of transubstantiation, or, a reply to a late paper, call'd a full answer to dr. tenison's conferences concerning the eucharist tenison, thomas, 1636-1715. 1688 approx. 10 kb of xml-encoded text transcribed from 2 1-bit group-iv tiff page images. text creation partnership, ann arbor, mi ; oxford (uk) : 2003-09 (eebo-tcp phase 1). a64365 wing t706 estc r18601 11939648 ocm 11939648 51244 this keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the early english books online text creation partnership. this phase i text is available for reuse, according to the terms of creative commons 0 1.0 universal . the text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission. early english books online. (eebo-tcp ; phase 1, no. a64365) transcribed from: (early english books online ; image set 51244) images scanned from microfilm: (early english books, 1641-1700 ; 517:6) of transubstantiation, or, a reply to a late paper, call'd a full answer to dr. tenison's conferences concerning the eucharist tenison, thomas, 1636-1715. 1 sheet ([2] p.) printed for ric. chiswell ..., london : 1688. broadside. caption title. reproduction of original in huntington library. created by converting tcp files to tei p5 using tcp2tei.xsl, tei @ oxford. re-processed by university of nebraska-lincoln and northwestern, with changes to facilitate morpho-syntactic tagging. gap elements of known extent have been transformed into placeholder characters or elements to simplify the filling in of gaps by user contributors. eebo-tcp is a partnership between the universities of michigan and oxford and the publisher proquest to create accurately transcribed and encoded texts based on the image sets published by proquest via their early english books online (eebo) database (http://eebo.chadwyck.com). the general aim of eebo-tcp is to encode one copy (usually the first edition) of every monographic english-language title published between 1473 and 1700 available in eebo. eebo-tcp aimed to produce large quantities of textual data within the usual project restraints of time and funding, and therefore chose to create diplomatic transcriptions (as opposed to critical editions) with light-touch, mainly structural encoding based on the text encoding initiative (http://www.tei-c.org). the eebo-tcp project was divided into two phases. the 25,363 texts created during phase 1 of the project have been released into the public domain as of 1 january 2015. anyone can now take and use these texts for their own purposes, but we respectfully request that due credit and attribution is given to their original source. users should be aware of the process of creating the tcp texts, and therefore of any assumptions that can be made about the data. text selection was based on the new cambridge bibliography of english literature (ncbel). if an author (or for an anonymous work, the title) appears in ncbel, then their works are eligible for inclusion. selection was intended to range over a wide variety of subject areas, to reflect the true nature of the print record of the period. in general, first editions of a works in english were prioritized, although there are a number of works in other languages, notably latin and welsh, included and sometimes a second or later edition of a work was chosen if there was a compelling reason to do so. image sets were sent to external keying companies for transcription and basic encoding. quality assurance was then carried out by editorial teams in oxford and michigan. 5% (or 5 pages, whichever is the greater) of each text was proofread for accuracy and those which did not meet qa standards were returned to the keyers to be redone. after proofreading, the encoding was enhanced and/or corrected and characters marked as illegible were corrected where possible up to a limit of 100 instances per text. any remaining illegibles were encoded as <gap>s. understanding these processes should make clear that, while the overall quality of tcp data is very good, some errors will remain and some readable characters will be marked as illegible. users should bear in mind that in all likelihood such instances will never have been looked at by a tcp editor. the texts were encoded and linked to page images in accordance with level 4 of the tei in libraries guidelines. copies of the texts have been issued variously as sgml (tcp schema; ascii text with mnemonic sdata character entities); displayable xml (tcp schema; characters represented either as utf-8 unicode or text strings within braces); or lossless xml (tei p5, characters represented either as utf-8 unicode or tei g elements). keying and markup guidelines are available at the text creation partnership web site . eng full answer to dr. tenisons conferences, concerning the eucharist. transubstantiation. broadsides -england -london -17th century 2003-05 tcp assigned for keying and markup 2003-05 aptara keyed and coded from proquest page images 2003-06 mona logarbo sampled and proofread 2003-06 mona logarbo text and markup reviewed and edited 2003-08 pfs batch review (qc) and xml conversion of transubstantiation : or , a reply to a late paper , call'd , a full answer to dr. tenison's conferences concerning the eucharist . these transubstantiators , it seems , are as apt to fancy one man , as one thing to be another ; hence it is , that they have turn'd the publisher of the six conferences , lately put out , into a french man ; for such a one , i am assur'd , was the author of those dialogues . and therefore both this gentleman , and his friend , who , he says , was so good at guessing , must guess again . transubstantiation is a doctrine so absurd and groundless , that a man can never want arguments against it . but protestants sensible of the goodness of their cause , will sometimes give overplus in reasoning with their adversaries ; and when they have prov'd that there is no such doctrine as that of transubstantiation , reveal'd , they next endeavour to shew ex abundanti , that 't is impossible it shou'd ; if it were never so possible it shou'd , yet it does not follow that it is . nor can papists ever prove it , till they first prove themselves infallible in interpreting scripture . for , as for those words , this is my body , which is broken for you ; 't is evident that they lye much more easy and naturally to be interpreted in the protestant than popish sense , as some of their own authors have been so ingenuous as to confess . so that here is a desperate hard task still lying upon 'em , were it granted possible that such a thing shou'd be reveal'd . but that that is impossible , may be thus made out . it cannot be reveal'd , but by giving us greater evidence to think it true , than we have to think it false . now we prove it false by the clear evidence , both of sense and reason . of sense , because all our senses tell us , that that is bread , which if their doctrine be true , is not bread , but the body of a man. of reason , because that faculty does assure us as much as it can of any thing , that one and the same body cannot be in several places at once , nor the whole body of a man crowded into the compass of a pins head , and that still divisible into a great many more whole bodies , &c. but here the papists stop us short , catching at one part of the argument . for , sense , say they , may deceive us as it did abraham , who thought he saw men , when he saw angels : and why then , if god will have it so , may not we see the body of christ indeed , when we think we see bread ? i answer , they that appear'd to abraham in the 18 th of genesis , for ought that can be prov'd , did for that time assume the real bodies of men ( it shou'd seem so by their eating . ) and abraham's senses could only tell him that they did appear like men. if he thereupon concluded immediately that they were men , he erred , and was led into the error by his senses , which no one ever denied , but a man might be . but he might know ( and did , 't is like , upon a little reflection ) that the eye alone was not sufficient to inform him at all times , whether what looked like a man , was one , because an angel might assume and actuate a humane body . however , it is certain , that to the making up of that creature which we call a man , there goes something more than what is visible to the eye , viz. a humane soul. and whether that were there or no , or an angel in the room of it , was more than abraham could certainly discern by his senses . but there is not the same case in seeing of a piece of bread , because there is no ground to think there is any thing in a piece of bread , more than what is discernable by sense . to talk of a substance distinct from the colour , tast , smell , and from the very quantity and dimensions also , is but a piece of scholastick nonsence . a body has the name of bread given it , because its matter or quantitative dimensions ( which is all one ) have such a certain colour , tast , smell , &c. from the concurrence or combination of which , we english men agree to call it bread , the latins panis . now to say , that a body having all these , whence by general consent it is wont to be called bread , yet is not bread ; is all one , as to say , that bread is not bread , which ●s nonsence and a contradiction , and we take transubstantiation to be so , from one end to the other . suppose a man shou'd come and shew me a little black dog , and shou'd face me down that it was no dog , but the city of rome , nay , and that that whole city was not onely crowded into so little a compass , but that , cut him into never so many pieces , still every bit was the whole city of rome . if , i say , a man shou'd come and tell me thus , sure this gentleman would give me leave to think he was out of his wits . but suppose then such a man as xaverius , who a. pulton says had the gift of tongues ( tho' he himself complains sadly in one of his epistles that he had it not , and knew not what to do for want of it , ep. iapan . 3. p. 30. ) and raised twenty five persons from the dead : suppose , i say , he shou'd come and work all these miracles which a. pulton believes he did work , in my sight , and so as to convince me of the truth of them , and when he had done , shou'd tell me he wrought all these to convince me that that same black cur was no dog , but the whole city of rome , &c. as before . in this case , and upon this mad impossible supposition ( for such we must make , if we would draw a parallel right ) tho' i were never so much convinced of the truth of his miracles before , yet i must needs tell him , sir , you do but confound me . i believed your miracles to be true , because they seemed so when i had examined them by sense and reason as well as i cou'd . but if this intolerable absurdity be that which you wou'd prove by 'em , then i find my sense and reason signify nothing . and believe you , i cannot after all ; because i have as great , if not greater evidence that this is but a dog still , than i had , or could have of the truth of your miracles . now let him shew that can , that in this supposition i have made , there are greater absurdities than what are in transubstantiation . but to make it a parallel case betwixt an angel sometimes appearing in humane shape , and not being discern'd from a man by the eye , and a bit of bread being turn'd in ten thousand places , into the same natural body of our saviour , and every bit of it into the whole body ; and yet to all mens senses appearing to be nothing in the world but bread still ; this certainly is a great extravagance . and i must tell this gentleman , that whereas he says it might have been said to abraham , ask your eyes , ask your nose , ask your hands — they will all tell you , 't is a man you see ; herein he says more than he can prove . for we have no reason to think that abraham did either smell to , or feel the angels ; and unless the angels did really take humane bodies , i suppose , feeling wou'd have discovered the truth ; because our saviour says , handle me and see , for a spirit hath not flesh and bones as ye see me have . but this gentleman charges the doctor ( his falsly supposed author of the conferences ) with great ignorance in logick , for reasoning in this manner . if our senses deceive us in the report they make of the eucharist , they may as well deceive us in every thing else . now i confess i see no ill logick in this ; for the sequel is easily proved thus ; because our senses report nothing with clearer evidence than they do in this matter of the eucharist . and how , i pray , is there here an universal drawn from a particular ? as for comparing transubstantiation with the trinity , i wou'd desire this gentleman to answer what has been already written in some dialogues lately printed on that subject . or let him but shew us as good scripture-proof for transubstantiation , as there is for the trinity ; and try next whether he can load the doctrine of the trinity , as deliver'd in scripture , with as many absurdities as follow from transubstantiation ; and then it will be time to consider , whether we had best believe transubstantiation , or turn socinians . but this will be a long while a doing . in the mean time it is denied that the doctrine of the trinity does at all contradict that maxime , quae conveniunt in un tertio conveniunt inter se , in the true sence of it . as for this gentleman's way of dealing with an infidel , to make him believe transubstantiation ; i must tell him , that if his infidel understood himself , it will prove insufficient . for , 1. whereas he says that they agree , god sees truths which we cannot understand , and that he can reveal those truths ; his infidel may tell him , that if there be any truths repugnant to the first principles of all humane knowledg , god must give us other faculties , before he can reveal such truths to us . and , 2. that he can never make it appear , that the moral evidence he talks of , is equal to the moral evidence we have of the falsity of transubstantiation . lastly , as for the threatning conclusion , that the doctor may chance to smart for attempting the destruction of their church ; if he means in this world , let him say it plainly : if he means in the next , he might know we fear not that upon this account . all the danger we fear for opposing that church ( in this way of disputation and reasoning ) is wholly in this world ; in the other we believe they will be more in danger to suffer for defending it . imprimatur , nov. 22. 1687. guil. needham . london : printed for ric. chiswell , at the rose and crown in st. paul's church-yard . m dc lxxxviii . the demonstration of antichrist. by edmund gurnay, bach. theol. p. of harpley norfolke gurnay, edmund, d. 1648. 1631 approx. 25 kb of xml-encoded text transcribed from 18 1-bit group-iv tiff page images. text creation partnership, ann arbor, mi ; oxford (uk) : 2009-03 (eebo-tcp phase 1). a02398 stc 12529 estc s120940 99856131 99856131 21654 this keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the early english books online text creation partnership. this phase i text is available for reuse, according to the terms of creative commons 0 1.0 universal . the text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission. early english books online. (eebo-tcp ; phase 1, no. a02398) transcribed from: (early english books online ; image set 21654) images scanned from microfilm: (early english books, 1475-1640 ; 1069:9) the demonstration of antichrist. by edmund gurnay, bach. theol. p. of harpley norfolke gurnay, edmund, d. 1648. [6], 28, [2] p. printed by i[ohn] b[eale] for iames boler, and are to be sold at the signe of the marigold in pauls churchyard, london : 1631. printer's name from stc. cf. folger catalogue, which gives signatures: a¹² b⁶. running title reads: ecce antichristum. reproduction of the original in the henry e. huntington library and art gallery. tightly bound. created by converting tcp files to tei p5 using tcp2tei.xsl, tei @ oxford. re-processed by university of nebraska-lincoln and northwestern, with changes to facilitate morpho-syntactic tagging. gap elements of known extent have been transformed into placeholder characters or elements to simplify the filling in of gaps by user contributors. eebo-tcp is a partnership between the universities of michigan and oxford and the publisher proquest to create accurately transcribed and encoded texts based on the image sets published by proquest via their early english books online (eebo) database (http://eebo.chadwyck.com). the general aim of eebo-tcp is to encode one copy (usually the first edition) of every monographic english-language title published between 1473 and 1700 available in eebo. eebo-tcp aimed to produce large quantities of textual data within the usual project restraints of time and funding, and therefore chose to create diplomatic transcriptions (as opposed to critical editions) with light-touch, mainly structural encoding based on the text encoding initiative (http://www.tei-c.org). the eebo-tcp project was divided into two phases. the 25,363 texts created during phase 1 of the project have been released into the public domain as of 1 january 2015. anyone can now take and use these texts for their own purposes, but we respectfully request that due credit and attribution is given to their original source. users should be aware of the process of creating the tcp texts, and therefore of any assumptions that can be made about the data. text selection was based on the new cambridge bibliography of english literature (ncbel). if an author (or for an anonymous work, the title) appears in ncbel, then their works are eligible for inclusion. selection was intended to range over a wide variety of subject areas, to reflect the true nature of the print record of the period. in general, first editions of a works in english were prioritized, although there are a number of works in other languages, notably latin and welsh, included and sometimes a second or later edition of a work was chosen if there was a compelling reason to do so. image sets were sent to external keying companies for transcription and basic encoding. quality assurance was then carried out by editorial teams in oxford and michigan. 5% (or 5 pages, whichever is the greater) of each text was proofread for accuracy and those which did not meet qa standards were returned to the keyers to be redone. after proofreading, the encoding was enhanced and/or corrected and characters marked as illegible were corrected where possible up to a limit of 100 instances per text. any remaining illegibles were encoded as <gap>s. understanding these processes should make clear that, while the overall quality of tcp data is very good, some errors will remain and some readable characters will be marked as illegible. users should bear in mind that in all likelihood such instances will never have been looked at by a tcp editor. the texts were encoded and linked to page images in accordance with level 4 of the tei in libraries guidelines. copies of the texts have been issued variously as sgml (tcp schema; ascii text with mnemonic sdata character entities); displayable xml (tcp schema; characters represented either as utf-8 unicode or text strings within braces); or lossless xml (tei p5, characters represented either as utf-8 unicode or tei g elements). keying and markup guidelines are available at the text creation partnership web site . eng catholic church -controversial literature -early works to 1800. transubstantiation -early works to 1800. popes -primacy -early works to 1800. 2007-11 tcp assigned for keying and markup 2008-01 spi global keyed and coded from proquest page images 2008-02 john pas sampled and proofread 2008-02 john pas text and markup reviewed and edited 2008-09 pfs batch review (qc) and xml conversion the demonstration of antichrist . by edmvnd gvrnay , bach. theol. p. of harpley norfolke . london , printed by i.b. for iames boler , and are to be sold at the signe of the marigold in pauls churchyard . 1631. to the all-hopefvll charles , by the grace of god , prince of wales , &c. it is the glorie of all temporall power to maintaine the glory of christ , and so consequently to confound antichrist , when , therefore , the prouidence of god sends temporall princes into the world , such as can giue any intelligēce toward the discouering this antichrist , cannot be thought ouerhastie in presenting the same vnto them . indeed , the intelligence which this little booke can do in such kind of businesse must needs be thought little ; notwithstanding , it was a little pibble-stone that bored the front of goliah , when the valiant men of israel were afraid to encounter him . also the littlenesse of it may be a meanes to induce gods little ones , the sooner to begin to turne the leaues thereof as they shall begin to awake vnto the day-light of vnderstanding . which happy time of our princes awaking , it resoluing to wait ; the author shall in the meane time beseech the almighty to visit him daily with the light of his countenance , and as his abilities shall grow , to allure them into the most pleasant paths of his most royal● seruice . ecce anti-christvm . hee that professeth himselfe the supreme head of the church of christ , and yet forceth men , vpon paine of death , to blaspheme christ , hee is antichrist . because it cannot be imagined how any power vpon earth can more cunningly , and out of a deeper mysterie doe christ such vniuersall mischiefe . but the pope of rome does professe himselfe the supreme head of the church of christ , ( and that is granted ) and yet forceth men vpon paine of death , ( both temporall and eternall ) to blaspheme christ . and this we thus proue : hee that forceth men vpon paine of death to grant , that there is no other christ but he whose perfit body , soule , and deity hath , for these 1600. yeers last past , beene ordinarily present amongst men vnder that particular forme which immediately before the speaking of a few words was the forme of a senselesse creature , and in that forme does enter into the mouthes of liuing creatures ▪ he forceth men to blaspheme christ . because this position does blaspheme , the manhood of christ . the god-head of christ . the maiesty of christ . the holinesse of christ . the iustice of christ . the mercy of christ . the wisdome of christ . the power and word of christ . first , it blasphemes the manhood of christ ; because it giues him such a body as in the outward eyes of those that are present with him hath no more similitude with the body of a man than a chip or a stone . secondly , it blasphemeth his god-head ; because it supposeth the creator to be ordinarily vnited vnto the forme of a creature . thirdly , it blasphemeth his maiesty ; because it giues him such an outward presence as the vilest and poorest man liuing would be ashamed of , and euen vtterly abhorre . fourthly , it blasphemeth his holinesse ; because it supposeth him to goe through more vncleane passages , than euer liuing man did , and such as of necessity do either reiect or corrupt whatsoeuer they receiue . fifthly , it blasphemeth his iustice ; because it affirmeth him to be ordinarily present amongst men , in a forme nothing like a man ; and yet wee must vpon paine of damnation beleeue that he is a perfit man. sixthly , it blasphemeth his mercy ; because it layes this intolerable burthen vpon the faith of little ones , either to looke for no saluation , or to beleeue that thing to be their sauiour which in all outward appearance is but a morsell of bread . seuenthly , it blasphemeth his wisedome ; because it supposeth him to worke daily multitudes of most incredible and most stupendious miracles , for no other purposes but such as are daily effected without any miracles at all : there being no kinde of benefit redounding vnto mankind by this his supposed bodily presence , but such as daily does redound vnto vs in his bodily absence : for daily does hee giue vs the gift of faith in his bodily absence ; daily does he conuerse with men , sup with men , and dwell with men in his bodily absence ; daily does hee giue all kind of gifts vnto men in his bodily absence ; daily does he send the cōforter in his bodily absence ; for the cōforter wil not come vnles he goes away ; ioh. 16.7 . yea ( finally ) daily does e giue vs his flesh to eat in his bodily absence ; for except we eat his flesh , we haue no life in vs , ( ioh. 6.53 . ) but hee that beleeueth hath euerlasting life ( ioh. 6. ●7 . ) and therefore he that beleeueth , does alwayes ( in his most bodily absence ) eat his flesh . to conclude , what benefit , what grace , what comfort was euer heard of , or can be imagined , but may bee imparted vnto men as well ( not to say incomparably more easily , more sweetly , more credibly ) in his bodily absence , as in this supposed bodily presence , wherunto such stupendious miracles must concurre : namely ( for a taste of them ) these amongst others : 1. that the perfit body of a man must bee couched and contriued into the forme of a bit of bread . 2. that the liuing body of one man must wholly enter into the mouth of another . 3 that the same man shall be in infinite places at once . 4. that the perfit body of man shall ordinarily come downe from heauen , and yet the outward eyes of those which entertain him shall not see it . 5. that these so vncouth wonders shall be wrought at the call of mortall men ( euery priest ) vnto the end of the world , &c. and is not this a blaspheming of the wisedome of the almighty to make him the de●isor of these so inglorious , and ( to say nothing of the quality of them ) insuperfluous miracles . also wee further adde , that it blasphemeth his power ; because it makes it the instrument of such operations as are dishonourable and repugnant vnto his wisdome , his maiesty , his iustice , and euen all his conditions and attributes ; whereas the power of god on the contrary does so infinitely apply it selfe to the honour and glory of god , as that it doth continually resist , confound and destroy whatsoeuer does offer the least diminution vnto it . last of all , it blasphemeth his word ; and that both his created word , and also his reuealed word . for what is his created word , but the faculties of sense & reason ? what word , or what light had man in his innocency , to shew him which was the middle tree in the garden ( which vpon paine of death he was forbidden to taste of ) but his common sense ? and what other word or light haue men now in the state of recouery , to tell them which is a man , and which is a beast ; which is a fish , and which is a serpent ; and to lay them out their particular taskes , portion ▪ and callings , but their common sense ? this therefore so immediately created and sacred light , if it bee made a notorious lyar , ( for what is it else if it constantly affirmes that to bee a morsell of bread which indeed is the perfit body of a man ? ) is not therein the word of god blasphemed ? and as for his reuealed word , both his originall word ( the scriptures ) and also his deriued word ( the fathers ) are not they also contradicted and blasphemed by this position . for first , concerning the scripture , does not that euery where tell vs , that our sauiour was in euery point like a man ? that he had the face , limbs , and properties of a man ? that hee did eat , drinke , and speake like a man ? also doe not the scriptures expresly say , that the heauens must containe him till all things bee restored ? acts 3.20 . and that he shall so descend from heauen ; as hee first ascended vp into heauen ? whereas by this position hee hath for these 1600. yeeres continually descended bodily from heauen , not once in such a manner descend , as hee first ascended : yea , the scripture euery where tells vs that now hee is in the state of glory ; whereas this position contriues him into a more vile forme than euer man had , and tyes him to a more base condition than euer any man ( or indeed any liuing creature ) did vndergoe . for though they seeme to doe him great honour while they carry him about ( in those breaden formes ) in their pompous processions ; yer when withall they professe that in the end he is to be eaten vnder those breaden formes , all the honour they bestow on him is no better honour vnto him , then the guilding the buls hornes when hee is led to be baited , is an honour vnto the bull. finally , the bread which our sauiour termed his body , does not the scripture every where call it still bread notwithstanding , he tooke , brake , blessed , and gaue bread , say all the euangelists ; sometime also saying as much of the cup as of the wine : paul also calling it bread , both in the blessing , and in the eating , and also after the eating : and the acts of the apostles terming these communions ( chap. 2.42 . ) a continuance in breaking bread : and ( chap. 20.7 . ) a comming together to break bread : and all the fathers for many hundred yeeres together immediately following the first institution , when at any time they made mention of it , as securely calling it bread , as if they neuer imagined that any would euer make question thereof . and for proofe hereof , wee haue thought good to close vp this point with a border of citation● out of them ; leauing the force of their sayings to the applicati●●● of the reader for breuity sake . clemens romanus ( to cite them according to the times wherein they liued ) saith thus of it ; we offer vnto thee our king and our god , this bread and this wine , giuing thee thankes : concil . tom. 2. ignatius thus ; there is one flesh of our lord iesus , and one bloud , one bread and one cup. epist . 2. iustine martyr thus ; when prayers are finished , bread and wine is offered : and elsewhere thus ; christ hath giuen the bread to the end wee should remember that he was made a body for such as should beleeue . in dial. contra tryphon . and apolog. 2. irenaeus martyr thus ; as the eucharist consisting of two natures , the earthly and the heauenly , so our bodies , &c. tertullian thus ; calling the bread his body , to the end you may vnderstand that he hath giuen bread to bee a figure of his body . contra marcion . 3.19 . clemens alexandrinus thus ; the wine signifies the bloud allegorically . lib. de paedagog . 10.6 . origen thus ; if you take this saying , [ except ye eat the flesh of the sonne of man , &c. ] according to the letter , the letter killeth . hom. 7. in leuit. & elswhere thus ; after we haue giuen thankes , we eat the loues presented . contra celsun . 8. cyprian thus ; our lord gaue with his owne hands bread and wine , which he called his body . de vnct . chris . and elswhere thus ; this bread is conuerted into our flesh and bloud , and serueth for our life . epist . 2. eusebius caesariensis thus ; christ and his ministers doe represent the mysteries of his body and bloud by bread and wine . de demonst . euangel . 5.3 . athanasius thus ; how few would his body haue sufficed that it should be meat for all the world . in illud [ quicunque &c. ] concilium nicenum thus ; wee must not basely [ humiliter ] be intent vpon the bread and the eup , but lifting vp our mindes by faith , &c. concil . 1. macarius egypt , thus ; in the church bread and wine is offered being the figure of his flesh and bloud . homil. 27. epiphanius thus ; christ speaking of a loafe which is round in figure , and cannot see , heare , nor feele , saith of it , this is my body . in anchor . ambrose thus ; thou sawest the sacraments vpon the altar , and wondredst at the creature ; yet is it a solemne and knowne creature : de sacram. 4.3 . and elsewhere thus ; in the law was a shadow , in the gospell an image , in heauen the truth . lib. 10. ex offic . c. 48. gregory nissen , thus ; whose hath abundantly drunke of the apostles springs , hath already receiued whole christ . in vi● mos . chrysostome thus ; if it be dangerous to transferre sanctified vessels vnto priuate vses , where in not the true body of christ but onely a mysterie of that body is contained : how much les● ought wee to giue the vessels of our owne bodies to the deuil● which god hath prepared for himselfe to inhabit . in matth. 5. homil. 11. and elsewhere thus ; it is counted worthy to be called the lords body , though the nature of bread remaineth there still . ad caesar . monach. citat . à ●arijs author . and againe , thus ; wooll when it is died , is called no longer wooll , but purple or scarlet , though the nature of wooll stil remaineth . in psal . 22. gregory nazianzen thus ; we ●ow partake the passeouer , ●hough in a figure , yet much more cleare than in the old law. de pasch . orat. 2. hierome thus ; christ is not corporally in the church . in prou , 1. ● . and elsewhere thus ; christ left bread and wine , as he that goes ●voyage leaues a gage : in prim . ●d corinth . 11. and againe , thus ; i take the gospel to be the body of christ , and that more truly than the sacrament . in psal . 147. austine thus ; if we looke to the visible signes , by which the sacraments are performed , who can bee ignorant that they are corruptible . de bapt. lib. 3. cap. 10. and elsewhere thus ; by reason of the resemblance betwixt the sacraments and the things , the sacraments often times take the name of the things . epist . 23. and elsewhere thus ; this is a perfit rule to vnderstand whether a speech be figuratiue , that whatsoeuer in scripture cannot bee referred vnto integrity o● faith , or verity of manners , that resolue thy selfe is figuratiue . d● doctr . chr. lib. 3. chap. 10. where upon hee inferres our sauiour speech , [ of eating his flesh ] to be figuratiue , because according to the letter , it is a sinfull act ; calling it a carnall sense to take figuratiue speeches properly , and a miserable bondage of the soule . theodoret thus ; he honoured the signes which we see , with the name of his body , not changing the nature , but casting grace vpon nature . and elsewhere thus ; the mysticall signes after sanctification doe not depart from their nature , but remaine in their former substance , figure , and ●orme . dial. 2. cyril thus ; our sacrament a●oucheth not the eating of a man. ad obiect . theod. and elsewhere thus ; he gaue peeces of bread to his disciples . in 4. io●n . gelasius thus ; by the sacraments we are made partakers of the heauenly nature and yet for all that ceaseth not the nature of bread and wine . contra eutichens . fulgentius thus ; how did he goe vp to heauen but as he is very man , contained in a place ? or how is hee present with the faithfull , but as he is very god without all measure ? ad thrasimach . regul . 2. ephrem thus ; taking bread into his hands , he blessed it , and brake it for a figure of his body . contra inquis . diuin . natur. vigilius thus ; to goe to his father , and from vs ; was to take from the world that nature which he receiued of vs. contra eutichens . concilium constant . thus ; christ commanded the whole substance of bread , chosen for his image to bee set on the table , lest if it resembled the shape of a man , idolatry might bee committed . extat in concil . nicen. 2. procopius gazeus thus ; there is now giuen an image , a type , a figure of his body , receiuing no more the bloudy sacrifices of the law. super gen. 49. beda thus ; hee substituting the sacrament of his flesh in the figure of bread and wine . in luk. 22. and elsewhere out of austine thus ; that which you see , ●is bread and wine , which your very eyes can tell you . in 1 cor. 10. druthmarus thus ; wine maketh glad , and increaseth blood ; and therfore the blood of christ is aptly figured thereby . in mat. rhabanus maurus thus ; the sacrament is turned into the bodies nourishment . lib. 1. chap. 13. paschasius thus ; what finde they which taste these things , beside bread and wine , otherwise than by faith and hearing ? de corp . & sang . dom. bertramus thus ; the signes , as touching the substance of the creatures , are the same after consecration that they were before . de corp . & sang . dom. bernard thus ; what is it to eat his flesh , and drinke his blood , but to communicate with his passions , and to imitate his conuersation . in psalm . [ qui habitat &c. ] bonauenture thus ; the sacraments are said to containe gods grace , not as a vessell does water , but because they signif● gods grace . in 4. sentent . dis● 1.9.3 . and his text-man lumbard thus ; christ offered himselfe vpon the crosse , and his remembrance in the sacrament . lib. 4. dist . 12. the glosse vpon the common-law ( a principall witnesse in this cause ) thus ; it is his body improperly after a fashion , not in truth but in signification , quoting austine for it . super canon . hoc est corpus meum . decr. p. 3. dist . 2.16 . most true therfore our ground is , that whosoeuer inforceth men vpon paine of death , to grant that there is no other christ but he which is ordinarily present amongst men in the forme of common bread , he forceth men ●o blaspheme christ . all the na●ures , properties , and attributes of christ being blasphemed by ●uch assertion . but the pope of rome does force men vpon paine of death ( both spirituall and temporall ) so to grant : their tridentine councell inforcing it vpon paine of spiritual death , in these words ; viz. whosoeuer shall deny that in the most holy sacrament of the eucharist , is truly and really contained the body and bloud , together with the soule and diuinity of our lord iesus christ , and therefore whole christ ; but shall say that it is there onely as in a signe , or in a figure , or vertue , let him be accursed . concil . trident. sess 3. and one of their synode enioyning berengari● thus to say ; with my mouth and with my heart , i profes● that the bread and the wine afte● consecration , is not onely a sacrament , but also the true body and blood of iesus christ , and sensually in truth is handled and broken with the hands of the priests , and torne ( atteri ) with the teeth of the faithfull . decret . p. 3. dist . 2.16 . ego berengarius , &c. and as for temporall death which the gaine-sayer of this position did thereupon vndergoe ; what nation vnder their authority hath not records thereof written in bloud ? not to cite their secular lawes , which condemne all , heretikes ( amongst which , the resister of this position they count the cheefe ) ad poenam ignis : i.e. to bee burnt to death , and to vndergoe all kinde of penalties beside , in their name , friends , fautors , posterity , goods and fortunes that can bee imagined . summa angelica . litera here●icus . or if our english admirers of rome will beleeue nothing concerning the discipline of that church , but so farre forth as they can be assured thereof within the bounds of england ; they may haue recourse to the six articles established in english parliament ▪ the first whereof enacteth thus ▪ whosoeuer shall say , that in the sacrament of the altar vnder the forme of bread and wine ( after the consecration thereof ) there is not present , really , the naturall body and bloud of our sauiour iesus christ ; conceiued of the virgine mary ; or that after the said consecration there remaineth any substance of bread or wine , or any other substance but the substance of christ , both god and man , &c. then he shall be adiudged an heretike , and suffer death by burning , and shall forfeit to the king , all his lands , tenements , &c. as in case of hye reason . an. 31. hen. 8.14 . for though this law was enacted when the popes authority was suppressed , yet did it take the beginning from the church of rome : and a little after , in the reigne of quene mary , was executed to the full , by vertue of the romish authority . our demonstration therefore is most plaine , and let hea●en and earth bee iudge of it . hee that professeth himselfe the supreme head of the church of christ , and yet forceth men ●pon paine of death ( both temporall and eternall ) to blaspheme christ ; hee is antichrist . but the pope of rome so professeth , and so inforceth . therefore en & ecce antichristum . finis . notes, typically marginal, from the original text notes for div a02398-e190 circa an. c. p 2. an. c. 10● 133. an. 172. an. 196. an. c. 207. an. 250. an. 308. an. 327. an. 329. an 360. an. 379. an. 384. an. 385. an. 378. an. 394. an. 424. an. 490. an. 550. an. 526. an. 550. an answer to a late dialogue between a new catholick convert and a protestant to prove the mystery of the trinity to be as absurd a doctrine as transubstantiation : by way of short notes on the said dialogue. sherlock, william, 1641?-1707. 1687 approx. 35 kb of xml-encoded text transcribed from 9 1-bit group-iv tiff page images. text creation partnership, ann arbor, mi ; oxford (uk) : 2005-03 (eebo-tcp phase 1). a59787 wing s3261 estc r10173 12385594 ocm 12385594 60835 this keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the early english books online text creation partnership. this phase i text is available for reuse, according to the terms of creative commons 0 1.0 universal . the text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission. early english books online. (eebo-tcp ; phase 1, no. a59787) transcribed from: (early english books online ; image set 60835) images scanned from microfilm: (early english books, 1641-1700 ; 877:45) an answer to a late dialogue between a new catholick convert and a protestant to prove the mystery of the trinity to be as absurd a doctrine as transubstantiation : by way of short notes on the said dialogue. sherlock, william, 1641?-1707. [2], 14 p. printed for thomas bassett ..., london : 1687. reproduction of original in huntington library. created by converting tcp files to tei p5 using tcp2tei.xsl, tei @ oxford. re-processed by university of nebraska-lincoln and northwestern, with changes to facilitate morpho-syntactic tagging. gap elements of known extent have been transformed into placeholder characters or elements to simplify the filling in of gaps by user contributors. eebo-tcp is a partnership between the universities of michigan and oxford and the publisher proquest to create accurately transcribed and encoded texts based on the image sets published by proquest via their early english books online (eebo) database (http://eebo.chadwyck.com). the general aim of eebo-tcp is to encode one copy (usually the first edition) of every monographic english-language title published between 1473 and 1700 available in eebo. eebo-tcp aimed to produce large quantities of textual data within the usual project restraints of time and funding, and therefore chose to create diplomatic transcriptions (as opposed to critical editions) with light-touch, mainly structural encoding based on the text encoding initiative (http://www.tei-c.org). the eebo-tcp project was divided into two phases. the 25,363 texts created during phase 1 of the project have been released into the public domain as of 1 january 2015. anyone can now take and use these texts for their own purposes, but we respectfully request that due credit and attribution is given to their original source. users should be aware of the process of creating the tcp texts, and therefore of any assumptions that can be made about the data. text selection was based on the new cambridge bibliography of english literature (ncbel). if an author (or for an anonymous work, the title) appears in ncbel, then their works are eligible for inclusion. selection was intended to range over a wide variety of subject areas, to reflect the true nature of the print record of the period. in general, first editions of a works in english were prioritized, although there are a number of works in other languages, notably latin and welsh, included and sometimes a second or later edition of a work was chosen if there was a compelling reason to do so. image sets were sent to external keying companies for transcription and basic encoding. quality assurance was then carried out by editorial teams in oxford and michigan. 5% (or 5 pages, whichever is the greater) of each text was proofread for accuracy and those which did not meet qa standards were returned to the keyers to be redone. after proofreading, the encoding was enhanced and/or corrected and characters marked as illegible were corrected where possible up to a limit of 100 instances per text. any remaining illegibles were encoded as <gap>s. understanding these processes should make clear that, while the overall quality of tcp data is very good, some errors will remain and some readable characters will be marked as illegible. users should bear in mind that in all likelihood such instances will never have been looked at by a tcp editor. the texts were encoded and linked to page images in accordance with level 4 of the tei in libraries guidelines. copies of the texts have been issued variously as sgml (tcp schema; ascii text with mnemonic sdata character entities); displayable xml (tcp schema; characters represented either as utf-8 unicode or text strings within braces); or lossless xml (tei p5, characters represented either as utf-8 unicode or tei g elements). keying and markup guidelines are available at the text creation partnership web site . eng catholic church -controversial literature. trinity -early works to 1800. transubstantiation. 