began, by what steps and progressions it pre­vail'd, and by what instruments. It began in the ninth age, and in the tenth was suckled with little arguments and imperfect pleadings, in the eleventh it grew up with illusions and pre­tence of miracles, and was christened and confirmed in the twelfth, and afterwards lived upon bloud, and craft, and vio­lence; But when it was disputed by Paschasius Ratbert the Deacon in the 9 th Century, the first collateral device by which they attempted to set up their fancy was to devise mi­racles, which we find done accordingly in the same Paschasius telling a tale of Plegilus seeing upon the altar a babe like that which was pictured in the arms of Simeon: in Joannes Diaco­nus telling a story of something in the dayes of S. Gregory the great, but never told by any before him, viz. in the year [Page]873, that is 270 years after the death of S. Gregory; and ex­tracted from the Archives of Rome or Italy out of England, where it seems they could better tell what so long before done at Rome, by Damianus in the year 1060 who tells two more; by Guitmond writing against Berengarius out of the Vitae P P. by Lanfranck, who served his end upon the report of strange apparitions, and from him Alexander of Hales also tells a pretty tale. For they then observed that the common people did not only then believe all reports of miracles, but desired them passionately, and with them would swallow any thing; But how vainly and falsly the world was then abused, we need no greater witnesse then the learned bishop of the Canaries, Melchier Canus. And yet even one of these au­thors, though possible apt enough to credit or report any such fine device, for the promotion of his new opinion, yet it is vehemently suspected, that even the tale which was reported out of Paschasius, was a long time after his death thrust in by some Monk in a place to which it relates not, and which without that tale would be more united and more coherent: and yet if this and the other miracles pretended, had not been illusions or directly fabulous, it had made very much against the present doctrine of the Roman Church, for they represent the body in such manner as by their explications it is not, and it cannot be: they represent it broken, a finger or a piece of flesh or bloudy or bleeding, or in the form of an infant; and then when it is in the species of bread; for if as they say Christs body is present no longer then the form of bread re­mained, how can it be Christs body in the miracle, when the species being gone it is no longer a Sacrament? But the dull inventors of miracles in those ages, considered nothing of this; the article it self was then grosse and rude, and so were the instruments of probation. I noted this, not only to shew at what door so incredible a perswasion entred, but that the zeal of prevailing in it hath so blinded the refiners of it in this age, that they still urge these miracles for proof, when if [Page]they do any thing at all, they reprove the present doctrine.

But besides this device, they inticed the people forward by institution of the solemn feast of Corpus Christi day, enter­tain'd their fancies by solemn and pompous processions and rewarded their worshippings and attendances on the blessed Sacrament with indulgences granted by Pope Ʋrban the 4 th inserted in the Clementines and enlarged by John the 22 d and Martin the 5 th, and for their worshipping of the consecrated water they had authentick precedents, even the example of Bonaventure's Lamb, S. Francis his Mule, S. Anthony of Padoa's Asse; and if these things were not enough to perswade the People to all this matter, they must needs have weak hearts, and hard heads; and because they met with oppo­nents at all hands, they proceeded to a more vigorous way of arguing: they armed legions against their adversaries, they confuted at one time in the Town of Beziers 60000 persons, and in one battel disputed so prosperously and acutely, that they kill'd about 10000 men that were Sacramentaries: and this Bellarmine gives as an instance of the marks of his Church; This way of arguing was used in almost all the countries of Christendome, till by Crusado's massacres and battels, burnings and the constant Carnificia, and butchery of the inquisition, which is the main prop of the Papacy, and does more then Tu [...]es Petrus, they prevail'd far and neer; and men durst not oppose the evidence whereby they fought. And now the wonder is out, it is not strange that the article hath been so readily entertained. But in the Greek Churches it could not prevaile, as appears not onely in Cyrils book of late, dogmatically affirming the article in our sense, but in the answer of Cardinal Humbert to Nicetas who maintained the receiving the holy Sacrament does break the fast, which it could not do if it were not, when it seems, bread and wine, as well as what we believe it to be, the body and bloud of Christ.

And now in prosecution of their strange improbable success [Page]they proceed to perswade all People that they are fools, and do not know the measures of sense, nor understand the words of Scripture, nor can tell when any of the Fathers speak af­firmatively or negatively; and after many attempts made by diverse unprosperously enough (as the thing did constrain and urge them) a great wit Cardinal Perron hath undertaken the Qu. and hath spun his thread so fine and twisted it so intricate­ly, and adorned it so sprucely with language and sophismes, that although he connot resist the evidence of truth, yet he is too subtle for most mens discerning; and though he hath been contested by potent adversaries, and wise men, in a bet­ter cause then his own, yet he will alwayes make his reader believe that he prevails; which puts me in mind of what Thucydides told Archidamus the King of Sparta as king him whether he or Pericles were the better wrastler? he told him that when he threw Pericles on his back he would with fine words perswade the people that he was not down at all, and so he got the better. So does he; and is to all considering men a great argument of the danger that articles of religion are in, and consequently mens perswasions, and final interest, when they fall into the hands of a witty man and a sophister, and one who is resolved to prevail by all means. But truth is stronger then wit, and can endure when the other cannot, and I hope, it will appear so in this Qu. which although it is managed by weak hands, that is, by mine, yet to all im­partial persons it must be certain and prevailing upon the stock of his own sincerity and derivation from God.

And now (R. R.) though this Qu. hath so often been disputed and some things so often said, yet I was willing to bring it once more upon the stage, hoping to add some clear­nesse to it, and by fitting it with a good instrument, and clear conveyance, and representment, by saying something new, and very many which are not generally known, and lesse generally noted; and I thought there was a present necessity of it, be­cause the Emissaries of the Church of Rome are busie now [Page]to disturb the peace of consciences by troubling the persecu­ted, and injecting scruples into the infortunate, who suspect every thing, and being weary of all, are most ready to change from the present. They have got a trick to ask, where is our Church now! what is become of your articles, of your re­ligion? We cannot answer them as they can be answered; for nothing satisfies them, but being prosperous, and that we cannot pretend to, but upon the accounts of the Crosse, and so we may indeed rejoyce and be exceeding glad, because we hope that great is our reward in heaven. But although they are pleased to use an argument that like Jonas Gourd or Spa­ragus is in season only at some times, yet we according to the nature of truth, inquire after the truth of their religion upon the account of proper and theological objections; Our Church may be a beloved Church and dear to God though she be persecuted when theirs is in an evil condition by obtruding upon the Christian world articles of religion against all that which ought to be the instruments of credibility and perswa­sion, by distorting and abusing the Sacraments, by making er­ror to be an art, and that a man must be witty to make him­self capable of being abused, by out-facing all sense and rea­son, by damning their brethren for not making their under­standing servile and sottish, by burning them they can get, and cursing them that they cannot get, by doing so much vi­olence to their own reasons, and forcing themselves to believe that no man ever spake against their new device, by making a prodigious error to be necessary to salvation, as if they were Lords of the Faith of Christendome.

But these men are grown to that strange triumphal gayety upon their joy that the Church of England as they think is destroyed, that they tread upon her grave which themselves have digged for her who lives and pities them; and they wonder that any man should speak in her behalf, and sup­pose men doe it out of spight and indignation, and call the duty of her sons who are by persecution made more confi­dent, [Page]pious, and zealous in defending those truths for which she suffers on all hands, by the name of anger, and suspect it of malicious, vile purposes, I wondred when I saw some­thing of this folly in one that was her son once, but is run away from her sorrow, and disinherited himself because she was not able to give him a temporal portion, and thinks he hath found out reasons enough to depart from the miserable. I will not trouble him or so much as name him, because if his words are as noted as they are publick every good man will scorn them, if they be private I am not willing to pub­lish his shame, but leave him to consideration and repentance; But for our dear afflicted Mother she is under the portion of a child, in the state of discipline, her government indeed hindered, but her worshippings the same, the articles as true and those of the Church of Rome as false as ever, of which I hope the following book will be one great in­stance. But I wish that all tempted persons would con­sider the illogical deductions by which these men would im­pose upon their consciences; If the Church of England be destroyed, then Transubstantiation is true; which indeed had concluded well if that article had been only pretended false, because the Church of England was prosperous. But put case the Turke should invade Italy, and set up the Alcoran in S. Peters Church, would it be endured that we should conclude, that Rome was Antichristian because her temporal glory is defaced? The Apostle in this case argued otherwise; The Church of the Jewes was cut off for their sinnes; be not highminded ô ye Gentiles, but fear lest he also cut thee off; it was counsel given to the Romans. But though (blessed be God) our afflictions are great, yet we can, and doe enjoy the same religion as the good Christians in the first three hundred years did theirs; we can serve God in our houses, and sometimes in Churches; and our faith which was not built upon temporal foundations, cannot be shaken by the convulsions of warre and the changes of state. But [Page]they who make our afflictions an objection against us, unlesse they have a promise that they shall never be afflicted, might doe weil to remember, that if they ever fall into trouble they have nothing left to represent or make their condition tolerable; for by pretending, religion is destroyed when it is persecuted they take away all that which can support their own Spirits and sweeten persecution: However, let our Church be where it pleases God it shall, it is certain that Transubstantiation is an evil doctrine, false and dangerous and I know not any Church in Christendome which hath any article more impossible or apt to render the Communion dangerous, then this in the Church of Rome: and since they command us to believe all or will accept none, I hope the just reproof of this one will establish the minds of those who can be tempted to communicate with them in others. I have now given account of the reasons of my present engagement; and though it may be enquired also why I presented it to you, I fear I shall not give so perfect an account of it; because those excellent reasons which invited me to this signification of my gratitude, are such which although they ought to be made publick, yet I know not whether your humility will permit it: for you had rather oblige others then be no­ted by them. Your predecessor in the See of Rochester, who was almost a Cardinal when he was almost dead, did publickly in those evil times appear against the truth defended in this book, and yet he was more moderate and better tempered then the rest: but because God hath put the truth into the hearts and mouths of his successors, it is not impro­per that to you should be offered the opportunities of own­ing that which is the belief and honor of that See, since the religion was reformed. But lest it be thought that this is an excuse, rather then a reason of my addresse to you, I must crave pardon of your humility, and serve the end of glorification of God in it, by acknowledging publick­ly that you have assisted my condition by the emanations [Page]of that grace which is the Crown of Marytyrdome: expend­ing the remains of your lessened fortunes, and encreasing cha­rity, upon your brethren who are dear to you not only by the band of the same Ministry, but the fellowship of the same sufferings. But indeed the cause in which these papers are ingaged, is such that it ought to be owned by them that can best defend it; and since the defence is not with secular arts and aids, but by Spiritual; the diminution of your out­ward circumstances cannot render you a person unfit to pa­tronize this Book, because where I fail, your wisdome learning, and experience can supply, and therefore if you will pardon my drawing your name from the privacy of your retirement into a publick view: you will singularly oblige and increase those favours by which you have already endeared the thank­fulnesse and service of

R. R.
Your most affectionate and endeared servant in the Lord Jesus JER. TAYLOR.

The Contents.

  • SECT. I. State of the Question. Page 1
  • SECT. II. Transubstantiation not warrantable by Scripture. p. 22
  • SECT. III. Of the sixt Chapter of Saint Johns Gospel. p. 28
  • SECT. IV. Of the words of Institution. p. 65
  • SECT. V. Hoc, This. p. 78
  • [Page]SECT. VI. Est corpus meum. p. 107
  • SECT. VII. Considerations of the manner and circum­stances and annexes of the Institu­tion. p. 124
  • SECT. VIII. Of the arguments of the Romanists from Scripture. p. 140
  • SECT. IX. Arguments from other Scriptures, proving Christs real presence in the Sacrament, to be only Spiritual, not Natural. p. 146
  • SECT. X. The doctrine of Transubstantiation is a­gainst sense. p. 163
  • SECT. XI. The doctrine of Transubstantiation is wholly without and against reason. p. 189
  • [Page]SECT. XII. Transubstantiation was not the doctrine of the Primitive Church. p. 264
  • SECT. XIII. Of adoration of the Sacrament. p. 333

A DISCOURSE OF THE REAL PRESENCE OF CHRIST In the Holy Sacrament.

SECT. I. State of the Question.

THe tree of Knowledge became the tree of Death to us, 1 and the tree of Life is now become an Apple of Contention. The holy sym­boles of the Eucharist were intended to be a contesseration, and an union of Christian so­cieties to God, and with one another; and the evil taking it, disunites us from God; and the evil understanding it, divides us from each other. [...]. [Page 2]And yet if men would but doe reason, there were in all religion no article which might more easily excuse us from medling with questions about it, then this of the holy Sacrament. For as the man in Phadrus, that being asked what he carried hidden under his Cloak, Answered, it was hidden under his Cloak: meaning that he would not have hidden it, but that he inten­ded it should be secret: so we may say in this mystery to them that curiously ask, what, or how it is? Mysterium est; it is a Sa­crament, and a Mystery: by sensible instru­ments it consigns spiritual graces; by the creatures it brings us to God; by the body it ministers to the spirit. And that things of this nature are undiscernible secrets, we may learn by the experience of those men who have in cases not unlike vainly laboured to tell us, how the materìal fire of hell should torment an immaterial soul, and how baptis­mal water should cleanse the spirit, and how a Sacrament should nourish a body, and make it sure of the resurrection.

It was happy with Christendome, 2 when she in this article retained the same simplicity which she always was bound to doe in her manners and entercourse; that is, to be­leive the thing heartily, and not to enquire [Page 3]curiously; and there was peace in this article for almost a thousand years together, and yet that Transubstantiation was not deter­mined, I hope to make very evident; In synaxitransubstantiationē serò definivit ecclesia; diù satis erat credere, sive sub pane consecrato, sive quocunque modo adesse verum corpus Chri­sti, so said the great Erasmus. 1 Cor. c. 7. It was late be­fore the Church defined Transubstantiation; for a long time together it did suffice to be­leive, that the true body of Christ was presēt, whether under the consecrated bread or any other way: so the thing was beleived, the manner was not stood upon. And it is a fa­mous saying of Durandus, Verbum audimus, Neand. synops. Chron. pa. 203. motum sentimus, modum nescimus, praesentiam credimus. We hear the Word, we perceive the Motion, we know not the Manner, but we beleive the presence: and Ferus, In Mat. 26 Biblioth. Sixt. Senen­sis l. 4. tit. Johannes Ferus. of whom Sixtus Senensis affirmes that he was vir nobi­litèr doctus, pius & eruditus, hath these words: Cum certum sit ibi esse corpus Christi, quid opus est disputare, num panis substantia maneat, vel non? When it is certain that Christs body is there, what need we dispute whether the substance of bread remain or no? Tonstal de Eucharist. l. 1. pa. 46. and therefore Cutbert Tonstal Bishop of Duresme would have every one left to his conjecture, concerning the manner. De mo­do quo id fieret satius erat curiosum quemque [Page 4]relinquere suae conjecturae, sicut liberum fuit ante Concilium Lateranum. Before the Lateran councell, it was free for every one to opine as they please, and it were better it were so now. Cyrill in Joh. l. 4. c. 13. But S. Cyril would not allow so much liberty; not that he would have the manner determined, but not so much as thought up­on. Firmam fidem mysteriis adhibentes, nun­quam in tam sublimibus rebus, illud [Quomodo] aut cogitemus aut proferamus. For if we go about to think it or understand it, we lose ourlabour. Quomodo enim id siat, ne in mente intelligere, nec linguâ dicere possumus, sed si­lentio & firmâ fide id suscipimus: we can per­ceive the thing by faith, but cannot expresse it in words, Epist. 77. nor understand it with our mind, said S. Bernard. Oportet igitur (it is at last after the steps of the former progresse come to be a duty) nos in sumptionibus Divinorum myste­riorum, indubitatam retinere fidem, & non quaerere quo pacto. The summe is this; The manner was defined but very lately; there is no need at all to dispute it; no advantages by it, and therefore it were better it were left at liberty, to every man to think as he please; for so it was in the Church for above a thousand years together; and yet it were better men would not at all trouble them­selves concerning it, for it is a thing impos­sible to be understood; and therefore it is [Page 5]not fit to be inquired after. This was their sense: and I suppose we doe in no sense pre­varicate their so pious and prudent counsel by saying, the presence of Christ is real and spiritual; because this account does still leave the article in his deepest mystery: not onely because spiritual formalities and perfections are undiscernible and incommensurable by natural proportions and the measures of our usual notices of things, but also because the word spiritual is so general a terme, and the operations so various and many by which the Spirit of God brings his purposes to passe, and does his work upon the soul, that we are in this specific term very far from limi­ting the article to a minute and special man­ner. Our word of spiritual presence is parti­cular in nothing, but that it excludes the corporal and natural manner; we say it is not this, but it is to be understood figurative­ly, that is, not naturally, but to the purposes and in the manner of the Spirit and spiritual things; which how they operate or are ef­fected, we know no more then we know how a Cherubin sings or thinks, or by what private conveyances a lost notion re­turnes suddenly into our memory and stands placed in the eye of reason. Christ is pre­sent spiritually, that is by effect and blessing; which in true speaking is rather the conse­quent [Page 6]of his presence, then the formality. For though we are taught and feel that, yet this we professe we cannot understand; and therefore curiously inquire not. [...], said Justin Martyr, it is a manifest argument of infidelity to inquire concerning the things of God, How, or after what manner? And in this it was that many of the Fathers of the Church laid their hands upon their mouths, and revered the mystery, but like the remains of the sacrifice, they burnt it; that is, as themselves expound the allegory, it was to be adored by Faith, and not to be discussed with reason; knowing that, as Solomon said, Scrutator Majestatis opprimetur à gloriâ. He that pries too far into the Majesty, shall be confounded with the Glory.

So far it was very well; 3 and if errour or interest had not unravelled the secret, and looked too far into the Sanctuary, where they could see nothing but a cloud of fire, Majesty and Secrecy indiscriminately mixt to­gether, we had kneeled before the same Altars, and adored the same mystery, and communicated in the same rites, to this day. For in the thing it self there is no difference amongst wise and sober persons, nor ever was till the manner became an article, and decla­red or supposed to be of the substance of the [Page 7]thing. But now the state of the question is this.

The doctrine of the Church of England, 4 and generally of the Protestants in this ar­ticle is: That after the Minister of the holy mysteries hath ritely prayed, and blessed or consecrated the bread and the wine, the symboles become changed into the body and bloud of Christ, after a Sacramental, that is, in a spiritual, real manner: so that all that worthily communicate, doe by faith receive Christ really, effectually, to all the purposes of his passion: The wicked receive not Christ, but the bare symboles only; but yet to their hurt, Dum e­nim sacra­menta vio­lantur, ipse cujus sunt sacramenta violatur, S. Hieron. in 1 Mala. because the offer of Christ is rejected, and they pollute the bloud of the Covenant, by using it as an unholy thing. The result of which doctrine is this: It is bread, and it is Christs body. It is bread in substance, Christ in the Sacrament; and Christ is as really given to all that are truely disposed, as the sym­boles are; each as they can; Christ as Christ can be given; the bread and wine as they can; and to the same real purposes, to which they are designed; and Christ does as really nourish and fanctifie the soul, as the elements doe the body. It is here as in the other Sa­crament; for as, there, natural water becomes the laver of regeneration; so, here, bread and wine become the body, and bloud of Christ; but there and here too, the first [Page 8]substance is changed by grace, but remains the same in nature.

That this is the doctrine of the Church of England, 5 is apparent in the Church Cate­chisme; affirming the inward part or thing signified by the consecrated bread and wine ‘to be [The body and bloud of Christ which are verily and indeed taken and received of the faithful in the Lords Supper;]’ and the benefit of it to be, the strengthening and re­freshing of our souls by the body and bloud of Christ, as our bodies are by the bread and wine: and the same is repeated severally in the ex­hortation, and in the prayer of the addresse before the consecration, in the Canon of our Communion; verily and indeed is reipsâ, that's really enough; that's our sense of the real presence; and Calvin affirmes as much, saying, Li. 4. Inst. c. 7. §. 32. In the Supper Christ Jesus, viz. his bo­dy and bloud, is truly given under the signes of bread and wine. De Missae Sacrific. And Gregory de Valentiâ gives this account of the doctrine of the Pro­testants, that although Christ be corporally in heaven, yet is he received of the faithful communicants in this Sacrament truly, both spiritually by the mouth of the mind, through a most near conjunction of Christ with the soul of the receiver by faith, and also sacra­mentally with the bodily mouth &c. And which is the greatest testimony of all, we [Page 9]who best know our own minds, declare it to be so.

Now that the spiritual is also a real pre­sence, and that they are hugely consistent, 6 is easily credible to them that beleive that the gifts of the holy Ghost are real graces, and a Spirit is a proper substance: and [...] are amongst the Hellenists [...], intelligi­ble things, or things discerned by the mind of a man are more truly and really such, and of a more excellent substance and reality, then things onely sensible. And therefore when things spiritual are signified by mate­rials, the thing under the figure is called true, and the material part is opposed to it, as lesse true or real. The examples of this are not infrequent in Scripture [The Taber­nacle] into which the high Priest entred, was a type or figure of heaven. Heaven it self is cal­led [...], the true Tabernacle, Heb. 8.2. and yet the other was the material part. And when they are joyned together, that is, when a thing is expressed by a figure [ [...], True] is spoken of such things though they are spo­ken figuratively: 1 Joh. 2. [...]. Christ the true light that lightneth every man that cometh into the world; He is also the true vine, Joh. 15.1. Joh. 6.55. 6.32. and verè cibus truly or really meat, and Panis verus è coelo the true bread from Heaven; and spiritual goods are called the true riches: Luk. 16.12 and in the same Ana­logy, [Page 10]the spiritual presence of Christ is the most true, real, and effective; the other can be but the image and shadow of it, some­thing in order to this: for if it were in the Sacrament naturally or corporeally, it could be but in order to this spiritual, celestial and effective presence, as appears beyond exce­ption in this; that the faithful and pious com­municants receive the ultimate end of his presence, Concil. Trident. sess. 4. sub Julio 3. 1551. Can. 8. that is, spiritual blessings; The wicked (who by the affirmation of the Ro­man Doctors doe receive Christs body and bloud in the natural and corporal manner) fall short of that for which this is given, that is, of the blessings and benefits.

So that (as saint Paul said) He is not a Jew, 7 who is one outwardly, neither is that cir­cumcision which is outward in the flesh, But he is a Jew which is one inwardly, Rom. 2.28 [...], & [...], that's the real Jew, and the true circumcision that which is of the heart, and in the spirit; and in this sense it is that Nathanael is said to be [...], Joh. 1.47. really and truly an Isra­elite: so we may say of the blessed Sacra­ment, Christ is more truly and really pre­sent in spiritual presence, then in corporal, in the heavenly effect, then in the natural being; this if it were at all, can be but the lesse per­fect, and therefore we are to the most real [Page 11]purposes, and in the proper sense of Scripture the more real defenders of the real presence of Christ in the Sacrament; for the spiritual sense is the most real, and most true, and most agreeable to the Analogy and style of Scri­pture, and right reason, and common manner of speaking. For every degree of excellency is a degree of being, of reality, and truth: and therefore spiritual things, being more ex­cellent then corporal and natural, have the advantage both in truth and reality. And this is fully the sense of the Christians who use the Aegyptian Liturgy. Sanctifica nos Domine noster, sicut sanctificasti has oblationes propositas, sed fecisti illas non sictas, (that's for real,) & quicquid apparet est mysterium tuum spiritale, (that's for spiritual.) To all which I adde the testimony of Bellarmine concerning Saint Austin, Apud Augustinum saepissimè, Li. 1. Eu­cha. c. 14. § respondeo apud. il­lud solum dici tale, & verè tale, quod habet effectum suum conjunctum: res enim ex fructu aestimatur: itaque illos dicit verè comedere cor­pus Christi, qui utiliter comedunt: They onely truly eat Christs body that eat it with effect; for then a thing is really or truly such, when it is not to no purpose; when it hath his effect. And in his eleventh Book against Faustus the Manichee, Chap. 7. he shews, that in Scripture the words are often so ta­ken, as to signifie, not the substance, but the [Page 12]and effect of a thing. So when it is said, Flesh and bloud shall not inherit the Kingdom of God, that is, corruption shall not inherit: and in the resurrection our bodies are said to be spiritu­all, that is, not in substance, but in effect and operation: and in the same manner, he often speakes concerning the blessed Sacrament; and Clemens Romanus affirmes expressely, [...]. This is to drink the bloud of Jesus, to partake of the Lords im­mortality.

This may suffice for the word [real] which the English Papists much use, 8 but as appears with lesse reason then the Sons of the Church of England: and when the real presence is denied, the word real is taken for Natural; and does not signifie transcendenter, or in his just and most proper signification. But the word substantialiter is also used by Protestants in this question: which I sup­pose may be the same with that which is in the article of Trent; Decretum de SS. Eu­char. Sacra. Can. 1. Sacramentaliter praesens Salvator substantiâ suâ nobis adest, In sub­stance, but after a sacramental manner: which words if they might be understood in the sense in which the Protestants use them, that is, really, truly, without fiction or the help of fancy, but in rei veritate, so, as Philo calls spiritual things [...], [Page 13] most necessary, useful and material substances, it might become an instrument of an united confession; And this is the manner of speak­ing which S. Bernard used in his Sermon of S. Martin, where he affirmes, in sacramento exhiberi nobis veram carnis substantiam, sed spiritualitèr, non carnalitèr; In the Sacra­ment is given us the true substance of Christs body or flesh, but not carnally, but spiritually; that is, not to our mouths, but to our hearts, not to be chewed by teeth, but to be eaten by faith. But they mean it otherwise, as I shall demonstrate by and by. In the mean time it is remarkable that Bel­larmine when he is stating this question, seems to say the same thing, for which he quotes the words of S. Bernard now mentioned; L 1. Eu­char. c. 2. Reg. 3. for he says, that Christs body is there truly, substantially, really; but not corporally; Nay you may say spiritually: and now a man would think we had him sure; but his nature is labile and slippery, you are never the nearer for this; for first he says, it is not safe to use the word spiritually, nor yet safe to say, he is not there corporally, lest it be understood not of the manner of his presence, but to the ex­clusion of the nature. For he intends not (for all these fine words) that Christs body is present spiritually, as the word is used in Scripture, and in all common notices of usu­all [Page 14]speaking; but spiritually, with him signi­fies after the manner of spirits, which, besides that it is a cousening the world in the manner of expression, is also a direct folly and con­tradiction, that a body should be substanti­ally present, that is, with the nature of a bo­dy, naturally, and yet be not as a body but as a spirit, with that manner of being with which a spirit is distinguished from a body. In vain therefore it is that he denies the car­nal manner, and admits a spiritual, and ever after requires that we beleive a carnal pre­sence, even in the very manner. But this caution and exactnesse in the use of the word [spiritual] is therefore carefully to be observed, lest the contention of both par­ties should seem trifling and to be for no­thing. We say that Christs body is in the Sacrament really, but spiritually. They say it is there really, but spiritually. For so Bel­larmine is bold to say, that the word may be allowed in this question. Where now is the difference? Here, by [spiritually] they mean present after the manner of a spirit; by [spiritu­ally] we mean, present to our spirits onely; that is, so as Christ is not present to any other sense but that of faith, or spiritual susception; but their way makes his body to be present no way but that which is impossible and im­plies a contradiction; a body not after the [Page 15]manner of a body, a body like a spirit; a bo­dy without a body; and a sacrifice of body and bloud, without bloud: corpus incorpore­um, cruor incruentus. They say that Christs body is truly present there as it was upon the Crosse, but not after the manner of all or any body, but after that manner of being as an Angel is in a place. That's their spiritu­ally. But we by the real spiritual presence of Christ doe understand, Christ to be present, as the Spirit of God is present in the hearts of the Faithful, by blessing and grace; and this is all which we mean besides the tropical and figurative presence.

That which seems of hardest explication is the word corporaliter, 9 which I find that Melanchthon used; saying, corporaliter quo­que communicatione carnis Christi Christum in nobis habitare; which manner of speaking I have heard he avoided after he had conversed with Oecolampadius, who was able then to teach him, and most men in that question; but the expression may become warrantable, and consonant to our doctrine; and means no more then really and without fiction, or be­yond a figure: like that of Saint Paul, Col. 2.9. [in Christ] dwelleth the fulnesse of the God head bo­dily: upon which S. Austin says, Col. 2.17. In ipso in­habitat plenitudo Divinitatis corpor alitèr, quia in Templo habitaver at umbr alitèr; and in Saint [Page 16] Paul [...] are opposed, which are a shadow of things to come, but the body is of Christ, that is, the substance, the reality, the correlative of the type and figure, the thing signified: and among the Greeks [...] signifies solidare, to make firme, real and consistent, but among the Fathers, [...] or body signifies [...], every thing that is produced from nothing, saith Phavorinus; that is, every thing that is real extra non ens, that hath a proper being; so that we receiving Christ in the Sacrament corporally or bodily, under­stand that we doe it really, by the ministery of our bodies receiving him unto our souls. And thus we affirme Christs body to be pre­sent in the Sacrament: not onely in type or figure, but in blessing and real effect; that is, more then in the types of the Law; the shadowes were of the Law, Col. 2.17. but the body is of Christ. And besides this; the word corporally may be very well used when by it is only un­derstood a corporal sign. So S. Cyril of Jeru­salem in his third Catechisme, says that the holy Ghost did descend corporally in the likenesse of a Dove, that is, in a type or representment of a Doves body, (for so he and many of the Ancients did suppose) and so he Dial de incar. unig. again uses the word; Jesus Christ as a man did in­spire the holy Spirit corporally into his Apostles; [Page 17]where by [corporally] it is plain he means [by a corporal or material signe or symbole, viz. by breathing upon them and saying, Re­ceive ye the holy Ghost.] Ineither of these senses if the word be taken, it may indifferently be used in this question.

10 I have been the more careful to explain the question and the use of these words ac­cording to our meaning in the question, for these two reasons. 1. Because until we are agreed upon the signification of the words, they are equivocal; and by being used on both sides to several purposes sometimes are pretended as instruments of union, but in­deed effect it not; but sometimes displease both parties, while each suspects the word in a wrong sense. And this hath with very ill effect been observed in the con­ferences for composing the difference in this question; particularly that of Poissy, where it was propounded in these words, Credimus in usu coenae Dominicae verè, reipsâ, substantialitèr, seu in substantiâ verumcorpus, & sanguinem Christi spirituali & ineffabili mo­do esse, exhiberi, sumi à fidelibus communicanti­bus. Beza and Gallasius for the Reformed, Eccles. hist, Eccles. Gallic. l. 4. p. 604, 605. & Comment. de statu relig. & reip. sub Carolo 9. A. D. 1561. & Thuanum, hist. l. 28. ad eundum annum. and Espensaeus and Monlucius for the Romanists [Page 18]undertook to propound it to their parties. But both rejected it: for though the words were not disliked, yet they suspected each others sense. But now that I have declared what is meant by us in these words, they are made useful in the explicating the question. 2. But because the words doe perfectly de­clare our sense, and are owned publickly in our doctrine, and manner of speaking, it will be in vain to object against us those say­ings of the Fathers which use the same ex­pressions: for if by virtue of those words, really, subst antially, corporally, verily, and in­deed, and Christs body and bloud, the Fathers shall be supposed to speak for transubstantia­tion, they may as well suppose it to be our doctrine too, for we use the same words; and therefore those authorities must signifie nothing against us, unlesse these words can be proved in them to signifie more then our sense of them does import: and by this truth many, very many of their pretences are evacuated.

11 One thing more I am to note in order to the same purposes; that in the explication of this question it is much insisted upon, that it be inquired whether, when we say we be­leive Christs body, to be really in the Sacra­ment, we mean, that body, that flesh that was born of the Virgin Mary, that was crucified, [Page 19]dead and buried? I answer, I know none else that he had, or hath: There is but one body of Christ natural and glorifyed; but he that says that body is glorified which was crucified, sayes it is the same body, but not after the same manner See Bp. Ridley's answer to Curtops first argument in his disp. at Oxford Foxe Mar­tyrol. p. 1451. vet. edit.: and so it is in the Sacrament; we eate and drink the body and bloud of Christ that was broken, and powred forth; for there is no other body, no other bloud of Christ; but though it is the same which we eat and drink, yet it is in another manner: And therefore when any of the Protestant Divines, or any of the Fathers deny that body which was born of the Vir­gin Mary, that which was crucified, Vide insra Sect. 12. to be ea­ten in the Sacrament, as Bertram, as S. Hierom Dupliciter verò sanguis Christi & caro intelligi­tur, spiritualis illa, atque Divina, de quâ ipse dixit, Caro mea verè est cibus &c. vel caro & sanguis, quae crucifixa est, & qui militis effusus est lanceâ: In Epist. Ephes. c. 1., as Clemens Alexan­drinus expresly affirm; the mean­ing is easie, they intend that it is not eaten in a natural sense, and then calling it corpus spirituale, the word spirituall is not a substanti­al predication, but is an affirma­tion of the manner, though in disputation it be made the predicate of a proposition, and the opposite member of a distinction. That body which was crucified is not that body that is eaten in the Sacrament, if the intention of the proposition be to speak [Page 20]of the eating it in the same manner of being; but that body which was crucified, the same body we doe eat, if the intention be to speak of the same thing in several manners of being and operating: and this I noted, that we may not be prejudiced by words, when the notion is certain and easie: And thus far is the sense of our doctrine in this Article.

On the other side, 12 the Church of Rome uses the same words we doe, but wholly to other purposes, affirming, 1. That after the words of consecration, on the Altar, there is no bread; in the Chalice there is no wine. 2. Concil. Trid. de­cretum de SS. Euchar. Sacram. That the accidents, that is, the colour, the shape, the bignesse, the weight, the smel, the nourishing qualities of bread and wine doe remain; but neither in the bread, nor in the body of Christ, but by themselves, that is, so that there is whitenesse, and no­thing white; sweetnesse, and nothing sweet, &c. 3. That in the place of the substance of bread and wine, there is brought the na­tural body of Christ, and his bloud that was shed upon the Crosse. 4. That the flesh of Christ is eaten by every Communicant, good and bad, worthy and unworthy. 5. That this is conveniently, properly and most aptly called Transubstantiation, that is, a conversion of the whole substance of bread into the substance of Christs natural body, [Page 21]of the whole substance of the wine into his bloud. In the processe of which doctrine, Can. 8. Anathe­matis. they oppose spiritualiter to sacramentaliter and realiter, supposing the spiritual mandu­cation, though done in the Sacrament by a worthy receiver, not to be sacramental and real.

So that now the question is not, 13 Whether the symboles be changed into Christs body and bloud, or no? For it is granted on all sides: but whether this conversion be Sa­cramental and figurative? or, whether it be natural and bodily? Nor is it, whether Christ be really taken, but whether he be taken in a spiritual, or in a natural manner? We say the conversion is figurative, my sterious, and Sacramental; they say it is proper, natural, and corporal: we affirm that Christ is really taken by faith, by the Spirit, to all real effects of his passion; they say, he is taken by the mouth, and that the spiritual and the virtual taking him in virtue or effect is not sufficient, though done also in the Sacrament. Hic Rhodus, hic saltus. This thing I will try by Scripture, by Reason, by Sense, and by Tradition.

SECT. II. Transubst antiation not warr antable by Scripture.

THe Scriptures pretended for it, 1 are S. Joh. 6. and the words of institution; recorded by three Evangelists, and S. Paul. Concerning which, I shall first lay this pre­judice; that by the confession of the Roma­nists themselves, men learned and famous in their generations, nor these places, nor any else in Scripture are sufficient to prove Transubstantiation Cardinal Cajetan affirms that there is in Scripture nothing of force or necessity to inferre Transubstantiation out of the words of institution, and that the words, seclusà Ecclesiae authoritate, setting aside the decree of the Church, are not sufficient. This is reported by Suarez, Tom. 3. disp. 46. §. 3. but he says that the words of Cajetan by the command of Pius 5 were left out of the Roman edition, and he addes that Cajetanus solus ex catholicis hoc do­cuit, He onely of their side taught it; which is carelessely affirmed by the Jesuit; for, ano­ther Cardinal, Cap. 1. contr. cap­tiv. Baby­lon. Bishop of Rochester, John Fisher affirmed the same thing; for speaking of the words of institution recorded by S. Matthew, he says; Neque ullum hîc verbum [Page 23]positum est quo probetur in nostrâ missâ veram fieri carnis & sanguinis Christi praesentiam. There are no words set down here [ viz. in the words of institution] by which it may be proved, that in our Masse there is a true pre­sence of the flesh and bloud of Christ. To this I adde a third Cardinal, In 4. Sent. q. 6. lit. f. Bishop of Cam­bray de Aliaco, who though he likes the opi­nion, because it was then more common, that the substance of bread does not remain after consecration; yet ea non sequitur evi­denter ex Scripturis, it does not follow evi­dently from Scripture.

To these three Cardinals, 2 I adde the con­currēt testimony of two famous Schoolmen; Johannes Duns Scotus, who for his rare wit and learning became a Father of a Scholasti­cal faction in the Schools of Rome; affirms, Veritas Eu­charistiae sine Tran­substantia­tione sal­vari po­test. Scotus in 4. dist. 11. q. 3. non extare locum ullum Scripturae, tam expres­sum, ut sine Ecclesiae declaratione evidenter co­gat Transubstantiationē admittere. There is no place of Scripture so expresse, that without the declaration of the Church it can evident­ly compel us to admit Transubstantiation. And Bellarmine himself says, Bellarmin de Euch. l. 3 c. 23. Sect. Secundò dicir. that it is not altogether improbable, since it is affirmed à doctissimis & acutissimis hominibus, by most learned and most acute men. The Bishop of Eureux, who was afterwards Cardinal Richelieu, not being well pleased with Scotus [Page 24]in this question, said that Scotus had onely considered the testimonies of the Fathers cited by Gratian, Peter Lombard, Aquinas and the Schoolmen before him; Suppose that. But these testimonies are not few, and the witty man was as able to understand their opinion by their words as any man since; and therefore we have the income of so many Fathers as are cited by the Canon-Law, the Master of the sentences and his Scholars, to be partly a warrant, and none of them to contradict the opinion of Scotus; who neither beleived it to be taught evi­dently in Scripture, Vide infra §. 11. n. 19. nor by the Fathers.

3 The other schoolman I am to reckon in this account is Gabriel [...]iel. Lect. 40. in Can. Missae Quomodo ibi sit corpus Christi, an per conversionem alicujus in ipsum, an sinc conversione incipiat esse corpus Christi cum pane, manentibus substantiâ & ac­cidentibus panis, non invenitur expressum in Canone Bibliae. How the body of Christ is there, whether by conversion of any thing into it, or without conversion it begin to be the body of Christ with the bread, the acci­dents and the substance of the bread still re­maining, is not found expressed in the Ca­non of the Bible. Hither I could adde the concurrent Testimony of Ocham in 4. q. 6. of Johannes de Bassolis who is called Doctor Ordinatissimus, but that so much to the same [Page 25]Purpose is needlesse, and the thing is con­fessed to be the opinion of many writers of their own party; as appears in Salmeron. Tom. 9. tractat. 16. And Melchior Canus Bishop of the Canaries, Loc. com. l. 3. c. 3. fund. 2. amongst the things not expressed in Scri­pture reckons the conversion of the bread and wine into the body and bloud of Christ.

If it be said, 4 that the Churches determina­tion is a better interpreter of Scripture then they; it is granted: But did the Church ever interpret Scripture to signifie Transub­stantiation, and say that by the force of the words of Scripture it was to be beleived? If she did not, then to say she is a better Inter­preter, is to no purpose; for though the Church be a better Interpreter then they, yet they did not contradict each other; and their sense might be the sense of the Church. But if the Church before their time had expounded it against their sense, and they not submit to it, how do you reckon them Catholicks, and not me? For it is certain if the Church ex­pounding Scripture did declare it to signifie Transubstantiation, they did not submit them­selves and their writings to the Church. But if the Church had not in their times done it, and hath done it since, that is ano­ther consideration, and we are left to re­member that till Cajetans time, that is, till Luthers time, the Church had not declared [Page 26]that Scripture did prove Transubstantiation; and since that time we know who hath; but not the Church Catholick.

And indeed it had been strange, 5 if the Cardinals of Cambray, de Sancto vio and of Rochester, that Scotus and Biel should never have heard that the Church had declared that the words of Scripture did inferre Transubstantiation. And it is observable that all these lived long after the article it self was said to be decreed in the Lateran; where if the article it self was declared, yet it was not declared as from Scripture; or if it was, they did not beleive it. But it is an usu­al device amongst their writers to stifle their reason, or to secure themselves with a sub­mitting to the authority of their Church, even against their argument: and if any one speaks a bold truth, he cannot escape the In­quisition unlesse he complement the Church, and with a civility tell her that she knows better; which in plain English is no other­wise then the fellow that did penance for saying the Priest lay with his wife; he was forced to say, Tongue thou liest, though he was sure his eyne did not lye. And this is that which Scotus said; Transubstantiation without the determination of the Church is not evident­ly inferred from Scripture. This I say is a complement, and was onely to secure the [Page 27]Frier from the Inquisitors; or else was a direct stifling of his reason; for it contains in it a great error, or a worse danger; For if the article be not contained so in Scripture as that we are bound to beleive it by his be­ing there, then the Church must make a new article, or it must remain as it was; that is, obscure; and we uncompeld and still at liberty. For she cannot declare unlesse it be so; she declares what is, or what is not: If what is not, she declares a lie; if what is, then it is in Scripture before, and then we are compelled, that is, we ought to have be­leived it. If it be said it was there, but in it self obscurely; I answer, then so it is still; for if it was obscurely there, and not onely quoad nos, or by defect on our part, she cannot say it is plain there; neither can she alter it, for if she sees it plain, then it was plain: if it be obscure, then she sees it obscurely; for she sees it as it is, or else she sees it not at all; and therefore must declare it to be so; that is, probably, obscurely, peradventure, but not evidently, compellingly, necessarily.

So that if according to the Casuists, 6 espe­cially of the Jesuits order, it be lawful to follow the opinion of any one probable Doctor; here we have five good men and true, besides Ocham, Bassolis, and Melchior Canus, to acquit us from our search after [Page 28]this question in Scripture. But because this, although it satisfies me, will not satisfie them that follow the decree of Trent; we will try whether this doctrine be to be found in Scripture. Pede pes.

SECT. III. Of the sixth Chapter of Saint Johns Gospel.

IN this Chapter it is earnestly pretended that our blessed Saviour taught the myste­ry of Transubstantiation; 1 but with some dif­ferent opinions; for in this question they are divided all the way: some reckon the whole Sermon as the proof of it, from verse 33 to 58; though how to make them friends with Bellarmine I understand not; ‘who says, Lib. 1. de Euchar. cap. 5. Constat, it is known that the Eu­charist is not handled in the whole chapter: for Christ there discourses of Natural bread the miracle of the loaves, of Faith, and of the Incarnation in a great part of the chapter;’ Solum igitur quaestio est de illis ver­bis, [Fanis quem ego dabo, caro mea est pro mun­divitâ] & de sequentibus, fere ad finem capitis. The question onely is concerning those words verse 51. The bread which I will give is my flesh which I will give for the life of the [Page 29]world] and so forward almost untill the end of the chapter. The reason which is preten­ded for it, is, because Christ speaks in the fu­ture, and therefore probably relates to the institution which was to be next year: but this is a trifle; for the same thing in effect is before spoken in the future tense, and by way of promise; Vers. 27. Labour not for the meat that perisheth, but for that meat that endureth to everlasting life, which the Son of man shall give unto you. The same also is affirmed by Christ under the expression of water, S. John 4.14. He that drinketh the water which I shall give him shall never thirst; but the wa­ter which I shall give him shall be a fountain of water springing up to life eternal; The places are exactly parallel; and yet as this is not meant of Baptisme, so neither is the other of the Eucharist; but both of them of spiri­tual sumption of Christ. And both of them being promises to them that shall come to Christ and be united to him, it were strange if they were not expressed in the future; for although they always did signifie in pre­sent, and in sensu currenti, yet because they are of never failing truth, to expresse them in the future is most proper, that the expecta­tion of them may appertain to all,

Ad natos natorum & qui nascentur ab illis. But then, because Christ said, [The bread [Page 30]which I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the World] to suppose this must be meant of a corporal manducation of his flesh in the holy Sacrament, is as frivolous as if it were said that nothing that is spoken in the future can be figurative; and if so, then let it be considered what is meant by these; Rev. 2.7. & 17. [To him that overcomes I will give to eat of the tree of life:] and [To him that over­comes I will give to eate of the hidden Manna:] These promises are future, but certainly fi­gurative; and therefore why it may not be so here, and be understood of eating Christ spiritually or by faith, I am certain there is no cause sufficient in this excuse. For if eating Christ by faith, be a thing of all times, then it is also of the future; and no difference of time is so apt to expresse an Eternal truth as is the future, which is always in flux and potential signification. But the secret of the thing was this, the arguments against the sacramental sense of these words drawn from the following verses between this and the 51 verse could not so well be answered, L. 1. Euch. c. 7. §. respondeo verba. and therefore Bellarmine found out the trick of confessing all till you come thither, as appears in his answer to the ninth argument: that of some Catholicks. How ever; as to the Article I am to say these things.

1. That very many of the most learned Romanists affirm that in this chapter Christ does not speak of sacramental or oral man­ducation, or of the Sacrament at all. 2 De Com­munione sub utrâ (que) specie. Jo­hannes de Ragusio, Biel In Ca­non. , Cusanus Ep. 7. ad Bohem. , Ruard Tapper Artic. 15. , Cajetan part 3. q. 80. art. 8. , Hessels Lib. de commun. sub unâ specie. , Jansenius Concord. Evang. c. 59. , Wal­densis Tom. 2. de sacram. c. 91. , Armachanus Li. 9. c. 8. Ejusdem sententiae sunt Aene­as Sylvius dial. contr. Tabor. A­lensis part. 4. q. 11. mem. 2. a. 4. Lindanus, Gaspar Sa­gerus & alii. , save onely that Bel­larmine going to excuse it, says in effect that that they did not doe it very honestly; for he affirmes that they did it, that they might confute the Hussites and the Lutherans about the communion under both kinds: and if it be so, and be not so, as it may serve a turn, It is so for Transubstantiation, and it is not so for the half communion, we have but little reason to rely upon their Judgment or candor in any exposition of Scripture. But it is no new thing for some sort of men to doe so. The Heretick Severus in Anastasius Sinaita, maintained it lawful, and even ne­cessary [ [...],] according to oc­casions and emergent heresies to alter and change the doctrines of Christ: and the Cardinal of Cusa Epist. 2. ad Bohem. affirmed it lawful, diverse­ly to expound the Scriptures according to the times. So that we know what precedents and authorities they can urge for so doing: and I doubt not but it is practised too often [Page 32]since it was offered to be justified by Dureus against Whitaker.

2. 3 These great Clerks had reason to ex­pound it, not to be meant of sacramental manducation, to avoid the unanswerable argument against their half Communion: for so Christ said, Verse 53. Unlesse ye eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his bloud, ye have no life in you. It is therefore as necessary to drink the chalice as to eat the bread, and we perish if we omit either. And their new whimsie of Concomitancy will not serve the turn because there it is sanguis effusus, that is sacramentally powred forth; bloud that is powred forth, not that is in the body. 2. If it were in the body, yet a man by no concomitancy can be said to drink what he onely eats. 3. If in the sacramental body, Christ gave the bloud by concomitancy, then he gave the bloud twice; which to what purpose it might be done is not yet revealed. 4. If the bloud be by concomitancy in the body, then so is the body with the bloud; and then it will be sufficient to drink the chalice without the host, as to eat the host without the chalice; and then we must drink his flesh as well as eat his bloud; which if we could suppose to be possible, yet the precept of eating his flesh, and drinking his bloud, were not observed by drinking that which is to be eaten, and [Page 33]eating that which is to be drunk. But cer­tainly they are fine propositions which can­not be true, unlesse we can eat our drink, and drink our meat, unlesse bread be wine and wine be bread, or to speak in their style, unlesse the body be the bloud, and the bloud the body; that is, unlesse each of the two symboles be the other as much as it self; as much that which it is not, as that which it is. And this thing their own Pope Innocentius lib. 4. de Miss. my­ster. c. 21. the third, and from him Vasquez in 3. t. 3. disp. 216. n. 50. noted, and Salmeron Tom. 8. tr. 24., who affirmed that Christ commanded the manner as well as the thing, and that without eating and drinking the precept of Christ is not obeyed.

3. But what ever can come of this, 4 yet upon the account of these words so ex­pounded by some of the Fathers concerning oral manducation and potation, Clem: Rom: l. 8. c. 20. constit: Apost: Eccles: hierarch cap: ult. Genna­dius cap: 52. de dogmat. Eccles: cap. de Sabbatho Sancto Paschatis. S. Cy­prian. Ep: 59. ad Fiduc: Concil: Tolet: 2. c. 11.8. August: Ep. 93. & 106. Innocentius papa ibid. Paulinus Episc: Nolanus A.D. 353. Epist: 12. ad Severum. Paulinus de infantibus ai [...] Pura salutiferis imbuit ora cibis. Hic mos duravit ad tempora Ludovici Pii, & Lotharii, ait Beat: Rhenan: in Tertul: de Cor: Milit. they beleived them­selves bound by the same neces­sity to give the Eucharist to In­fants, as to give them baptisme; and did for above seven ages to­gether practise it; And let these [Page 34]men that will have these words spoken of the Eucharist, answer the argument; Bellar­mine is troubled with it, and in stead of an­swering, increases the difficulty, and con­cludes firmely against himself, saying; if the words be understood of eating Christs body spiritually, or by faith, it will be more impossible to Infants, for it is easier to give them intinctum panem bread dipt in the cha­lice, then to make them beleive. To this I reply, that therefore it is spoken to Infants in neither sense, neither is any law at all given to them; and no laws can be under­stood as obligatory to them in that capacity. But then although I have answered the ar­gument because I beleive it not to be meant in the Sacramental sense to any; nor in the Spiritual sense to them; yet Bellarmine hath not answered the pressure that lyes upon his cause. l. 1. Euchar c. 7. § re­spondco communem. For since it is certain (and he con­fesses it) that it is easier, that is, it is possible to give infants the Sacrament; it followes that if here the Sacrament be meant, Infants are obliged; that is, the Church is obliged to minister it, as well as Baptisme: there being in virtue of these words the same necessity, and in the nature of the thing the same pos­sibility of their receiving it. But then on the other side no inconvenience can presse our interpretation of spiritual eating Christ [Page 35]by faith, because it being naturally impossible that Infants should beleive they cannot be concerned in an impossible commandement. So that we can answer S. Austins and Inno­centius his arguments for communicating of Infants, but they cannot.