2003-11 tcp assigned for keying and markup 2003-12 spi global keyed and coded from proquest page images 2004-12 mona logarbo sampled and proofread 2004-12 mona logarbo text and markup reviewed and edited 2005-01 pfs batch review (qc) and xml conversion an answer to a late dialogue between a new catholick convert and a protestant , to prove the mystery of the trinity to be as absurd a doctrine as transubstantiation . by way of short notes on the said dialogue . licensed december 7th . 1686. london , printed for thomas bassett at the george near st. dunstan's church in fleet-street . 1687. a dialogue between a new catholick convert , and a protestant . concerning the doctrines of the trinity and transubstantiation . ( a ) this new catholick convert begins well , for the first thing he learns , is to believe the trinity to be a groundless , absurd , and unreasonable doctrine ; and then to believe whatever the church teaches , if it be not more absurd than the doctrine of the trinity ; this is a great improvement of faith , which we protestants can never attain to , for we cannot perswade our understandings or our faith to digest absurdities : but let us hear their dialogue . a. you cannot imagine how much i am overjoy'd to see you . i have been big with discourse these three days for want of utterance . you may remember , when we talk'd together last , ( b ) we parted in a dispute concerning transubstantiation and the holy trinity , of their equal reasonableness and authority . i must confess i was not at that time so thorowly arm'd with reasons to shew you the parallel : but since i have given my self a little leisure to consider of it , and i am perswaded i shall be able to give you satisfaction . ( b ) this is a little mistake , if we may guess at their last discourse by this dialogue ; for the design is not to prove , that transubstantiation and the holy trinity have equal reasonableness and authority , but that neither of them are reasonable , or have any authority . now though we may allow them to make as bold with transubstantiation as they please , yet we cannot but be sensible of that dishonour which is done to common christianity , by exposing the most sacred and venerable mystery of it to the scorn and derision of infidels and hereticks . for sure they cannot think it any great credit to the doctrine of the trinity ; that it cannot be proved , either by tradition , scripture , or reason , b. sir , you know i am always glad of any opportunity to gain your good company , but especially upon so good an occasion . i 'le assure you , i am not , nor ever was , an enemy to catholick communion ; and if i had not too just a cause , i should never suffer my self in that which without reasonable grounds might be call'd a wilful schism . a. i have no reason to doubt your integrity , and therefore shall not question that : i shall only desire the liberty to press my old argument , ( c ) that you would rely on the authority of the church . i must confess , you have often question'd the doing of it ; but i am sure , when you shall consider there are mysteries as well as doctrines in the christian religion , and when you know that ( d ) mysteries are not to be fathom'd by natural reason , you must needs conclude , that in some cases your ( e ) safest way is to trust tradition . now certainly no one can give us so good an account of that , as the church . ( c ) this opens the scene , and shews the whole design of this dialogue , to bring men to rely on the authority of the church ; and it is worth the while to consider , what a notable way this is . the new convert perswades his protestant friend to fling away sense , and reason , and scripture , and his own private judgment , and to rely wholly on the authority of the church ; for when these are out of the way , we may believe the church in any thing . no , saies the protestant , i can't believe that which is unreasonable and absurd , whoever tells it me . convert , don't you believe the doctrine of the trinity ? protest . yes , very heartily . convert . why then transubstantiation it self , which you protestants make such a noise about , is not more unreasonable , and has as good foundation in tradition and scripture , as the doctrine of the trinity . protest . say you so , my friend , then why must i believe the trinity ? conv. because the church teaches it , and for the same reason you must believe transubstantiation . protest . hold there , sir ! what if i will believe neither ? then i hope i need not rely upon the authority of the church . conv. but you confess you must believe the trinity . protest . yes , if it be founded on scripture and tradition , and do not contradict the reason of mankind , as i have thought hitherto ; but if you can perswade me otherwise , i will believe it no longer ; unless you can tell me for what reason i must believe that , which i have no reason to believe . wretched men ! who care not what becomes of christian religion , if they can but establish the authority of their church ! nay , care not how much they dishonour the church itself ; for it is no great commendation of church-authority in matters of faith , that the only use of it is to make men believe without reason , or in contradiction to it . for it seems , were the christian faith reasonable , there were no need of relying on the churches authority , at least they would want one of the best arguments to prove it . ( d ) there are some mysteries above reason , none contrary to it , as transubstantiation is . ( e ) the universal tradition of the church , in conjunction with scripture , i grant is a very good foundation for our faith ; but what shall we do , when there is no certain tradition , as he proves there is not for the doctrine of the trinity ; for though we should allow , that the safest way is to receive these traditions from the church , yet we cannot receive them from her , if she have them not ; and she cannot have them , if there be none ; and we must conclude there are none , if they be not visible . for the churches word ; whatever authority it have , is not tradition . b. but , sir , to be short , what relation has this to the present parallel of the trinity and transubstantiation ? the authority of the church is another point as disputable as that . a. very much : for as ( f ) these two doctrines have equal ground from scripture , reason , and tradition ; so ' is there the same obligation of your receiving one , as well as the other . and indeed i have since wonder'd at my own profession , ( g ) while a protestant , to think how blind and partial i was : but i must confess , because we are in a dispute , it is better laying by such aggravating circumstances ; and indeed i cannot but be sensible what prejudices such discourses always make , and therefore i shall speak nothing more of that nature . ( f ) that is none at all , as he attempts to prove ; and if the trinity have no better then transubstantiation it has none , and then let him show how we are obliged to believe either , as i observed before . ( g ) for what ? for not believing transubstantiation as well as the trinity ? did he then , while a protestant , believe the doctrine of the trinity to be as unreasonable , and to have no better foundation in scripture and tradition then transubstantiation ? for otherwise he was not partial in believing one and rejecting the other , and if he did , he never understood his religion , and then no wonder that he takes sanctuary in a church which requires no use of his understanding . b. but to return to the main point ; i must tell you , i do not think them equally grounded on scripture , reason , or tradition ; and indeed you may remember that was the old point in dispute with us . a. ( b ) well , sir , to shew you your error , i shall begin with the several particulars in their order ; and so , first , as to the tradition of transubstantiation . now 't is evident that has been deliver'd with less interruption than that of the holy trinity : that mystery was question'd in the very infancy of the church ; nay , not only so , but the arians prevail'd much against it about the beginning of the fourth age. on the other side , transubstantiation lay unquestion'd and quiet a long time ; and when it came to debate , there was no such opposition as that of arius , to call in question the authority of its tradition ; the church receiv'd it unanimously , and in that sense continu'd , till rash reason attempted to fathom the unlimited miracles and mysteries of god. ( h ) here is a great mixture of confidence and fallacy : confidence is asserting what is false , that transubstantiation has been delivered with less interruption than that of the holy trinity : for none of the ancient fathers make the least mention of it , neither the name nor the thing was known for many hunder'd years after christ. he himself modestly grants , that the fathers are not half so express in the doctrine of transubstantiation , as they are in the mystery of the holy trinity : and when he grants half , you may safely conclude they say nothing of it : but the fallacy consists in attributing this silence of the fathers about transubstantiation to the unquestionableness of the tradition , when it was wholly owing to the ignorance of the doctrine : it was not opposed in those days , because they never heard of transubstantiation , not because it was universally believed ; which is a reason indeed , why it should not be opposed , but not why it should never be mentioned . whereas from that opposition . arius and his followers made to the doctrine of the trinity , in the beginning of the fourth century , and that great alarum it gave immediately to the christian church ; it is evident that it was the received faith at and before that time ; for otherwise arius would not have opposed it , nor catholick bishops so zealously have defended it . b. but the fathers are not half so express in the doctrin of transubstantiation , as they are in the mystery of the holy trinity . a. that 's true , and there 's very good reason for it : transubstantiation has not been a doctrine so long in dispute , and 't is not customary for men to argue unquestionable truths . and whereas you may think that transubstantiation has of late receiv'd such shrewd repulses by your books , i 'le assure you , you forget how much the true catholick zeal destroys the seeds of heresies . do you think that so many bishops , not only of the eastern , but of the western church also , could be arians , and yet suppose that that opinion wanted ( i ) as plausible a pretence of tradition ? certainly if you consider that , you cannot think to establish the doctrine of the trinity by tradition more than transubstantiation ; especially considering the strong footsteps of that : sect even in the fathers now extant . i would cite you some of them , but that they are not so much to my main design , and indeed my aim is brevity . ( i ) arius did not set up upon tradition , but upon a pretence of scripture and reason , and if arianism had had so good a pretence to tradition , it is strange it should have been thought so new and surpizing a doctrine at that time . it was never heard of before arius , and that is proof enough that it was no tradition of the church , though afterwards they endeavoured to force some expressions in the writings of the antient fathers as well as of the scriptures , to countenance that heresie ▪ b. well , sir , 't is true , we cannot so well plead tradition to what you have urg'd ; and especially when i call to mind , ( k ) that arianism was confirm'd by a general council : but we alledge an higher ground ; we stand upon the authority of the scriptures , and indeed that is the true thuchtone of all doctrine . ( k ) i hope he does not mean the council of nice , which was the first general council ; and assembled on purpose to establish the catholick faith in this point , and to condemn arius , a●d does the church of rome own any for a general council , which confirmed arianism ? the council of syrmium indeed , where liberius bishop of rome subcribe● the arian confession , may bid fair for it , if a council of eastern and western bishops confirmed by the pope , may pass for a general council ; but what then becomes of the infallibility of popes , and councils , and tradition ? this is a desperate man , who will not spare the church of rome her self , nor general councils if they stand in his way , rather than allow any tradition for the doctrine of the trinity . a. 't is true , if you will follow the catholick church , ( l ) and take the scriptures literally , you may discover the mystery of the holy trinity in them ; but if you once yield to figurative allusions and interpretations , the arians will be as much too hard for you , as you imagin your selves to be for the catholick church . ( m ) in short , both doctrines will be at a loss , and both equally require the authority of the church to support them . ( l ) if the trinity can be prov'd by scripture , that is all we desire , for i am sure transubstantiation cannot ; and as for literal or figurative expositions of scripture , neither of them must be always used , but as the subject matter and circumstances of the place require . ( m ) i thought the christian church had been built upon the faith of the holy trinity , not that supported by the authority of the church , unless the church can support her own foundation ; if there can be no christian church without baptism in the name of the father , the son , and the holy ghost , that is , without professing the faith and worship of the ever blessed trinity ; this doctrine must be believ'd before there can be any church , on whose authority we must believe it ; and therefore he has chose the unfittest doctrine to build on church authority that he could have thought on . b. o no , surely the doctrine of the holy trinity is more express in scriptures than so . a. to satisfie you that what i say is truth , because i may represent the parallel the clearer , ( n ) i will personate an arian , that sect so often condemn'd by the ancient church , and you shall see his plea against the trinity is as fair as yours against transubstantiation . and because this is the main parallel , i shall be somewhat the longer , that i may give you the greater satisfaction . ( n ) an excellent part for a roman catholick to act . we read that the devil sometimes transforms himself into an angel of light , but never that an angel of light transformed himself into a devil . to dispute seriously , and in good earnest against the scripture proofs of the trinity , as he here does , though with no great understanding , i should think little better then blasphemy ; it is what would have never been endured in the primitive church , and which i think no christians of any communion ought to endure ; for this is not the concernment of any particular church , but of common christianity . but though he can personate an arian so well , he should consider how he can dispute against him . he yields him all the scripture proofs for the trinity , as not sufficient without the authority of the church ; the arian thanks him for giving the scripture on his side , and is contented he should make the best he can of his church authority , and so continues an arian still . b. i shall be very glad to hear what you can speak to the matter . a. ( o ) first then , i say , 't is highly unreasonable to interpret that text , 1 john 5. 7. that there be three in heaven that bear record , and those three are one ; as likewise john 10. 30. i and my father are one , literally ; for if we do , we not only oppose sense and reason , but we make construction directly against the very scripture , john 10. 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38. and john 17. 21 , 22 , 23. 1 cor. 3. 8. and what can be urg'd more against us in respect of transubstantiation ? b. very right , sir , that interpretation carries a forcible reasonableness , but the doctrine of the trinity do's not wholly depend upon those two proofs . a. right , it do's not ; but i can give you further demonstration in this parellel . a principal ground of the trinity is because the son is so often call'd god in scripture , as john 1. 1 , 2. rom. 9. 5. &c. now if we did not comply with the catholick church , and make a literal construction in this case likewise , how strangely should we be confounded by those texts ( 1 ) where this godhead in christ is declar'd to be no more than lordship , and subordinate to the father , as heb. 1. 8. 9. 1 cor. 8. 4 , 5. 1 cor. 15. 27 , 28. rev. 3. 12. and john 10. 35 , 36. b. but , sir , our saviour forgave sins too . a. that 's true , but ( 2 ) only by a deputed authority . you see when the sons of zebbedee petition'd him , he could not grant the final accomplishment of our spiritual warfare , that was the father's prerogative , matth. 2c . 23. and tho' he is to be our judge , yet he knows not the time , mark. 13. 31. 1 tim. 6. 15. b. i must confess , these things a little surprize me ; but however , i cannot think these neither the only grounds that support that mystery of the trinity . a. no , you are in the right ; there is one strong proof more ; the making of all things visible and invisible is attributed to the son , and that expresly , john. 1. 3 heb. 1. 10 and particularly , col. 1. 16 , 17 , 18 , 19. but yet for all that , if we do not adhere with the catholick church to the literal interpretation , we are at a loss there too : for , first , 't is plain by the rest of scripture , ( 3 ) that the son is not our only maker , as appears by our creation attributed to the father ; and then if we compare those texts to heb. 1. 2 , 9 , 10. 1 cor. 8. 6. eph. 3. 9. eph. 4. 5 , 6. 1 cor. 15. 27 , 28. we cannot reasonably attribute more to the son , than his being god's instrument in the creation . b. but are these the true and only grounds of the doctrine of that holy mystery ? a. yes verily ; for , ( 4 ) that we are baptiz'd in the name of the father , son , and holy ghost , is no argument . that were as reasonable , if understood of christ and the holy ghost , as our spiritual governours , as under the supposal of their being co-equal with the father , 1 cor. 10. 2. 1 cor. 12. 12 , 13. ( o ) i do not think this a proper place , nor a just occasion to enter into the dispute of the trinity . what he here alledges , has been answered a hundred times over , both by the ancient fathers and modern writers , both romanist and protestants ; and if he dare say , when he has taken off his arian vizard , that they are not well , and sufficiently answered , i will be bound to defend catholick christianity against this new kind of liberian roman catholick . but it would move the indignation of any good christian , though a roman-catholick , to see so sacred a mystery made the subject of wit and criticism , and little better then drollery , ( 1 ) that christ cannot be god , because he is lord , as if he could not be god and lord too ; that he is not the second person in the trinity , because he is not the first , and therefore as a son , especially as a mediator subordinate to his father . ( 2 ) that he forgives sins only as priests do by a deputed authority . ( 3 ) that he did not make the world , because the father made it , and therefore he is but gods instrument in the creation ; as if in creation , which is the immediate effect of divine and almighty power , there could be any created instrument . ( 4 ) that we may be baptized into the name of the son and holy ghost , as spiritual governours , when the ancient church thought this form of baptism to be the foundation of the creed , and there is no other difference expressed in the form between baptising in the name of the father , and of the son and holy ghost , but the order of persons . b. but surely , sir , the arians should have other grounds to establish their opinions , besides those , or else your parellel with transubstantiation will not be so demonstrable as you conceive . pray inform me a little further , i have a mighty desire to understand a little better their fundamental principles . a. to satisfie you , i shall . ( p ) first , they alledge christ represented under the law altogether as an angel ; for eminency call'd the angel of the presence , isa. 63.9 . eccl. 5.6 . gen. 48.16 . num. 20.16 . exod. 23.20 , 21 , 22. refer'd to 1 cor. 10. 4 , 5 , 9. further , they collect him to be a created being , from col. 1.15 . rev. 3.14 . psal. 118.23 . isa. 45.8 . ecclus. 1.4 , 9. ecclus. 24.9 . sa● . 6.22 , 23. ( q ) and they interpret that scripture , thou art my son , this day have i begotten thee , by acts 13.33 . and 2 pet. 1.17 . as to ( r ) the h●ly ghost , they prove a vast distance between him a●d the son , by john 16.12 , 13 , 14 , 15. and john 15.26 . besides , they say , he is no where call'd god ; and urge for the probability of their opinion , rev. 12.9 . rev. 20.8 . 2 cor. 4.4 . for as there is an universal tempting evil power , so we may reasonably conclude , there may be a good assisting power , without any necessity of his being god. and further , where-ever in the scriptures there is made any mention of the three persons , there is always declar'd an express gradation ; as 1 cor. 12.3 , 4 , 5. 2 cor. 13. 14. gift and communion from the fellowship of the holy ghost , grace and administration from the lordship and kingship of christ , and love and operation from the father , the supreme god , the original fountain , according to ephes. 4.4 , 5 , 6. ( p ) that christ is called in the old testament the angel of the presence , i grant , but affirm also , that the angel of the presence was no created angel , but the lord jehovah , who spake to moses in the bush , as the ancient fathers grant . ( q ) to be the first born of every creature , does not prove that he is a creature , but that he was begotten of god before any creatures were made , that is , before the creation of the world , and that signifies an eternal generation ; for nothing was before the creation of the world , but that which is eternal and uncreated , as is sufficiently intimated in this very text , 1 col. 16.17 , 18. and then it is no injury to the eternal generation of christ ; though we grant that he was begotten again at his resurrection from the dead . ( r ) as for the holy spirit , he is indeed called the spirit of christ , and is said to be sent by christ , as he is by his father ; but this proves only that he is the third person in the trinity , and in the aeconomy of mans salvation , acts as a vicarious power to christ the redeemer . but his very office to inspire and sanctifie , and dwell in the whole christian church , and every christian proves him to be god ; not only because the christian church and christians are his temple , but because no created spirit can dwell in all christians . for what this convert alledges of an universal tempting evil power , is no better than manichism , or to assert an evil god. for an universal power is god ; and did one devil tempt and poss●ss all bad men , as one and the same holy spirit dwells in all good men , he would b● an omnipresent and infinite devil , which is what the manichees call an evil god , and sure this is not the doctrine of the church of rome , which is a sign that our author is but a new convert . b. i must confess , sir , these opinions seem to make it necessary for us in that doctrine too , to trust to the authority of the catholick church , and i shall take time to consider a little upon them : but pray , sir , what say you to the reasons of the two doctrines ▪ a. really , ( s ) sir , i must tell you , i think that parellel much the easiest . 't is strange new arithmetick to a man , to tell him , three distinct persons are one and the same individual nature , and then to call such a one the most pure and simple being ; and that especially when they are declar'd to have various intellectual powers , as appears by john 16.12 , 13 , 14 , 15. and mark 13.31 . 1 tim. 6.15 . acts 1.7 . for my part , i cannot tell well how the prejudice of education could possibly digest a thing so unreasonable , were it not a divine mystery . i am sure , ( t ) to my carnal reason , there may be as well three hundred persons in the godhead , as three ; and i know not what can be said of transubstantiation , that is seemingly more absurd than that . b. i must confess , sir , i have had strange , confus'd , and surprizing thoughts of it my self ; but i always apprehended the christian church a sufficient guide . a. if you did , sir , pray consider who that catholick mother is you so obey'd ; and as you have receiv'd the trinity , so receive a doctrine equally as reasonable , and deliver'd by her , transubstantiation . i know the ingenuousness of your temper , and you promis'd me at first not to be a wilful schismatick ; and therefore i have hopes my reasons , and your consideration , will be sufficient to reduce you to catholick communion . b. sir , i shall consider of it ; but as yet you only talk'd to me at large : i shall desire one favour of you before we part ; pray state the parallel a little shorter , i shall the better remember it . a. well , sir , i shall . first , the tradition of one doctrine cannot be stronger than another , where both have been at least equally question'd . secondly , 't is as reasonable to take this is my body , literally , as it is to take these texts , i and my father are one god over all blessed for ever ; and by him all things were made , without reference to other scriptures , and a figurative interpretation . and lastly , i think to human reason 't is as equally unreasonable , and as seemingly repugnant , to say one is three , as it is to say a body is not what it appears . b. very well , i shall desire no more of you now : i 'le only takea little time to consider , and then you shall know my mind more freely . a. farewel ; and god give you his holy spirit to instruct you . ( s ) and now we are come to the main point , whether the doctrine of the trinity be as absurd and contradictious as the doctrine of transubstantiation , which god forbid it should be ▪ i am sure the arithmetick is very good ; for three persons and one nature , is no bad arithmetick . to say , that there are three persons and but one person , and but one nature , and yet three natures , had been no good arithmetick , but a plain contradiction , that three are one , and one three in the same respect , which god himself cannot make true ; but three persons and one nature is no contradiction , how incomprehensible soever it may be . he has made it a contradiction indeed by saying , that three distinct persons are one and the same individual nature ; but whoever before said , that the person is the nature , or that the divine nature is an individual nature , or a nature appropriated to one person , which is the signification of an individual nature . i suppose he had heard somewhere of individua trinitas , and this he mistook for an individual nature . these are indeed contradictions , and new invented heresies , but this is not the catholick doctrine of the trinity . ( t ) we cannot indeed comprehend how three distinct persons should subsist in one nature , for we see no example of it in nature ; for in finite creatures , one finite nature is confined to one person ; but a finite nature , i hope , is no rule for an infinite nature , and therefore an infinite nature may be common to more persons than one , though a finite nature cannot ; and it may be , it is as intelligible how three distinct persons may subsist in one infinite nature , as how three distinct faculties can be in the same finite soul ; by which comparison the ancients explain'd the doctrine of the trinity . the omnipresence , omniscience , omnipotence , eternity of god , are as much above our comprehension , as a plurality of persons in the deity ; and if men will but allow , that god is incomprehensible , this can be no objection against the doctrine of the trinity . natural reason indeed cannot discover the plurality of persons in the godhead , and therefore i can give no reason why there should be three persons , and neither more nor less ; as the plurality of persons , so the number of them depends wholly upon revelation ; and the scripture assures me , there are but three , and therefore i believe no more . and because there are no more , therefore i believe it is impious to say , that there may be as well three hundred persons in the godhead , as three . thus the doctrine of the trinity , tho it be above the comprehension of our finite minds , as every thing must be , which is infinite , yet it does not contradict any necessary principle of reason , as transubstantiation does , which is contrary to sense and reason . whether any body be bread or flesh , fall under the notice of sense , and therefore our senses must judg of it ; and all our senses tell us , that the consecrated bread and wine , is bread and wine still , not flesh and blood ; so that we have greater evidence against transubstantiation , than we can have against the trinity ; for we have the evidence of sense , that it is not flesh , but bread ; and no man can pretend to such evidence as this , that there are not three divine persons in the godhead , and this makes some difference between them . as for reason , if we cannot understand , what the properties of a body are , we can know nothing ; and therefore this is a proper object of human reason , though the trinity is not ; and if our reason discover a great many absurdities , and contradictions , and impossibilities in transubstantiation , we must confess , that it is absurd and impossible , as to take notice of some few . to say that the substance of the bread is turned into the natural flesh of christ , which suffered on the cross sixteen hundred years ago , is to say , that the body of christ is made to day , which was 1600 years ago , which is a contradiction ; for what was made 1600 years ago , cannot be made to day , unless it was 1600 years before it was made ; or was made 1600 years after it was made , and thus the same individual body must be , and not be at the same time . it is essential to the same body to be but in one place at a time , and yet all confess , that the body of christ is whole and intire in heaven , how then is the same body at the same time on the altar ? nay , on as many altars as there are in the christian world , at the same time . the body of christ in heaven has the just proportions and dimensions of a human body ; in the consecrated host it is without any extension or distinction of parts , whole and entire in the least crumb of bread : now for the same individual body to be extended , and not extended at the same time , is a contradiction ▪ and tho we could suppose that christ could bestow such a supernatural kind of existence on his body , as to subsist without extension of parts , yet how can the same body at the same time be extended and not extended , as it must be , if the same body be extended in heaven , and not extended in the host. the sacramental body of christ is cloathed with the species of bread , is it so in heaven too ? if not , how is the same body at the same time , with and without the species of bread ? the sacramental body of christ is his dead and broken body , the body of christ in heaven is a living , glorified body ; now if this be the same body , the same body must be dead and alive , broken and whole at the same time . the romanists tell us , that the consecrated bread is the whole body of christ , flesh and blood too , which must go together ; and yet that the consecrated cup is the natural blood of christ shed out of his body ; so that it seems , the same body on the altar is both broken and whole , and the same blood is in his veins , and poured out of them at the same time . now i would ask , whether christ in heaven have any blood , which is separated from his body ; if he have not , then how is the consecrated cup , which is his blood shed for us , and therefore out of his body , that natural blood which christ now has in heaven , where to be sure , he has no blood , which is out of his body , and therefore that blood , which is out of his body , cannot be his natural blood , which he now has in heaven . when our author has digested these absurdities and contradictions , i can easily furnish him with more ; and can there be a greater contempt of the ever blessed trinity , than to compare so sacred and venerable a mystery , to the most absurd doctrine , which was ever invented by men. it will be in vain to pray to god to give us his holy spirit to instruct us , till we first learn to believe our own sense and reason . the end . notes, typically marginal, from the original text notes for div a59787-e120 ( a ) john barclay his defence of the most holy sacrament of the eucharist to the sectaries of the times book ii, chap. ii / englished by a person of quality. barclay, john, 1582-1621. 1688 approx. 46 kb of xml-encoded text transcribed from 14 1-bit group-iv tiff page images. text creation partnership, ann arbor, mi ; oxford (uk) : 2005-12 (eebo-tcp phase 1). a30889 wing b715 estc r28347 10543588 ocm 10543588 45225 this keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the early english books online text creation partnership. this phase i text is available for reuse, according to the terms of creative commons 0 1.0 universal . the text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission. early english books online. (eebo-tcp ; phase 1, no. a30889) transcribed from: (early english books online ; image set 45225) images scanned from microfilm: (early english books, 1641-1700 ; 1395:11) john barclay his defence of the most holy sacrament of the eucharist to the sectaries of the times book ii, chap. ii / englished by a person of quality. barclay, john, 1582-1621. 21 p. printed by mary thompson and sold by matthew turner and john lane, london : 1688. reproduction of original in the harvard university library. created by converting tcp files to tei p5 using tcp2tei.xsl, tei @ oxford. re-processed by university of nebraska-lincoln and northwestern, with changes to facilitate morpho-syntactic tagging. gap elements of known extent have been transformed into placeholder characters or elements to simplify the filling in of gaps by user contributors. eebo-tcp is a partnership between the universities of michigan and oxford and the publisher proquest to create accurately transcribed and encoded texts based on the image sets published by proquest via their early english books online (eebo) database (http://eebo.chadwyck.com). the general aim of eebo-tcp is to encode one copy (usually the first edition) of every monographic english-language title published between 1473 and 1700 available in eebo. eebo-tcp aimed to produce large quantities of textual data within the usual project restraints of time and funding, and therefore chose to create diplomatic transcriptions (as opposed to critical editions) with light-touch, mainly structural encoding based on the text encoding initiative (http://www.tei-c.org). the eebo-tcp project was divided into two phases. the 25,363 texts created during phase 1 of the project have been released into the public domain as of 1 january 2015. anyone can now take and use these texts for their own purposes, but we respectfully request that due credit and attribution is given to their original source. users should be aware of the process of creating the tcp texts, and therefore of any assumptions that can be made about the data. text selection was based on the new cambridge bibliography of english literature (ncbel). if an author (or for an anonymous work, the title) appears in ncbel, then their works are eligible for inclusion. selection was intended to range over a wide variety of subject areas, to reflect the true nature of the print record of the period. in general, first editions of a works in english were prioritized, although there are a number of works in other languages, notably latin and welsh, included and sometimes a second or later edition of a work was chosen if there was a compelling reason to do so. image sets were sent to external keying companies for transcription and basic encoding. quality assurance was then carried out by editorial teams in oxford and michigan. 5% (or 5 pages, whichever is the greater) of each text was proofread for accuracy and those which did not meet qa standards were returned to the keyers to be redone. after proofreading, the encoding was enhanced and/or corrected and characters marked as illegible were corrected where possible up to a limit of 100 instances per text. any remaining illegibles were encoded as <gap>s. understanding these processes should make clear that, while the overall quality of tcp data is very good, some errors will remain and some readable characters will be marked as illegible. users should bear in mind that in all likelihood such instances will never have been looked at by a tcp editor. the texts were encoded and linked to page images in accordance with level 4 of the tei in libraries guidelines. copies of the texts have been issued variously as sgml (tcp schema; ascii text with mnemonic sdata character entities); displayable xml (tcp schema; characters represented either as utf-8 unicode or text strings within braces); or lossless xml (tei p5, characters represented either as utf-8 unicode or tei g elements). keying and markup guidelines are available at the text creation partnership web site . eng catholic church -apologetic works. transubstantiation. lord's supper -catholic church. 2005-03 tcp assigned for keying and markup 2005-05 spi global keyed and coded from proquest page images 2005-06 mona logarbo sampled and proofread 2005-06 mona logarbo text and markup reviewed and edited 2005-10 pfs batch review (qc) and xml conversion john barclay his defence of the most holy sacrament of the eucharist , to the sectaries of the times· book ii. chap. ii. englished by a person of quality . with allowance . london , printed by mary thompson at the entrance into old-spring-garden near charring-cross : and sold by matthew turner at the holy-lamb in holbourn ; and john lane at the corner of wild-street , 1688· of the most holy sacrament of the eucharist· chap. ii. let us now speak a little of the eucharist , if in treating of so great a subject it may be lawful to say but little . do not thou , o lord , leave us , to whom thou hast left thy self ; but restore sight to the blinded sectaries , that they may courageously acknowledge this thy gift , which is so wonderfully great , that they believe it not only above themselves to receive , but also above thee to give . for , as nothing more frequently deters the jews from embracing the christian faith , than their being oblig'd to believe in it , that the living god , the god of abraham , became man , led a mortal life , and died on a cross : so nothing more offends many of our sectaries than the excellency of this sacrament , whilst they cannot persuade themselves , the bounty of christ could ever make him stoop so low , as to permit that very body to be held in the hands of priests , and receiv'd by the mouths of sinners , which , having been once extended on the cross , now sits in glory at the right-hand of the father . but there is not , o ye sectaries , any greater prejudice against you , than the universal agreement of all christians in their belief of the eucharist at such time , as you first began to appear , and the exceeding great disagreement amongst your selves in this your errour . is it probable , that there was then no church in the world , which had a right belief of this sacrament ? or must we think , the spirit of truth resides in you , who in this so great affair contest more fiercely with one another , than with us ? all christians in the world , latines , greeks , armenians , abissines and muscovites , had at that time one and the same sense of that sacred mystery . they all , i say , ( except a few hussites in bohemia , who as they were none of ours , so neither are they yours , there not being any amongst you altogether of this opinion concerning the eucharist ) agreed with us ( and still do ) that under the species or appearance of bread and wine the body and blood of christ are really conceal'd ; that there is no bread , no wine remaining ; that the eucharist is therefore to be ador'd , because there is in it no other substance but christ himself . but you , o ye sectaries , were nothing mov'd with this general consent of christians . you departed from them all , that is , you resolv'd to be hereticks . nor did you all take one way ; but having once left the well known path of the church , you wander'd in your own inventions : so that if any one enquires , what your thoughts are of the eucharist , you are fain to tell him a long story , which in the end wants an oedipus to unfold it . for so numerous are your dissensions concerning this point , that there are reckon'd amongst you above fourty different opinions , altogether contrary to each other . nay farther , you do not sufficiently explain , or to speak more truly , do not well understand , what the several sects amongst you hold . those of you which follow luther , confess , that our lords body is really contain'd in this sacrament , though they think withall the bread still to remain . the hugonots , english protestants , and other calvinists affirm on the contrary , that it is nothing but meer bread ; because , say they , christ is sitting at the right-hand of the father , and therefore cannot be in several places . others think otherwise ; but these two are the most eminent opinions amongst you . let us now see , how absurd they both are . the lutherans confessing christ's body to be really present , deny nevertheless , that 't is to be ador'd . and behold , how excellently they reason ! for , say they , christ instituted not this sacrament , that it might be ador'd , but that it might feed our souls . why do they not also say , that kings and princes ride a hunting for recreation , and not to be reverenc'd by their subjects : and that they are therefore mistaken , who , when they meet their king , as he is hunting , pay him the respect , due to their soveraign ? christ was on the cross , that he might save the souls of many , and bear the reproach , which was due to us ; not that he might be there ador'd . hadst thou , o lutheran , been then present , wouldst thou have thought it a crime to have prostrated thy self on earth , and ador'd him hanging on the cross. what madness is it in thee , not to adore christ , wherever he is ; who , wherever he is , is god , the disposer of thy life , and judge of thy soul ? but this opinion of the lutherans , which asserts the bread to remain in the eucharist , is no less contrary to scripture , than to the doctrine of the primitive church . for if the bread and chrit's body were both there , christ would not have said , this , but here , is my body ; nor yet would he have said , the bread , but in the bread , which i will give is my flesh. and if the church in the apostles time had not believ'd with us , that there is no substance of bread remaining in the eucharist , st. justin martyr would not have written , that this sacrament , after the words of consecration are pronounc'd , is the flesh and blood of that incarnate jesus ; but that after the consecration , that flesh and that blood are added to the eucharistical bread and wine : nor yet would st. cyril of hierusalem have us'd these words , this which we see , is not bread , though the taste thinks it to be bread ; but 't is the body of christ ; but he would rather have taught us , that the bread , which is seen , is bread , and the taste not deceiv'd in it ; but that with the bread is joyn'd chrit's body . nor do the calvinists talk more wisely , when they say , that christ's body is not really present in the sacrament ; but yet that we are really partakers of it . an opinion so foolish , and so destructive to it self , that they themselves understand it not . for tell me , o sectary , canst thou really receive christ's body , and christ not be really present ? but thou sayst , he is always in heaven ; and cannot be in several places at once . thou then being only on earth , and he only in heaven , how can his body really come to thee ? and when at the same instant thou communicat'st at london , another at geneva , by what art can it be effected , that ye should be really fed with christ's body , if christ cannot be really present in two places at once ? wilt thou say , that thy soul by faith flies up into heaven , and is there really fed with this holy food ? this is nothing to the purpose . for though thou mayst by faith , by thought , by will mount above the stars , and converse in the midst of heaven ; yet art thou still really on earth : nor is any part of thee ; that is , either thy mind , or body really in heaven , there to receive nourishment . shouldst thou never so seriously fix thy thoughts on rome , or on hierusalem ; couldst thou be therefore said to be really at rome , or in hierusalem ? it remains therefore , that thou shew , how thy soul , which ascends not really into heaven , can be really fed with the flesh of christ , unless christ be truly and really on earth , and there also in many places at one and the same time , since many of you at the very same moment communicate both in england and france . but thou wilt reply , thou art indeed ignorant of the manner ; yet certainly knowst , that thou art fed. is it so ? if thou knowst not , by what means these things are done , then art thou not sure , but it may be by transubstantiation . why then dost thou with so great boldness and fury inveigh against it ? but be it , that thou knowst not the manner ; yet thou at least knowst , that the manner is such , as may not in thought and faith only , but in very deed , joyn thee to christ's body , or else thou must confess , that thou dost not indeed receive christ's body . for thou sayst , that by faith thou eatest our lords body . now what doest thou mean by these words ? that thou by faith hold'st and believ'st , vertue so to flow into thy soul from the body of christ , who is in heaven , that thou art thereby in some sort united to him ? but this , o sectary , is not really to receive christ's body , 't is at most to receive it but imaginarily . for that power , and those vertues , which thou say'st , flow from christ into thee , are not indeed christ's body : and thou believest that thou receivest really nothing else . nor dost thou , i suppose , eat these vertues . why therefore to elude the sentence of the fathers , who testify , that christ's flesh and blood is in very deed receiv'd ; do you make use of such vain deceits , saying , that you also hold the same ? but if thou say'st , that thou by faith apprehend'st , and believ'st christ's body to be really communicated to thee ; i answer , that this faith of thine is , even in thine own judgement , false and ridiculous , as making thee believe , that which is not : since in thy opinion our lords body is no where but in heaven , and thou art really no where but on earth . but because thou frequently appeal'st to the scriptures , come and let us hear , what they say . in st. matthew ( chap. xxvi . ) our saviour says , this is my body , this is my blood : in st. mark ( chap. xiv . ) this is my body , this is my blood : in st. luke ( chap. xxii . ) this is my body ; this is the chalice of the new testament in my blood : in st. john ( chap. vi . ) vnless ye shall eat the flesh of the son of man , and drink his blood , ye shall not have life in you : and st. paul in his first epistle to the corinthians ( ch . xi . ) pronounces him who comes unworthily to the eucharist , guilty of the body and blood of our lord. these are plain words , no perplex'd testimonies , nor things mention'd but once . 〈◊〉 which being clearly vanquish'd , you presently fly to 〈◊〉 ●xposition ; whereas , when any thing seems to fav●● you , ye stick close to the letter , refuse all interpretation , and cry out , we must adhere to the word of god. as if you were the sole judges , and had authority , at your pleasure , one while to decide by the bare text of scripture , without admitting any expositor ; and soon after to appeal to interpretations , and those only of your own invention . but come on : what do you object against us ? arguments you say , taken out of the scriptures . first , that the eucharist is sometimes in the scripture call'd bread and wine . next , that christ said in st. john ( chap. vi . ) it is the spirit that quickneth , the flesh profiteth nothing . the words , which i have spoken unto you , are spirit and life . lastly , that christ sits at the right-hand of the father , and shall come from thence to judge the quick and the dead . but i answer , that these words are more obscure , than those you would have explain'd by them , to wit , this is my body ; my flesh is meat indeed . now what kind of philosophy is this , to explain one obscurity by a greater ; or , that i may speak more truly , to gather the sense of a clear place from a dark one ? but what , if we should say , that these places , you object against us , are to be interpreted by those , we have alledg'd ? what if we deny , that you have any more right to expound them , than we ? you bring only doubtful arguments , and such , as will be turn'd upon your selves . nor will it be any great labour briefly to solve them all . the eucharist , you say , is in the scriptures call'd bread and wine . therefore the scriptures , you say , acknowledge bread and wine to be truly in that sacrament . proceed , sectary , and by the same argument more closely press us in this manner . the catholicks in their discourses and prayers frequently call the eucharist bread : they believe therefore , that there is in it true bread ; and not only our lords body . is not the reason and strength of the argument the same ? why will you rather make the scriptures , when they mention the eucharist by the name of bread and wine , to assert true bread and wine to be therein , than us catholicks , when we call it by the same names ? give me leave therefore thus to retort this argument upon you . in the catholick church we often term the eucharist bread and wine ; and yet believe not any substance of bread or wine to be therein . therefore it cannot from the scriptures , using the same names , be concluded , that they acknowledge true bread and wine to remain in it . lay aside , sectary , the prejudice of thy faction , and tell me , whether thou art not more justly overthrown by the same argument , with which thou assaulted'st us . for , that we often style this sacrament bread and wine , is so well known to those , who live amongst us , that 't were impudence to deny it , and gross ignorance not to know it . how often do we desire , that not only the eating , but the effect of this bread may be granted us ? how often do we beg of god the father , that this bread may be to us not a pledge of death , but of glory ? and all this by similitudes and figures . which kind of speeches you your selves also do not deny to be frequent in holy writ . so st. bernard ( whom none can without blushing deny to be ours ) calls the eucharist bread , when in his first sermon on the sixth sunday after pentecost distinguishing bread into several species , he says , moreover the seventh kind of bread is the eucharist , because our saviour says , the bread , which i give , is my flesh for the life of the world. we therefore with the scriptures call this sacrament bread : both because , as the natural man lives by bread , so does the spiritual man by the eucharist . to signify which , christ commanded it to be made of bread and wine , and many of the fathers by our daily supersubstantial bread , which we are taught to pray for , understand this heavenly food . and also , because it is in the form of bread ; but principally because 't was bread before . for we often call a thing , that now is , by the name it formerly had . and how often have you heard from our writers the example of aaron's rod , which , being turn'd into a serpent , was certainly no longer a rod , unless you will say , that god rather put an illusion on pharaoh's eyes , than by a real miracle admonish'd him of his majesty ; and yet even then it was call'd a rod : to wit , because it had from a rod been chang'd into a serpent : and they all cast down their rods , which were turn'd into serpents ; but aaron 's rod devour'd their rods , exod. chap. vii . but not to say much against so weak an argument . the scriptures call the eucharist bread : be it so . the antient fathers have often done the same : and we also do the same . why then may we not be believ'd to think with those , with whom we speak ? nor is the arrow of any greater force , they shoot against us from these words of our lord : it is the spirit which quickneth , the flesh profiteth nothing . for if they will have them simply understood , that the flesh of christ profiteth nothing ; i would ask them , why they then say , that our lord's body is receiv'd by them in the eucharist : nay , why christ said , vnless ye shall eat the flesh of the son of man , and drink his blood , ye shall not have life in you . do they think that christ contradicted himselfe ? or will they deny it to have been always believ'd in the church , that christ's flesh profiteth the receiver ? they must ever be fain to distinguish between the manner , how our lord's flesh , being receiv'd , profits , and how it profits not . they must , to wit , acknowledge , that the capharnaits hearing christ's words , fancy'd to themselves some gross , unworthy , and carnal manner , in which he would affirm , he should be eaten : my flesh so taken , as you in your selves imagine , profits not : i will give my self in a more noble and spiritual manner than you believe . and being by you taken for food , will quicken your souls . and thus of the manner of taking , and not meerly of the taking it self , did christ say , the flesh profiteth nothing . let us now see the force of your argument . christ says , his flesh taken as the capharnaits fancy'd , will profit nothing : therefore , say you , it will not profit , being taken in such manner , as the catholicks believe : but thou must first , o sectary , prove , that we think , as the capharnaits did , and that we will not hear the spirit , which quickens . now both these are false . the capharnaits , as is manifest from the scriptures , had no higher conceit of our saviours words , than that he promis'd , his body should be eaten as other meats ; that it should be divided into parts , taste like flesh , and being taken consume . we in a spiritual quickning sense believe , that christ is indeed truly and really present in the eucharist . but after a spiritual and incomprehensible manner ; that he is receiv'd by us , whole , inviolate , and never consuming . thus will there be a mutual agreement between those words of our lord , by which he asserts , that his flesh is truly given for meat ; and those others , by which he shews , that , if you understand this matter carnally with the capharnaits , the flesh profiteth nothing . now if you deny , that the flesh of our lord is any way profitable , you will contradict those words , vnless ye shall eat the flesh of the son of man , ye shall not have life in you . but if you say , that 't is in some manner , but not in that capharnaitical one , both receiv'd and profitable : this indeed we shall readily grant , but shall withall add , that this holy manner is in our church , and that neither these texts , nor any other , have any thing to the contrary . you say lastly , that the scriptures often affirm , that christ is , and shall be in heaven , till he shall come in great majesty at the end of the world : and that therefore he cannot be on earth , in the eucharist , in the hands of the priests . the answer is ready . christ is and shall be in heaven in that great and visible majesty till the end of the world. he is not seen publickly by us in that brightness , nor is he yet so much as conversant amongst us , to receive those offices , which may be indeed profitable to a body . such , as st. mary magdalen perform'd , when she anointed him , and in respect of which our saviour said , the poor you have always with you ; but me you have not always . he will not therefore come down from heaven in the glory of his majesty till the calling of all men to judgment . but he is often present at our affairs in another manner , after another fashion , with lesser state ; he is , i say , often truly and really present with us here on earth . he appear'd in the way to st. paul , as he was going to damascus , and spake to him in the way . so says ananias to st. paul ( act. ix . ) our lord jesus hath sent me , who appear'd to thee in the way , as thou camest . and barnabas declar'd to the apostles , how paul had seen our lord in the way , and that he had spoken to him . and ( acts xxxiii . ) now the night following our lord , standing by him , said , be constant , for as thou hast testify'd of me in hierusalem , so must thou testify at rome also . and lastly , ( act. xxvi . ) i am jesus , whom thou persecutest . but arise , and stand upon thy feet : for to this end have i appear'd to thee , that i may ordain thee a minister and witness of those things , which thou hast seen , and of those things , in which i will appear to thee . and say not , that , 't was an angel , who having taken christ's shape , appear'd to st. paul. for to let pass its being distinguish'd in the acts of the apostles , when our saviour or when an angel appear'd to st. paul , he himself has in his first epistle to the corinthians ( chap. xv . ) taken away the doubt , where , after he had , to prove christ's resurrection to them , affirm'd him to have been seen after his rising again by his apostles and disciples , he adds , and last of all he was seen of me also , as of an abortive . now 't is certain , that this his being seen of st. paul was not till some years after the day of his ascension : for st. paul was a long time a persecutor , not an apostle . 't is certain also , that 't was not an angel , but christ himself , who thus appear'd to st. paul : since he affirms him to have been the same , that was seen by st. peter and the other apostles , to assure them of his resurrection . for sure thou wilt not say , that 't was an angel , and not our lord himself , that appear'd to the apostles during the fourty days , which were between the pasch and his ascension . childish moreover would st. paul's argument be , were it thus to be understood , that christ was undoubtedly risen , because he had seen an angel in christ's shape . our lord was then really present on earth with st. paul , and has been so with several other saints . he is really also present with us in the sacrament , but cover'd with the form of a creature , and under vails , that conceal the creator . and do'st thou still say , thou doubt'st , whether the body , which is in heaven , can be also on earth ? assuredly , sectary , it can . our lord's body can be at one time in two several places : and if in two , why not in infinite ? for what hinders our bodies , that they cannot be at once in several places ? is it not the condition of our nature ? but why cannot he , who fram'd our nature , change also its laws ? this is the humble learning , this is the christian phylosophy of the primitive church . st. ambrose ( lib. 11 hexam . cap. 11. ) has this expression : since his word is the beginning of nature , he may by right assume the giving the law to nature , who gave it its original . and again ( lib. 3. hexam cap. 11. ) the word of god is the efficient cause of nature . but this perhaps thou can'st not sufficiently comprehend : no more indeed canst thou comprehend god ; and yet god is is not therefore less god. if thou measurest the works of god by the extent of thy understanding , how weak , how obscure , how depending on thy self thou wilt make him ! thy strength of understanding depends on him , and not his power on thy understanding . but is there any greater difficulty in granting one body to be in several places , than two bodies to be in one ; or admitting , as the ppilosophers speak , a penetration of dimensions ? the difficulty is altogether equal . now christ brought his reviv'd body through stone , which was very great at the door of the monument , that is , he shew'd , there might be a penetration of dimensions , whenever he pleas'd : for the stone was not roll'd away by the angel , till st. mary magdalen came to anoint our lord. mary magdalen came , and the other mary to see the sepulchre : and behold there was a great earthquake : for the angel of our lord descended from heaven , and coming roll'd back the stone , and sate upon it , &c. and the angel answering , said to the women , fear not you , mat. chap. 28. after christ came to his disciples through close and solid walls . and when it was late that day , the first of the sabbaths , and the doors were shut , where the disciples were gathered together for fear of the jews , jesvs came , and stood in the midst , &c. joh. chap. 20. again , jesvs came , the doors being shut , and stood in the midst . here some of you are not asham'd to pretend certain unworthy trifles , that christ perhaps came in at the window , or descended by the tunnel of the chimney , or open'd the doors , which before were shut : an impudent saying , proceeding , if i am not mistaken , from men , who seek to gain repute by inconsiderate cavilling . is it then to no purpose , that we hear these words so carefully repeated : when the doors were shut : the doors being shut ? to what end did st. john use these words , but to signify christ's miraculous entrance , at which himself was present ? why did he not add , that he came in at the window , or the chimney , or by opening the doors , the shutting of which he had so distinctly noted : that he entred then , o sectary , the doors being shut , is nothing else , but that he entred against the laws of nature through the said doors . moreover , says st. hierom in his first book against jovinian , he so entred the doors being shut , which the nature of humane bodies suffers not : shall we therefore deny that our lord and st. peter had true bodies , because contrary to nature they walk'd on the waters ? st. ambrose on the four and twentieth chapter of st. lukes gospel has these words : but st. thomas had just cause of admiration , when he saw a body brought in through places unpassable to bodies , all things being shut , and no place broken . and 't was therefore a miracle , how a corporal nature should introduce it self through an in penetrable body , by an invisible passage , in a visible appearance , easie to be touch'd , hard to be understood . and in the same place , though st. peter believ'd the resurrection , yet might he be troubled , when he saw our lord on a suddain with his body come in upon them into those places , which were incompass'd with lock'd doors , and close walls . nor did christ at his resurrection only , but at his birth also shew this penetration of dimensions , coming into the world from the womb of his most holy mother without violating the enclosers of her virginity . st. augustin in his two and twentieth book of the city of god ( chap. 8. ) relates to this purpose a famous miracle , hapening in his time . he says , that patronia a carthaginian matron , had obtain'd from a jew a certain ring , which she wore bound to her naked body with a girdle for the cure of her disease . that , she going afterwards in pilgrimage to the relicks of st. stephen ; the ring which she wore , fell from her whole and unhurt ; the girdle to which it was ty'd , remaining whole also ; that the judaical remedy might by a christian miracle be remov'd from this woman before she was heal'd through the martyrs intercession . he further adds , they believe not this , who believe not , that our lord jesvs was brought forth without detriment to his mothers virginity , and went in to his disciples the doors being shut . but let them indeed enquire of this , and if they find it true , believe those . she is a woman of quality , nobly born , nobly married , and dwelling at carthage ; the largeness of the city , and the dignity of the person will not suffer the truth to be conceal'd from the enquirers . the martyr himself , by whose intercession she was cur●d , certainly believ'd in the son of her , who remains a virgin ; in him , who went in to his disciples , the doors being shut . these then are the scripture histories of our lords nativity and resurrection ; this the primitive churches sense of those histories ; that two bodies may , god commanding it , be together in the same place ; or , to speak with the phylosopbers , that there may be a penetration of dimensions by the divine power . now 't is certainly no less repugnant to humane sense and nature , that two bodies should be thus together in one place , than that one should be at the same time in many . the difficulty on both sides is not only alike , but the very same . the church has always acknowledg'd both of them above the force of nature , but below the power of god , having ever taught her children , that christ both penetrated the walls , and is present in the blessed sacrament in several places at once . but there are three things , which you , o sectaries , cannot well digest : the name of mass , the eucharists being term'd a propitiatory sacrifice , and lastly the doctrine of transubstantiation . the mass is to you so hateful a word , that the hating of it is amongst you a token of love. and yet , were it not , that i confine my self to that briefness , i began with , it might abundantly be shewn , that this holy word has always been us'd to signify the celebration of the eucharist . 't is now about thirteen hundred years , since the time of st. ambrose , who in his epistle to marcellina , says , i began to say mass : and soon after , i began to pray unto god in the oblation , that he would help , &c. st. telesphorus pope and martyr , who might for his age have seen st. john the apostle , testifies the mass to have been in his time , ordaining many things in the celebration of it : which very thing the sectaries themselves confess . for the magdeburgians in their second century ( cap. 10. ) blame him for multiplying masses , encreasing their ceremonies , and tying them to a certain time . behold , how , whilst they unwarily accuse telesphorus , they acknowledge the antiquity of the mass : confessing even the name to have been us'd in the very beginning of the primitive church . but whatever becomes of the name , let us consider the thing it self . we say , that the celebration of the mass is a sacrifice truly and properly propitiatory . you , or rather some of you deny it ; for the more learned agree , at least tacitly , with us . isaac casaubon but few months before his death being in the presence chamber of the most serene king of great britain , i fell in discourse with him , as did also another gentleman , a courtier , but no catholick ; whom , were it necessary , i could easily name . passing from one thing to another , we hap'ned amongst the rest upon the eucharist , which i earnestly defending , you need not , ( said casaubon ) take all this pains , i willingly profess , and do assert it to be manifest from the rites of the antient church , that the eucharist is a sacrifice ; and not only a sacrifice of praise , as many amongst us would have it , but a propitiatory sacrifice ; sacrificium 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . these were his very words : thus did he in two languages express , what kind of sacrifice he thought it to be . i was not a little glad to hear him ; whilst the third person , who was present at our discourse , wondred at this his opinion , affirming , that he was more startled at these words , than at an hundred arguments of the papists . he can testify the truth of this , being still alive , and daily attending on the king. and he has been so far from being a catholick , that it cannot be fear'd , he would advantage us by speaking contrary to the truth . and the oblation indeed of the eucharist is so frequently by the fathers call'd sacrifice , that the sectaries no longer dispute with us about the name ; but only about what is to be understood by it . it cannot , ( says kemnitius ) be deny'd , that the antients , when they spake of the celebration of the lords supper , us'd the words sacrifice , immolation , oblation , host , and victim ; as also the verbs to offer , sacrifice , and immolate . hear therefore , sectary , but st. augustin alone , and thou wilt say , that the church in his age us'd not these words as borrowed or figuratively taken , but understood them in their proper , true and usual sense ; that the eucharist is a true sacrifice , properly so call'd , and propitiatory not for the living only , but also for the dead . he relates therefore in the ninth book of his confessions ( ch. 11. ) that his dying mother spake thus , lay this body any where , let not the care of it trouble you in the least : this only i desire of you , that when you shall be present at our lords altar , you will there remember me . and again , ( chap. 13. ) he says of her , she thought not of having her body sumptuously bury'd , &c. she commanded us not this , but only requested , that she might be remembred at thy altar , where she had without one days intermission constantly serv'd , whence she knew the holy victim to be dispens'd , by which the hand-writing that was against us , is blotted out . he had also before ( chap. 12. ) said more plainly ; behold , when her corps was carry'd out , we went and return'd without tears . nor did i so much as weep at those prayers , we pour'd forth to thee , when the sacrifice of our redemption was offer'd for her ; her body now being plac'd near the grave , before it was deposited therein , as the custom there is ; but i was all the day in secret exceeding sad , &c. thou hear'st now , o sectary , not only st. augustin's mother , not only st. augustin , but the very custom and sense of the church in that age. when the sacrifice of our redemption was offer'd for her . here thou hast three things : that the oblation of the eucharist is a sacrifice ; that 't is also propitiatory . for in vain , or impiously would the church offer a sacrifice to our lord for the dead , which could not render him propitious to them . thou hast lastly , the church in that age , wherein , you are wont to say , she was yet pure , by publick consent praying for the dead . hence the matter is so clear and certain , that the blindness of those is to be lamented , who refuse so clear a light. now what is their complaint against transubstantiation ? does the word offend them ? or the thing , that is signify'd by this word ? they say , 't is a popish fiction , sprung up under innocent iii. in the lateran council . to wit , because transubstantiation is there manifestly decreed . now , i ask , sectary , if pope innocent deliver'd this faith to us , who deliver'd it to the greeks ? for certainly they wholly agree with us in this matter . would they , who have rejected our communion , who hate the very name of the roman pontifs , have all generally admitted , and inviolably held such a doctrine , of so great moment , so newly ( as you would have it ) devis'd by the latins ? but they have not the word transubstantiation . what then ? they hold and believe th● thing . for they believe that the bread and wine after consecration cease to be such , and that instead of them succeed the true body and blood of our lord. why then may we not believe , that the roman church holds still the same faith , which she held , before the word transubstantiation came into use ; when the greeks at this very day use not the word transubstantiation , and yet have in this matter altogether the same belief with the romans ? was not the holy trinity believ'd to be homousian or consubstantial , before the word homousian was ever taken up ? what matter is it , if some significative word , lately found out by divines , be received into use , as long as the thing signify'd by it , was before part of the christian faith , though express'd in other words and phrases ? now that the christians before the time of innocent the iii. had the same belief of the eucharist , as we now have , may be easily shewn from approv'd authors , who preceded innocent . st. bernard dy'd fifty years , before innocent the iii. was advanc'd to the pontificat . now what can be more express than these words of his in his sermon on our lords supper ? this is truly an heavenly favour , this is certainly an abundant grace , this is surely a super excellent glory , that a priest should hold his god , and with his hand give him to others . but left he should repeal these testimonies by such frivolous exceptions , as you for the most part use ( pretending , that an universal darkness had then over-shadow'd all mankind , and driven them into many and great errors ) let us go back to those ages , which were even in your own judgment uncorrupted . we have already given you not only the judgment of st. augustin , but also the opinion and practice of the church describ'd by him : that the eucharist is a victim , whereby our sins are effac'd ; that 't is a sacrifice ; that 't is a propitiation , which is offer'd to god for the dead . you require those , that are more antient than st. augustin ? st. justin martyr the very next age after the the apostles in his second apology to the emperor , has these words . as by the word of god our saviour jesvs christ was incarnate , and took flesh and blood for our salvation : so we are taught , that by prayers taken from god's word the eucharist , by him made food , with which our blood and flesh are through mutation nourish'd , is the flesh and blood of that incarnate jesvs . st. hilary , who liv'd in the third age of the church , says in his eighth book of the trinity , there is no room to doubt of the truth of the flesh and blood : for now both by the profession of our lord himself , and our own faith , it is truly flesh , and truly blood. st. gregory nyssen of the same age in his catechetical oration ( chap. 37. ) we rightly believe , that the bread , sanctify'd by the word of god , is truly chang'd into the body of god the word . st. chrysostom in his two and fiftieth homily on st. matthew speaks thus , why should he disdain to give thee his body , who did more , that is , laid down his life for thee ? let us hear therefore , priests , as well as others ; how great , how admirable a thing is granted us ; let us hear , i pray , and tremble , he has deliver'd us flesh , he has set before us himself immolated . and st. cyril of hierusalem , more antient than st. chrysostom , says in his fourth catechism , that a christian man knows , and certainly holds , this bread , which is seen by us , not to be bread , though the taste thinks it to be bread , but the body of christ ; and the wine , which is beheld by us , though it seem wine to the sense of tasting , yet not to be wine , but the blood of christ ? what needs many words ? no age of the primitive church , none of the fathers dissented . the testimonies of all ages and writers have been formerly given thee by such , as have thought good to handle this argument more at large . let me now speak to thee , o sectary , if thou desirest to be cur'd . this is one of the greatest affairs in the christian faith , whether in the eucharist be christ himself , or only bread , which is the figure of christ's body : in so great a matter , and in which to err , is certain destruction ; consider , whether side is supported by the safest arguments . as to the scriptures , 't would be impudence to affirm , that there are clearer , or even as clear words for you , as these are for us : this is my body , this is my blood : the bread , which i will give , is my flesh. some places therefore are plain and clear of themselves ; and others , which want interpretation , we expound according to the sentiments of men certainly great and numerous , whose wisdom , learning , and piety were remarkable ; and lastly , as is most agreeable to the divine institution , this is my body . now if you would understand , what the sense of the church was from the apostles time , it can no way better be understood , than by that of the fathers , who then liv'd . but there is not any one of the fathers , that have written of the eucharist , whom we approve not , or whom we refuse for our judge . for though some of them may have sometimes us'd certain obscure words , which you also have endeavour'd to abuse for the support of your heresies ; yet is there none of them that have spoken thus dubiously , who has not also other words extant , which are plain and clear for us . nay , most of them have so written , that asserting our opinion , they cannot be so much as imagin'd to have the least word or expression , which favours your heresy . then , if you have regard to the consent of christians , it must be confess'd , that not only the latin and greek churches , but all christians throughout the whole world unanimously agree in our opinion . so that which way soever you seek for arguments , there are still more for us : if the learning of the persons be respected , we have far the greater part of men , famous for knowledge ; if ages , we have unquestionably more ; if the number of men , you may well be asham'd to compare with us . thus being every way inferior to us , you have nothing remaining but your obstinacy , and vain incredulity , which with you is call'd prudence , or wisdom , wholly consisting in such kind of philosophy as this : can god do this ; or is it likely , that he would ; what inconveniencies hence arise ; how unworthy is this of the divine majesty ? after the same manner did the heathens put up queries against christ , and the arians against the trinity . away with this vain solicitude : you may possibly sometimes know , why god's works are done ; but never how . give me leave to use the words of st. ambrose , who ( says he , 11 hexam . chap. 1. ) seeing these things , can with his weak understanding search out a possibility of the reason ? all which the divine power , not to be comprehended by humane minds , nor express'd by our discourses , has knit together by the authority of his own will. but if thou , o sectary , art not mov'd by our agreement , let the blind contention , that is among your selves , startle thee : since divided into sects , you with great bitterness contend about the opinion , you ought to have of this sacrament . would to god thou knewest , how pleasant it is to prostrate thy self before the altar , where the angels ( says st. chrysosthm in his third homily on the epistle to the ephesians ) with trembling reverence the host : how sweet it is there to adore our lord , who ( to use st. augustin's words in his commentary on the 98 psalm ) walk'd here in the flesh , and gave the same flesh to be eaten by us for our salvation : how far lastly it excells all humane delights to reject vain circumstances , and believe only the word of god , to which so many foregoing ages have assented ; to acknowledge that to be our lords body which our lord himself has affirm'd to be his body ; and with a mouth of flesh to receive in all due humility the flesh of our lord , that he may nourish our souls with the effect of the sacrament , and the spirit which quickneth . none shall before the tyranny of antichrist deprive the faithful of these joyes , nor can any one , but he , who has experienc'd them , comprehend them . the end of the second chapter . advertisement . there being many excellent pieces of the same author , containing a direct , short , and full proof of all those points commonly objected to roman catholicks by sectaries , as having furnish'd a pretended occasion of their schism : i design god willing , one by one to prepare them for the press , that the world may see , how unreasonable and groundless are all the exceptions made against us ; and manifestly repugnant to god's holy word , and the received judgment of all antiquity . a discourse concerning transubstantiation and idolatry being an answer to the bishop of oxford's plea relating to those two points. burnet, gilbert, 1643-1715. 1688 approx. 73 kb of xml-encoded text transcribed from 19 1-bit group-iv tiff page images. text creation partnership, ann arbor, mi ; oxford (uk) : 2004-03 (eebo-tcp phase 1). a30335 wing b5775 estc r23015 12623040 ocm 12623040 64583 this keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the early english books online text creation partnership. this phase i text is available for reuse, according to the terms of creative commons 0 1.0 universal . the text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission. early english books online. (eebo-tcp ; phase 1, no. a30335) transcribed from: (early english books online ; image set 64583) images scanned from microfilm: (early english books, 1641-1700 ; 709:1) a discourse concerning transubstantiation and idolatry being an answer to the bishop of oxford's plea relating to those two points. burnet, gilbert, 1643-1715. 36 p. [s.n.], london : 1688. first published in two tracts, the first titled "a second part of the enquiry into the reasons offered by sa. oxon [bp. parker] for abrogating the test", the second, "a continuation of the second part of the enquiry." reproduction of original in huntington library. created by converting tcp files to tei p5 using tcp2tei.xsl, tei @ oxford. re-processed by university of nebraska-lincoln and northwestern, with changes to facilitate morpho-syntactic tagging. gap elements of known extent have been transformed into placeholder characters or elements to simplify the filling in of gaps by user contributors. eebo-tcp is a partnership between the universities of michigan and oxford and the publisher proquest to create accurately transcribed and encoded texts based on the image sets published by proquest via their early english books online (eebo) database (http://eebo.chadwyck.com). the general aim of eebo-tcp is to encode one copy (usually the first edition) of every monographic english-language title published between 1473 and 1700 available in eebo. eebo-tcp aimed to produce large quantities of textual data within the usual project restraints of time and funding, and therefore chose to create diplomatic transcriptions (as opposed to critical editions) with light-touch, mainly structural encoding based on the text encoding initiative (http://www.tei-c.org). the eebo-tcp project was divided into two phases. the 25,363 texts created during phase 1 of the project have been released into the public domain as of 1 january 2015. anyone can now take and use these texts for their own purposes, but we respectfully request that due credit and attribution is given to their original source. users should be aware of the process of creating the tcp texts, and therefore of any assumptions that can be made about the data. text selection was based on the new cambridge bibliography of english literature (ncbel). if an author (or for an anonymous work, the title) appears in ncbel, then their works are eligible for inclusion. selection was intended to range over a wide variety of subject areas, to reflect the true nature of the print record of the period. in general, first editions of a works in english were prioritized, although there are a number of works in other languages, notably latin and welsh, included and sometimes a second or later edition of a work was chosen if there was a compelling reason to do so. image sets were sent to external keying companies for transcription and basic encoding. quality assurance was then carried out by editorial teams in oxford and michigan. 5% (or 5 pages, whichever is the greater) of each text was proofread for accuracy and those which did not meet qa standards were returned to the keyers to be redone. after proofreading, the encoding was enhanced and/or corrected and characters marked as illegible were corrected where possible up to a limit of 100 instances per text. any remaining illegibles were encoded as <gap>s. understanding these processes should make clear that, while the overall quality of tcp data is very good, some errors will remain and some readable characters will be marked as illegible. users should bear in mind that in all likelihood such instances will never have been looked at by a tcp editor. the texts were encoded and linked to page images in accordance with level 4 of the tei in libraries guidelines. copies of the texts have been issued variously as sgml (tcp schema; ascii text with mnemonic sdata character entities); displayable xml (tcp schema; characters represented either as utf-8 unicode or text strings within braces); or lossless xml (tei p5, characters represented either as utf-8 unicode or tei g elements). keying and markup guidelines are available at the text creation partnership web site . eng parker, samuel, 1640-1688. -reasons for abrogating the test imposed upon all members of parliament. catholic church -controversial literature. transubstantiation. 2003-10 tcp assigned for keying and markup 2003-11 apex covantage keyed and coded from proquest page images 2003-12 olivia bottum sampled and proofread 2003-12 olivia bottum text and markup reviewed and edited 2004-02 pfs batch review (qc) and xml conversion a discourse concerning transubstantiation and idolatry . being an answer to the bishop of oxford's plea relating to those two points . london , printed in the year , 1688. an answer to the reasons of the bishop of oxford , &c. this author would perswade the world , that transubstantiation is but a nicety of the schools , calculated to the aristotelian philosophy ; and not defined positively in the church of rome ; but that the corporal and real presence of the substance of christ's body and blood in the sacrament was the doctrine of the universal church in the primitive times ; and that it is at this day the generally received doctrine by all the different parties in europe , not only the roman catholicks and lutherans , but both by the churches of switzerland and france , and more particularly by the church of england : so that since all that the church of rome means by transubstantiation , is the real presence , and since the real presence is so universally received , it is a heinous thing to renounce transubstantiation ; for that is in effect the renouncing the real presence . this is the whole strength of his argument , which he fortifies by many citations , to prove that both the antient fathers , and the modern reformers , believed the real presence ; and that the church of rome believes no more . but to all this i shall offer a few exceptions . i. if transubstantiation is only a philosophical nicety concerning the manner of the presence , where is the hurt of renouncing it ? and why are the roman catholicks at so much pains to have the test repealed ? for it contains nothing against the real presence : indeed , if this argument has any force , it should rather lead the rom. catholicks to take the test , since , according to the bishop , they do not renounce in it any article of faith , but only a bold curiosity of the school-men . yet after all , it seems they know , that this is contrary to their doctrine , otherwise they would not venture so much upon a point of an old and decried philosophy . ii. in order to the stating this matter aright , it is necessary to give the true notion of the real presence , as it is acknowledged by the reformed . we all know in what sense the church of rome understands it , that in the sacrament there is no real bread and wine ; but that under the appearance of them we have the true substance of christ's glorified body . on the other hand , the reformed , when they found the world generally fond of this phrase ; they by the same spirit of compliance , which our saviour and his apostles had for the iews , and that the primitive church had ( perhaps to excess ) for the heathens , retained the phrase of real presence : but as they gave it such a sense as did fully demonstrate , that tho they retained a term that had for it a long prescription , yet they quite changed its meaning : for they always shewed , that the body and blood of christ , which they believed present , was his body broken , and his blood shed , that is to say , his body , not in its glorified state , but as it was crucified . so that the presence belonging to christ's dead body , which is not now actually in being , is only his death that is to be conceived to be presented to us , and this being the sense that they always give of the real presence , the reality falls only on that conveyance , that is made to us in the sacrament , by a federal right of christ's death as our sacrifice . the learned answerer to the oxford discourses has so fully demonstrated this from the copious explanations which all the reformed give of that phrase , that one would think it were not possible either to mistake or cavil in so clear a point . the papists had generally objected to the reformers , that they made the sacrament no more than a bare commemoratory feast ; and some few had carried their aversion to that gross presence , which the church of rome had set up , to another extreme , to which the people by a principle of libertinism might have been too easily carried , if the true dignity of the sacrament had not been maintained by expressions of great majesty : so finding that the world was possessed of the phrase of the real presence , they thought fit to preserve it , but with an explanation that was liable to no ambiguity . yet it seems our reformers in the beginning of queen elizabeth's reign had found , that the phrase had more power to carry men to superstition , than the explanations given to it , had to retire them from it , and therefore the convocation ordered it to be laid aside , tho that order was suppressed out of prudence : and the phrase has been ever since in use among us , of which dr. burnet has given us a copious account , hist. reform . 