4. 5 If these words be understood of Sa­cramental manducation, then no man can be saved but he that receives the holy Sacra­ment. For unlesse ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his bloud, ye have no life in you; if it be answered that the Holy Sacra­ment must be eaten in act or in desire; I reply that is not true; because if a Cate­chumen desires baptisme onely in the article of his death, it is sufficient to salvation, and they dare not deny it. 2. Fools, young per­sons, they that are surprised with sudden death cannot be thought to perish for want of the actual susception or desire. 3. There is nothing in the words that can warrant or excuse the actual omission of the Sacrament, and it is a strange deception that these men suffer by misunderstanding this distinction of receiving the Sacrament either in act or desire. For, they are not opposite, but subor­dinate members, differ only as act and dis­position; and this disposition is not at all required but as it is in order to the act, and therefore is nothing of it self, and is onely [Page 36]the imperfection of, or passage to the act; if therefore the act were not necessary, nei­ther were the disposition; but if the act be necessary, then the desire which is but the disposition to the act is not sufficient. As if it be necessary, to go from Oxford to Lon­don, then it is necessary that you go to Henly, or Uxbridge; but if it be necessary to be at London, it is not sufficient to go to Uxbridge; but if it be not necessary to be at London, neither is it necessary to go so far. But this distinction as it is commonly used is made to serve ends, and is grown to that inconveni­ence, that repentance it self is said to be suf­ficient, if it be onely in desire; for so they must, that affirme repentance in the article of death after a wicked life to be sufficient; when it is certain there can be nothing actu­al but ineffective desires; and all the real and most material events of it cannot be per­formed, but desired onely. But whoso­ever can be excused from the actual susce­ption of a Sacrament, can also in an equal necessity be excused from the desire; and no man can be tied to an absolute, irrespe­ctive desire of that which cannot be had; and if it can, the desire alone will not serve the turn. And indeed a desire of a thing when we know it cannot be had, is a tem­ptation either to impatience, or a scruple; [Page 37]and why, or how can a man be obliged to de­sire that to be done, which in all his circum­stances is not necessary it should be done. A preparation of mind to obey in those circumstances in which it is possible, that is, in which he is obliged, is the duty of every man; but this is not an explicite desire of the actual susception, which in his case, is not obligatory, because it is impossible; And lastly, such a desire of a thing, is wholly needlesse, because in the present case, the thing it self is not necessary; therefore neither is the desire; neither did God ever require it but in order to the act. But how­ever if we find by discourse that for all these decretory words, the desire can suffice, I demand by what instrument is that acce­pted; whether by faith, or no? I suppose it will not be denyed. But if it be not deny­ed, then a spiritual manducation can per­forme the duty of those words: for suscepti­on of the Sacrament in desire is at the most but a spiritual manducation. Beda in 1 Cor. 10. citat Au­gustini Sermon: ad Infantes. And S. Au­stin affirmes that Baptisme can performe the duty of those words, if Beda quotes him right; for in his Sermon to Infants and in his third book de peccatorum meritis & remissi­one, he affirmes that in Baptisme Infants re­ceive the Body of Christ; So that these words may as well be understood of Ba­ptisme, [Page 38]as of the Eucharist, and of faith better then either.

5. 6 The men of Capernaum understood Christ to speak these words of his natural flesh and bloud, and were scandalized at it; and Christ reproved their folly by telling them his words were to be understood in a spiritual sense; So that if men would be­leive him, that knew best the sense of his own words, there need be no scruple of the sense; I do not understand these words in a fleshly sense, but in a spiritual, saith Christ: the flesh profiteth nothing; S. John. 6.63. the words that I have spoken they are spirit, and they are life. Now besides that the natural sense of the words hath in it too much of the sense of the offended disciples, the reproof and consulta­tion of it is equally against the Romanists, as against the Capernaites. For we con­tend it is spiritual; so Christ affirmed it: they that deny the Spiritual sense, and af­firme the Natural, are to remember that Christ reproved all senses of these words that were not spiritual. And by the way let me observe, that the expression of some chief men among the Romanists are so rude and crasse, that it will be impossible to ex­cuse them from the understanding the words in the sense of the men of Caper­naum; for as they understood Christ to [Page 39]mean his true flesh natural and proper, so do they; as they thought Christ intended they should tear him with their teeth and suck his bloud, for which they were offended, so doe these men not onely think so, but say so, and are not offended. l. 3. de Euchar. c. 37. So said Alanus; apertissimè loquimur, corpus Chri­sti verè à nobis contrectari, manducari, cir­cumgestari, dentibus teri, sensibiliter sacrifi­cari, non minùs quàm ante consecrationem pa­nis. And they frequently quote those Me­taphors of S. Chrysostom, which he preaches in the height of his Rhetoric, as Testimo­nies of his opinion in the doctrinal part: and Berengarius was forc'd by Pope Nicho­las to recant in those very words, affirming that Christs body, sensualiter non solùm Sa­cramento, sed in veritate manibus Sacerdotum tractari, frangi, & fidelium dentibus atteri, that Christs flesh was sensually not onely in the Sacrament, but in truth of the thing to be handled by the Priests hands, to be broken and grinded by the teeth of the faithful: In so much that the glosse on the Canon, de Consecrati­one dist. 2. cap. Ego Berengarius, affirmes it to be a worse heresy, then that of Berenga­rius, unlesse it be soberly understood; to which also Cassander assents; and indeed I thought that the Romanists had been glad to separate their own opinion from the car­nal [Page 40]conceit of the men of Capernaum, and the offended disciples, supposing it to be a great objection against their doctrine, that it was the same with the men of Capernaum, and is onely finer dress'd: But I find that Bellarmine ownes it, even in them, in their rude circumstances; l. 1. Eucha. cap. 6. § 2. ex dubita­tione. for he affirmes that Christ corrected them not for supposing so, but reproved them for not beleiving it to be so. And indeed himself says as much, Corpus Christi verè ac propriè manducari etiam cor­pore in eucharistiâ; the body of Christ is truly and properly manducated or chewed with the body in the Eucharist: and to take off the foulnesse of the expression by avoi­ding a worse he is pleased to speak non­sense. Nam ad rationem manducationis non est mera attritio, ibid cap. 11 resp. ad 5 mm. arg. sed satìs est sumptio & trans­missio ab ore ad stomachum per instrumenta humana. A thing may be manducated or chewed though it be not attrite or broken: If he had said it might be swallowed and not chewed, he had said true; but to say it may be chewed, without chewing or breaking, is a riddle fit to spring from the miraculous do­ctrine of Transubstantiation: and indeed it is a pretty device, that we take the flesh, and swallow down flesh, and yet manducate or chew no flesh, and yet we swallow down onely what we manducate; Accipite, man­ducate, [Page 41]were the words in the institution. And indeed according to this device there were no difference between eating and drinking; and the Whale might have been said to have eaten Jonas, when she swallow­ed him without manducation or breaking him, and yet no man does speak so; but in the description of that accident reckon the Whale to be fasting for all that morsel; Invasúsque cibus ejunâ vixit in alvo, said Alcimus Avitus; Jejuni, plení (que) tamen vate intemerato, said Sidonius Apollinaris; viven­te jejunus cibo, so Paulinus; the fish was full and fasting, that is, she swallowed Jonas, but eate nothing. As a man does not eate bullets or quicksilver against the Iliacal passion, but swallowes them; and we do not eate our pills; The Greek Physicians therefore call a pill [...], a thing to be swallowed; and that this is distinct from eating, Aristotle tels us, speaking of the Elephant, [...], he eates the earth, but swallowes the stones. In Levit. l. 2. c. 1. And Hesychius determined this thing, Non comedet ex eo quisquam, i. e. non dividetur, quia dentium est dividere, & par­tiri cibos, cum aliter mandi non possint. To chew is but a circumstance of nourishment, but the essence of manducation. But Bel­larmine adds, that if you will not allow him [Page 42]to say so, then he grants it in plain termes, that Christs body is chewed, is attrite or broken with the teeth, and that not tropi­cally but properly, which is the crasse doctrine which Christ reproved in the men of Caper­naum. To lessen and sweeten this expressi­on he tells us, it is indeed broken; but how? under the species of bread and invisibly; well so it is, though we see it not; and it matters not under what; if it be broken, and we bound to beleive it, then we cannot avoid the being that, which they so detested, devourers of Mans flesh. See Theophylact in number 15. of this section.

6. 7 Concerning the bread or the meat in­deed of which Christ speaks, Verse 54. he also af­firmes that whosoever eates it hath life abiding in him: But this is not true of the Sacra­ment; for the wicked eating it, receive to themselves damnation. It cannot therefore be understood of oral manducation, but of spiritual, and of eating Christ by faith: that is, receiving him by any instrument or action Evangelical. For receiving Christ by faith includes any way of communica­ting with his body; By baptisme, by holy desires, by obedience, by love, by worthy receiving of the Holy Sacrament; and it signifies no otherwise, but as if Christ had said; To all that beleive in me and obey, I will [Page 43]become the author of life and salvation: Now because this is not done by all that receive the Sacrament, not by unworthy communi­cants, who yet eate the symboles (according to us) and eate Christs body (according to their doctrine) it is unanswerably certain, that Christ here spake of Spiritual mandu­cation, not of Sacramental. Bellarmine (he that answers all things, whether he can or no) sayes that words of this nature are con­ditional; meaning, that he who eates Christs flesh worthily shall live for ever; and therefore this effects nothing upon vicious persons, yet it may be meant of the Sacrament, be­cause without his proper condition it is not prevalent. I reply, that it is true it is not, it cannot; and that this condition is spiritu­al manducation; but then without this con­dition the man doth not eate Christs flesh, that which himself cals the true bread, for he that eates this, [...], he hath life in him, that is, he is united to me, he is in the state of grace at present. For it ought to be observed, that although promises de futuro possibili are to be understood with a condition appen­dant; yet propositions affirmative at pre­sent, are declarations of a thing in being, and suppose it actually existent: and the different parts of this observation are obser­veable in the several parts of the 54. verse. [Page 44] He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my bloud, hath eternal life; that's an affirmation of a thing in being, and therefore implyes no other condition but the connexion of the predicate with the subject. He that eates hath life. But it followes, [...], and I will raise him up at the last day, that's de futuro possibili; and therefore implyes a condition besides the affirmation of the antecedent, viz. si permanserit, if he remaines in this condition, and does not unravel his first interest and forfeit his life. And so the argument re­mains unharm'd, Tract. 26. in Johan. and is no other then what I learn'd from S. Austin, Hujus rei Sacra­mentum &c. de mensâ Dominicâ sumitur qui­busdam ad vitam, quibusdam ad exitium; Res verò ipsa cujus Sacramentum est, omni ho­mini ad vitam, nulli ad exitium, quicunque e­jus particeps fuerit. And it is remarkeable that the context and design of this place takes off this evasion from the adversary: For here Christ opposes this eating of his flesh, to the Israelites eating of Manna, and prefers it infinitely; because they who did eate Manna might die, viz. spiritually and eternally; but they that eate his flesh, shall never die, meaning, they shall not die eter­nally; and therefore this eating cannot be a thing which can possibly be done unwor­thily. [Page 45]For if Manna, as it was Sacramental, had been eaten worthily, they had not died who eate it; and what priviledge then is in this above Manna, save onely that the eating of this, supposes the man to do it worthily, and to be a worthy person; which the other did not? Cajetan in Joh. 6. Upon which considera­tion Cajetan sayes, that this eating is not common to worthily and unworthily, and that it is not spoken of eating the Sacra­ment, but of eating and drinking [that is, communicating with] the death of Jesus. The argument therefore lyes thus. There is something which Christ hath promised us, which whosoever receives, he receives life and not death; but this is not the Sacra­ment: for of them that communicate, some receive to life, and some to death, saith S. Austin, and a greater then S. Austin, 1 Cor. 11. Saint Paul; and yet this which is life to all that receive it, is Christs flesh (said Christ him­self) therefore Christs flesh here spoken of is not Sacramental.

7. 8 To warrant the Spiritual sense of these words against the Natural, it were easy to bring down a traditive interpretation of them by the Fathers; at least a great con­sent. Tertullian hath these words. Etsi car­nem ait nihil prodesse, Materiâ dicti diri­gendus est sensus. Nam quia durum & intole­rabilem [Page 46]existimaverunt semonem ejus, quasi verè carnem suam illis edendam determinâsset, Tertul. de refur. carn. c. 37. ut in spiritu disponeret statum salutis, praemi­sit, Spiritus est qui vivificat; atque ita sub­junxit, Caro nihil prodest, ad vivificandum scil: ‘Because they thought his saying hard and intolerable, as if he had determined his flesh to be eaten by them; that he might dispose the state of salvation in the spirit, he premis'd, It is the Spirit that giveth life: and then subjoyns, The flesh profiteth nothing, meaning, nothing to the giving of life.’ So that here we have, besides his authority, an excellent argument for us: Christ said, he that eateth my flesh hath life, but the flesh, that is, the fleshly sense of it profits nothing to life; but the Spirit, that is, the spiritual sense does; therefore these words are to be understood in a spiritual sense.

And because it is here opportune by oc­casion of this discourse, 9 let me observe this, that the doctrine of Transubstantiation is infinitely uselesse, and to no purpose; For by the words of our Blessed Lord, by the doctrine of S. Paul, and the sense of the Church, and the confession of all sides, the natural eating of Christs flesh, (if it were there, or could so be eaten) alone or of it self does no good, does not give life; but [Page 47]the spiritual eating of him is the instrument of life to us; and this may be done without their Transubstantiated flesh; it may be done in Baptisme, by faith, and charity, by hearing, and understanding, and therefore it may also in the Blessed Eucharist, al­though there also according to our doctrine he be eaten onely Sacramentally, Ser. 6.4. temp. Sep­tembr. post consecrat. and Spi­ritually. And hence it is that in the Masse book anciently it is prayed after consecra­tion, Quaesumus Omnipotens Deus, ut de per­ceptis muneribus gratias exhibentes beneficia potiora sumamus] We beseech thee Almigh­ty God, that we giving thanks for these gifts received may receive greater gifts] which be­sides that it concludes against the Natural presence of Christs body, (for what greater thing can we receive, if we receive that?) it also declares that the grace and effect of the Sacramental communion is the thing design­ed beyond all corporal sumption: In Miss. vol. pro quacunque necessitate. and as it is more fully expres'd in another collect [ut terrenis affectibus expiati ad superni pleni­tudinem Sacramenti, cujus libavimus sancta, tendamus] that being redeemed from all earthly affections we may tend to the ful­nesse of the heavenly Sacrament, the Holy things of which we have now begun to tast. And therefore to multiply so many miracles and contradictions and impossibilities to no [Page 48]purpose, is an insuperable prejudice against any pretence, lesse then a plain declaration from God. Adde to this, that this bodily presence of Christs body is either for corpo­ral nourishment, or for spiritual: Not for Corporal; for Natural food is more pro­per for it; and to work a miracle to do that, for which so many Natural means are alrea­dy appointed, is to no purpose, and there­fore cannot be supposed to be done by God; neither is it done for spiritual nourishment: because to the spiritual nourishment, virtues and graces, the word and the efficacious signes, faith and the inward actions, and all the emanations of the Spirit are as propor­tion'd, as meat and drink are to natural nou­rishment; and therefore there can be no need of a Corporal presence. 2. Corporal man­ducation of Christs body is apparently in­consistent with the nature and condition of the body. 1. Because that which is after the manner of a spirit, and not of a body, cannot be eaten and drunk after the manner of a bo­dy, but of a spirit; as no man can eat a Cheru­bin with his mouth, if he were made apt to nourish the soul: but by the confession of the Roman Doctors, Christs body is present in the Eucharist after the manner of a spirit, therefore without proportions to our body, or bodily actions. 2. That which neither [Page 49]can feel, or be felt, see or be seen, move or be mov'd, change or be changed, neither do nor suffer corporally, cannot certainly be eaten corporally; but so they affirme con­cerning the body of our Blessed Lord; it cannot do or suffer corporally in the Sacra­ment, therefore it cannot be eaten corporal­ly, any more then a man can chew a spirit, or eate a meditation, or swallow a syllogisme into his belly. This would be so far from being credible, that God should work so many miracles in placing Christs Natural body for spiritual nourishment, that in case it were revealed, to be placed there to that purpose, it self must need one great mira­cle more to verify it, and reduce it to act; and it would still be as difficult to explain, as it is to tell how the material fire of hell should torment spirits and souls. And So­crates in Plato's banquet said well; Wisdome is not a thing that can be communicated by local or corporal contiguity. 3. That the corporal presence does not nourish spiritually, appears; because some are nourished spiritually, who do not receive the Sacrament at all, and some that do receive, yet fall short of being spiritually nourished, and so do all unwor­thy communicants. This therefore is to no purpose; and therefore cannot be supposed to be done by the wise God of all the world, [Page 50]especially with so great a pompe of miracles. 4. Del' Eu­char. pag. 265. Gallic: Card. Perron affirmes that the Real Natural presence of Christ in the Sacra­ment is to greatest purpose, because the re­sidence of Christs natural body in our bo­dies does really and substantially joyn us unto God, establishing a true and real Unity between God and Men. And Bellar­mine speaks something like this de Euchar. l. 3. c. 9. But concerning this besides that every faithful soul is actually united to Christ without the actual residence of Christs body in our bodies, since every one that is regenerated and born anew of water and of the spirit is [...] the same plant with Christ, as S. Paul cal's him Rom. 6.5. He hath put on Christ, he is bone of his bone and flesh of his flesh, Galat. 3.27. Ephes. 5.30. and all this by faith by baptisme, by regeneration of the spirit; be­sides this (I say) this corporal union of our bodies to the body of God incarnate which these great and witty dreamers dream of, would make man to be God. For that which hath a real and substantial unity with God, is consubstantial with the true God, that is, he is really, substantially, and truly God; which to affirme were highest blasphemy. 5. One device more there is to pretend an useful­nesse of the doctrine of Christs Natural [Page 51]presence. viz. that by his contact and conjunction it becomes the cause and seed of the resurrection. But besides that this is condemn'd by Tom. 3. in 3. disp. 204. n. 3. Vasquez as groundlesse, and by Ibid. disp. 64. sect. 1. Suarez as improbable and a novel temerity; it is highly confuted by their own doctrine: For how can the contact or touch of Christs body have that or any effect on ours, when it can neither be touch'd, nor seen, nor understood but by faith? which Lib. 3. de Euchar. c. 9. Bellarmine expressely affirmes. But to re­turn from whence I am digressed.

Tertullian adds in the same place. 10 Quia & sermo caro erat factus, proinde in causam vitae appetendus, & devorandus auditu, & ruminan­dus intellectu, & fide digerendus. Nam & paulò antè, carnem suam panem quoque caelestem pro­nunciârat, urgens usquequaque per allegoriam necessariorum pabulorum memoriam Patrum, qui panes & carnes Egyptiorum praeverterant divi­nae vocationi. ‘Because the Word was made flesh, therefore he was desired for life, to be devoured by hearing, to be rumi­nated or chewed by the understanding, to be digested by faith. For a little before he called his flesh also coelestial bread, still, or all the way, urging by an an alle­gory of necessary food, the memory of their Fathers who prefer'd the bread and flesh of Aegypt before the Divine calling.’

S. Athanasius, 11 or who is the Author of the tractate upon the words, Quicunque di­xerit verbum in filium hominis, in his works, saith, [...]. i. e. The things which he speaks are not carnal, but spiritual: For to how many might his body suffice for meate, that it should become the nourish­ment of the whole world? ‘But for this it was that he put them in mind of the a­scension of the Son of man into heaven, that he might draw them off from carnal, and corporal senses, and that he might learn that his flesh which he called meat, was from above heavenly and spiritual nourishment. For saith he, the things that I have spoken, they are spirit and they are life.’ 12

But Origen is yet more decretory in this affaire. Origen. in Levit. c. 10. hom. 7. Est & in novo Testamento litera quae occidit eum, qui non spiritualiter ea quae dicuntur adverterit; si enim secundùm literam sequaris hoc ipsum quod dictum [Page 53]est, Nisi manducaveritis carnem meam, & biberitis sanguinem meum, occidit haec litera: If we understand these words of Christ, Unlesse ye eate the flesh of the Son of man and drink his bloud, literally, this letter kils. For there is in the new Testament a letter that kils him who does not spiritually un­derstand those things which are spoken.

S. 13 Ambrose not onely expounds it in a spiritual sense, but plainly denies the proper and natural. Non iste panis est, De Sacra­ment. l. 5. c. 4. qui vadit in corpus, sed ille panis vitae aeternae qui animae nostrae substantiam fulcit. That is not the bread of life, which goes into the body, but that which supports the substance of the soul; And, fide tangitur, fide videtur, I [...] Lucam. l. 6. c. 8. non tangitur corpore, non oculis comprehenditur, this bread is touch'd by faith, it is seen by faith: and without all peradventure that this is to be understood of eating and drinking Christ by faith, is apparent from Christs own words, verse 35. I am the bread of life, he that cometh to me shall not hunger, and he that beleiveth on me shall not thirst: coming to Christ is eating him, beleiving him is drinking his bloud. It is not touch'd by the body, it is not seen with the eyes. S. Chryso­stome in his 47. homily upon this chapter of S. John, expounds these words in a spi­ritual sense; for these things (saith he) [Page 54]are [...], such as have in them nothing carnal, nor any carnal consequence.

S. Austin gave the same exposition, 14 Ut quid paras dentes & ventrem? Tract. 25. in Joh. Tract. 26. crede & mandu­casti: and again, Credere in eum, hoc est man­ducare panem vivum. Qui credit in eum man­ducat.

Theophylact makes the spiritual sense to be the only answer in behalf of our not being Canibals, 15 In Joh. 6. or devourers of mans flesh, as the men of Capernaum began to dreame, and the men of Rome, though in better cir­cumstances, to this day dream on. Putabant isti quòd Deus cogeret [...], quia enim nos hoc spiritualitèr intelligimus, neque carni­um voratores sumus, imò sanctificamur per talem cibum, non sumus carnis voratores. The men of Capernaum thought Christ would compel them to devoure mans flesh. But because we understand this spiritually, there­fore we are not devourers of mans flesh, but are sanctified by this meat. Perfectly to the same sense, and almost in the very words Theodorus Bp. of Heraclea is quoted in the Greek Catena upon John.

It were easy to adde that Eusebius cal's the words of Christ his flesh and bloud, 16 L. 3. Eccles. Theol. contra Marcel: Ancyran: M. S. [...]; that so also does S. Hierome, saying [Page 55]that although it may be understood in my­stery; S. Hieron. psal. 147. tamen veriùs corpus Christi & sanguis ejus sermo scripturarum est; Clem. Alex. l. 1. paedag. c. 6. that so does Clemens Alexandrinus; that [...]. S. Basil in psal. 33. S. Basil sayes that his doctrine and his mystical coming is his flesh and bloud; that S. Bernard sayes to imitate his life and communicate with his passion is to eate his flesh; but I decline (for the present) to insist upon these; because all of them, excepting S. Hierome onely, may be suppo­sed to be mystical expositions, which may be true, and yet another exposition may be true too. It may suffice that it is the direct sense of Tertullian, Origen, Athanasius, S. Ambrose, S. Austin, and Theophylact, that these words of Christ in the sixt of S. John are not to be understood in the natural or proper, but in the spiritual sense. The spiri­tual they declare not to be the mystical, but the literal sense; and therefore their testi­monies cannot be eluded by any such pre­tence.

And yet after all this, 17 suppose that Christ in these words did speak of the Sacramen­tal manducation, and affirm'd that the bread which he would give should be his flesh; what is this to Transubstantiation? That Christ did speak of the Sacrament as well [Page 56]of any other mystery, of this amongst o­thers; that is of all the wayes of taking him, is to me highly probable: Christ is the food of our souls; this food we receive in at our ears, our mouth, our hearts; and the allu­sion is plainer in the Sacrament then in any other externall rite, because of the simili­tude of bread, and eating which Christ used upon occasion of the miracle of the loaves, which introduc'd all that discourse. But then this comes in onely as it is an act of faith; for the meat which Christ gives is to be taken by faith, himself being the ex­pounder. Verse 47. & 29. & 64. Now the Sacraments of Baptisme and the Eucharist being acts and symboles and consignations of faith, and effects of beleiving, that is of the first, and principal receiving him by faith in his words, and sub­mission to his doctrine, may well be meant here, not by virtue of the words; for the whole forme of expression is Metaphorical, not at all proper; but by the proportion of reason and nature of his effect; it is an act or man­ner of receiving Christ, and an issue of faith and therefore is included in the mystery. The food that Christ said he would give is his flesh, Verse 51. which he would give for the life of the world, viz. to be crucified and killed. And from that verse forward he doth more particularly refer to his death; for [Page 57]he speaks of bread onely before, or meat, [...], but now he speaks of flesh and bloud [...] bread and drink, and therefore by Analogy he may allude to the Sacrament, which is his similitude and representation; but this is but the mean­ing of the second or third remove; if here Christ begins to change the particulars of his discourse, it can primarily relate to no­thing, but his death upon the crosse; at which time he gave his flesh for the life of the world; and so giving it, it became meate; the receiving this gift was a receiving of life, for it was given for the life of the world. The manner of receiving it is by faith, and hearing the word of God, submitting our understanding; the digesting this meat is imitating the life of Christ, conforming to his doctrine and example; and as the Sacraments are instruments or acts of this manducation, so they come under this dis­course, and no otherwise.

But to return: 18 this very allegory of the word of God to be called meat, and particu­larly Manna, which in this chapter Christ particularly alludes to, is not unusual in the old Testament. In Alle­goriis. [...] (saith Philo) [...]. [Page 58] Moses said unto them, This is the bread which the Lord hath given us to eate. This is the word which the Lord hath ordained, you see what is the food of the soul, even the eternal word of God &c. [...], The word of God, the most honourable and eldest of things is called Manna; In libro, Pejorem in sidiarime­liori. and [...]. The soul is nourished by the word ‘—qui pastus pulcherrimus est animorum. Allegoriis.’

And therefore now I will resume those testimonies of Clemens Alexandrinus, 19 of Eusebius, S. Basil, S. Hierome and S. Ber­nard which I wav'd before, all agreeing up­on this exposition, Supra. that the word of God, Christs doctrine is the flesh he speaks of, and the receiving it and practising it are the eat­ing his flesh; for this sense is the literal and proper; and S. Hierome is expresse to affirme that the other exposition is mystical, and that this is the more true and proper; De Euchar. l. 1. c. 7. & ad alios patres. and therefore the saying of Bellarmine that they onely give the mystical sense, is one of his confident sayings without reason, or pretence of proof: and whereas he adds that they do not deny that these words are also understood literally of the Sacrament; [Page 59]I answer, it is sufficient, that they agree in this sense: and the other Fathers do so expound it with an exclusion to the natural sense of eat­ing Christ in the Sacrament; particularly this appears in the testimonies of Origen and S. Ambrose above quoted: to which I adde the words of Eusebius in the 3 d. book of his Theo­logia Ecclesiastica, expounding the 63. verse of the 6. of John; he brings in Christ speaking thus. Think not that I speak of this flesh which I bear; and do not imagine that I appoint you to drink this sensible and corporal bloud. But know ye, that the words which I have spoken are spirit and life. Nothing can be fuller to ex­clude their interpretation, and to affirme ours: though to do so be not usual, unlesse they were to expound Scripture in opposi­tion to an adversary; and to require such hard conditions in the sayings of men, that when they speak against Titius they shall be concluded not to speak against Cajus, if they do not clap their contrary negative to their positive affirmative, though Titius and Cajus be against one another in the cause, is a device to escape rather then to intend truth and reality in the discourses of men. I conclude; It is notorious and evi­dent what Erasmus notes upon this place, Hunc locum veteres interpretantur de doctrìnâ coelesti: sic enim dicit panem suum, ut frequen­ter [Page 60]dixit sermonem suum. The Ancient Fathers expound this place of the heavenly doctrine: So he calls the bread his own as he said often the word to be his. And if the concurrent testimonies of Origen, Tertullian, Clemens Alexandrinus, S. Basil, Athanasius, Eusebius, S. Hierom, S. Ambrose, S. Austin, Theophy­lact, and S. Bernard are a good security for the sense of a place of Scripture, we have read their evidence, and may proceed to sentence.

But it was impossible, 20 but these words falling upon the allegory of bread and drink, and signifying the receiving Christ crucifi­ed, and communicating with his passion in all the ways of faith and Sacrament, should also meet with as allegoricall expounders, and for the likenesse of expression be refer'd to sacramental manducation; And yet I said this cannot at all infer Transubstantia­tion, though sacramental manducation were onely and principally intended. For if it had been spoken of the Sacrament, the words had been verified in the spiritual sumption of it; for as Christ is eaten by faith out of the Sa­crament, so is he also in the Sacrament: as he is real and spiritual meat to the worthy hea­rer, so is he to the worthy communicant: as Christs flesh is life to all that obey hm, so to all that obediently remember him; so Christs [Page 61]flesh is meat indeed, however it be taken, if it be taken spiritually, but not however it be taken, if it be taken carnally; He is nutritive in all the ways of spiritual manducation, but not in all the ways of natural eating, by their own confession, nor in any, by ours. And therefore it is a vain confidence to run a­way with the conclusion, if they should gain one of the premises; But the truth is this: It is neither properly spoken of the Sacrament, neither if it were, would it prove any thing of Transubstantiation.

I will not be alone in my assertion, 21 though the reasonablenesse and evidence would bear me out: S. Austin saith the same; Aug. in psal. 98. Spiritu­aliter intelligite quod loquutus sum vobis] Non hoc corpus quod videtis manducaturi estis: Sa­cramentum aliquod commendavi vobis, spiritu­aliter intellectum vivificabit nos. That which I have spoken is to be understood spiritu­ally, ye are not to eate that body which ye see; I have commended a Sacrament to you, which being understood spiritually will give you life; where besides that he gives te­stimony to the main question on our behalf, he also makes sacramentally and spiritually to be all one. And again; ut quia jam similitu­dinem mortis ejus in baptismo accipimus, simi­litudinem quoque sanguinis & carnis sumamus, ita ut & veritas non desit in sacramento, & [Page 62]ridiculum nullum fiat in Paganis, Gratianus ex Augu­stino de consecrat. dist. 2. § utrum. Lugduni 1541. quod cru­orem occisi hominis bibamus: that as we receive the similitude of his death in Baptisme, so we may also receive the likenesse of his flesh and bloud, so that neither truth be wanting in the Sacrament, nor the Pagans ridiculous­ly affirme, that we should drink the bloud of the crucified Man. Nothing could be spo­ken more plain in this Question; we receive Christs body in the Eucharist, as we are ba­ptized into his death; that is, by figure and likenesse. In the Sacrament there is a verity or truth of Christs body: and yet no drinking of bloud or eating of flesh, so as the heathen may ca­lumniate us by saying we do that which the men of Capernaum thought Christ taught them they should. So that though these words were spoken of sacramental manducation (as some­times it is expounded) yet there is reality e­nough in the spiritual sumption to verify these words of Christ, without a thought of any bodily eating his flesh. And that we may not think this doctrine dropt from S. Prosper Sent. 339. sed verba sunt S. Augustini. Austin by chance, he again affirmes dogmatically, Qui discordat à Christo, nec carnem ejus mandu­cat, nec sanguinem bibit, etiamsi tantae rei sacra­mentum ad judicium suae praesumptionis quotidie indifferenter accipiat. He that disagrees from Christ (that is, disobeyes him) neither eates his flesh nor drinks his bloud, although, to his con­demnation, [Page 63]he every day receive the Sacra­ment of so great a thing. The consequent of which words is plainly this; that there is no eating of Christs flesh or drinking his bloud, but by a morall instrument, faith and sub­ordination to Christ; the sacramental ex­ternal eating alone being no eating of Christs flesh, but the Symboles and Sacra­ment of it.

Lastly, 22 suppose these words of Christ [the bread which I shall give is my flesh] were spoken literally of the Sacrament; what he promised he would give, he per­form'd, and what was here expressed in the future tense, was in his time true in the pre­sent tense, and therefore is always presently true after consecration; It followes, that in the Sacrament this is true; panis est corpus Christi, The bread is the body of Christ. Now I demand whether this proposition will be owned. It followes inevitably from this doctrine, If these words be spo­ken of the Sacrament. De conse­crat. dist. 2. c. 55. Gloss. panis est in altari. De [...]uchar l. 3. c. 19. But it is disavowed by the Princes of the party against us. Hoc tamen est impossibile, quòd panis sit corpus Christi, It is impossible that the bread should be Christs body, saith the Glosse of Gratian; and Bellarmine sayes it cannot be a true pro­position, in quâ subjectum supponit pro pane, praedicatum autem pro corpore Christi; Panis [Page 64]enim & corpus Domini res diversissimae sunt. The thing that these men dread, is, lest it be called bread and Christs body too, as we affirme it unanimously to be; and as this argument upon their own grounds e­vinces it. Now then how they can serve both ends, I cannot understand. If they will have the bread or the meat which Christ promis'd to give to be his flesh, then so it came to passe; and then it is bread and flesh too. If it did not so come to passe, and that it is impossible that bread should be Christs flesh; then, when Christ said the bread which he would give should be his flesh, he was not to be understood properly of the Sacrament; But either figuratively in the Sacrament, or in the Sacrament not at all; either of which will serve the end of truth in this question. But of this hereafter.

By this time I hope I may conclude, that Transubstantiation is not taught by our Blessed Lord in the sixth chapter of S. John. Johannes de tertiâ & Eucharisticâ coenâ nihil quidem scribit, eò quòd caeteri tres Evangelistae ante illum eam plenè descripsissent. They are the words of Prompt. Cathol. ser. 3. heb. sanct. Stapleton, and are good evi­dence against them.

SECT. IV. Of the words of Institution.

MUlta mala oportet interpretari eos quiunum non rectè intelligere volunt, said Irenaeus: 1. Contr. hae­res. l. 5. they must needs speak many false things who will not rightly understand one. The words of consecration are praecipuum fundamentum totius controversiae, atque adeò totius hujus al­tissimi mysterii, said Bellarmine, I. 1. c. 8. Euchar. §. sequitue argumen­tum. the greatest ground of the whole question; and by ad­hering to the letter the Mysterie is lost, and the whole party wanders in eternal intrica­cies, and inextricable riddles; which because themselves cannot untie, they torment their sense and their reason, and many places of Scripture, whilst they pertinaciously stick to the impossible letter, and refute the spi­rit of these words.

The words of Institution are these:

S. Math. 26.26.

Iesus took bread and blessed it and brake it and gave it to the Di­sciples, [Page 66]and said, Take, eat, this is my body: And he took the cup and gave thanks and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it, for this is my blood of the New Testament which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

S. Luke 22.19.

And he took bread and gave thanks and brake it and gave to them, saying, This is my body which is given for you, this do in remem­brance of me. Like­wise also the cup after Supper, saying, This cup is the New Testa­ment in my bloud W ch is shed for you.

S. Mark 14.22.

Iesus took bread and blessed it and gave to them, and said: Take, eat, this is my body. And he took the cup, and when he had gi­ven thanks he gave it to them, and they all drank of it; and he said to them, This is my bloud of the New Testament which is shed for many.

1 Cor. 11.23.

The Lord Iesus the same night in which he was betrayed tooke bread. And when he had given thanks he brake it, and said, Take, eat, This is my body which is broken for you, this do in remembrance of me. After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had sup­ped, saying, This cup is the New Testament in my bloud, This do ye as often as ye drink it in remembrance of me.

These words contain the Institution, 2 and are usually called the words of Conse­cration in the Latine Church. Concerning which the consideration is material. Out of these words the Latine Church separates, [Hoc est corpus meum] This is my body,] and say that these words pronounced by the Priest with due intention, doe effect this change of the bread into Christs body, which change they call Transubstantiation. But if these words do not effect any such change, then it may be Christs body before the words, and these may only declare what is already done by the prayers of the Holy man; or else it may become Christs body only in the use and manducation: and as it will be uncertain when the change is, so also it cannot be known what it is. If it be Christs body before those words, then the literal sense of these words will prove no­thing, it is so as it will be before these words, and made so by other words which refer wholly to use; and then the praecipuum fun­damentum the pillar and ground of Transub­stantiation is supplanted. And if it be only after the words and not effected by the words, it will be Christs body only in the reception. Now concerning this I have these things to say:

1 By what argument can it be proved 3 [Page 68]that these words [Take, and eat] are not as effective of the change, as [Hoc est corpus meum, This is my body?] If they be, then the taking and eating does consecrate: and it is not Christs body till it be taken and eaten, and then when that's done it is so no more; and besides, that reservation, circumgesta­tion, adoration, elevation of it must of them­selves fall to the ground; it will also follow that it is Christs body only in a mystical, spiritual and sacramental manner.

2 By what argument will it so much as probably be concluded that these words [This is my body] should be the words ef­fective of conversion and consecration? 4 That Christ used these words is true, and so he used all the other; but did not tell which were the consecrating words, nor appoint them to use those words; but to do the thing, and so to remember and represent his death. And therefore the form and rites of conse­cration & ministeries are in the power of the Church, where Christs command does not intervene; as appears in all the external ministeries of Religion; in Baptism, Confir­mation, Penance, Ordination, &c. And for the form of consecration of the Eucharist, S. De Spir. S. c. 27. Basil affirms that it is not delivered to us, [...]; [Page 69] &c. The words of Invocation in the manifestation or opening the Eucharistical bread and cup of blessing, which of all the Saints hath left us? for we are not content with these which the Apo­stles and the Evangelists mention, but before and after we say other things which have great efficacie to this mysterie. L. 7. ep. 63. But it is more ma­terial which S. Gregory affirms-concerning the Apostles, Mos Apostolorum fuit ut ad ipsam solummodo orationem Dominicam oblationis ho­stiam consecrarent, The Apostles consecrated the Eucharist only by saying the Lords Prayer. To which I adde this consideration, that it is certain, Christ interposed no com­mand in this case, nor the Apostles; neither did they for ought appears intend the reci­tation of those words to be the sacramental consecration, and operative of the change, because themselves recited several forms of institution in S. Matthew and S. Mark for one, and S. Luke and S. Paul for the other, in the matter of the Chalice especially; and by this difference declared, there is no ne­cessity of one, and therefore no efficacie in any as to this purpose.

3 If they make these words to signifie properly and not figuratively, 5 then it is a de­claration of something already in being, and not effective of any thing after it. For else [Page 70] [est] does not signifie [is] but it shall be; because the conversion is future to the pro­nunciation; and by the confession of the Roman Doctors the bread is not transub­stantiated till the [um] in meum be quite out, Bellar. l. 1. de Euch. c. 11. §. re­spondeo cum. till the last syllable be spoken; But yet I suppose they cannot shew any example, or reason, or precedent, or Grammar, or any thing for it, that est should be an active word. And they may remember, how confidently they use to argue against them that affirm men to be justified by a fiducia and persuasi­on that their sins are pardoned: saying, that faith must suppose the thing done, or their belief is false: and if it be done before, then to beleive it does not do it at all, because it is done already. The case is here the same: They affirm that it is made Christs body, by saying, it is Christs body; but their saying so must suppose the thing done, or else their saying so is false; and if it be done before, then to say it, does not do it at all, because it is done already.

4 When our blessed Lord took bread, 6 he gave thanks, said S. Luke and S. Paul; he blessed it, said S. Matthew and S. Mark; [...], making it Eucharisticall; [...], that was, consecrating or making it holy; it was common bread, unholy when he bles­sed it, and made it Eucharistical, for [...] was the same with [...]. [Page 71]is the word in Iustin, and [...] bread and wine, food made Eucharistical, or on which Christ had given thanks, Eucharistia sanguinis & corporis Christi, so Irenaeus and others; 1 Cor. 14, 15, 16, 17. and S. Paul does promiscuously use [...] and [...], and [...]; and in the same place the Vulgar Latin renders [...] by benedictionem, 1 Cor. 10. and therefore S. Paul calls it the cup of blessing; and in this very place of S. Matthew S. Basil reads [...] in stead of [...], In regulis moralibus. either in this following the old Greek copies who so read this place, or else by interpretation so rendring it, as being the same; Epist. 2d Caecilium. and on the other side S. Cy­prian renders [...] (the word used in the blessing the Chalice) by benedixit. Against this Respons. ad Nod. Gordium. Smiglecius the Jesuite with some litttle scorn sayes, it is very absurd to say that Christ gave thanks to the bread, and so it should be if [...] and [...], blessing and giving of thanks were all one. But in this he shewed his anger or want of skill, not knowing or not remembring that the Hebrews and Hellenist Jews love abbre­viature of speech; and in the Epistle to the Hebrews S. Paul uses [...], to appease or propitiate our sins, in stead of [...], to pro­pitiate or appease God concerning our sins; [Page 72]and so is [...], that is, [...], only that by this means God also makes the bread holy, blessed, and eucharisti­cal. Now I demand, what did Christs blessing effect upon the bread and the chalice? any thing, or nothing? if no change was conse­quent, it was an ineffective blessing, a blessing that blessed not: if any change was conse­quent, it was a blessing of the thing in order to what was intended, that is, that it might be Eucharistical, and then the following words [this is my body] this is the bloud of the New Te­stament, or the New Testament in my bloud, were, as Cabasilas affirms, [...], by way of history and narration; and so the Syriac Interpreter puts them together in the place of S. Matthew, [...] and [...], blessing and giving of thanks, when he did bless it he made it Eucharistical.

5 The Greek Church universally taught that the Consecration was made by the prayers of the ministring man. 7 Apol. 2. Iustin Mar­tyr calls it [...], Nourishment made Eucharisticall by prayer; and Origen cals it [...], L. 8. contr. Celsum. bread made a body, a holy thing by prayer; [...], L. 4. de fi­de, cap. 14. so Damascen, by the invocation and illumination of the holy Ghost [...], [Page 73]they are changed into the body and bloud of Christ. But for the Greek Church the case is evident and confessed. For the ancient Latine Church, Vide Am­b [...]osium Ca­tharinuns in integro qué scrip­sit libro hac dere. S. Hierome reproving certain pert Deacons for insulting over Priests, uses this expression for the ho­nour of Priests above the other, ad quorum preces Christi corpus sanguísque conficitur, by their prayers the body and bloud of Christ is in the Sacrament. And S. L. 3. de Trin. c. 4. Austin cals the Sacrament prece mysticâ consecratum. But concerning this, I have largely discoursed in another The Di­vine Instit. of the office ministerial. §. 7. place. But the effect of the conside­ration in order to the present Question is this; that since the change that is made is made not naturally, or by a certain number of syl­lables in the manner of a charm, but solemn­ly, sacredly, morally, and by prayer, it be­comes also the body of our Lord to moral effects, as a consequent of a moral instru­ment.

6 And it is considerable, 8 that since the ministeries of the Church are but imitations of Christs Priesthood which he officiates in heaven, since he effects all the purposes of his graces and our redemption by intercessi­on, and representing in the way of prayer the sacrifice which he offered on the Cross: it follows that the ministeries of the Church must be of the same kind, operating in the [Page 74]way of prayer, morally, and therefore whol­ly to moral purposes; to which the instru­ment is made proportionable. And if these words which are called the words of Conse­cration be exegetical, and enunciative of the change that is made by prayers, and other mystical words; it cannot be possibly infer­red from these words that there is any other change made then what refers to the whole mysterie and action: and therefore, Take, eat, and this doe, are as necessary to the Sa­crament as [Hoc est corpus] and declare that it is Christs body only in the use and administration; and therefore not natural but spiritual. And this is yet more plain by the words in the Hebrew Text of S. Mat­thew, Take, eat this which is my body, plainly supposing the thing to be done already; not by the exegetical words, but by the prece­dents, the mystic prayer, and the words of institution and use; and to this I never saw any thing pretended in answer. But the force of the Argument upon supposition of the premises is acknowledged to be con­vincing by an Archbishop of their own, Archiep. Caesar. Tractat. varii disp. de neces. correct. Theol. Schol. Si Christus dando consecravit, &c. ‘ If Christ gi­ving the Eucharist did consecrate (as Scotus affirmed) then the Lutherans will carry the victory, who maintain that the body of Christ is in the Eucharist only, while it is used, while [Page 75]it was taken and eaten. And yet on the other side, if it was consecrated, when Christ said, Take, eat, then he commanded them to take bread, and to eat bread, which is to destroy the Article of Transubstantiation.’ So that in effect, whether it was consecrated by those words or not by those words, their new Do­ctrine is destroyed. If it was not consecra­ted when Christ said, Take, eat, then Christ bid them take bread, and eat bread, and they did so: But if it was consecrated by those words, Take, eat, then the words of conse­cration refer wholly to use, and it is Christs body only in the Taking and eating, which is the thing we contend for. And into the concession of this Bellarmine is thrust by the force of our argument. De Euch. l. 1. c. 11. For to avoid Christs giving the Apostles that which he took, and brake, and blessed, that is, bread, the same case being governed by all these words; he an­swers, Dominum accepisse, & benedixisse panem, sed dedisse panem non vulgarem, sed benedictum & benedictione mutatum: The Lord took bread and blessed it, but he gave not common bread, but bread blessed and changed by blessing; and yet it is certain he gave it them before the words, which he calls the words of Consecration. To which I adde this consideration: that all words spoken in the person of another are only declarative [Page 76]and exegetical, not operative and practical; for in particular, if these words, Hoc est cor­pus meum were otherwise, then the Priest should turn it into his own, not into the body of Christ. Neither will it be easie to have an answer, not only because the Greeks and Latines are divided in the ground of their argument concerning the mystical instrument of consecration: But the Latines themselves have seven several opinions, Tractat. varii. as the Archbishop of Caesarea de ‘ capite fontium, hath enumerated them in his nuncupatory Epistle to Pope Sixtus Quintus before his book of divers treatises: and that the consecration is made by [this is my body] though it be now the prevail­ing opinion, yet that by them Christ did not consecrate the elements, was the ex­press sentence of Pope Innocent 3. and In­nocent 4.’ and of many ancient Fathers, as the same Archbishop of Caesarea testifies in the book now quoted; and the Scholasticks are hugely divided upon this point, viz. Whether these words are to be taken materi­ally or significatively; the expression is bar­barous and rude, but they mean, whether they be consecratory or declarative. Aquinas makes them consecratory, and his autho­rity brought that opinion into credit; and yet Scotus and his followers are against [Page 77]it; and they that affirm them to be taken significatively, that is, to be consecratory, are divided into so many opinions that they are not easie to be reckoned; only In 4. Sen­tent. Guido Bri­anson reckons nine, and his own makes the tenth. This I take upon the credit of one of their own Archbishops.

But I proceed to follow them in their own way; 9 whether [Hoc est corpus meum] do effect or signifie the change; yet the change is not natural and proper, but figurative, sa­cramental, and spiritual; exhibiting what it signifies, being real to all intents and purpo­ses of the Spirit: and this I shall first shew by discussing the words of institution; first those which they suppose to be the consecra­tory words, and then the other.

Hoc est corpus meum] Concerning which form of words we must know, 10 that as the Eucharist it self was in the external and ritu­al part, an imitation of a custome and a sacra­mental already in use among the Jews, for the major domo to break bread and distri­bute wine at the Passeover after supper to the eldest according to his age, to the youngest according to his youth, as it is no­torious and known in the practice of the Jews: so also were the very words which Christ spake in this changed subject, an imi­tation of the words which were then used, [Page 78] This is the bread of sorrow which our Fathers eat in Egypt; Scaliger de emen­datione tempor. l. 6 This is the Passeover: and this Passeover was called, The body of the Paschal Lamb: nay it was called the body of our Saviour, and our Saviour himself; [...], said Justin Martyr dial. cum Tryph. And Esdras said to the Jews, This Passeover is our Saviour, and This is the body of our Saviour, as it is noted by others. So that here the words were made ready for Christ, and made his by appropriation, by meum: he was the Lamb slain from the beginning of the world, he is the true passeover; which he then affirm­ing called that which was the Antitype of the Passeover, the Lamb of God, [His body] the body of the true Passeover, to wit, in the same sacramental sense in which the like words were affirmed in the Mosaical Passe­over.

SECT. V. § 5.

HOC, 1 This] That is, this bread is my bo­dy, this cup, or the wine in the cup, is my bloud: concerning the chalice, there can be nodoubt; it is, [...], hic calix, this chalice; and as little of the other. The Fathers refer the Pronoune demonstrative [Page 79]to bread, saying, that, of bread it was Christ affirmed, This is my body; which I shall have in the sequel more occasion to prove: for the present, these may suffice; Christus pa­nem corpus suum appellat, saith Lib. adv. Judaeos. Tertullian. Nos audiamus panem quem fregit Dominus esse cor­pus salvatoris: so Ep. ad Hebidiam. S. Hierome. [...], so In Joh. 12. S. Cyril of Alexandria, he called bread his flesh. Dial. 1. cap. 8. Theodoret saith that to the body he gave the name of the symbol, and to the symbol the name of his body. [...]] there­fore signifies this bread; and it matters not that bread in the Greek is of the masculine gender; for the substantive being under­stood not expressed, by the rule of Gram­mar, the adjective must be the neuter gen­der, and is taken substantively. Neither is there any inconvenience in this, L. 1. de Euch. cap. 10. § por­ro 4. as Bellarmine weakly dreams upon as weak suggestions. For when he had said that hoc is either taken adjectively or substantively, he proceeds, not adjectively, for then it must agree with the substantive, which in this case is masculine; bread being so both in Greek and in Latine. But if you say it is taken substantively (as we contend it is) he confutes you thus; If it be taken substantively, so that hoc signifies this thing, and so be referred to bread, then it is most absurd, because it cannot be spoken of any thing seen; that is, of a substantive, un­less [Page 80]it agrees with it, and be of the same gen­der; that is in plain English, It is neither taken adjectively, nor substantively: not adjectively, because it is not of the same gen­der: not substantively, because it is not of the same gender; that is, because substantively it is not adjectively. But the reason he addes is as frivolous; because no man pointing to his brother will say, hoc est frater meus, but hic est frater meus, I grant it. But if it be a thing without life you may affirm it in the neuter gender, because it being of neither sex, the subject is supplyed by [thing] so that you may say hoc est aqua, this is water; so in Pet. 2.19 S. Peter, [...], this is grace, and Exod. 8.19. [...]. But of a per­son present you cannot say so, because he is present, and there is nothing distinct from him, neither re nor ratione, in the thing nor in the understanding; and therefore you must say hic, not hoc; because there is no subject to be supposed distinct from the predicate. But when you see an image or figure of your brother, you may then say, hoc est frater meus, because here is something to make a subject distinct from the predicate. This thing, or this picture, this figure, or this any thing, that can be understood and not ex­pressed, may make a neuter gender; and every Schole boy knows it: so it is in the [Page 81]blessed Sacrament, there is a Subject or a thing distinct from Corpus: This bread, this which you see is my body; and therefore is in Hoc no improprietie, though bread be un­derstood.