2 vol. 3d book . iii. the difference between the notion of the sacraments being a meer commemoratory feast , and the real presence , is as great , as the value of the king's head stamped upon a meddal differs from the current coin , or the impression made by the great seal upon wax differs from that which any carver or graver may make . the one is a meer memorial , but the other has a sacred badg of authority in it . the paschal lamb was not only a remembrance of the deliverance of the people of israel out of egypt , but a continuance of the covenant , that moses made between god and them , which distinguished them from all the nations round about them , as well as the first passover had distinguished them from the egyptians . now it were a strange inference , because the lamb was called the lord's passover , that is , the sacrifice upon the sprinkling of whose blood the angel passed over or passed by the houses of the israelites , when he smote the first-born of the egyptians , to say , that there was a change of the substance of the lamb : or because the real faith of a prince is given by his geat seal , printed on wax , and affixed to a parchment , that therefore the substance of the wax is changed : so it is no less absurd to imagine , that because the bread and wine are said to be the body and blood of christ as broken and shed , that is , his death really and effectually offered to us , as our sacrifice , that therefore the substance of the bread and wine are changed . and thus upon the whole matter , that which is present in the sacrament is christ dead , and since his death was transacted above 1600 years ago , the reality of his presence can be no other than a real offer of his death made to us in an institution and federal symbol . i have explained this the more fully , because with this all the ambiguity in the use of that commonly received phrase falls off . iv. as for the doctrine of the antient church , there has been so much said in this enquiry , that a man cannot hope to add any new discoveries to what has been already found out : therefore i shall only endeavour to bring some of the most important observations into a narrow compass , and to set them in a good light , and shall first offer some general presumptions , to shew that it is not like , that this was the doctrine of the primitive times , and then some positive proof of it . 1. it is no slight presumption against it , that we do not find the fathers take any pains to answer the objections that do naturally arise out of the present doctrine of the church of rome . these objections do not arise out of profound study , or great learning , but from the plain dictates of common sense , which make it hard ( to say no more ) for us to believe , that a body can be in more places than one at once ; and that it can be in a place after the manner of a spirit : that accidents can be without their subject ; or that our senses can deceive us in the plainest cases . we find the fathers explain some abstruse difficulties , that arise out of other mysteries , that were less known , and were more speculative : and while they are thought perhaps to over-do the one , it is a little strange that they should never touch the other : but on the contrary , when they treat of philosophical matters , they express themselves roundly in opposition to those consequences of this doctrine : whereas since this doctrine has been received , we see all the speculations of philosophy have been so managed , as to keep a reserve for this doctrine . so that the uncautious way in which the father 's handled them ( in proof of which volumes of quotatations can be made ) shews they had not then received that doctrine , which must of necessity give them occasion to write otherwise than they did . 2. we find the heathens studied to load the christian religion with all the heaviest imputations that they could give it . they objected to them the believing a god that was born , and that died , and the resurrection of the dead , and many lesser matters , which seemed absurd to them : they had malice enough to seek out every thing that could disgrace a religion which grew too hard for them : but they never once object this , of making a god out of a piece of bread , and then eating him : if this had been the doctrine of those ages , the heathens , chiefly celsus and porphiry , but above all iulian , could not have been ignorant of it . now it does not stand with common sense to think , that those who insist much upon inconsiderable things , could have passed over this , which is both so sensible , and of such importance , if it had been the received belief of those ages . 3. it is also of weight , that there were no disputes nor heresies upon this point during the first ages ; and that none of the hereticks ever objected it to the doctors of the church . we find they contended about all other points : now this hath so many difficulties in it , that it should seem a little strange , that all mens understandings should have been then so easie and consenting , that this was the single point of the whole body of divinity , about which the church had no dispute for the first seven centuries . it therefore inclines a man rather to think , that because there were no disputes concerning it , therefore it was not then broached : since we see plainly , that ever since it was broached in the west , it has occasioned lasting disputes , both with those who could not be brought to believe it , and with one another concerning the several ways of explaining and maintaining it . 4. it is also a strong prejudice against the antiquity of this doctrine , that there were none of those rites in the first ages , which have crept in in the latter ; which were such natural consequences of it , that the belief of the one making way for the other , we may conclude , that where the one were not practised , the other was not believed . i will not mention all the pomp which the latter ages have invented to raise the lustre of this doctrine , with which the former ages were unacquainted . it is enough to observe , that the adoration of the sacrament was such a necessary consequence of this doctrine , that since the primitive times know nothing of it , as the greek church does not to this day , it is perhaps more than a presumption , that they believed it not . v. but now i come to more positive and convincing proofs : and , 1. the language of the whole church is only to be found in the liturgies , which are more severely composed than rhetorical discourses ; and of all the parts of the office , the prayer of consecration is that , in which we must hope to find most certainly the doctrine of the church : we find then in the fourth century , that in the prayer of consecration the elements were said to be the types of the body and blood of christ , as st. basil informs us from the greek liturgies , and the figure of his body and blood , as st. ambrose informs us from the latin liturgies : the prayer of consecration , that is now in the canon of the mass , is in a great part the same with that which is cited by st. ambrose , but with this important difference , that instead of the words , which is the figure of the body and blood of christ , that are in the former , there is a petition added in the latter , that the gifts may be to us the body and blood of christ. if we had so many of the mss. of the ancient liturgies left , as to be able to find out the time in which the prayer of the consecration was altered , from what it was in st. ambrose's days , to what it is now , this would be no small article in the history of transubstantiation : but most of these are lost ; since then the antient church could not believe otherwise of the sacrament , than as she expressed her self concerning it in the prayer of consecration ; it is plain , that her first doctrine concerning it was , that the bread and wine were the types , and the figure of the body and blood of christ. 2. a second proof is from the controversy , that was began by the apollinarists , and carried on by the eutichians , whether christ's humanity was swallowed up of his divinity or not ? the eutychians made use of the general expressions , by which the change in the sacrament seemed to be carried so far , that the bread and wine were swallowed up by it ; and from this they inferred , that in like manner the human nature of christ was swallowed up by his divinity : but in opposition to all this , we find chrysostome the patriarch of constantinople , ephrem the patriarch of antioch , gelasius the pope , theodoret a bishop in asia the less , and facundus in africk , all within the compass of little more than an age , agree almost in the same words , in refuting all this : asserting , that as the human nature in christ remained still the same that it was before , notwithstanding its union with the divine nature ; even so the bread and wine retained still their former nature , substance and form , and that they are only sanctified , not by the change of their nature , but by adding grace to nature . this they do in terms plain , and beyond all exception ; and theodoret goes over the matter again and again , in two different treatises ; so that no matter of fact can appear more plainly , than that the whole church east , and west , and south , did in the 5th and 6th centuries believe , that the sanctification of the elements in the sacrament did no more destroy their natures , than the union of the two natures in christ did destroy his humane nature . 3. a third proof is taken from a practice , which i will not offer to justify , how ancient soever it may have been : it appears indeed in the ancientest liturgies now extant , and is a prayer , in which the sacrament is said to be offered up in honour of the saint of the day , to which a petition is added , that it may be accepted of god by the intercession of the saint . this is yet in the missal , and is used upon most of the saints days : now if the sacrament was then believed to be the very body and blood of christ , there is nothing more crude , not to say prophane , than to offer this up to the honour of a saint , and and to pray that the sacrifice of christ's body may be accepted of god thrô the intercession of a saint . therefore to give any tolerable sense to these words , we must conclude , that tho these prayers have been continued in the roman church , since this opinion prevailed ; yet they were never made in an age in which it was received . the only meaning that can be given to these words is , that they made the saints-days days of communion , as well as the sundays were ; and upon that they prayed , that the sacrament which they received that day , to do the more honour to the memory of the saint , might be recommended to the divine acceptance by the intercession of the saint : so that this superstitious practice shews plainly , that the church had not , even when it began , received the doctrine of the change of the elements into the body and blood of christ. i will not pursue the proof of this point farther , nor will i enter into a particular recital of the sayings of the fathers upon this subject ; which would carry me far : and it is done so copiously by others , that i had rather refer my reader to them , than offer him a lean abridgment of their labours . i shall only add , that the presumptions and proofs that i have offered , are much more to be valued , than the pious and rhetorical figures , by which many of the fathers have set forth the manner of christ's presence in the sacrament . one thing is plain , that in most of them they represent christ present in his dead and crucified state , which appears most eminently in st. chrysostome ; so that this agrees with that notion of a real presence , that was formerly explained . men that have at the same time all the heat in their imaginations that eloquence can raise , and all the fervour in their heart which devotion can inspire , are seldom so correct in their phrases and figures , as not to need some allowances : therefore one plain proof of their opinions from their reasonings , when in cold blood , ought to be of much more weight than all their transports and amplifications . from this general view of the state of the church during the first centuries , i come next to consider the steps of the change which was afterwards made . i will not offer to trace out that history , which mr. larrogue has done copiously , whom i the rather mention , because he is put in english. i shall only observe , that by reason of the high expressions , which were used upon the occasion of the eutychian controversy formerly mentioned , by which the sanctification of the elements was compared to the union of the humane nature of christ with his divinity , a great step was made to all that followed . during the dispute concerning images , those who opposed the worship of them , said , according to all the ancient liturgies , that they indeed acknowleged one image of christ , which was the sacrament ; those who promoted that piece of superstition ( for i refer the calling it idolatry to its proper place ) had the impudence to deny , that it had ever been called the image of christ's body and blood ; and said , that it was really his body and blood. we will not much dispute concerning an age , in which the world seemed mad with a zeal for the worship of images ; and in which rebellion , and the deposing of princes , upon the pretence of heresy , began to be put in practice : such times as these we willingly yeild up to our adversaries . yet damascene , and the greek church after him , carried this matter no farther than to assert an assumption of the elements into an union with the body and blood of christ. but when the monk of corbie began to carry the matter yet farther , and to say , that the elements were changed into that very body of christ that was born of the virgin , we find all the great men of that age , both in france , germany and england , writ against him : and he himself owns that he was looked upon as an innovator ; those who writ against him , chiefly rabanus maurus , and bertram or ratramne , did so plainly assert the ancient opinion of the sacraments being the figure of the body and blood of christ , that we cannot express our selves more formally than they did : and from thence it was , that our saxon homily on easter-day was so express in this point . yet the war and the northern invasions that followed , put the world into so much disorder , that all disputes were soon forgot , and that in the 11th century this opinion , which had so many partisans in the 9th , was generally decried and much abandoned . vi. but with relation to those ages in which it was received , some observations occur so readily to every one that knows history , that it is only for the sake of the more ignorant that i make them . 1. they were times of so much ignorance , that it is scarce conceivable to any but to those who have laboured a little in reading the productions of those ages , which is the driest piece of study i know : the stile in which they writ , and their way of arguing , and explaining scripture , are all of a piece , both matter and form are equally barbarous . now in such times , as the ignorant populace were easily misled , so there is somewhat in incredible stories and opinions , that makes them pass as easily , as men are apt to fancy they see sprights in the night : nay the more of mystery and darkness that there is in any opinion , such times are apt to cherish it the more for that very reason . 2. those were ages in which the whole ecclesiastical order had entred into such conspiracies against the state , which were managed and set on with such vigor by the popes , that every opinion which tended to render the persons of church-men sacred , and to raise their character , was likely to receive the best entertainment , and the greatest incouragement possible . nothing could so secure the persons of priests , and render them so considerable , as to believe that they made their god : and in such ages no armour was of so sure a proof , as for a priest to take his god in his hands . now it is known that p. gregory the 7th , who condemned berengarius , laid the foundations of the ecclesiastical empire , by establishing the deposing power ; so p. innocent the 3d , who got transubstantiation to be decreed , in the 4th council of the lateran , seemed to have compleated the project , by the addition made to the deposing power , of transferring the dominions of the deposed prince to whom he pleased ; since before this the dominions must have gone to the next heirs of the deposed prince . it is then so plain , that the doctrine of transubstantiation was so suitable to the advancing of those ends , that it had been a wonder indeed , if it being once set on foot , had not been established in such times . 3. those ages were so corrupt , and more particularly the clergy , and chiefly the popes were by the confession of all writers so excessively vicious , that such men could have no regard to truth in any of their decisions . interest must have carried all other things before it with such popes , who according to the historians of their own communion , were perhaps the worst men that ever lived . their vices were so crying , that nothing but the credit that is due to writers of their own time , and their own church , could determine us to believe them . 4. as the ignorance and vices of those times derogate justly from all the credit that is due to them ; so the cruelty which followed their decisions , and which was employed in the execution of them , makes it appear rather a stranger thing that so many opposed them , than that so many submitted to them . when inquisitors or dragoons manage an argument , how strong soever the spirit may be in opposing , it is certain the flesh will be weak , and will ply easily . when princes were threatned with deposition , and hereticks with extirpation , and when both were executed with so much rigour , the success of all the doctrines that were established in those days ought to make no impression on us , in its favour . vii . it is no less plain , that there was a great and vigorous opposition made to every step of the progress of this doctrine . when the eutychians first made use of it , the greatest men of that age set themselves against it . when the worshippers of images did afterwards deny , that the sacrament was the image of the body and blood of christ , a general council in the east asserted , according to the ancient liturgies , the contrary proposition . when paschase radbert set on foot the corporal presence in the west , all the great men of the age writ against him . berenger was likewise highly esteemed , and had many secret followers , when this doctrine was first decreed : and ever since the time of the council of the lateran , that transubstantiation was established , there have been whole bodies of men that have opposed it , and that have fallen as sacrifices to the rage of the inquisitors . and by the processes of those of tholouse , of which i have seen the original records , for the space of twenty years , it appears , that as transubstantiation was the article upon which they were always chiefly examined ; so it was that which many of them did constantly deny , so far were they on both sides from looking on it only as an explanation of the real presence . viii . the novelty of this doctrine appears plainly by the strange work that the schools have made with it , since they got it among them , both in their philosophy and divinity , and by the many different methods that they took for explaining it , till they had licked it into the shape , in which it is now : which is as plain an evidence of the novelty of the doctrine as can be imagined . the learned mr. alix has given us a clear deduction of all that confusion , into which it has cast the school-men , and the many various methods that they fell on for maintaining it . first , they thought the body of christ was broken by the teeth of the faithful : then that appearing absurd , and subjecting our saviour to new sufferings , the doctrine of a body's being in a place after the manner of a spirit was set up . and as to the change , some thought that the matter of bread remained , but that it was united to the body of christ , as nourishment is digested into our bodies : others thought , that the form of bread remained , the matter only being changed : and some thought , that the bread was only withdrawn to give place to the body of christ , whereas others thought it was annihilated . while the better judges had always an eye either to a consubstantiation , or to such an assumption of the bread and wine by the eternal word , as made the sacrament in some sense his body indeed ; but not that body which is now in heaven . all these different opinions , in which the school-men were divided ▪ even after the decision made by pope innocent , in the council of the lateran , shew , that the doctrine , being a novelty , men did not yet know how to mould or form it : but in process of time the whole philosophy was so digested , as to prepare all scholars in their first formation to receive it the more easily . and in our age , in which that philosophy has lost its credit , what pains do they take to suppress the new philosophy , as seeing that it cannot be so easily subdued to support this doctrine , as the old one was ? and it is no unpleasant thing to see the shifts , to which the partisans of the cartesian philosophy are driven , to explain themselves : which are indeed so very ridiculous , that one can hardly think , that those who make use of them , believe them ; for they are plainly rather tricks and excuses than answers . ix . no man can deny , that transubstantiation is the doctrine of the church of rome ; but he that will dispute the authority of the councils of the lateran and trent . now tho some have done the first avowedly , yet as their number is small , and their opinion decried ; so for the council of trent , tho i have known some of that communion , who do not look upon it as a general council , and tho it is not at all received in france , neither as to doctrine nor discipline , yet the contrary opinion is so universally received , that they who think otherwise , dare not speak out ; and so give their opinion as a secret , which they trust in confidence , rather than as a doctrine which they will own . but setting aside the authority of these councils , the common resolution of faith in the church of rome being tradition , it cannot be denied , that the constant and general tradition in the church of rome , these last 500 years , has been in favour of transubstantiation , and that is witnessed by all the evidences by which it is possible to know tradition . the writings of learned men , the sermons of preachers , the proceedings of tribunals , the decisions of councils , that , if they were not general , were yet very numerous , and above all by the many authentical declarations the popes have made in this matter . so that either tradition is to be for ever rejected as a false conveyance , or this is the received doctrine of the church of rome , from which she can never depart , without giving up both her infallibility , and the authority of tradition . x. there is not any one point , in which all the reformed churches do more unanimously agree , than in the rejecting of transubstantiation ; as appears both by the harmony of their confessions , and by the current of all the reformed writers . and for the real presence , tho the lutherans explain it by a consubstantiation , and the rest of the reformed by a reality of vertue and efficacy , and a presence of christ as crucified ; yet all of them have taken much pains to shew , that in what sense soever they meant it , they were still far enough from transubstantiation . this demonstrates the wisdom of our legislators , in singling out this to be the sole point of the test for imployments : since it is perhaps the only point in controversy , in which the whole church of rome holds the affirmative , and the whole reformed hold the negative . and it is as certain , that transubstantiation is the doctrine of the church of rome , as that it is rejected by the church of england ; it being by name condemned in our articles . and thus , i hope , the whole plea of our author in favour of transubstantiation is overthrown in all its three branches : which relate to the doctrine of the primitive church , the doctrine of the church of rome , and the doctrine of the church of england , as well as of the other reformed churches . i have not loaded this paper with quotations , because i intended to be short : but i am ready to make good all the matters of fact asserted in it , under the highest pains of infamy , if i fail in the performance : and besides , the more voluminous works that have been writ on this subject , such as albertines , clauds answer to mr. arnaud , and f. nonet , larrogues history of the eucharist , there have been so many learned discourses written of late on this subject , and in particular , two answers to the bishops books , that if it had not been thought expedient , that i should have cast the whole matter into a short paper , i should not have judged it necessary to trouble the world with more discourses on a subject that seems exhausted . i will add no more , but that by the next i will give another paper of the same bulk upon the idolatry of the church of rome . an ansvver to that part about idolatry , &c. the words of the test that belong to this point are these , the invocation or adoration of the virgin mary , or any other saint , and the sacrifice of the mass , as they are now used in the church of rome , are superstitious and idolatrous ; upon which our author fastens this censure , that since by this the church of rome is charged with idolatry , which both forfeits mens lives here , and their salvation hereafter , according to the express words of scripture : it 's a damnable peice of cruelty and uncharitableness , to load them with this charge , if they are not guilty of it ▪ and upon this he goes to clear them of it not only in the two articles mentioned in the test , the worship of saints , and the sacrifice of the mass , but that his apology might be compleat , he takes in , and indeed insists chiefly on the worship of images , tho , that is not at all mentioned in the test , he brings a great many quotations out of the old testament , to shew the idolatry prohibited in it , was the worshipping the sun , moon , and stars , or the making an image to resemble the divine essence , upon which he produces also sōme other authorities . and in this consists the substance of his plea for the church of rome . but upon all this he ought to have retracted both the license that himself gave some years ago to dr. stillingfleet's book , of the idolatry of the church of rome , and his own hasty assertion in condemning both turk and papist as guilty of idolatry ; the one for worshipping a lewd impostor , and the other for worshipping a sensless piece of matter . it seems he is now convinced , that the latter part of this charge that falls on the papists , was as false as the former that falls on the turks certainly is ; for they never worshipped mahomet , but hold him only in high reverence , as an extraordinary prophet , as the iews do moses . it 's very like that if the turks had taken vienna , he would have retracted that , as he has now in effect done the other : for i believe he is in the same disposition to reconcile himself to the mufti , and the pope , but the ottoman empire is now as low as popery is high : so he will brave the turk still to his teeth , tho he did him wrong , and will humble himself to the papist , tho he did him nothing but right : but now i take leave of the man , and will confine my self severely to the matter that is before me . and , 1. how guilty soever the church of rome is of idolatry , yet the test does not plainly assert that ; for there is as great a difference between idolatrous and idolatry , as there is in law between what is treasonable and what is treason . the one imports only a worship that is conformable to idolatry , and that has a tendency to it , whereas the other is the plain sin it self . there is also a great difference between what is now us'd in that church , and the explanations that some of their doctors give of that usage . we are to take the usage of the church of rome from her publick offices , and her authorised practices ; so that if these have a conformity to idolatry , and a tendency tō it , then the words of the test are justified , what sense soever some learned men among them may put on these offices and practices ; therefore the test may be well maintained , even tho we should acknowledg that the church of rome was not guilty of idolatry . 2. if idolatry was a crime punishable by death under the old testament , that does not at all concern us : nor does the charge of idolatry authorize the people to kill all idolaters ; unless our author can prove , that we believe our selves to be under all the political and judiciary precepts of the law of moses ; and even among the jews the execution of that severe law belonged either to the magistrate , or to some authorized and inspired person , who as a zealot might execute the law , when the magistrate was wanting to his duty ; so that this was writ inviduously only , as it seems , to inflame the papist the more against us . but the same calvinist prince , that has exprest so just an aversion to the repealing the test , has at the same time shewed so merciful an inclination towards the ro. catholicks , that of all the reproaches in the world , one that intended to plead for that religion ought to have avoided the mentioning of blood or cruelty with the greatest care . 3. it 's true we cannot help believing that idolatry is a damnable sin , that shuts men out of the kingdom of heaven ; and if every sin in which a man dies without repentance does it , much more this , which is one of the greatest of all sins . but yet after all , there is mercy for sins of ignorance upon mens general repentance ; and therefore since god alone knows the degrees of mens knowledg and of their ignorance , and how far it is either affected on the one hand , and invincible on the other , we do not take upon us to enter into god's secrets , or to judg of the salvation or damnation of particular persons , nor must we be byassed in our enquiry into the nature of any sin , either by a fond regard to the state of our ancestors , or by the due respect that we owe to those who are over us in civil matters . in this case things are what god has declared them to be ; we can neither make them better nor worse than he has made them ; and we are only to judg of things , leaving persons to the merciful as well as the just and dreadful judgment of god. 4. all the stir that our author keeps with the examining of the idolatry committed by the iews under the old testament , supposing it were all true , will serve no more for acquitting the church of rome , than a plea would avail a criminal , who were arraigned of high treason for coyning mony , or for counterfeiting the king's seal , in which one should set forth , that high treason was the murdering the king , or the levying war against him , and that therefore the criminal who was guilty of neither of these two , ought to be acquitted . idolatry , as well as treason , is a comprehensive notion , and has many different branches : so that tho the worshipping the host of heaven , or the worshipping an image as a resemblance of the divinity , may be acknowledged to be the highest degrees of idolatry , yet many other corruptions in the worship of god are justly reducible to it , and may be termed not only idolatrous , but idolatry it self . 5. our saviour in his sermon on the mount has shewed us how many sins are reducible to the second table of the law , besides those of murder , adultery , &c. that are expresly named in it ; and tho the jews in that time having delivered themselves entirely from the sin of idolatry , to which their fathers were so prone , gave him no occasion of commenting on the first and second commandment , yet by the parity of things we may conclude , that many sins are reducible to them , besides those that are expresly named ; and tho we have not so compleat a history of the idolatry of the neighbouring nations to iudea before the captivity , yet we do certainly know what was the idolatry of which the greeks and romans were guilty when the new testament was writ , and the greatest part of the new testament is written chiefly with relation to the jews , whose freedom from idolatry gave no occasion to treat of it , yet in those few passages which relate to the heathen idolatry then on foot , the holy writers retain the same phrase and style , that were used in the old testament , which gives us just reason to believe , that the idolatry was upon the matter and in its main stroak the same under both , and if so , then we have a door opened to us to discover all our author 's false reasonings ; and upon this discovery we shall find that all the inspired writers charged the heathen worship with idolatry , not so much with relation to the glosses that philosophers and other political men might put on their rites , but with relation to the practice in it self . 6. but since idolatry is a sin against a moral and unchangeable law , let us state the true notion of the right worship of god , and by consequence of idolatry ( tho this is done with that exactness by the worthy master of the temple , that it should make a man afraid to come after him . ) our ideas of god , and ▪ the homage of worship and service that we offer up pursuant to these , are not only to be considered as they are just thoughts of god , and acts suitable to those thoughts , but as they are ideas that tend both to elevate and purifie our own natures ; for the thoughts of god are the seeds of all truth and vertue in us , which being deeply rooted in us , makes us become conformable to the divine nature . so that the sin of idolatry consists in this , that our ideas of god being corrupted , he is either defrauded of that honour , which , tho due to him , is transferred to another , or is dishonoured by a worship unsutable to his nature , and we also by forming wrong ideas of the object of our worship , become corrupted by them . nothing raises the soul of man more than sublime thoughts of god's greatness and glory ; and nothing perfects it more than just notions of his wisdom and goodness . on the contrary , nothing debases our natures more , than the offering our worship and service to a being that is low and unworthy of it ; or the depressing the supreme being in our thoughts or worship to somewhat that is like our selves , or perhaps worse ; therefore the design of true religion being the forming in us such notions as may exalt and sanctify our natures , as well as the raising a tribute to the author of our being , that is in some sort unworthy of him , the sin of idolatry is upon this account chiefly forbidden in scripture , because it corrupts our ideas of god , and by a natural tendency this must likewise corrupt our natures , when we either raise up an idol so far in our thoughts as to fancy it a god , or depress god so far as to make him an idol , for these two species of idolatry have both the same effect on us : and as a wound in a man's vitals is much more destructive , than any , how deep and dangerous soever , that is in his limbs , since it is possible for him to recover of the one , but not of the other ; so idolatry corrupts religion in its source : thus idolatry in its moral ▪ and unchangeable nature is the honouring any creature as a god , or the imagining that god is such a being as the other ▪ creatures are ; and this had been a sin , tho no law against it had ever been given to mankind but the light and law of nature . 7. but after all this there are different degrees in this sin : for the true notion of god being this , that he comprehends all perfections in his essence ; the ascribing all these to a creature is the highest degree of idolatry : but the ascribing any one of these infinite perfections , or ( which is all one with relation to our actions ) the doing any thing which imports , or is understood to import it , is likewise idolatry , tho of a lower degree of guilt ▪ so likewise the imagining that the true god is no other than as an idol , represents him to be , is the highest degree of the other species of idolatry , but the conceiving him as having a body in which his eternal mind dwells , or fancying that any strange virtue from him dwells in any body to such a degree , as to make that body the proper object of worship , unless he has assured us that he is really united to that body , and dwells in it ; which was the case of the cloud of glory under the old testament , and much more of the humane nature of christ under the new ; this is likewise idolatry , for in all these it is plain that the true ideas of god , and the principles of religion are corrupted . 8. there are two principles in the nature of man that make him very apt to fall into idolatry , either inward or outward . the first is the weakness of most peoples minds , which are so sunk into gross phantasms and sensible objects , that they are scarce capable to raise their thoughts to pure and spiritual ideas : and therefore they are apt either to forget religion quite , or to entertain it by objects that are visible and sensible : the other is , that mens appetites and passions being for the most part too strong for them , and these not being reconcileable to the true ideas of a pure and spiritual essence , they are easily dispos'd to embrace such notions of god as may live more peaceably with their vices : and so they hope by a profusion of expence and honour , or of fury and rage , which they employ in the worship of an imaginary deity , to purchase their pardons , and to compensate for their other crimes , if not to authorise them . these two principles that are so rooted in our frail and corrupt natures , being wrought on by the craft and authority of ambitious and covetous men , who are never wanting in all ages and nations , have brought forth all that idolatry , that has appear'd in so many different shapes up and down the world , and has been diversified according to the various tempers , accidents and constitutions of the several nations and ages of the world. 9. i now come to examine the beginnings of idolatry as they are represented to us in the scripture , in which it will appear , that our author's account of it shews him guilty , either of great ignorance or of that which is worse : he pretends , that the first plain intimation that we have of it in palestine , is , when iacob after his conversation with the schechemites , commanded his family to put away their strange gods ; whereas we have an earlier and more particular account of those strange gods in the same book of genesis , chap. 31. where when iacob fled away from laban , it is said , ver . 19. that rachel stole her father's images or teraphim : and these are afterwards call'd by laban his gods , ver . 30. and these very images are called by ioshua 24. v. 2. strange gods : so that the strange gods from which iacob cleansed his family , gen. 35. 2. were no other than the teraphim ; so that in the teraphim we are to seek for the true original of idolatry , and for the sense of the phrase of other gods , or strange gods , which is indeed the true key to this whole matter . these were little statues , such as the dii laris or penates were afterwards among the romans , or the pagods now in the east , in which it was believed , that there was such a divine virtue shut up , that the idolaters expected protection from them : and as all people in all times are apt to trust to charms , so those who pretended to chain down the divine influences to those images , had here a great occasion given them to deceive the world ; of this sort was the palladium of troy , and the ancille of rome ; and this gave the rise to all the cheats of tolesmes and talismans that came afterwards , these were of different figures : and since our author confesses , p. 124. that cherubim and teraphim are sometimes used promiscuously for one another , it is probable that the figure of both was the same ; and since it is plain from ezekiel that the cherubim resembled a calf ( compare ezek. 1. 10. with chap. 10. 14. where what is called in the first the face of an ox , is called in the other the face of a cherub ) from hence it is probable that the teraphim , or at least some of them were of the same figure . in these it was also believed , that there were different degrees of charms : some were believed stronger than others ; so that probably pharaoh thought that moses and aaron had a teraphim of greater virtue than his magicians had , which is the clearest account that i know of his hardening his heart against so many miracles : and this also seems to be the first occasion of the phrase of the gods of the several nations , and of some being stronger than other ; that is , the teraphim of the one were believed to have a higher degree of enchantment in them , than the others had . this then leads us to the right notion of aaron's golden calf , and of the terms of graved and carved images in the second commandment , and even of the other gods in the first commandment : for we have seen that both in the stile of moses and ioshua the images were those teraphim , which they also called strange gods , when the israelites thought that moses had forsaken them , they came to aaron desiring him to make them god's , that is , teraphims , yet they prescribed no form to him , but left that wholly to him , and so the dream of their fondness of the egyptian idolatry vanishes ; for it was aaron's choice that made it a calf : perhaps he had seen the divine glory , as a cloud between the cherubims when he went up into the mountain ; exod. 24. 9 , 10. for a pattern being shewed to moses of the tabernacle that he was to make , it is probable aaron saw that likewise , and this might dispose him to give them a seraphim , in that figure : this is also the most probable account both of the calves of dan and bethel set up by ieroboam , and also of the israelites worshipping the ephod that gideon made ▪ iud. 8. 27. of the idolatry of micah and the danites who robbed him , iud. 17. 18. and of the israelites offering incense to the brazen serpent , 2 kings 18. 4. which seemed to have all the solemnities of a teraphim in it , so that it is plain , the greatest part of the idolatry under the old testament was the worship of the teraphim . 10. but to compleat this argument with relation to the present point , it is no less plain , that the true jehovah was worshipped in those teraphim . to begin with the first , it is clear that laban in the covenant he made with iacob , appeals not only to the god of abraham , gen. 31. 53. but likewise to iehovah , ver . 49. for though that name was not then known , yet moses by using it on that occasion , shews us plainly that laban was a worshipper of the true god ; aaron shews the same by intimating that feast which he appointed to iehovah , exod. 32. 5. ( which our author thought not fit to mention ) the people also by calling these , ver . 4. the gods that brought them out of egypt , shew that they had no thoughts of the egyptian idolatry : but they believed that moses had carried away the teraphim , in the virtue of which it seems they fancied that he had wrought his miracles , and that aaron , who they believed knew the secret , had made them new ones : and this is the most probable account of their joy in celebrating that feast . and as for ieroboam , the case seems to be plainly the same ; he made the people believe that the teraphim which he gave them in dan and bethel , were as good as those that were at ierusalem : for as his design was no other than to hinder their going thither , 1 kings 12. 27. so it is not likely that either he would or durst venture upon a total change of their religion , or that it could have passed so easily with the people , whereas the other had nothing extraordinary in it . it is also plain , that as ieroboam called the calves the gods that brought them out of egypt , v. 28. so he still acknowledged the true iehovah : for the prophets both true and false in his time prophesied in the name of iehovah , 1 king. 13. 2 , 18 , 26. and when his son was sick , he sent his wife to the prophet of iehovah , ch . 14. the story of the new idolatry , that achab set up of the baalim , shews also plainly that the old worshippers of the calves adhered to the true iehovah : for elijah states the matter , as if the nation had been divided between iehovah and baal , 1 king. 18. 21 , 39. and the whole story of iehu confirms this , 2 kings 9. 6 , 12 , 36. he was anointed king in the name of iehovah : and assoon as the captains that were with him , knew this , they acknowledged him their king ; he likewise speaking of the fact of the men of samaria , cites the authority of iehovah , 2 kings 10. 10 , 16 , 29. which shews that the people acknowledged it still : and he called his zeal against the worship of baal , his zeal for iehovah , and yet both he and his party worshipped the calves . it is no less clear that micah , who called his teraphim his gods , judg. 18. 24. was a worshipper of the true iehovah , judg. 17. 13. and there is little reason to doubt that this was the case of gideon's ephod , and of the brazen serpent . it were needless to go about the proving that all these corrupt ways of worship were idolatrous : the calf is expresly called an idol by st. stephen , acts 7. 41. and the thing is so plain that it is denied by none that i know of ; so here we have a species of idolatry plainly set forth in scripture , in which the true god was worshipped in an image ; and i fancy it is scarce necessary to insorm the reader , that wherever he finds lord in capitals in the english bible , it is for iehovah in the hebrew . 11. it is very true that the great and prevailing idolatry of all the east grew to be the worship of the host of heaven , which seems to have risen very naturally out of the other idolatry of the teraphim , which probably was the ancienter of the two , for when men came to think that divine influences were tied to such images , it was very natural for them to fancy that a more soveraign degree of influence was in the sun , and by consequence that he deserved divine adoration much more than their poor little teraphim . but it is also clear , that this adoration which they offered to the sun , was not with relation to the matter of that shining body , but to the divinity , which they believed was lodged in it . this appears not only from the greek writers , zenophon and plutarch , but from the greatest antiquity that is now in the world ; the bas reliefs that are in the ruins of the temple of persepolis , which are described with so much cost and care , by that worthy and learned gentleman sir iohn chardin , and which the world expects so greedily from him , he favoured me with a fight of them , and in these it appears , that in their triumphs , of which a whole series remains intire , they carried not only the fire , which was the emblem of the body of the sun , but after that the emblem of the divinity that it seems they thought was in it under the representation of a head environed with clouds , which is the most natural emblem that we can fancy , of an intelligent and incomprehensible being . it 's true , as idolatry grows still grosser and grosser , the intelligent being was at last forgot , tho it seems it was remembred by their philosophers , since the greeks came to know it , and all their worship was paid to the sun , or to his emblem the fire , so that even this idolatry was most probably the worship of the true god at first , under a visible representation ; and that this was an effect of the former idolatry is confirmed from what was said by moses , deut. 4. 14 to 19. where he plainly intimates the progress that idolatry would have , if they once came to worship graven or molten images , or make any sort of similitude for the great god ; this would carry them to lift up their eyes to heaven , and worship and serve the host of heaven . 12. the next shape that idolatry took , was the worshipping some subordinate spirits their genies , which were in effect angels , or departed men and women , and this filled both greece and rome , and was the prevailing idolatry when the new testament was writ : but that all these nations believed still one supreme god , and that they considered these just as the roman church does now angels and saints ( mutatis mutandis ) has been made out so invincibly by the learned dr. stillingfleet , that one would rather think that he had over-charged his argument with too much proof , than that it is any way defective , and yet this worship of those secondary deities is charged with idolatry both in the acts and in the epistles , so often , that it is plain the inspired writers believed , that the giving any degrees of divine worship to a creature , tho in a subordinate form , was idolatry ; and st. paul gives us a comprehensive notion of idolatry , that it was the giving divine service ( the word is dulia ) to those that by nature were not gods , gal. 4. 8. and he throws off all lords as well as all the gods of the heathen as idols , and in opposition to these , reduces the worship of the christians to the object of one god the father , and of one lord jesus christ , 1 cor. 8. 5 , 6. so that the greek and roman idolatry being strictly that which is condemned in the new testament , of which we have such a copious evidence from their writings , it is plain that even inferiour degrees of worship , when offered up to creatures , tho angels , is idolatry ; and tho the heathens thought neither iupiter nor mercury the supreme deities , yet the apostles did not for all that forbear to call them idols , acts 14. 15. 13. our author pretends to bear a great respect to antiquity , and therefore i might in the next place send him to all that the fathers have writ against the greek and roman idolatry , in which he will find that the heathens had their explainers as well as the church of rome has ; they denied they worshipped their images , but said they made use of them only to raise up their minds by those visible objects ; yet as st. paul begun the charge against the athenians of idolatry , acts 17. 29. for their gods of gold , silver , wood and stone , it was still kept up and often repeated by the fathers , tho the philosophers might have thrown it back upon them with all that pomp of dreadful words , which our author makes use of against those that fasten the same charge upon the church of rome . the same might be said with relation to the fathers , accusing them of polytheism , in worshipping many gods , and of idolatry , in worshipping those that had been but men like themselves : for it is plain that at least all the philosophers and wise men believed , that these were only deputed by the great god to govern some countries and cities ; and that they were mediators and intercessors between god and men ; but all this , that appears so fully in celsus , porphiry , and many others , did not make the fathers give over the charge . dr. stillingfleet has given such full proofs of this , that nothing can be made plainer than the matter of fact is . we know likewise that when the controversy arose concerning the god-head of jesus christ , athanasius and the other fathers , made use of the same argument against the arrians , who worshipped him , that they could not be excused from the sin of idolatry , in worshipping and invocating him whom they believed only to be a creature ; which shews that it was the sense of the christians of that age , that all acts of divine worship , and in particular , all prayers that were offered up to any that was not truly and by nature god , and the eternal god , were so many acts of idolatry . so that upon the whole matter it is clear , that the worshipping the true god under a corporeal representation , and the worshipping or invocating of creatures , tho in an inferior degree , was taxed by the apostles and by the primitive church as idolatrous . when they accuse them for those corruptions of divine worship , they did not consider the softning excuses of more refined men , so much as the acts that were done , which to be sure do always carry the stupid vulgar to the grossest degrees of idolatry ; and therefore every step towards it is so severely forbid by god , since upon one step made in the publick worship , the people are sure to make a great many more in their notions of things , therefore if we should accuse the church of rome for all the excesses of the past ages , or of the more ignorant notions in the present age , such as spain and portugal , even this might be in some degree well grounded , because the publick and authoris'd offices and practices of that church has given the rise to all those disorders ; and even in this we should but copy after the fathers , who always represent the pagan idolatry ; not as cicero or plutarch had done it , but according to the grossest notions and practices of the vulgar . 14. all that our author says concerning the cherubims , deserves not an answer ; for what use soever might be made of this , to excuse the lutherans for the use of images , without worshipping them , ( tho after all , the doing such a thing upon a divine commandment , and the doing it without a command , are two very different things ) yet it cannot belong to the worship of images , since the israelites paid no worship to the cherubims . they paid indeed a divine worship to the cloud of glory , which was between them , and which is often in the old testament called god himself , in all those expressions in which he is said to dwell between the cherubims . but this being a miraculous symbol of the divine presence , from which they had answers in all extraordinary cases , it was god himself , with any image or representation , that was worshipped in it ; as we christians pay our adorations to the human nature of christ , by virtue of that more sublime and ineffable in-dwelling of the god-head in him , in which case it is god only that we worship , in the man christ : even as the respect that we pay to a man terminates in his mind , tho the outward expressions of it go to the body , to which the mind is united ; so in that unconceivable union between the divine and human natures in christ , we adore the god-head only , even when we worship the man. 15. the general part of this discourse being thus stated , the application of it to the church of rome will be no hard matter : i will not insist much on the article of image-worship ; because it is not comprehended in the test , tho our author dwells longest on it , to let us see how carefully , but to how little purpose he had read dr. spencer's learned book . but if one considers the ceremonies and prayers with which images ▪ and particularly crosses , are to be dedicated by the roman pontifical , and the formal adoration of the cross on good-friday ; and the strange virtues that are not only believed to be in some images by the rabble , but that are authoriz'd not only by the books of devotion publickly allowed among them , but even by papal bulls and indulgences , he will be forced to confess that the old notions of the teraphim are clearly revived among them . this could be made out in an infinite induction of particulars , of which the reader will find a large account in the learned dr. brevint's treatise , entituled , saul and samuel at endor . but i come now to the two branches mentioned in the test. 16. one is the sacrifice of the mass ; in which if either our senses that tell us it is now bread and wine , or the new testament in which it is called both bread , and the fruit of the vine , even after the consecration ; or if the opinion of the first seven centuries , or if the true principles of philosophy , concurring altogether , are strong enough , we are as certain as it is possible for us to be of any thing , that they are still according to our author 's own phrase , a sensless piece of matter ; when therefore this has divine adoration offered to it , when it is called the good god , carried about in solemn processions , and receives as publick and as humble a veneration as could be offered up to the deity it self , if it appear'd visibly . here the highest degree of divine worship is offered up to a creature ▪ nor will such worshippers , believing this to be truly the body of christ , save the matter , if indeed it is not so . this may no doubt go a great way to save themselves , and to bring their sins into the class of the sins of ignorance : but what large thoughts soever we have of the mercies of god to their persons , we can have no indulgence for an act of divine adoration , which is directed to an object that we are either sure is bread , or we are sure of nothing else . 17. as for the invocation and adoration of the blessed virgin and the saints , i shall offer only three classes of instances to prove it idolatrous . 1. in the office of the mass on many of the saints days , that sacrifice which is no other than the body and blood of christ , according to them is offered up to the honour of the saints , and they pray to god to accept of it through the saints intercession , one would think it were enough to offer up the sacrifices of prayers and praises to them ; but here is a sacrifice , which carries in the plain words of it the most absurd idolatry that is possible , which is the offering up the creator to the honour of a creature . 2. in the prayers and hymns that are in their publick offices , there are petitions offered up to the saints , that in the plain sense of the words import their pardoning our sins , and changing our hearts : the daily prayer to the virgin goes far this way ; tu nos ab hoste protege , & hora mortis suscipe ; do thou protect us from our enemy , and receive us in the hour of death . another goes yet further ; culpas nostras ablue , ut perennis sedem gloriae , per te redempti , valeamus scandere ; wash thou away our sins , that so being redeemed by thee , we may ascend up to the mansions of glory . that to the angels is of the same nature ; nostra diluant jam peccata prestando supernam coeli gloriam ; may they wash away our sins , and grant us the heavenly glory . i shall to this add two addresses to two of our english saints ; the first is to s. alban , te nunc petimus patrone preco sedule , qui es nostra vera gloria sive precum votis , servorum scelera ; we implore thee , our patron , who art our true glory , do thou take away the crimes of thy servants , by thy prayers . and the other relates to thomas becket , whom i believe our author will not deny to have been as great a rebel , as either coligny or his faction , and yet they pray thus to christ , tu per thomae sanguinem , quem pro te effudit , fac nos christe , scandere quo thomas ascendit ; do thou , o christ , make us by the blood of thomas , which he shed for thee , to ascend up whither he has ascended : and the hymn upon him is that verse of the 8th psalm ; thou hast crowned him with glory and honour , and hast set him over all the works of thy hands . one would think it were no bold thing to pronounce all this and innumerable more instances which might be brought to the same purpose , to be idolatrous . if we are sent by our author to the sences that may be put on those words , i shall only say with relation to that that the test condemns the devotions as they are used in the roman church ; so this belongs to the plain sence of the words , and if it is confessed that these are idolatrous , as ascribing to creatures the right of pardoning sins , and of opening the kingdom of heaven , which are main parts of the divine glory , then the matter of the test is justified . a third sort of instances is in the prayer that comes after the priest has pronounced the words of absolution , passio domini nostri iesu christi , merita b. mariae virginis , & omnium sanctorum , & quicquid benefeceris , vel mali sustinueris , sint tibi in remissionem peccatorum , augmentum gratiae & proemium vitae aeternae : may the passion of our lord iesus christ , the merits of the b. virgin , and all the saints , and all the good thou hast done , or the evil thou hast suffered , be to thee effectual for the remission of thy sins , the increase of grace , and the reward of eternal life . absolution in its true and unsophisticated meaning , being the declaration made to a penitent of the mercies of god in christ , according to the gospel , i would gladly know what milder censure is due to the mixing the merits of the virgin and the saints , with the passion of christ , in order to the obtaining this gospel-pardon , with all the effects of it , than in this of our test , that it is idolatrous . i have now examined the two points , in which our author thought fit to make an apology for the church of rome , without descending to the particulars of his plea more minutely . i have used him in this more gently than he deserves ; for as i examined his reasonings , i found all along both so much ignorance and such gross disingenuity , that i had some difficulty to restrain my self from flying out on many occasions : but i resolved to pursue these two points , with the gravity of stile which the matter required , without entangling the discourse with such unpleasant digressions , as the discovery of his errors might have led me to . and i thought it enough to free unwary readers from the mistakes into which his book might lead them , without encreasing the contempt belonging to the writer , who has now enough upon him ; but i pray god grant him repentance , and a better mind . finis . advertisement . the reader is desired to take notice , that the author did not know of the death of the bishop of oxford , till this answer was printed . notes, typically marginal, from the original text notes for div a30335-e3730 def. of his eccl. pol. p. 285 , 286. a discourse against transubstantiation tillotson, john, 1630-1694. 1684 approx. 92 kb of xml-encoded text transcribed from 25 1-bit group-iv tiff page images. text creation partnership, ann arbor, mi ; oxford (uk) : 2004-11 (eebo-tcp phase 1). a62557 wing t1190 estc r15192 13144581 ocm 13144581 98037 this keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the early english books online text creation partnership. this phase i text is available for reuse, according to the terms of creative commons 0 1.0 universal . the text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission. early english books online. (eebo-tcp ; phase 1, no. a62557) transcribed from: (early english books online ; image set 98037) images scanned from microfilm: (early english books, 1641-1700 ; 780:7) a discourse against transubstantiation tillotson, john, 1630-1694. [2], 43, [3] p. printed by m. flesher for brabazon aylmer ..., and w. rogers ..., london : 1684. includes bibliographical references. advertisement: p. [1]-[3] at end. attributed to john tillotson, archbishop of canterbury. cf. halkett & laing, mcalpin coll. reproduction of original in cambridge university library. created by converting tcp files to tei p5 using tcp2tei.xsl, tei @ oxford. re-processed by university of nebraska-lincoln and northwestern, with changes to facilitate morpho-syntactic tagging. gap elements of known extent have been transformed into placeholder characters or elements to simplify the filling in of gaps by user contributors. eebo-tcp is a partnership between the universities of michigan and oxford and the publisher proquest to create accurately transcribed and encoded texts based on the image sets published by proquest via their early english books online (eebo) database (http://eebo.chadwyck.com). the general aim of eebo-tcp is to encode one copy (usually the first edition) of every monographic english-language title published between 1473 and 1700 available in eebo. eebo-tcp aimed to produce large quantities of textual data within the usual project restraints of time and funding, and therefore chose to create diplomatic transcriptions (as opposed to critical editions) with light-touch, mainly structural encoding based on the text encoding initiative (http://www.tei-c.org). the eebo-tcp project was divided into two phases. the 25,363 texts created during phase 1 of the project have been released into the public domain as of 1 january 2015. anyone can now take and use these texts for their own purposes, but we respectfully request that due credit and attribution is given to their original source. users should be aware of the process of creating the tcp texts, and therefore of any assumptions that can be made about the data. text selection was based on the new cambridge bibliography of english literature (ncbel). if an author (or for an anonymous work, the title) appears in ncbel, then their works are eligible for inclusion. selection was intended to range over a wide variety of subject areas, to reflect the true nature of the print record of the period. in general, first editions of a works in english were prioritized, although there are a number of works in other languages, notably latin and welsh, included and sometimes a second or later edition of a work was chosen if there was a compelling reason to do so. image sets were sent to external keying companies for transcription and basic encoding. quality assurance was then carried out by editorial teams in oxford and michigan. 5% (or 5 pages, whichever is the greater) of each text was proofread for accuracy and those which did not meet qa standards were returned to the keyers to be redone. after proofreading, the encoding was enhanced and/or corrected and characters marked as illegible were corrected where possible up to a limit of 100 instances per text. any remaining illegibles were encoded as <gap>s. understanding these processes should make clear that, while the overall quality of tcp data is very good, some errors will remain and some readable characters will be marked as illegible. users should bear in mind that in all likelihood such instances will never have been looked at by a tcp editor. the texts were encoded and linked to page images in accordance with level 4 of the tei in libraries guidelines. copies of the texts have been issued variously as sgml (tcp schema; ascii text with mnemonic sdata character entities); displayable xml (tcp schema; characters represented either as utf-8 unicode or text strings within braces); or lossless xml (tei p5, characters represented either as utf-8 unicode or tei g elements). keying and markup guidelines are available at the text creation partnership web site . eng transubstantiation. 2004-08 tcp assigned for keying and markup 2004-08 aptara keyed and coded from proquest page images 2004-09 olivia bottum sampled and proofread 2004-09 olivia bottum text and markup reviewed and edited 2004-10 pfs batch review (qc) and xml conversion a discourse against transubstantiation . london , printed by m. flesher , for brabazon aylmer , at the three pigeons against the royal exchange in cornhill : and william rogers , at the sun , over against st. dunstans church in fleetstreet . 1684. a discourse against transubstantiation . concerning the sacrament of the lord's supper , one of the two great positive institutions of the christian religion , there are two main points of difference between vs and the church of rome . one , about the doctrine of transubstantiation ; in which they think , but are not certain , that they have the scripture and the words of our saviour on their side : the other , about the administration of this sacrament to the people in both kinds ; in which we are sure that we have the scripture and our saviour's institution on our side ; and that so plainly , that our adversaries themselves do not deny it . of the first of these i shall now treat , and endeavour to shew against the church of rome , that in this sacrament there is no substantial change made of the elements of bread and wine into the natural body and bloud of christ ; that body which was born of the virgin mary , and suffered upon the cross ; for so they explain that hard word transubstantiation . before i engage in this argument , i cannot but observe what an unreasonable task we are put upon , by the bold confidence of our adversaries , to dispute a matter of sense ; which is one of those things about which aristotle hath long since pronounc'd there ought to be no dispute . it might well seem strange if any man should write a book , to prove that an egg is not an elephant , and that a musket-bullet is not a pike : it is every whit as hard a case , to be put to maintain by a long discourse , that what we see and handle and taste to be bread is bread , and not the body of a man ; and what we see and taste to be wine is wine , and not bloud : and if this evidence may not pass for sufficient without any farther proof , i do not see why any man , that hath confidence enough to do so , may not deny any thing to be what all the world sees it is , or affirm any thing to be what all the world sees it is not ; and this without all possibility of being farther confuted . so that the business of transubstantiation is not a controversie of scripture against scripture , or of reason against reason , but of downright impudence against the plain meaning of scripture , and all the sense and reason of mankind . it is a most self-evident falsehood ; and there is no doctrine or proposition in the world that is of it self more evidently true , than transubstantiation is evidently false : and yet if it were possible to be true , it would be the most ill-natur'd and pernicious truth in the world , because it would suffer nothing else to be true ; it is like the roman-catholique church , which will needs be the whole christian church , and will allow no other society of christians to be any part of it : so transubstantiation , if it be true at all , it is all truth ; for it cannot be true unless our senses and the senses of all mankind be deceived about their proper objects ; and if this be true and certain , then nothing else can be so ; for if we be not certain of what we see , we can be certain of nothing . and yet notwithstanding all this , there is a company of men in the world so abandon'd and given up by god to the efficacy of delusion as in good earnest to believe this gross and palpable errour , and to impose the belief of it upon the christian world under no less penalties than of temporal death and eternal damnation . and therefore to undeceive , if possible , these deluded souls , it will be necessary to examine the pretended grounds of so false a doctrine , and to lay open the monstrous absurdity of it . and in the handling of this argument , i shall proceed in this plain method . i. i shall consider the pretended grounds and reasons of the church of rome for this doctrine . ii. i shall produce our objections against it . and if i can shew that there is no tolerable ground for it , and that there are invincible objections against it , then every man is not onely in reason excused from believing this doctrine , but hath great cause to believe the contrary . first , i will consider the pretended grounds and reasons of the church of rome for this doctrine . which must be one or more of these five . either 1 st . the authority of scripture . or 2 ly . the perpetual belief of this doctrine in the christian church , as an evidence that they always understood and interpreted our saviour's words , this is my body , in this sense . or 3 ly . the authority of the present church to make and declare new articles of faith. or 4 ly . the absolute necessity of such a change as this in the sacrament to the comfort and benefit of those who receive this sacrament . or 5 ly . to magnify the power of the priest in being able to work so great a miracle . 1 st . they pretend for this doctrine the authority of scripture in those words of our saviour , this is my body . now to shew the insufficiency of this pretence , i shall endeavour to make good these two things . 1. that there is no necessity of understanding those words of our saviour in the sense of transubstantiation . 2. that there is a great deal of reason to understand them otherwise . first , that there is no necessity to understand those words of our saviour in the sense of transubstantiation . if there be any , it must be from one of these two reasons . either because there are no figurative expressions in scripture , which i think no man ever yet said : or else , because a sacrament admits of no figures ; which would be very absurd for any man to say , since it is of the very nature of a sacrament to represent and exhibite some invisible grace and benefit by an outward sign and figure : and especially since it cannot be denied , but that in the institution of this very sacrament our saviour useth figurative expressions and several words which cannot be taken strictly and literally . when he gave the cup he said , this cup is the new testament in my bloud , which is shed for you and for many for the remission of sins . where first , the cup is put for wine contained in the cup ; or else if the words be literally taken , so as to signify a substantial change , it is not of the wine but of the cup ; and that , not into the bloud of christ but into the new testament or new covenant in his bloud . besides , that his bloud is said then to be shed , and his body to be broken , which was not till his passion , which followed the institution and first celebration of this sacrament . but that there is no necessity to understand our saviour's words in the sense of transubstantiation , i will take the plain concession of a great number of the most learned writers of the church of rome in this controversie . a bellarmine , b suazer and c vasquez do acknowledge scotus the great schoolman to have said that this doctrine cannot be evidently proved from scripture : and bellarmine grants this not to be improbable ; and suarez and vasquez acknowledge d durandus to have said as much . e ocham , another famous schoolman , says expresly , that the doctrine which holds the substance of the bread and wine to remain after consecration is neither repugnant to reason nor to scripture . f petrus ab alliaco cardinal of cambray says plainly , that the doctrine of the substance of bread and wine remaining after consecration is more easie and free from absurdity , more rational , and no ways repugnant to the authority of scripture ; nay more , that for the other doctrine , viz. of transubstantiation , there is no evidence in scripture . g gabriel biel , another great schoolman and divine of their church , freely declares , that as to any thing express'd in the canon of the scriptures , a man may believe that the substance of bread and wine doth remain after consecration : and therefore he resolves the belief of transubstantiation into some other revelation , besides scripture , which he supposeth the church had about it . cardinal h cajetan confesseth that the gospel doth no where express that the bread is changed into the body of christ ; that we have this from the authority of the church : nay , he goes farther , , that there is nothing in the gospel which enforceth any man to understand these words of christ , this is my body , in a proper and not a metaphorical sense ; but the church having understood them in a proper sense they are to be so explained : which words in the roman edition of cajetan are expunged by order of pope i pius v. cardinal k contarenus , and l melchior canus one of the best and most judicious writers that church ever had , reckon this doctrine among those which are not so expresly found in scripture . i will add but one more , of great authority in the church , and a reputed martyr , m fisher bishop of rochester who ingenuously confesseth that in the words of the institution there is not one word from whence the true presence of the flesh and bloud of christ in our mass can be proved : so that we need not much contend that this doctrine hath no certain foundation in scripture , when this is so fully and frankly acknowledged by our adversaries themselves . secondly , if there be no necessity of understanding our saviour's words in the sense of transubstantiation , i am sure there is a great deal of reason to understand them otherwise . whether we consider the like expressions in scripture ; as where our saviour says he is the door , and the true vine ( which the church of rome would mightily have triumph'd in , had it been said , this is my true body ) and so likewise where the church is said to be christ's body ; and the rock which followed the israelites to be christ , 1. cor. 10. 4. they drank of that rock which followed them , and that rock was christ : all which and innumerable more like expressions in scripture every man understands in a figurative , and not in a strictly literal and absurd sense . and it is very well known , that in the hebrew language things are commonly said to be that which they do signify and represent ; and there is not in that language a more proper and usual way of expressing a thing to signify so and so , than to say that it is so and so . thus joseph expounding pharaoh's dream to him , gen. 41. 26. says , the seven good kine are seven years , and the seven good ears of corn are seven years , that is , they signified or represented seven years of plenty ; and so pharaoh understood him , and so would any man of sense understand the like expressions ; nor do i beleive that any sensible man , who had never heard of transubstantiation being grounded upon these words of our saviour , this is my body , would upon reading the institution of the sacrament in the gospel ever have imagin'd any such thing to be meant by our saviour in those words ; but would have understood his meaning to have been , this bread signifies my body , this cup signifies my bloud ; and this which you see me now do , do ye hereafter for a memorial of me : but surely it would never have enter'd into any man's mind to have thought that our saviour did literally hold himself in his hand , and give away himself from himself with his own hands . or whether we compare these words of our saviour with the ancient form of the passover used by the jews from ezra's time , as n justin martyr tells us , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , this passover is our saviour and our refuge : not that they believed the paschal lamb to be substantially changed either into god their saviour who delivered them out of the land of egypt , or into the messias the saviour whom they expected and who was signified by it : but this lamb which they did eat did represent to them and put them in mind of that salvation which god wrought for their fathers in egypt , when by the slaying of a lamb and sprinkling the bloud of it upon their doors their first-born were passed over and spared ; and did likewise foreshew the salvation of the messias , the lamb of god that was to take away the sins of the world . and nothing is more common in all languages than to give the name of the thing signified to the sign . as the delivery of a deed or writing under hand and seal is call'd a conveyance or making over of such an estate , and it is really so ; not the delivery of mere wax and parchment , but the conveyance of a real estate ; as truly and really to all effects and purposes of law , as if the very material houses and lands themselves could be and were actually delivered into my hands : in like manner the names of the things themselves made over to us in the new covenant of the gospel between god and man , are given to the signs or seals of that covenant . by baptism christians are said to be made partakers of the holy ghost , heb. 6. 4. and by the sacrament of the lord's supper we are said to communicate or to be made partakers of the body of christ which was broken , and of his bloud which was shed for us , that is , of the real benefits of his death and passion . and thus st. paul speaks of this sacrament , 1 cor. 10. 16. the cup of blessing which we bless , is it not the communion of the bloud of christ ? the bread which we break , is it not the communion of the body of christ ? but still it is bread , and he still calls it so , v. 17. for we being many are one bread and one body ; for we are partakers of that one bread . the church of rome might , if they pleased , as well argue from hence that all christians are substantially changed first into bread , and then into the natural body of christ by their participation of the sacrament , because they are said thereby to be one bread and one body . and the same apostle in the next chapter , after he had spoken of the consecration of the elements still calls them the bread and the cup , in three verses together , as often as ye eat this bread and drink this cup , v. 26. whosoever shall eat this bread and drink this cup of the lord unworthily , v. 27. but let a man examine himself , and so let him eat of that bread and drink of that cup , v. 28. and our saviour himself when he had said , this is my bloud of the new testament , immediately adds , * but i say unto you , i will not henceforth drink of this fruit of the vine , untill i drink it new with you in my father's kingdom , that is , not till after his resurrection , which was the first slep● of his exaltation into the kingdom given him by his father ; when the scripture tells us he did eat and drink with his disciples . but that which i observe from our saviour's words is , that after the consecration of the cup and the delivering of it to his disciples to drink of it , he tells them that he would thenceforth drink no more of the fruit of the vine , which he had now drank with them , till after his resurrection . from whence it is plain that it was the fruit of the vine , real wine , which our saviour drank of and communicated to his disciples in the sacrament . besides , if we consider that he celebrated this sacrament before his passion , it is impossible these words should be understood literally of the natural body and bloud of christ ; because it was his body broken and his bloud shed which he gave to his disciples , which if we understand literally of his natural body broken and his bloud shed , then these words , this is my body which is broken , and this is my bloud which is shed , could not be true , because his body was then whole and unbroken , and his bloud not then shed ; nor could it be a propitiatory sacrifice ( as they affirm this sacrament to be ) unless they will say that propitiation was made before christ suffer'd : and it is likewise impossible that the disciples should understand these words literally , because they not onely plainly saw that what he gave them was bread and wine , but they saw likewise as plainly that it was not his body which was given , but his body which gave that which was given ; not his body broken and his bloud shed , because they saw him alive at that very time and beheld his body whole and unpierc'd ; and therefore they could not understand these words literally : if they had , can we imagine that the disciples , who upon all other occasions were so full of questions and objections , should make no difficulty of this matter ? nor so much as ask our saviour , how can these things be ? that they should not tell him , we see this to be bread and that to be wine , and we see thy body to be distinct from both ; we see thy body not broken , and thy bloud not shed . from all which it must needs be very evident , to any man that will impartially consider things , how little reason there is to understand those words of our saviour , this is my body , and this is my bloud , in the sense of transubstantiation ; nay on the contrary , that there is very great reason and an evident necessity to understand them otherwise . i proceed to shew , 2ly . that this doctrine is not grounded upon the perpetual belief of the christian church , which the church of rome vainly pretends as an evidence that the church did always understand and interpret our saviour's words in this sense . to manifest the groundlesness of this pretence , i shall , 1. shew by plain testimony of the fathers in several ages , that this doctrine was not the belief of the ancient christian church . 2. i shall shew the time and occasion of its coming in , and by what degrees it grew up and was establish'd in the roman church . 3. i shall answer their great pretended demonstration that this always was and must have been the constant belief of the christian church . 1. i shall shew by plain testimonies of the fathers in several ages , for above five hundred years after christ that this doctrine was not the belief of the ancient christian church . i deny not but that the fathers do , and that with great reason , very much magnify the wonderfull mystery and efficacy of this sacrament , and frequently speak of a great supernatural change made by the divine benediction ; which we also readily acknowledge . they say indeed , that the elements of bread and wine do by the divine blessing become to us the body and bloud of christ : but they likewise say that the names of the things signified are given to the signs ; that the bread and wine do still remain in their proper nature and substance , and that they are turn'd into the substance of our bodies ; that the body of christ in the sacrament is not his natural body , but the sign and figure of it ; not that body which was crucified , nor that bloud which was shed upon the cross ; and that it is impious to understand the eating of the flesh of the son of man and drinking his bloud literally : all which are directly opposite to the doctrine of transubstantiation and utterly inconsistent with it . i will select but some few testimonies of many which i might bring to this purpose . i begin with justin martyr , who says expressly , that * our bloud and flesh are nourished by the conversion of that food which we receive in the eucharist : but that cannot be the natural body and bloud of christ , for no man will say that that is converted into the nourishment of our bodies . the second is * irenaeus , who speaking of this sacrament says , that the bread which is from the earth receiving the divine invocation is now no longer common bread , but the eucharist ( or sacrament ) consisting of two things , the one earthy , the other heavenly . he says it is no longer common bread , but after invocation or consecration it becomes the sacrament , that is , bread sanctified , consisting of two things an earthly and a heavenly ; the earthly thing is bread , and the heavenly is the divine blessing which by the invocation or consecration is added to it . and * elsewhere he hath this passage , when therefore the cup that is mix'd ( that is , of wine and water ) and the bread that is broken receives the word of god , it becomes the eucharist of the bloud and body of christ , of which the substance of our flesh is increased and consists : but if that which we receive in the sacrament do nourish our bodies , it must be bread and wine , and not the natural body and bloud of christ. there is another remarkable testimony of irenaeus , which though it be not now extant in those works of his which remain , yet hath been preserv'd by * oecumenius , and it is this ; when ( says he ) the greeks had taken some servants , of the christian catechumeni ( that is , such as had not been admitted to the sacrament ) and afterwards urged them by violence to tell them some of the secrets of the christians , these servants having nothing to say that might gratify those who offered violence to them , except onely that they had heard from their masters that the divine communion was the bloud and body of christ , they thinking that it was really bloud and flesh , declar'd as much to those that questioned them . the greeks taking this as if it were really done by the christians , discovered it to others of the greeks ; who hereupon put sanctus and blandina to the torture to make them confess it . to whom blandina boldly answered , how would they endure to do this , who by way of exercise ( or abstinence ) do not eat that flesh which may lawfully be eaten ? by which it appears that this which they would have charg'd upon christians , as if they had literally eaten the flesh and bloud of christ in the sacrament , was a false accusation which these martyrs denied , saying they were so far from that that they for their part did not eat any flesh at all . the next is tertullian , who proves against marcion the heretique that the body of our saviour was not a mere phantasm and appearance , but a real body , because the sacrament is a figure and image of his body ; and if there be an image of his body he must have a real body , otherwise the sacrament would be an image of an image . his words are these , * the bread which our saviour took and distributed to his disciples he made his own body , saying this is my body , that is , the image or figure of my body . but it could not have been the figure of his body , if there had not been a true and real body . and arguing against the scepticks who denied the certainty of sense he useth this argument : that if we question our senses we may doubt whether our blessed saviour were not deceived in what he heard , and saw , and touched . * he might ( says he ) be deceived in the voice from heaven , in the smell of the ointment with which he was anointed against his burial ; and in tho taste of the wine which he consecrated in remembrance of his bloud . so that it seems we are to trust our senses , even in the matter of the sacrament ; and if that be true , the doctrine of transubstantiation is certainly false . origen in his * comment on matth. 