To which I adde this, 2 That though bread be the nearest part of the thing demonstra­ted, yet it is not bread alone, but sacramental bread; that is, bread so used, broken, given, eaten, as it is in the institution and use: [...], this is my body; and [...] refers to the whole action about the bread and wine, and so [...] may be easily understood without an im­propriety. [And indeed it is necessary that [...] this] should take in the whole action on all sides: because the bread neither is the natural body of Christ, nor yet is it alone a sufficient symbol or representment of it. But the bread broken, blessed, given, distributed, taken, eaten; this is Christs body, viz. as Origens expression is, In c. 15. Mat. typicum symbolicúmque corpus. By the way give me leave to express some little indignation against those words of Bellarmine, which cannot easily be excused from blasphemie; saying, that if our Lord had said of the bread which the Apostles saw and knew to be bread, This is my body, absur­dissima esset locutio, it had been a most absurd speech. So carelesse are these opiniators of what they say, that rather then their own [Page 82]fond opinions should be confuted, they care not to impute non-sense to the eternal Wisdom of the Father. And yet that Christ did say this of bread so ordered and to be used, Hoc est corpus meum, besides that the thing is notorious, I shall prove most evidently.

1 That which Christ broke, 3 which he gave to his disciples, which he bid them eat, that he affirmed was his body. What gave he but what he broke? what did he break, but that which he took? what did he take? accepit panem (saith the Scripture) he took bread, therefore of bread it was that he affir­med, It was his body. Now the Roman Do­ctors will by no means endure this; for if of bread he affirmed it to be his body; then we have cleared the Question, for it is bread and Christs body too; that is, it is bread naturally, and Christs body spiritually; for that it cannot be both naturally, they unani­mously affirm. And we are sure upon this Article: for disparatum de disparato non prae­dicatur propriè; It is a rule of nature and es­sential reason, If it be bread it is not a stone, if it be a Mouse it is not a Mule; and there­fore when there is any praedication made of one diverse thing by another, the propositi­on must needs be improper and figurative. De conse­crat. dist. 2. c. quia. And the Glosse of Gratian disputes it well, If bread be the body of Christ ( viz. properly [Page 83]and naturally) then something that is not born of the Virgin Mary is the body of Christ; and the body of Christ should be both alive and dead. Now that [Hoc, This] points to bread, besides the notoriousness of the thing in the story of the Gospels, in the matter of fact, and S. Paul calling it bread so often, (as I shall shew in the sequel) it ought to be cer­tain to the Roman Doctors, and confessed, because by their doctrines when Christ said Hoc, This] and a while after, it was bread; because it was not consecrated till the last syllable was spoken. To avoid this therefore, they turn themselves into all the opinions and disguises that can be devised. E [...]us [...]em sententiae sunt, Ocbam, Petrus de Aliaco, Ca [...]e [...]ensis, Antisiodo­rensis in 4. l. sent. dist. 13. Rossensis cap. 4. contrae captiv. Babyl. Maldonat. Barradius in Evangel. Stapleton sayes, that [Hoc, This] does only signifie the predicate, and is referred to the body, so as Adam said, This is flesh of my flesh and bone of my bone, Hoc] not this rib, but this thing, this praedicate; So, Hic est fi­lius meus, hic est sangu [...]s Testament [...]. Now this is confuted before; for it can only be true when there is no difference of subject & predicate, as in all figures and sacraments and artificial representments there are. Some others say, This is, that is, this shall be my body; So that is demonstrates not what is, but what shall be. But this prevailed not amongst them: O­thers say, that This, signifies Nothing; So [Page 84] Innocentius the third, Major, the Count of Mirandula, De capite Fontium, and Cathari­nus. Others yet affirm, that [This] signi­fies, these accidents. So Ruard Tapper, and others whom Suarez reckons and confutes. Thomas Aquinas and his Scholars affirm that This] demonstrates neither bread nor the body, nor nothing, nor the accidents, but a substance indefinitely, which is under the accidents of bread; as when Christ turned the water into wine, he might have said Hoc est vinum, not meaning that water is wine, but this which is here, or this which is in the vessel is wine, which is an instance in which Bellarmine pleases himself very much and uses it more then once, not at all considering that in this form of speech, there is the same mistake as in the former: for in this exam­ple there are not two things, as we contend there are in the Sacrament; and that to make up the proposition, the understanding is forc'd to make an artificial subject; and [this] refers to wine, and is determined by his imaginary subject, and makes not an essential or physical, but a logical praedication; This which is in the vessel is wine: and the proposition is identical, if it be reduc'd to a substantial. But when Christ said [Hoc est corpus meum] hoc] first, neither points to corpus as the other does to vinum, even by [Page 85]their own confession; nor yet, secondly, to an artificial subject, whereby it can by ima­gination become demonstrative, and deter­minate; for then it were no real affirmative, not at all significative, much less effective of a change: nor yet, thirdly, will they allow that it points to that subject which is really there, viz. bread; but what then? It demon­strates something real, that either 1. is not the predicate, and then there would be two things disparate signified by it, two distinct substances, which in this case could be no­thing but bread and the body of Christ: or 2. it demonstrates nothing but the predi­cate, and then the proposition were identical, viz. this body of Christ is the body of Christ; which is an absurd praedication: or else 3. it demonstrates something that is indemon­strable, pointing at something that is nothing certain, and then it cannot be pointed at or demonstrated; for if by this which is under the species, they mean any certain substance, it must be bread or the body of Christ, either of which undoes their cause.

But if it be inquired, 4 by what Logick or Grammar it can be, that a Pronounce demon­s;trative should signifie indeterminately, that is, an individuum vagum: They tell us, no; it does not: but it signifies an individual, de­terminate substance under the accidents of bread, [Page 86]not according to the formality of the bread, L. 2. ex­am. myst. Calvin. c. 1. § 4. Ob­jectio. but secundùm rationent substantiae communem & individuam vagè per ordinem ad accidentia, but according to the formality of a substance com­mon and individual, indefinitely or indetermi­nately by order to those accidents. So Gregory de Valentia; which is as good and perfect non-sense as ever was spoken. It is deter­minate and not determinate, it is a substance in order to accidents, individual and yet common, universal and particular, it is li­mited, but after an unlimited manner; that is, it is and it is not; that is, it is the Logick, and the Grammar, and the proper sense of Transubstantiation, which is not to be under­stood but by them that know the new and secret way: to reconcile contradictories. Bellarmine sweetens the sense of this as well as he may, and sayes that the Pronoune de­monstrative does point out and demonstrate the species, that is, the accidents of bread; these accidents are certain and determinate; L. 1. Euch. c. 11. §. ad id verò. so that the Pronoune demonstrative is on the side of the species or accidents, not of the substance. But yet so as to mean not the accidents, but the substance, and not the substance which is, but which shall be; for it is not the same yet: which indeed is the same non-sense with the former, abused or set off with a distinction, the parts of which [Page 87]contradict each other. The Pronoune de­monstrative does only point to the acci­dents, and yet does not mean the accidents, but the substance under them; and yet it does not mean the substance that is under them, but that which shall be; for the sub­stance which is meant is not yet: and it does not point at the substance, but yet it means it: For the substance indeed is meant by the Pronoune demonstrative, but that it does not at all demonstrate it, but the ac­cidents only. And indeed this is a fine se­cret: The substance is pointed at before it is, and the demonstration is upon the acci­dents, but means the substance, in obliquo, but not in recto; not directly, but as by the by; just as a man can see a thing before it be made, and by pointing at a thing which you see, demonstrates or shews you a thing which shall never be seen. But then if you desire to know how it was pointed at before it was, that is the secret not yet revealed. But finally this is the doctrine that hath prevailed at least in the Jesuites Schooles. This] points out something under the accidents of bread, meaning, This which is contained under the accidents of bread is my body: there it rests. But before it go any further I shall disturb his rest with this Syllogism: When Christ said, Hoc, this is my body; by This] he meant [Page 88] this which is contained under the accidents of bread, is my body. But at that instant, that which was contained under the accidents of bread, was the substance of bread; There­fore to the substance of bread Christ point­ed, that he related to by the Pronoune de­monstrative, and of that he affirmed, it was his body. The Major is that the Jesuites contend for: the Minor is affirmed by Bel­larmine, Quando dicitur [Hoc] tum non est praesens substantia corporis Christi: therefore the conclusion ought to be his and owned by them. However I will make bold to call it a. demonstration upon their own grounds, and conclude that it is bread and Christs bo­dy too; and that is the doctrine of the Pro­testants. And I adde this also, that it seems a great folly to declaim against us for deny­ing the literal, natural sense, and yet that themselves should expound it in a sense which suffers a violence and a most unnatu­ral, ungrammatical torture; for if they may change the words from the right sense and case to the oblique and indirect, why may not we? And it is lesse violence to say [Hoc est corpus meum] i. e. hic panis est corpus meum; viz. spiritualitèr: then to say, hoc est, that is, sub his speciebus est corpus meum. And this was the sense of In 4. qu 6 Ocham the Father of the Nominalists: It may be held that under the [Page 89]species of bread, there remains also the sub­stance; because this is neither against reason nor any authority of the Bible; and of all the manners this is most reasonable, and more easie to maintain, and from thence follow fewer inconveniences then from any other. Yet because of the determination of the Church ( viz. of Rome) all the Doctors commonly hold the contrary. By the way observe that their Church hath de­termined against that, against which nei­ther Scripture nor Reason hath determi­ned.

2 The case is clearer in the other kind, as in transition I noted above Numb. 1. §. 5. Vide Pi­cherel. Doct. Sor­bon. in 26. Matth. [...], hic calix. I demand to what [ [...], Hic, This] does refer? what it demonstrates and points at? The text sets the substantive down, [...], this cup; that is, the wine in this cup; of this it is that he affirmed it to be the bloud of the New Testament, or the New Testament in his bloud: that is, this is the sanction of the everlasting Testament, I make it in my bloud, this is the Symbol, what I do now in sign, I will do to morrow in substance, and you shall for ever after re­member and represent it thus in Sacra­ment. I cannot devise what to say plainer then that this [...] points at the chalice. [Page 90] ‘—Hoc potate merum Lib. 4. Evang. hist. vers. 456.—’ So Juvencus a Priest of Spain in the reign of Constantine, Atque ait, hic sanguis populi [...]clicta remitres, Hanc potate meum in stead of Hoc potate merum: nam veris crtedite dictis, Posthac non [...]quam vitis gustabo liquorem, Donec regn [...] patris melioris munera vita [...]n nova me rursus concedent suygere vina. Drink this wine, [But by the way, this troubled some bo­dy, and therefore an order was taken to corrupt the words by changing them into, Hunc potate meum; but that the cheat was too apparent] And if it be so of one kind, it is so in both, that is beyond all question. Against this Bellarmine brings argumentum robustissimum, a most robustious argument: By [...], or cup, cannot be meant the wine in the cup, because it follows, [...], L. 1. c. 10. de Euchar. §. sed addo arg. This Cup [is the New Testament in my bloud] which was shed for you; referring to the cup, for the word can agree with nothing but the cup; therefore by the cup is meant not wine, but bloud, for that was poured out. To this I oppose these things; 1. Though it does not agree with [...], yet it must re­fer to it, and is an ordinary [...] of case called [...]: and it is not unusual in the best masters of Language: [...], for [...], in Demosthenes: so also Goclenius in his Grammatical problems observes another out of Cicero. Benè autem dicere, quod est pe­ritè loqui, non habet definitam aliquam regio­nem, [Page 91]cujus terminis septa teneatur; Many more he cites out of Plato, Homer, and Virgil; and me thinks these men should least of all object this, since in their Latine Bible Sixtus Senensis confesses, and all the world knows, L. 8. Bibli­oth. there are innumerable barbarisms and im­proprieties, hyperbata and Antiptoses. But in the present case it is easily supplyed by [...], which is frequently understood, and imply­ed in the article [...], that is, [...], that is, in my bloud which is shed for you. 2 If it were referred to [cup] then the figure were more strong and violent, and the expression lesse literal; and therefore it makes much against them, who are undone if you admit figurative ex­pressions in the institution of this Sacrament. 3 To what can [...] refer, but to [...], This cup, and let what sense soever be affixed to it afterwards, if it do not suppose a figure, then there is no such things as fi­gures, or words, or truth, or things. 4. Vide Beza in Annot. in hunc lo­cum. That [...] must refer to [...], appears by S. Matthew and S. Mark, where the word is directly applyed to bloud; S. Paul uses not the word, and Bellarmine himself gives the rule, verba Domini rectiùs exposita à Marce, &c. when one Evangelist is plain, by him we are to expound another that is not plain: and S. Basil in his reading of the words, ei­ther [Page 92]following some ancienter Greek copy, or else mending it out of the other Evange­lists, Regul. moral. 21. changes the case into perfect Grammat, and good Divinity, [...].

3 The symboles of the blessed Sacrament are called bread and the cup, 6 after Consecra­tion; that is, in the whole use of them. This is twice affirmed by S. 1 Cor. 10.16. Paul, The Cup of bles­sing which we blesse, is it not the communication (so it should be read) of the bloud of Christ? the bread which we break, is it not the commu­nication of the body of Christ? as if he had said, This bread is Christs body; though there be also this mysterie in it, This bread is the communication of Christs body, that is, the ex­hibition and donation of it, not Christs bo­dy formally, but virtually, and effectively, it makes us communicate with Christs body in all the effects and benefits: A like expressi­on we have in Valerius Maximus, where Sci­pio in the feast of Jupiter is said Graccho com­municasse concordiam, that is, consignasse, he communicated concord; he consigned it with the sacrifice giving him peace and friendship, the benefit of that communication: and so is the cup of benediction, that is, when the cup is blessed, it communicates Christs bloud, and so does the blessed bread; for to eat the bread, in the New Testament is the sacrifice of [Page 93]Christians; they are the words of L. 17. de Civ. Dei cap. 5. S. Austin, Omnes de unto pane participamus; so S. Paul, we all partake of this one bread. Hence the ar­gument is plain; That which is broken is the communication of Christs body; But that which is broken is bread, therefore bread is the communication of Christs body. The bread which we break, those are the words.

4 The other place of S. 7 Paul is plainer yet, Let a man examine himself, 1 Cor. 11.28. & 26. and so let him eat of that bread and drink of that cup. And, so often as ye eat this bread and drink this cup, ye declare the Lords death till he come; and the same also vers. 27. three times in this chapter he cals the Eucharist, Bread. It is bread, sacramentalbread when the communi­cant eats it: But he that in the Church of Rome should call to the Priest to give him a piece of bread, would quickly find that in stead of bread he should have a stone or something as bad. But S. Paul had a little of the Ma­cedonian simplicity, calling things by their own plain names.

5 Against this some little things are pre­tended in answer by the Roman Doctors. 8 1. That the holy Eucharist, or the sacred body is called [bread] because it is made of bread; as Eve is called of Adam, bone of his bone; and the rods changed into serpents are still called rods; or else because it some­times [Page 94]was bread, therefore so it is called after: just as we say, The blind see, the lame walk, the harlots enter into the kingdom of hea­ven. L. 1. c. 14. de Euchar. Which answer although Bellarmine mislikes, yet lest any others should be plea­sed with it, I have this certain confutation of it; that by the Roman doctrine the bread is wholly annihilated, and nothing of the bread becomes any thing of the holy body; and the holy body never was bread, not so much as the matter of bread remaining in the change. It cannot therefore be called bread, unlesse it be bread; at least not for this rea­son. For if the body of Christ be not bread then, neither ever was it bread, neither was it made of bread; and therefore these cannot be the reasons, because they are not true. But in the instances alleged, the denomination still remains, because the change was made in the same remaining matter, or in the same person, or they were to be so again as they were before; nothing of which can be affir­med of the Eucharist, by their doctrine, therefore these instances are not pertinent. 2. Others answer, that the holy Body is cal­led Bread, because it seems to be so: just as the effigies and forms of Pomegranates, of Buls, of Serpents, of Cherubims, are called by the names of those creatures whom they do resemble. I reply, that well they may, [Page 95]because there is there no danger of being de­ceived by such appellations, no man will sup­pose them other then the pictures, and so to speak is usual and common. But in the matter of the holy Eucharist it ought not to be called bread for the likenesse to bread, unlesse it were bread indeed; because such likenesse and such appellation are both of them a temptation against that which these men call an article of faith: but rather because it is like bread, and all the world are apt to take it for such, it ought to have been described with caution, and affirmed to be Christ and God, and not to be bread though it seem so. But when it is often called Bread in Scri­pture, which name the Church of Rome does not at all use in the mysterie, and is never called in Scripture, the Son of God, or God, or Christ; w ch words the Church of Rome does often use in the mysterie; it is certain that it is called bread, not because it is like bread, but because it is so indeed. * And indeed upon such an answer as this, it is easie to affirm an apple to be a Pigeon, and no apple; for if it be urged that all the world calls it an ap­ple, it may be replyed then as now, It is true they call it an apple, because it is like an ap­ple, but indeed it is a Pigeon. 3. Some of them say when it is called bread, is not meant that particular kind of nourishment; but in [Page 96]general it means any food; and so only re­presents Christs body as a coelestial divine thing intended some way to be our food. Just, as in S. Joh. 6. Christ is called the bread that came down from heaven, not meaning material bread, but divine nourishment. But this is the weakest of all, because this which is called bread is broken, is eaten, hath the accidents of bread, and all the signs of his proper nature; and it were a strange vi­olence that it should here signifie any man­ner of food to which it is not like, and not signifie that to which it is so like. * Besides this, bread here signifies, as wine or chalice does in the following words; now that did signifie the fruit of the Vine, that special manner of drink (Christ himself being the Interpreter) and therefore so must this mean that special manner of food.

6 If after the blessing the bread does not remain, 9 but (as they affirm) be wholly an­nihilated, then by blessing God destroyes a creature; which indeed is a strange kind of blessing: [...], saith Suidas, verb. [...]. When God blesses, he confirms his words with deeds, and gives all sorts of good to that which he blesses. And certain it is, that although blessing can change it, it [Page 97]must yet change it to the better; and so we affirm he does: for the bread besides the na­tural being, by being blessed becomes the body of Christ in a sacramental manner; but then it must remain bread still, or else it receives not that increase and change; but if it be annihilated and becomes nothing, it is not Christs body in any sense, nor in any sense can pretend to be blessed. To which adde the words of S. Austin, L. 83. Quaest. 21. Ille ad quem non esse non pertinet non est causa defici­endi, id est, tendendi ad non esse. He that is the fountain of all being, is not the cause of not being, much lesse can his blessing cause any thing not to be. It followes therefore, that by blessing the bread becomes better, but therefore it still remains.

7 10 That it is bread of which Christ affir­med [This is my body] and that it is bread after consecration, was the doctrine of the Fathers in the Primitive Church. I begin with the words of a whole Councel of Fa­thers, In Trullo at Constantinople, decreeing thus against the Aquarii, In Sanctis nihil plus quàm corpus Christi offeratur, ut ipse Dominus tradidit, hoc est, panis & vinum aquâ mixtum, In the holy places or offices] let nothing more be offered but the body of Christ, as the Lord himself delivered, that is, bread and wine mingled with water. So Justin [Page 98]Martyr, Just. Mart. Apol. 2. [...]. We are taught that the food made Eucharistical, the food which by change nourishes our flesh and-bloud, is the flesh and bloud of Jesus incarnate, [...], we do not receive it as common bread: No, for it is [...], it is made Sa­cramental and Eucharistical, and so it is sub­limed to become the body of Christ. But it is natural food still, and that for two reasons. 1. Because still he calls it bread, not common bread, but extraordinary, yet bread still. Card. Perron sayes, it follows not to say, it is not common bread, therefore it is bread; so as of those which appeared as men to Abra­ham, we might say they were not common men; but it follows not that they were men at all. So the holy Ghost descending like a Dove upon the blessed Jesus, was no common Dove; and yet it follows not it was a Dove at all. I reply to this, that of whatsoever you can say, it is extraordi­nary in his kind, of that you may also affirm it to be of that kind: as concerning the richest scarlet, if you say this is no ordinary colour, you suppose it to be a colour: so the Corin­thian brasse was no common brasse, and the Colossus was no common Statue, and [Page 99]Christmas day is no common day, yet these negatives suppose the affirmative of their proper subject; Corinthian brasse is brasse, Colossus is a statue, and Christmas day is a day. But if you affirm of a counterfeit, or of an image or a picture, by saying it is no common thing, you deny to it the ordinary nature by diminution; but if it have the na­ture of the thing, then to say it is not com­mon, denies the ordinary nature by addition and eminencie; the first sayes it is not so at all, the second sayes it is more then so; and this is taught to every man by common rea­son, and he could have observed it if he had pleased; for it is plain, Justin said this of that, which before the Consecration was known to be natural bread, and therefore now to say it was not common bread, is to say it is bread and something more. 2. The second reason from the words of Justin to prove it to be natural food still, is because it is that by which our bloud and our flesh is nourished by change. Bellarmine sayes, that these words, by which our flesh and bloud is nourished, mean by which they use to be nourished; not meaning that they are nourished by this bread when it is Eu­charistical. But besides that this is gratis dictum without any colour or pretence from the words of Justin, but by a presumption [Page 100]taken from his own opinion, as if it were im­possible that Justin should mean any thing against his doctrine: besides this I say the in­terpretation is insolent, Nutriuntur, i.e. solent nutriri; as also because both the verbs are of the present tense, [...] & [...], The flesh and bloud are nou­rished by bread, and it is the body of Christ; that is, both in conjunction; so that he sayes not, as Bellarmine would have him, Cibus ille ex quo carnes nostrae ali solent cum prece mysti­câ consecratur, efficitur corpus Christi; but, Ci­bus ille quo carnes nostrae aluntur, est corpus Christi. The difference is material, and the matter is apparent: but upon this alone I re­ly not. To the same purpose are the words of Irenaeus, L. 4. c. 57. Dominus accipiens panem, suum corpus esse confitebatur, & temperamentum ca­licis, suum sanguinem confirmavit; Our Lord taking bread confessed it to be his body, and the mixture of the cup he confirmed to be his bloud. Here Irenaeus affirms to be true what De Euch. l. 3. c. 19. Bellarmine sayes, non potest fieri, can­not be done; that in the same proposition bread should be the subject, and body should be the praedicate; Irenaeus sayes that Christ said it to be so, and him we follow. But most plainly in his fifth Book, Quando ergo & mixtus calix, & fractus panis percipit ver­hum Dei, fit Eucharistia sanguinis & corporis [Page 101]Christi; ex quibus augetur & consistit carnis nostrae substantia: Quomodo carnem negant capacem esse donationis Dei qui est vita aeterna, quae sanguine & corpore Christi nutritur? and a little after he affirms that we are flesh of his flesh and bone of his bones; and that this is not understood of the spiritual man, but of the natu­ral disposition or temper; quae de calice qui est sanguis ejus nutritur, & de pane qui est corpus ejus augetur; and again, eum calicem qui est creatura suum sanguinem qui effusus est ex quo auget nostrum sanguinem, & eum panem &c. qui est creatura, suum corpus confirmavit ex quo nostra auget corpora; it is made the Eucharist of the bread, and the body of Christ out of that, of which the substance of our flesh con­sists and is encreased: by the bread which he confirmed to be his body, he increases our bodies, by the bloud which was poured out he increases our bloud; that is the sense of Irenaeus so often repeated. And to the same purpose is that of Origen, L. 8. adv. Ceisum. [...]. The bread, which is called the Eucharist, is to us the symbole of thanks­giving or Eucharist to God. So also Ter­tullian Tertul. adv. Mar­cion. l. 4. c. 40. , acceptum panem & distributum disci­pulis suis corpus suum fecit, He made the bread which he took and distributed to his disci­ples to be his body. But more plainly in his [Page 102]book De Coronâ militis, Calicis aut panis no­stri aliquid decuti in terram anxiè patimur; we cannot endure that any of the cup or any thing of the bread be thrown to the ground. The Eucharist he plainly calls bread; and that he speaks of the Eucharist is certain, Bellar. l. 4. Euch. c. 14 §. si rursus objicias. and Bel­larmine quotes the words to the purpose of shewing how reverently the Eucharist was handled and regarded. The like is in S. Cy­prian, Cyprian. ep. 76. Dominus corpus suum panem vocat, & sanguinem suum vinum appellat; Our Lord calls bread his body, and wine his bloud. So John Maxentius in the time of Pope Hor­misda, Dial. 2. contr. Ne­stor. The bread which the whole Church receives in memory of the Passion, is the bo­dy of Christ. Carech. mystag. 4. And S. Cyril of Jerusalem is earnest in this affair; since our Lord hath declared and said to us of bread, This is my body, who shall dare to doubt it? which words I the rather note, because Cardinal Perron brings them, as if they made for his cause, which they most evidently destroy. For if of bread Christ made this affirmation, that it is his body, then it is both bread and Christs body too, and that is it which we contend for. In the Dialogues against the Marcionites, Maximus. collected out of Maximus, Origen is brought in proving the reality of Christs flesh and bloud in his incarnation, by this argument. If as these men say, he be with­out [Page 103]flesh and bloud, [...], &c. of what body and of what bloud did he command the images or figures giving the bread and cup to his Disciples, that by these a remembrance of him should be made? Acacius in Genet. 2. Graec. ca­ten. in pen­tateuch. But Aca­cius the successor of Eusebius in his Bi­shoprick, calls it bread and wine even in the very use and sanctification of us. Panis vi­númque ex hâc materiâ vescentes sanctificat, the bread and wine sanctifies them that are fed with this matter. In typo sanguinis sui non obtulit aquam sed vinum, so S. L. 2. adv. Ievin. Hierome, he offered wine not water in the type [repre­sentment or sacrament] of his bloud. To the same purpose, but most plain are the words of Theodoret, Dial. 1. [...]. [...], In the exhibition of the mysteries he called bread his body, and the mixture in the chalice he called bloud. So also S. Austin Serm. 9. De diversis; The Euoharist is our dayly bread, but we receive it so that we are not only nourished by the belly, but also by the understanding. And I cannot understand the meaning of plain Latine, if the same thing be not affirmed in the little Masse-book published by Paulus 5. for the English Priests, Deus qui humani ge­neris utramque substantiam praesentium mune­rum alimento, tribue quaesumus, ut eorum & cor­poribus [Page 104]nostris subsidium non desit & mentibus, The present gifts were appointed for the nourishment both of soul and body. Who please may see more in Macarius 27 homily, and Ammonius in his Evangelical Harmony in the Bibliotheca PP. and this though it be decryed now adayes in the Romane Schools, yet was the doctrine of Sent. 4. dist 11. q. 3. Scotus, of Ibid. q. 1. Duran­dus, Ibid. q. 6. & Centi­log. The­ol. con. l. 4. q. 6. Ocham, Ibid. q. 6. ar. 1. Cameracensis, and Canon. missae lect. 40. H. Biel, and those men were for Consubstantiation; that Christs natural body was together with na­tural bread, which although I do not ap­prove, yet the use that I now make of them cannot be denyed me; it was their doctrine, that after consecration bread still remains; after this let what can follow. But that I may leave the ground of this argu­ment secure, I adde this, that in the Primi­tive Church eating the Eucharistical bread was esteemed a breaking the fast, which is not imaginable any man can admit, but he that believes bread to remain after conse­cration, and to be nutritive as before: but so it was that in the second age of the Church it was advised that either they should end their station (or fast) at the communion, or defer the communion to the end of the sta­tion; as appears in Tertullian, de Oratione cap. 14. which unanswerably proves that then it was thought to be bread and nutri­tive, [Page 105]even then when it was Eucharistical: and Apol. 4.6. Picus Mirandula affirms that if a Jew or a Christian should eat the Sacrament for refection, it breaks his fast. The same also is the doctrine of all those Churches who use the Liturgies of S. James, S. Marke, and S. Chrysostome, who hold that receiving the holy Communion breaks the fast, as ap­pears in the disputation of Cardinal Humbert with Nicetas about 600 years agoe. The summe of all is this; If of bread Christ said this is my body, because it cannot be true in a proper natural sense, it implying a con­tradiction that it should be properly bread, and properly Christs body; it must follow, That it is Christs body in a figurative impro­per sense. But if the bread does not remain bread, but be changed by blessing into our Lords body; this also is impossible to be in any sense true, but by affirming the change to be only in use, virtue and condition, with which change the natural being of bread may remain. For, he that supposes that by the blessing, the bread ceases so to be, that nothing of it remains, must also necessa­rily suppose that the bread being no more, it neither can be the body of Christ, nor any thing else. For it is impossible that what is taken absolutely from all being, should yet abide under a certain difference of being, [Page 106]and that that thing which is not at all, should yet be after a certain manner. Since therefore (as I have proved) the bread remains, and of bread it was affirmed [This is my body] it follows inevitably that it is figuratively, not properly and naturally spoken of bread, That it is the flesh or body of our Lord.

SECT. VI. [Est corpus meum.]

THe next words to be considered are [Est corpus] This is my body;] and here begins the first Tropical expression; [Est,] that is, significat or repraesentat, & exhibet cor­pus meum, say some. This is my body, it is to all real effects the same to your particu­lars, which my body is to all the Church: it signifies the breaking of my body, the ef­fusion of my bloud for you, and applies my passion to you, and conveyes to you all the benefits; as this nourishes your bodies, so my body nourishes your souls to life eternal, and consigns your bodies to immortality. Others make the trope in Corpus; so that Est shall signifie properly, but Corpus is taken in a spiritual sense, sacramental and mysterious; not a natural and praesential: [Page 107]whether the figure be in Est or in Corpus, is but a quaestion of Rhetorick, and of no effect. That the proposition is tropical and figurative is the thing, and that Christs na­tural body is now in heaven definitively, and no where else; and that he is in the Sa­crament as he can be in a Sacrament, in the hearts of faithful receivers, as he hath pro­mised to be there; that is, in the Sacrament mystically, operatively, as in a morall and divine instrument, in the hearts of receivers by faith and blessing; this is the truth and the faith of which we are to give a reason and account to them that disagree. But this which is to all the purpose which any one pretends can be in the sumption of Christs body naturally, yet will not please the Romanists, unlesse [Est, Is] signifie properly without trope or metonymie, and corpus be corpus naturale. Here then I joyn issue; It is not Christs body properly, or naturally: for though it signifies a real effect, yet it fignifies the body figuratively, or the effects and real benefits.

Now concerning this, 2 there are very ma­ny inducements to infer the figurative or tropical interpretation. 1. In the language which our blessed Lord spake, there is no word that can expresse significat, but they use the word Is; the Hebrews and the Syrians [Page 108]always joyn the names of the signs with the things signified; and since the very essence of a sign is to signifie, it is not an improper elegancy in those languages to use [Est] for significat. 2. It is usual in the Old Te­stament, Gen. 41.26, 27. & 40.12, 18. & 17.10. Exod. 12.11. as may appear, to understand est when the meaning is for the present, and not to expresse it: but when it signifies the future then to expresse it; the seven fat cowes, seven years; the seven withered ears shall be seven years of famine. 3 The Greek Interpreters of the Bible supply the word est in the present tense which is omitted in the Hebrew, as in the places above quoted: but although their Language can very well expresse [signifies] yet they follow the Hebrew Idiom. 4 In the New Testament the same manner of speaking is retained, to declare that the nature and being of signs is to signifie they have no other esse but signi­ficare, and therefore they use est for significat. The Seed is the Word, the Field is the World, the Reapers are the Angels, the Harvest is the End of the world; the Rock is Christ; I am the Door; I am the Vine, my Father is the husband­man; I am the way, the truth, and the life; Sarah and Agar are the two Testaments; the Stars are the Angels of the Churches, the Can­dlesticks are the Churches; and many more of this kind; we have therefore great and fair, [Page 109]and frequent precedents for expounding this est by significat, for it is the style of both the Testaments to speak in signs and representments, where one disparate speaks of another; as it does here: the body of Christ, of the bread, which is the Sacrament; espe­cially since the very institution of it is re­presentative, significative, and commemorative: For so said our blessed Saviour, Doe this in memorial of me Nemo recordatur nisi quod in praesentiâ non est posi­tum, S. August. in Psal. 37.; and this doing, ye shew forth the Lords death till he come, saith S. Paul.

3 The second credibility that our blessed Saviours words are to be understood fi­guratively, is because it is a Haec n. Sacramenta sunt, in quibus non quid sint, sed quid ostendant semper atten­ditur, quoniam signa sunt re­rum aliud existentia, aliud significantia. August. l. 3. contr. Max. c. 22. Sacra­mentum dicitur sacrum sig­num, sive sacrum secretum. Bern. Serm. de coen. Dom. Sacrament: For mysterious and tropical expressions are ve­ry frequently, almost regular­ly and universally used in Sacri­pture in Sacraments and sacra­mentals. And therefore it is but a vain discourse of Bellar­mine to contend that this must be a proper speaking, because it is a Sacra­ment. For that were all one as to say, he speaks mystically, therefore he speaks properly. [...] is the Greek for a Sacrament, and all the Greek that is for it in the New Te­stament: and when S. Paul tells of a man [Page 110]praying in the spirit, but so as not to be un­derstood, he expresses it by, speaking myste­ries 1 Cor. 14.2.. The mysterious and sacramental speak­ing is secret and dark. But so it is in the sa­crament or covenant of circumcision. [...], Gen. 17.10. This is my Covenant, and yet it was but the seal of the Covenant, (if you believe S. Rom. 4.11 Paul) it was a Sacrament and a consignation of it, but it is spoken of it affir­matively; and the same words are used there as in the Sacrament of the Eucharist; it is [...] in both places.

4 And upon this account two other usual objections (pretending that this being a Co­venant and a Testament, it ought to be ex­pressed without a figure) are dissolved. For here is a Covenant and a Testament and a Sacrament all in one, and yet the expressi­on of them is figurative; and the being a Testament is so far from supposing all ex­pression in it to be proper and free from fi­gure, that it self, the very word Testament in the institution of the holy Sacrament is tropical or figurative: est Testamentum, that is, est signum Testamenti, it is, that is, it sig­nifies. And why they should say that a Te­stament must have in it all plain words and no figures or hard sayings, that contend that both the Testaments New and Old, are very full of hard sayings, and upon that account [Page 111]forbid the people to read them, I confesse I cannot understand. Besides this, though it be fit in temporal Testaments all should be plain, yet we see all are not plain; and from thence come so many suits of Law; yet there is not the same reason in spiritual or divine, and in humane Testaments; for in humane, there is nothing but legacies and expresse commands, both which it is necessa­ry that we understand plainly; but in di­vine Testaments there are mysteries to ex­ercise our industry and our faith, our pati­ence and inquiry, some things for us to hope, some things for us to admire, some things to pry into, some things to act, some things for the present, some things for the future, some things pertaining to this life, some things pertaining to the life to come, some things we are to see in a glasse darkly, some things reserved till the vision of Gods face. And after all this, in humane Testaments men ought to speak plainly, because they can speak no more when they are dead. But Christ can, for he being dead, yet speaketh; and he can by his Spirit make the Church un­derstand as much as he please; and he will as much as is necessary: and it might be remembred, that in Scripture there is extant a record of Jacobs Testament, and of Moses, Gen. 49. Deut. 33. which we may observe to be an allegory all [Page 112]the way. I have heard also of an Athenian that had two sons, and being asked on his death-bed to which of his two sons he would give his goods, to Leon or Pantaleon, which were the names of his two sons; he only said, [...], but whether he meant to give all [...] to Leon, or to Panta­leon, is not yet known. And in the Civil Law it is noted that Testaments have figu­rative expressions very often; and therefore decreed, Non n. in causâ Testamentorum ad definitionem, (strictam, sive propriam verbo­rum significationem, saith the Glosse) utique descendendum est, cùm plerunque abusivè lo­quantur, nec propriis vocabulis ac nominibus semper utantur Testatores, l. non aliter §. Titi­us F. de legat. & fidei com. And there are in Law certain measures for presumption of the Testators meaning. These therefore are trifling arrests; even a commandment may be given with a figurative expression, and yet be plain enough: such was that of Jesus, Pray ye the Lord of the Harvest, that he would send Labourers into his Harvest; and that, Je­sus commanded his Disciples to prepare the Passeover; and some others: so, Rent your hearts, and not your garments, &c. And an ar­ticle of faith may be expressed figuratively; so is that of Christ sitting at the right hand of his Father. And therefore much more [Page 113]may there be figurative expressions in the institution of a mysterie, and yet be plain enough; Tropica loquutio cum fit ubi fieri so­let, sine labore sequitur intellectus; said S. Au­stin, l. 3. de doct. Christ. c. 37. Certain it is the Church understood this well enough for a thousand years together, and yet ad­mitted of figures in the institution: and since these new men had the handling of it, and excluded the figurative sense, they have made it so hard, that themselves cannot un­derstand it, nor tell one anothers meaning. But it suffices as to this particular, that in Scripture, doctrines and promises, and precepts and prophecies, and histories, are expressed sometimes figuratively; Dabo tibi claves; and, Semen mulieris conteret caput serpentis; and The dragon drew the third part of the Stars with his tail; and, Fight the good fight of faith, Put on the armour of righteousnesse; and very many more.

3 5 And indeed there is no possibility of distinguishing sacramental propositions from common and dogmatical, or from a com­mandment; but that these are affirmative of a nature, those of a mystery; these speak properly, they are figurative: such as this, Unlesse a man be born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdome of Heaven. The proposition is sacramental, mystical, [Page 114]and figurative: Goe and baptize, that's a pre­cept; therefore the rather is it literal and proper. So it is in the blessed Sacrament, the institution is in [Jesus took bread and blessed it, and brake it, and gave to his disciples, saying, Take, eat] In these also there is a a precept, and in the last words: Hoc facite, this doe in remembrance of me; But the sacramental proposition or the mystical, which explicates the Sacrament, is, [Hoc est corpus meum] and either this is, or there is no sacramental proposition in this whole af­fair to explicate the mysterie, or the being a sacrament. But this is very usual in sacra­mental propositions. For so baptism is cal­led regeneration, and it is called a burial by S. Paul, for we are buried with him in Baptism; then baptism is either sepulchrum or sepultu­ra, the grave or the burial, but either of them is a figure, and it is so much used in sacra­mental and mystic propositions, that they are all so, or may be so; ut baptismus sepul­chrum, Lib. 20. cont. Fau­stum Ma­nich. c. 21. sic hoc est corpus meum, saith S. Austin. And this is also observed in Gentile rites:

— [...]
[...]—So Homer:

The slain Lambs and the wine were the Sa­crament, the faithful oaths, that is, the rite [Page 115]and mysterie of their sanction; they were oaths figuratively.

4 6 But to save the labour of more instan­ces; S. Austin hath made the observation, and himself gives in a list of particulars: solet autem res quae significat ejus rei nomine quam significat nuncupari; septem spicae, In Levit. q. 57. septem anni sunt (non enim dixit septem annos significant) & multa hujusmodi. Hinc est quod dictum erat, Pe­tra erat Christus, non enim dixit, Petra signifi­cat Christum, sed tanquam hoc esset quod utique per substantiam non erat, sed per significa­tionem. ‘The thing which signifies is wont to be called by that which it signi­fies: the seven ears of corn are seven years; he did not say they signified seven years, but are; and many like this. Hence it is said, the rock was Christ, for he said not, the rock signifies Christ; but as if the thing were that, not which it were in his own substance, but in signification.’ Per­vulgatum est in Scripturâ, In Apoc. c. 14. ut res figurata no­men habeat figurae, saith Ribera. That this is no unusual thing is confessed on all hands. V. 8

So is that of Exodus, the Lamb is the Passe­over; and this does so verifie S. Austins words, that in the New Testament the Apo­stles asked our Lord, Where wilt thou that we prepare to eat the Passeover? that is, the Lamb which was the remembrance of the [Page 116] Passeover, as the blessed Eucharist is of the death of Christ. L. 1. Euch. c. 11.6. Quaedam citantur. To this instance Bellar­mine speaks nothing to purpose, for he de­nies the Lamb to signifie the Passeover, or the passing of the Angel over the houses of Israel, because there is no likelihood between the Lamb and the Passeover; and to make the businesse up, he sayes, the Lamb was the Passeover: By some straining, the Lamb slain might signifie the slaying the Egypti­ans, and remember their own escape at the time when they first eat the Lamb: But by no straining could the Lamb be the thing; especially, if for the dissimilitude it could not so much as signifie it, how could it be the very same, to which it was so extremely unlike? but he alwayes sayes something, though it be nothing to the purpose: and yet it may be remembred that the eating the Lamb was as proper an instrument of re­membrance of that deliverance, as the eating consecrated bread is of the Passion of our blessed Lord. ‘But it seems the Lamb is the very Passeover, as the very festival day is called the Passeover;’so he. And he sayes true, in the same manner; but that is but by a trope or figure, for the feast is the feast of the Passeover; if you speak properly, it is the Passe­over by a Metonymie: and so is the Lamb. And this instance is so much the more op­posite, [Page 117]because it is the fore-runner of the blessed Eucharist, which succeeded that, as Baptism did Circumcision; and there is nothing of sense that hath been, or I think can be spoken to evade the force of this in­stance; nor of the many other before rec­koned.

5 And as it is usual in all Sacraments, 8 so particularly it must be here, in which there is such a heap of tropes and figurative spee­ches, that almost in every word there is plainly a trope. For 1. Here is the cup taken for the thing contained in it. 2. Testament, for the legacie bequeathed by the Testament. 3. This,] is not in recto, but in obliquo. This] that is, not this which you see, but this which you do not see. This which is under the species is my body. 4 My body, but not bo­dily; my body without the forms and figure of my body, that is, my body, not as it is in na­ture, not as it is in glory, but as it is in Sacra­ment; that is, my body sacramentally. 5 Drink ye] that is also improper; for his bloud is not drunk properly, for bloud hath the same manner of existing in the chalice as it hath in the Paten, that is, is under the form of wine as it is under the form of bread; and there­fore it is in the veins, not separate, say they See Brere­ly Liturg. Tract. 4 §. 8. Glossa in c. si per negligenti­am dist. 2. de conse­crat. in haec verba [De sanguine] ait. De sanguine, i. e. de sacramento sanguinis. Sanguis n. Christi à corpore Christi separari non valet, ergo nec stillare nec fluere potest., [Page 118]and yet it is in the bread, as it is in the chalice, and in both as upon the Crosse, that is pour­ed out, so Christ said expresly; for else it were so far from being his bloud, that it were not so much as the Sacrament of what he gave; so that the wine in the chalice is not drunk, because it is not separate from the body; and in the bread it cannot be drunk, because there it is not in the veins; or if it were, yet is made as a consistent thing by the continent, but is not potable: now that which follows from hence is, that it is not drunk at all properly, but figuratively: and so Mr. Brerely See Brerc­ly Liturg. Tract. 4. §. 8. confesses sometimes, and Jan­senius Concord. in eum lo­cum.. There is also an impropriety in the word [ given, for shall be given; is poured out, for shall be poured out Salmer. in 1 Cor. 11. Gregor. de Valent. l. 1 de Missa c. 3. §. igi­tur. Tom. 3. disp. 47. §. 4. §. exem­pla tertiae. Ruard Tap­per in art. 13.; in [ broken, for then it was not broken when Christ spake it, and it cannot be properly spoken since his glori­fication. Salmeron allows an Enallage in the former, and Suarez a Metaphor in the latter. Frangi cùm dicitur, est Metaphorica locutio. And this is their excuse; why in the Roman Missal they leave out the words [which is bro­ken for you] for they do what they please, they put in some words which Christ used not, and leave out something that he did use, and yet they are all the words of institution. And upon the same account, there is another trope in [eat] and yet with a strange confi­dence [Page 119]these men wonder at us for saying the sacramental words are tropical or figurative Dico quòd figura co poris Christi est ibi, sed figura cor­poris Christi, non est ibi figu­ra corporis Christi. Holcot. in 4. sent. q. 3., when even by their own confession Anselm, Lombard, Tho­mas, Ly [...]an, Gorran, Caje­tan, Dion. Carth. Cathari­nus, Salmeron, Bened. Justi­nian, Sa, in 1 Cor. 11. & innumeri alii. and pro­per grounds, there is scarce any word in the whole institution but admits an impropriety. And then concerning the main praedication; This is my body, as Christ called bread his body, so he called his body bread, and both these affirmatives are destructive of Transubstantiation; for if of bread Christ affirmed, It is his body, by the rule of dispa­rates it is figurative; and if of his body he affirmed it to be bread, it is certain also and confessed to be a figure. Now concerning this, besides that our blessed Saviour affirm­ed himself to be the bread that came down from heaven, calling himself bread, and in the insti­tution calling bread his body; we have the expresse words of Theodoret, Dial. 1. c. 8. [...]; Christ gave to his body the name of the Symbol, and to the Symbol the name of his body; and S. Cyprian speaks ex­pressely to this purpose, as you may see above, §. 5. n. 9.

6 The strange inconveniences and impos­sibilities, the scandals and errours, 9 the fancie [Page 120]of the Capernaites, and the temptations to faith, arising from the literal sense of these words, have been in other cases thought suf­ficient by all men to expound words of Scri­pture by tropes and allegories. The heresie of the Anthropomorphites and the Euchitae, and the doctrine of the Chiliasts, and Origen gelding himself, proceeded from the literal sense of some texts of Scripture, against which there is not the hundred part of so much presumption as I shall in the sequel make to appear to lye against this. And yet no man puts out his right eye literally, or cuts off his right hand to prevent a scandal. Certain it is, there hath been much greater inconvenience by following the letter of these words of Insti­tution, then of any other in Scripture: by so much as the danger of Idolatry, and actual tyrannie, and uncharitable damning others, and schism, are worse then any temporal in­convenience, or an errour in a matter of speculation.

7 I argue out of S. Austins grounds thus: 10 As the Fathers did eat Christs body, Tract. 26. in S. Johan. so doe we under a diverse Sacrament, and different symbols, but in all the same reality; what­soever we eat, the same they did eat; for the difference is this only, they received Christ by faith in him that was to come, and we by faith in him that is come already; but [Page 121]they had the same real benefit, Christ as really as we, for they had salvation as well as we. But the Fathers could not eat Christs flesh in a natural manner, for it was not yet assumed: and though it were as good an argument against our eating of it naturally, that it is gone from us into heaven; yet that which I now insist upon is, that it was cibus spiritualis which they eat under the Sa­crament of Manna; therefore we under the Sacrament of bread and wine eating the same meat, eat only Christ in a spiritual sense, that is, our spiritual meat. And this is also true in the other Sacraments of the Rock and the Cloud: Our Fathers eat of the same spiritual meat, and drank of the same spiritual drink, that is, Christ; so he afterwards expounds it. Now if they did eat and drink Christ, that is, were by him in sacrament and to all rea­lity of effect nourished up to life eternal, why cannot the same spiritual meat doe the same thing for us, we receiving it also in Sacrament and Mysterie? 2 To which I adde, that all they that doe communicate spiritually, doe receive all the blessing of the Sacrament, which could not be unlesse the mysterie were only sacramental, mysteri­ous, and spiritual. In S. Joan. 6.49. Maldonate speaking of something of this from the authoritie of S. Austin, is of opinion that if S. Austin were [Page 122]now alive, in very spite to the Calvinists, he would have expounded that of Manna otherwise then he did: It seems he lived in a good time when malice and the spirit of contradiction was not so much in fashion in the interpretations of Scripture.

Now let it be considered whether all that I have said be not abundantly sufficient to out-weigh their confidence of the literal sense of these sacramental words. 11 They find the words spoken, they say they are li­terally to be understood, they bring nothing considerable for it; there is no Scripture that so expounds it, there is no reason in the cir­cumstances of the words; but there is all the reason of the world against it, (as I have and shall shew) and such, for the meanest of which very many other places of Scripture are drawn from the literal sense and rest in a tropical and spiritual. Now in all such ca­ses when we find an inconvenience presse the literal expression of a text, instantly we find another that is figurative, and why it is not so done in this, the interest and secular ad­vantages which are consequent to this opi­nion of the Church of Rome may give suffi­cient account. In the mean time we have rea­son not to admit of the literal sense of these words, not only by the Analogie of other [Page 123]sacramental expressions in both Testaments, I mean that of Circumcision and the Passe­over in the Old, and Baptism as Christ dis­coursed it to Nicodemus in the New Testa­ment; but also 2. because the literal sense of the like words in this very article intro­duced the heresie of the Capernaites; and 3. because the subject and the praedicate in the words of institution are diverse and disparate and cannot possibly be spoken of each other properly. 4 The words in the natural and proper sense seem to command an unnatural thing, the eating of flesh. 5 They rush upon infinite impossibilities, they contradict sense and reason, the princi­ples and discourses of all mankind, and of all Philosophie. 6 Our blessed Saviour tells us that the flesh profiteth nothing, and (as themselves pretend) even in this mysterie, that his words were spirit and life. 7 The literal sense cannot be explicated by them­selves, nor by any body for them. 8 It is against the Analogie of other Scriptures. 9 It is to no purpose. 10 Upon the literal sense of the words, the Church could not confute the Vide in­fra §. 12. n. 22. & n. 32. &c. & §. 10. n. 6. Marcionites, Eutychians, Ne­storians, the Aquarii. 11 It is against anti­quity. 12 The whole form of words in every of the members is confessed to be figurative by the opposite party. 13 It is [Page 124]not pretended to be verifiable without an infinite company of miracles, all which being more then needs, and none of them visible, but contestations against art and the notices of two or three sciences, cannot be supposed to be done by God, who does nothing su­perfluously. 14 It seems to contradict an article of faith, viz. of Christs sitting in hea­ven in a determinate place, and being con­tained there till his second coming. Upon these considerations, and upon the account of all the particular arguments which I have and shall bring against it, it is not unreason­able, neither can it seem so, that we decline the letter, and adhere to the spirit, in the sense of these words. But I have divers things more to say in this particular from the consideration of other words of the institu­tion, and the whole nature of the thing.

SECT. VII. Considerations of the manner and circumstances and annexes of the institution.