15 , speaking of the sacrament hath this passage , that food which is sanctified by the word of god and prayer , as to that of it which is material , goeth into the belly and is cast out into the draught , which none surely will say of the body of christ. and afterwards he adds by way of explication , it is not the matter of the bread , but the word which is spoken over it , which profiteth him that worthily eateth the lord ; and this ( he says ) he had spoken concerning the typical and symbolical body . so that the matter of bread remaineth in the sacrament , and this origen calls the typical and symbolical body of christ ; and it is not the natural body of christ which is there eaten , for the food eaten in the sacrament , as to that of it which is material , goeth into the belly and is cast out into the draught . this testimony is so very plain in the cause that sextus senensis suspects this place of origen was depraved by the heretiques . cardinal perron is contented to allow it to be origen's , but rejects his testimony because he was accused of heresie by some of the fathers , and says he talks like a heretique in this place . so that with much adoe this testimony is yielded to us . the same father in his * homilies upon leviticus speaks thus , there is also in the new testament a letter which kills him who doth not spiritually understand those things which are said ; for if we take according to the letter that which is said , except ye eat my flesh and drink my blovd , this letter kills . and this also is a killing testimony , and not to be answered but in cardinal perron's way , by saying he talks like a heretique . st. cyprian hath a whole epistle * to cecilius , against those who gave the communion in water onely without wine mingled with it ; and his main argument against them is this , that the bloud of christ with which we are redeemed and quickned cannot seem to be in the cup when there is no wine in the cup by which the bloud of christ is represented : and afterwards he says , that contrary to the evangelical and apostolical doctrine water was in some places offer'd ( or given ) in the lord's cup , which ( says he ) alone cannot express ( or represent ) the bloud of christ. and lastly he tells us , that by water the people is understood , by wine the bloud of christ is shewn ( or represented ) but when in the cup water is mingled with wine the people is united to christ. so that according to this argument wine in the sacramental cup is no otherwise chang'd into the bloud of christ than the water mixed with it is changed into the people , which are said to be united to christ. i omit many others , and pass to st. austin in the fourth age after christ. and i the rather insist upon his testimony , because of his eminent esteem and authority in the latin church ; and he also calls the elements of the sacrament the figure and sign of christ's body and bloud . in his book against adimantus the manichee we have this expression , * our lord did not doubt to say , this is my body , when he gave the sign of his body . and in his explication of the third psalm , speaking of judas whom our lord admitted to his last supper , in which ( says he ) † he commended and delivered to his disciples the figure of his body ; language which would now be censur'd for heresie in the church of rome . indeed he was never accus'd of heresie , as cardinal perron says origen was , but he talks as like one as origen himself . and in his comment on the 98 psalm speaking of the offence which the disciples took at that saying of our saviour , except ye eat the flesh of the son of man and drink his bloud , &c. he brings in our saviour speaking thus to them , ‖ ye must understand spiritually what i have said unto you ; ye are not to eat this body which ye see , and to drink that bloud which shall be shed by those that shall crucifyme . i have commended a certain sacrament to you , which being spiritually understood will give you life . what more opposite to the doctrine of transubstantiation , than that the disciples were not to eat that body of christ which they saw , nor to drink that bloud which was shed upon the cross , but that all this was to be understood spiritually and according to the nature of a sacrament ? for that body he tells us is not here but in heaven , in his comment upon these words , me ye have not always . * he speaks ( says he ) 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 days , he is ascended up into heaven and is not here . in his 23d . epistle ; † if the sacrament ( says he ) had not some resemblance of those things whereof they are sacraments , they would not be sacraments at all ; but from this resemblance they take for the most part the names of the things which they represent . therefore as the sacrament of the body of christ is in some manner or sense christ's body , and the sacrament of his bloud is the bloud of christ ; so the sacrament of faith ( meaning baptism ) is faith . upon which words of st. austin there is this remarkable gloss in their own canon law ; ‖ the heavenly sacrament which truly represents the flesh of christ is called the body of christ ; but improperly : whence it is said , that after a manner , but not according to the truth of the thing but the mystery of the thing signified ; so that the meaning is , it is called the body of christ , that is , it signifies the body of christ : and if this be st. austin's meaning , i am sure no protestant can speak more plainly against transubstantiation . and in the ancient canon of the mass , before it was chang'd in complyance with this new doctrine , it is expresly call'd a sacrament , a sign , an image and a figure of christ's body . to which i will add that remarkable passage of st. austin cited by * gratian , that as we receive the similitude of his death in baptism , so we may also receive the likeness of his flesh and bloud ; that so neither may truth be wanting in the sacrament , nor pagans have occasion to make us ridiculous for drinking the bloud of one that was slain . i will mention but one testimony more of this father , but so clear a one as it is impossible any man in his wits that had believed transubstantiation could have utter'd . it is in his treatise * de doctrina christiana ; where laying down several rules for the right understanding of scripture , he gives this for one . if ( says he ) the speech be a precept forbidding some heinous wickedness or crime , or commanding us to do good , it is not figurative ; but if it seem to command any heinous wickedness or crime , or to forbid that which is profitable and beneficial to others , it is figurative . for example , except ye eat the flesh of the son of man and drink his bloud , ye have no life in you : this seems to command a heinous wickedness and crime , therefore it is a figure ; commanding us to communicate of the passion of our lord , and with delight and advantage to lay up in our memory that his flesh was crucified and wounded for us . so that , according to st. austin's best skill in interpreting scripture , the literal eating of the flesh of christ and drinking his bloud would have been a great impiety ; and therefore the expression is to be understood figuratively ; not as cardinal perron would have it , onely in opposition to the eating of his flesh and bloud in the gross appearance of flesh and bloud , but to the real eating of his natural body and bloud under any appearance whatsoever : for st. austin doth not say , this is a figurative speech wherein we are commanded really to feed upon the natural body and bloud of christ under the species of bread and wine , as the cardinal would understand him ; for then the speech would be literal and not figurative : but he says , this is a figurative speech wherein we are commanded spiritually to feed upon the remembrance of his passion . to these i will add but three or four testimonies more in the two following ages . the first shall be of theodoret , who speaking of that * prophecy of jacob concerning our saviour , he washed his garments in wine and his clothes in the bloud of grapes , hath these words , † as we call the mystical fruit of the vine ( that is , the wine in the sacrament ) after consecration the bloud of the lord , so he ( viz. jacob ) calls the bloud of the true vine ( viz. of christ ) the bloud of the grape : but the bloud of christ is not literally and properly but onely figuratively the bloud of the grape , in the same sense as he is said to be the true vine ; and therefore the wine in the sacrament after consecration is in like manner not literally and properly but figuratively the bloud of christ. and he explains this afterwards , saying , that our saviour changed the names , and gave to his body the name of the symbol or sign , and to the symbol or sign the name of his body ; thus when he had call'd himself the vine , he call'd the symbol or sign his bloud ; so that in the same sense that he call'd himself the vine , he call'd the wine , which is the symbol of his bloud , his bloud : for , says he , he would have those who partake of the divine mysteries not to attend to the nature of the things which are seen , but by the change of names to believe the change which is made by grace ; for he who call'd that which by nature is a body wheat and bread , and again likewise call'd himself the vine , he honour'd the symbols with the name of his body and bloud : not changing nature but adding grace to nature . where you see he says expresly , that when he call'd the symbols or elements of the sacrament , viz. bread and wine , his body and bloud , he made no change in the nature of the things , onely added grace to nature , that is , by the divine grace and blessing he raised them to a spiritual and supernatural vertue and efficacy . the second is of the same theodoret in his second dialogue between a catholique , under the name of orthodoxus , and an heretique under the name of eranistes ; who maintaining that the humanity of christ was chang'd into the substance of the divinity ( which was the heresie of eutyches ) he illustrates the matter by this similitude , as , says he , the symbols of the lord's body and bloud are one thing before the invocation of the priest , but after the invocation are changed and become another thing ; so the body of our lord after his ascension is changed into the divine substance . but what says the catholique orthodoxus to this ? why , he talks just like one of cardinal perron's heretiques , thou art , says he , caught in thy own net : because the mystical symbols after consecration do not pass out of their own nature ; for they remain in their former substance , figure and appearance and may be seen and handled even as before . he does not onely deny the outward figure and appearance of the symbols to be chang'd , but the nature and substance of them , even in the proper and strictest sense of the word substance ; and it was necessary so to do , otherwise he had not given a pertinent answer to the similitude urg'd against him . the next is one of their own popes , gelasius , who brings the same instance against the eutychians ; * surely , says he , the sacraments which we receive of the body and bloud of our lord are a divine thing , so that by them we are made partakers of a divine nature , and yet it ceaseth not to be the substance or nature of bread and wine ; and certainly the image and resemblance of christ's body and bloud are celebrated in the action of the mysteries , that is , in the sacrament . to make this instance of any force against the euty●h●ans , who held that tho body of christ upon his ascension ceas'd and was chang'd into the substance of his divinity , it was necessary to deny that there was any substantial change in the sacrament of the bread and wine into the body and bloud of christ. so that here is an infallible authority , one of their own popes expresly against transubstantiation . the last testimony i shall produce is of facundus an african bishop , who lived in the 6th . century . upon occasion of justifying an expression of one who had said that christ also received the adoption of sons , he reasons thus . * christ vouchsafed to receive the sacrament of adoption both when he was circumcised and baptized : and the sacrament of adoption may be called adoption , as the sacrament of his body and bloud , which is in the consecrated bread and cup , is by us called his body and bloud : not that the bread , says he , is properly his body and the cup his bloud , but because they contain in them the mysteries of his body and bloud ; hence also our lord himself called the blessed bread and cup which he gave to his disciples his body and bloud . can any man after this believe , that it was then , and had ever been , the universal and received doctrine of the christian church , that the bread and wine in the sacrament are substantially changed into the proper and natural body and bloud of christ ? by these plain testimonies which i have produced , and i might have brought a great many more to the same purpose , it is i think evident beyond all denial that transubstantiation hath not been the perpetual belief of the christian church . and this likewise is acknowledged by many great and learned men of the roman church . a scotus acknowledgeth , that this doctrine was not always thought necessary to be believed , but that the necessity of believing it was consequent to that declaration of the church made in the council of lateran under pope innocent the iii. and b durandus freely discovers his inclination to have believed the contrary , if the church had not by that determination obliged men to believe it . c tonstal bishop of durham also yields , that before the lateran council men were at liberty as to the manner of christ's presence in the sacrament . and d erasmus , who lived and died in the communion of the roman church , and than whom no man was better read in the ancient fathers , doth confess that it was late before the church defined transubstantiation , unknown to the ancients both name and thing . and e alphonsus a castro says plainly , that concerning the transubstantiation of the bread into the body of christ , there is seldom any mention in the ancient writers . and who can imagine that these learned men would have granted the ancient church and fathers to have been so much strangers to this doctrine , had they thought it to have been the perpetual belief of the church ? i shall now in the second place , give an account of the particular time and occasion of the coming in of this doctrine , and by what steps and degrees it grew up and was advanced into an article of faith in the romish church . the doctrine of the corporal presence of christ was first started upon occasion of the dispute about the worship of images , in opposition whereto the synod of constantinople about the year dccl did argue thus , that our lord having left us no other image of himself but the sacrament , in which the substance of bread is the image of his body , we ought to make no other image of our lord. in answer to this argument the second council of nice in the year dcclxxxvii did declare , that the sacrament after consecration is not the image and antitype of christ's body and bloud , but is properly his body and bloud . so that the corporal presence of christ in the sacrament was first brought in to support the stupid worship of images : and indeed it could never have come in upon a more proper occasion , nor have been applied to a fitter purpose . and here i cannot but take notice how well this agrees with * bellarmine's observation , that none of the ancients who wrote of heresies , hath put this errour ( viz. of denying transubstantiation ) in his catalogue ; nor did any of the ancients dispute against this errour for the first 600 years . which is very true , because there could be no occasion then to dispute against those who denied transubstantiation ; since , as i have shewn , this doctrine was not in being , unless amongst the eutychian heretiques , for the first 600 years and more . but † bellarmine goes on and tells us , that the first who call'd in question the truth of the body of the lord in the eucharist were the iconomachi ( the opposers of images ) after the year dcc in the council of constantinople ; for these said there was one image of christ instituted by christ himself , viz. the bread and wine in the eucharist , which represents the body and bloud of christ : wherefore from that time the greek writers often admonish us that the eucharist is not the figure or image of the body of the lord , but his true body , as appears from the viith . synod ; which agrees most exactly with the account which i have given of the first rise of this doctrine , which began with the corporal presence of christ in the sacrament , and afterwards proceeded to transubstantiation . and as this was the first occasion of introducing this doctrine among the greeks , so in the latin or roman church paschasius radbertus , first a monk , and afterwards abbat of corbey , was the first broacher of it in the year dcccxviii . and for this , besides the evidence of history , we have the acknowledgment of two very eminent persons in the church of rome , bellarmine and sirmondus , who do in effect confess that this paschasius was the first who wrote to purpose upon this argument . * bellarmine in these words , this authour was the first who hath seriously and copiously written concerning the truth of christ's body and bloud in the eucharist : and † sirmondus in these , he so first explained the genuine sense of the catholique church , that he opened the way to the rest who afterwards in great numbers wrote upon the same argument : but though sirmondus is pleased to say that he onely first explain'd the sense of the catholique church in this point , yet it is very plain from the records of that age which are left to us , that this was the first time that this doctrine was broached in the latin church ; and it met with great opposition in that age , as i shall have occasion hereafter to shew . for rabanus maurus arch-bishop of mentz about the year dcccxlvii reciting the very words of paschasius wherein he had deliver'd this doctrine , hath this remarkable passage concerning the novelty of it ; ‖ some , says he , of late , not having a right opinion concerning the sacrament of the body and bloud of our lord , have said that this is the body and bloud of our lord which was born of the virgin mary , and in which our lord suffered upon the cross and rose from the dead : which errour , says he , we have oppos'd with all our might . from whence it is plain , by the testimony of one of the greatest and most learned bishops of that age , and of eminent reputation for piety , that what is now the very doctrine of the church of rome concerning the sacrament , was then esteem'd an errour broach'd by some particular persons , but was far from being the generally receiv'd doctrine of that age. can any one think it possible , that so eminent a person in the church both for piety and learning , could have condemn'd this doctrine as an errour and a novelty , had it been the general doctrine of the christian church , not onely in that but in all former ages ; and no censure pass'd upon him for that which is now the great burning article in the church of rome , and esteemed by them one of the greatest and most pernicious heresies ? afterwards in the year mlix , when berengarius in france and germany had rais'd a fresh opposition against this doctrine , he was compell'd to recant it by pope nicholas and the council at rome , in these words , * that the bread and wine which are set upon the altar , after the consecration are not onely the sacrament , but the true body and bloud of our lord jesus christ ; and are sensibly , not onely in the sacrament but in truth , handled and broken by the hands of the priest , and ground or bruised by the teeth of the faithfull . but it seems the pope and his council were not then skilfull enough to express themselves rightly in this matter ; for the gloss upon the canon law says expresly , † that unless we understand these words of berengarivs ( that is in truth of the pope and his council ) in a sound sense , we shall fall into a greater heresie than that of berengarivs ; for we do not make parts of the body of christ. the meaning of which gloss i cannot imagine , unless it be this , that the body of christ , though it be in truth broken , yet it is not broken into parts ( for we do not make parts of the body of christ , ) but into wholes : now this new way of breaking a body , not into parts but into wholes ( which in good earnest is the doctrine of the church of rome ) though to them that are able to believe transubstantiation it may for any thing i know appear to be sound sense , yet to us that cannot believe so it appears to be solid non-sense . about xx years after , in the year mlxxix pope gregory the vii th . began to be sensible of this absurdity ; and therefore in another council at rome made berengarius to recant in another form , viz. * that the bread and wine which are placed upon the altar are substantially changed into the true and proper and quickning flesh and bloud of our lord jesus christ , and after consecration are the true body of christ , which was born of the virgin , and which being offered for the salvation of the world did hang upon the cross , and sits on the right hand of the father . so that from the first starting of this doctrine in the second council of nice in the year dcclxxxvii , till the council under pope gregory the vii th . in the year mlxxix , it was almost three hundred years that this doctrine was contested , and before this mishapen monster of transubstantiation could be lick'd into that form in which it is now setled and establish'd in the church of rome . here then is a plain account of the first rise of this doctrine , and of the several steps whereby it was advanced by the church of rome into an article of faith. i come now in the third place , to answer the great pretended demonstration of the impossibility that this doctrine , if it had been new , should ever have come in , in any age , and been received in the church ; and consequently it must of necessity have been the perpetual belief of the church in all ages : for if it had not always been the doctrine of the church , when ever it had attempted first to come in there would have been a great stir and bustle about it , and the whole christian world would have rose up in opposition to it . but we can shew no such time when it first came in , and when any such opposition was made to it , and therefore it was always the doctrine of the church . this demonstration monsieur arnauld , a very learned man in france , pretends to be unanswerable : whether it be so or not , i shall briefly examine . and first , we do assign a punctual and very likely time of the first rise of this doctrine , about the beginning of the ninth age ; though it did not take firm root nor was fully setled and establish'd till towards the end of the eleventh . and this was the most likely time of all other , from the beginning of christianity , for so gross an errour to appear ; it being , by the confession and consent of their own historians , the most dark and dismal time that ever happened to the christian church , both for ignorance , and superstition , and vice. it came in together with idolatry , and was made use of to support it : a sit prop and companion for it . and indeed what tares might not the enemy have sown in so dark and long a night ; when so considerable a part of the christian world was lull'd asleep in profound ignorance and superstition ? and this agrees very well with the account which our saviour himself gives in the parable of the tares , of the springing up of errours and corruptions in the field of the church . * while the men slept the enemy did his work in the night , so that when they were awake they wondered how and whence the tares came ; but being sure they were there , and that they were not sown at first , they concluded the enemy had done it . secondly , i have shewn likewise that there was considerable opposition made to this errour at its first coming in . the general ignorance and gross superstition of that age rendered the generality of people more quiet and secure , and disposed them to receive any thing that came under a pretence of mystery in religion and of greater reverence and devotion to the sacrament , and that seemed any way to countenance the worship of images , for which at that time they were zealously concern'd . but notwithstanding the security and passive temper of the people , the men most eminent for piety and learning in that time made great resistance against it . i have already named rabanus arch-bishop of mentz , who oppos'd it as an errour lately sprung up and which had then gained but upon some few persons . to whom i may add heribaldus bishop of auxerres in france , io. scotus erigena , and ratramnus commonly known by the name of bertram , who at the same time were employed by the emperour charles the bald to oppose this growing errour , and wrote learnedly against it . and these were the eminent men for learning in that time . and because monsieur arnauld will not be satisfied unless there were some stir and bustle about it , bertram in his preface to his book tells us , that they who according to their several opinions talked differently about the mystery of christ's body and bloud were divided by no small schism . thirdly , though for a more clear and satisfactory answer to this pretended demonstration i have been contented to untie this knot , yet i could without all these pains have cut it . for suppose this doctrine had silently come in and without opposition , so that we could not assign the particular time and occasion of its first rise ; yet if it be evident from the records of former ages , for above d. years together , that this was not the ancient belief of the church ; and plain also , that this doctrine was afterwards received in the roman church , though we could not tell how and when it came in , yet it would be the wildest and most extravagant thing in the world to set up a pretended demonstration of reason against plain experience and matter of fact. this is just zeno's demonstration of the impossibility of motion against diogenes walking before his eyes . for this is to undertake to prove that impossible to have been , which most certainly was . just thus the servants in the parable might have demonstrated that the tares were wheat , because they were sure none but good seed was sown at first , and no man could give any account of the punctual time when any tares were sown , or by whom ; and if an enemy had come to do it , he must needs have met with great resistance and opposition ; but no such resistance was made , and therefore there could be no tares in the field , but that which they call'd tares was certainly good wheat . at the same rate a man might demonstrate that our king , his majesty of great britain , is not return'd into england , nor restor'd to his crown ; because there being so great and powerfull an army possess'd of his lands , and therefore obliged by interest to keep him out , it was impossible he should ever come in without a great deal of fighting and bloudshed : but there was no such thing , therefore he is not return'd and restor'd to his crown . and by the like kind of demonstration one might prove that the turk did not invade christendom last year , and besiege vienna ; because if he had , the most christian king , who had the greatest army in christendom in a readiness , would certainly have employed it against him ; but monsieur arnauld certainly knows , no such thing was done : and therefore according to his way of demonstration , the matter of fact , so commonly reported and believed , concerning the turks invasion of christendom and besieging vienna last year , was a perfect mistake . but a man may demonstrate till his head and heart ake , before he shall ever be able to prove that which certainly is , or was , never to have been . for of all sorts of impossibles nothing is more evidently so , than to make that which hath been not to have been . all the reason in the world is too weak to cope with so tough and obstinate a difficulty . and i have often wonder'd how a man of monsieur arnauld's great wit and sharp judgment could prevail with himself to engage in so bad and baffled a cause ; or could think to defend it with so wooden a dagger as his demonstration of reason against certain experience and matter of fact : a thing , if it be possible , of equal absurdity with what he pretends to demonstrate , transubstantiation it self . i proceed to the third pretended ground of this doctrine of transubstantiation ; and that is , the infallible authority of the present church to make and declare new articles of faith. and this in truth is the ground into which the most of the learned men of their church did heretofore , and many do still resolve their belief of this doctrine : and , as i have already shewn , do plainly say that they see no sufficient reason , either from scripture or tradition , for the belief of it : and that they should have believed the contrary had not the determination of the church obliged them otherwise . but if this doctrine be obtruded upon the world merely by virtue of the authority of the roman church , and the declaration of the council under pope gregory the vii th . or of the lateran council under innocent the iii. then it is a plain innovation in the christian doctrine , and a new article of faith impos'd upon the christian world . and if any church hath this power , the christian faith may be enlarged and changed as often as men please ; and that which is no part of our saviour's doctrine , nay , any thing though never so absurd and unreasonable , may become an article of faith obliging all christians to the belief of it , whenever the church of rome shall think fit to stamp her authority upon it : which would make christianity a most uncertain and endless thing . the fourth pretended ground of this doctrine is , the necessity of such a change as this in the sacrament to the comfort and benefit of those who receive it . but there is no colour for this , if the thing be rightly consider'd : because the comfort and benefit of the sacrament depends upon the blessing annexed to the institution . and as water in baptism , without any substantial change made in that element , may be the divine blessing accompanying the institution be effectual to the washing away of sin , and spiritual regeneration ; so there can no reason in the world be given why the elements of bread and wine in the lord's supper may not , by the same divine blessing accompanying this institution , make the worthy receivers partakers of all the spiritual comfort and benefit designed to us thereby , without any substantial change made in those elements , since our lord hath told us , that verily the flesh profiteth nothing . so that if we could do so odd and strange a thing as to eat the very natural flesh and drink the bloud of our lord , i do not see of what greater advantage it would be to us than what we may have by partaking of the symbols of his body and bloud as he hath appointed in remembrance of him . for the spiritual efficacy of the sacrament doth not depend upon the nature of the thing received , supposing we receive what our lord appointed , and receive it with a right preparation and disposition of mind , but upon the supernatural blessing that goes along with it , and makes it effectual to those spiritual ends for which it was appointed . the fifth and last pretended ground of this doctrine is , to magnify the power of the priest in being able to work so great a miracle . and this with great pride and pomp is often urg'd by them as a transcendent instance of the divine wisedom , to find out so admirable a way to raise the power and reverence of the priest ; that he should be able every day , and as often as he pleases , by repeating a few words to work so miraculous a change , and ( as they love most absurdly and blasphemously to speak ) to make god himself . but this is to pretend to a power above that of god himself , for he did not , nor cannot make himself , nor do any thing that implies a contradiction , as transubstantiation evidently does in their pretending to make god. for to make that which already is , and to make that now which always was , is not onely vain and trifling if it could be done , but impossible because it implies a contradiction . and what if after all transubstantiation , if it were possible and actually wrought by the priest , would yet be no miracle ? for there are two things necessary to a miracle , that there be a supernatural effect wrought , and that this effect be evident to sense . so that though a supernatural effect be wrought , yet if it be not evident to sense it is to all the ends and purposes of a miracle as if it were not ; and can be no testimony or proof of any thing , because it self stands in need of another miracle to give testimony to it and to prove that it was wrought . and neither in scripture , nor in profane authours , nor in common use of speech , is any thing call'd a miracle but what falls under the notice of our senses : a miracle being nothing else but a supernatural effect evident to sense , the great end and design whereof is to be a sensible proof and conviction to us of something that we do not see . and for want of this condition , transubstantiation , if it were true , would be no miracle . it would indeed be very supernatural , but for all that it would not be a sign or miracle : for a sign or miracle is always a thing sensible , otherwise it could be no sign . now that such a change as is pretended in transubstantiation should really be wrought , and yet there should be no sign and appearance of it , is a thing very wonderfull , but not to sense ; for our senses perceive no change , the bread and wine in the sacrament to all our senses remaining just as they were before : and that a thing should remain to all appearance just as it was , hath nothing at all of wonder in it : we wonder indeed when we see a strange thing done , but no man wonders when he sees nothing done . so that transubstantiation , if they will needs have it a miracle , is such a miracle as any man may work that hath but the confidence to face men down that he works it , and the fortune to be believed : and though the church of rome may magnify their priests upon account of this miracle , which they say they can work every day and every hour , yet i cannot understand the reason of it ; for when this great work ( as they call it ) is done , there is nothing more appears to be done than if there were no miracle : now such a miracle as to all appearance is no miracle i see no reason why a protestant minister , as well as a popish priest , may not work as often as he pleases ; or if he can but have the patience to let it alone , it will work it self . for surely nothing in the world is easier than to let a thing be as it is , and by speaking a few words over it to make it just what it was before . every man , every day , may work ten thousand such miracles . and thus i have dispatch'd the first part of my discourse , which was to consider the pretended grounds and reasons of the church of rome for this doctrine , and to shew the weakness and insufficiency of them . i come in the second place , to produce our objections against it . which will be of so much the greater force , because i have already shewn this doctrine to be destitute of all divine warrant and authority , and of any other sort of ground sufficient in reason to justify it . so that i do not now object against a doctrine which hath a fair probability of divine revelation on its side , for that would weigh down all objections which did not plainly overthrow the probability and credit of its divine revelation : but i object against a doctrine by the mere will and tyranny of men impos'd upon the belief of christians , without any evidence of scripture , and against all the evidence of reason and sense . the objections i shall reduce to these two heads . first , the infinite scandal of this doctrine to the christian religion . and secondly , the monstrous and insupportable absurdity of it . first , the infinite scandal of this doctrine to the christian religion . and that upon these four accounts . 1. of the stupidity of this doctrine . 2. the real barbarousness of this sacrament and rite of our religion upon supposition of the truth of this doctrine . 3. of the cruel and bloudy consequences of it . 4. of the danger of idolatry ; which they are certainly guilty of , if this doctrine be not true . 1. upon account of the stupidity of this doctrine . i remember that tully , who was a man of very good sense , instanceth in the conceit of eating god as the extremity of madness , and so stupid an apprehension as he thought no man was ever guilty of . * when we call , says he , the fruits of the earth ceres , and wine bacchus , we use but the common language ; but do you think any man so mad as to believe that which he eats to be god ? it seems he could not believe that so extravagant a folly had ever entred into the mind of man. it is a very severe saying of averroes the arabian philosopher ( who lived after this doctrine was entertained among christians ) and ought to make the church of rome blush , if she can ; * i have travell'd , says he , over the world , and have found divers sects ; but so sottish a sect or law i never found , as is the sect of the christians ; because with their own teeth they devour their god whom they worship . it was great stupidity in the people of israel to say , come let us make us gods ; but it was civilly said of them , let us make us gods that may go before us , in comparison of the church of rome , who say , let us make a god that we may eat him . so that upon the whole matter i cannot but wonder that they should chuse thus to expose faith to the contempt of all that are endued with reason . and to speak the plain truth , the christian religion was never so horribly exposed to the scorn of atheists and infidels , as it hath been by this most absurd and senseless doctrine . but thus it was foretold that † the man of sin should come with power and signs and lying miracles , and with all deceivableness of unrighteousness , with all the legerdemain and jugling tricks of falsehood and imposture ; amongst which this of transubstantiation , which they call a miracle , and we a cheat , is one of the cheif : and in all probability those common jugling words of hocus pocus are nothing else but a corruption of hoc est corpus , by way of ridiculous imitation of the priests of the church of rome in their trick of transubstantiation . into such contempt by this foolish doctrine and pretended miracle of theirs have they brought the most sacred and venerable mystery of our religion . 2. it is very scandalous likewise upon account of the real barbarousness of this sacrament and rite of our religion , upon supposition of the truth of this doctrine . literally to eat the flesh of the son of man and to drink his bloud . st. austin , as i have shewed before , declares to be a great impiety . and the impiety and barbarousness of the thing is not in truth extenuated , but onely the appearance of it , by its being done under the species of bread and wine : for the thing they acknowledge is really done , and they believe that they verily eat and drink the natural flesh and bloud of christ. and what can any man do more unworthily towards his friend ? how can he possibly use him more barbarously , than to feast upon his living flesh and bloud ? it is one of the greatest wonders in the world , that it should ever enter into the minds of men to put upon our saviour's words , so easily capable of a more convenient sense and so necessarily requiring it , a meaning so plainly contrary to reason , and sense , and even to humanity it self . had the ancient christians owned any such doctrine , we should have heard of it from the adversaries of our religion in every page of their writings ; and they would have desired no greater advantage against the christians than to have been able to hit them in the teeth with their feasting upon the natural flesh and bloud of their lord , and their god , and their best friend . what endless triumphs would they have made upon this subject ? and with what confidence would they have set the cruelty used by christians in their sacrament , against their god saturn's eating his own children , and all the cruel and bloudy rites of their idolatry ? but that no such thing was then objected by the heathens to the christians , is to a wise man instead of a thousand demonstrations that no such doctrine was then believed . 3. it is scandalous also upon account of the cruel and bloudy consequences of this doctrine ; so contrary to the plain laws of christianity , and to one great end and design of this sacrament , which is to unite christians in the most perfect love and charity to one another : whereas this doctrine hath been the occasion of the most barbarous and bloudy tragedies that ever were acted in the world . for this hath been in the church of rome the great burning article ; and as absurd and unreasonable as it is , more christians have been murther'd for the denial of it than perhaps for all the other articles of their religion . and i think it may generally pass for a true observation that all sects are commonly most hot and furious for those things for which there is least reason ; for what men want of reason for their opinions they usually supply and make up in rage . and it was no more than needed to use this severity upon this occasion ; for nothing but the cruel fear of death could in probability have driven so great a part of mankind into the acknowledgment of so unreasonable and senseless a doctrine . o blessed saviour ! thou best friend and greatest lover of mankind , who can imagine thou didst ever intend that men should kill one another for not being able to believe contrary to their senses ; for being unwilling to think , that thou shouldst make one of the most horrid and barbarous things that can be imagin'd a main duty and principal mystery of thy religion ; for not flattering the pride and presumption of the priest who says he can make god , and for not complying with the folly and stupidity of the people who believe that they can eat him ? 4. upon account of the danger of idolatry ; which they are certainly guilty of if this doctrine be not true , and such a change as they pretend be not made in the sacrament ; for if it be not , then they worship a creature instead of the creatour god blessed for ever . but such a change i have shewn to be impossible ; or if it could be , yet they can never be certain that it is , and consequently are always in danger of idolatry : and that they can never be certain that such a change is made , is evident ; because , according to the express determination of the council of trent , that depends upon the mind and intention of the priest , which cannot certainly be known but by revelation , which is not pretended in this case . and if they be mistaken about this change , through the knavery or crosness of the priest who will not make god but when he thinks fit , they must not think to excuse themselves from idolatry because they intended to worship god and not a creature ; for so the persians might be excus'd from idolatry in worshipping the sun , because they intend to worship god and not a creature ; and so indeed we may excuse all the idolatry that ever was in the world , which is nothing else but a mistake of the deity , and upon that mistake a worshipping of something as god which is not god. ii. besides the infinite scandal of this doctrine upon the accounts i have mentioned , the monstrous absurdities of it make it insupportable to any religion . i am very well assured of the grounds of religion in general , and of the christian religion in particular ; and yet i cannot see that the foundations of any revealed religion are strong enough to bear the weight of so many and so great absurdities as this doctrine of transubstantiation would load it withall . and to make this evident , i shall not insist upon those gross contradictions , of the same body being in so many several places at once ; of our saviour's giving away himself with his own hands to every one of his disciples , and yet still keeping himself to himself ; and a thousand more of the like nature : but to shew the absurdity of this doctrine i shall onely ask these few questions . 1. whether any man have , or ever had greater evidence of the truth of any divine revelation than every man hath of the falshood of transubstantiation ? infidelity were hardly possible to men , if all men had the same evidence for the christian religion which they have against transubstantiation , that is , the clear and irresistible evidence of sense . he that can once be brought to contradict or deny his senses , is at an end of certainty ; for what can a man be certain of if he be not certain of what he sees ? in some circumstances our senses may deceive us , but no faculty deceives us so little and so seldom : and when our senses do deceive us , even that errour is not to be corrected without the help of our senses . 2. supposing this doctrine had been delivered in scripture in the very same words that it is decreed in the council of trent , by what clearer evidence or stronger argument could any man prove to me that such words were in the bible than i can prove to him that bread and wine after consecration are bread and wine still ? he could but appeal to my eyes to prove such words to be in the bible , and with the same reason and justice might i appeal to several of his senses to prove to him that the bread and wine after consecration are bread and wine still . 3. whether it be reasonable to imagine that god should make that a part of the christian religion which shakes the main external evidence and confirmation of the whole ? i mean the miracles which were wrought by our saviour and his apostles , the assurance whereof did at first depend upon the certainty of sense . for if the senses of those who say they saw them were deceived then there might be no miracles wrought ; and consequently it may justly be doubted whether that kind of confirmation which god hath given to the christian religion would be strong enough to prove it , supposing transubstantiation to be a part of it : because every man hath as great evidence that transubstantiation is false , as he hath that the christian religion is true . suppose then transubstantiation to be part of the christian doctrine , it must have the same confirmation with the whole , and that is miracles : but of all doctrines in the world it is peculiarly incapable of being proved by a miracle . for if a miracle were wrought for the proof of it , the very same assurance which any man hath of the truth of the miracle he hath of the falsehood of the doctrine , that is , the clear evidence of his senses . for that there is a miracle wrought to prove that what he sees in the sacrament is not bread but the body of christ , there is onely the evidence of sense ; and there is the very same evidence to prove that what he sees in the sacrament is not the body of christ but bread . so that here would arise a new controversie , whether a man should rather believe his senses giving testimony against the doctrine of transubstantiation , or bearing witness to a miracle wrought to confirm that doctrine ; there being the very same evidence against the truth of the doctrine , which there is for the truth of the miracle : and then the argument for transubstantiation and the objection against it would just balance one another ; and consequently transubstantiation is not to be proved by a miracle , because that would be , to prove to a man by some thing that he sees , that he does not see what he sees . and if there were no other evidence that transubstantiation is no part of the christian doctrine this would be sufficient , that what proves the one doth as much overthrow the other ; and that miracles which are certainly the best and highest external proof of christianity are the worst proof in the world of transubstantiation , unless a man can renounce his senses at the same time that he relies upon them . for a man cannot believe a miracle without relying upon sense , nor transubstantiation without renouncing it . so that never were any two things so ill coupled together as the doctrine of christianity and that of transubstantiation , because they draw several ways and are ready to strangle one another ; because the main evidence of the christian doctrine , which is miracles , is resolved into the certainty of sense , but this evidence is clear and point-blank against transubstantiation . 4. and lastly , i would ask what we are to think of the argument which our saviour used to convince his disciples after his resurrection that his body was really risen , and that they were not deluded by a ghost or apparition ? is it a necessary and conclusive argument or not ? * and he said unto them , why are ye troubled ? and why do thoughts arise in your hearts ? behold my hands and my feet , that it is i my self ; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones , as ye see me have . but now if we suppose with the church of rome the doctrine of transubstantiation to be true , and that he had instructed his disciples in it just before his death , strange thoughts might justly have risen in their hearts , and they might have said to him ; lord , it is but a few days ago since thou didst teach us not to believe our senses , but directly contrary to what we saw , viz. that the bread which thou gavest us in the sacrament , though we saw it and handled it and tasted it to be bread , yet was not bread but thine own natural body ; and now thou appealest to our senses to prove that this is thy body which we now see . if seeing and handling be an unquestionable evidence that things are what they appear to our senses , then we were deceived before in the sacrament ; and 〈◊〉 they be not , then we are not sure now that this is thy body which we now see and handle , but it may be perhaps bread under the appearance of flesh and bones , just as in the sacrament , that which we saw and handled and tasted to be bread was thy flesh and bones under the form and appearance of bread . now upon this supposition , it would have been a hard matter to have quieted the thoughts of the disciples : for if the argument which our saviour used did certainly prove to them that what they saw and handled was his body , his very natural flesh and bones , because they saw and handled them , ( which it were impious to deny ) it would as strongly prove that what they saw and received before in the sacrament was not the natural body and bloud of christ , but real bread and wine : and consequently , that according to our saviour's arguing after his resurrection they had no reason to believe transubstantiation before . for that very argument by which our saviour proves the reality of his body after his resurrection doth as strongly prove the reality of bread and wine after consecration . but our saviour's argument was most infallibly good and true , and therefore the doctrine of transubstantiation is undoubtedly false . upon the whole matter i shall onely say this , that some other points between us and the church of rome are managed with some kind of wit and subtilty , but this of transubstantiation is carried out by mere dint of impudence and facing down of mankind . and of this the more discerning persons of that church are of late grown so sensible that they would now be glad to be rid of this odious and ridiculous doctrine . but the council of trent hath fasten'd it to their religion and made it a necessary and essential point of their belief , and they cannot now part with it if they would ; it is like a millstone hung about the neck of popery which will sink it at the last . and though some of their greatest wits , as cardinal perron , and of late monsieur arnaud , have undertaken the defence of it in great volumes ; yet it is an absurdity of that monstrous and massy weight , that no humane authority or wit are able to support it : it will make the very pillars of st. peter's crack , and requires more volumes to make it good than would fill the vatican . and now i would apply my self to the poor deluded people of that church , if they were either permitted by their priests or durst venture without their leave to look into their religion and to examine the doctrines of it . consider , and shew your selves men . do not suffer your selves any longer to be led blindfold , and by an implicit faith in your priests , into the belief of non-sense and contradiction . think it enough and too much to let them rook you of your money for pretended pardons and counterfeit reliques , but let not the authority of any priest or church persuade you out of your senses . credulity is certainly a fault as well as infidelity : and he who said , blessed are they that have not seen and yet have believed , hath no where said , blessed are they that have seen and yet have not believed , much less , blessed are they that believe directly contrary to what they see . to conclude this discourse . by what hath been said upon this argument it will appear , with how little truth , and reason , and regard to the interest of our common christianity it is so often said by our adversaries , that there are as good arguments for the belief of transubstantiation as of the doctrine of the trinity : when they themselves do acknowledge with us that the doctrine of the trinity is grounded upon the scriptures , and that according to the interpretation of them by the consent of the ancient fathers : but their doctrine of transubstantiation i have plainly shewn to have no such ground , and that this is acknowledged by very many learned men of their own church . and this doctrine of theirs being first plainly proved by us to be destitute of all divine warrant and authority , our objections against it from the manifold contradictions of it to reason and sense are so many demonstrations of the falsehood of it . against all which they have nothing to put in the opposite scale but the infallibility of their church , for which there is even less colour of proof from scripture than for transubstantiation it self . but so fond are they of their own innovations and errours , that rather than the dictates of their church , how groundless and absurd soever , should be call'd in question ; rather than not have their will of us in imposing upon us what they please , they will overthrow any article of the christian faith , and shake the very foundations of our common religion : a clear evidence that the church of rome is not the true mother , since she can be so well contented that christianity should be destroyed rather than the point in question should be decided against her . finis . a catalogue of the several cases , &c. 1. a perswasive to communion with the church of england . 2. a. resolution of some cases of conscience which respect church-communion . 3. the case of indifferent things used in the worship of god , proposed and stated , by considering these questions , &c. 4. a discourse about edification . 5. the resolution of this case of conscience , whether the church of englands symbolizing so far as it doth with the church of rome , makes it unlawfull to hold communion with the church of england ? 6. a letter to anonymus , in answer to his three letters to dr. sherlock about church-communion . 7. certain cases of conscience resolved , concerning the lawfulness of joyning with forms of prayer in publick worship . in two parts . 8. the case of mixt communion : whether it be lawfull to separate from a church upon the account of promiscuous congregations and mixt communions ? 9. an answer to dissenters objections against the common prayers and some other parts of divine service prescribed in the liturgy of the church of england . 10. the case of kneeling at the holy sacrament stated and resolved , &c. in two parts . 11. a discourse of profiting by sermons , and of going to hear where men think they can profit most . 12. a serious exhortation , with some important advices relating to the late cases about conformity , recommended to the present dissenters from the church of england . 13. an argument to union ; taken from the true interest of those dissenters in england who profess and call themselves protestants . 14. some considerations about the case of scandal , or giving offence to the weak brethren . 15. the case of infant-baptism , in five questions , &c. 16. the charge of scandal ; and giving offence by conformity , refelled and reflected back upon separation , &c. 17. case of lay-communion . 18. a perswasive to frequent communion . 19. a defence of symbolizing . 20. a vindication of indifferent things . 21. the case of compelling men to the holy sacrament . 22. a case of the cross in baptism . 23. a discourse of conscience . 1. a discourse about the charge of novelty upon the reformed church of england , made by the papists asking of us the question , where was our religion before luther ? 2. a discourse about tradition , shewing what is meant by it , and what tradition is to be received , and what tradition is to be rejected . 3. the difference of the case between the separation of protestants from the church of rome , and the separation of dissenters from the church of england . 4. the protestant resolution of faith , &c. 5. a discourse concerning a guide in matters of faith , &c. 6. a discourse concerning invocation of saints . 7. a discourse concerning the unity of the catholick church , maintained in the church of england . 8. a discourse of auricular confession . 9. a discourse against transubstantiation . advertisement . a demonstration of the messias . in which the truth of the christian religion is proved , especially against the jews , by richard kidder , in octavo . printed for b. aylmer . notes, typically marginal, from the original text notes for div a62557-e160 a de ●●uch . l. 3. c. 23. b in 3. dis . 49. qu. 75. sect. 2. c in 3. part . disp . 180. qu. 75. art . 2. c. 15. d in sent. l. 4. dist . 11. q. 1. n. 15. e in 4. sent. q. 5. & quodl . 4. q. 3. f in 4. sent. q. 6. art . 2. g in canon . miss . lect. 40. h in aquin. 3. part . qu. 75. art . 1. i aegid . conink . de sacram . q. 75. art . 1. n. 13. k de sacram . l. 2. c. 3. l loc. theolog . l. 3. c. 3. m contra captiv . babylon . c. 10. n. 2. n dialog . cuus tryph. p. 297. edit . p●ris . 1639. * matth. 26. 29. * apol. 2. p. 98. edit . paris . 1636. * lib. 4. c. 34. * lib. 5. c. 2. * comment . in 1 , pet. c. 3. * advers . marcionem l. 4. p. 571. edit . rigalt . paris . 1634. * lib. de animâ p. 319. * edit . ●●uetii . * cap. 10. * ep. 63. * aug. tom. 6. p. 187. edit . basil. 1569. † enarrat . in psal. tom. 8. p. 16. ‖ id. tom. 9. p. 1105. * id. tract . 50. in johan . † id. tom. 2. p. 93. ‖ de consecr . dist . 2. hoc est . * de consecrat . dist . 2. sect. vtrum . * lib. 3. tom. 1 8. p. 53. * gen. 49. 11. † dialog . 1. * biblioth . patr. ●om . 4. * facund . p. 144. edit . paris . 1676. a in sent. l. 4. dist. 11. q. 3. b in sent. l. 4. dist . 11. q. 1. ● . 15. c de ●nchar . l. 1. p. 146. d in 1. epist . ad corinth . c. 7. citante etiam salmerone , tom. 9. tract . 16. p. 108. e de haeres . l. 8. * de eucharist . l. 1. c. 1. † ibid. * de scriptor . eccles. † in vita paschas●● . ‖ epist. ad heribaldum . c. 33. * gratian. de consecrat . distinct . 2. lanfranc . de corp . & sang . domini . c. 5. gu●tmund . de sacram. l. 1. alger . de sacram . l. 1. c. 19. † gloss. decret . de consecrat . dist . 2. in cap. ego berengarius . * waldens . tom. 2. c. 13. * matth. 13. 24. * de nat. d●orum l. 3. * dionys. carthus . in 4. dist . 10. art . 1. † 2 thess. 2. 10. * luk. 24. 〈◊〉 , 39. a dissertation with dr. heylyn: touching the pretended sacrifice in the eucharist, by george hakewill, doctor in divinity, and archdeacon of surrey. published by authority. hakewill, george, 1578-1649. this text is an enriched version of the tcp digital transcription a86378 of text r19900 in the english short title catalog (thomason e157_5). textual changes and metadata enrichments aim at making the text more computationally tractable, easier to read, and suitable for network-based collaborative curation by amateur and professional end users from many walks of life. the text has been tokenized and linguistically annotated with morphadorner. the annotation includes standard spellings that support the display of a text in a standardized format that preserves archaic forms ('loveth', 'seekest'). textual changes aim at restoring the text the author or stationer meant to publish. this text has not been fully proofread approx. 100 kb of xml-encoded text transcribed from 30 1-bit group-iv tiff page images. earlyprint project evanston,il, notre dame, in, st. louis, mo 2017 a86378 wing h208 thomason e157_5 estc r19900 99860771 99860771 112896 this keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the early english books online text creation partnership. this phase i text is available for reuse, according to the terms of creative commons 0 1.0 universal . the text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission. early english books online. (eebo-tcp ; phase 1, no. a86378) transcribed from: (early english books online ; image set 112896) images scanned from microfilm: (thomason tracts ; 28:e157[5]) a dissertation with dr. heylyn: touching the pretended sacrifice in the eucharist, by george hakewill, doctor in divinity, and archdeacon of surrey. published by authority. hakewill, george, 1578-1649. 56 p. printed by j. r. for george thomason, and octavian pullen, and are to be sold at the rose in pauls church-yard, london : 1641. reproduction of the original in the british library. eng heylyn, peter, 1600-1662 -early works to 1800. church of england -doctrines -early works to 1800. lord's supper -early works to 1800. mass -early works to 1800. transubstantiation -early works to 1800. a86378 r19900 (thomason e157_5). civilwar no a dissertation with dr. heylyn:: touching the pretended sacrifice in the eucharist, by george hakewill, doctor in divinity, and archdeacon hakewill, george 1641 17033 50 25 0 0 0 0 44 d the rate of 44 defects per 10,000 words puts this text in the d category of texts with between 35 and 100 defects per 10,000 words. 2007-02 tcp assigned for keying and markup 2007-02 aptara keyed and coded from proquest page images 2007-03 mona logarbo sampled and proofread 2007-03 mona logarbo text and markup reviewed and edited 2008-02 pfs batch review (qc) and xml conversion a dissertation with dr. heylyn : touching the pretended sacrifice in the eucharist , by george hakewill , doctor in divinity , and archdeacon of surrey . published by authority . london , printed by j. r. for george thomason , and octavian pullen , and are to be sold at the rose in pauls church-yard . 1641. a dissertation with dr heylyn , whether the eucharist be a sacrifice , properly so termed , and that according to the doctrine and practise of the church of england now in force . this the doctor , that he may the better defend the situation of the lords table altarwise , confidently maintaineth in sundry places of his antidotum lincolniense . nay so farre he goeth in the maintenance hereof , as if without this nothing else but ruine and confusion , were to be expected in the church of god . and on the other side i am as confident , that he is the first of the reformed churches who ever published this doctrine ; nay all divines of those churches , as well forraign as our own ( whom i have read on that subject ) with one generall consent constantly maintain the clean contrary , as i trust i shall make it evidently appear in this ensuing treatise , wherein i will first shew the defects , which i conceive to be in the doctors discourse , secondly i will endeavour to answer his arguments , and thirdly i will produce such testimonies drawn from the writings of our divines as make against him . chap. i. of the defects of the doctors discourse , of this subject . two things me thinks i finde wanting in this his discourse , whereof the one is the definition of a sacrifice , properly so called , the other is how it can properly be termed a sacrifice , and yet be onely commemorative , or representative as he cals it . touching the first of these , unlesse the thing be first defined , whereof men dispute , all their disputation must needs prove fruitlesse in the end , this then because the doctor hath omitted , i will indeavour to finde out the definition of a sacrifice properly so called . saint augustine in his 10. book de civit. dei and 6. cap. teacheth that , verum sacrificium est omne opus quod agitur ut sancta societate inhaereamus deo relatum scilicet ad illum finem boni , quo veraciter beati esse possimus . where by verum i do not beleeve that he understands a truth of propriety , but of excellency , and so much i think will easily appear by those words of his in the chapter going before . illud quod ab hominibus appellatur sacrificium , signum est veri sacrificii , where undoubtedly by the true sacrifice he understands either the inward sacrifice of the heart , or the sacrifice of religious actions flowing from thence , which he makes to be the true sacrifice in regard of excellency , though improperly so called , and the outward sacrifice to be but a signe of this , though properly so called ; in which regard bellarmine in his first book de missa , and second chapter rejects this definition , or rather description , as not agreeing to a sacrifice properly so called , which he proves by many reasons , and thereupon brings another of his own which is this , sacrificium est oblatio externa facta soli dea , qua ad agnitionem humanae infirmitatis & professionem divinae majestatis à legitimo ministrores aliqua sensibilis & permanens ritu mystico consecratur & transmutatur . the particular parts of this definition he afterwards explicates , and tels us that the last word transmutatur is therefore added , quia ad verum sacrificium requiritur , ut id quod offertur deoin sacrifi●ium planè destruatur , id est ita mutetur ut desinat esse id quod antea erat . and least we should mistake him , within a while after he repeats the same in effect again , giving us a double reason thereof , whereof the latter is quia sacrificium est summa protestatio subjectionis nostrae ad deum , summa autem illa protestatio requirit ut non usus rei deo offeratur sed ipsa etiam substantia , & ideo non solum usus sed substantia consumatur . and this condition in a sacrifice properly so called is likewise required by our own men , as namely by doctor field in his appendix to his third book of the church . if we will sacrifice a thing unto god ( saith he ) we must not onely present it unto him , but consume it also . thus in the leviticall law , things sacrificed that had life were killed , things without life , if they were solid , were burnt , if liquid , powred forth and spilt . now this ground being thus laid , i would willingly learn of the doctor what sensible thing it is in his sacrifice , which is thus destroyed or consumed in regard of the being or substance thereof . a he must of necessity answer ( as i conceive ) that either it is the elements of bread and wine , or the sacred body and bloud of christ ; but how the bread and wine may be said to be consumed in regard of their substance , without admitting transubstantiation i cannot imagine , unlesse perchance he will say that it is by eating the one , and drinking the other ; but these being acts common to the people , with the priest , if the essence and perfection of the sacrifice should consist in this , he will be forced to admit of so many sacrificers , as there are communicants , which i presume he will not acknowledge . and if he will have it stand in the eating and drinking of the priest alone , in case he should put it up again before it be consumed , the sacrifice must needs be frustrated , and if he keep it within him , and so consume it by digestion , the altar will rather be his stomack , then the lords table . besides , the sacrifice of christians properly so called , being but one , and that by many degrees more noble and excellent then any , either before or under the law , b if bread and wine were the subject matter thereof , it would both overthrow the unity of the sacrifice , in as much as both these are often renewed , and in it self be of lesse valew and dignity then many of the jewish sacrifices , which i think the doctor will not grant . but happily he will say that those elements , though in themselves they be of no great value , yet in regard of mysticall signification , they farre excell the sacrifices of the jews . whereunto i answer , that those of the jews besides , that they were sacrifices indeed properly so called , in themselves they had the same signification , and were chiefly to that end ordained by the author of them , the main difference being , that they looked unto christ to come , but we unto the same christ already come , by meanes whereof our happinesse is that , that now by gods blessing we need no sacrifices properly so called , but rest onely and wholly upon that all-sufficient sacrifice which he once for all offred up for us . it remaines then that if the bread and wine be not the subject matter of this sacrifice , the body and bloud of christ must be , and that not symbolically , but properly , otherwise the sacrifice it self cannot be proper , which assertion will of necessity inferre either the transubstantiation of the pontisicians or the c consubstantiation of the ubiquitaries . and again , if the body and bloud of christ be the subject matter of the sacrifice , it must be visibly and sensibly there , according to bellarmines own definition before laid down ; neither will it suffice to say ( as he doth ) that it is visible under the species of bread and wine , for so it may be visible to the faith of those that beleeve it , but to the sense ( which is the thing he requires as a necessary condition in a sacrifice properly so called ) it is not visible . neither can that be said properly visible , which is not so in it self , but in another thing , for then the soul might be said to be visible , though it be onely seen in the body , and not in it self ; nay , the soul might better be said to be seen in the body , then the body of christ in the bread , in as much as the soul is the essentiall form of the body , but i trust they will not say , that the body of christ is so in regard of the accidents of bread . lastly , how the body and bloud of christ may be truely , and properly said so to be consumed , ut planè destruatur , ut desinat esse id quod ante erat , ut substantia consumatur , ( which the cardinall likewise requires in his sacrifice properly so called ) d for my part i must professe , i cannot possibly understand , for to say as he doth , that the body of christ is consumed in the sacrifice not secundum esse naturale , but sacramentale , cannot reach to his phrase of planè destruitur , substantia consumitur , as any weak scholler may easily discern , and in truth he doth in the explication of this point ( touching the essence of this sacrifice , wherein it consists , and the manner of consuming the body of christ therein ) so double and stagger as a man may well see he was much perplexed therein , wandring up and down in a labarynth , not knowing which way to get out , and so e i leave him . the other defect which i finde in the doctors discourse , touching this point is , that he doth not shew us how a commemorative , or representative sacrifice ( as he every where termes it ) is a sacrifice properly so called . this proposition that the eucharist is a commemorative sacrifice properly so called , i shall easily grant if the word properly be referred to the adjunct not to the subject . commemorative it is properly called , but improperly a sacrifice . and herein i think do all writers agree , as well romish as reformed ( i mean that it is a sacrifice commemorative ) and therefore bellarmine disputes the point in no lesse then 27. chapters of his first book de missa , against the reformed divines to prove that it is a sacrifice properly so called , and yet acknowledgeth that his adversaries confesse it to be a sacrifice commemorative , but himself and his adherents , though together with the protestants they acknowledge it to be a sacrifice commemorative , yet they rest not in that , because they knew full well , it was not sufficient to denominate it a proper sacrifice . and in very truth it stands with great reason that the commemoration or representation of a thing should be both in nature and propriety of speech distinct from the thing it commemorates or represents ; as for the purpose , he who represents a king upon the stagef , is commonly called a king , yet in propriety of speech he cannot be so tearmed , unlesse he likewise be a king in his own person ; and therefore it is that we confesse the jewish sacrifices to be properly so termed , because they were not onely prefigurative of the sacrifice of christ upon the crosse , but were really and absolutely so in themselves , and if this could once be soundly demonstrated of the eucharist , the controversie would soon be at an end , but till then in saying we have a representative sacrifice can no more prove it to be a sacrifice properly so called , then the prefiguration of the jewish sacrifices without any further addition could prove them so to be , which i presume no divine will take upon him to maintain . now that which confirmes me herein is that both the master of the sentences , and aquinas , the two great leaders of the schoolemen terming the eucharist a commemorative , withall they held it to be an improper sacrifice , and to this purpose they both alleage the authorities of the fathers ; which makes me beleeve that they conceived the fathers , who in their writings frequently call it a sacrifice to be understood and interpreted in that sense ; the former of them in his 4. book and 12. destinction makes the question , quaeritur si quod gerit sacerdos propriè dicatur sacrificium vel immolatio , & si christus quotidiè immoletur vel semel tantum immolatus sit , to which he briefly answers , illud quod offertur & consecratur à sacerdote vocari sacrificium & oblationem , quia memoria & repraesentatio veri sacrificii & sanctae immolationis factae in ara crucis ; which is as much in effect as if he had said it is a commemoration of the true and proper sacrifice of christ upon the crosse , but in it self improperly so called , and that this is indeed his meaning it sufficiently appears throughout that distinction . with lombard doth aquinas herein likewise accord , parte . 3. quaest. 73. art . 4. in conclusione eucharistiae sacramentum ut est dominicae passionis commemorativum , sacrificium nominatur . where it is observable that he saith not sacrificium est , but onely nominatur , and what his meaning therein was , appears of that article which is this . hostia videtur idem esse quod sacrificium , sicut ergo non proprie dicitur sacrificium ita nec proprie dicitur hostia . which though it be an objection , yet he takes it as granted that it is sacrificium improprie dictum , at leastwise as it is commemorativum or representativum ; and therefore to that objection doth he shape this answer , ad tertium dicendum quod hoc sacramentum dicitur sacrificium in quantum repraesentat ipsam passionem christi , &c. dicitur autem hostia in quantum continet ipsum christum qui est hostia salutaris . chap. ii. of the sacrifice pretended to be due by the light of nature . from the defects in the doctors discourse , we now come to his arguments drawn from the light of nature , from the institution of the eucharist , from the authority of the fathers , from the doctrine and practise of the church of england , and lastly from the testimony of the writers thereof , i will follow him step by step , and begin first with the light of nature , with which he begins his fifth chapter . it is ( saith he ) the observation of eusebius , that the fathers which preceded moses , and were quite ignorant of his law , disposed their wayes according to a voluntary kinde of piety , {non-roman} {non-roman} {non-roman} {non-roman} {non-roman} framing their lives and actions according to the law of nature . which words ( saith the doctor ) relate not onely to their morall conversation as good men , but to their carriage in respect of gods publike worship as religious men . but by this glosse i doubt he corrupts the text of the author , sure i am , the words he alleageth out of him do not reach home to his interpretation , neither do i think it can be maintained , or that it was the minde of eusebius , that the patriarchs before moses worshipped god , according to a voluntary kinde of piety . which is by the apostle in expresse terms condemned , col. 2. 23. and if their worship had relation to the messias that was to come ( wherein all divines i presume agree ) i do not see how he can affirm that they framed their religion according to the light of nature , which without the help of a supernaturall illumination could not direct them to the messias . it is indeed said of abraham , that he saw the day of christ and rejoyced , no doubt but the same might as truly be verefied of all the other beleeving patriarcks , as well before , as after him ; but that either he or they saw christs day by the light of nature , that shall i never beleeve , and i think the doctor cannot produce me so much as one good author who ever affirmed it ; but on the other side with one consent they teach , that as in morall actions they lived according to the light of nature , so in religious they were in a speciall manner inspired and directed by god himself . if that of the apostle be true . that whatsoever is not of faith is sin ; and again , that without faith it is impossible to please god . faith being grounded upon the commandements , and promises of god , it cannot be that their worship should be acceptable unto him without speciall command from him . from the worship of god in generall the doctor descends to the particular by way of sacrifice , affirming that it is likewise grounded upon the light of nature ; which if it be so , undoubtedly it binds all men , the law of nature being common to all , and consequently to us christians , as well as to the patriarcks before moses . now that some kinde of sacrifice is f●om all men due unto almighty god , i do not deny , but that outward sacrifice , properly so called ( which is the point in controversie ) should be from all men due unto him by the light of nature ; that i very much doubt . it is the conclusion of aqu●nas . omnes tenentur aliquod interius sacrificium deo offerre , devotam videlicet mentem , & exterius sacrificium eorum ad quae ex praecepto tenentur , sive sint v●rtutum actus sive certae & d●term●natae oblationes ; and farther for mine own part i dare not go . the doctor instanceth in the sacrifices of cain and abel , which he seemeth to say were offred by the light of nature , whereas of abel we read , that by faith he offered unto god a more excellent sacrifice then cain . now faith there cannot be without obedience , nor true obedience without a precept , and if perchance it be said that the excellency of the sacrifice was from faith , not the sacrifice it self , for then cain should not have offered at all , i thereunto answer that although cain did not offer by faith , or inspiration from god , yet it may well be that he did it by instruction from his father , who was inspired from god . and besides his sacrifices being of the fruits of the earth might rather be called an offring ( as in the text it is ) then a sacrifice properly so termed according to bellarmines definition . and for abel it is the resolution of the same bellarmine ( which for mine own part , i take to be sound ) deus qui primus sine dubio inspiravit abeli & aliis sanctis viris usum sacrificiorum voluit per ea sacrificia , sacrificin̄ omniū ficiorum praestantissimum adumbrari . the doctors next instance is noahs sacrifice , touching which the same may be said as formerly of abels , neither indeed can we with reason imagine that god should in other matters by divine inspiration , so particularly instruct him , and leave him onely to the light of nature , in the worship of himself , or that adam in the state of incorrupt nature was instructed by god in the duties of his service , and his posterity therein left to the light of corrupt nature . besides this , somethings there are by the doctor affirmed of this sacrifice , not so justifiable i doubt as were to be wished ; as first that it was an eucharisticall sacrifice , not typicall , whereas all divines that i have seen , make all the sacrifices commanded by god , as well before the law , as under the law to have been typicall . that is some way significant of christ to come , they being all as so many visible sermons of that all s●fficient sacrifice , through which god is onely well pleased with those which worship him . and again , the text making it by the doctors own confession an holocaust or burnt offring which noah offred , i see not how he can onely make it eucharisticall , in as much as philo the jew ( who should know what belonged to the distinction of sacrifices ) in his book purposely written of that subject , thus writes of them . sacrificia omnia ad tria redegit legislator , holocaustum , pacifica sive salutare , & sacrificium pro peccatis . noahs sacrifice then being a burnt offring , it could not be meerely eucharisticall , but i rather beleeve it might participate somewhat of all three kindes , and as little doubt but that it was in all three respects significative of christ to come . the doctors third instance , is in melchisedech , who indeed is said to have been a priest of the most high god , and that being a priest , he offred sacrifice , i make no doubt , but very much doubt whether he offred sacrifice , or were a priest by the light of nature , especially considering that christ himself was a priest after the order of melchisedech . now whereas the doctor confidently makes sem to have been the eldest sonne of noah , he hath therein against him , not onely the learned iunius , but lyranus , tostatus , genebrard , and the hebrew doctors . and again , whereas he seemes to follow the common opinion heretofore received , that melchisedech was sem ; i think he cannot be ignorant that both paraeus and pererius have proved the contrary by so invincible arguments , as there needs no further doubt to be made thereof . the doctors conclusion of this argument drawn from the light of nature is this , that there was never any nation , but had some religion , nor any religion ( if men civilized ) but had altars , priests , and sacrifices as a part thereof , or dependents thereupon . the former part of which position i will not examine , though our planters in virginia and new-england , can not ( as they report ) finde any acts of religion exercised by the natives of those countries , but for the latter part thereof , i know not why he should exclude the uncivilized nations , from acts flowing from the light of nature , such as he makes the use of sacrificing to be , unlesse withall he will exclude them from the use of reason . and surely were the use of sacrifices grounded upon the light of nature , not upon divine precept ; i do not see why the jews should be tyed to offer them onely at ierusalem ; nor yet why the mahometans ( who farre exceed the christians in number , and in civility are little inferiour to many of them ) should use no sacrifice at all . lastly for the grecians , romans , and other nations , who used sacrifices as the principall act of their religion , it may well be that they borrowed it from the church of god by an apish imitation , or that they received by tradition from their predecessors , who were sometimes of the church of god ( which are the conjectures of the doctor himself ) either of which might serve without deriving it from the light of nature . chap. iii. of the institution of the eucharist , whether it imply a sacrifice , and of the altar mentioned by st paul , hebrews 13. the doctor bears us in hand , that our saviour instituted a sacrifice perpetually to remain in his church , and a new priesthood properly so called , when he ordained the sacrament of the lords supper , and to this purpose he brings the words of irenaeus , novi testamenti novam docuit oblat●onem ; but that irenaeus intended not a sacrifice properly so called , the learned zanchius in his first book de cultu dei externo , hath made it as clear as the noon-day , and to him i referre both the doctor and the reader , who desires satisfaction therein . from the testimony of irenaeus , the doctor comes to the words of institution recorded by saint paul , 1 cor. 11. and indeed here should in all likelyhood have been the place , to lay the foundation for a new sacrifice and priesthood if any such properly so called had been intended by our saviour under the gospell , but neither there , nor in the evangelists do we finde any mention at all of either of these ; which the doctor perceiving well enough , goes on from the words of institution , vers . 23 , 24 , 25. and tels us that if they expresse not plain enough the nature of this sacrifice to be commemorative , we may take those that follow by way of commentary , vers . 26. for as often as ye cate this bread , and drink this cup , ye do shew the lords death till he come . which words are doubtlesse directed to all the faithfull in the church of corinth and in them to all christians , so as the doctor will be forced either to prove his sacrificing from eating and drinking , and withall to admit all christians to do sacrifice ( against both which in the same leaf he solemnly protests ) or to seek out some other place to prove it . but for the priesthood he pretends to have found that in the words of our saviour , hoc faite , for the apostles ( saith he ) and their successours in the priesthood , there is an edite and bibite as private men of no orders in the church , but there is an hoc facite belonging to them onely as they are priests under and of the gospell . hoc faecite is for the priest who hath power to consecrate , hoc edite both for the priest and people , who are admitted to communicate . and again , within a while after , the people being prepared may edere and bibere , but they must not facere , that belongs onely to the priests who claim that power from the apostles , on them conferred by their redeemer . thus he , as if facere and sacrificare were all one , which indeed some of the romanists endeavour to prove , but so vainly , so ridiculously , so injuriously to the text , ( as my lord of duresme hath learnedly shewed ) as it appears to be a foundation too sandy to lay such a building upon it . but will the doctor be pleased to hear bishop iewells opinion of these words , whom he seemeth in some places to reverence . that incomparable bishop then in his defence of his 17●h article thus writes thereof . neither did christ by these words , do ye this in remembrance of me , erect any new succession of sacrificers to offer him up really unto his father , nor ever did any ancient learned father so expound it . christs meaning is clear by the words that follow , for he saith not onely , do ye this , but he addeth also in my remembrance , which doing pertaineth not onely to the apostles , and their successors , ( as mr harding imagineth ) but to the whole congregation of corinth , as often as ye shall eat this bread , and drink this cup , ye shew forth the lords death untill he come . likewise saint chrysostome ( saith he ) applyeth the same , not onely to the clergy , but also to the whole people of his church at antioch . and truely i think this doctor is the first of the reformed churches , that ever restrained those words of our saviour to the clergy alone , or grounded the priesthood upon them . nay the romanists themselves finde this ground to be so feeble , as by the evidence of truth it self , they are beaten from it , and even forced to forsake it . iansenius bishop of gant in his commentaries on the gospels , cap. 131. sunt qui sacramentum illud esse sacrificium ostendere conantur ex verbo facite , quia illud aliquando accipitur pro sacrificare , at hoc argumentum parum est firmum . alanas cardinalis lib. de eucharistia , c. 10. p. 255. hoc facite ] pertinet ad totam actionem eucharisticam à christo factam , tam a presbyteris quam à plebe faciendam . hoc probat ex cyril . lib. 12. in ioh. ca. 58. ex basilio . lib. regularum moralium regul. . 