THe blessed Sacrament is the same thing now as it was in the institution of it: 1 But Christ did not really give his natural body in the natural sense when he eat his [Page 125]last supper, therefore neither does he now. The first proposition is, beyond all dispute, certain, evident, and confessed; Hoc facite, convinces it: This doe] what Christ did, his Disciples are to doe. I assume: Christ did not give his natural body properly in the last Supper, therefore neither does he now; the assumption I prove by diverse arguments.

1 If then he gave his natural body, 2 then it was naturally broken, and his bloud was actually poured forth before the passion; for he gave [...], or [...], his body was delivered broken, his bloud was shed: Now those words were spoken either properly and natu­rally; and then they were not true, because his body was yet whole, his bloud still in the proper channels; or else it was spoken in a figurative and sacramental sense, and so it was true: (as were all the words which our blessed Saviour spake) for that which he then ministred was the Sacrament of his Pas­sion.

2 If Christ gave his body in the natural sense at the last Supper, 3 then it was either a sacrifice propitiatory, or it was not; If it was not, then it is not now, and then their dream of the Masse is vanished: if it was propitiatory at the last Supper, then God was reconciled to all the world, and mankind [Page 126]was redeemed before the Passion of our blessed Saviour: which therefore would have been needlesse and ineffective: so fear­ful are the consequents of this strange do­ctrine.

3 4 If Christ gave his body properly in the last Supper, and not only figuratively and in sacrament, then it could not be a represent­ment or sacrament of his Passion, but a real exhibition of it: but that it was a Sacrament only, appears by considering that it was then alive; that the Passion was future, that the thing was really to be performed upon the Crosse, that then he was to be delivered for the life of the world. In the last Supper all this was in type and sacrament, because it was before, and the substance was to follow after.

4 5 If the natural body of Christ was in the last Supper under the accidents of bread, then his body at the same time was visible and invisible in the whole substance, visible in his person, invisible under the accidents of bread: and then it would be inquired what it was which the Apostles received, what benefits they could have by receiving the body naturally; or whether it be imagi­nable that the Apostles understood it in the literal sense, when they saw his body stand by, unbroken, alive, integral, hypostatical.

5 6 If Christs body were naturally in the Sacrament, I demand, whether it be as it was in the last Supper, or as upon the Crosse, or as it is now in heaven? Not as in the last Supper, for then it was frangible, but not broken; but typically, by design, in figure and in Sacrament, as it is evident in matter of fact. 2. Not as on the Crosse, for there the body was frangible and broken too, and the bloud spilled; and if it were so now in the Sacrament, besides that it were to make Christs glorified body passible, and to crucifie the Lord of life again; it also were not the same body which Christ hath now, for his body that he hath now is spiritual and incor­ruptible, and cannot be otherwise; much lesse can it be so and not so at the same time properly, and yet be the same body. 3 Not as in heaven, where it is neither corruptible nor broken; for then in the Sacrament there were given to us Christs glorified body; and then neither were the Sacrament a remembrance of Christs death, neither were the words of Institution verified, [This is my body which is broken;] besides, De Euch. l. 1. c. 13. §. 1. in this we have Bellarmines confession, neque enim ore corporali sumi potest corpus Christi ut est in coelo. But then if it be remembred, that Christ hath no other body but that which is in heaven; and that can never be otherwise [Page 128]then it is, and so it cannot be received other­wise properly; it unanswerably followes, that if it be received in any other manner (as it must if it be at all) it must be received (not naturally or corporally) but spiritually and indeed. By a figure, or a sacramental, spiritual sense, all these difficulties are easily assoiled, but by the natural never.

6 7 At the last Supper they eat the blessed Eucharist, but it was not in remembrance of Christs death, for it was future then, and therefore not then capable of being remem­bred, any more then a man can be said to re­member what will be done to morrow; it follows from hence that then Christ only instituted a Sacrament or figurative myste­rious representment of a thing that in the whole use of it was variable by heri and cras, and therefore never to be naturally verified, but on the Crosse by a proper and natural presence, because then it was so and never else; at that time it was future, and now it is past, and in both it is relative to his death; therefore it could not be a real exhibition of his body in a natural sense, for that as it could not be remembred then, so neither broken now; that is, nothing of it is natural, but it is wholly ritual, mysterious, and sacramen­tal. For that this was the sacrament of his death, appears in the words of Institution, [Page 129]and by the preceptive words, " Doe this in remembrance of me. And in the reason sub­joined by S. Paul, [...], &c. 1 Cor. 11.26. For so often as ye eat this bread and drink this cup, ye shew the Lords death, till he come. Therefore when Christ said, This is my body given, or broken on my part, taken, eaten on yours, it can be nothing else but the [...], the sacramental image of his death; to effect which purpose it could not be necessa­ry or useful to bring his natural body, that so the substance should become his own sha­dow; the natural presence be his own Sa­crament, or rather the image and represent­ment of what he once suffered. His body given in the Sacrament is the application and memory of his death and no more; that as Christ in heaven represents his death in the way of intercession, so do we by our ministrie; but as in heaven it is wholly a representing of his body crucified, a reme­moration of his crucifixion, of his death and passion, by which he reconciled God and man: so it is in the Sacrament after our manner, This is my body given for you] that is, This is the Sacrament of my death, in which my body was given for you. For as Aquinas said, in all sciences words signifie things, but it is proper to Theologie, that things themselves signified or expressed by voices [Page 130]should also signifie something beyond it. This is my body, are the sacramental words, or those words by which the mysterie or the thing is sacramental; it must therefore signify something beyond these words, and so they doe; for they signifie the death which Christ suffered in that body. It is but an imperfect conception of the mysterie to say it is the Sacrament of Christs body only, or his bloud; but it is ex parte rei, a Sacrament of the death of his body; and to us a partici­pation, or an exhibition of it, as it became beneficial to us, that is, as it was crucified, as it was our sacrifice. And this is so wholly agreeable to the nature of the thing, and the order of the words, and the body of the cir­cumstances, that it is next to that which is evident in it self, and needs no further light but the considering the words and the design of the Institution; especially since it is con­sonant to the style of Scripture in the Sacra­ment of the Passeover, and very many other instances; it wholly explicates the nature of the mysterie, it reconciles our duty with the secret, it is free of all inconvenience, it prejudices no right, nor hinders any real effect it hath or can have; and it makes the mysterie intelligible and prudent, fit to be discoursed of, and inserred into the rituals of a wise Religion.

7 He that receives unworthily receives no benefit to his body or to his soul by the holy Sacrament, this is agreed on all sides; 8 therefore he that receives benefit to his body, receives it by his worthy communi­cating, therefore the benefit reaching to the body by the holy Eucharist, comes to it by the soul, therefore by the action of the soul, not the action of the body; therefore by faith, not by the mouth: whereas on the contrary, if Christs body natural were eaten in the Sacrament, the benefit would come to the body by his own action, and to the soul by the body. All that eat are not made Christs body, and all that eat not are not disintitled to the resurrection; the Spirit does the work without the Sacrament, and in the Sacrament when 'tis done: The flesh profiteth nothing] And this argument ought to prevail upon this account: Because, as is the nutriment, so is the manducation. If the nourishment be wholly spiritual, then so is the eating. But by the Roman doctrine the body of Christ does not naturally nourish, therefore neither is it eaten naturally; but it does nourish spiritually, and therefore it is eaten only spiritually. Opusc. Tom. 2. Tract. 2. de Euch. c. 5. And this doctrine is also affirmed by Cajetan, though how they will endure it I cannot understand; Mandu­catur verum corpus Christi in Sacramento, sed [Page 132]non corporalitèr sed spiritualitèr. Spiritualis manducatio quae per animam fit ad Christi car­nem in Sacramento existentem perting it. The ‘true body of Christ is eaten in the Sacra­ment, but not corporally, but spiritually. The spiritual manducation which is made by the soul, reaches to the flesh of Christ in the Sacrament;’ which is very good Protestant doctrine. And if it be absurd to say Christs body doth nourish corporally, why it should not be as absurd to say, we eat it corporally, is a secret which I have not yet been taught. As is our eating so is the nourishing, because that is in order to this; therefore if you will suppose that natural eating of Christs body does nourish spiritu­ally, yet it must also nourish corporally; let it doe more if it may, but it must doe so much; just as the waters in baptism, although the waters are symbolical and instrumental to the purifying of the soul, yet because the waters are material and corporeal, they cleanse the body first and primarily: so it must be in this Sacrament also; if Christs body were eaten naturally, it must nourish naturally, and then passe further: but that which is natural is first, and then that which is spiritual.

8 9 For the likenesse to the argument, I insert this consideration; by the doctrine of [Page 133]the ancient Church, wicked men do not eat the body, nor drink the bloud of Christ. So Origen, I [...] M [...]t. 15. Si fieri potest ut qui malus adhuc perseveret edat verbum factum carnem, cum sit verbum & panis vivus, nequaquam scriptum fuisset, Quisquis ederit panem hunc vivet in aeternum. If it were possible for him that perseveres in wickednesse to eat the word made flesh, when it is the word and the living bread, it had never been written, Whosoever shall eat this bread shall live for ever. So S. Hilary, L 8. de Trinit. Panis qui descendit de coelo non nisi ab eo accipitur qui Dominum habet, & Christi membrum est: The bread that came down from heaven is not taken of any but of him who hath the Lord, De Coe [...] Dom. aut quicun (que) author est. and is a member of Christ. Lambunt Petram, saith S. Cyprian, They lick the Rock, that is, eat not of the food, and drink not of the bloud that issued from thence when the Rock was smitten. They receive corticem sacramenti, & furfur carnis, saith S. Bernard, the skin of the Sa­crament, and the bran of the flesh. But Ven. Bede is plain without an allegory. Saper Ex­od. de ag­no Pasch. Omnis infidelis non vescitur carne Christi: An un­believing man is not fed with the flesh of Christ; the reason of which could not be any thing but because Christ is only eaten by faith. L. 21. de Civit. Dei c. 25. But I reserved S. Austin for the last, ‘ So then these are no true receivers of [Page 134]Christs body in that they are none of his true members. For (to omit all other allegati­ons) they cannot be both the members of Christ and the members of an harlot; and Christ himself saying, He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my bloud, dwelleth in me, and I in him, sheweth what it is to receive Christ, not only sacramentally, but truly; for this is to dwell in Christ and Christ in him. For thus he spoke, as if he had said; He that dwelleth not in me nor I in him, cannot say, he eateth my flesh or drinketh my bloud.’ In which words (if the Roman Doctors will be judged by S. Austin for the sense of the Church in this Question, and will allow him in this point to be a good Catholick) 1 He dogmatically declares that the wicked man does not eat Christs body truly. 2 He does eat it sacramentally. 3 That to eat with effect is to eat Christs body truly: to which if they please to adde this, 4 That to eat it spiritually is to eat it with effect, it follows by S. Austins doctrine that spiritually is really, and that there is no true and real body of Christ eaten in the Sacrament, but by the faithful receiver: or if you please receive the conclusion in the words of S. Austin, Tunc erit unicuique corpus & sanguis Christi, Serm. 2. de verb. Apost. si quod in Sacramento sumitur, in ipsâ veritate spiritualiter manducetur, spiritualiter bibatur, [Page 135]then to each receiver it becomes the body and bloud of Christ, if that which is ta­ken in the Sacrament, be in the very truth it self spiritually eaten, and spiritually drunk: which words of S. Austin, Bellarmine, upon another occasion being to answer, in stead of answering grants it, and tells that this manner of speaking is very usual in S. L. 1. Euch. c. 14. §. Respond. apud Au­gustinum. Austin [the truest answer in all his books:] but whether it be for him or against him he ought to have considered. Neither can this be put off with saying, that the wicked doe not truly eat Christ, that is, not to any benefit or purpose, but that this does not mean they receive him not at all. Just as we say when a man eats but a little, he does not eat: for as good never a jot, as never the better. This I say is not a sufficient escape, I Because S. Austin opposes sacramental receiving to the true and real, and sayes that the wicked only receive it sacramentally; but not the thing whose Sacrament it is; so that this is not a proposition of degrees, but there is a plain opposition of one to the other. 2 It is true, S. Austin does not say that the wicked do not receive Christ at all, for he sayes they receive him sacramentally; but he sayes, they do not at all receive him truly, and the wicked man cannot say he does: and he proves this by unanswerable arguments out of Scripture. [Page 136]3 This excuse will not with any pretence be fitted with the sayings of the other Fathers, nor to all the words of S. Austin in this quo­tation, and much lesse in others which I have De Serm. de verb. Apost. Pauli supr. and shall remark, particularly this; that he calls that which the wicked eat, no­thing but signum corporis & sanguinis. His words are these Tract. 26 in Joh. vid. etiam Bel­larminè [...] 1. Euch. c. 14. §. re­spondeo S. August., Ac per hoc qui non manet in Christo, & in quo non manet Christus, pro­culdubio non manducat spiritualiter carnem, non bibit sanguinem, licèt carnaliter & visibiliter premat dentibus signum corporis & sanguints: he does not eat the body and drink the bloud spiritually, although carnally and visibly he presses with his teeth the sign of the body and bloud. Plainly, all the wicked doe but eat the sign of Christs body, all that is to be done beyond, is to eat it spiritually. There is no other eating but these two; Tract. 59. in Joh. and from S. Austin it was that the Schools received that famous distinction of Panis Dominus, and Panis Domini, Judas received the bread of the Lord against the Lord: But the other Apostles received the bread which was the Lord, that is, his body. But I have already spoken of the matter of this argument in the third Paragraph, num. 7. which the Reader may please to adde to this to make it fuller.

9 Lastly, 10 In the words of Institution and Consecration (as they call them) the words [Page 137]which relate to the consecrated wine are so different in the Evangelists, and S. Paul re­spectively, as appears by comparing them together; that 1. It does not appear which words were literally spoken by our blessed Saviour: for all of them could not be so spoken as they are set down. 2 That they all regarded the sense and meaning of the mysterie, not the letters and the syllables. 3. It is not possible to be certain that Christ intended the words of any one of them to be consecratory or effective of what they sig­nifie, for every one of the relators differ in the words though all agree in the things; as the Reader may observe in the beginning of the fourth Paragraph, where the four forms are set by each other to be compared. 4 The Church of Rome in the consecration of the Chalice uses a form of words, which Christ spake not at all, nor are related by S. Mat­thew, or S. Mark, or S. Luke, or S. Paul, but she puts in some things and changes others; her form is this. Hic est enim calix sanguinis mei novi & aeterni Testamenti, mysterium fidei, qui pro vobis & pro multis effundetur in remis­sionem peccatorum. For this is the chalice of my bloud, of the New and eternal Testament, the mystery of faith, which shall be shed for you and for many for the remission of sins: what is added is plain, what is altered would be [Page 138]very material, if the words were consecra­tory; for they are not so likely to be opera­tive and effective as the words of Christ recited by S. Matthew, and S. Mark, [this is my bloud:] and if this had not been the ancient form used in the Church of Rome long before the doctrine of Transubstantia­tion was thought of; it is not to be imagined that they would have refused the plainer words of Scripture to have made the article more secret, the form lesse operative, the authoritie lesse warrantable, the words lesse simple and natural. But the corollary which is natural and proper from the particulars of this argument is, that the mysterie was so wholly spiritual, that it was no matter by what words it were expressed, so the spirit of it were retained; and yet if it had been an historical, natural, proper sense that had been intended, it ought also in all reason to have been declared, or (much more) effected by a natural and proper, and constant affir­mative. But that there is nothing spoken properly, is therefore evident, because there are so many praedications, and all mean the same mysterie, Hic est sanguis meus N. Testa­menti; and, Hic calix est N. Testamentū in meo sanguine; and, Hic est calix sanguinis mei in the Roman Missal; all this declares it is mysterium fidei, and so to be taken in all senses: and those [Page 139]words are left in their Canon, as if on pur­pose either to prevent the literal and natural understanding of the other words, or for the reducing the communicants to the onely apprehensions of faith: It is mysterium fidei, not sanguis naturalis, a mysterie of faith, not natural bloud. For supposing that both the forms used by S. Matthew and S. Luke, respectively could be proper and without a figure; L. 1. de Euch. c. 11 § ad terti­am dico. and S. Matthews Hic est sanguis Te­stamenti, did signifie, This is the divine pro­mise (for so Bellarmine dreams that Testa­ment there signifies) and that in S. Lukes words [This cup is the Testament] it sig­nifies the instrument of the Testament, (for so a Will or a Testament is taken; either for the thing willed or the Parchment in which it is written) yet how are these or either of these affirmative of the wine being transub­stantiated into bloud? it sayes nothing of that, and so if this sense of those words does avoid a trope, it brings in a distinct proposi­tion; if it be spoken properly, it is more distant from giving authority to their new doctrine; and if the same word have several senses, then in the sacramental proposition as it is described by the several Evangelists, there are several praedicates, and therefore it is impossible that all should be proper. And yet besides this, although he thinks he may [Page 140]freely say any thing if he covers it with a di­stinction, yet the very members of this di­stinction conclude against his conclusion; for if Testament in one place be taken for the instrument of his Testament, it is a tro­pical loquution; just as I say, my bible (meaning my book) is the word of God; that is, contains the word of God, it is a Metony­mie of the thing containing for that which it contains. But this was more then I needed, and therefore I am content it should passe for nothing.

SECT. VIII. Of the Arguments of the Romanists from Scripture.

THus I have by very many arguments taken from the words and circumstan­ces, 1 and annexes of the Institution or Conse­cration proved, that the sense of this myste­rie is mysterious, and spiritual, that Christs body is eaten only sacramentally by the body, but really and effectively only by faith, which is the mouth of the soul, that the flesh profiteth nothing, but the words which Christ spake are spirit and life. And let it be considered, Whether besides a pertinacious resolution that they will understand these words as [Page 141]they sound in the letter, not as they are in­tended in the spirit, there be any thing, or indeed can be in the nature of the thing, or circumstances of it, or usefulnesse, or in the different forms of words, or the Analogie of the other discourses of Christ, that can give colour to their literal sense? against which so much reason and Scripture, and arguments from Antiquity do contest. This only I observe, that they bring no pretence of other Scriptures to warrant this interpre­tation, but such which I have or shall wrest out of their hands; and which to all mens first apprehensions, and at the very first sight do make against them, and which with­out curious notion and devices cannot pre­tend on their side: as appears 1 in the tenth chapter of the first Epistle to the Corin­thians, verses 16, 17. V. 16, 17.

Out of which I have already proved, 2 that Christs body is not taken in the natural sense, but in the spiritual. §. 5. n. 6. L. 1. Euch. c. 12. But when Bel­larmine had out of the same words forced for himself three arguments proving no­thing; to save any man the labour of an­swering them, he addes at the end of them these words; §. sed tota difficultas. Sed tota difficultas est an corpo­raliter, realiter, propriè sumatur sanguis & caro, an solùm significativè & spiritualiter. Quod autem corporaliter & propriè probari [Page 142]posset omnibus argumentis quibus suprà proba­vimus propriè esse intelligenda verba illa in­stitutionis, Hoc est corpus meum. That is, after his arguments out of the first Epistle to the Corinthians were ended, C. 10. v. 16 all the diffi­cultie of the quaestion still remained; and that he was fain to prove by Hoc est corpus meum, and the proper arguments of that; but brings nothing from the words of S. Paul in this chapter. But to make up this also he does corradere scrape together some things extrinsecal to the words of this authoritie; as 1. That the literal sense is to be presumed unlesse the contrary be proved; which is very true: but I have evidently proved the con­trary concerning the words of Institution; and for the words in this chapter, if the li­teral sense be preferred, then the bread re­mains after Consecration, because it is called bread. 2 So the Primitive Saints expounded it] which how true it is, I shall consider in his own place. 3. The Apostle calling the Gentiles from their sacrificed flesh proposes to them a more excellent banquet, but it were not more excellent if it were only a figure of Christs body; so Bellarmine; which is a fit cover for such a dish: for 1 We do not say that in the Sacrament we only receive the sign and figure of Christs body; but all the real effects and benefits of it. 2 If we [Page 143]had, yet it is not very much better then blasphemie, to say that the Apostles had not prevailed upon that account. For if the very figure and sacrament of Christs body be better then sacrifices offered to Devils, the Apostle had prevailed, though this sen­tence were true, that in the Sacrament we receive only the figure. And thus I have (for all that is said against it) made it appa­rent that there is nothing in that place for their corporal presence.

There is one thing more which out of Scripture they urge for the corporal pre­sence, viz. 3 1 Cor. 11.29.27. He that eateth and drinketh un­worthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to him­self, not discerning the Lords body: and, he shall be guilty of the body and bloud of Christ. Where they observe that they that eat un­worthily do yet eat Christs body, because how else could they be guiltie of it, and condemned for not discerning it?

To this I answer many things. 1 S. 4 Paul does not say, He that eateth and drinketh Christs body and bloud unworthily, &c. but indefinitely, He that eateth and drinketh &c. V. 29. yet it is probable he would have said so, if it had been a proper form of speech, because by so doing it would have layed a greater load upon them. 2 Where S. Paul does not speak indefinitely, he speaks most clear­ly [Page 144]against the Article in the Roman sense; for he calls it [...], V. 27. The cup of the Lord, and [...], this bread, and, he that eats this bread unworthily is guilty of the body and bloud of Christ: and now these com­minatory phrases are quitted from their pre­tence, but yet they have their proper consi­deration: Therefore 3 Not discerning the Lords body, is, not separating it from profane and common usages, not treating it with address­es proper to the mysterie. To which phrase Justin gives light in these words [...], we do not receive it as common bread and common drink; but [...], &c. but nourish­ment made Eucharistical or blessed by the word of Prayer; and so it is the body and bloud of the Lord. 4 It is the body of the Lord in the same sense here as in the words of Institution, which I have evinced to be exegetical, sacramental, and spiritual; and by despising the sacrament of it, we become guilty of the body and bloud of Christ. Reus erit corporis & sanguinis Christi qui tanti myste­rii sacramentū despexerit, In 1 Cor. 11. saith S. Hierome. And it is in this as Severianus said concerning the statues of Theodosius broken in despight by the Antiochians, [...]. [Page 145]If you abuse the Kings Image, the affront relates to your Prince. 5. The un­worthy receiver is guilty of the body and bloud of Christ, not naturally, for that can­not now be, and nothing is a greater proba­tion of the spiritual sense of the words in this place, then this, which they would intice into their party; For Christs body is glori­fied, and not capable of natural injury: But the evil communicant is guilty of the body and bloud of Christ: just as relapsing Christians are sayd by the same Apostles, to crucifie the Lord of life again, and put him to an open shame, which I suppose they cannot doe naturally or corporally. One is as the other, that is, both are tropical or figurative.

These are all that they pretend from Scri­pture; 5 and all these are nothing to their purpose; but now besides what I have al­ready said, I shall bring arguments from other Scriptures which will not so easily be put off.

SECT. IX. Arguments from other Scriptures, proving Christs real presence in the Sacrament, to be only Spiritual, not Natural.

1. THe first is taken from those words of our blessed Saviour, Whatsoever entreth into the mouth goeth into the belly, 1 S. Mat. 15.17. and is cast forth into the draught; meaning, that all food, that is taken by the mouth, hath for his share the fortune of the belly; and indeed mandu­cation and ejection are equally diminutions of any perfect thing; and because it cannot without blasphemy be spoken, that the na­tural body of Christ ought or can suffer ejection, neither can it suffer manduca­tion. To this Bellarmine weakly answers, that these words of Christ are onely true, L. 1. Euch. c. 14. §. Resp. cum Algero. of that which is taken to nourish the body: which saying of his is not true; for if it be taken to purge the body, or to make the body sick, or to make it leane or to minister to lust, or to chastise the body, as those who in penances have masticated aloes and other bitter gummes, yet still it is cast into the draught. 2. But suppose his mean­ing true, yet this argument will not so be put off; because although the end of recei­ving the blessed Sacrament, is not to nourish [Page 147]the body; yet that it does nourish the body, it affirmed by Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, and o­thers; §. 5. n. 9. of which I have already given ac­count To which I here adde the plaine words of Rabanus, Illud [corpus Christi] in nos convertitur dum id manducamus & bibimus. That body is chang'd into us when we eat it and drink it; and therefore although it hath a higher purpose, yet this also cannot be avoid­ed. 3. Either we manducate the accidents only, or else the substance of bread, or the substance of Christs body. If we manducate only the accidents, [...]. Aristot. l. 3. de anim. cap. 12. then how doe we eat Christs body? If we manducate bread, then 'tis capable of all the natural alterations, and it cannot be denied. But if we mandu­cate Christs body after a natural manner, what worse thing is it, that it descends into the guts, then that it goes into the stomach; to be cast forth, then to be torn in pieces with the teeth, as I have proved §. 3. n. 6. that it is by the Roman doctrine? Now I argue thus: if we eat Christs natural body, we eat it either Naturally or Spiritually: if it be eaten only Spiritually then it is Spiritually digested, and is Spiritual nourishment, and puts on accidents, and affections Spiritual. But if the natural body be eaten naturally, then what hinders it from affections and transmutations natural? 4. Although Algerus, and out of [Page 148]him Bellarmine, would have Christians stop their ears against this argument, (and so would I against that doctrine of which these fearfull conclusions are unavoidable conse­quents) yet it is disputed in the Summa An­gelica, and an instance or case put which to my sense seems no inconsiderable argument to reprove the folly of this doctrine: For (saith he) what if the Species passe indigested into the belly from the stomach? He an­swers; that they were not meat if they did not nourish; and therefore it is probable as Boetius saies, that the body of our Lord does not goe into the draught, though the Species doe. De conse­crat. dist. 2. c. Si per negligen­tiam. Glos. ibid. And yet it is determined by the Glosse on the Canon Law, that as long as the Species remain uncorrupted, the holy body is there under those Species; and therefore may be vomited; and consequently ejected all wayes by which the Species can passe unalter'd. Eo­úsque progreditur corpus quousque species; said Harpsfield, in his disputation at Oxford. If these things be put together viz, the body is there so long as the Species are uncorrupt­ed: and the Species may remain uncorrupted till they be cast upwards or downwards, as in case of sicknesse: it followes that in this case, which is a case easily contingent, by their doctrine, the holy body must passe in latri­nam. And what then? it is to be ador'd as a [Page 149]true Sacrament though it come from impure places, though it be vomited. So said Vas­quez in 3. t. 3. d. 195. n. 46. and it is the prevailing opinion in their Church. Adde to this, that if this nourish­ment does not descend and cleave to the guts of the Priest, it is certain that God does not heare his prayers: for he is enjoyned by the Roman Missal published by authority of the councel of Trent, and the command of Pope Pius the 4 th, to pray, Corpus tuum Domine quod sumpsi, & sanguis quem potavi, adhaereat visceribus meis, Let thy body O Lord which I have taken, and the bloud which I have drunk, cleave to my bowels. It seems indeed they would have it goe no further, to pre­vent the inconveniences of the present argu­ment; but certain it is that if they intended it for a figurative speech, it was a bold one, and not so fitted for edification, as for an objection. But to return. This also was the argument of Origen: In cap. 15. S Mat. Quod si quicquid in­greditur in os, in ventrem abit, & in secessum ejicitur, & ille cibus qui sanctificatur per verbum Dei pérque obsecrationem juxta id quod habet materiale in ventrem abit, & in secessum ejicitur—& haec quidem de typico symbolicó­que corpore. He plainly distinguishes the material part from the spiritual in the Sa­crament, and affirmes that according to the material part, that meat that is sanctified by [Page 150]the word of God and prayer, enters into the mouth, descends into the belly, and goes forth in the natural ejection. And this is only true of the typical and symbolical body. Now besides that it affirms the words of our blessed Saviour S. Mat. 15.17. to have effect in the Sacrament, he affirmes that the material part, the type and symbols are the body of Christ, that is, his body is present in a typical and symbolical manner. This is the plain and natural sense of the words of Origen. But he must not mean what he means, if he sayes any thing in an other place that may make for the Roman opinion. And this is their way of answering objections brought from the Fathers; they use to op­pose words to words, and conclude they must mean their meaning, or else they con­tradict themselves. And this trick Bellarmine uses frequently, and especially Cardinal Per­ron and from them the lesser Writers: And so it happens in this present argument: for other words of Origen are brought to prove he inclined to the Roman opinion. But I de­mand, are the words more contradictory if they be both drawn to a spiritual sense, then if they be both drawn to a natural. 2. Though we have no need to make use of it, yet it is no impossible thing that the Fathers should contradict one another and them­selves [Page 151]too; as you may see pretended vio­lently by Cardinal Perron in his answer to K. James. 3. But why must all sheavs bow to their sheaf, and all words be wrested to their fancy, when there are no words any where pretended from them, but with lesse wresting then these must suffer for them, they will be brought by speak against them, or at least nothing for them? But let us see what other words Origen hath, by which we must expound these. 4. Origen sayes that the Christian people drinketh the bloud of Christ, and the flesh of the word of God is true food; What then? so say we too; but it is Spiritu­al food, and we drink the bloud Spiritually. He sayes nothing against that, but very much for it; as I have in several places re­marked already. 5 But how can this expound the other words? Christian people eat Christs flesh and drink his bloud; therefore when Origen saies the material part the Sym­bolical body of Christ is eaten naturally and cast into the draught, he meanes, not the body of Christ in his material part, but the accidents of bread, the colour, the tast, the quantity, these are cast out by the belly. Verily a goodly argument; if a man could guesse in what mood and figure it could conclude. 6. When a man speaks distinctly and particularly, it is certain he is easier to be [Page 152]understood in his particular and minute meaning then when he speaks generally. But here he distingnishes a part from a part, one sense from another, the body in one sense from the body in another, therefore these words are to expound the more gene­ral, and not they to expound these, unlesse the general be more particular then that that is distinguished into kinds, that is, unlesse the general be a particular, and the particular be a general. 7. Amalarius was so amus'd with these words and discourse of Origen that his understanding grew giddy, and he did not know whether the body of Christ were invisibly taken up into heaven or kept till our death in the body, Ep. ad Guitard. or expired at let­ting of bloud, or exhal'd in aire, or spit out, or breath'd forth, our Lord saying, That which enters into the mouth, descends into the belly, and so goes forth into the draught: The man was willing to be of the new opinion of the real presence, because it began to be the mode of the Age. But his folly was soberly repro­ved by a Synod at Carisiacum, about the time of Pope Gregory the 4 th. where the difficulty of Origens argument was better answered, and the article determined, that the bread and wine are spiritually made the body of Christ, which being a meat of the mind and not of the belly, is not corrupted, but remaineth unto ever­lasting [Page 153]life. 8. To expound these words of the accidents of bread only, and say that they enter into the belly and goe forth in the draught, is a device of them that care not what they say; for 1. It makes that the e­ject amentum or excrement of the body should consist of colour and quantity, with­out any substance. 2. It makes a man to be nourished by accidents, and so not only one substance to be changed into another, but that accidents are changed into substances, which must be, if they nourish the body and passe in latrinam, and then beyond the device of Transubstantiation we have another pro­duction from Africa, a transaccidentisubstan­tiation a [...]. 3. It makes accidents to have all the affections of sub­stances, as motion, substantial corruption, alteration, that is, not to be accidents but substances. For matter and form are substan­ces, and those that integrate all physical and compound substances: but till yesterday it was never heard that accidents could. Yea but magnitude is a material quality, and ground or subject of the accidents. So it is said; but it is nonsense. For besides that magnitude is not a quality, but a quantiy, neither can it be properly or truly said to be material but im­perfectly; because it is an affection of mat­ter; and however, it is a contradiction to [Page 154]say, that it is the ground of qualities; for an accident cannot be the fundamentum, the ground or subject of an accident; that is the formality and definition of a substance, as every young scholar hath read in Aristotles Categories: so that to say that it is the ground of accidents is to say that accidents are sub­jected in magnitude, that is, that magnitude is neither a quantity nor quality, but a sub­stance. [...]. An accident alwaies subsists in a subject, saies Porphyrie. 9. This answer cannot be fitted to the words of Origen; for that which he calls the quid materiale or the material part in the Sacrament, he calls it the Symbolical body, which cannot be affirmed of accidents, be­cause there is no likenesse between the acci­dents, the colour, the shape, the figure, the roundnesse, the weight, the magnitude of the host, or wafer, and Christs body: and therefore to call the accidents a Symbolical body, is to call it an unsymbolical Symbol, un unlike similitude, a representment with­out analogy: But if he means the conse­crated bread, the whole action of consecration, distribution, sumption, manducation, this is the Symbolical body, according to the words of S. Paul, He that drinks this cup, and eats this bread, represents the Lords death; it is the fi­gure of Christs crucified body, of his passion [Page 155]and our redemption. 10. It is a strange expres­sion to call accidents a body; [...], sayes Aristotle, Categor. cap. 5. a body may be called white, but the definition or reason of the accident, can never be affir­med of a body. I conclude, that this argu­ment out of the words of our blessed Savi­our, urged also and affirmed by Origen, doe prove that Christs body is in the Sacrament only to be eaten in a Spiritual sense, not at all in a Natural, lest that consequent be the event of it; which to affirm of Christs glorified body in the natural and proper sense were very blasphemy.

2. The next argument from Scripture is taken from Christs departing from this world; his going from us, the ascension of his body and soul into heaven; his not be­ing with us, his being contained in the hea­vens: So said our blessed Saviour, S. Ioh. 16.7.14.2. Mat. 26.11. Act. 3.21. Philip 3.20. Unlesse I goe hence, the Comforter cannot come: and I goe to prepare a place for you: The poor ye have al­wayes, but me ye have not alwayes. S. Peter affirmes of him that the heavens must receive him, till the time of restitution of all things. Now how these things can be true of Christ according to his humane nature, that is a circumscribed body, and a definite soul, is the question. And to this the answer is the [Page 156]same in effect which is given by the Roman Doctors, and by the Ubiquitaries, whom they call Hereticks. These men say Christs humane nature is every where actually, by reason of his hypostatical union with the Deity which is every where; the Romanists say no: it is not actually every where, but it may be where, and is in as many places as he please: for although he be in heaven, yet so is God too, and yet God is upon earth: eodem modo, sayes Bellar­mine, Lib. 1. Euch. c. 14. §. Re­spondeo Argumen­tum. in the same manner, the Man Christ al­though he be in heaven, yet also he can be out of heaven, where he please; he can be in hea­ven and out of heaven. Now these two opini­ons are concentred in the main impossibilitie; that is, that Christs body can be in more pla­ces then one: if in two, it may be in 2000, and then it may be every where; for it is not limit­ed, and therefore is illimited and potentially in­finite. Against this so seemingly impossible at the veryfirst sight, and relying upon a simili­tude and analogy that is not far from blas­phemy, viz. that as God is in heaven and yet on earth, eodem modo after the same manner is Christs body; which words it cannot be easie to excuse: against this (I say) (although for the reasons alledged, it be unnecessary to be disproved, yet) I have these things to oppose, 1. The words of Scripture, that affirme Christ to be in heaven, affirme also [Page 157]that he is gone from hence S. Iohn 16.28.. Now if Christs body not only could, but must be every day in innumerable places on earth, it would have been said that Christ is in heaven, but not that he is not here, or that he is gone from hence. 2. Surrexit, non est hîc, was the An­gels discourse to the inquiring woman at the Sepulchre, he is risen, he is not here: but if they had been taught the new doctrine of the Roman Schooles, they would have de­nyed the consequent; he is risen and gone from hence, but he may be here too. And this indeed might have put the Angels to a di­stinction: but the womens ignorance ren­dred them secure. However S. Epist. ad Dardan. Austin is dogmatical in this article, saying, Christum ubique totum esse tanquam Deum & in eodem tanquam inhabitante Deum, & in loco aliquo caeli propter veri corporis modum. Christ as God is every where, but in respect of his body he is determin'd to a particular resi­dence in heaven, viz. at the right hand of God, that is in the best seat, and in the great­est eminency. And in 30 th Treatise of S. Iohn, It behoveth that the body of our Lord since it is raised again should be in one place alone, but the truth is spread over all. But concerning these words of S. Austin they have taken a course in all their editions to corrupt the place; And in stead of [oportet] have clap'd [Page 158]in [potest] in stead of [must be] have foyst­ed in [may be] against the faith of the anci­ent Canonists and Scholastics; particu­larly, Lombard, Gratian, Ivo Carnotensis, Algerus, Thomas, Bonaventure, Richardus, Durand, Biel, Scotus, Cassander, and diverse others. To this purpose is that of S. Cyril Alex. Lib. 11. in Iohn c. 3. He could not converse with his Di­sciples in the flesh being ascended to his Fa­ther. So Cassian Lib. 4. de incar­nat. c. 8., Iesus Christ speaking on earth, cannot be in heaven but by the infi­nity of his Godhead: and Lib. 2. ad Thra­simundum c. 7. Apol. p. 65. Fulgentius argues it strongly; If the body of Christ be a true body, it must be contained in a particular place: but this place is just so corrupted in their editions, as is that of S. Austin, potest being substituted in stead of oportet; but this doctrine, viz. that to be in several places is impossible to a body, and proper to God, was affirmed by the University of Paris in a synod under William their Bishop 1340, and Johannes Picus Mirandula maintained in Rome it self that it could not be by the power of God that one body should at once be in diverse places.

3. 3 The Scripture speaks of his going thither from hence by elevation and ascensi­on, and of his coming from thence at his appearing, [...], and [...], the words have [Page 159]an Antithesis; the heavens till then shall re­tain him; but then he shall come from thence, which were needlesse if he might be here and stay there too.

4. When Christ said, 4 Me ye have not al­wayes, and at another time, Loe, I am with you alwayes to the end of the World; It is ne­cessary that we distinguish the parts of a seeming contradiction. Christ is with us by his Spirit, but Christ is not with us in body; but if his body be here too, then there is no way of Substantial, real presence, in which those words can be true [me ye have not al­wayes.] The Rhemists in their note upon this place, say, that when Christ said, me ye have not always, he means, ye have not me in the manner of a poor man, needing relief; that is, not me so as you have the poor. But this is a trifle; because our Blessed Saviour did not receive that ministry of Mary Mag­dalen as a poor man, for it was a present for a Prince, not a relief to necessity, but a Regalo fit for so great a person; and therefore if he were here at all after his departure, he was capable of as noble an usage and an ad­dresse fit to represent a Majesty, or at least to expresse a love. It was also done for his burying, so Christ accepted it, and that sig­nified and plainly related to a change of his state and abode. But besides this, if this [Page 160]could be the interpretation of those words, then they did not at all signifie Christs leav­ing this world, but onely his changing his cir­cumstance of fortune, his outward dresse and appendages of person; which were a strange commentary upon [me ye have not alwayes;] that is, I shall be with you still, but in a bet­ter condition; but S. Austin hath given sentence concerning the sence of these words of Christ [loquebatur de praesentiâ corporis &c.] Tract. 50. in Johan. he spake of the presence of his body, ye shall have me according to my providence, ac­cording to Majesty, and invisible grace, but ac­cording to the flesh which the word assumed, ac­cording to that which was born of the Virgin Mary, ye shall not have me, therefore because he conversed with his disciples fourty dayes he is ascended up into heaven and is not here; If he be here in person, what need he to have sent his Vicar, his holy Spirit in substitution? especially since by this doctrine he is more now with his Church then he was in the days of his conversation in Palestine; for then he was but in one assembly at once; now he is in thousands every day. If it be said, because although he be here yet we see him not. This is not sufficient, for what matter is it whether we see him or no, if we know him to be here, if we feel him, if we eat him, if we worship him in presence natural and [Page 161]proper? There wants nothing but some ac­cidents of colour and shape. A friend in the dark, behind a curtain, or to a blind man, is as certainly present as if he were in the light in open conversation, or beheld with the eyes. And then also the office of the holy Spirit would only be to supply the sight of his person, which might possibly be true if he had no greater offices, and we no greater needs, and if he himself also were visible and glorious to our eyes; for if the effect of his substitution is spiritual, secret, and invisible, our eyes are still without comfort; and if the Spirits secret effect does supply it and makes it not necessary that we should see him, then so does our faith doe the same thing; for if we believe him there, the want of bodily sight is supplied by the eye of faith, and the Spirit is pretended to doe no more in this particular, and then his presence also will be lesse necessary, because supplied by our own act. Adde to this; That if af­ter Christs ascension into heaven, he still would have been upon earth, in the Eucha­rist, and received properly into our mouths, and in all that manner which these men dream; how ready it had been and easie to have comforted them who were troubled for want of his bodily presence; by telling them [Although I goe to heaven yet fear [Page 162]not to be deprived of the presence of my body, for you shall have it more then before, and much better; for I will be with you, and in you; I was with you in a state of humility and mortality, now I will be with you with a daily and mighty miracle; I before gave you promises of grace and glory, but now I will become to your bodies a seed of immortality. And though you will not see me, but under a vail, yet it is certain, I will be there, in your churches, in your pixes, in your mouths, in your sto­machs, and you shall believe and worship.] Had not this been a certain, cleare, and proportionable comfort to their complaint, and present necessity, if any such thing were intended? It had been so certain, so cleare, so proportionable, that it is more then pro­bable, that if it had been true, it had not been omitted. But that such sacred things as these may not be exposed to contempt, by such weak propositions and their trifling consequents, the case is plain, that Christ being to depart hence sent his holy Spirit in substitution to supply to his church the office of a Teacher, which he on earth in person was to his disciples; when he went from hence, he was to come no more in person, and there­fore he sent his substitute; and therefore to pretend him to be here in person though un­der [Page 163]a disguise which we see thorough with the eye of Faith, Heb. 9.24. 2 Cor. 5.6.8. Phil. 1.23. & 3.20. Coloss. 3.1.2. S. Ioh. 14.16. & 16.7. and converse with him by presential adoration of his humanity, is in effect to undervalue the real purposes and sense of all the sayings of Christ concerning his departure hence, and the deputation of the holy Spirit. But for this, because it is naturally impossible, they have recourse to the divine omnipotency: God can doe it, therefore he does. But of this I shall give particular account in the Sect. of Reason; as also the other arguments of Scripture I shall reduce to their heads of proper matter.

SECT. X. The doctrine of Transubstantiation is against sense.

1. 1 THat which is one of the firmest pillars upon which all humane notices, and upon which all Christian religion does rely, cannot be shaken; or if it be, all Science [...]. Arist. 1.8. Phys. r. 22. [...]. S. Basil. ep. 45. and all religion must be in danger. Now besides that all our notices of things proceed from sense, and our understanding receives his proper objects, by the mediation of [Page 164]material and sensible phantasmes, and the soul in all her operations during this life is served by the ministeries of the body, and the body works upon the soul only by sense; besides this, 1 S. Ioh. 1. v. 1, 2, 3. S. John hath placed the whole religion of a Christian upon the certainty and evidence of sense as upon one unmove­able foundation. ‘ That which was from the beginning, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have beheld and our hands have handled of the word of life. And the life was made manifest, and we have seen it, and bear witnesse and declare unto you eternal life, which was with the Father and was manifested to us, which we have seen and heard, we declare unto you.’ Tertullian, in his book de Animâ, uses this very argument a­gainst the Marcionites, Recita Johannis testa­tionem; quod vidimus (inquit) quod audivi­mus, oculis nostris vidimus, & manus nostrae contrect averunt, de Sermone vitae. Falsa utique testatio, si oculorum, & aurium, & manuum sensus natura mentitur; his testimony was false, if eyes, and eares, and hands be deceived. In Nature there is not a greater argument then to have heard, and seen, and handled.

Sed quia profundâ non licet luctarier
Ratione tecum,
Supplic. Romani Martyr. Prudent.
consulamus proxima:
Interrogetur ipsa natur alium
Simplex sine arte sensuum sententia.

And by what meanes can an assent be na­turally produced, but by those instruments, by which God conveyes all notices to us, that is by seeing, and hearing? Faith comes by hearing, and evidence comes by seeing; and if a man in his wits, and in his health, can be deceived in these things, how can we come to believe?

Corpus enim per se communis deliquat esse
Sensus:
Lucret. l. 1.
quo nisi prima fides fundata valebit
Haud erit occultis de rebus quo referentes
Confirmare animi quicquam ratione queamus.

For if a Man or an Angel declares Gods will to us, if we may not trust our hearing, we cannot trust him: for we know not whether indeed he sayes what we think he sayes; and if God confirmes the proposi­tion by a miracle, an ocular demonstration, we are never the nearer to the believing him, because our eyes are not to be trusted. But if feeling also may be abused, when a man is in all other capacities perfectly healthy, then he must be governed by chance, and walk in the dark, and live upon shadowes, and con­verse with fantasmes and illusions, as it hap­pens; and then at last it will come to be doubted whether there be any such man as himself; and whether he be awake when he is awake, or not rather, then only awake when he himself and all the world thinks [Page 166]him to have been asleep: Oculatae sunt nostrae manus, credunt quod vident.

Now then to apply this to the present question in the words of S. Austin, 2 Quod ergo vidistis panis est & calix, In Serm. apud Bed. in 1 Cor. 10. Sed haec verba citantur ab Algero l. 1. de Sacram. c. 5. ex Serm. de verbis Domini. quod vobis etiam oculi vestri renunciant. That which our eyes have seen, that which our hands have handled, is bread; we feel it, tast it, see it to be bread, and we hear it called bread, that very substance which is called the body of our Lord. Shall we now say, our eyes are deceived, our eares hear a false sound, our tast is abused, our hands are mistaken? Bellarm. l. 1. Euch. c. 14. §. Jam ad Petrum Martyrem. It is answered, Nay; our senses are not mistaken; ‘For our senses in health and due circumstances cannot be abused in their proper object, but they may be de­ceived about that which is under the ob­ject of their senses; they are not de­ceived in colour, and shape, and tast, and magnitude, which are the proper objects of our senses; but they may be deceived in substances which are covered by these accidents; and so it is not the outward sense so much as the inward sense that is abused. For so Abraham, when he saw an Angel in the shape of a humane body, was not deceived in the shape of a man, for there was such a shape; but yet it [Page 167]was not a man, and therefore if he thought it was, he was abused;’ This is their an­swer: and if this will not serve the turne, nothing will; This therefore must be ex­amined.

Now this, 3 instead of taking away the in­superable difficulty, does much increase it, and confesses the thing which it ought to have avoided. For 1. the accidents proper to a substance are for the manifestation, and notice of the substance, not of themselves, for as the man feels, but the means by which he feels is the sensitive faculty, so that which is felt is the substance, and the meanes by which it is felt is the accidents: as the shape, the colour, the bignesse, the motion of a man, are manifestative, and declarative of a humane substance: and if they represent a wrong substance, then the sense is deceived by a false signe of a true substance, or a true signe of a false substance: as if an Alchymist should shew me brasse color'd like gold, and made ponderous, and so adulterated that it would endure the touchstone for a long while, the deception is, because there is a pretence of improper accidents; true acci­dents indeed, but not belonging to that sub­stance. But 2. it is true that is pretended, that it is not so much the outward sense that is a­bused, as the inward; that is, not so much the [Page 168] eye, as the Man; not the sight, but the judge­ment: and this is it we complain of. For indeed, in proper speaking, the eye, or the hand is not capable of being deceived; but the man by the eye, or by the ear, or by his hand. The eye sees a colour, or a figure, and the inward sense apprehends it, to be the fi­gure of such a substance, and the understand­ing judges it to be the thing which is proper­ly represented by the accident: it is so, or it is not so: if it be, there is no deception; if it be not so, then there is a cousenage: there is no lie till it comes to a proposition either expli­cit, or implicit; a lie is not in the senses; but when a man by the ministery of the senses is led into the apprehension of a wrong object, or the belief of a false proposition: then he is made to believe a lie: and this is our case, when accidents proper to one sub­stance are made the cover of another, to which they are not naturally communicable. And in the case of the holy Sacrament, the matter, if it were as is pretended, were into­lerable. For in the cases wherein a man is commonly deceived, it is his own fault by passing judgement too soon; as if he should judge glasse to be Crystal, because it looks like it; This is not any deception in the senses, nor any injury to the man; because he ought to consider more things then the colour to [Page 169]make his judgement whether it be glasse, or Crystal, or diamond, or ice; the hardness, the weight, and other things are to be ingredients in the sentence. And if any two things had all the same accidents, then al­though the senses were not deceived, yet the man would certainly and inculpably mistake. If therefore in the Eucharist (as is pretended) all the accidents of bread re­maine, then all men must necessarily be de­ceived; If only one or two did remain, one sense would help the other, and all together would rightly inform the understanding. But when all the accidents remain, they can­not but represent that substance to which those accidents are proper; and then the holy Sacrament would be a constant, irre­sistable deception of all the world, in that which all mens notices are most evident and most relied upon, I mean their senses. And then the question will not be, whether our senses can be deceived or no. But whether or no it can stand with the justice and goodnesse of God to be angry with us for believing our senses, since himself hath so ordered it that we cannot avoid being deceived? there being in this case as much reason to believe a lie, as to believe a truth, if things were so as they pretend. The result of which is this: That as no one sense can be deceived about [Page 170]his proper object; but that a man may, a­bout the substance lying under those acci­dents which are the object proper to that sense, because he gives sentence according to that representment otherwise then he ought, and he ought to have considered other acci­dents proper to other senses, in making the judgment; as the birds that took the picture of grapes for very grapes; and he that took the picture of a curtain for a very curtain, and desired the painter to draw it aside; they made judgement of the grapes and the curtain, only by colour and figure, but ought to have considered the weight, the tast, the touch, and the smell: so on the other side, if all the senses concur, then not only is it true that the senses cannot be de­ceived about that object which is their own, but neither ought the man to be deceived about that substance which lies under those accidents; because their ministery is all that natural instrument of conveying notice to a mans understanding which God hath ap­pointed. 4. Iust upon this account it is, that S. Johns argument had been just nothing in behalf of the whole religion: for that God was incarnate, that Jesus Christ did such miracles, that he was crucified, that he rose again and ascended into heaven, that he preached these sermons, that he gave such [Page 171]commandements, he was made to believe by sounds, by shapes, by figures, by motions, by likenesses, and appearances of all the pro­per accidents: and his senses could not be deceived about the accidents which were the proper objects of the senses; but if they might be deceived about the substance under these accidents, of what truth or substance could he be ascertain'd by their ministery? for he indeed saw the shape of a humane body; but it might so be, that not the body of a man, but an Angelical substance might lie under it; and so the article of the assum­ption of humane nature is made uncertain. And upon the same account so are all the other articles of our faith which relyed upon the verity of his body and nature: all which if they are not sufficiently signified by their proper accidents, could not be ever the more believed for being seen with the eyes, and heard with the eares, and handled with our hands; but if they were sufficiently declared by their proper accidents, then the under­standing can no more be deceived in the substances lying under the accidents, then the senses can in the accidents themselves.

To the same purpose it was that the A­postles were answered concerning the article of the truth of Christs resurrection. 4 For when the Apostles were affrighted at his sud­den [Page 172]appearing, and thought it had been a Spirit, Christ called them to feel his hands, S. Luk. 24.39. and to shew that it was he; For a spirit hath no flesh and bones as ye see me have; plainly meaning, Quod vi­detur cor­pus est: quod pal­patur cor­pus est. S. Ambros. in S. Luc. 4. that the accidents of a body were not communicable to a Spirit; but how easily might they have been deceived, if it had pleased God to invest other sub­stances with new and stranger accidents? For though a Spirit hath not flesh and bones, they may represent to the eyes and hands the ac­cidents of flesh and bones: and if it could in the matter of faith stand with the good­nesse and wisdome of God to suffer it, what certainty could there be of any article of our religion relating to Christs humanity, or any proposition proved by miracles? To this instance the man that must answer all, I mean Bellarmine, L. 1. de Euch. c. 14. §. Resp. ad Calvi­num. ventures something: say­ing it was a good argument of our blessed Saviour, Handle and see that I am no Spirit: That which is handled and seen is no Spirit: But it is no good argument to say; This is not seen, not handled, therefore it is no body: and therefore the body of Christ may be naturally in the Sacrament, though it is not seen nor handled. To this I reply, 1. That suppose it were true what he said; yet it would also follow by his own words. This is seen-bread, and is handled, so therefore it is [Page 173]bread. Hoc enim affirmativè colligitur. This is the affirmative consequent made by our blessed Lord, and here confessed to be cer­tain. It being the same collection. It is I, for by feeling and seeing you shall believe it to be so: and it is bread, for by feeling, and seeing, and tasting, and smelling it you shall perceive it to be so. To which let this be added: That in Scripture it is as plainly affirmed to be bread, as it is called Christs body. Now then be­cause it cannot be both in the proper and natural sense, but one of them must be fi­gurative and tropical; since both of the ap­pellatives are equally affirm'd, is it not noto­rious that in this case we ought to give judge­ment on that side which we are prompted to by common sense? If Christ had said only, This is my body, and no Apostle had told us also that it is bread; we had reason to sus­pect our senses to be deceived, if it were pos­sible they should be: but when it is equally affirmed to be bread, as to be our Lords bo­dy, and but one of them can be naturally true and in the letter, shall the testimony of all our senses be absolutely of no use in cast­ing the ballance? The two affirmatives are equal; one must be expounded tropically, which will you chuse? Is there in the world any thing more certain and expedite then that what you see, and feel, and tast natural [Page 174]and proper, should be judged to be that which you see, and feel, and tast naturally and pro­perly, and therefore that the other be ex­pounded tropically? since you must ex­pound one of the words tropically, I think it is not hard to determine whether you ought to doe it against your sense, or with it. But it is also remarkable that our blessed Lord did not only by feeling and seeing prove it to be a body: but by proving it was his body, he proved it was himself; that is, by these accidents representing my per­son, ye are not led into an errour of the person, any more then of the kind of sub­stance; See my hands and my feet, [...] that it is even I my self; this I no­ted, lest a silly escape be made, by pretend­ing these accidents only proved Christ to be no Spirit, but a body; and so the accidents of bread declare a latent body, meaning the body of Christ; For as the accidents of a body declare the substance of a body, so the particular accidents of this kind declare this kind, of this person declare this person. For so our blessed Saviour proved it to be him­self in particular; and if it were not so, the deceit would pass from one thing to another; and although it had not been a Spirit, yet it might be John the Baptist risen from the dead, or Moses, or Elias, and not Jesus their [Page 175]dear Lord. Besides, if this had been all that Iesus had intended, only to prove he was no spectrum but a body, he had not done what was intended. For put case it had been a Spirit, and had assumed a body, as Bellarmine in the very next Paragraph forgetting him­self, or else being entangled in the wildernes­ses of an inconsistent discourse, affirmes, that in Scriptures, the Israelites did sometimes see; and then they were not deceived in touching or seeing a body; for there was a body assumed, and so it seemed to Abraham and Lot; But then, suppose Jesus. Christ had done so, and had been indeed a Spirit in an assumed body, had not the Apostles been deceived by their feeling and seeing, as well as the Israelites were in thinking those An­gels to be men that came to them in humane shapes? how had Christs arguments been pertinent and material? how had he proved that he was no Spirit, by shewing a body, which might be the case of a Spirit? but that it is not consistent with the wisdome and goodnesse of God to suffer any illusion in any matter of sense relating to an article of faith.

2. 5 It was the case of the Christian church once, not only to rely upon the evidence of sense for an introduction to the religion, but also to need and use this argument in confir­mation [Page 176]of an article of the Creed. For the Valentinians and the Marcionites thought Christs body to be fantastical, and so deny­ed the article of the incarnation: and if arguments from sense were not enough to confute them, viz. that the Apostles did see and feel a body, flesh and bloud and bones, how could they convince these misbelievers? for whatsoever answer can be brought a­gainst the reality of bread, in the Eucharist, all that may be answered in behalf of the Marcionites: for if you urge to them all those places of Scripture which affirme Christ to have a body; they answer, it was in Scripture called a body, because it seem'd to be so; which is the answer Bellarmine gives to all those places of Scripture which call it bread after consecration. And if you object, that if it be not what it seems, then the senses are deceived; L. 1. de Euch. c. 14. § Respon­dent non­nulli. They will answer (a Jesuit be­ing by and prompting them) the senses were not deceived, because they only saw colour, shape, figure, and the other accidents, but the inward sense and understanding, that is, the man was deceived when he thought it to be the body of a man: for under those accidents and appearances there was an An­gel, or a divinity, but no man: and now up­on the grounds of Transubstantiation how can they be confuted, I would fain know.

But Tertullian disputing against them uses the argument of sense, 6 L. de ani­mâ cap. 17. as the only in­strument of concluding against them in fal­libly: Non licet nobis in dubium sensus istos revocare &c. It is not lawful to doubt of our senses, lest the same doubt be made concerning Christ; lest peradventure it should be said, he was deceived when he said, I saw Satan like lightning fall from heaven; or when he heard the voice of his Father testifying concerning him; or lest he should be deceived when he touch­ed Peters wives mother by the hand; or that he smelt another breath of oyntment, and not what was offered to his burial, alium postea vini sa­porem quod in sanguinis sui memoriam consecra­vit, or tasted another tast of wine which he con­secrated to the memory of his bloud. And if the Catholick Christians had believed the substantial, natural presence of Christs body in the Sacrament, and consequently disbelieved the testimony of four senses, as the Church of Rome at this day does, seeing, smelling, tasting, feeling, it had been impu­dence in them to have reproved Marcion by the testimony of two senses concerning the verity of Christs body. And supposing that our eyes could be deceived, and our tast and our smelling, yet our touch cannot: for sup­posing the organs equally disposed, yet touch is the guardian of truth, and his neerest na­tural [Page 178]instrument; all sensation is by touch, but the other senses are more capable of be­ing deceived; because though they finally operate by touch variously affected, yet their objects are further removed from the Organ, and therefore many intermedial things may intervene, and possibly hinder the operation of the sense; that is, bring more diseases and disturbances to the action: but in touch the object and the instrument join close together, and therefore there can be no impediment if the instrument be sound, and the object proper. And yet no sense can be deceived in that which it always perceives alike; [...]. Aristot. de animâ. l. 3. t. 152. The touch can never be de­ceived; and therefore a testimony from it, and three senses more cannot possibly be refused: and therefore it were strange if all the Christians for above 1600 years toge­ther should be deceived, as if the Eucharist were a perpetual illusion, and a riddle to the senses for so many ages together: and in­deed the fault in this case could not be in the senses: L. de ani­ma c. 17. &c. S. Austin. c. 33. de ve­râ religio­ne. and therefore Tertullian and S. Austin dispute wittily, and substantially, that the senses could never be deceived, but the understanding ought to assent to what they relate to it or represent: For if any man thinks the staffe is crooked that is set half way in the water, it is the fault of his judgement not [Page 179]of his sense; for the aire and the water being several mediums, the eye ought to see other­wise in aire, otherwise in water; but the un­derstanding must not conclude falsly from these true premises, which the eye ministers: For the thicker medium makes a fraction of the species by incrassation and a shadow; and when a man in the yellow jaundise thinks e­very thing yellow, it is not the fault of his eye, but of his understanding; for the eye does his office right, for it perceives just as is re­presented to it, the species are brought yel­low; but the fault is in the understanding, not perceiving that the species are stain'd neer the eye, not further off: When a man in a fever thinks every thing bitter, his tast is not deceived, but judges rightly; for as a man that chews bread and aloes together, tasts not false, if he tasts bitternesse; so it is in the sick mans case; the jucie of his meat is mingled with choler, and the tast is acute, and exact by perceiving it such as it is so mingled. The purpose of which discourse is this, that no notices are more evident and more certaine then the notices of sense; but if we conclude contrary to the true di­ctate of senses, the fault is in the understand­ing, [...]. Arist l. 3. de anim, l. 156. [...] Id. ibid. collecting false conclusions from right [Page 180]premises; It followes therefore that in the matter of the Eucharist we ought to judge that which our senses tell us; For whatso­ever they say is true: for no deceit can come by them; but the deceit is when we believe something besides or against what they tell us; especially when the organ is perfect, and the object proper, and the medium regular, and all things perfect, and the same alwayes and to all men. For it is observable, that in this case, the senses are competent judges of the natural being of what they see, and tast, and smell and feel; and according to that all the men in the world can swear that what they see is bread and wine; but it is not their office to tell us what they become by the institution of our Saviour; for that we are to learn by faith, that what is bread and wine in nature is by Gods ordinance the Sacrament of the body and bloud of the Saviour of the world; but one cannot con­tradict another; and therefore they must be reconcil'd: both say true, that which Faith teaches is certain, and that which the senses of all men teach alwayes, that also is cer­tain and evident; for as the rule of the Schoole sayes excellently, Grace never de­stroyes nature but perfects it, Aquin. part. 1. q. 1. a. 8. ad. 2. and so it is in the consecration of bread and wine; in which al­though we are more to regard their signifi­cation [Page 181]then their matter, their holy imploy­ment, then their natural usage, what they are by grace rather, then what they are by nature, that they are Sacramental rather then that they are nutritive, that they are consecra­ted and exalted by religion, rather then that they are mean and low in their natural be­ings, what they are to the spirit and under­standing, rather then what they are to the sense; yet this also is as true and as evident as the other: and therefore though not so apt for our meditation, yet as certain as that which is.

3. 7 Though it be a hard thing to be put to prove that bread is bread, and that wine is wine; yet if the arguments and notices of sense may not passe for sufficient, an impu­dent person may without possibility of being confuted, outface any man, that an oyster is a rat, and that a candle is a pig of lead: and so might the Egyptian Soothsayers have been too hard for Moses: for when they chang'd rods into Serpents, they had some colour to tell Pharaoh they were Serpents as well as the rod of Moses; But if they had fail'd to turn the water into bloud they needed not to have been troubled, if they could have borne down Pharaoh that though it looked like water, and tasted like water, yet by their inchantment they had made it verily to be [Page 182]bloud: And upon this ground of having different substances, unproper and dispro­portioned accidents, what hinders them but they might have said so? and if they had, how should they have been confuted? But this manner of proceeding would be sufficient to evacuate all reason, and all science, and all notices of things; and we may as well, con­clude snow to be black; and fire cold; and two and two, to make five and twenty.

But (it is said) although the body of Christ be invested with unproper accidents, 8 yet sometimes Christ hath appeared in his own shape, and bloud and flesh hath been pull'd out of the mouths of the communi­cants, and Plegilus the Priest saw an Angel, shewing Christ to him in form of a child upon the altar, whom first he took in his armes and kissed; but did eat him up present­ly in his other shape, in the shape of a Wafer; Speciosa certè pax Nebulonis, ut qui oris praebu­erat basium, Guil. Mal­mesbur. de Gestis Re­gum Ang­lorum l. 3. dentium inferres exitium, said Berengarius. It was but a Judas kisse to kisse with the lip, and bite with the teeth. But if such stuffe as this may goe for argument, we may be cloyed with them in those unanswer­able Authors, Simeon Metaphrastes for the Greeks, and Jacobus de Voragine for the Latin, who make it a trade to lye for God and for the interest of the Catholick cause. But how­ever, [Page 183]I shall tell a piece of a true story. In the time of Soter Pope of Rome, there was an Impostor called Mark; [...], that was his appellative: Irenae l. 1. c. 9. and he [ [...]] pretending to make the chalice of wine and water euchari­stical, saying long prayers over it, made it look red or purple, that it might be thought, that grace which is above all things, does drop the bloud into the chalice by invocation.] Such as these have been often done by hu­mane artifice or by operation of the Devil, said Alexander of Ales. Sum The­od. part. 4. q. 11. membr. 2. art. 4 § 3. If such things as these were done regularly, it were pretence enough to say it is flesh and bloud that is in the Eucharist; but when nothing of this is done by God; but hereticks and knaves, Juglers and Impostors hoping to change the Sacrament into a charme by abusing the spiritual sense into a grosse and carnal, against the authority of Scripture and the Church, reason or religion, have made pre­tences of those things, and still the Holy Sacrament in all the times of ministration hath the form and all the perceptibilities of bread and wine: as we may believe those Impostors did more rely upon the pretences of sense then of other arguments, and dis­trusting [Page 184]them did flye to these as the greater probation: so we rely upon that way of probation, which they would have counter­feited, but which indeed Christ in his insti­tution hath still left in the nature of the sym­bols, viz. that it is that which it seems to be, and that the other superinduc'd predicate of the body of Christ is to be understood only in that sense which may still consist with that substance, whose proper and natural acci­dents remain, and are perceived by the mouth and hands and eyes of all men. To which this may be added, that by the do­ctrine of the late Roman Schools all those pretences of real appearances of Christs body or bloud must be necessarily conclu­ded to be Impostures, or aery phantasmes, and illusions; because themselves teach that Christs body is so in the Sacrament, that Christs own eyes cannot see his own body in the Sacrament: and in that manner by which it is there, it cannot be made visible, no not by the absolute power of God. Nay it can be neither seen, nor touched, nor tast­ed, nor felt, nor imagined. It is the doctrin of Suarez in 3 Tho. disp. 53. §. 3. and disp. 52. §. 1. and of Vasquez in 3. t. 3. disp. 191. n. 22. which besides that it reproves the whole article, by making it incredible and impossi­ble, it doth also infinitely convince all these [Page 185]apparitions (if ever there were any) of deceit, and fond illusion. I had no more to say in this particular but that the Roman Doctors pretend certain words out of S. Cyrils fourth mystagogique Catechisme, against the doctrine of this Paragraph: pro certissimo habeas &c. Be sure of this, that this bread which is seen of us is not bread, although the tast perceives it to be bread, but the body of Christ; For under the species of bread, the body is given to thee; under the species of wine the bloud is given to thee. Here if we will trust S. Cyrils words, at least in Bellarmins and Brerely's sense, and understand of them before you will believe your own eyes, you may. For S. Cyril bids you not believe your sense. For tast and sight tells you it is bread, but it is not. But here is no harm done. 2. For himself plain­ly explains his meaning, in his next Cate­chisme. Think not that you tast bread and wine (saith he) No, what then? [...], but the antitypes of the body and bloud: and in this very place, he cals bread [...], a type, [...], and therefore it is very ill rendred by the Roman Priests by Species; which signifies accidental forms: for [...]. signifies no such thing, but [...]; which is not S. Cyrils word 3. He sayes it is not bread, though the tast feel; it so that is, it is [Page 186]not meer bread, which is an usual expression among the Fathers, L. 4. contr. haeres. c. 34. Psal. 22. homil. 16. Non est panis communis, sayes Irenaeus, [...], sayes Justin Martyr, just as S. Chrysostom sayes of Baptismal water, it is not common water, and as S. Cyril himself sayes of the Sacra­mental bread, [...], it is not meer bread, [...] but the Lords body. For if it were not that, in some sense or other, it were still meer bread, but that it is not. But this manner of speaking is not unusual in the holy Scriptures, that restrai­ned and modificated negatives be propound­ed in simple and absolute forms. I have gi­ven them statutes which are not good. Ezek. 20.25. I will have mercy and not sacrifice. Hos. 6.6. They have not rejected thee, but me: 1 Sam. 8.7. It is not you that speak, but the Spirit of my Father. I came not to send peace, but a sword. S. Mat. 10.20. & 34. He that believeth on me, believeth not on me, but on him that sent me. And, If I hear witnesse of my self my witnesse is not true. S. John 5.31. which is expressely confronted by S. John 8.14. Though I bear re­cord of my self, yet my record is true; which shews manifestly that the simple and absolute negative in the former place must in his sig­nification be restrained. So S. Paul speaks usually. Henceforth I know noman according to the flesh, 2 Cor. 5.16. We have no strife [Page 187]against flesh and bloud, Ephes. 6.12. And in the ancient Doctors nothing more ordinary, then to expresse limited senses by unlimited words; which is so known, that I should lose my time, and abuse the readers patience if I should heap lip. instances. So Irenaeus. He that hath received the Spirit, is no more flesh and bloud, but Spirit. And Epiphanius af­firms the same of the flesh of a temperate man; It is not flesh, but is changed into Spirit: so we say of a drunken man, and a furious person; He is not a man, but a beast. And they speak thus particularly in the matter of the holy Sacrament, as appears in the instan­ces above reckoned and in others respersed over this Treatise. But to return to the pre­sent objection, it is observable that S. Cyril does not say it is not bread, though the sense suppose it to be so, for that would have supposed the tast to have been deceived, which he af­firms not, and if he had, we could not have believed him: but he sayes, [though the sense perceive it to be bread] so that it is still bread, else the tast would not perceive it to be so; but it is more, and the sense does not perceive it; for it is the body of our Lord; here then is his own answer, plainly opposed to the objecti­on; he sayes, it is not bread, that is, it is not meer bread; and so say we: he sayes, that it is the body of our Lord, [...], the antitype [Page 188]of the Lords body, and so say we; He sayes, the sense perceives it to be bread; but it is more then the sense perceives; so he implyes, and so we affirm; and yet we may trust our sense for all that it tels us, and our understanding too, for all it learns besides. The like to this are the words of S. Chrysostome, 83 Homil. upon S. Mat. where he sayes [We cannot be deceived by his words, but our sense is often deceived, look not at what is before us, but observe Christs words. Nothing sensible is given to us, but things insensible, by things sensible &c. This, and many higher things then this, are in S. Chrysostome, not only relating to this but to the other Sacra­ment also. Think not thou receivest the body from a man, but fire from the tongue of a Sera­phim; that for the Eucharist: and for Ba­prisme this; The Priest baptizes thee not, but God holds thy head. In the same sense that these admit, in the same sense we may understand his other words; they are Tra­gical and high, but may have a sober sense; but literally they sound a contradiction; that nothing sensible should be given us in the Sacrament; and yet that nothing insensible should be given, but what is conveyed by things sensible but it is not worth the while to stay here: Only this, the words of S. Chry­sostome are good counsel, and such as we fol­low; for in this case we do not finally re­ly [Page 189]upon sense, or resolve all into it; but we trust it only for so much as it ought to be trusted for; but we do not finally rest upon it, but upon faith, and look not on the things proposed, but attend to the words of Christ, and though we see it to be bread, we also believe it to be his body, in that sense which he intended.

SECT. XI. The doctrine of Transubstantiation is wholly without and against reason.

1. 1 WHen we discourse of mysteries of faith and articles of religion, it is certain that the greatest reason in the world, to which all other reasons must yield, is this, God hath said it, therefore it is true. Now if God had expressely said, This which seems to be bread is my body, in the natural sense, or to that purpose, there had been no more to be said in the affair; all reasons against it had been but sophismes: When Christ hath said, This is my body, no man that pretends to Christianity doubts of the truth of these words, all men submitting their understand­ing to the obedience of Faith: but since Christ did not affirm that he spake it in the natural [Page 190]sense, but there are not only in Scripture many prejudices, but in common sense much evidence against it, if reason also pro­tests against the article, it is the voice of God, and to be heard in this question. For, ‘Nunquam aliud natura; Juven. Sat. 14.2. aliud sapientia dicit.’

And this the rather, because there are so many wayes to verify the words of Christ without this strange and new doctrine of Transubstantiation, that in vain will the words of Christ be pretended against reason, whereas the words of Christ may be many wayes verified, if Transubstantiation be con­demned: as first if Picus Mirandula's pro­position be true, which in Rome he offered to dispute publickly, that Paneitas possit sup­positare corpus Domini, which I suppose if it be expounded in sensible termes, means, that it may be bread and Christs body too; or 2 ly if Luthers and the ancient Schoolmens way be true, that Christs body be present to­gether with the bread. In that sense Christs words might be true, though no Transubstan­tiation; and this is the sense which is followed by the Greek Church. 3. If Boquinus way be true, that between the bread and Christs bo­dy there were a communication of proprie­ties, as there is between the Deity and huma­nity of our blessed Saviour; then as we say, God gave himself for us, and the blessed [Page 191]Virgin is [...] the mother of God, and God suffered and rose again, meaning that God did it according to his assumed huma­nity, so we may say, this is Christs body, by the communication of the Idioms or pro­prieties to the bread with which it is united. 4. If our way be admitted, that Christ is there after a real, spiritual manner; the words of Christ are true, without any need of admitting Transubstantiation. 5. I could instance in the way of Johannes Longus in his Annotations upon the 2 d Apology of Justin Martyr, Hoc est corpus meum, that is, My body is this, that is, is nourishment Spiritual, as this is Natural. 6. The way of Ioannes Campanus would afford me a sixt instance, Hoc est corpus meum, that is, meum as it is mea creatura. 7. Iohannes à Lasco, Bucer and the Socinians refer hoc to the whole ministery, and mean that to be representative of Christs body. 8. If Rupertus the Abbats way were admitted, which was confuted by Algerus and is almost like that of Boquinus, that between Christs body and the consecrate symbols there was an hypostatical union, then both substances would remain, and yet it were a true proposition to affirm of the whole hy­postasis, this is the body of Christ. Many more I could reckon; all which, or any of which if it were admitted, the words of Christ [Page 192]stand true and uncontradicted: and there­fore it is a huge folly to quarrel at them that admit not Transubstantiation, and to say they deny the words of Christ. And there­fore it must not now be said, Reason is not to be heard against an article of faith; for that this is an article of faith cannot nakedly be inferred from the words of Christ, which are capable of so many meanings. There­fore reason in this case is to be heard, by them that will give a reason of their faith; as it is commanded in Scripture; much lesse is that to be admitted which Fisher, or Flued the Jesuit was bold to say to King Iames; that because Transubstantiation seems so much against reason, therefore it is to be admitted, as if faith were more faith, for being against reason: Against this for the present I shall oppose the excellent words of S. Austin ep. 7. Si manifestissimae certaeque rationi velut Scripturarum Sanctarum objicitur authoritas, non intelligit qui hoc facit, & non Scriptur arum illarum sensum ad quem penetrare non potuit, sed suum potiùs objicit veritati: nec quod in eis, sed quod in seipso velut pro eis invenit, opponit. He that opposes the authority of the holy Scriptures against manifest and certain rea­son, does neither understand himself nor the Scripture. Indeed when God hath plainly declared the particular, the more it seems a­gainst [Page 193]my reasons, the greater is my obedience in submitting; but that is because my rea­sons are but Sophismes, since truth it self hath declared plainly against them: but if God hath not plainly declared against that which I call reason, my reason must not be contested, by a pretence of faith but, up­on some other account; Ratio cum ratione concertet.

2. 4 But this is such a fine device that it can (if it be admitted) warrant any literal interpretation against all the pretences of the world; For when Christ said [If thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out] Here are the plain words of Christ; And [Some make themselves Eunuches for the kingdome of hea­ven] Nothing plainer in the Grammati­cal sense: and why do we not do it? be­cause it is an unnatural thing to mangle our body for a Spiritual cause, which may be supplyed by other more gentle instru­ments. Yea but reason is not to be heard a­gainst the plainwords of Christ, and the grea­tery our reason is against it, the greater excel­lency in your obedience; that as Abraham against hope believed in hope, so we against reason may believe in the greatest reason, the Divine revelation: and what can be spo­ken against this?

3. 4 Prompt. Cath. fer. 3. hebd. Sanct. §. 3. in haec verba. Hoc est corpus meum. Stapleton confuting Luthers opinion of Consubsubstantiation pretends against in many absurdities drawn from reason; and yet it would have been ill taken, if it should have been answered that the doctrine ought the rather to be believed, because it is so unrea­sonable; which answer is something like our new Preachers discourse; who pretend that therefore they are Spiritual men, because they have no learning, they are to confound the wise, because they are the weak things of the world, and that they are to be heard the rather, because there is the lesse reason they should, so crying stinking fish that men may buy it the more greedily. But I will proceed to the particulars of reason in this article; being contented with this, that if the ad­verse party shall refuse this way of arguing, they may be reproved by saying, they refuse to hear reason, and it will not be easie for them in despite of reason to pretend faith, for [...], Thess. 3.2. and [...], unreasonable men and they that have not faith, are equiva­lent in S. Pauls expression.

1. 5 I shall lay this prejudice in the article as relating to the discourses of reason; that in the words of institution there is nothing that can be pretended to prove the conversi­on of the substance of bread into the body of Christ, but the same will infer the conversion [Page 195]of the whole into the whole; and therefore of the accidents of the bread into the accidents of the body. And in those little pretences of Philosophy which these men sometimes make to cousen fools into a belief of the pos­sibility, they pretend to no instance, but to such conversions in which if the substance is changed, so also are the accidents: some­times the accident is chang'd in the same re­maining substance; but if the substance be changed, the accidents never remain the same individually; or in kind, unlesse they be symbolical, that is, are common to both, as in the change of elements, of aire into fire, of water into earth. Thus when Christ changed water into wine, the substances being chang'd, the accidents also were alter'd, and the wine did not retain the colour and tast of water; for then though it had been the stranger miracle, that wine should be wine, and yet look and tast like water, yet it would have obtained but little advantage to his doctrine and person, if he should have of­fer'd to prove his mission by such a mi­racle. For if Christ had said to the guests; To prove that I am come from God, I will change this water into wine; well might this prove his mission: but if while the guests were wondring at this, he should pro­ceed and say, wonder ye not at this, for I [Page 196]will do a stranger thing then it, for this wa­ter shall be changed into wine, and yet I will so order it, that it shall look like water, and tast like it, so that you shall not know one from the other: Certainly this would have made the whole matter very ridicu­lous; and indeed it is a strange device of these men to suppose God to work so many prodigious miracles as must be in Transub­stantiation, if it were at all, and yet that none of these should be seen; for to what pur­pose is a miracle that cannot be perceived? It can prove nothing, nor do any thing, when it self is not known whether it be or no. When bread is turned into flesh, and wine into bloud in the nourishment of our bodies (which I have seen urg'd for the credibility of Transubstantiation) The bread as it changes his nature, changes his accidents too, and is flesh in colour, and shape, and dimensions, and weight, and operation, as well as it is in substance. Now let them rub their foreheads hard and tell us, it is so in the holy Sacrament. For if it be not so, then no instance of the change of Natural substances from one form to another can be pertinent: for 1. though it be no more then is done in every operation of a body, yet it is alwayes with change of their proper acci­dents; and then 2. It can with no force of [Page 197]the words of the institution be pretended, that one ought to be or can be without the other. For he that sayes this is the body of a man, sayes that it hath the substance of a humane body, and all his consequents, that is, the accidents; and he that sayes this is the body of Alexander, sayes (besides the substance) that it hath all the individuating conditions, which are the particular accidents; and therefore Christ affirming this to be his body, did as much affirm the change of ac­cidents as the change of substance: because that change is naturally and essentially con­sequent to this. Now if they say they there­fore do not believe the accidents of bread to be changed, because they see them remain; I might reply, Why will they believe their sense against faith? since there may be evi­dence, but here is certainty, and it cannot be deceived though our eyes can: and it is cer­tain, that Christ affirm'd it without distincti­on of one part from another, of substance from his usual accidents. This is my body. Hoc, Hîc, Nunc, and Sic. Now if they think their eyes may be credited for all the words of our blessed Saviour, why shall not their reason also? or is nothing so certain to the understanding, as any thing is to the eye? If therefore it be unreasonable to say that the accidents of bread are chang'd against our [Page 198]sense, so it will be unreasonable to say, that the substance is chang'd against our reason; Not but that God can, and does often change one substance into another, and it is done in every natural production of a substantial form; but that we say it is unreasonable that this should be chang'd into flesh (not to flesh simply, for so it is when we eat it, nor into Christs flesh simply, for so it might have been, if he had, as it is probable he did, eaten the Sacrament himself, But) into that body of Christ which is in heaven he remai­ning there, and being whole and impassible, and unfrangible, this we say is unreasonable and impossible: and that's now to be proved.

2. 6 In this question when our adversaries are to cousen any of the people, they tell them, the Protestants deny Gods omnipotency, for so they are pleased to call, our denying their dreams: And this device of theirs to e­scape is older then their doctrine of Tran­substantiation, for it was the trick of the Mo­narchians, the Eutichians, the Apollinarists, the Arrians when they were confuted by the arguments of the Catholicks, to fly to Gods omnipotency; [...] sayes Orat. 51. Theodor. dial. [...]. Ter­tull. contr. Praxeam. p. 10. Nazianzen and it was very usually by the Fathers called the Sanctuary of Hereticks: potentia (inquiunt) ei haec est ut falsa sint vera: [Page 199]mendaois est ut falsum dicat verum, 79 vet. & Nov. Te­stament. quod Deo non competit, saith S. Austin. They pretend it to belong to Gods power to verifie their doctrine, that is to make falshood truth; that is not power, but a lye, which cannot be in God, and this was an older then the Arrians; it was the trick of the old Tragedians; So Plato told them; [...]; De natur. Deor. l. 1. Plato in Cratylo. which Cicero rendring, sayes, cum explicare argumenti exitum non potestis, confugitis ad Deum. When you cannot bring your ar­gument about, you fly to the power of God. But when we say this is impossible to be done, either we mean it naturally or ordinarily im­possible, that is, such a thing which cannot without a miracle be done; as a child can­not with his hands break a giants arme, or a man cannot eat a Milstone, or with his finger touch the Moon. Now in matters of re­ligion, although to shew a thing to be thus impossible is not enough to prove it was not at all, if God said it was; for although to man it be impossible, yet to God all things are possible; yet when the question is of the sense of the words of Scripture which are capable of various interpretations, he that brings an argument ab impossibili against any one interpretation, shewing that it infers such an ordinary impossibility as cannot be [Page 200]done without a miracle, hath sufficiently concluded ( not against the words, for no­thing ought to prejudice them, but) against such an interpretation as infers that impossibi­lity. Thus when in Scripture we find it re­corded that Christ was born of a Virgin, to say this is impossible is no argument against it, because although it be naturally impossible (which I think is demonstrable against the Arabian Physitians) yet to him that said it, it is also possible to do it. But then if from hence any man shall obtrude as an article of faith, that the blessed Virgin Mother was so a Virgin that her holy Son came into the world without any aperture of his mothers womb, I doubt not but an argument ab impossibili is a sufficient conviction of the falshood of it; though this impossibility be only an ordinary and natural; because the words of Scripture affirming Christ to be born of a virgin, say only that he was not begotten by natural ge­neration; not that his egression from his Mo­thers womb made a Penetration of dimensions. To instance once more: The words of Scri­pture are plain, That Christ is man, That Christ is God; Here are two natures and yet but one Christ; No impossibility ought to be pretended against these plain words, but they must be sophismes, because they dispute against truth it self. But now if a Monothe­lite [Page 201]shall say that by this unity of nature, God hath taught an unity of wills in Christ, and that he had but one will, because he is but one person; I do not doubt but an ar­gument from an ordinary and natural impos­sibility will be sufficient to convince him of his heresie; and in this case the Monothelite hath no reason to say that the orthodox Chri­stian denyes Gods omnipotency, and sayes that God cannot unite the will of Christs hu­manity to the will of his Divinity. And this is true in every thing which is not declared minutely, and in his particular sense. There is ordinarily no greater argument in the world, and none better is commonly used, nor any better required, then to reduce the opinion to an impossibility; for if this be not true without a miracle, you must prove your extraordinary, and demonstrate your miracle; which will be found to be a new impossibility. A sense that cannot be true without a miracle to make it so, it is a miracle if it be true; and therefore let the literal sense in any place be presumed and have the advantage of the first offer or presumpti­on; yet if it be ordinarily impossible to be so, and without a miracle cannot be so, and the mi­racle no where affirm'd, then to affirm the lite­ral sense is the hugest folly that can be in the in­terpretation of any Scriptures.

But there is an impossibility which is ab­solute, 7 which God cannot do, therefore because he is almighty; for to do them, were impo­tency and want of power; as God cannot lye, he cannot be deceived, he cannot be mock'd, he cannot dye, he cannot deny himself, nor do unjust­ly: And I remember that Dionysius brings in (by way of scorn) Elymas the Sorcerer finding fault with S. Paul for saying, God could not deny himself; as if the saying so, were denying Gods omnipotency; so Elymas objected; as is to be seen in the book de Divin. Nom. c. 8. And by the consent of all the world it is agreed upon this expressi­on, That God cannot reconcile contradictions; that is, It is no part of the divine omnipoten­cy to make the same proposition true and false at the same time, in the same respect; It is absolutely impossible that the same thing should be and not be at the same time, that the same thing so constituted in his own formality should lose the formality or essen­tial affirmative; and yet remain the same thing. For it is absolutely the first truth that can be affirmed in Metaphysical notices. Nothing can be and not be. This is it in which all men and all Sciences, and all religions are agreed upon as a prime truth in all senses, and without distinctions. For if any thing could be and not be at the same time, then [Page 203]there would be something whose being were not to be. Quest. in Phys. l. 3. q 4. Nay Dominicus à Soto affirms expressely that not only those things can­not be done by God which intrinsecally, formally, and expressely infer two contra­dictories, but those also which the under­standing at the first proposal, does by his na­tural light dissent from, and can by no means admit; because that which is so repugnant to the understanding, naturally does suâ na­turâ repugnare, is impossible in the nature of things; and therefore when it is said in S. Luke, nothing is impossible with God, it is meant; Nothing is impossible, but that which naturally repugnes to the understanding.

Now to apply this to the present questi­on; Our adversaries do not deny, 8 but that in the doctrine of Transubstantiation there are a great many impossibilities, which are such naturally and ordinarily; but by divine power they can be done; but that they are done they have no warrant, but the plain literal sense of the words of Hoc est corpus meum: Now this is so far from proving that God does work perpetual miracles to verifie their sense of it, that the working of mi­racles ought to prove that to be the sense of it. Now the probation of a proposition by miracles, is an open thing, clear as thunder, and being a matter of sense, and consequent­ly [Page 204]more known then the thing which they in­tend to prove, ought not to be proved by that which is the thing in question. And therefore to say that God will work a miracle rather then his words should be false, is certain but impertinent: For concerning the words themselves there is no question, and there­fore now, no more need of miracles to confirm them; concerning the meaning of them is the question; They say this is the meaning. Quest. How do you prove it since there are so many impossibilities in it natu­rally and ordinarily? Ans. Because God said it, therefore it is true: Resp. Yea, that God said the words we doubt not, but that his words are to be understood in your sense, that I doubt; because if I believe your sense I must admit many things ordinarily impos­sible. Ans. Yea, but nothing is impossible to God. Resp. True, nothing that can be done, exceeds his power; but supposing this ab­solutely possible, yet how does it appear that God will do a miracle to verifie your sense, which otherwise cannot be true; when with­out a miracle the words may be true in many other senses? I am dic Posthume: for it is hard that men by a continual effort and violence should maintain a proposition against reason and his unquestionable maximes, thinking it sufficient to oppose against it Gods om­nipotency; [Page 205]as if the crying out a miracle, were a sufficient guard against all absurdity in the world: as if the wisdom of God did arm his power against his truth, and that it were a finenesse of Spirit to be able to be­lieve the two parts of a contradiction; and all upon confidence of a miracle which they cannot prove. And indeed it were some­thing strange, that thousands and thousands of times, every day for above 1500 years together, the same thing should be done, and yet this should be called a miracle, that is, a daily extraordinary; for by this time it would passe into nature and a rule, and so become a supernatural natural event, an ex­traregular rule, an extraordinary ordinary, a perpetual wonder, that is, a wonder and no wonder: and therefore I may infer the pro­per corollaries of this argument, in the words of Scotus, whose opinion it was pity it could be overborn by tyranny. 1. Sent. 4. dist. 11. q. 3. tit. b. That the truth of the Eucharist may be saved with­out Transubstantiation. And this I have al­ready proved. 2. The substance of bread under the accidents is more a nourishment then the ac­cidents themselves, and therefore more represents Christs body in the formality of Spiritual nou­rishment. And indeed, that I may adde some weight to these words of Scotus which are very true and very reasonable; 1. It cannot be [Page 206]told why bread should be chosen for the symbol of the body, but because of his nou­rishing faculty, and that the accidents should nourish without substance, is like feeding a man with musick, and quenching his thirst with a Diagram. 2. It is fantastical and Ma­thematical bread not natural, which by the doctrine of Transubstantiation is represent­ed on the table, and therefore unfit to nou­rish or to typifie that which can. 3. Painted bread might as well be symbolical as the real, if the real bread become no bread: for then that which remains is nothing but the acci­dents, as colour and dimensions &c. But Scotus proceeds. 3. That understanding of the words of institution that the substance of bread is not there, seems harder to be maintained, and to it more inconveniences are consequent, then by putting the substance of bread to be there. 4. Lastly, it is a wonder why in one article which is not a principal article of faith, such a sense should be affirmed, for which faith is expo­sed to the contempt of all that follow reason: and all this is because in Transubstantiation there are many natural and ordinary impossibilities. In hâc conversione sunt plura difficiliora quàm in creatione, 3. q. 75. art. 2. ad 3. said Aquinas, There are more difficulties in this conversion of the Sa­crament, then in the whole Creation.

9 But then because we are speaking con­cerning [Page 207]what may be done by God, it ought to be consider'd that it is rash and impudent to say that the body of Christ cannot by the power of God (who can do all things) be really in the Sacrament without the natural conversion of bread into him. God can make that the body of Christ should be de novo in the Sacrament of the altar, without any change of it self, and without the change of any thing into it self, yet some change being made about the bread, or something else. They are the words of Durand Sent. 4. dist. 11. q. 1.. Cannot God in any sense make this proposition true; This bread is the body of Christ, or this is bread and Christs body too? If they say he cannot, then it is a clear case, who it is that denyes Gods omnipoten­cy. If God can, then how will they be able from the words of Scripture to prove Tran­substantiation? This also would be con­sidered.

But now concerning impossibilities, 10 if it ab­solute can be evinc'd that this doctrine of Transubstantiation does affirm contradictions, then it is not only an intolerable prejudice a­gainst the doctrine, as is the ordinary and na­tural impossibility; but it will be absolutely im­possible to be true, and it derogates from God to affirm such a proposition in religion, and much more to adopt it into the body of faith. And therefore when S. Paul had quoted [Page 208]that place of Scripture; He hath put all things under him; he adds, It is evident, that he is excepted who did put all things under him; for if this had not been so understood, then he should have been under himself, and he that gave the power should be lessen'd, and be inferiour to him that received it; which because they infer impossibilities, like those which are consequent to Transubstantiation, S. Paul makes no more of it but to say, The contrary is manifest against the unlimited literal sense of the words. Now for the e­viction of this, these two mediums are to be taken. The one, that this doctrine affirms that of the essence, or existence of a thing which is contrary to the essence or existence of it, and yet that the same thing remains; that is, that the essence remains without the essence, that is, with­out it self. The other, that this doctrine makes a thing to be and not to be at the same time: I shall use them both but promiscuously, be­cause they are reducible to one.

The doctrine of Transubstantiation, 11 is a­gainst the nature and essence of a body. Lib. 3. Euch. c. 2. §. ult. Bel­larmine seems afraid of this; for, immediately before, he goes about to prevaricate about the being of a body in many places at once, he sayes, that if the essence of things were evi­dently and particularly known, then we might know what does, and what does not [Page 209]imply a contradiction; but, id non satis constat, there is no certainty of that; by that pre­tended uncertainty making way as he hopes to escape from all the pressure of contra­dictions that lye upon the prodigious philo­sophy of this Article: But we shall make a shift so far to understand the essence of a body, as to evince this doctrine to be full of contradictions.

1. For Christs body, 12 his Natural body is changed into a Spiritual body, and it is not now a Natural body but a Spiritual; and there­fore cannot be now in the Sacrament after a natural manner, because it is so no where, and therefore not there; It is sown a natural body, it is raised a Spiritual body. And therefore though this Spirituality be not a change of one substance into another, yet it is so a change of the same substance, that it hath lost all those accidents which were not perfective nor constitutive, but imperfect and separable from the body; and therefore in no sense of nature can it be manducated. And here is the first contradiction. The body of Christ is in the Sacrament. The same body is in heaven. In heaven it cannot be broken naturally; In the Sacrament they say it is broken naturally and properly; therefore the same body is and is not, it can and it cannot be broken. To this they answer, that it is bro­ken [Page 210]under the Species of bread; Not in it self; Well! is it broken or is it not broken? let it be broken under what it will, if it be broken, the thing is granted. For if by be­ing broken under the Species, it be meant that the Species be broken alone, and not the bo­dy of Christ, then they take away in one hand what they reach forth with the other. This being a better argument, The Species only are broken, the Species are not Christs body, therefore Christs body is not broken: better I say then this, The body of Christ is under the Species, the Species alone are broken, therefore the body of Christ is broken. For how can the breaking of Species or accidents, infer the breaking of Christs body, unlesse the acci­dents be Christs body, or inseparable from it? or rather, How can the breaking of the accidents infer the breaking of Christs body when it cannot be broken? To this I desire a clear and intelligible answer. Adde to this, how can Species, that is, accidents, be broken, but when a substance is broken? for an acci­dent properly, such as smel, colour, tast, hath of it self no solid, and consistent, nor indeed any fluid parts, nothing whereby it can be broken, and have a part divided from a part; but as the substance in which the accident is subjected becomes divided, so doe the inhe­rent accidents; but no otherwise: and if this [Page 211]cannot be admitted, men cannot know what one another say or mean, they can have no notices of things or regular propo­sitions.

2. But I demand, 13 When we speak of a body, what we mean by it? For in all dis­courses and entercourses of mankind by words, we must agree concerning each others meaning; when we speak of a body, of a substance, of an accident, what does man­kind agree to mean by these words? All the Philosophers and all the wise men in the world, when they divide a substance from an accident, mean by a substance that which can subsist in it self without a subject of in­herence.

But an accident is, that whose very essence is to be in another: Aristot. lib. 1. posterior. cap. 6. & lib. 2. cap. 10. Metaph. lib. 6. cap. 4. Idem significatur per ipsum nomen [...] quod abit cum substantiâ, [...], receptum scilicet in subjecto. Accidens quod accidit. When they speak of a body and separate it from a Spirit, they mean that a Spirit is that which hath no material, di­visible parts, physically; that which hath nothing of that which makes a body, that is, extension, limi­tation by lines, and superficies and material measures. The very first notion and conce­ption of things teaches all men, that what is circumscribed and measured by his proper place is there and no where else. For if it [Page 212]could be there and be in another place, it were two and not one. A finite Spirit can be but in one place, but it is there without circumscription; that is, it hath no parts measured by the parts of a place, but is there after another manner then a body, that is, it is in every part of his definition or spiri­tual location. So it is said, a soul is in the whole body; not that a part of it is in the hand, and a part of it in the eye, but it is whole in the whole, and whole in every part; and it is true that it is so, if it be wholly im­material: because that which is spiritual and immaterial, cannot have material parts. But when we speak of a body, all the world means that, which hath a finite quantity, and is de­termin'd to one place. This was the philo­sophy of all the world, taught in all the schools of the Christians and Heathens, even of all mankind, till the doctrine of Transub­stantiation was to be nurs'd and maintain'd, and even after it was born, it could not be forgotten by them who were bound to keep it. And I appeal to any man of the Roman persuasion, if they can shew me any ancient Philosopher, Greek, or Roman, or Christian of any Nation, who did not believe it to be essential to the being of a body to be in one place: Plaut. Amphitr. act. 2. sc. 1. and Amphitruo in the old Comedy had reason to be angry with Sosia upon this point. [Page 213] Tun' id dicere audes, quod nemo unquam homo antehac vidit, nec potest fieri, tempore uno, Ho­mo idem duobus locis ut simul sit? And there­fore to make the body of Christ to be in a 1000 places at once, and yet to be but one body, To be in heaven and to be upon so many altars, to be on the altar in so many round wafers, is to make a body to be a spirit, and to make a finite to be infinite; for no­thing can be so but an infinite Spirit.

Neither will it be sufficient to fly here to Gods omnipotency: 14 for God can indeed make a body to be a Spirit; but can it con­sist with the divine being to make an infinite substance? can there possibly be two Catego­rematical, that is, positive substantial infinites? or can it be that a finite should, remaining fi­nite, yet not be finite, but indefinite and in innumerable places at once [...]. Plotin. l. de anim. a­pud Euseb. praepar. Evang. l. 15.? God can new create the body and change it into a Spirit; But can a body, remaining a body, be at the same time a Spirit? or can it be a body, and yet not be in a place? is it not determin'd so, that re­maining in a place it cannot be out of it? if these things could be otherwise, then the same thing at the same time could be a Body and a Spirit, limited and unlimited, wholly in a place, and wholly out of it, finite and infi­nite, [Page 214]a body and yet no body, one and yet many, the same and not the same, that is, it should not be it self. Now although God can change any thing from being the thing it is, to become another thing, yet is it not a contradiction to say, it should be the same it is, and yet not the same? These are the essential, immediate consequents of suppo­sing a body remaining a body, whose essence it is to be finite and determin'd in one place, can yet so remaining be in a thousand places.

3. The Socinians teach that our bodies at the resurrection shall be (as they say Christs body now is) changed substantially. For cor­ruptible and incorruptible, mortal and immor­tal, natural and spiritual, are substantial diffe­rences: and now our bodies being natural, corruptible, and mortal, differ substantially from bodies spiritual, immortal and incorruptible, as they shall be hereafter, and as the body of our Lord now is. Now I am sure the Church of Rome allowes not of this doctrine in these; neither have they reason for it; But do not they admit that in hypothesi which they deny in thesi? For is it not a perfect change of substance that a body from finite is changed to be at least potentially infinite, from being determin'd in one place to be in­desinite and indeterminable? To lose all his [Page 215]essentiall proprieties must needs infer a sub­stantial change Quomedo erit Sol splendore pri­vatus? vel quomodo erit splen­dor, nisi Sol sit à quo defluat? Ignis verò quomodo crit calore carens? vel calor unde manabit nisi ab igne? Cyril. Alex. l. 1. in 1. c. Ioh.; and that it is of the essence of a body to be in one place, at least an essential propriety, they will not I suppose be so impu­dent as to deny, since they fly to the divine omnipotency and a perpetu­al miracle to make it be otherwise: which is a plain demonstration that naturally it is so; this therefore they are to answer if they can.

But let us see what Christian philosophy teaches us in this particular. 15 S. Austin is a good probable Doctor, and may be trusted for a proposition in Natural philosophy. These are his conclusions in this article. Serm. Dom. monte. c. 9. Cor­pora quae non possunt esse nisi in loco. Bodies cannot be but in their place. In Psal. 86. Angustias om­nipotentiae corpord patiuntur, nec ubique possunt esse, nec semper; Divinitas autem ubique praestò est. The Divinity is present every where, but not bodies, they are not omnipotent: meaning, it is a propriety of God to be in many places, an effect of his omnipotence. But more plainly yet, Ep. 57. Spatia locorum tolle cor­poribus, & nusquam erunt, & quia nusquam erunt, nec erunt, if you take from bodies the spaces of place, they will be no where, and if they be no where, they will not be at all: [Page 216]and to apply this to the present question, he affirmes, Tract. 31. in Io­han. Christus homo secundùm corpus in loco est, & de loco migrat, & cum ad alium locum venerit, in eo loco unde venit non est. Christ as man according to the body is in a place and goes from a place, and when he comes to a­nother place is not in the place from whence he came. For besides that so to do is of the verity of Christs body, that it should have the same affections with ours; according as it is insisted upon in diverse places of the Scripture, particularly, S. Luke 24.39. it is also in the same place, and in the story apparent, that the case was not alter'd after the resur­rection, but Christ moved finitely by di­mensions, Dial. 2. and change of places. So Theo­doret, Dominicum corpus incorruptibile resur­rexit & impatibile & immortale, & divinâ glo­riâ glorificatum est, & à coelestibus adoratur po­testatibus; corpus tamen est, priorem habens cir­cumscriptionem. Christs body even after the resurrection is circumscribed as it was before. And therefore as it is impious to deny God to be invisible: so it is profane, not to believe and professe the son of God in his assum'd humanity to be visible, Lib. de essent. Di­vinit. corporeal, and local after the resur­rection: It is the saying of S. Austin.

And I would fain know how it will be an­swered, 16 that they attribute to the body of Christ, which is his own creature, the in­communicable [Page 217]attribute of ubiquity, [...]. Stob. tit. 3. either actually or potentially. For let them say; is it not an attribute of God to be unlimited and to be undefined by places? S. Austin sayes it, and it is affirm'd by natural reason, and all the world attributes this to God, as a propriety of his own. If it be not his own, then all the world hath been alwayes decei­ved till this new generation arose. If it be let them fear the horrid consequent of giving that to a creature which is the glory of the Creator. And if they think to escape by saying, that they do not attribute to it actual ubiquity, but potential, that is, that though he be not, yet he may be every where; let it be considered; if the argument of the Fa­thers was good (by which they prov'd the Divinity of the holy Ghost) This is every where, therefore this is God; is it not also as good to say, This may be every where, therefore this may be God? And then it will be altogether as bad as any thing can be imagined, for it makes the incommunicable attribute of God, to be communicable to a creature; and not only so, but it is worse, for it makes, that an actual creature may be a potential God, that is, that there can be a God which is not eternally a God, that is not a pure act, a God that is not yet, but that shall have a beginning in time.

4 There was not in all School Divinity, 17 nor in the old Philosophy, nor in nature any more then three natural proper wayes of being in a place circumscriptivè, destinitivè, repletivè. The body of Christ is not in the Sacrament circumscriptively, because there he could be but in one altar, in one wafer. It is not there definitively for the same reason, be­cause to be definitely in a place is to be in it so as to be there, and no where else. And both these are affirmed by their own Turre­cremata; Super De­cret. 3. part. de consecrat. d. 2. cap. Quid sit. It remains, that it must be repletivè in many places, which we use to attribute to God only, and it is that manner of being in a place, by which God is distinguished from his creatures; But now a fourth word must be invented, and that is Sacramentalitèr, Christs body is Sacramentally in more places then one: which is very true, that is, the Sa­crament of Christs body is: and so is his bo­dy figuratively, tropically, representatively in being, and really in effect and blessing. But this is not a natural, real being in a place, but a re­lation to a person; the other three are all the manners of location which the soul of Man could yet ever apprehend.

5 It is essential to a body to have partem extra partem, 18 one part without the other, an­swering to the parts of his place; for so the eyes stand separate from the hands, and the [Page 219]eares from the feet, and the head from the belly. But in Transubstantiation the whole body is in a point, in a minimum naturale, in the least imaginable crumb of consecrated bread: how then shall nose and eyes, and head and hands, be distinct? unlesse the mu­tiny of the members be reconciled, and all parties pleased, because the feet shall be the eyes, and the leg shall be the head, and pos­sesse each others dimension and proper cels of dwelling. Quod ego non credo, In Decret. de concil. dist. 2. ubi pars in Glossâ. said an anci­ent Glosse: I will not insist upon the un­worthy questions which this carnal doctrine introduces: viz. Whether Christs whole body be so there, that the prepuce is not wanting? Suarez supposing that as probable, In Thom. tom. 3. disp. 51. others denying it, but disputing it fiercely; Neither will I make scrutiny concerning eating Christs bones, guts, hair, and nailes; nor suppose the Roman Priests to be such [...], and to have such sawes in their mouths: these are appendages of their per­swasion, but to be abominated by all Christi­an and modest persons, who use to eat not the bodies but the flesh of beasts, and not to devour, but to worship the body of Christ in the exaltation, and much more in the union with his divinity. But that which I now in­sist upon is, that in a body there cannot be indistinction of parts, but each must possesse [Page 220]his own portion of place; and if it does not, a body cannot be a body, nor distinguished from a Spirit.

6. When a body is broken into half, 19 one half is separate from another and remains divided; but in the doctrine of Transubstantiation, the wafer which they say is Christs whole body, if it be broken, is broken into two whole ones, not into the halfs of one; and so there shall be two bodies, if each half make one, and yet those two bodies are but one and not two. Adde to this, if each wafer be Christ's body whole, and the fraction of it makes that every part is whole Christ; then every communicant can consecrate as well as the Priest, for at his breaking the host in his mouth, why the body should not also be­come whole to each part in the mouth, as well as to each part in the hand is one of the unin­telligible secrets of this mysterie.

Aquinas sayes that The body of Christ is not in the Sacrament, 20 in the manner of a body, but of a substance, and so is whole in the whole: Well; suppose that for a while: yet 1. Those substances which are whole in the whole, are by his own doctrine neither divisible nor mul­tiplicable, and how then can Christs body be supposed to be Corpus Christi est multiplicatum ad omne punctum hostiae. Tho. Waldens. tom. 2. c. 55. Multiplicatio. corporis Christi facta est substantialitèr ad omne punctum hostiae. Id. multiplicable (for there are [Page 221]no other words to expresse my meaning, though no words can speak sense according to their doctrine, words not signifying here as every where else, and among them as they did alwayes in all mankind) how can it, I say, be multiplied by the breaking of the wafer or bread upon the account of the likenesse of it to a substance that cannot be broken, or if it could, yet were not multipliable? But 2. If Christs body be there according to the manner of a substance, not of a body, I demand according to the nature of what substance, whether of a material or an imma­terial? If according to the nature of a ma­terial substance, then it is commensurate by the dimensions of quantity, which he is now endevouring to avoid. If according to the nature of an immaterial substance, then it is not a body, but a Spirit; or else the body may have the being of a Spirit, whil'st it remaines a body, that is, be a body and not a body at the same time. But 3. to say that a body is there, not according to the nature of a body, but of a substance, is not sense: for besides that by this answer, it is a body with­out the nature of a body, it sayes that it is also there determin'd by a manner, and yet that manner is so far from determining it, that it makes it yet more undetermin'd and general then it was. For [Substance] is [Page 222]the highest Genus in that Category: and corpus or body is under it, and made more special by a superadded difference. To say therefore that a body is there after the manner of a sub­stance, is to say, that by being specificated, li­mited, and determin'd it becomes not a Species but a Genus, that is, more unlimited by limi­tations, more generical by his specification, more universal by being made more parti­cular. So impossible it is for wise men to make sense of this businesse. 3. But besides all this, to be in a place after the manner of a substance, is not to be in a place at all; for substantia hath in it no relation to a place till it be specificated to a Body or a Spirit; For sub­stantia dicit solùm formalitatem substandi acci­dentibus & subsistendi per se; but the capacity of, or relation to a place is by the specificati­on of it by some substantial difference. 4. Lastly, to explicate the being in a place, in the manner of a substance by being whole in the whole, and whole in every part is to say, that every substance is so; which is notori­ously false: for corporal substances are not so; whether spiritual be, is a question not proper for this place.

Aquinas hath yet another device to make all whole, 21 In 4 Sent. d. 44. q. 2. art. 2. q. 3. saying that one body cannot be in diverse places localitèr, but Sacramentalitèr, not locally, but Sacramentally. But first I [Page 223]wish the words were sense, and that I could tell the meaning of being in a place locally, and not locally, unlesse a thing can be in a place and not in a place, that is, so to be in, that it is also out: but so long as it is a distinction it is no matter, it will amuse and make way to escape, if it will do nothing else. But if by being Sacramentally in many places is meant figuratively (as before I explicated it) then I grant Aquinas's affirmative; Christs body is in many places Sacramentally, that is, it is represented upon all the holy Tables or Al­tars in the Christian Church. But if by Sacramentally he means naturally, and proper­ly, then he contradicts himself, for that is it he must mean by localitèr if he means any thing at all. But it matters not what he means, for it is sufficient to me that he only sayes it and proves it not; and that it is not sense; and lastly, Lib. 3. Euch. c. 3. § Quidam tamen. Ibid. § Adde quod. that Bellarmine confutes it as not being home enough to his purpose, but a direct destruction of the fancy of Tran­substantiation; Si non possit esse unum corpus localitèr in duobus locis, quia divideretur à se­ipso, profectò non esse possit Sacramentalitèr eâ­demratione. I might make advantage of this contestation between two so great pa­trons of Transubstantiation, if I did need it. For Aquinas sayes, that a body cannot be in two places at once locally. Bellarmine [Page 224]sayes then neither can it Sacramentally; it were easie then to infer that Therefore it is in two places no way in the world. But I shall not need this.

7. 22 For there is a new heap of impossibi­lities, if we should reckon that which flowes from the multiplication of totalities; I mean of the body of Christ, which is one continu­al substance, one in it self and divided from e­very thing else, as all unity is; and yet every wafer consecrated is the whole body of Christ, and yet that body is but one, and the wafers which are not one, are every one of them Christs body. And how is it possible that Christs body should be in heaven, and between it and us are many other bodies in­terposed, and his body is in none of the in­termedials, and that his body should be also here, and yet not joyned to that, either by continuity or contiguity, and the same body should be a thousand miles off, and ten thou­sand bodies between them, and yet all this be but one: that is, How can it be two and yet be one? For how shall any man reckon two? How can he know that two glasses of wine are not one? We see them in two places, their continuity divided, there is an interme­dial distance and other bodyes interposed, and therefore we silly men usually say they are two; but it is strange to see, a man may [Page 225]be consident and yet without reason when he hath not wit enough to tell two. But then there is not in nature any way for a man to tell two, if this principle be taken from us.

It will also be an infinite, impossible con­tradiction which followes the being of a body in two places at once; upon this ac­count. For it will infer that the same body is at the same time, in the same respect, in or­der to the same place, both actually and po­tentially, that is, possessed and not possessed of it, and may go to that place where it is already. For suppose a body at S. Omers, and the same body at the same time at Do­way, then that body which is actually at S. Omers may yet at the same time be going from Doway thither, and then he is at the same time there and not there, at his jour­neys end, and yet on the way thither; that is, in disposition and tendency to that place where he is already actually, and whether he is arriv'd before he set out and began his journey; and goes away from Doway, before he leaves it.

Adde to this, that to be in two places at once, makes the same thing which is contai­ned in diverse places to be contain'd in none. For as to be in a place like a body, is to be contain'd in that place; so to be contain'd in [Page 226]that place is to be terminated or bounded by that place; but whatsoever is bounded by a thing, is not without or beyond that bounds; it followes therefore that if a body can be intirely without or beyond that place in which it is contained, that is without the bounds, then it is bounded and not bounded, it is contained and not contained; that is, it is contained by diverse, and it is contained by none.

But how can any thing be divided from it self wholly? 23 for either it must be where it is not, or else it must be two. The wit of man cannot devise a shift to make this seem possible. Euch. l. 3. c. 3. §. Sed haec ratio &c. 4. §. Sed me­dia via. But Bellarmine can; for he sayes there is a double indivision or unity or being: an intrinsecal and an extrinsecal, a local, and an essential; Now of these, one can be with­out the other: and though a body have but one unity essential, because it can be but one body, yet it may have more extrinsecal or lo­cal beings. This is the full sense of his de­vice, if at least there be any sense in it. But be­sides that this distinction is no where taught in any Philosopy, a child of his own still born, not offer'd to be proved or made credible; it is, if it be brought into open view from without the curtains of a formal distinction, just as if he had said; Whereas you object that one thing can be but in one place, for [Page 227]whatsoever is in two places is two bodies; you are deceiv'd; for it is true, that one body can be but one; but yet it may be two in respect of place; that is, it is but one in nature, but it may be in two pla­ces, and so you are confuted. But then if I should reply, This answer is but to deny the conclusion, and affirms the thing in que­stion; there were no more to be said. For that one thing in nature cannot have two ad­equate places at the same time, was the con­clusion of my argument; and the answer is, It can have two, and this is all is said. 2. But then I would fain know what warrant there is for the real distinction of esse essentiale and esse locale of bodies, Substantias enim facis, quibus loca assignas. Tertul. c. 41. contr. Hermog. as if they were two di­stinct separable beings; whereas quantity is inseparable from bodies, and measure from continual quantities, and to be in a place is nothing but to have his quantity measured. 3. To be in a place, is the termination or li­mit of a quantitative body, and makes it not to be infinite: and if this can be separated by a distinction from a finite body, then some­thing is said; but if a finite body must be finite and not infinite, then to be determin'd by a place, the proper determination or defi­nition of a quantitative body, is not sepa­rable from it. 4. If any man should say that one person cannot be together in two [Page 228]several times, no more then in two several places; This distinction would fetch him in, to be of two times together; for there is a double indivision, one in respect of essence, the other, in respect of duration, that intrinsecal, this extrinsecal; though one man or body hath but one being or essence intrinsecal and essential, yet he may have more extrinsecal, accidental and temporary. And really the case, as to this distinction, is all one, and so it is to the argument too: for as two times cannot be together because of their successive nature, so neither can two places be adapted at once to one body, because of their continu­al and united nature: unity and quantity con­tinual being as essential to quantitative bo­dies, as succession is to them who are measu­red by time. 5. If one body may possesse and fill two places circumscriptively, that it is commensurate to both of them, or to as many more as it shall chance to be in, then suppose a body of five foot long, is in a place at Rome, at Valladolid, at Paris, and at London, in each of these places it must fill a space of five foot long, because it is alwayes com­mensurate to his place: it will follow, that a body but of five foot long shall fill up the room of twenty foot; which whether it implies not a contradiction that the same body should be but five foot long, and yet at [Page 229]the same time be twenty foot long of the same measure, let all the Geometricians judge. This is such a device, that as one said of the witty drunkennesse and arts of the Symposiac among the Greeks, that a­mongst them a dunce could not be drunk: So in this device a man had need be very cunning to speak such nonsense, and make himself believe those things which are a­gainst the conceptions of all men in the world, till this new doctrine turned their brains and make new propositions and new af­firmatives out of old impossibilities. But these people in all this affaire, deal with mankind, as if they were beasts, and not reasonable creatures; or as if all their disciples were babies, or fooles, and that to them it is lawful to say any thing, and having no understand­ing of their own, they are to efform them as they please.

But to this objection it is answer'd, 23 that it may have a double sense: That a body of five foot long may fill the space of five foot. One; So as the magnitude of such a body should be commensurate to that place, and so a body of five foot cannot fill up the spaces of twenty foot: but another way is, so as the mag­nitude of the body should not be commensurate, but only to the space of five foot, but yet the same magnitude may be twice, or thrice put to such a [Page 230]space, Euch. l. 3. c. 4. §. Re­spondeo duplicitèr potest in­telligi &c. and this may be done. This is Bellar­mines answer; That is, If you consider a body of five foot long, so as it can but fill five foot space, in that sense it cannot fill twenty. But if you consider it so as it is commensurate to a space, that is, twenty foot, so it cannot be, being but of five foot long. That this is the sense of his an­swer, I appeal to all men that can under­stand common sense. But though it be but of five foot long, yet it may be placed twice or thrice in a space of five foot long, and what then? Then it fills still but a place of five foot long. True in one place, but if it fills five foot at Rome, and at the fame time five foot at Valladolid, and five foot at Paris, and five foot at London, I pray are not four times five twenty? As although the Sun have but force to drink up five measures of water in Egypt; and at the same time as much in Arabia, and as much in Ethiopia, and as much in Greece, he at the same time drinks up twenty measures, though his whole force in one place be but to drink five, and yet still it is but one Sun. But besides all this, that the same body be put twice or thrice into a space of five foot at the same time, is that unreasonable thing, which all the natural and congenite notices of men cry down, and therefore ought not [Page 231]to be said confidently, in a distinction with­out proof; as if the putting it into a nonsense distinction, could oblige all the world to believe it.

8. But I proceed: 24 Valentia De verâ Christi p [...]aesen­tiâ l. 1. c. 12. affirms that the Fathers prove the divinity of the holy Ghost by his ubiquity: and it is certain they do so, as ap­pears in S. Athanasius Contr. Arium. disp. in­ter opera S. Athanas., S. Basil De Spir. S. l. 1. c. 22., S. Ambrose De Spit. S. l. 1. c. 7. , Didymus of Alexan­dria De Spir. S. l. 1., S. Cyril of Alexandria De Spir. S. Quod non sit creatura., S. Austin Contra Maxim. Arian. ep. l. 3. c. 31.; and diverse others: and yet these men affirm that a body may be in many places, and therefore may be in all, and that it is potenti­ally infinite; is it not evident that they take from the Fathers the force of the argument, because ubiquity is communicable to some­thing that is not God; or if it be not, why do they give it to a creature? That which can be in many places, can be in all places; for all the reason that forbids it to be in 2000 forbids it to be in two; and if those cannot determine it to one place, it cannot be de­termin'd at all; I mean, the nature of a body, his determination to places, his circumscription, continuity, unity, quantity, dimensions. Nay, that which is not determin'd by place, by continuity nor by his nature, but may be any where, is in his own nature uncircumscrib'd, [Page 232]and indefinite, which is that attribute of God upon which his omnipresence does rely; and that Christs body is not every where actual­ly, as is the holy Ghost, it sayes nothing a­gainst this; because he being a voluntary a­gent can restrain the measure of his presence, as God himself does the many manners of his presence. However, that nature is infi­nite that can be every where, and therefore if it can be communicated to a body, to be so, is not proper to God, nor can it prove the holy Ghost so to be. Of the same nature is that other argument used frequently by the primitive Doctors, proving two natures to be in Christ, the Divine and the Humane, and the difference between them is remarked in this, that the Divine is in many places, and in all: but the Humane can be but in one at once. This is affirmed by Origen In S. Matth. hom. 33., S. Hi­lary Lib. 10. de Trinit., S. Hierome Ad Marcel. de 4 quaest., S. Austin Tract. 39. in Johan. , Gelasius Disp. contr. Sab. Ar. Phot. , Fulgentius Lib. 2. ad Thrasim. c. 17., and Ven. Bede Homil. invent. crucis.. But this is but variety of the same dish; if both these can prevail together, then either of them ought to prevail singly.

Against all this, 25 and whatsoever else can be objected, it is pretended, that it is possible for a body to be in many distant places at once. For Christ who is alwayes in heaven, yet appeared to S. Paul on earth, and to ma­ny [Page 233]other Saints, as to S. Peter, to S. Antony, to S. Tharsilla, S. Gregory and I cannot tell who. To this I answer; 1. That in all this there is nothing certain, but that Christ appeared to S. Paul; for it may be, he ap­peared to him in heaven, S. Paul being on earth: for so he did to S. Stephen, as is re­corded in the Acts of the Apostles: Acts 7.55. and from heaven there might only come a voice and a light. 2. It may be S. Paul saw Christ when he was wrapt up into the third heavens: for, that Christ was seen by him, himself affirmes; but he sayes not that he saw him at his conversion; and all that he sayes he saw then, was that he saw a great light and heard a voice. 3. That, in case Christ did appear corporally to Saul on earth, Acts 9.3.22.6. it fol­lowes not, his body was in two places at once. I have the warrant of him that is willing enough otherwise that this argument should prevail: Bellar. de Euch. l. 3. c. 3. §. Confir­matur. Quia non est improbabile Christum pri­vatìm & ad breve tempus descendisse de coelopost ascensionem. It is not unlikely that Christ might privately and for a short time descend from heaven after his ascension; For when it is said in Scripture that the heavens must receive him till the day of restitution of all things, it is to be meant, ordinarily and as his place of residence; but that hinders not an extraordinary commigration; as a man [Page 234]may be said to dwell continually in London, and yet sometimes to goe into the country to take the aire. For the other instances of S. Peter and S. Antony, and the rest, if I were sure they were true. I would say the same answer would also serve their turn; but as they are, it is not material whether it does or no.

Another way of answering is taken from the examples of God and the reasonable soul. 26 Concerning the soul, I have these things to say; 1. Whether the soul be whole in every part of the body and whole in the whole is presum'd by most men, but substantially proved by none, but denyed by a great ma­ny, and those of the first rank of learned men. 2. If it were, it followes not that it is in two places or more: because not the hand nor the foot is the adequate place of the soul, but the whole body; and therefore the usual expression of Philosophy, saying, The soul is whole in every part is not true posi­tively, but negatively, that is, the soul being immaterial, cannot be cantoniz'd into parts by the division of the body; but positively it is not true. For the understanding is not in the foot, nor the will in the hand; and something of the soul is not arganical or de­pending upon the body: viz. The pure acts of volition, some little glimpses of intuition, [Page 235]reflexion, and the like. 3. If it were, yet to allege this, is impertinent to their purpose: unless whatsoever is true concerning a spirit, can also be affirmed of a body. 4. When the body is divided into parts, the soul is not multiplied into fantastick or real numbers, as it is pretended in Transubstantiation; and therefore, although the foul were whole in e­very part it could do no service in this questi­on; unlesse it were so whole in each part as to be whole when each part is divided, for so it is said to be in the Euchrist; which be­cause we say is impossible, we require an in­stance in something where it is so; but be­cause it is not so in the soul, this instance is not home to any of their purposes. L. 3. Euch. c. 3. §. ad hoc argu­mentum. But Bellarmine sayes, God can make it to be so, that the soul shall remain in the member that is discontinued and cut off. I answer that God ever did do so, nor he nor any man else can pretend, unlesse he please to believe S. Winifreds and S. Deny [...]'s walking with their heads in their hands after their decollati­on; but since we never knew that God did so, and whether it implies a contradiction or no, that it should be so, God hath no where declared, it is sufficient to the present purpose that it is as much a question, and of it self no more evident, then that a body can be conserved in many places: and therefore be­ing [Page 236]as uncertain as the principal question, cannot give faith to it, or do any service. But this is to amuse unwary persons, by seeming to say something, which indeed is nothing to the purpose.

But that the Omnipresence of God should be brought to prove it possible that a body may be in many places, 27 truly though I am hearti­ly desirous to do it, if I could justly, yet I cannot find any colour to excuse it from great impiety. But this I shall adde, that it is so impossible that any body should be in two places, and so impossible to justifie this from the immensity of God; that God himself, is not in proper manner of speaking in two places, he is not capable of being in any place at all, as we understand being in a place; he is greater then all places, and fills all things: and locality, and place; and beings, and relations are all from him: and therefore they cannot comprehend him. But then although this immensity of God is beyond the capacity of place, and he can no more be in a place, then all the world can be in the bottome of a well, yet if God could be li­mited and determin'd, it were a contradicti­on to say that he could be in two places; just as it is a contradiction to say there are two Gods. So that this comparison of Bellar­mines, as it is odious up to the neighbour­hood, [Page 237]and similitude of a great impiety, so it is [...], it is against that Philosophy whereby we understand any of the perfective notices of God. But these men would fain prevail by all means, they care not how.

But why may we not believe as well the doctrine of Transubstantiation in defiance of all the seeming impossibilities, 28 as well as we believe the doctrine of the Trinity in defi­ance of greater? To this I answer many things. 1. Because the mysterie of the Tri­nity is revealed plainly in Scripture, but the doctrine of Transubstantiation is against it: as I suppose my self to have plainly proved. So that if there were a plain revelation of Transubstantiation then this argument were good; and if it were possible for 10000 times more arguments to be brought against it, yet we are to believe the revelation in despite of them all; but when so much of revelation is against it, and nothing for it, it is but vain to say we may believe this, as well as the doctrine of the Trinity; for so we may as well argue for the heresie of the Ma­nichees; why may we not as well believe the doctrine of the Manichees in despite of all the arguments brought against it; when there are so many seeming impossibilities brought against the holy Trinity? I suppose [Page 238]the answer that I have given, would be thought reasonable to every such pretence. 2. As the doctrine of the holy Trinity is set down in Scripture, and in the Apostles Creed and was taught by the Fathers of the first 300 years, I know no difficulties it hath; what it hath met withall since, proceeds from the too curious handling of that which we cannot understand. 3. The School-men have so pried into this secret, and have so confounded themselves and the articles, that they have made it to be unintelligible, inexplicable, in­defensible in all their minuits and particula­rities; and it is too sadly apparent in the argu­ments of the Antitrinitarians, whose sophisms against the article it self, although they are most easily answered, yet as they bring them against the minutiae and impertinences of the school, they are not so easily to be avoided. But. 4. there is not the same reason; because concerning God we know but very few things, and concerning the mysterious Trinity that which is revealed is extremely little; and it is general, without descending to par­ticulars: and the difficulty of the seeming arguments against that, being taken from our Philosophy, and the common manner of speaking, cannot be apportion'd and fit­ted to so great a secret; neither can that at all be measur'd by any thing here below. [Page 239]But I hope we may have leave to say we un­derstand more concerning bodies; and their nature then concerning the persons of the holy Trinity: and therefore we may be sure in the matter of bodies to know what is, and what is not possible; when we can know no measure of truth or errour in all the mysteri­ousnesses of so high and separate, superexalt­ed secret, as is that of the holy Trinity. 5. Because when the Church for the under­standing of this secret of the holy Trinity hath taken words from Metaphysical learn­ing, as person, hypostasts, consubstantiality, [...] and such like, the words of themselves were apt to change their signification, and to put on the sense of the present school. But the Church was forc'd to use such words as she had, the highest, the neerest, the most separate and mysterious. But when she still kept these words to the same mysterie, the words swell'd or alter'd in their sense; and were exacted according to what they did si­gnifie amongst men in their low notices; this begat difficulty in the doctrine of the holy Trinity. For better words she had none, and all that which they did signifie in our Philosophy could not be applied to this mysterie, and therefore we have found diffi­culty; and shall for ever, till in this article the Church returns to her ancient simplicity [Page 240]of expression. For these reasons I conceive the case is wholly different, and the difficulty and secret of one mystery, which is cer­tainly revealed, cannot warrant us to admit the impossibilities of that which is not revea­led. Let it appear that God hath affirm'd Transubstantiation, and I for my part will burn all my arguments against it, and make publick amends. The like also is to be said in the matter of Incarnation.

But if two bodies may be in one place, 29 then one body may be in two places. In 4. dist. 44. q. 2. [...]. 2. Aqui­nas denies the consequent of this argument; but I for my part am carelesse whether it be true or no. But I shall oppose against it this, If two bodies cannot be in one commensu­rate place, then one body cannot be in two places; Now concerning this, it is certain it implies a contradiction that two bodies should be in one place, or possesse the place of another till that be cast forth:

Quod nisi inania sint;
Lucr. l. 1.
quâ possent corpora quaeque
Transire, haud ullâ fieri ratione. videres.

And the great dispute between the Scholars of Epicurus and the Peripateticks concerning vacuity, was wholly upon this account. Epi­curus saying there could be no motion unless the place were empty. All the other Sects saying that it was enough that it was made empty by the coming of the new body; [Page 241]all agreeing that two bodies could not be to­gether, Arist. l. 4. [...]. [...]. All agreed that two bodies could not be together, and that the first body must be thrust forth by the intromission of the second.

—Quae si non esset inane
Non tam sollicito motu privata carerent,
Lucret. l. 1.
Quàm genita omninò nulla ratione fuissent,
Undique materies quoniam stipata quiescet.

For the contrary sayes that two bodies are one. [...]. S. Basil. Seleuc. homil. in [...]. For the proper dimensions of a quan­titative body are length, breadth, and thicknesse: Now the extension of the body in these di­mensions is measured by the place: For the place is nothing else, but the measuring and limiting of the thing so measured and limit­ed by these measures and limitations of length, breadth, and thicknesse. Now if two bodies could be in one place, then they must both have one superficies, one length, one thicknesse; and then either the other hath none, or they are but one body and not two, or else though they be two bodies, and have two superficies, yet these two superficies are but one, all which are contradictions. De Euch. l. 3. c. 5 §. Secundò observan­dum. Bel­larmine sayes, that to be coextended to a place, is separable from a magnitude or bo­dy, because it is a thing that is extrinsecal [Page 242]and consequent to the intrinsecal extension of parts, and being later then it, is by divine power separable. But this is as very a so­phisme as all the rest. For if whatever in nature is later then the substance, be sepa­rable from it, then fire may be without heat, or Quod non possit alterum sine altero intelligi, quemadmodum neque aqua sine humectatione, ne­que ignis sine calore. Irenae. lib. 2. c. 14. water without moisture; a man can be without time, for that also is in nature af­ter his essence; and he may be without a faculty of will or understand­ing, or of affections, or of growing to his state or being nourished; and then he will be a strange man, who will neither have the pow­er of will, or understanding, of desiring, or avoiding, of nourishment, or growth, or any thing that can distinguish him from a beast, or a tree, or a stone. For these are all later then the essence, for they are essential emanations from it. Thus also quantity can be separated from a substantial body, if eve­ry thing that is later then the form can be se­parated from it. And therefore nothing of this can be avoided by saying to fill a place is Bellar. de Euch. l. 3. c. 7. §. Ad secundum Petri. an act, but these other instances are facul­ties and powers, and therefore the act may better be impeded by divine power, the thing remaining the same, then by the abla­tion of faculties. This I say cannot justifie the trick. 1. Because to be extended into [Page 243]parts is as much an act as to be in a place; and yet that is inseparable from magnitude, and so confessed by Bellarmine. 2. L. 3. Euch. c. 5. §. Se­cundò ob­ser. To be in a place is not an act at all, any more then to be created, to be finite, to be limited; and it was never yet heard of, that esse locatum, or esse in loco was reducible to the predicament of action. 3. An act is no more separable then a faculty is, when the act is as essential as the faculty; now for a body to be in a place, is as essential to a body as it is for a man to have understanding; for this is Ibid. c. 7. §. Deinde etiam. con­fessed to be separable by divine power, and the other cannot be more; it cannot be na­turally. 4. If to be in a place be an act, it is no otherwise an act, then it is an act, for a Father actually to have a son, and therefore is no more separable this then that; and you may as well suppose a Father and no child, as a body and no place. 5. It is a false propo­sition to say, that place is extrinsecal to a quantitative body; and it relies upon the definition Aristotle gives of it in the fourth book of his Physicks, that place is the super­ficies of the ambient body; which is as absurd in nature as any thing can be imagined; for then a stone in the bottome of a river did change his place (though it ly still) in every instant, because new water still washes it; and by this rule it is necessary (against Ari­stotles [Page 244]great grounds) that some quantitative bodies should not be in a place, or else that quantitative bodies were Categorematically infinite. For either there is no end, but body incloses body for ever, or else the ultimate or outmost body, is not inclosed by any thing, and so cannot be in a place. To which adde this; that if Epicurus his opinion were true, and that there were some spaces empty, which at least by a divine power can become true, and he can take the aire out from the inclosure of four walls; In this case if you will suppose a man sitting in the midst of that room, either that man were in no place at all, which were infinitely absurd, or else (which indeed is true) circumscription or superficies were not the essence of a place. Place therefore is nothing but the Space to which quantitative bodies have essential relation and finition: that, where they con­sist, and by which they are not infinite: and this is the definition of place which S. Austin gives in his fourth book Exposit. of Genes. ad literam chapt. 8.

God can doe what he please, 30 and he can reverse the lawes of his whole creation, be­cause he can change or annihilate every crea­ture, or alter the manners and essences; but the question now is, what lawes God hath already established, and whether or no essen­tials [Page 245]can be changed, the things remaining the same? that is, whether they can be the same, when they are not the same? He that sayes God can give to a body all the essenti­al properties of a Spirit, sayes true, and confesses Gods omnipotency; but he sayes also, that God can change a body from be­ing a body, to become a Spirit; but if he sayes, that remaining a body it can receive the essentials of a Spirit, he does not con­fesse Gods omnipotency, but makes the ar­ticle difficult to be believed, by making it not to work wisely, and possibly. God can do all things, but, are they undone when they are done? that is, are the things chang'd in their essentials, and yet remain the same? then how are they chang'd, and then what hath God done to them?

But as to the particular question. 31 To sup­pose a body not coextended to a place, is to suppose a man alive not coexistent to time; to be in no place, and to be in no time, being alike possible Pascha­sias Dia­conus Ec­cles. Rom. A.D. 5 [...]0. l. 1. de Spir. S. cap. 12.: and this intrinsecal extension of parts, is as inseparable from the extrinsecal, as an intrinsecal duration is from time. Place and Time being nothing but the essential manners of material complete substances, these cannot be supposed such as they are, without time and place: because quantitative bodies in their very formality suppose that; [Page 246]For place without a body in it, is but a noti­on in Logick, but when it is a reality it is a Ubi, and time is Quando; and a body suppo­sed abstractedly from place, is not real but intentional, and in notion only, and is in the Category of substance, but not of quantity. But it is a strange thing that we are put to prove the very principles of nature, and first rudiments of art, which are so plain that they can be understood naturally, but by all devices of the world cannot be made du­bitable.

But against all the evidence of essential and natural reason, 32 some overtures of Scri­pture must be pretended. For that two bo­dies can be in one place appears, because Christ came from his mothers womb, it be­ing closed; into the assembly of the Apostles, the doores being shut; out of the grave, the stone not being rolled away; and ascended into heaven, through the solid orbes of all the firmament. Concerning the first and the last the Scripture speaks nothing, neither can any man tell whether the orbs of heaven be solid or fluid, or which way Christ went in. But of the heavens opening the Scripture sometimes makes mention. And the Pro­phet David spake in the Spirit saying, Lift up your heads O ye gates, and be ye lift up ye everlasting doores, and the King of Glory shall [Page 247]come in. The stone of the Sepulchre was removed by an Angel, so saith S. Matthew. S. Mat. 28.2. But why should it be supposed the Angel rolled it away after Christ was risen, or if he did, why Christ did not remove it himself, (who loosed all the bands of death by which he was held) and there leave it when he was risen? or if he had passed thorough and wrought a miracle, why it should not be told us, or why it should not remain as a testimo­ny to the souldiers and Jewes and convince them the more, when they should see the body gone, and yet their seals unbroken? or if it were not, how we should come to fancy it was so, I understand not; neither is there ground for it. There is only remaining that we account concerning Jesus his entring into the assembly of the Apostles, the doores being shut: To this I answer, that this infers not a penetration of bodies, or that two bodies can be in one place. 1. Because there are so many wayes of effecting it without that im­possibility. 2. The doore might be made to yeild to his Creator as easily as water which is fluid be made firme under his feet; for consistence or lability, are not essential to wood and water. For water can naturally be made consistent as when 'tis turned to ice; and wood that can naturally be petrified, can upon the efficiency of an equal agent be [Page 248]made thin or labile or inconsistent. [...]. Arist. l. 4. [...]. 3. This was done on the same day in which the Sea yeilded to the children of Israel, that is, the seventh day after the Passeover, and we may allow it to be a miracle, though it be no more then that of the waters, that is, as these were made consistent for a time.

Suppositúmque rotis solidum mare.

So the doores apt to yeild to a solid body.

—possint namque omnia reddi
Mollia, quae fiant, aer, aqua, terra, vapores
Quo pacto fiant & quâ vi cunque gerantur.

4. How easie was it for Christ to passe his body thorough the pores of it, and the na­tural apertures if he were pleased to unite them, and thrust the matter into a greater consolidation? 5. Wood being reduced to ashes possesses but a little room, that is, the crasse impenetrable parts are but few, the other apt for cession, which could easily be disposed by God as he pleased. 6. The words in the text are [...] in the past tense; the gates or doores having been shut; but that they were shut in the in­stant of his entry, it sayes not; they might, if Christ had so pleased, have been insensibly open'd, and shut in like manner again; and if the words be observed it will appear [Page 249]that S. Chap. 20.19. John mentioned the shutting the doores in relation to the Apostles fear; not to Christs entring: he intended not (so far as appears) to declare a miracle. 7. But if he had, there are wayes enough for him, to have entred strangely, though he had not entred impossibly. Vain therefore is the fancy of those men who think a weak conjecture able to contest against a perfect, natural impossi­bility. For when a thing can be done with­out a penetration of dimensions, and yet by a power great enough to beget admiration, though without contesting against the un­alterable lawes of nature, to dream it must be this way, is to challenge confidently, but to be carelesse of our warrant; I conclude, that it hath never yet been known that two bodies ever were at once, in one place.

I find but one objection more pretended, 33 and that is, that place is not essential to bodies: because the utmost heaven is a body, and yet is not in a place; because it hath nothing without it, that can circumscribe it. To this I have already answered in the confutation of Aristotles definition of a place. But besides; Num. 28. I answer, that what the utmost heaven is, our Philosophy cannot tell or guesse at; But it is certain that beyond any thing that Philo­sophy ever dreamed of, there are bodies. For Christ is ascended for above all heavens, [Page 250]and therefore to say it is not in a place, or that there is not a place where Christs body is, is a ridiculous absurdity. But if there be places for bodies above the highest heavens, then the highest heaven also is in a place, or may be for ought any thing pretended against it. In my Fathers house are many man­sions, said Christ, many places of abode; and it is highly-probable, that that pavement where the bodies of Saints shall tread to eternal ages, is circumscribed, though by something we understand not. Many things more might be said to this. But I am sorry that the series of a discourse must be inter­rupted with such trifling considerations.

The sum is this; 34 as substances cannot subsist without the manner of substances; Vide Bo­eth. in Praedicam. Aristot. no more can accidents, without the manner of accidents; quantities, after the manner of quantities; qualities, as qualities; for to separate that from either, by which we di­stinguish them from each other, is to separate that from them, by which we understand them to be themselves. And four may as well cease to be four and be reduced to unity, as a line cease to be a line, and a body a body, and a place a place, and a quantum or exten­sum to be extended in his own kind of quan­tity or extension: and if a man had talked otherwise, till this new device arose, all sects [Page 251]of Philosophers of the world, would have thought him mad; and I may here use the words of Cotta in Cicero l. 1. De naturâ De­orum: Corpus quid sit, sanguis quid sit, intel­ligo, quasi corpus & quasi sanguis quid sit, nul­lo prorsus modo intelligo. But concerning the nature of bodies and quantities these may suffice in general. For if I should de­scend to particulars and insist upon them, I could cloy the Reader with variety of one dish.

10. 35 By this doctrine of Transubstantiati­on, the same thing is bigger and lesse then it self: for it is bigger in one host, then in ano­ther; for the wafer is Christs body, and yet one wafer is bigger then another: therefore Christs body is bigger then it self. The same thing is above it self, and below it self, with­in it self, and without it self: It stands whol­ly upon his own right side, and wholly at the same time upon his own left side; it is as very a body as that which is most divisible, and yet it is as indivisible as a Spirit; and it is not a Spirit but a body, and yet a body is no way separated from a Spirit, but by being divisible. It is a perfect body, in which the feet are further from the head, then the head from the breast, and yet there is no space be­tween head and feet at all; So that the parts are further off and neerer, without any di­stance [Page 252]at all; being further and not further, distant, and yet in every point. By this also, here is magnitude without extension of parts; for if it be essential to magnitude to have par­tem extra partem, that is, parts distinguished, and severally sited, then where one part is, there another is not, and therefore the whole body of Christ is not in every part of the consecrated wafer; and yet if it be not, then it must be broken into parts when the wafer is broken, and then it must fill his place by parts. But then it will not be possible that a bigger body, with the conditions of a body should be contain'd in a thing less then it self, that a man may throw the house out at the windowes: and if it be impossible that a mag­nitude should be in a point, and yet Christs body be a magnitude and yet in a point, then the same thing is in a point, and not in a point, extended and not extended, great and not divisible, a quantity without dimension, something and nothing.* By this doctrine the same thing lies still and yet moves, it stayes in a place and goes away from it, it removes from it self, and yet abides close by it self, and in it self, and out of it self; It is remov'd and yet cannot be moved, broken and can­not be divided; * passes from East to West thorough a midle place, and yet stirs not. * It is brought from heaven to earth, and yet [Page 253]is no where in the way, nor ever stirs out of heaven. * It ceases to be where it was, and yet does not stirre from thence, not yet cease to be at all. * It is removed at the motion of the accidents, and yet does not fall when the host fals: it changes his place but fals not, Bellarm. Euch. l. 3. c. 10. §. re­spondeo corpus. and yet the changing of place was by falling. * It supposes a body of Christ which was made of bread, that is, Not born of the Vir­gin Mary; Suarez in 3. Tho. 9. 76. art. 7. disp. 53. §. 4. * it sayes that Christs body is there without power of moving, or seeing, or hearing, or understanding, he can neither re­member nor foresee, save himself from rob­bers or vermin, corruption or rottennesse; * it makes that which was raised in power to be again sown in weaknesse; Quomodo potest Deus alibi esse vivus, alibi mortuus? Lact. l. 1. c. 1. * it gives to it the attribute of an idol, to have eyes and see not, eares and hear not, a nose and not to smell, feet and yet cannot walk. * It makes a thing contained, bigger then the continent, and all Christs body, to goe into a part of his bo­dy; his whole head into his own mouth, if he did eat the Eucharist, as it is probable he did, and certain that he might have done. These are the certain consequents of this most unreasonable doctrine; in relation to motion and quantity. I need not instance in those collateral absurdities which are appen­dent to some of the foregoing particulars; as how it should be credible, that Christ in [Page 254]his sumption of the last supper should eat his own flesh; [...], said Simplicius In Categ. cap. de substant.; Nothing can receive it self, nothing can really participate of it self, and properly; figuratively and Sacramentally this may be done; but not in a natural and physical sense; for as S. Cyril of Alexandria argues; In S. Joh. 9. Si verè idem est quod participat & quod participatur, quid opus est participatione? What need he partake of himself? what need he receive a part of that which he is already whole? and if the parta­ker, and the thing partaken be naturally the same, then the Sacrament did as much eat Christ, as Christ did eat the Sacrament. In Categ. cap. de substant. It would also follow from hence, that the soul of Christ should enter into his body, though it were there before it entred; and yet it would now be there twice, at the same time; for it is but one soul, and yet enters after it is there, it never having gone forth. In Categ. cap. de substant. Nay further yet, upon supposition that Christ did eat the Sacrament, as it is most likely he did, and we are sure he might have done, then the soul of Christ, which certainly wentalong with his body which surely was then alive, should be in his body in two contrary and in­compatible manners; by one of which, he does operate freely, and exercise all the actions of life, by the other he exercises none; [Page 255]by one he is visible, by the other invisible, by one moveable, by the other immoveable, by one after the manner of a body, by the other after the manner of a Spirit. The one of these being evident in it self, the other by their own affirmation. But these are by the by; there are whole Categories of fond and impossible consequents from this doctrine.

11. 36 But if I should also consider the change of consecration: i. e. the conversion of bread into Christs body, and their rare stratagems and devices in ridiculous affir­matives and negatives as to that particular, it would afford a new heap of matter.

For this conversion is not generation, 37 it is not corruption, it is not creation, because Christs body already is, and cannot be pro­duced again; it is not after the manner of natural conversions, it differs from the super­natural: there is no change of one form into another, the same first matter does not re­main under Sola enim mutari transfor­marique in se possunt quae habent unius ma­teriae com­mune sub­jectum. Boeth. de duab. nat. Christi. several forms, first of bread, then of Christs body. It is turned into the substance of Christs body, and yet nothing of the bread becomes any thing of the body of Christ. It is turned into Christ, and yet it is turned into nothing: the substance is not annihilated, (for then it were not turned into Christs body) and yet it is annihilated or turned to nothing, for it does not become [Page 256]Christs body; it is determin'd upon Christs body, and yet does not become it, though it be changed into it: for if bread could be­come Christs body, then bread could receive a greater honour then any of the servants of Christ; for it could be glorified with the biggest glorification, it would be exalted far above all Angels, bread should reign for ever, and be King of all the world, which are honours not communicable to meer man, and by no change can be wrought upon him: and if they may upon bread, then bread is exalted higher then the sons of men; and yet so it is if it be naturally and substantially chang'd into the body of Christ. * I can­not insist upon any thing of this, the absur­dity being so vast, the labour would be as great, as needlesse: Only I shall transcribe part of a disputation by which Tertullian proves the resurrection of our bodies by such words which do certainly confute the Roman fancies of Transubstantiation. Cap. 55. de resurrectione Carnis. Discernenda est autem demutatio ab omni argumento perditio­nis &c. Change must be distinguished from Per­dition. But they are not distinguished if the flesh be so changed that it perishes. As that which is lost is not changed, so that which is changed is not lost, or perished. For it suffer'd change, not perdition; for to perish is wholly [Page 257]not to be that which it was; but to be changed is only to be otherwise: Moreover while it is other­wise, it can be the same thing, or it self: for it hath his being which did not perish. Now how it is possible that these words should be reconciled with Transubstantiation, in which they affirm the bread to be changed, and yet totally to have perished, that is, that nothing of it remains, neither matter nor form, it concerns them to take care; for my part, I am satisfied that it is impossible: and I choose to follow the philosophy of Ter­tullian, by which he fairly confirms the article of the resurrection; rather then the impossible speculations of these men, which render all notices of men to be meer deceptions, and all articles of faith, in many things uncertain; and nothing to be certain, but that which is impossible. This consideration so moved Durand In 4. d. 11 q. 3. §. 5., and their Doctor Fundatissimus Egidius Romanus Theor. 1.2., that they thought to change the word Transubstantiation, and in­stead of it that they were obliged to use the word of Transformation simply, affirming that other to be unintelligible. But I pro­ceed. By this doctrine Christs body is there where it was not before, and yet not by change of place; for it descends not: nor by produ­ction; for it was produced before: not by natural mutation; for Christ himself is whol­ly [Page 258]immutable: and though the bread be mutable, it can never become Christ. Bellar l. 3. de Euc. c. 4. That which is now, and was alwayes, begins to be, and yet it cannot begin, which was so long before. And by this doctrine, is affirmed that which even themselves Bellar l. 3. de Euc. c. 4. judge to be simply and absolutely impossible. For if after a thing hath his being, and during the first being, it shall have every day many new beginnings, without multiplying the beings, then the same thing is under two times at the same time; it is but a day old, and yet was six dayes agoe, and six ages, and sixteen. Bellar l. 3. de Euc. c. 4. The body of Christ obtains to be what it was not before, and yet it is wholly the same without becoming what it was not. Bellar l. 3. de Euc. c. 4. It obtains to be under the form of bread, and that which it is now and was not before, is neither perfective of his being, nor de­structive, nor alterative, nor augmentative, nor diminutive, nor conservative. It is as, it were a production, as it were a creation, as a conservation, as an adduction: that is, it is as it were just nothing; for it is not a crea­tion, not a generation, not an adduction, not a conservation. It is not a conversion productive; for no new individual is produ­ced. It is not a conversion conservative; That's a child of Bellarmines: but it is per­fect nonsense; for it is (as he sayes) a con­version [Page 259]in which both the terms remain, in the same place; that is, in which there are two things not converted, but not one that is: but it is a thing of which there never was any example. But then if we ask what conversion it is? after a great many fancies and devices, contradicting each other, at last it is found to be adductive, and yet that ad­ductive does not change the place, but sig­nifies a substantial change; and yet adducti­on is no substantial change, but accidental; and yet this change is not accidental, but ad­ductive ana substantial. O rem ridiculam, Cato, Bellarm. de missa l. 1. c. 27. §. 3. propositio. L. 3. de Euch. c. ult. §. ad tertiam. & jocosam! It is a succession, not a conversi­on, and Transubstantiation; for it is Corpus ex pane confectum, a body made of bread, and yet it was made before the bread was made: but it is made of it as day of night, not tanquam ex materiâ, but tanquam ex termino, not as of matter, but as of a term, from whence, say they, but that is, a direct motion or succession, not a substantial change. For that I may use the words of Faventinus; Scotus 4. dist. 11. q. 3. Faven. in 4. disp. 35. c. 6. What is the formal term of this action of Tran­substantiation, or conversion? Not the body of Christ; for that is the material term: the for­mal term is, that Christs body should be contained under the Species of bread and wine: Hoc autem totum est accidentale & ni­hil addit in re nisi praesentiam realem sub specie­bus. [Page 260]But all this is accidental, and nothing real, but that he becomes present there. For since the body of Christ relates to the ac­cidents only accidentally, it cannot in respect of them, have any substantial manner of being, different from that which it had be­fore it was Eucharistical. And it is no other­wise then if water on the ground were anni­hilated, or removed, or corrupted, and some secret way chang'd from thence, and in the place of it Snow should descend from heaven, or Honey, or Manna, it were hard to call this Conversion, or Transubstantiation: Iust as if we should say, that Augustus Caesar was con­verted into his successor Tiberius, and Moses into Joshua, and Elias into Elisha, or the Sentinel is substantially changed into him that relieves him.

12. Lastly, 38 if we consider the changes that are incident to the accidents of bread and wine, they would afford us another heap of incommodities: for besides that accidents cannot subsist without their pro­per subjects, and much lesse can they become the subjects of other accidents [...]. Arist. Metaph. lib. 4. cap. 4.1., for what they cannot be to themselves, they cannot be to others, in matter of supply and subsistence; it being a contra­diction to say, insubsistent subsistencies. Be­sides [Page 261]this (I say) If Christs body be not in­vested with these accidents, how doe they re­present it, or to what purpose doe they re­main? If they be the investiture of Christs body, then the body is changed, by the mu­tation of the accidents. But however, I would fain know whether an accident can be sowre, or be burnt, as In Lev. cap. 8. Hesychius affirms they used in Jerusalem to doe to the reliques of the holy Sacrament; or can accidents make a man drunk, as Aquinas supposes the Sacra­mental wine did the Corinthians, of whom S. Paul sayes, One is hungry, and another is drunken? I am sure if it can it is not the bloud of Christ; for M r. Blands argument in Queen Maryes time, concluded well in this instance. That which is in the chalice can make a man drunk; But Christs bloud can­not make a man drunk: Therefore that which is in the chalice is not Christs bloud. To avoid this they must answer to the major, and say that it does not supponere universali­tèr, for every thing in the chalice does not make a man drunk, for in it there are acci­dents of bread, and the body besides, and they doe inebriate not this; that is to say, a man may be drunk with colour [...]. Arist. l. 3. de anim. c. 12. and quantity, and a smell, when there is nothing that smells Est enim hic co [...], & sapor qualitas & quantitas, cùm nihil in alterutro sit coloratum, & sapi­dum, quantum & quale. Innocent. 3. de offic. Missae l. 3. c. 21.; [Page 262]for indeed if there were a substance to be smelt, it might; but that accidents can doe it alone, is not to be supposed; unlesse God should work a miracle to make a man drunk, which to say I think were blasphemy. But again can an accidental form kill a man? but the yong Emperour of the house of Luxem­burgh was poysoned by a consecrated wa­fer, and Pope Victor the third had like to have been, and the Arch-bishop of York was poysoned by the chalice, say Matthew Paris and Malmesbury: and if the body be acci­dentally moved at the motion of accidents, Bellar. l. 3. c. 10. de Euchar. §. Respon­deo cor­pus. then by the same reason it may acciden­tally become mouldy, or sowre, or poyso­nous; which me thinks to all Christian ears should strike horror to hear it spoken. I will not heap up more instances of the same kind of absurdities, and horrid consequences of this doctrine: or consider how a man, or a mouse can live upon the consecrated wafers: (as Aimonius tells that Lewis the fair did for forty dayes together live upon the Sacra­ment, and a Jew, or a Turk, could live on it without a miracle, if he he had enough of it) and yet cannot live upon accidents; it being a certain rule in philosophy, Ex iisdem nutriuntur mixta ex quibus fiunt; and a man may as well be made of accidents, and be no substance, as well as be nourished by acci­dents [Page 263]without substance: Neither will I in­quire how it is possible that we should eat Christs body without touching it; or how we can be said to touch Christs body, when we only touch and tast the accidents of bread; or lastly, how we can touch the acci­dents of bread, without the substance, so to doe, being impossible in nature: Tangere n. & tangi nisi corpus nulla potest res, said Lucretius, and from him Tertullian in his 5 chapt. of his book De animâ. These and diverse other particulars, I will not insist upon: But in stead of them, I argue thus from their own grounds; If Christ be pro­perly said to be touch'd, and to be eaten, be­cause the accidents are so, then by the same reason, he may be properly made hot, or cold, or mouldy, or dry, or wet, or venemous, by the proportionable mutation of accidents: if Christ be not properly taken and mandu­cated, to what purpose is he properly there? so that on either hand there is a snare. But it is time to be weary of all this, and inquire after the doctrine of the Church, in this great question; for thither at last with some seeming confidence they doe appeal. Thi­ther therefore we will follow.

SECT. XII. Transubstantiation was not the doctrine of the Primitive Church.

COncerning this Topick or Head of argument I have some things to pre­mise.

1. 1 In this question it is not necessary that I bring a catalogue of all the ancient writers, for although to prove the doctrine of Tran­substantiation to be Catholick, it is necessa­ry by Vincentius Lirinensis his rules and by the nature of the thing, that they should all agree; yet to shew it not to have been the established, resolved doctrine of the Primi­tive Church, this [...] is not necessary. Because although no argument can prove it Catholick, but a consent; yet if some, as learned, as holy, as orthodox do dissent, it is enough to prove it not to be Catholick. As a proposition is not universal if there be one, or three, or ten exceptions; but to make it universal, it must be [...], it must take in all.

2. 2 None of the Fathers speak words ex­clusive of our way, because our way con­tains a Spiritual sense; which to be true our [Page 265]adversaries deny not, but say, it is not suffi­cient, but there ought to be more. But their words doe often exclude the way of the Church of Rome, and are not so capable of an answer for them.

3. When the saying of a Father is brought, 3 out of which his sense is to be drawn by ar­gument, and discourse, by two, or three re­mote uneasie consequences; I doe not think it fit, to take notice of those words, either for, or against us: because then his meaning is as obscure, as the article it self: and there­fore he is not fit to be brought, in interpreta­tion of it. And the same also is the case, when the words are brought by both sides; for then it is a shrewd sign, the Doctor is not well to be understood, or that he is not fit in those words to be an umpire; and of this Car­dinal Perron is a great example, who spends a volume in folio to prove S. Austin to be of their side in this article, or rather not to be against them.

4. 4 All those testimonies of Fathers which are as general, indefinite, and unex­pounded as the words of Scripture which are in question, must in this question passe for nothing; and therefore when the Fathers say, that in the Sacrament is the body and bloud of Christ, that there is the body of our Lord, that before consecration it is [...] [Page 266] meer bread, but after consecration it is verily the body of Christ, truly his flesh, truly his bloud, these and the like sayings, are no more then the words of Christ, This is my body, and are only true in the same sense of which I have all this while been gi­ving an account: that is, by a change of con­dition, of sanctification, and usage. We be­lieve that after consecration, and blessing, it is really Christs body, which is verily and indeed taken of the faithfull in the Lords supper; And upon this account, we shall find that many, very many of the authorities of the Fathers commonly alleged by the Roman Doctors in this question will come to nothing. For we speak their sense, and in their own words, the Church of England See ar­ticle 28. of the Church of England. expres­sing this mysterie frequently in the same formes of words; and we are so certain that to eat Christs body Spiritually is to eat him really, that there is no other way for him to be eaten really, then by Spiritual manducation.

5. 5 [...] Suid. [...]. Georg. Alex. vit. Chrys c. 55. [...]. Chrys. vit. Author Onon. Id. in [...], & re­liquis observare est [...] Suidas. [...]. Suidas. [...]. Author vitae Chrysost anon. c. 52. & de cor­pore Chrysostomi dixit, [...]. Oecumen. in 1. Pet. 1. [...]. Clem. Alex. strom. 4. Idem. l. 3. Paedag. c. 2. [...]. When the Fathers in this question [Page 267]speak of the change of the symbols in the ho­ly Sacrament, they sometimes use the words of [...] in the Greek Church: conversion, mutation, transition, mi­gration, transfiguration, and the like in the La­tin; but they by these doe understand acci­dental and Sacramental conversions, not proper, natural and substantial. Concerning which although I might refer the Reader to see it highly verified in David Blondels familiar e­lucidations of the Eucharistical controversie; Chapt. 5. yet a shorter course I can take to warrant it, without my trouble or his; and that is, by the confession of a Jesuit, and of no mean fame or learning amongst them. The words of Suarez, whom I mean, are these; In 3. disp. 50. §. 3. ‘ Licet antiqui Pp. &c. Although the ancient Fa­thers have used diverse names, yet all they are either general, as the names of conversi­on, mutation, transition; or else they are more accommodated to an accidental change, as the name of Transfiguration, and the like: only the name of Transelementation, which Theo­phylact did use, seems to approach nearer to signify the propriety of this mysterie, because it signifies a change even of the first elements; yet that word is harder, and not sufficiently accommodate: For it may signify the resolution of one element into another, or the resolution [Page 268]of a mixt body into the elements.’ He might have added another sense of [...] or Transelementation. Theoph. in S. Luc. 24. & in S. Joh. 6. For Theophylact uses the same words to expresse the change of our bodies to the state of incorruption, and the change that is made in the faithful when they are united unto Christ. But Suarez proceeds: But Transubstantiation does most properly and appositely signify the passage and conversion of the whole substance, into the whole substance. So that by this discourse we are quitted, and made free from the pressure of all those authorities of the Fathers which speak of the mutation, conversion, transition, or passage, or transelementation, transiguration, and the like, of the bread into the body of Christ; these doe or may only signify an accidental change; and come not home to their purpose of Transubstantiation; and it is as if Suarez had said [the words which the Fathers use in this question, make not for us, and therefore we have made a new word for our selves, and obtruded it upon all the world.] But against it, I shall only object an observation of Bellarmine, De Sacra­mentis in. genere. c. 7. §. ex quibus. that is not ill. The liberty of new words is dangerous in the Church, because out of new words, by little and little, new things arise, while it is lawful to coyn new words, in divine affairs.

6. 6 To which I adde this, that if all the [Page 269]Fathers had more unitedly affirmed the con­version of the bread into Christs body, then they have done, and had not explicated their mea­ning as they have done indeed, yet this word would so little have help'd the Roman cause, that it would directly have overthrown it. For in their Transubstantiation there is no con­version of one thing into another, but a local succession of Christs body into the place of bread. A change of the Ubi was not used to be called a substantial conversion. But they understood nothing of our present [...]; they were not used to such curious nothings, and intricate falshoods, and artificial non­sense, with which the Roman Doctors trouble the world in this question. But they spake wholly another thing, and either they did affirm a substantial change or they did not; If they did not, then it makes nothing for them, or against us. But if they did mean a proper substantial change, then, for so much as it comes to, it makes against us, but not for them; for they must mean a change of one substance into another, by conversion, or a change of substances, by substitution of one in the place of another. If they meant the latter, then it was no conversion of one into another; and then they expressed not what they meant; for conversion which was their word, could signify nothing of that: but if [Page 270]they meant the change of substance into substance, properly by conversion, then they have confuted the present doctrine of Tran­substantiation; which though they call a sub­stantial change, yet an accident is the termi­nus mutationis, that is, it is by their explicati­on of it, wholly an accidental change, as I have before discoursed; for nothing is pro­duced but Ubiquity or Presentiality, Vide §. 11. n. 34. that is, it is only made present where it was not be­fore. And it is to be observed, that there is a vast difference between Conversion, and Transubstantiation; the first is not denied; meaning by it a change of use, of condition, of sanctification; as a Table is changed into an Altar; a House, into a Church; a Man, into a Priest; Matthias, into an Apostle; the Water of the River, into the Laver of Re­generation; but this is not any thing of Transubstantiation. For in this new device, there are three strange affirmatives, of which the Fathers never dream't. 1. That the na­tural being of bread is wholly ceased, and is not at all, neither the matter nor the form. 2. That the accidents of bread and wine re­main without a subject, their proper subject being annihilated, and they not subjected in the holy body. 3. That the body of Christ is brought into the place of the bread, which is not chang'd into it, but is succeeded by it. [Page 271]These are the constituent propositions of Transubstantiation, without the proof of which, all the affirmations of conversion sig­fie nothing to their purpose, or against ours.

7. 7 When the Fathers use the word Nature in this question, sometimes saying the Nature is changed, sometimes that the Nature re­mains, it is evident that they either contra­dicted each other, or that the word Nature hath amongst them diverse significations. Now in order to this, I suppose, if men will be determined by the reasonablenesse of the things themselves, and the usual manners of speech, and not by prejudices, and prepos­sessions, it will be evident, that when they speak of the change of Nature, saying that bread changes his nature, it may be under­stood of an accidental change: for that the word Nature is used for a change of accidents, is by the Roman Doctors contended for, when it is to serve their turns, (particularly in their answer to the words of Pope Gelasius:) and it is evident in the thing; for we say, a man of a good nature, that is, of a loving dispositi­on. It is natural to me to love, or hate, this, or that; and it is against my nature, that is, my custome, or my affection. But then, as it may signifie accidents, and a Natural change, may yet be accidental, as when water is chang'd into ice, wine into vineger; yet it is also cer­tain [Page 272]that Nature may mean substance: and if it can by the analogy of the place or the cir­cumstances of speach, or by any thing be declared, when it is that they mean a sub­stance by using the word, nature; it must be certain, that then, substance is meant, when the word nature is used distinctly, from, and in opposition to accidents: or when it is ex­plicated by and in conjunction with sub­stance; which observation is reducible to practise, in the following testimonies of Theodoret, Gelasius and others; Immortalita­tem dedit, Ad Dar­danum. naturam non abstulit. sayes S. Austin.

8. 8 So also; Whatsoever words are used by the ancient Doctors seemingly affirma­tive of a substantial change, cannot serve their interest, that now most desire it; because themselves being pressed with the words of Natura and Substantia against them, answer, that the Fathers using these words, mean them not [...], but [...] not natu­rally, but Theologically, that is, as I suppose, not properly but Sacramentally: by the same account when they speak of the change of the bread into the substance of Christs bo­dy, they may mean the change of substance not naturally, but sacramentally; so that this ought to invalidate the greatest testimo­ny which can be alleged by them; because [Page 273]themselves have taken from the words that sense which only must have done them ad­vantage; for if Substantia and Natura always mean naturally, then their sentence is often­times positively condemned by the Fathers: if this may mean Sacramentally, then they can never without a just answer, pretend from their words to prove a Natural, Substantial change.

9. 9 But that the words of the Fathers in their most hyperbolical expressions, ought to be expounded Sacramentally and Mysti­cally, we have sufficient warrant from them­selves, affirming frequently that the name of the thing signified is given to the signe. S. Cyprian affirms ut significantia & significa­ta eisdem vocabulis censeantur, Serm. de Unit. the same words represent the signe and the thing signified. Vide in­fra n. 30. The same is affirmed by S. Austin in his Epi­stle ad Bonifacium. Now upon this declara­tion of themselves, and of Scripture, what­soever attributes either of them give to bread after consecration, we are by them­selves warranted against the force of the words by a metaphorical sense; for if they call the signe by the name of the thing sig­nified, and the thing intended is called by the name of a figure, and the figure by the name of the thing, then no affirmative of the Fa­thers can conclude against them, that have [Page 274]reason to believe the sense of the words of institution to be figurative; for their an­swer is ready; the Fathers, and the Scriptures too, call the figure, by the name of the thing figurated; the bread by the name of flesh, or the body of Christ, which it figures, and represents.

10. 10 The Fathers in their alleged testimo­nies, speak more then is allowed to be literal­ly and properly true, by either side, and therefore declare and force an understanding of their words different from the Roman pretension. Hom. 83. in S. Mat. Hom. 60. & 6. ad Antioch. pop. Such are the words of S. Chry­sostom. Thou seest him, thou touchest him, thou eatest him, and thy tongue is made bloudy, by this admirable bloud, thy teeth are fastned in his flesh, they teeth are made red with his bloud: and the Author of the book de coenâ Domini, at­tributed to S. Cyprian, Cruci haeremus &c. We stick close to the crosse, we suck his bloud, and fasten our tongue between the very wounds of our Redeemer: and under this head may be re­duc'd very many other testimonies; now how far these goe beyond the just positive limit, it will be in the power of any man to say, and to take into this account, as many as he please, even all that goe beyond his own sense and opinion, without all possibility of being confuted.

11. 11 In vain will it be for any of the Ro­man [Page 275]Doctors to allege the words of the Fa­thers proving the conversion of bread into Christs body or flesh, and of the wine into his bloud; since they say the same thing of us, that we also are turned into Christs flesh, and body and bloud. So S. Chrysostome, Homil. 88. in S. Mat. Ad Clér. Const. He reduces us into the same masse, or lump, neque id fide solùm sedreipsâ; and in very deed makes us to be his body. So Pope Leò. In mysticâ distribu­tione Spiritualis alimoniae, hoc impartitur & su­mitur, ut accipientes virtutem coelestis cibi in carnem ipsius, qui caro nostra factus est, trans­camus. And in his 24 sermon of the Passion. Non alia igitur participatio corporis quàm ut in id quod sumimus transeamus. There is no other participation of the body then that we should passe into that which we receive. In the mystical distribution of the Spiritual nourishment this is given and taken, that we receiving the virtue of the heavenly food, may passe into his flesh who became our flesh. De instit. Cler. l. 1. c. 31. And Rabanus makes the ana­logy fit to this question. Sicut illud in nos convertitur dum id manducamus & bibimus: sic & nos in corpus Christi convertimur dum obedienter & piè vivimus. As that [Christs body] is converted into us while we eat it, and drink it, so are we converted into the body of Christ while we live obediently and piously. Orat. Ca­tech. 37. So Gregory Nyssen [...] [Page 276] [...] The immortal body being in the receiver, changes him wholly into his own nature; and Theophylact useth the same word. He that eateth me, liveth by me, whil'st he is in a certain manner mingled with me, and is transelementated [...] or changed into me. Now let men of all sides doe reason, and let one ex­pound the other, and it will easily be grant­ed, that as we are turned into Christs body, so is that into us, and so is the bread in­to that.

12. 12 Whatsoever the Fathers speak of this, they affirm the same also of the other Sacrament, and of the Sacramentals, or rituals of the Church. It is a known similitude used by S. Cyril of Alexandria. As the bread of the Eucharist after the invocation of the holy Ghost is no longer common bread, but it is the body of Christ: so this holy unguent is no longer meer and common oyntment, but it is [...] the grace of Christ [ [...] it uses to be mistaken, the Chrisme for the Grace or gift of Christ] and yet this is not spoken properly, as is apparent; but it is in this, as in the Eucharist; so sayes the com­parison. Thus S. Chrysostome sayes, that the Table, or Altar is as the manger in which Christ was laid; that the Priest is a Seraphim, and his hands are the tongs taking the coal from the [Page 277]Altar. But that which I instance in, is that 1. They say that they that hear the word of Christ eat the flesh of Christ: of which I have already given account in Sect. 3. num. 10. &c. As hearing is eating, as the word is his flesh, so is the bread after consecration, in a Spiritual sense. 2. That which comes most fully home to this, is their affirmative concerning Baptisme, to the same purposes, and in many of the same expressions which they use in this other Sacrament. S. Ambrose L. 4. de Sacram. & lib. de iis qui initi­antur my­ster. c. 9. speaking of the baptismal waters affirms naturam mutari per benedictionem, the nature of them is chang'd by blessing; and S. Cyril of Alexandria Lib. 2. in Johan. c. 42. sayth. By the operation of the holy Spirit, the waters are reformed to a divine nature, by which the baptized cleanse their body. For in these, the ground of all their great expressions is, that which S. Ambrose expres­sed in these words: Non agnosco usum naturae, nullus est hic naturae ordo, ubi est excellentia gratiae: Where grace is the chief ingredient, there the use, and the order of nature, is not at all considered. But this whole myste­ry is most clear in S. Austin Ad in­fantes a­pud Be­dam in 1 Cor. 10., affirming; That we are made partakers of the body and bloud of Christ, when in Baptisme we are made members of Christ; and are not estranged from the followship of that bread and chalice, although we die before we eat that bread and drink that [Page 278]cup. Lib. de Bapt. Tingimur in passione Domini; We are baptized into the passion of our Lord; sayes Tertullian; into the death of Christ, saith S. Paul: for by both Sacraments we shew the Lords death.

13. 13 Upon the account of these premises we may be secur'd against all the objections, or the greatest part of those testimonies from antiquity, which are pretended for Transubstantiation; for either they speak that which we acknowledge, as that it is Christs body, that it is not common bread, that it is a divine thing, that we eat Christs flesh, that we drink his bloud, and the like; all which we acknowledge and explicate, as we doe the words of institution; or else they speak more then both sides allow to be literally true; or speak as great things of other my­steries which must not, cannot be expounded literally; that is, they speak more, or lesse, or diverse from them, or the same with us: and I think there is hardly one testimony in Bel­larmine, in Coccius, and Perron, that is perti­nent to this question, but may be made inva­lid, by one, or more of the former conside­rations. But of those, if there be any, of which there may be a material doubt, be­yond the cure of these observations, I shall give particular account in the sequel.

But then for the testimonies which I shall 14 [Page 279]allege against the Roman doctrine in this article, they will not be so easily avoided. 1. Because many of them are not onely af­firmative in the Spiritual sense, but exclusive of the natural and proper. 2. Because it is easie to suppose they may speak hyperboles, but never that they would undervalue the blessed Sacrament: for an hyperbole is usual, not a [...] or the lessening a mysterie; that may be true, this never; that may be capable of fair interpretations, this can admit of none; that may breed reverence, this contempt. To which I adde this, that the heathens slande­ring the Christians to be worshippers of Ce­res or Liber, because of the holy bread and chalice (as appears in S. Austins 20 book and 13 chapter against Faustus the Manichee) had reason to advance the reputation of Sa­cramental signes to be above common bread and wine, not only so to explicate the truth of the mysterie, but to stop the mouth of their calumny: and therefore for higher ex­pressions there might be cause, but not such cause for any lower then the severest truth; and yet let me observe this by the way: S. Austin answered only thus: We are far from doing so, Quamvis panis & calicis Sacramen­tum ritu nostro amplectamur. S. Austin might have further removed the calumny, if he had been of the Roman perswasion; who [Page 280]adore not the bread, nor eat it at all in their Synaxes untill it be no bread, but chang'd in­to the body of our Lord. But he knew no­thing of that. Neither was there ever any scandal of Christians upon any mistake that could be a probable excuse for them to lessen their expressions in the matter Eucharistical. Indeed M r. Brerely hath got an ignorant fan­cy by the end, which I am now to note, and wipe off. He sayes that the Primitive Christians were scandalized by the Heathen to be eaters of the flesh of a child, which in all reason must be occasion'd by their do­ctrine of the manducation of Christs flesh in the Sacrament; and if this be true, then we may suspect that they to wipe off this scandal might remove their doctrine as far from the objection as they could, and there­fore might use some lessening expressions. To this I answer, that the occasions of the report were the sects of the Gnosticks, and the Peputians. The Gnosticks, as Epiphanius reports, bruised a new born infant in a mor­ter, and all of them did communicate by eating portions of it; and the Montanists ha­ving sprinkled a little child with meal let him bloud, and of that made their Eucharistical bread; and these storyes the Jewes published to disrepute, if they could, the whole reli­gion; but nothing of this related to the [Page 281]doctrine of the Christian Eucharist, though the bell alwayes must tinkle as they are plea­sed to think. But this turn'd to advantage of the truth, and to the clearing of this article. For when the scandal got foot, and run a­broad, the Heathens spared not to call the Christians Cannibals, and to impute to them anthropophagy, or the devouring humane flesh, and that they made Thyestes Feast, who by the procurement of Atreus eat his own children. Against this the Christian Apolo­gists betook themselves to a defence. Justin Martyr sayes the false devils had set on work some vile persons, to kill some one or other, to give colour to the report. Legat. pro Christian. Athenagoras in a high defiance of the infamy, asks, Doe you think we are murtherers? for there is no way to eat mans flesh, unlesse we first kill him. Octa­vius in Minutius Felix confutes it, upon this account: We dee not receive the bloud of beasts, into our food or beverage; therefore we are in­finitely distant from drinking mans bloud. And this same, Cap. 9. Tertullian in his Apologetick presses further, affirming that to discover Christians, they use to offer them a black pudding, or some­thing in which bloud remained, and they chose rather to die, then doe it; and of this we may see instances in the story of Sanctus and Blandina in the ecclesiastical histories. Con­cerning which it is remarkeable, what Oecu­menius [Page 282]in his Catena upon the 2 chap. of the first Epistle of S. Peter reports out of Irenae­us; the Greeks having taken some servants of Christians, pressing to learn something secret of the Christians, and they having nothing in their notice, to please the inqui­sitors, except that they had heard of their Masters, that the divine communion is the bloud, and body of Christ; they supposing it true, according to their rude natural ap­prehensions, tortur'd Sanctus and Blandina, to confesse it. But Blandina answered them thus: How can they suffer any such thing in the exercise of their Religion, who doe not nourish themselves with flesh that is permitted? All this trouble came upon the act of the fore­mention'd hereticks; the report was only concerning the bloud of an infant, not of a man, as it must have been if it had been oc­casion'd by the Sacrament; but the Sacra­ment was not so much as thought of in this scrutiny, till the examination of the ser­vants gave the hint in the torture of Blandi­na. Cardinal Perron perceiving much detri­ment likely to come to their doctrine by these Apologies of the primitive Christians upon the 11. anathematisme of S. Cyril, says, that they deny anthropophagy, but did not deny The anthropophagy, saying, that they did not eat the flesh, or drink the bloud of a [Page 283]meer man, but of Christ who was God and Man; which is so strange a device as I won­der it could drop from the pen of so great a wit. For this would have been a worse, and more intolerable scandal, to affirm that Christians eat their God, and sucked his bloud, and were devourers not only of a man, but of an immortal God. But how­ever let his fancy be confronted with the ex­tracts of the several apologies which I have now cited, and it will appear, that nothing of the Cardinals fancy can come neer their sense, or words: for all the businesse was upon the bloud of a child which the Gnosticks had kild, or the Montanists tormented; and the matter of the Sacrament, was not in the whole rumour so much as thought upon.

Lastly, 15 Unlesse there be no one objection of ours, that means as it sayes, but all are sha­dowes, and nothing is awake but Bellarmine, in all his dreams; or Perron in all his labori­ous excuses; if we be allowed to be in our wits, and to understand Latin, or Greek, or com­mon sense; unless the Fathers must all be un­derstood according to their new nonsense an­swers, which the Primitive Doctors were so far from understanding or thinking of, that besides, that it is next to impudence to sup­pose they could mean them, their own Doctors in a few ages last past, did not know [Page 284]them, but opposed, and spake some things contrary, and many things diverse from them: I say unlesse we have neither sense, nor reason, nor souls like other men, it is cer­tain, that not one, nor two, but very many of the Fathers, taught our doctrine most ex­pressely in this article, and against theirs. * And after all, whether the testimonies of the Doctors be ancient, or modern, it is advan­tage to us, and inconvenient for them: For if it be ancient, it shewes their doctrine not to be from the beginning; if it be modern, it does it more; for it declares plainly, the doctrine to be but of yesterday: now I am very certain, I can make it appear, not to have been the doctrine of the Church, not of any Church whose records we have, for above a thousand years together.

But now in my entry upon the testimo­nies of Fathers, 16 I shall make my way the more plain and credible, if I premise the testimonies of some of the Roman Doctors in this businesse. And the first I shall name, is Bellarmine himself, who was the most wary of giving advantage against himself; L. 2. Euch. c. 25. §. Hic verò. but yet he sayes; Non esse mirandum &c. It is not to be wondred at, if S. Austin, Theodoret, and others of the ancients, spake some things which in shew seem to favour the hereticks, when even from Jodocus some things did [Page 285]fall, which by the adversaries were drawn to their cause. Now though he lessens the mat­ter by quaedam and videantur and in speciem, seemingly, and in shew and some things] yet it was as much as we could expect from him; with whom visibilitèr, if it be on our side, must mean invisibilitèr, and statuimus must be abrogamus. But I rest not here: De haer. l. 8. v. In­dulgentia. Alphon­sus à Castro sayes more. De transubstantiatione panis in corpus Christi rara est in antiquis Scri­ptoribus mentio. The ancient Writers seldom mention the change of the substance of bread into the body of Christ. And yet these men would make us believe that all the world's their own. But Scotus does directly deny the doctrine of Conversion or Transub­stantiation to be ancient, so sayes Henriquez. Sum. l. 8. c. 23. De Euch. l. 3. c. 23. §. Unum tamen. Ante Concilium Lateranense Transubstantiatio non fuit dogma fidei. So said Scotus himself, as Bellarmine cites him; and some of the Fathers of the Society in England in their prison affirm'd Rem Transubstantiationis Pa­tres ne attigisse quidem; Discourse modest. p. 13. that the Fathers did not so much as touch the matter of Tran­substantiation: and it was likely so, because Peter Lombard, whose designe it was, Lib. 4. Sent. dist. 11. lit. a. to col­lect the sentences of the Fathers into heads of articles, found in them something to the purpose of Transubstantiation, that he pro­fessed he was not able to define, whether the [Page 286] conversion of the Eucharistical bread were formal or substantial, or of another kind. To some it seems to be substantial, saying, the sub­stance is chang'd into the substance. Quibusdam, & videtur, it seems, and that not to all neither, but to some; for his part he knowes not whether they are right or wrong, therefore in his dayes the doctrine was not Catholick. And me thinks it was an odd saying of Vasquez and much to this purpose; In 3. Tho. to. 3. disp. 183. c. 1. n. 1. that as soon as ever the later Schoolmen heard the name of Transubstantiation, such a controversie did a­rise concerning the nature of it (he sayes not, of the meaning of the word, but the nature of the thing,) that by how much the more they did endevour to extricate them­selves, by so much the more they were in­tangled in difficulties. It seems it was newes to them, to hear talk of it, and they were as much strangers to the nature of it, as to the name; it begat quarrels, and became a riddle which they could not resolve; but like Achelous his horn sent forth a river of more difficulty, to be waded thorough, then the horn was to be broken. And amongst these Schoolmen Durandus maintained an heretical opinion (sayes Bellarmine) saying that the form of bread was changed into Christs body: Lib. 3. de Euch. c. 1. but that the matter of bread remained still; by which also it is apparent [Page 287]that then this doctrine was but in the forge; it was once stamped upon, at the Lateran Councel, but the form was rude, and it was fain to be cast again, and polished at Trent; the Jesuit order being the chief masters of the mint. But now I proceed to the trial of this Topick.

I shall not need to arrest the Reader, 17 with consideration of the pretension made by the Roman Doctors, out of the passions of the Apostles, which all men condemn for spuri­ous and Apocryphal; particularly the passi­on of S. S. Andrew. Annal. to. 1. A. D. 44. num. 42. Andrew said to be written by the Priests, and Deacons of Achaia. For it is sufficient that they are so esteemed by Baro­nius, censur'd for such by Gelasius, by Phila­strius, and Innocentius; they were corrupted also by the Manichees by additions, and de­tractions; and yet if they were genuine, and uncorrupted, they say nothing, but what we professe: Vide eti­am Whi­tum Dia­cos. Mar­tyr. fol. 3. [although the holy Lamb truly sacrificed, and his flesh eaten by the people, doth neverthelesse persevere whole and alive] for no man, that I know of, pretends that Christ is so eaten in the Sacrament, that he dies for it; for his flesh is eaten spiritually and by faith, and that is the most true man­ducation of Christs body, the flesh of the holy Lamb: and this manducation breaks not a bone of him; but then how he can be torn [Page 288]by the teeth of the communicants and yet remain whole, is a harder matter to tell; and therefore these words are very far from their sense; they are neerer to an objection: But I shall not be troubled with this any more; save that I shall observe that one White of the Roman perswasion quoting part of these words which Bellarmine, Diacosion Mart. fol. 3. and from him the under-writers object; [Ego omnipo­tenti Deo omni die immaculatum agnum sacri­fico] of these words in particular affirms that without all controversie they are apocryphal.

Next to him is S. 18 Ignatius who is cited to have said something of this question in his epistle ad Smyrnenses, S. Ignatius. speaking of certain hereticks [They do not admit of Eucharists, and oblations, because they do not confesse the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour, which flesh suffered for us.] They that do not confess it, let them be anathema: for sure it is, as sure as Christ is truth: but quomodo is the question, and of this S. Ignatius sayes no­thing. But the understanding of these words perfectly, depends upon the story of that time. Concerning which, we learn out of Tertullian and Irenaeus that the Marcosians, the Valentinians and Marcionites, who denyed the incarnation of the son of God, did ne­verthelesse use the Eucharistical Symbols, [Page 289]though, I say, they denyed Christ to have a body. Now because this usage of theirs did confute their grand heresie, (for to what pur­pose should they celebrate the Sacrament of Christs body, if he had none?) therefore it is that S. Ignatius might say: They did not admit the Eucharist, because they did not confesse it to be the flesh of Christ: for though in practise they did admit it, yet in theory they denyed it, because it could be nothing, as they handled the matter. For how could it be Christs flesh Sacramentally, if he had no flesh really? And therefore they did not admit the Euchcharist, as the Church did, for in no sense would they grant it to be the flesh of Christ; not the figure, not the Sacrament of it; lest admit­ting the figure they should also confesse the substance: But besides, if these words had been against us, it had signified nothing; because these words are not in S. Ignatius; they are in no Greek copy of him; but they are reported by Theodoret. But in these there is nothing else material, then what I have accounted: for I only took them in by the by, because they are great names, and are objected sometimes.

But I shall descend to more material testi­monies, and consider those objections that are incident to the mention of the several Fa­thers [Page 290]supposing that the others are invalid, upon the account of the premises; or if they were not, yet they can but passe for single opinions, against which themselves, and o­thers, are opposed at other times.

Tertullian is affirmative in that sense of the article which we teach. 19 Tertullian. adv. Mar­cion. l. 4. c. 40. Acceptum panem & distributum discipulis suis, Christus corpus suum meum fecit, dicendo, Hoc est corpus i.e. figura cor­poris mei. He proves against the Marcionites that Christ had a true real body in his incar­nation, by this argument; because in the Sa­crament he gave bread, as the figure of his body, saying, This is my body, that is, the figure of my body. Fisher in his answer to the 9 th. que­stion propounded by K. James, and he from Card. Perron say it is an [...], and an­swers to this place, that Figura corporis mei, refers after Tertullians odd manner of speak­ing, to Hoc, not to corpus meum, which are the words immediately preceding, and so most proper for the relation; and that the sense is: This figure of my body, is my body: that is, this which was a figure in the old Testament, is now a substance. To this I reply, 1. It must mean, this which is present is my body, not this figure of my body which was in the old Testament, but this which we mean in the words of consecration; and then it is no hy­perbaton, which is to be supplyed with quod [Page 291]erat; This, which was; for the nature of a hyperbaton is, to make all right, by a meer transposition of the words; as, Christus mor­tuus est, i. e. unctus; place unctus before mortuus and the sentence is perfect; but it is not so here: without the addition of two words, it cannot be; and if two words may be added, we may make what sense we please. But 2. suppose that figura corporis does refer to Hoc, yet it is to be remembred that Hoc, in that place, is one of the words of the institution, or consecration, and then it can have no sense to evacuate the pressure of his words. 3. Suppose this reference of the words to be intended, then the sense will be; This figure of my body, is my body, the consequent of which, is that which we contend for: that the same which is called his body, is the figure of his body: the one is, the subject; the other, the predicate: and then it affirms all that is pleaded for: as if we say: Haec effigies est homo, we mean it is the effigies of a man; and so in this, This fi­gure of my body, is my body, by the rule of de­nominatives, signifies, This is the figure of my body. 4. In the preceding words; Ter­tullian sayes, the Pascha was the type of his passion: this Pascha he desired to eat; This Pascha was not the lamb (for he was betrayed the night before it was to be eaten) professus [Page 292]se concupiscentiâ concupisse edere pascha ut suum (indignum enim ut quid alienum concupisceret Deus) he would eat the Passeover of his own, figuram sanguinis sui salutaris im­plere concupiscebat, he desir'd to fulfil the figure, that is, to produce the last of all the figures of his healing bloud: Now this was by eating the Paschal lamb, that is, himself; for the other was not to be eaten that night. Now then if the eating, or delivering him­self to be eaten that night, was implere figu­ram sanguinis sui, he then did fulfil the figure of his bloud, therefore figura corporis mei in the following words, must relate to what he did that night; that therefore was the fi­gure, but the more excellent, because the neerest to the substance, which was given really the next day: this therefore as S. Gre­gory Nazianzen affirms was the most excel­lent figure, the Paschal lamb it self being fi­gura figurae, the figure of a figure, as I have quoted him in the sequel. And it is not dis­agreeing from the expression of Scripture, saying, Heb. 1. v. 1. that the law had [...]; a shadow, but not the very image: that was in the ceremo­nies of the law, this in the Sacraments of the Gospel: Christ himself was the [...] the thing it self; but the image was more then the shadow, though lesse then [Page 293]the substance; [...] was the word by which the Fathers expressed this neerer con­figuration. 5. Whereas it is added, it had not been a figure nisi veritatis esset corpus, to my sense clears the question; for therefore Christs body, which he was cloth'd withal, was a true body, else this could not be a fi­gure of it; But therefore this which was also a figure, could not be the true body, of which it was a figure. 6. That which Fisher adds, that Tertullians drift was to shew, that whereas, in the old Testament, bread was the figure of the body of Christ (as ap­pears by the words of the Prophet, Mittamus lignum in panem ejus, i. e. crucem in corpus ejus) Christ in the new Testament made this fi­gure really to be his body; This I conceive to make very much against Tertullians de­signe. For he proves that therefore Christ might well call bread his body; that was no new thing, for it was so also in the old figure; and therefore may be so now: but that this was no more then a figure, he adds, If there­fore he made bread to be his body, because he wanted a true body, then bread was delivered for us; and it would advance the vanity of Marci­on, that bread was crucified. No, this could not be; but therefore he must mean, that as of old in the Prophet and in the Passe­over, so now in the last supper, he gave the [Page 294]same figure, and therefore that which was figured was real, viz. his crucified body. Now suppose we should frame this argu­ment out of Tertullians medium, and suppose it to be made by Marcion. The body of Christ, was delivered for the sins of the world, &c. you Catholicks say that bread is the body of Christ, therefore you say, that bread was delivered for the sins of the whole world, and that bread was crucified for you, and that bread is the son of God; what answer could be made to this out of Tertullian, but by expounding the minor proposition figu­ratively? we Catholicks say that the Eucha­ristical bread, is the body of Christ in a figu­rative sense, it is completio or consummatio figurarum, the last and most excellent of all figures. But if he should have said accord­ing to the Roman fancy, that it is the natu­ral body of Christ, it would have made rare triumphs in the Schools of Marcion. But that there may be no doubt in this particular, hear himself summing up his own discourses in this question. Lib. 5. cont. Mar­cion. c. 8. Proinde panis & calicis Sacra­mento jam in Evangelio probavimus corporis & sanguinis Dominici veritatem adversùs phantas­ma Marcionis. Against the phantasme of Marcion we have proved the verity of Christs body, and bloud by the Sacrament of bread and wine. 7. This very answer [Page 295]I find to be Tertullians own explication of this affaire: Lib. 3. c. 19. for speaking of the same figura­tive speech of the prophet Ieremy, and why bread should be called his body; he gives this account: Hoc lignum & Ieremias tibi insinuat dicturis praedicans Iudaeis, Venite mit­tamus lignum in panem ejus, utique in corpus; fic enim Deus in Evangelio quoque vestro re­velavit, panem corpus suum appellans, ut & hinc jam eum intelligas corporis sui figuram pa­ni dedisse, cujus retro corpus in panem prophetes figuravit ipso Domino hoc Sacramentum postea interpretaturo. For so God revealed in your Gospel, calling bread his body, that hence thou mayest understand that he gave to bread the fi­gure of his body, whose body anciently the Pro­phet figured by bread, afterwards the Lord him­self expounding the Sacrament. Nothing needs to be plainer. By the way, let me observe this, that the words cited by Tertullian out of Ieremy are expounded, and recited too, but by allusion. For there are no such words in the Hebrew text: which is thus to be rend­red. Corrumpamus veneno cibum ejus, and so cannot be referred to the Sacrament, unlesse you will suppose that he foresignified the poysoning the Emperour, by a consecrated wafer. But as to the figure, this is often said by him; for in the first book against Marcion he hath these words again [nec reprobavit] [Page 296]panem quo ipsum corpus suum repraesentat, etiam in Sacramentis propriis egens mendicitatibus creatoris. He refused not bread by which he represents his own body, wanting or using in the Sacraments the meanest things of the Creator. For it is not to be imagined that Tertullian should attempt to perswade Mar­cion, that the bread was really and properly Christs body; but that he really delivered his body on the crosse, that both in the old Testament, and here, himself gave a figure of it in bread and wine, for that was it which the Marcionites denyed, saying, on the crosse no real humanity did suffer; and he confutes them by saying these are figures, and therefore denote a truth. 8 However these men are resolved that this new answer shall please them, and serve their turn, yet some of their fellows, great Clerks as them­selves, did shrink under the pressure of it, as not being able to be pleased with so laboured and improbable an answer. Art. 12. S. 9. For Harding against Iuel hath these words speaking of this place [which interpretation is not ac­cording to the true sense of Christs words, although his meaning swerve not from the truth] And B. Rhenanus the author of the admonition to the Reader, De quibusdam Ter­tulliani dogmatis, seems to confesse this to be Tertullians error. Error putantium corpus [Page 297]Christi in Eucharistiâ tantùm esse sub figurâ, jam olim condemnatus, The error of them that think the body of Christ is in the Eu­charist only in a figure, is now long since condemned. But Garetius De verâ praes. clas. 1. p. 19. , Bellarmine Lib. 3. Euch. c. 20. , Iustinian In 1 Cor. 11. , Coton Du Sacr. de la Mes. c. 17. , Fevardentius In Irenae. l. 4. c. 34. , Valentia De Tran­sub. l. 2. c. 3., and Vasquez T. 3. in 3 disp. 180. n. 21., in the recitation of this pas­sage of Tertullian, very fairly leave out the words that pinch them, and which clears the article: and bring the former words for themselves, without the interpretation of id est, figura corporis mei. I may therefore without scruple reckon Tertullian on our side, against whose plain words no real ex­ception can lye, himself expounding his own meaning in the pursuance of the figu­rative sense of this mysterie.

Concerning Origen I have already given an account in the ninth Paragraph, 20 Origen. and other places casually, and made it appear that he is a direct opposite to the doctrine of Transub­stantiation. Justin M. And the same also of Iustin Martyr Paragraph the fifth, number 9. Where also I have enumerated diverse others who speak upon parts of this question, on which the whole depends, whither I refer the Rea­der. Only concerning Iustin Martyr, I shall recite these words of his against Tryphon. Figura fuit panis Eucharistiae quem in recorda­tionem passionis—facere praecepit. The bread [Page 298]of the Eucharist was a figure, which Christ the Lord commanded to doe in remem­brance of his passion.

Clemens Alexandrinus saith, 21 [...] &c. The bloud of Christ is twofold; Clemens Alexandri­nus paed. l. 2. c. 2. the one is carnal, by which we are redeemed from death; the other spiritual, viz. by which we are anointed. And this is to drink the bloud of Iesus, to be partakers of the incorruption of our Lord. But the power of the word is the Spirit, as bloud is of the flesh. Therefore in a moderated pro­portion, and convenience, wine is mingled with water, as the Spirit with a man. And he receivs in the Feast [viz. Eucharistical] tempered wine unto faith. But the Spirit leadeth to incorruption, but the mixture of both, viz. of drink, and the word, is called the Eucharist, which is praised, and is a good gift or [grace] of which they who are partakers by faith, are sanctified in bo­dy and soul. Here plainly he calls that which is in the Eucharist, Spiritual bloud; and with­out repeating, the whole discourse is easie and clear. And that you may be certain of S. Clement his meaning, he disputes in the same chapter, against the Encratites, who thought it not lawful to drink wine. [...] &c. For be ye sure he also did drink wine, for he also was a man, and he blessed wine when he said, Take drink [...], This [Page 299]is my bloud, the bloud of the vine, for that word [that was shed for many for the remission of sins] it signifies allegorically a holy stream of glad­nesse; [...], but that the thing which had been blessed was wine, he shewed again, saying to his disciples, I will not drink of the fruit of this vine, till I drink it new with you in my fathers kingdome. Now S. Clement proving by Christs sumption of the Eucha­rist, that he did drink wine, must mean, the Sacramental symbol to be truly wine, and Christs bloud allegorically, that holy stream of gladnesse, or else he had not concluded by that argument against the Encratites. Upon which account these words are much to be valued, because by our doctrine in this article, he only could confute the Encratites; as by the same doctrine explicated, as we explicate it, Tertullian confuted the Marcionites, and Theodoret and Gelasius confuted the Nestori­ans, and Eutychians; if the doctrine of Transubstantiation had been true, these four heresies had by them, as to their particular arguments relating to this matter, been unconfuted.

S. 22 Cyprian in his Tractate de unctione which Canisius, Harding, Bellarmine, S. Cyprian. and Lin­dan cite, hath these words, Dedit itaque Do­minus noster &c. Therefore our Lord in his table in which he did partake his last banquet [Page 300]with his disciples, with his own hands gave bread and wine, but on the crosse, he gave to the souldiers his body to be wounded, that in the A­postles the sincere truth, and the true sincerity being more secretly imprinted, he might expound to the Gentiles how wine and bread should be his flesh and bloud, and by what reasons causes might agree with effects, and diverse names, and kinds (viz. bread and wine) might be reduced to one essence, and the signifying, and the signified, might be reckoned by the same words: and in his third Epistle he hath these words, Vinum quo Christi sanguis ostenditur, wine by which Christs bloud is showne or declared: Here I might cry out as Bellarmine upon a much slighter ground, Quid clariùs dici potuit? But I forbear; being content to enjoy the real benefits of these words without a triumph. But I will use it thus far, that it shall out­weigh the words cited out of the tract de coenâ Domini, by Bellarmine, by the Rhemists, by the Roman Catechisme, by Perron, and by Gregory de Valentiâ. The words are these, Panis iste quem Dominus discipulis porrigebat non effigie sed naturâ mutatus omnipotentiâ verbi factus est caro, & sicut in personâ Christi &c. The bread which the Lord gave to his disciples is changed, not in shape, but in nature, being made flesh by the omnipotency of the word; ‘and as in the person of Christ the [Page 301]humanity was seen, and the divinity lay hid, so in the visible Sacrament, the divine essence, after an ineffable manner, poures it self forth, that devotion about the Sacraments might be religion, and that a more sincere entrance may be open'd to the truth whereof the body and bloud are Sacra­ments, even unto the participation of the Spirit, not unto the consubstantiality of Christ.’ This testimony (as Bellarmine sayes) admits of no answer. But by his favour, it admits of many: 1. Bellarmine cites but half of those words, and leaves out that which gives him answer. 2. The words affirm, that that body and bloud are but a Sacrament of a reality and truth; but if it were really, and naturally, Christs body, then it were it self, veritas & corpus, and not only a Sacrament. 3. The truth [of which these are Sacramen­tal] is the participation of the Spirit; that is, a Spiritual communication. 4. This does not arrive ad consubstantialitatem Christi, to a participation or communion of the substance of Christ, which it must needs doe, if bread were so chang'd in nature, as that it were substantially the body of Christ. 5. These sermons of S. Cyprians title and name are un­der the name also of Arnoldus Abbat of Bo­navilla in the time of S. Bernard, as appears in a M.S. in the Library of All soules College [Page 302]of which I had the honour sometime to be a Fellow. However, it is confessed on all sides that this Tractate is not S. Cyprians, and who is the Father of it, if Arnoldus be not, cannot be known; neither his age nor re­putation. His style sounds like the eloquence of the Monastery, being direct Fryers latin, as appears by his honorificare, amaricare, in­juriare, demembrare, sequestrare, attitulare, spi­ritalitas, te supplico, and some false latin be­sides, and therefore he ought to passe for nothing; which I confesse I am sorry for, as to this question; because to my sense he gives us great advantage in it. But I am content to lose what our cause needs not. I am certain they can get nothing by him. For if the authority were not incompetent; the words were impertinent to their pur­pose, but very much against them: only let me adde out of the same sermon these words. Panis iste communis in carnem & sanguinem mutatus procurat vitam & incrementum cor­poribus, ideóque ex consueto effectu fidei nostra adjuta infirmitas, sensibili argumento educt a & visibilibus sacr amentis inesse vitae aeternae ef­fectum & non tam corporali quàm spiritualt transitione nos cum Christo uniri. That com­mon bread being changed into flesh and bloud, procures life and increment to our bodies; therefore our infirmity being helped with [Page 303]the usual effect of faith is taught by a sensible argument, that the effect of eternal life, is in visible Sacraments, and that we are united to Christ, not so much by a corporal, as by a Spi­ritual change. If both these discourses be put together let the authority of the writer be what it will, the greater, the better.

In the dialogues against the Marcionites collected out of Maximus in the time of Commodus or Severus, or thereabouts, 23 A. D. 190. Maximus. Origen is brought in speaking thus: [...]; If, as the Marcionites say, Christ had neither flesh nor bloud, of what flesh or of what bloud did he, giving bread and the chalice as images, command his disciples, that by these a remembrance of him should be made?

To the same purpose are the words of Eusebius: 24 [...]. Eusebius. Lib. 8. de monst. evang. c. 1. Lib. 1. c. ult. He gave to his disciples the symbols of divine aecono­mie, commanding the image or type of his own body to be made: and again, [...]. [Page 304] They received a command according to the constitution of the new Testament, to make a memory of this sacrifice upon the table by the symbols of his body, and healthful bloud.

S. 25 Ephrem the Syrian, Patriarch of An­tioch, S. Ephrem. De sacris Antioch. legibus a­pud Phot. l. 1. co. 229. Scotus Je­suita expo­nit [...] cogno­scitur, con­tra sensum loci. is dogmatical and decretory in this question, [...]. The body of Christ received by the faithful de­parts not from his sensible substance, and is un­divided from a spiritual grace. He adds the si­militude and parity of baptisme to this my­sterie; for even baptisme being wholly made Spiritual, and being that which is the same and proper of the sensible substance, I mean of wa­ter, saves, and that which is born doth not pe­rish. I will not descant upon these or any other words of the Fathers I allege, for if of their own natural intent they doe not teach our doctrine, I am content they should passe for nothing.

S. 26 Epiphanius affirming man to be like God [...], S. Epiphan. in Anco­rato. in some image or similitude, not according to Nature, illustrates it by the similitude of the blessed Sacrament; We see that our Saviour took into his hands as the Evangelist hath it, that he arose from supper, and took those things, and when he had given thanks he said, This is [Page 305]mine, and this; we see it is not equal, it is not like, not to the image in the flesh, not to the invisible Deity, not to the proportion of members, for this is a round form, [...], and cannot perceive any thing, or [is insensible according to power or faculty] and he would by grace say, This is mine, and this, and every man believes the word that is spoken, for he that believeth not him to be true, is fallen from grace, and salvation. Now the force of Epiphanius his argument, consisting in this, that we are like to God after his image, but yet not according to nature, as the Sacramental bread is like the body of Christ, it is plain that the Sacramental species are the body of Christ, and his bloud, [...] according to the image or representment, not according to Nature, but according to Grace.

Macarius his words are plain enough, 25 [...]. Macarius. homil. 27. In the Church is offered bread and wine the antitype of his flesh and of his bloud, and they that partake of the bread that appears doe spiritually eat the flesh of Christ.

S. 26 Gregory Nazianzen speaking of the Pascha sayth, S. Gregoy Naz. orat. 2. in Pasc. I am potestatis participes erimus [Page 306]&c. Now we shall be partakers of the Paschal supper, but still in figure though more cleare then in the old law. For the legal Passeover (I will not be a fraid to speak it) was a more obscure figure, of a figure.

S. S. Ambros. lib. 4. de Sacram. cap. 5. Ambrose is of the same perswasion. Fac nobis hanc oblationem ascriptam, rationabilem, acceptabilem, quod est figura corporis & sangui­nis Domini nostri Iesu Christi. Make this ascri­bed oblation, reasonable, and acceptable, which is the figure of the body and bloud of our Lord Jesus Christ. C. 4. ibid. And again, Mira potentia &c. it is a wonderful power of God which makes that the bread should remain what it is, and yet be changed into another thing. And again, How much more operative is the word of Christ that the things be what they were, and yet be chang'd into another? and so that which was bread before consecration now is the body of Christ] Hoc tamen impossibile est ut panis sit corpus Christi; Sed haec verba ad sanum intellectum sunt intelli­genda, De consec­dist. 2. pa­nis est. ita solvit Hugo, saith the Glosse in Gratian; which is an open defiance of the doctrine of S. Ambrose affirming it to be im­possible. But because these words pinch se­verely; they have retrenched the decisive words; and leave out, [& sint] and make them to run thus [that the things be—changed into another] which corruption is discovered by the citation of these words in [Page 307] Paschasius, Guitmond, Bertram, Algerus, Ivo Carnotensis, Gratian and Lombard. But in a­nother place he cals the mystical chalice The type of the bloud; In 1 Cor. 11. and that Christ is offered here, in imagine, in type, image, or represen­tation; in coelo, in veritate, the truth, De offic. l. 1. c. 48. Lib. de i­nitiat. c. 9. the sub­stance is in heaven. And again, This there­fore truly is the Sacrament of his flesh. Our Lord Iesus himself sayes, this is my body. Before the blessing by the words it was named another species (or kind;) after the consecration, the body of Christ is signified.

S. Chrysostome is brought on both sides, 27 S. Chrysost. and his rhetorick hath cast him on the Roman side, but it also bears him beyond it; and his divinity, and sober opinions have fixt him on ours. How to answer the expressi­ons hyperbolical which he often uses, is easie, by the use of rhetorick and customes of the words: Ep. ad Cae­sar. cont. haeres. A­pollinarii citat. per Damascen. & per. col­lect. sent. pp. contrà Severianos edit. per Turrian. But I know not how any man can sensibly answer these words ‘ [For as before the bread is sanctified we name it bread, but the divine grace sanctifying it by the means of the Priest it is freed from the name of bread, but it is esteemed worthy to be called the Lords body, although the nature of bread remains in it.’ To the same purpose are those words on the 22 d Psalme published amongst his works, though possibly they were of some other of that time, or before, [Page 308]or after; it matters not to us, but much to them: for if he be later and yet esteemed a Catholick, (as it is certain he was and the man a while supposed to be S. Chrysostome) it is the greater evidence that it was long be­fore the Church received their doctrine. The words are these: ‘ That table hath he prepared to his servants and his maydens in their sight, that he might every day shew us in the Sacrament according to the order of Mel­chisedec bread and wine to the likenesse of the body and bloud of Christ.’ To the same purpose is that saying in the homilyes of whoever is the author of that opus imper­fectum upon S. Hom. 11. in S. Mat. Mat. Si igitur haec vasa &c. If therefore these vessels being sanctified it be so dangerous to transfer them to private uses in which the body of Christ is not, but the mysterie of his body is contained; how much more con­cerning the vessels of our bodies &c. Now against these testimonies, they make an out­cry that they are not S. Chrysostomes works, and for this last, the book is corrupted, and they think in this place by some one of Be­rengarius's scholars; for they cannot tell. Fain they would believe it; but this kind of talk is a resolution not to yield, but to proceed against all evidence; for that this place is not corrupted, but was originally the sense of the Author of the homilies, is highly [Page 309]credible by the faith of all the old MS. and there is in the publick Library of Oxford an excellent MS. very ancient that makes faith in this particular; but that some one of their scholars might have left these words out of some of their copies, were no great wonder, though I do not find they did, but that they foysted in a marginal note, affirm­ing that these words are not in all old copies: an affirmation very confident, but as the case stands, to very little purpose. But upon this account nothing can be proved from sayings of Fathers. For either they are not their own works but made by another, or 2. They are capable of another sense, or 3. The places are corrupted by hereticks, or 4. It is not in some old copies; which pretences I am content to let alone, if they upon this account will but transact the question whol­ly by Scripture and common sense. 5. It matters not at all what he is, so he was not esteemed a heretick; and that he was not, it is certain, since by themselves these books are put among the works of S. Chrysostome, and themselves can quote them when they seem to do them service. All that I infer from hence is this, that whensoever these books were writ, some man esteemed a good Catholick was not of the Roman perswasi­on in the matter of the Sacrament; there­fore [Page 310]their opinion is not Catholick. But that S. Chrysostome may not be drawn from his right of giving testimony and interpreta­tion of his words in other places; in his 23 homily upon the first of the Corinthians, which are undoubtedly his own; he sayth [ As thou eatest the body of the Lord, so they (viz. the faithful in the old Testament) did eat Man­na: as thou drinkest bloud, so they the water of the rock. For though the things which are made be sensible, yet they are given spiritually, not ac­cording to the consequence of nature, but accord­ing to the grace of a gift, and with the body they also nourish the soul, leading unto faith.

28 The next I produce for evidence in this cases, S. August. is S. Austin, concerning whom it is so evident that he was a Protestant in this article, that truly it is a strange boldnesse to deny it; and upon equal terms no mans mind in the world can be known; for if all that he sayes in this question shall be reconcileable to Transubstantiation, I know no reason but it may be possible, but a witty man may pre­tend when I am dead, that in this discourse I have pleaded for the doctrine of the Ro­man Church. I will set his words down na­kedly without any Glosse upon them, and let them do by themselves as much as they can. Ep. ad Bo­nifac. Si enim Sacramenta quandam similitudi­nem &c. For if the Sacraments had not a cer­tain [Page 311]similitude of those things whereof they are Sacraments, they were no Sacraments at all. But from this similitude, for the most part they re­ceive the things themselves. As therefore ac­cording to 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 is. Now suppose a stranger to the tricks of the Ro­man doctors, a wise and a discerning man should read these words in S. Austin and weigh them diligently, and compare them with all the adjacent words and circumstan­ces of the place, I would desire reasonably to be answer'd on which side he would con­clude S. Austin to be of? if in any other place he speaks words contrary; that is his fault or forgetfulnesse: but if the contrary had been the doctrine of the Church he could never have so forgotten his religion and communion, as so openly to have decla­red a contrary sense to the same article. In Psal, 98. Non hoc corpus quod videtis manducaturiestis &c. you are not to eat this body which you see (so he brings in Christ speaking to his disci­ples) or to drink that bloud which my crucifyers shall powre forth; I have commended to you a Sacrament which being spiritually understood shall quicken you;* In Psal. and Christ] brought them to a banquet in which he commended to his dis­ciples [Page 312]the figure of his body and bloud* For he did not doubt to say Cont. Adimant. c. 12. , This is my body when he gave the signe of his body.* Quod ab omnibus sa­crificium appellatur Lib. 10. contr. Faustum Manich. c. 2. &c. That which by all men is called a sacrifice, is the signe of the true sacrifice, in which the flesh of Christ, after his assumption is celebrated by the Sacrament of remembrances. But concerning S. Austins doctrine, I shall refer him that desires to be further satisfied, to no other record then their own Canon law. De con­secrat. d. 2. Which not only from S. Austin but from diverse others pro­duces testimonies so many, so pertinent, so full for our doctrine and against the dream of Transubstantiation, that it is to me a wonder why it is not clap'd into the Indices expurgatorii, for it speaks very many truths beyond the cure of their Glosses: which they have chang'd and alter'd several times. But that this matter concerning S. Austin may be yet clearer, his own third book de doctrinâ Christianâ is so plain for us in this question, that when Frudegardus in the time of Charles the bald had upon occasion of the dispute which then began to be hot and in­terested in this question, read this book of S. Austin he was changed to the opinion of a Spiritual and mysterious presence, and upon occasion of that his being perswaded so by S. Austin, Paschasius Ratherdus wrote to [Page 313]him, as of a question then doubted of by many persons, as is to be seen in his epistle to Frudegardus. I end this of S. Austin with those words of his which he intends by way of rule for expounding these and the like words of Scripture taken out of this book of Christian doctrine; Locutio praeceptiva &c. Lib. 3. c. 15, 16. A preceptive speech forbidding a crime or com­manding something good or profitable is not fi­gurative; but if it seems to command a crime, or forbid a good, then it is figurative. Unlesse ye eat the flesh of the son of man &c. Seems to com­mand a wickednesse, it is therefore a figure com­manding us to communicate with the Passion of our Lord, and sweetly and profitably to lay it up in our memory that his flesh was crucified and wounded for us. I shall not need to urge that this holy Sacrament is called Eucharistia carnis & sanguinis, the Eucharist of the body and bloud, by Irenaeus; corpus symbolicum & typi­cum, by Origen; In typo sanguis, by S. Jerome; similitudo, figura, typus, [...], images, aenigmaes, representations, expressions, exemplars of the Passion by diverse others: that which I shall note here is this; A. D. 754. of 338. B. B. that in the councel of Constantinople it was publike­ly professed that the Sacrament is not the body of Christ [...], but [...], not by nature but by representment; for so it is expounded. [...], the holy image [Page 314]of it, Vide Concil. general. tom. 3. p. 599. edit. Rom. and [...], the Eucharistical bread is the true image of the natural flesh, and [...] and [...]. A figure or image delivered by God, of his flesh; and a true image of the incarnate dispensation of Christ. These things are found in the 3 tom. of the 6. action of the second Nicene councel where a pert Deacon ignorant and confident had boldly said that none of the Apostles or Fathers had ever called the Sacrament the image of Christs body; that they were called [...], antitypes, before consecration, he grants; but after consecra­tion, they are called, and are, and are believed to be the body and bloud of Christ properly: which I suppose he might have learned of Damascene who in opposition to the Icono­clasts would not endure the word Type, or I­mage to be used concerning the holy Sacra­ment; for they would admit no other Image but that: he in defiance of them who had ex­communicated him for a worshipper of ima­ges, and a half-Sarazin, would admit any i­mage but that; but denyed that to be an image or type of Christ [ de fide l. 4. c. 14.] For Christ said not, this is the type of my body, but it is it. But however this new question began to brand the words of Type and Antitype, [Page 315]and the manner of speaking began to be changed, yet the article as yet was not chan­ged. For the Fathers used the words of Type and Antitype, and Image &c. to exclude the natural sense of the Sacramental body; and Damascen, and Anastasius Sinaita, and some others of that age began to refuse those words, lest the Sacrament be thought to be nothing of reality, nothing but an image. And that this really was the sense of Damascen, appears by his words recited in the acts of the second councel of Nice, affirming that the divine bread is made Christs body by assumption and inhabitation of the Spi­rit of Christ, in the same manner as water is made the laver of regeneration. But how­ever they were pleased to speak in the Nicene assembly, yet in the Roman edition of the Councels, the Publishers and Collectors were wiser, and put on this marginal note: [...]. The holy gifts are oftentimes called types and figures even after consecration; particularly by In Apo­log. & orat. funebr. pro Gorg. Greg. Naz. and Mystag. Catech 5. S. Cyril of Hierusalem. I re­member only one thing objected to this te­stimony of so many bishops, that they were Iconoclasts or breakers of images, and there­fore not to be trusted in any other article. So Bellarmine (as I remember) But this is [Page 316]just as if I should say that I ought to refuse the Lateran Councel because they were wor­shippers of Images, or defenders of Purgatory. Surely if I should, I had much more reason to refuse their sentence, then there is that the Greeks should be rejected upon so slight a pretence; nay for doing that which for ought appears was in all their circumstances their duty in a high measure: so that in ef­fect they are refused for being good Chri­stians. But after this, it happened again that the words of type and image were disliked in the question of the holy Sacrament, by the Emperour Charles the great, his Tutor Al­cuinus, and the assembly at Franckfort; but it was in opposition to the Councel of Con­stantinople that called it the true image of Christs body, and of the Nicene Councel who decreed the worship of images; for if the Sacrament were an image, as they of CP. said, then it might be lawful to give reverence and worship to some images; for although these two Synods were enemies to each other, yet the proposition of one, might serve the designe of the other; but therefore the Western doctors of that age, speaking against the decree of this, did also mislike the expression of that: meaning that the Sacra­ment is not a type or image, as a type is ta­ken for a prefiguration, a shadow of things [Page 317]to come, like the legal ceremonies, but in opposition to that is a body, and a truth; yet still it is a Sacrament of the body, a myste­rie which is the same in effect with that which the Fathers taught in their so frequent using these words of Type &c. for 750 years to­gether. And concerning this I only note the words of Charles the Emperour Ep. ad Alcuinum after the Synod, Our Lord hath gi­ven the bread and the chalice in figurâ corporis sui & sui sanguinis, in the figure of his body and bloud. But setting the authority aside, for if these men of CP. be not allowed, yet the others are, and it is notorious that the Greek Fathers did frequently call the bread and wine [...], and the Latin Fathers call them signes, si­militudes, figures, types, images, therefore there must be something pretended to stop this great outcry, and insupportable preju­dice of so great, so clear authority. After many tryals; as that by antitypes they mean exemplars, that it is only before consecration, not after, and such other little devices, of which they themselves quickly grew weary; at last the craftiest of them came to this, that the body of Christ under the Species might well be said to be the signe of the same body and bloud, as it was on the crosse; De Euch. l. 2. c. 15. so Bellar­mine; That's the answer; and that they are [Page 318]hard put to it, you may guesse by the mean­nesse of the answer. For besides that no­thing can be like it self, Idem non est simile; the body, as it is under the Species, is glorified, immortal, invisible, impassible, indivisible, in­sensible; and this is it which he affirms to be the signe, Nemo est sui ipsius imago. S. Hilar. lib. de Synod. Quod simile est non est illud cui est simile. S. Athanas. lib. contr. hypocr. Meleti. that is, which is appointed to signifie and represent a body that was humbled, tormented, visible, mor­tal, sensible, torn, bleeding, and dying; So that here is a signe nothing like the thing signified, and an invisible signe of a visible body, which is the greatest absurdity in nature, and in the use of things, which is imaginable; but besides this, this answer, if it were a proper and sensible account of any thing, yet it is besides the mark; for that the Fathers in these allegations affirm that the Species are the signes, that is, that bread and wine, or the whole Sacrament is a signe of that body, which is exhibited in ef­fect and Spiritual power: they dreamt not this dream; it was long before themselves did dream it: they that were but the day be­fore them, having, as I noted before, other fancies. I deny not but the Sacramental bo­dy is the signe of the true body crucified: but that the body glorified, should be but a signe of the true body crucified, is a device fit for themselves to fancy. To this sense are [Page 319]those words cited by Lombard and Gratian out of S. Austin in the sentences of Prosper. Caro ejus est quam formâ panis opertam in Sacra­mento accipimus, sanguis quem sub specie vini potamus: Caro viz. carnis, & sanguis sacra­mentum est sanguinis, carne & sanguine utroque invisibili & intelligibili & spirituali significa­tur corpus Christi visibile plenum gratiae & di­vinae majestatis. That is, It is his flesh which under the form of bread we receive in the Sacra­ment, and under the form of wine we drink his bloud: Now that you may understand his meaning, he tells you this is true in the Sa­cramental or Spiritual sense only; for he adds, flesh is the Sacrament of flesh, and bloud of bloud; by both flesh and bloud which are invisi­ble, intelligible, and Spiritual, is signified the visible body of Christ full of grace and divine majesty. In which words here is a plain con­futation of their main article, and of this whimsy of theirs. For as to the particular, Ubi suprà. whereas Bellarmine sayes, that Christs body real and natural is the type of the body as it was crucified, S. Austin sayes, that the na­tural body is a type of that body which is glorified, not the glorified body of the cru­cified. 2. That which is a type, is flesh in a spiritual sense, not in a natural; and there­fore it can mean nothing but this, that the Sacramental body is a figure and type of the [Page 320]real: De conse­crat. d. 2. c. Hoc est quod. [...]. And this thing is no­ted by the Glosse of Gratian. Caro, i. e. spe­cies carnis, sub qua latet corpus Christi &c. The flesh, that is, the Species of it under which it lies are the Sacrament of the flesh. So that the being of a Sacrament of Christs body, is wholly relative to the Symbols, not to the bo­dy; as if the body were his own signe and his own Sacrament.

Next to this heap of testimonies, 30 I must repeat the words of Theodoret and Gelasius, Theodoret. which though known in this whole question, yet being plain, certain and unanswerable, relying upon a great article of the religion, even the union of the two natures of Christ into one person without the change of sub­stances, must be as sacred and untouch'd by any trifling answer, as the article it self ought to be preserved. The case was this: The Eutychian hereticks denyed the natures of Christ to be united in one person, that is, they denyed him to be both God and Man, saying, Alphons. à Castro de haeres. Eu­tych. his humanity was taken into his divi­nity after his ascension. The Fathers dispu­ting against them, say, the substances remain intire, though joyn'd in the person. The Eutychians said this was impossible. But as in the Sacrament the bread was chang'd into Christs body, so in the ascension was the hu­manity turned into the divinity. To this [Page 321] Theodoret answers in a dialogue between the Eutychians under the name of Eranistes and himself the Orthodox: Dial. 1. c. 8. Christ honored the symbols and signes which are seen with the title of his body and bloud, not changing the nature, but to nature adding grace. The words are not capable of an answer if we observe that he sayes there is no change made, but only grace superadded; in all things else the things are the same. And again: Dial. 2. c. 24. For neither do the mystical signes recede from their nature; for they abide in their proper substance, figure and form, and may be seen and touch'd &c. So the humanity of Christ: and a little after: So that body of Christ hath the ancient form, figure, superscription, and (to speak the sum of all) the substance of the body, although after the resur­rection it be immortal and free from all cor­ruption: Now these words spoken upon this occasion, to this purpose, in direct oppositi­on to a contradicting person, but casting his article wholly upon supposition of a substan­tial change, and opposing to him a ground contrary to his, upon which only he builds his answer, cannot be eluded by any little pretence. Bellarmine and the lesser people from him, answer, that by nature he understands the exteriour qualities of nature, such as co­lour, tast, weight, smell, &c. 1. I suppose this, but does he mean so by Substantia too? [Page 322] [...]] Does he by substance mean accidents? but suppose that a while, yet 2. If he had answered thus, how had Theodoret confuted the Eutychians? For thus sayes Eranistes, As the bread is changed in substance into the body of Christ, so is the humanity into the di­vinity: yea but, sayes Theodoret according to Bellarmine; The substance of bread is not changed; for the colour, the shape, the bignesse and the smell remain: or thus, the accidents remain which I call substance; for there are two sorts of substances; substances and accidents; and this latter sort of substances remain; but not the former; and so you are confuted, Eranistes. But what if Eranistes should reply, if you say all of bread is changed excepting the accidents, then my argument holds: for I only contend that the substance of the huma­nity is changed, as you say the substance of bread is: To this nothing can be said, unlesse Theodoret may have leave to answer as other wise men must. But now Theodoret answer'd, that the substance of bread is not chang'd, but remains still, and by substance, he did mean substance, and not the accidents; for if he had, he had not spoken sense. Either there­fore the testimony of Theodoret remaineth unsatisfied by our adversaries, or the argu­ment of the Eutychians is unanswered by Theodoret. 3. Theodoret in these places oppo­ses [Page 323] Nature to Grace, and sayes, all remains without any change but of Grace. 4. He al­so explicates Nature by Substance, so that it is a Substantial Nature he must mean. 5. He distinguishes substance from form and fi­gure, and therefore by substance cannot mean form and figure, as Bellarmine dreams. 6 He affirms concerning the body of Christ, that in the resurrection it is changed in ac­cidents, being made incorruptible and immor­tal, but affirms that the substance remains; therefore by substance, he must mean as he speaks without any prodigious sense affixed to the word. 7. Let me observe this by the way, that the doctrine of the substantial change of bread into the body of Christ was the perswasion of the heretick, the Eutychian Eranistes, but denied by the Catholick Theo­doret; So that if they will pretend to anti­quity in this doctrine, their plea is made rea­dy and framed by the Eutychian, from whom they may, if they please, derive the original of their doctrine, or if they please, from the elder Marcosites; but it will be but vain to think the Eutychian did argue from thence, as if it had been a Catholick ground; reason we might have had to suppose it, if the Catholick had not denied it. But the case is plain: as the Sadduces disputed with Christ about the ar­ticle of no Spirits, no resurrection, though in [Page 324]the Church of the Jewes the contrary was the more prevailing opinion: so did the Euty­chians upon a pretence of a Substantial conver­sion in the Sacrament, which was then their fancy, and devised to illustrate their other opinion: But it was disavowed by the Catholicks.

Gelasius was ingaged against the same per­sons in the same cause, 31 31. Gelasius de duabus na­turis cont. Eutyche­tem & Ne­storium. and therefore it will be needful to say nothing but to describe his words For they must have the same efficacy with the former, and prevail equally. ‘ Certè Sacramenta &c. Truly the Sacraments of the body and bloud of Christ which we receive are a divine thing, for that by them we are made partakers of the divine nature, and yet it cea­ses not to be the substance or nature of bread and wine. And truly an image and similitude of the body and bloud of Christ are celebrated in the action of the mysteries.’ These are his words; concerning which this only is to be considered, beyond what I suggested con­cerning Theodoret; that although the word [...] in the Greek which we render substantia, might be apt to receive diverse interpretati­ons, though in his discourse he confined it to his proper meaning (as appears above) yet in Gelasius who was a Latin Author the word substantia is not capable of it: and I think there is no example where substantia is taken [Page 325]for an accidental nature. It may, as all other words can, suffer alterations by tropes and fi­gures, but never signifie grammatically any thing but it self, and his usual significations: and if there be among us any use of Lexicons or Vocabularies, if there be any notices con­veyed to men by forms of speech, then we are sure in these things: and there is no reason we should suffer our selves to be outfaced out of the use of our senses and our reason, and our language. It is usually here replyed, that Gela­sius was an obscurer person, bishop of Caesarea and not Pope of Rome, as is supposed. I an­swer, that he was bishop of Rome that writ the book out of which these words are ta­ken, is affirmed in the Bibliotheca PP. appro­ved by the Theological faculty in Paris 1576: and Massonius de Episcopis urbis Rome, in the life of Pope Gelasius, sayth, that Pope Iohn cited the book de duabus naturis, and by Ful­gentius it is so too. 2. But suppose he was not Pope, that he was a Catholick bishop is not denied; and that he lived above a 1000 years agoe; which is all I require in this businesse. For any other bishop may speak truth, as well as the bishop of Rome; and his truth shall be of equal interest and perswasion. But so strange a resolution men have taken to defend their own opinions that they will, [Page 326]in despight of all sense and reason, say some­thing to every thing, and that shall be an an­swer whether it can or no.

After all this, 32 it is needlesse to cite autho­rities from the later ages; It were indeed easie to heap up many, and those not obscure either in their name, or in their testimony. Such as Facundus bishop of Hermian in Afri­ca in the year 552. in his 9 th. book and last chapter written in defence of Theod. Mopsuest. &c. hath these words, The Sacrament of his body and bloud, we call his body and bloud: not that bread is properly his body, or the cup his bloud, but that they contain in them the mysterie of his body and bloud. Isidore bishop of Sevil sayes, Isidorus Hisp. l. 1. de offic. c. 18. Panis quem frangimus &c. The bread which we break is the body of Christ, who saith, I am the living bread. But the wine is his bloud, and that is it which is written, I am the true vine. But bread, because it strengthens our body, therefore it is called the body of Christ, but wine because it makes bloud in our flesh, therefore it is reduc'd or refer'd to the bloud of Christ. But these visible things sanctified by the holy Ghost passe into the Sacrament of the divine body. Sui­das in the word [...]. [Page 327]Christ calls the Church his body; and by her as a man he ministers; but as he is God he re­ceives what is offered. But the Church of­fers the symbols of his body and bloud, san­ctifying the whole masse by the first fruits. Symbola, i. e. Signa, sayes the Latin version. The bread and wine are the signes of his bo­dy and his bloud. [...]; so Suidas. Hesychius speaking of this mysterie affirmes, L. 20. in Levit. c. 8. Quòd simul panis & caro est, It is both bread and flesh too. Fulgentius saith, Fulgentius. Hic calix est novum Testamentum, i.e. Hic calix quem vobis trado, novum Testamentum significat. This cup is the new Testament, that is, it signifies it. [...] said Procopius of Gaza. In Gen. 49. He gave to his di­sciples the image of his own body; [...], said the scholiast upon Dionysius the Areopagite; In Eccles. hier. c. 3. These things are symbols, and not the truth, or verity; and he said it upon occasion of the same do­ctrine which his author (whom he explicates) taught in that chapter; Dionys. Eccl. hier. c. 3. [...] The divine symbols being placed upon the altar by which Christ is signified and participated. But this only I shall remark, that Transubstantia­tion [Page 328]is so far from having been the Primitive doctrine, that it was among Catholicks fierce­ly disputed in the time of Charles the bald, about the year 880. Paschasius wrote for the Substantial conversion; Rabanus maintain'd the contrary in his answer to Heribaldus, A.D. 880. and in his writing to Abbat Egilo. There li­ved in the same time in the court of Charles the Emperour, a countreyman of ours Iohn Scot, called by some Ioannes Erigena, who wrote a book against the substantial change in the Sacrament; He lived also sometimes in England with King Alfred, and was surna­med the wise, Apparat: tit. Johan­nes cogni­mento Sapi­ens. and was a martyr saith Possevi­nus, and was in the Roman Calender; his day was the fourth of the Ides of November, as is to be seen in the Martyrologe published at An­twerp 1586. But when the controversie grew publick and noted, Charles the bald com­manded Bertram or Ratran to write upon the question, being of the Monastery of Corbey: he did so, and defended our doctrine against Paschasius: the book is extant, and may be read by him that desires it; but it is so intire and dogmatical against the substantial change which was the new doctrine of Paschasius, that Turrian gives this account of it, To cite Bertram, 1599. A D. 1571 Antwerp. what is it else, but to say that Calvins ‘heresie is not new? and the Belgick expurga­tory Index professeth to use it with the same [Page 329]equity which it useth to other catholick writers, in whom they tolerate many er­rors and extenuate or excuse them, and sometimes by inventing some device they do deny it and put some fit sense to them when they are opposed in disputation, and this they do lest the hereticks should talk that they forbid and burn books that make against them.’ You see the honesty of the men; and the justnesse of their proceedings; But the Spanish expurgatory Index forbids the book wholly, with a penitus auferatur.

I shall only adde this, that in the Church of England, Bertrams doctrine prevailed longer; and till Lanfrancks time it was per­mitted to follow Bertram or Paschasius. And when Osbern wrote the lives of Odo Arch­bishop of Canterbury, Dunstan, Osbernus vitâ Odo­nis. and Elphege by the command of Lanfranck, he sayes, that in Odo's time, some Clergy men affirm'd in the Sacrament bread and wine to remain in substance, and to be Christs body only in fi­gure; and tells how the Archbishop prayed, and bloud dropped out of the host over the chalice, and so his Clerks which then assisted at Masse, and were of another opinion, were convinced. This though he writes to please Lansranck (who first gave authority to this opinion in England) and according to the o­pinion which then prevailed, yet it is an irre­fragable [Page 330]testimony that it was but a disputed article in Odo's time; no Catholick doctrine, no article of faith, nor of a good while after: for however these Clerks were fabulously reported to be changed at Odo's miracle who could not convince them by the Law and the Prophets, by the Gospels and Epistles; yet his successor, he that was the fourth af­ter him, I mean Aelfrick Abbat of S. Albans Capgrave calls him Abbat of S. Albans Malmesb. saith, he was of Malmes­bury. A.D. 996. and afterwards Arch-bishop of Canterbury, in his Saxon homily written above 600 years since, disputes the question and determines in the words of Bertram only for a Spiritual presence, not natural, or substantial. The book was printed at London by John Daie, and with it a letter of Aelfrick to Wulfin bi­shop of Schirburn to the same purpose. His words are these: That housel, (that is, the bles­sed Sacrament) is Christs body, not bodily, but spiritually, not the body which he suffered in, but the body of which he spake, when he blessed bread and wine to housel the night before his suffering, and said by the blessed bread, This is my body. And in a writing to the Arch-bishop of York he said, The Lord] halloweth daily by the hand of the Priest, bread to his body, and wine to his bloud in spiritual mysterie as we read in books. And yet notwithstanding that lively bread is not bodily so, nor the self same body that Christ suf­fered in. I end this with the words of the [Page 331]Glosse upon the Canon law, De conse­crat. d. 2. Hoc est. Lugduni. 1518. Coeleste Sacra­mentum quod verè repraesentat Christi carnem dicitur corpus Christi, sed impropriè, unde dicitur suo modo scil. non rei veritate, sed significatimy­sterio, ut sit sensus, vocatur Christi corpus, i.e. significatur; The heavenly Sacrament which truly represents the flesh of Christ, is called the body of Christ; but improperly, there­fore it is said (meaning in the Canon taken out of S. Austin) after the manner, to wit, not in the truth of the thing, but in the mysterie of that which is signified; so that the meaning is, it is called Christs body, that is, Christs body is signified; which the Church of Rome well expresses in an ancient hymne:

Sub duabus speciebus
Signis tantùm & non rebus
Latent res eximiae.

Excellent things lye under the two species of bread and wine which are only signes, not the things whereof they are signes. But the Late­ran Councel struck all dead: before which, Transubstantio non fuit dogma fidei, said Scotus, it was no article of faith; and how it can be afterwards since Christ is only the Author and finisher of our faith, and therefore all faith was delivered from the beginning, is a matter of highest danger and considera­tion. But yet this also I shall interpose, if it may do any service in the question or help to [Page 332]remove a prejudice from our adversaries, who are borne up by the authority of that Councel; That the doctrine of Transub­stantiation was not determined by the great Lateran Councel. The word was first in­vented by Stephen bishop of Augustodunum, about the year 1100 or a little after, in his book De Sacramento Altaris; and the word did so please Pope Innocentius 3. that he in­serted it into one of the 70 Canons which he proposed to the Lateran Councel A. D. 1215. which Canons they heard read, but determined nothing concerning them, as Matthew Paris, Platina, and Nauclerus wit­nesse. But they got reputation by being in­serted by Gregory 9. into his Decretals, which yet he did not in the name of the Councel, but of Innocentius to the Councel. But the first that ever published these Canons under the name of the Lateran Councel was Jo­annes Cochlaeus A. D. 1538. But the article was determined at Rome 36 yeers after that Councel, by a general Councel of 54 Prelats and no more. And this was the first authori­ty or countenance it had; Stephen christe­ned the article, and gave the name, and this Congregation confirmed it.

SECT. XIII. Of adoration of the Sacrament.

WHen a proposition goes no further then the head and the tongue, it can carry nothing with it but his own appenda­ges, viz. to be right or to be wrong, and the man to be deceived or not deceived in his judgement: But when it hath influence up­on practice, it puts on a new investiture, and is tolerable or intolerable, according as it leads to actions good or bad. Now in all the questions of Christendome nothing is of greater effect or more material event, then this. For since by the decree of the Coun­cel of Trent Sess. 13. c. 5., they are bound to exhibit to the Sacrament the same worship which they give to the true God, either this Sacrament is Iesus Christ, or else they are very Idolaters; I mean materially such even while in their purposes they decline it. I will not quarrel with the words of the decree commanding to give divine worship to the Sacrament; Tantum ergo Sacra­mentum a­doremus cernui. Hymn. in Miss. which by the definition of their own Schools is an outward visible signe of an inward Spiri­tual grace, and so they worship the signe and the grace with the worship due to God: But [Page 334]that which I insist upon, is this. That if they be deceived in this difficult question, against which there lie such infinite presumptions and evidence of sense, and invincible reason, and grounds of Scripture, * and in which they are condemned by the primitive Church, * and by the common principles of all Philosophy, and the nature of things, * and the analogy of the Sacrament, * for which they had no warrant ever, till they made one of their own, * which themselves so little understand, that they know not how to explicateit, * nor agree in their own mean­ing, nor cannot tell well what they mean * If I say, they be deceived in their own strict ar­ticle, besides the strict sense of which there are so many wayes of verifying the words of Christ, upon which all sides do rely; then it is certain they commit an act of Idolatry in giving divine honour to a meer creature, which is the image, the Sacrament, and re­presentment of the body of Christ: and at least, it is not certain that they are right; there are certainly very great probabilities a­gainst them which ought to abate their con­fidence in the article; and though I am perswaded that the arguments against them are unanswerable; for if I did not think so, then I should be able to answer them, and if I were able to answer, I would not seek to [Page 335]perswade others by that which does not per­swade me; yet all indifferent persons, that is, all those who will suffer themselves to be determined by something besides interest and education, must needs say they cannot be certain they are right, against whom there are so many arguments that they are in the wrong: The Commandement to worship God alone is so expresse; The distance be­tween God and bread dedicated to the service of God is so vast, the danger of worshipping that which is not God, or of not worshipping that which is God, is so formidable, that it is infinitely to be presumed, that if it had been intended that we should have worshipped the holy Sacrament, the holy Scripture would have called it, God, or Jesus Christ, or have bidden us in expresse termes to have a­dored it; that either by the first, as by a rea­son indicative, or by the second as by a reason imperative we might have have had sufficient warrant direct or consequent to have paid a di­vine worship. Now that there is no implicit warrant in the Sacramental words of [This is my body] I have given very many reasons to evince, by proving the words to be Sacra­mental and figurative. Adde to this; that supposing Christ present in their senses, yet as they have ordered the businesse, they have made it superstitious and Idololatrical; for [Page 336]they declare that the divine worship does belong also to the symbols of bread and wine, as being one with Christ; they are the words of Bellarmine; L. 4. de Euch. c. 29. Tom. 3. in 3. Thom. disp. 65. Sect. 1. That even the Species also with Christ are to be adored; So Sua­rez: which doctrine might upon the supposal of their grounds be excused; if, as Claudius de Sainctes dreamed, they and the body of Christ had but one existence; but this them­selves admit not of, but he is confuted by Suarez. But then let it be considered, that since those species or accidents are not inhe­rent in the holy body, nor have their exi­stence from it, but wholly subsist by them­selves, (as they dream) since between them and the holy body there is no substantial, no personal union, it is not imaginable how they can passe divine worship to those accidents which are not in the body, nor the same with the body, but by an impossible supposition subsist of themselves, and were proper to bread, and now not communicable to Christ, and yet not commit idolatry: especially since the Nestorians were by the Fathers called [...], or worshippers of a man, be­cause they worshipped the humanity of Christ, which they supposed, not to be per­sonally, but habitually united to the divinity.

But 2. 2 suppose that the article were true in thesi, and that the bread in consecration [Page 337]was changed as they suppose; yet it is to be considered that that which is practicable in this article, is yet made as uncertain and dan­gerous as before. For by many defects se­cret and insensible, by many notorious and evident, the change may be hindred, and the symbols still remain as very bread and wine as ever, and rob God of his honour. For if the Priest erres in reciting the words of con­secration, by addition, or diminution, or altera­tion, or longer interruption; if he do but say, Hoc est corpus meum, for corpus meum, or me­um corpus for corpus meum, or if he do but as the Priest that Agrippa tells of, that said, De vanit. Scient. c. 3. Haec sunt corpora mea, lest consecrating many hosts he should speak false Latin: if either the Priest be timerous surprized, or intemperate, in all these cases the Priest and the People too, worship nothing but bread. And some of these are the more considerable, I mean, those defectibilities in pronunciation because the Priest alwayes speaking the words of consecration in a secret voice not to be heard. Concil. Trid. Sess. 22. can. 9. Le­desmo ait Sacerdotem isto Canone prohiberi clarâ voce eloqui verba consecrationis descriptor: quâvis linguâ non legendis— None of the people can have any notice whether he speaks the words so sufficiently as to se­cure them from worshipping a piece of bread. If none of all these happen, yet if he do not intend to consecrate all, but some [Page 338]and yet know not which to omit, * if he do intend but to mock, * if he be a secret atheist, * a Moor, * or a Jew, * if he be an impious person and laugh at the Sacrament, * if he do not intend to do as the Church does, * that is, if his intention be neither actual, nor real: then in all these cases the people give divine worship to that which is nothing but bread; * But if none of all this happen, yet if he be not a Priest, quod saepe accidit, saith Pope Adrianus VI. in quaest. quodlib. q. 3. it often happens that the Priest feigns himself to celebrate, and does not celebrate, or feigns himself to celebrate and is no Priest, * if he be not baptized rightly, * if there was in his person, as by being Simoniac, or irregular, a bastard, or bigamus, or any other thing which he can or cannot know of; if there was any defect in his baptisme, or ordinati­ons, or in the baptisme and ordination of him that ordained him, or in all the successi­on from the head of the [...], from the Apostles that first began the Series, in all these cases it cannot but be acknowledged by their own doctrine, that the consecration is invalid and ineffective, the product is no­thing, but a piece of bread is made the ob­ject of the divine worship. Well! suppose that none of all this happens, yet there are many defects in respect of the matter also: [Page 339]as if the bread be corrupted, * or the wine be vineger, * if it be mingled with any other substance but water, * or if the water be the prevailing ingredient, or if the bread be not wheat, or the wine be of soure or be of unripe grapes, in all these cases nothing is changed; but bread remains still, [...], meer bread and meer wine, and yet they are wor­shipped by divine adoration.

3. 3 When certain of the Society of Jesuits were to dye by the Lawes of England in the beginning of King Iames his reign; it was ask'd them, whether if they might have leave to say Masse, they would to the people stand­ing by, for the confirmation of their doubt and to convert them, say these words, [un­lesse this whole Species you see in the chalice be the same bloud which did flow out of the side of the Crucifix, or of Christ hanging on the Crosse, let there be no part for me in the bloud of Christ, or in Christ himself to eternal ages] and so with these words in their mouths yeild to death; They all denyed it, none of them would take such a Sacrament upon them. And when Garnet that unhappy man was tempted to the same sense; he an­swer'd, that a man might well doubt of the particular. Vide Bonavent. in 3. dist. 24. a. 1. q. 1, No man was bound to believe that any one Priest in particular, now, or at any one certain time does consecrate ef­fectively; [Page 340]But that the bread is transub­stantiated some where or other, at some time or other, Bishop Andrewes Resp. ad apolog. Bellar. p. 7. by some Priest or other. This I receive from the relation of a wise Prelat, a great and a good man, whose memory is precious, and is had in honour. But the effect of this is, that Transubstantiation, supposing the do­ctrine true, (as it is most false) yet in practise is uncertain; but the giving it divine worship is certain; the change is believed only in general, but it is worshipped in particular; concern­ing which, whether it be any thing more then bread, it is impossible without a revela­tion they should know. These then are very ill; and deeply to be considered; for certain it is, God is a jealous God, and therefore will be impatient of every incroachment upon his peculiar. And then for us; as we must pray with faith, and without doubting, so it is fit we should worship; and yet in this case and up­on these premises, no man can choose but doubt; and therefore he cannot, he ought not to worship; Quod dubitas ne feceris.

4. I will not censure concerning the men that do it, or consider concerning the action, whether it be formal idolatry or no. God is their Judge and mine, and I beg he would be pleased to have mercy upon us all; but yet they that are interested, for their own particulars ought to fear and consider these [Page 341]things. 1. That no man without his own fault, can mistake a creature so far, as to sup­pose him to be a God. 2. That when the heathens worshipped the Sun and Moon, they did it upon their confidence that they were Gods, and would not have given to them divine honours if they had thought other­wise. 3. That the distinction of material and formal idolatry though it have a place in Phi­losophy, because the understanding can consi­der an act with his error, and yet separate the parts of the consideration; yet it hath no place in Divinity; because in things of so great concernment it cannot but be supposed highly agreeable to the goodnesse and justice of God, that every man be sufficiently in­structed in his duty and convenient notices. 4. That no man in the world upon these grounds, except he that is malicious and spightful, can be an Idolater; for if he have an ignorance great enough to excuse him, he can be no Idolater; if he have not, he is spightful and malicious; and then all the heathens are also excused as well as they. 5. That if good intent and ignorance in such cases can take off the crime, then the perse­cutors that killed the Apostles thinking they did God good service, and Saul in blas­pheming the religion and persecuting the servants of Iesus, and the Jewes themselves [Page 342]in crucifying the Lord of life, who did it igno­rantly as did also their Rulers, have met with their excuse upon the same account. And therefore it is not safe for the men of the Roman communion to take anodyne medicines and narcotics to make them insensible of the pain; for it will not cure their disease. Their doing it upon the stock of error and ignorance I hope will dispose them to receive a pardon: But yet that also supposes them criminal; And though I would not for all the world be their accuser, or the aggravator of the crime, yet I am not unwilling to be their re­membrancer, that themselves may avoid the danger. For though Iacob was innocent in lying with Leah in stead of Rachel, because he had no cause to suspect the deception; yet if Penelope who had not seen Ulysses in 20 yeers should see one come to her nothing like Ulysses, but saying he were her husband, she should give but an ill account of her chastity if she should actually admit him to her bed, only saying, if you be Ulysses, or upon supposition that you are Ulysses, I admit you. For if she certainly admits him, of whom she is uncertain if he be her husband, she certainly is an adulteresse: Because she ha­ving reason to doubt, ought first to be satis­fied of her question. Since therefore besides the insuperable doubts of the main article it [Page 343]self, in the practise and the particulars there are acknowledged so many wayes of decepti­on, and confessed that the actual failings are frequent (as I shewed before out of Pope Adrian) it will be but a weak excuse to say, I worship thee if thou be the Son of God, but I do not worship thee, if thou beest not consecrated, and in the mean time, the divine worship is actually exhibited to what is set before us. At the best we may say to these men, as our blessed Saviour to the woman of Samaria, Ye worship ye know not what; but we know what we worship. For concerning the action of adoration, this I am to say, That it is a fit addresse in the day of solemnity with a Sursum corda with our hearts lift up to heaven, where Christ sits (we are sure) at the right hand of the Father, for Nemo dignè manducat nisi priùs adoraverit, said S. Austin No man eats Christs body worthily, but he that first adores Christ. But to terminate the di­vine worship to the Sacrament, to that which we eat, is so unreasonable Vide Theodoret quaest. 55. in Genes. & q. 11. in Levit. and unnatural, and withall so scandalous, that Averroes observing it to be used among the Christians with whom he had the ill fortune to converse, said these words. [...]. Theo­doret q. in Gen. q. 55. Quandoquidem Christiani ado­rant quod comedunt, sit anima mea cum Philo­sophis. Since Christians worship what they eat, let my soul be with the Philosophers. If [Page 344]the man had conversed with those who bet­ter understood the article, and were more religious and wise in their worshippings, pos­sibly he might have been invited by the ex­cellency of the institution to become a Christian. But they that give scandal to Jewes by their Images, and leaving out the second Commandement from their Cate­chismes, give offence to the Turks by wor­shipping the Sacrament, and to all reasona­ble men by striving against two or three Sci­ences and the notices of all mankind. We worship the flesh of Christ in the mysteries (saith S. Ambrose) as the Apostles did worship it in our Saviour. De Spir. S. l. 3. c. 12. For we receive the mysteries as re­presenting and exhibiting to our souls the flesh and bloud of Christ; So that we wor­ship it in the sumption, and venerable usa­ges of the signes of his body. But we give no divine honour to the signes: We do not call the Sacrament our God. And let it be considered; whether if the Primitive Church had ever done or taught that the divine wor­ship ought to be given to the Sacrament, it had not been certain that the heathen would have retorted most of the arguments upon their heads by which the Christians re­proved their worshipping of Images. The Christians upbraided them with worship­ping the works of their hands, to which [Page 345]themselves gave what figure they pleased, and then by certain forms consecrated them and made by invocation (as they supposed) a divinity to dwell there. They objected to them that they worshipped that which could neither see, nor hear, nor smell, nor tast, nor move, nor understand: that which could grow old and perish, that could be broken and burned, that was subject to the injury of Rats, and Mice, of Wormes and creeping things, that can be taken by enemies, and car­ryed away, that is kept under lock and key for fear of Theevs and sacrilegious persons. Now if the Church of those ages had thought and practised as they have done at Rome in these last ages, might not they have said, Why may not we as well as you? do not you worship that with divine honours, and call it your God which can be burnt, and broken, which your selves form into a round or a square figure, which the Oven first hard­ens, and then your Priests consecrate and by invocation make to be your God, which can see no more, nor hear, nor smell, then the sil­ver and gold upon our Images? Do not you adore that which Rats and Mice eat, which can grow mouldy, and sowre, which you keep under locks and bars, for fear your God be stolne? Did not Lewis the ninth pawn your God to the Soldan of Egypt, inso­much [Page 346]that to this day the Aegyptian escut­cheons by way of triumph bear upon them a pix with a wafer in it: True it is, that if we are beaten from our cities, we carry our Gods with us; but did not the Jesuits carry your Host (which you call God) about their necks from Venice in the time of the Interdict? And now why do you reprove that in us which you do in your selves? What could have been answered to them if the doctrine and acci­dents of our time had furnished them with these or the like instances? In vain it would have been to have replied; Yea but ours is the true God, and yours are false gods. For they would easily have made a rejoinder; and said, that this is to be proved by some other argu­ment; in the mean time all your objections. a­gainst our worshipping of Images, return violently upon you. Upon this account, since none of the witty and subtle adversaries of Christianity ever did, or could make this de­fence by way of recrimination, it is certain there was no occasion given; and therefore those trifling pretences made out of some sayings of the Fathers pretending the practise of worshipping the Sacrament, must needs be Sophistry, and illusion, and can need no par­ticular consideration. But if any man can think them at all considerable, L. 4. c. 4. de la Cene du Signeur. I refer him to be satisfi'd by Mich. le Faucheur in his volumi­nous [Page 347]confutation of Card. Perron. I for my part am weary of the infinite variety of ar­gument in this question; and therefore shall only observe this, that antiquity does fre­quently use the words [...], venerable, a­dorable, worshipful to every thing that ought to be received with great reverence, and used with regard: to Princes, to Laws, to Baptisme, to Bishops, to Priests, to the ears of Priests, the Crosse, the Chalice, the Temples, the words of Scripture, the Feast of Easter; and upon the same account by which it is pretended that some of the Fathers taught the adoration of the Eucharist, we may also infer the adoration of all the other instances. But that which proves too much, proves no­thing at all.

These are the grounds by which I am my self established, and by which I perswade or confirm others in this article.

I end with the words of the Fathers in the Councel of CP. A. D. 745. [...]. Christ com­manded the substance of bread to be offer'd, not the shape of a man, lest Idolatry should be introduc'd.

Gloria Deo in excelsis:
In terris pax hominibus bonae voluntatis.

A CATALOGUE of some Books Printed for Richard Royston at the Angel in Ivie-lane, London.

  • A Paraphrase and Annotations upon all the Books of the New Testament by Henry Hammond D. D. in fol.
  • The Practical Catechisme, with all other English Treatises of Henry Hammond D.D. in two volumes in 4 o.
  • Dissertationes quatuor, quibus Episcopatus Jura ex S. Scripturis & Primaeva Antiquitate adstruuntur, contra sententiam D. Blondelli & aliorum. Authore Henrico Hammond. in 4 o.
  • A Letter of Resolution of six Quaere's, in 12 o.
The names of several Treatises and Sermons written by Jer. Taylor D.D. viz.
  • 1. [...], A Course of Sermons for all the Sundaies of the Year; Together with a Discourse of the Divine Institution, Necessity, Sacrednesse, and Separation of the Office Ministerial, in fol.
  • 2. Episcopacy asserted, in 4 o.
  • 3. The History of the Life and Death of the Ever-blessed Jesus Christ, 2 d Edit. in fol.
  • 4. The Liberty of Prophesying, in 4 o.
  • 5. An Apology for authorized and Set-forms of Liturgie; in 4 o.
  • 6. A Discourse of Baptisme, its institution and efficacy upon all Beleivers, in 4 o.
  • 7. The Rule and Exercises of holy living, in 12 o.
  • 8. The Rule and exercises of holy dying, in 12 o.
  • 9. A short Catechisme for institution of young persons in the Christian Religion, in 12 o.
  • Certamen Religiosum, or a Conference between the late King of England, and the late Lord Marquis of Worcester con­cerning Religion, at Ragland Castle; Together with a [Page]Vindication of the Protestant Cause, by Chr. Cartwright in 4 o.
  • The Psalter of David, with Titles and Collects according to the matter of each Psalm, by the Right honourable Chr. Hatton, in 12 o.
  • Boanerges and Barnabas, or Judgement and Mercy for woun­ded and afflicted souls, in several Soliloquies, by Francis Quarles, in 12 o.
  • The life of Faith in Dead Times, by Chr. Hudson in 12 o.
  • Motives for Prayer upon the seven dayes of the Week, by Sir Richard Baker Knight, in 12 o.
  • The Guide unto True Blesledness, or a Body of the Do­ctrine of the Scriptures, directing man to the saving know­ledge of God, by Sam. Crook, in 12 o.
  • Six excellent Sermons upon several occasions, preached by Edward Willan Vicar of Hoxne, in 4 o.
  • The Dipper dipt, or the Anabaptists duck'd and plung'd over head and ears, by Daniel Featly D. D. in 4 o.
  • Hermes Theologus, or a Divine Mercury: new descants upon old Records, by Theoph. Wodnote, in 12 o.
  • Philosophical Elements, concerning Government and Civil society: by Thomas Hobbs of Malmesbury, in 12 o,
  • An Essay upon Statius, or the five first books of Publ. Pa­pinius Statius his Thebais, by Tho. Stephens School-master in S. Edmonds-bury, in 8 o.
  • Nomenclatura Brevis Anglo-Latino Graeca in usum Scholae Westmonasteriensis, per F. Gregory, in 8 o.
  • Grammatices Graecae Enchiridion in usum Scholae Collegialis Wigorniae, in 8 o.
  • A Discourse of Holy Love, by Sir Geo. Strode Knight, in 12 o.
  • The Saints Honey-Comb full of Divine Truths, by Rich. Gove Preacher of Henton S. Gorge in Somersetshire, in 8 o.
  • Devotion digested, into several Discourses and Meditations upon the Lords most holy Prayer: Together with addi­tional Exercitations upon Baptism, The Lords Supper, Heresies, Blasphemy, The Creatures, Sin, The souls pan­tings after God, The Mercies of God, The souls com­plaint of its absence from God; by Peter Samwaies, Fel­low lately resident in Trinity College, Cambridge, in 12 o.
  • Of the Division between the English and Romish Church upon Reformation, by Hen. Fern D. D. in 12 o.
  • Directions for the profitable reading of the Scriptures, by [Page] John White M. A. in 8 o.
  • The Exemplary Lives and Memorable Acts of 9. the most worthy women of the world, 3 Jews, 3 Gentiles, 3 Chri­stians, by Tho. Heywood, in 4 o.
  • The Saints Legacies, or a Collection of promises out of the Word of God, in 12 o.
  • Judicium Universitatis Oxoniensis de Solemni Lega & Foedere, Juramento Negativo &c. in 8 o.
  • Certain Sermons and Letters of Defence and Resolution to some of the late Controversaries of our times by Jasper Mayne D. D. in 4 o.
  • Janua Linguarum Reserata, sive omnium Scientiarum & Lin­guarum seminarium, Auctore Cl. Viro J. A. Comenio, in 8 o.
  • A Treatise concerning Divine providence, very seasonable for all Ages, by Tho. Morton Bishop of Duresme, in 8 o.
  • Animadversions upon M r. Hobbs his Leviathan, with some Observations upon Sir Walter Rawleighs History of the World, by Alex. Rosse, in 12 o.
  • Fifty Sermons preached by that learned and reverend Di­vine John Donne, in fol.
  • Wits-Common-wealth, in 12 o.
  • The Banquet of Jests new and old, in 12 o.
  • Balzac's Letters the fourth part, in 8 o.
  • Quarles Virgin Widow a Play, in 4 o.
  • Solomons Recantation, in 4 o. by Francis Quarles.
  • Amesii antisynodalia, in 12 o.
  • Christ's Commination against Scandalizers, by John Tombes in 12 o.
  • D r. Stuart's Answer to Fountain's Letter, in 4 o.
  • A Tract of Fortifications, with 22 brasse cuts, in 4 o.
  • D r. Griffiths Sermon preached at S. Pauls, in 4 o.
  • Blessed birth-day, printed at Oxford, in 8 o.
  • A Discourse of the state Ecclesiastical, in 4 o.
  • An Account of the Church Catholick where it was before the Reformation, by Edward Boughen D.D. in 4 o.
  • An Advertisement to the Jury-men of England touching Witches, written by the Author of the Observations up-M r. Hobbs Leviathan, in 4 o.
  • Episcopacy and Presbytery considered, by Hen. Fern D.D. in 4 o.
  • A Sermon preached at the Isle of Wight before His Majesty, by Hen. Fern D. D. in 4 o.
  • [Page]The Commoners Liberty or the English-mans Birth-right, in 4 o.
  • An Expedient for composing Differences in Religion, in 4 o.
  • A Treatise of Self-denial, in 4 o.
  • The holy Life and Death of the late Vi-countesse Falkland, in 12 o.
  • Certain Considerations of present Concernment: Touch­ing this Reformed Church of England, by Hen. Fern, in 12 o.
  • Englands Faithful Reprover and Monitour, in 12 o.
  • A Contemplation of Heaven, together with an exercise of Love and a Meditation upon the Prayer in the Garden, written by a Catholick Gentleman.

This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Text Creation Partnership. Searching, reading, printing, or downloading EEBO-TCP texts is reserved for the authorized users of these project partner institutions. Permission must be granted for subsequent distribution, in print or electronically, of this EEBO-TCP Phase II text, in whole or in part.