21. cap. 3. maldonatus l. 7. de sacram. tom. 1. part . 3. de eucharistia , non quod contendam illud verbum facere illo loco sign ficare idem quod sacrificare . estius comment . in 2. ad cor. 11. v. 24. non quod verbum facere sit idem quod sacrificare quomodo nonnulli interpretati sunt praeter mentem scripturae . and howsoever bellarmine where it makes for his purpose , come in with his certum est . it is certain that upon the word facite , is grounded the priesthood and power of sacrificing , yet in another place when it made not so much for his purpose , he tels us another tale ; videtur sententia iohannis à lovanio valde probabilis qui docet verba domini apud lucam ad omnia referri , id est , ad id quod fecit christus & id quod fecerunt apostoli , ut sensus sit , id quod nunc agimus , ego dum consecro & porrigo , & vos dum accipitis & comeditis , frequentate deinceps usque ad mundi consummationem . and within a while after , paulum autem idem author docet , potissimum referre ad actionem discipulorum , id quod ex verbis sequentibus colligitur ; quotiescunque enim manducabitis panem hunc & calicem bibetis ; mortem domini annuntiabetis . thus farre the words of iohannes a lovanio , whose opinion bellarmine confesseth to be very probable , that which followeth in the same place i take to be his own ; et praeterea idem planum fieri potest , ex instituto & proposito b. pauli , nam apostolus eo loco emendabat errorem corinthiorum , corinthii autem non errabant in consecratione sed in sumptione , quia non d●bita reverentia sumebant ; quare accommodat ca verba ad suum usum , ac docet christum praecepisse ut actio caenae celebraretur in memoriam passionis , & ideo attente & reverenter sumenda esse tanta mysteria . by all which it appears , that neither the words of institution hoc facite are sufficient to ground the priesthood , and power of sacrificing upon them ; nor yet that they are to be restrained to the clergy as the doctor would have it ; nay those words of the apostle , which he brings as a commentary upon the words of institution to clear the point , do indeed prove the contrary . and if we should grant that which he demands , that hoc facite were to be referred onely to the actions of christ himself , and directed onely to the apostles and their successours , yet it must first be proved that christ himself in the institution of the sacrament , did withall offer a sacrifice properly so called ; which for any thing that appeares in the text cannot be gathered from any speech which he then uttered , or action which he did , or gesture which he used . that he consecrated the elements of bread and wine to a mysticall use , as also that he left the power of consecration onely to his apostles and their successours we willingly grant , but that at his last supper he either offered sacrifice himself , or gave them commission so to do , that as yet rests to be proved . neither do i yet see what the doctor will make to be the subject of his sacrifice , either bread and wine , or his own body and bloud ; if the former , he will ( for any thing i know ) stand single ; if the latter , in a proper sense , he will be forced to joyn hands with rome , and so fall into a world of absurdities ; lastly , whereas the doctor disputes wholly for a commemorative sacrifice , that if our saviour could not be so , in as much as commemoration implies a calling to remembrance of a thing past , but his sacrifice upon the crosse , which we now commemorate , was then to come ; prefigurative it might be , commemorative it could not be . the doctor goes on , and confidently assures us that s. paul in whom we finde both the priest and the sacrifice , will help us to an altar also , and to that purpose referres us to the last to the hebrews , habemus altare : we have an altar , whereof they have no right to eat that serve the tabernacle . an altar ( saith he ) in relation to the sacrifice , which is there commemorated : but his passage of the apostle bellarmine himself hath so little confidence in , and so weak authority to back it , as he forbears to presse it ; and truely i think had the doctor himself read on , and well considered the next verses , he would never have urged it to that purpose which here he doth . aquinas his exposition in his commentaries upon the place , is in my judgement , bo●h easie , and pertinent , istud altare vel est crux christi in qua christus immolatus est , vel ipse christus in quo & per quem preces nostras offerimus , & hoc est altare aureum de quo , apoc. 8. to him doth estius the jesuite strongly incline , and to him do the divines of collen in their antididagma firmly adhere ; which notwithstanding some there are i confesse , who understand the words of the apostle to be meant of the lords table , which i grant may be called an altar ; but whether in a proper sense it be so called by the apostle in the passage h alleaged , that is the question , and i have not yet met with any , who in full and round terms hath so expressed himself ; and till that be sufficiently proved , the apostles altar cannot certainly prove a priesthood , and sacrifice properly so called . chap. iv. whether the authority of the fathers alleaged by the doctor , prove the eucharist , a sacrifice properly so called . the doctor from the scriptures ( where in my poor judgement he hath found very little help for the maintenance of his cause ) comes in the next place to the authority of the fathers , some of which are counterfeits , and the greatest part by him vouched ( as by him they are alleaged ) speak onely of sacrifices , priests , and altars , but in what sense it appears not , whereas the question is not of the name , but of the nature of these . now among those fathers whom he names , two there are and but two , who speak home to the nature thereof irenaeus and euscbius , yet both of them speak even by the doctors pen in such sort , as a man may thereby discern they intended no● a sacrifice properly so called . i will take them in their order . first then for irenaeus , look on him ( saith the doctor , and he will tell you , that there were sacrifices in the jewish church , and sacrifices in the christian church , and that the kinde or species was onely altered , the kinde or nature of which christian sacrifice , he tels us of in the same chapter , viz. that it is an eucharist , a tender of our gratitude to almighty god for all his blessings , and a sanctifying of the creature to spirituall uses . offerimus ei non quasi indigenti , sed gratias agentes donatione e●us , & sanctificantes creaturam . in this we have the severall and distinct offices , which before we spake of , sanctificatio creaturae , a blessing of the bread ( for bread it is he speaks of ) for holy uses , which is the office of the priest , no man ever doubted it ; and then a gratiarum actio , a giving of thanks unto the lord for his marvellous benefits , which is the office both of priest and people ; the sanctifying of the creature , and glorifying of the creator , do both relate unto offerimus , and that unto the sacrifices which are therein treated of by that holy father . hitherto the doctor in his allegation of irenaeus ; but is any man so weak as from hence to inferre a sacrifice properly so called ? the sanctifying , or blessing , or consecrating of the bre●d to holy uses , we all grant to be the proper office of the priest or presbyter , and the giving of thanks common to him and the people , but that either of these is a sacrifice properly so called , that we deny and i desire to see proved . the other of the two before named is eusebius upon whose testimony the doctor largely insists , for that we cannot take ( saith he ) a better and more perfect view thereof then from him , who hath been more exact herein then any other of the ancients . and having culled out from eusebius what he conceived most advantageous for his own purpose in conclusion , he thus epitomizeth him . so that we see ( saith he ) that in this sacrifice prescribed the christian church , by our lord and saviour , there were two proper and distinct actions , the first is to celebrate the memoriall of our saviours sacrifice , which he intituleth the commemoration of his body and bloud once offred , or the memory of that his sacrifice , that is ( as he doth clearly expound himself ) that we should offer {non-roman} {non-roman} {non-roman} {non-roman} {non-roman} . this our commemoration for a sacrifice ; the second , that we should offer to him the sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving , which is the reasonable sacrifice of a christian man , and to him most acceptable ; finally he joynes both together in the conclusion of that book , and therein doth at full describe the nature of this sacrifice , which is this as followeth . therefore ( saith he ) we sacrifice and offer , as it were with incense , the memory of that great sacrifice , celebrating the same according to the mysteries by him given unto us , and giving thanks to him for our salvation , with godly hymnes and prayers to the lord our god , as also offering our whole selves both soul and body , and to his high priest which is the word . s●e here ( saith the doctor ) eusebius doth not call it onely the memory or commemoration of christs sacrifice , but makes the very memory and commemoration in and of it self to be a sacrifice , which instar omnium , for and in the place of all other sacrifices we are to offer to our god , and offer with the incense of our prayers and praises . in this discourse out of eusebius the doctor foreseeing that what he had alleaged , did not reach home to his purpose , endeavours to make it up by the addition of this last clause , as if eusebius made the memory or commemoration of the sacrifice of christ to be in and of it felf a sacrifice ; and this he would collect from these words of his {non-roman} {non-roman} {non-roman} {non-roman} {non-roman} , which he translates for , and as a sacrifice , whereas both bishop bilson , and doctor raynolds , and others of our best learned divines translate it insteed of a sacrifice . now that which is insteed of a sacrifice , cannot be indeed , and of it self properly so called . and besides , how we should be said to offer up our commemoration for a sacrifice , as the doctor affirmeth , i cannot understand , since k commemoration is an action , and being so , it cannot ( as i conceive ) in propriety of speech be the thing sacrificed , which must of necessity be a substance as it stands in opposition to accidents ; so that if neither the sanctification of the creature , nor the commemoration of the sacrifice of christ , nor the offering up of our selves , or praise , and thanksgiving can amount to a sacrifice properly so called , surely the doctor hath not yet found it in the fathers , but will be forced to make a new search for the finding of it . chap. v. whether the eucharist be a sacrifice properly so called , by the doctrine and practise of the church of england , and first by the book of ordination . this the doctor undertakes to prove from the book of ordination , from the book of articles , from the book of homilies , and lastly from the common-prayer book . his proof from the book of ordination , is that he who is admitted to holy orders , is there cal'd a priest , as also in the liturgy , and rubricks of it . for answer whereunto , we grant that he is so called indeed , but had it been intended that he were properly so called , no doubt but in the same book we should have found a power of sacrificing conferred upon him ; and in very truth a stronger argument there cannot be , that our church admits not of any sacrifice or priesthood properly so called , for that we finde not in tha● book any power of sacrificing conferred upon him , who receives the order of priesthood , no nor so much as the name of any sacrifice in any sense therein once mentioned . read t●orow the admonition , the interrogations , the prayers , the benediction , but above all the form it self in the collation of that sacred order , and not a word is there to be seen of sacrificing , or offring , or altar , or any such matter ; the form it self of ordination runnes thus [ receive the holy ghost , whose sinnes thou doest forgive they are forgiven , and whose sinnes thou doest retain , they are retained , and be thou a faithfull dispencer of the word of god and his holy sacraments , in the name of the father , and of the sonne , and of the holy ghost , amen . ] then the bishop shall deliver to every one of them the bible in his hand saying . [ take thou authority to preach the word of god , and to minister the holy sacraments in the congregation where thou shalt be appointed . ] here we have a power given him of forgiving and retaining of sinnes , of preaching of the word and administring the holy sacraments , but of any sacrificing power , not so much as the least syllable : which had been a very strange and unpardonable ne●lect , had the church intended , by the form expressed in that book , to make them priests , properly so called . this indeed the romanists quarrell at , as being a main defect in our church ; but the learned champion of it , and our holy orders , hath in my judgement fully answered that crimination of theirs , and withall clearly opened the point , in what sense we are in that book of ordination called priests : if you mean ( saith he ) no more by priest , then the holy ghost doth by presbyter , that is a minister of the new testament , then we professe , and are ready to prove that we are priests , as we are called in the book of common-prayer , and the form of ordering , because we receive in our ordination authority to preach the word of god , and to minister his holy sacraments . secondly , if by priests you mean sacrificing priests , and would expound your selves of spirituall sacrifices , then as this name belongeth to all christians , so it may be applyed by an excellency to the ministers of the gospel . thirdly , although in this name you have relation to bodily sacrifices , yet even so we be called priests by way of allusion . for as deacons are not of the tribe of levi , yet the ancient fathers do commonly call them levites alluding to their office , because they come in place of levites , so the ministers of the new testament may be called sacrificers , because they succeed the sonnes of aaron , and come in place of sacrificers . fourthly , for as much as we have authority to minister , the sacraments and consequently the eucharist , which is a representation of the sacrifice of christ , therefore we may be said to offer christ in a mystery , and to sacrifice him objectively , by way of commemoration . ] in all these respects we may rightly and truely be called priests , as also because to us it belongeth , and to us alone to consecrate the bread and wine to holy uses , to offer up the prayers of the people , and to blesse them , yet in all these respects , the speech is but figurative , and consequently our priesthood and sacrifices cannot be proper . now for the liturgy , it is true that the minister is there likewise sometimes called a priest , and as true it is that sometimes also he hath the name of a minister there given him ; but the lords table though it be there often named , is never called an altar , nor the sacrament in which he represents , and commemorates the death of christ , is in that respect , so much as once called a sacrifice , muchlesse properly so termed , as will appear when we come to examine the doctors arguments for a sacrifice drawn from that book . in the mean time i must professe i cannot but wonder that the doctor should derive our priesthood from melchisedech ; i had thought the priesthood which we have , had been derived from the high priest of the new testament , who indeed is called a priest after the order of melchisedech , not because he derived it from melchisedech ( god forbid we should so conceive ) but because of the resemblances which he had to , and with melchisedech , as that he was not onely a priest but a king , a king first of righteousnesse , then of peace , without father , without mother , having neither beginning of dayes , nor end of life . thus was our saviour a priest after the order of melchisedech , as his own apostle interprets it ; so as if we will challenge to our selves a priesthood after his order , we must likewise be kings as he was , without father , without mother , without beginning of daies , or end of life , as he was , which will prove i doubt too hard a task for any man to make good . the romanists indeed assume to themselves a priesthood after the order of melchisedech ( though from melchisedech , i do not finde that they derive it ) but that any of the reformed churches ; besides our doctor hath done either of these , i do not yet finde , nor i dare say the doctor himself will ever be able to finde it . i will conclude this point touching the priesthood of our church , with the observable words of profound hooker , who was well known to be no enemy thereunto . because ( saith he ) the most eminent part both of heathenish , and jewish service did consist in sacrifice , when learned men declare what the word priest doth properly signifie according to the minde of the first imposer of the name , their ordinary scholies do well expound it to imply sacrifice ; seeing then that sacrifice is now no part of the church ministry , how should the name of priesthood be thereunto rightly applyed ? surely even as s. paul applyeth the name of flesh , unto that very substance of fishes , which hath a proportionable correspondence to flesh ; although it be in nature another thing , whereupon when philosophers will speak warily they make a difference betwixt flesh in one sort of living creatures , and that other substance in the rest , which hath but a kinde of analogy to flesh . the apostle contrariwise having matter of greater importance whereof to speak , nameth them indifferently both flesh . the fathers of the church with like security of speech , call usually the ministery of the gospel , priesthood in regard of that which the gospel hath proportionable to ancient sacrifices , namely the communion of the blessed body and bloud of christ , although it have properly now no sacrifice . as for the people , when they hear the name , it draweth no more their mindes to any cogitation of sacrifice , then the name of a senator , or of an alderman causeth them to think upon old age , or to imagine that every one so termed , must needs be ancient because yeers were respected in the first nomination of both . wherefore to passe by the name , let them use what dialect they will , whether we call it a priesthood , or a presbytership , or a ministery ; it skilleth not , although in truth the word presbyter doth seeme more fit , and in propriety of speech more agreeable then priest , with the drift of the whole gospel of j●sus christ , for what are they that imbrace the gospel , but sonnes of god ? what are churches , but his families ? seeing then we receive the adoption and state of sonnes by their ministery , whom god hath chosen out for that purpose , seeing also that when we are the sonnes of god , our continuance is still under their care which were our progenitors , what better title could there be given them , then the reverend name of presbyters , or fatherly guides ? the holy ghost throughout the body of the new testament , making so much mention of them , doth not anywhere call them priests . the prophet isaiah i grant doth , but in such sort as the ancient fathers by way of analogy . a presbyter according to the proper meaning of the new testament , is he unto whom our saviour hath committed the power of spirituall procreation . by which learned discourse of this venerable man , and as the doctor himself somewhere calls him incomparable now a blessed saint in heaven , it evidently appears that he held both a sacrifice , and a priesthood in the church , but neither of them in a proper signification , and consequently in his opinion the doctor hath gained little to his purpose from the book of ordination , and surely as little i presume will he gain from that which follows , and comes now to be examined . chap. vi . whether the book of articles , the book of homilies , or the common-prayer book afford the doctor such proofes as he pretends . two wayes there are ( saith he ) by which the church declares her self in the present businesse ; first positively in the book of articles , and that of homilies , and practically in the book of common prayers . first , in the book of articles the offering of christ once made is that perfect redemption , propitiation and satisfaction , for all the sinnes of the whole world both originall and actuall , and there is no other satisfaction for sin but that alone . this sacrifice or oblation once for ever made , and never more to be repeated , was by our saviours own appointment to be commemorated and represented to us for the better quickening of our faith , whereof if there be nothing said in the book of articles , it is because the articles r●lated chiefly to points in controversie , but in the book of homilies , &c. thus the doctor . why , but he had told us before , that the church declares her self positively in the book of articles , touching this present businesse , and now when we expected the declaration to be made good , he puts us over to the book of homilies , and yet had he gone on in that very article by him alleaged , he should there have found somewhat against popish sacrifices , which that article calls ( or rather our church by that article ) blasphemous fables , and dangerous deceits . nay the very first words vouched by the doctor out of the article , are in my judgement sufficient to cut the throat of any other sacrifice of christ , or any christian sacrifice properly so called . for if the offring of christ once made be perfect , it cannot be again reiterated , commemorated it may be , and must be reiterated , it cannot be ; now reiteration , it is which makes it a sacrifice properly so called , not a bare commemoration or representation , as hath already been shewed . and besides the doctor might have found another article touching the supper of the lord , where it is called a sacrament of our redemption by christs death , but of any sacrifice not a word , though there had been the proper place to have spoken of it , had our church conceived that any such had been properly so termed ; but on the other side , transubstantiation is there condemned as being repugnant to scriptures , overthrowing the nature of a sacrament , giving occasion to many superstitions ; yet how a sacrifice of the body and bloud of christ properly so termed , can be admitted without the admission of transubstantiation together with it , i must confesse for mine own part i am yet to seek , and shall be willing to learn from any that can farther instruct me . but the doctor reposing little confidence , it should seem in the articles , refers us to the homilies ; to them let us go , and truely , if i be not much mistaken , he will finde as little help from these , as from the articles : that which he alleageth , is taken from the first words of the homily sacrament , the words are as followeth : the great love of our saviour christ to mankinde doth not onely appear in that dear bought benefit of our redemption , and satisfaction by his death and passion ▪ but also , that he hath kindly provided that the same most mercifull work , might be had in continuall remembrance , amongst the which means is the publike celebration of the memory of his pretious death at the lords table ; our saviour having ordained and established the remembrance of his great mercy expressed in his passion in the institution of his heavenly supper . here ( saith the doctor ) is a commemoration of that blessed sacrifice which christ once offred , a publike celebration of the memory thereof , and a continuall remembrance of it by himself ordained . yea , but that which the doctor from these words ( picked here and there in the homily ) should have inferred , and concluded is a sacrifice in it self properly so called , not a memory , a remembrance , a commemoration of a sacrifice . and besides , he who attentively reads that part of the homily , will easily finde that it there speaks of the commemoration thereof , not so much by the priest , as by the people ; neither doth it so much as once name any sacrifice at all , save onely in disavowing , and disallowing it , as may be seen in the page there following , part wherof the doctor taketh for his own purpose , as namely , that the lords supper is in such sort to be done and ministred , as our lord and saviour did , and commanded it to be done , as his holy apostles used it , and the good fathers in the primitive church frequented it . so that ( saith he ) what ever hath been proved to be the purpose of institution , the practise of the holy apostles , and usage of the ancient fathers , will fall within the meaning , and intention of the church of england . doubtlesse it will , but that a sacrifice properly so called , hath been proved to be either the purpose of the institution , or the practise of the apostles , or the usage of the ancient fathers , that i utterly deny . and surely it should seem that the church of england denies it too , by the words there following within a few lines ; we must take heed ( saith the homily ) least of the memory it be made a sacrifice , least of a communion it be made a private eating , least of two parts , we have but one , least applying it to the dead , we loose the fruit that be alive ; let us rather in these matters follow the advice of cyprian in like cases , that is , cleave fast to the first beginning hold fast the lords tradition , do that in the lords commemoration , which he himself did , he himself commanded , and his apostles confirmed . whereby it should seem they held the purpose of our saviours institution , and the practise of his apostles to have been , not a sacrifice properly so termed , but onely a commemoration of his death and passion . and this to have been indeed their meaning farther appears toward the latter end of the same part of the homily , where speaking of the death of christ , and the efficacy thereof to the worthy receiver , they thus go on . herein thou needst no other mans help , no other sacrifice , or oblation , no sacrificing priest , no masse , no means established by mans invention . by which it is evident , that they held all other sacrifices , beside that of christ himself on the crosse , and all other sacrificing priests , beside christ himself to be established by mans invention , and how the doctor professing that he offers up a sacrifice properly so called , can possibly free himself from the title and office of a sacrificing priest , i must professe is beyond the compasse of my brain . all which considered , i think his safer way had been not to have touched upon the homily , specially considering that the lords table is there named above or about twenty times , but is not so much as once called an altar . but perchance he will finde some better help from the liturgy , which comes now to be examined . we will next ( saith he ) look into the agenda , the publike liturgy of this church ▪ where first we finde it granted , that christ our saviour is the very paschall lamb that was offred for us , and hath taken away the sinnes of the world , that suffering death upon the crosse for our redemption , he made there of his own oblation of himself once offred , a full , perfect and sufficient sacrifice , oblation and satisfaction , for the sinnes of the whole world ; and to the end that we should alwayes remember the exceeding great love of our master , and onely saviour jesus christ , thus dying for us , and the innumerable benefits which by his pretious bloudshedding he hath obtained to us , he hath instituted and ordained holy mysteries as pledges of his love , and continuall remembrance of his death , to our great and endlesse comfort instituting , and in his holy gospel commanding us to continue a perpetuall memory of that his pretious death , till his coming again . in which words i do not see , what it is that makes for the doctors purpose , but somewhat i see which makes against him ; as namely , the sacrifice of christ upon the crosse is full , perfect and sufficient in it self , which being so , surely there needs no more sacrifices , no more priests , no more altars , properly so called ; and for the memory or remembrance there mentioned ( if i be not much mistaken ) he will never be able thence to inferre such a sacrifice ; and surely i think the church never intended he should . in the next place he instanceth in the consecration . then followeth ( saith he ) the consecration of the creatures of bread and wine , for a remembrance of his death and passion , in the same words and phrases which christ our saviour recommended unto his apostles , and his apostles , unto the fathers of the primitive times , which now as then is to be done onely by the priest , [ then the priest standing up , shall say as followeth ] to whom it properly belongeth , and upon whom his ordination doth conferre a power of ministring the s●crament , not given to any other order in the holy ministry . had the book said , then shall the priest stand up , and offer sacrifice , it had been to the doctors purpose ; but then shall the priest stand up and say , makes little for him , unlesse he had been injoyned to say somewhat , which had implyed a sacrifice which i do not yet finde ; words indeed of consecration i finde , and those proper to the priest , but any words of sacrificing in that act , i finde not , yet had our church conceived , that to have been a sacrifice there , indeed had been the proper place to have expressed her self . that the ordination appointed by our church , conferreth upon the person ▪ so ordained , a power of ministring the sacrament not given to any order in the ministry , i shall easily grant ; but that his ordination giveth him , not any power of sacrificing ( which is the point in question ) hath already out of the form it self established by authority been clearly shewed . from the words of consecration , the doctor goes on to the prayer , after the communion , and here indeed he findes a sacrifice , but such a one as ( all things considered , he hath very little reason to triumph therein . the memory or commemoration of christs death ( saith he ) thus celebrated , is called a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving , a sacrifice representative of that one and onely expiatory sacrifice , which christ once offred for us , all the whole communicants , beseeching god to grant that by the merits and death of his sonne jesus christ , and through faith in his bloud , they and the whole church may obtain remission of their sinnes , and all other benefits of his passion ; neither stay they there ( saith he ) but forthwith offer , and present unto the lord themselves , their soules and bodies to be a reasonable , holy , and lively sacrifice unto him . and howsoever as they most humbly do acknowledge , they are unworthy through their manifold sinnes , to offer to him any sacrifice , yet they beseech him to accept , that their bounden duety and service ; in which last words , that present service which they do to almighty god , according to their bounden duties , in celebrating the perpetuall memory of christs pretious death , and the oblation of themselves , and with themselves the sacrifice of praise , and thanksgiving in due acknowledgement of the benefits , and comforts by him received , is humbly offred unto god for , and as a sacrifice , and publikely avowed for such , as from the tenour and coherence of the words , doth appear most plainly . hitherto the doctor , as if now he had spoken home and full to the point indeed ; whereas if we take a review of that which hath been said , we shall soon finde it to vanish into smoak . that prayer then af●er the communion , beginning in this manner . o lord and heavenly father we thy humble servants , entirely desire , thy fatherly goodnesse , mercifully to accept this our sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving . i would demand of the doctor , first of what kind this sacrifice of thanksgiving is , and then by whom it is offred ; for mine own part i never heard that the eucharisticall sacrifice of christians , was other then spirituall , improperly termed a sacrifice ; and i presume the doctor himself will not stick to grant as much as he doth , that the people joyn with the priest in this prayer . from whence it will infallibly follow , that either the people together with the priest offer unto god a s●crifice properly so called , or that the sacrifice thus offred by them , both ●s so called improperly ; let him take which he please of the two , and then tell me what he can make of this sacrifice . now that which hath been said of this eucharisticall sacrifice , of praise and thanksgiving , is likewise to be understood of the obedientiall sacrifice ( if i may so call it ) which follows after , consisting in their offring to the lord , their selves , their souls and bodies , as a reasonable holy and lively sacrifice unto him : and in truth i cannot but wonder , that the doctor should insist upon this , considering he requires a materiall altar for his sacrifice , derives his priesthood from melchisedech , appropriates it to the apostles and their successors , makes it stand in commemoration or representation , and lastly , every where with scorn enough , excludes the people from any right thereunto , but thus we see how a weak cause is driven by all kinde of means , be they never so poor to fortifie it self : and yet , as if now he had made a full , and finall conquest , he concludes this argument drawn from the authority of our church ; put all together ( saith he ) which hath been here delivered from the book of articles , the homilies , and publike liturgy , and tell me if you ever found a more excellent concord then this , between eusebius , and the church of england , in this present businesse ; and then goes on to parallell the words of eusebius with those of our liturgy , which i confesse agree very well , but neither the one , nor the other speak home to his purpose , or mention any sacrifice properly so called , to be offred in the church of christ , as he hath been sufficiently shewed . chap. vii . of the testimony of some writers of our church alleaged by the doctor . will you be pleased ( saith he ) to look upon those worthies of the church , which are best able to expound , and unfold her meaning ; we will begin ( saith he ) with bishop andrews , and tell you what he saith , as concerning sacrifices . the eucharist ( saith bishop andrews ) ever was and is by us considered , both as a sacrament , and as a sacrifice . a sacrifice is proper and applyable , onely to divine worship . the sacrifice of christs death , did succeed to the sacrifices of the old testament , which being prefigured in those sacrifices before his coming , hath since his coming been celebrated per sacramentum memoria , by a sacrament of memory , as saint augustine calls it ; thus also in his answer to cardinall bellarmine . tollite de missa transubstantiationem vestram , nec diu nobiscum lis erit de sacrificio . the memory of a sacrifice , we acknowledge willingly , and the king grants the name of sacrifice to have been frequent with the fathers ; for altars next , if we agree ( saith he ) about the matter of the sacrifice , there will be no difference about the altar . the holy eucharist being considered as a sacrifice ( in the representation of breaking the bread , and powring forth the cup ) the same is fitly called an altar , which again is as fitly called a table , the eucharist being considered as a sacrament , which is nothing else but a distribution and application of the sacrifice to the severall receivers , so that the matter of altars make no difference in the face of our church . thus farre the doctor out of bishop andrews . for answer whereunto , if we take the passage at large , as it is quoted by that truely reverend bishop out of s. augustine , it will suffice to shew both his , and the bishops judgement herein . the words then are these . hujus sacrificii caro & sanguis ante adventum christi per victimas similitudinum promittebatur , in passione christi per ipsam veritatem reddebatur , post adventum christi per sacramentum memoriae celebratur . now had he conceived the eucharist to be a sacrifice properly so called , in all likelyhood , he would have termed it sacrificium memoriae in relation to the sacrifices as well before the death of christ , as the sacrifice it self of his death , sacramentum memoriae then is that saith the bishop , which with s. augustine we hold , and no christian i think will deny , nay more then so , we may safely with the bishop grant , that it is not onely a sacrament but a sacrifice , but whether in a proper signification that is the question , and this the doctor doth not clear out of the bishop , but rather the bishop , the contrary out of s. augustine . the next passage quoted by the doctor out of this learned bishop , is taken from his answer to bellarm●ne , which he lived to publish himself , and thus begins it , credunt nostri institutam à domino eucharistiam in sui commemorationem , etiam sacrificii sui , vel ( si ita loqui liceat ) in sacrificium commemorativum . see the modesty of this deep divine , making doubt whether he might give it the name of sacrificium commemorativum or no , which doubtlesse he would never have done , had he thought it had been a sacrifice properly so called ; neither would he so often in that page have taken up vocem sacrificii , rather then sacrificium , nihil ea de voce rex : sacrificii vocem scit patribus usurpatam : nec à voce vel sacrificii vel oblationis abborremus ; placeret loca videre quae citat nisi vocem propter quam citat videret lector nobis non displicere . surely so weary , and so wise a man would never have repeated vocem so often , had he beleeved the thing . to the words by the doctor stood upon , tollite de missa transubstantiationem nec diu nobiscum lis erit de sacrificio ; it may be replyed in the bishops own words immediately following , which may well serve as a commentary upon these going before : memoriam ibi fieri sacrificii damus non inviti , so as his meaning seems to be lis non erit de sacrificio , conditionally that by sacrificium they understand memoriam sacrificii , as we do , neither in truth do i see how the crutch of tranfubstantiation being taken away , a sacrifice properly so called , can well stand upon its own feete . from the bishops answer to the italian cardinall , the doctor leads us back again to his answer to the french cardinall , and there hath found an altar suteable to his sacrifice ; if we agree about the matter of the sacrifice , saith the bishop , there will be no difference about the altar , ] but about the former , sure i am , we agree not as yet , nor i doubt ever shall agree ( they making that the subject which we make onely the object of this sacrifice ) and consequently the difference is like still to remain about the altar . that the lords table may fitly be called an altar , the bishop indeed affirmeth , but that it may properly be so called , that he affirmeth not , nor as farre as we may conjecture by his words ever intended it : fitly , i grant it may be so called , and yet figuratively too . that christ was fitly called a lamb , we all willingly yeild , yet withall that he was not properly but figuratively so called , no man i presume will deny . the altar ( saith the bishop in the same chapter ) in the old testament , is by malachy called mensa domini ; and of the table in the new it is said habemus altare , as then the altar is by the pr●phet improperly called a table in the old , so likewise is the lords table , by the apostle improperly called an altar in the new testament . neither indeed can the bishop ( as i conceive be otherwise understood , the sacrifice which he allows , consisting ( by his own description thereof , in the same place ) in representation by the breaking of the bread and powring forth of the cup ) which may objectively , that is improperly be called a sacrifice in relation to the al-sufficient sacrifice of christ upon the cr●sse , but subjectively , that is properly , it cannot be so called . as bishop andrews wrote at king iames his motion , against car●inall bellarmine ( saith the doctor ) so isaac casaubon , writ king iames his minde to cardinall perron , and in expressing his minde affirmeth , veteres ecclesiae patres &c. that the ancient fathers did acknowledge one onely sacrifice in the christian church , which did succeed in place of all those sacrifices in the law of moses , that he conceived the said sacrifice to be nothing else , nisi commemorationem ejus quod semel in cruce christus patri suo obtulit ; that oftentimes the church of england hath professed , she will not strive about the word , which she expressely useth in her publike liturgy . ] yea but if casaubon , or the king by casaubons pen expressed himself , that he conceived the christian sacrifice , now in use to be nothing else but the commemoration of christs sacrifice offred to his father upon the crosse , surely they could not withall conceive it to be a sacrifice properly so called , and in saying that the church of england will not strive about the word , what is it but as if they had said , she will strive about the thing , as it is most aparent that she doth , as well in her doctrine as practise . nay one thing more , that learned writer hath , or rather that learned king , by the hand of that writer , which the doctor hath omitted , though he take the words both before and after , perchance because they made little to his purpose . quare beatus chrysostomus , quo frequentius nemo hujus sacrificii meminit , in nonum caput epistolae ad hebraeos , postquam {non-roman} {non-roman} {non-roman} {non-roman} {non-roman} nominasset , continuo subjungit , sive explicationis , sive correctionis leco {non-roman} {non-roman} {non-roman} {non-roman} {non-roman} which words , whether they be taken by way of explication or corrections evidently shew , that s. chrysostome held not the eucharist to be a sacrifice properly so called , and that herein both the king , and casaubon adhered to s. chrysostome the best interpreter of scripture among the greek fathers . the next testimony is taken from archbishop cranmer , who ( saith the doctor ) distinguisheth most clearly , between the sacrifice propitiatory made by christ himself onely , and the sacrifice commemorative , and gratulatory , made by the priest and people . ] this i easily beleeve , though the book it self , i have not now by me , but that the archbishop anywhere affirmeth either the commemorative or the gratulatory sacrifice to be properly so called , that i very much doubt , and surely if it be made both by the priest and people , as the doctor voucheth him , at leastwise for the latter there can be no question of his opinion therein . let us go on then to my lord of duresme , who ( saith the doctor ) doth call the eucharist a representative and commemorative sacrifice , in as plain language , ●s the doctor himself , although he doth deny it to be a proper sacrifice . ] deny it ? why he doth not onely deny it , but strongly proves it against bellarmine and other romish writers , in two entire chapters taking up no lesse then seven leaves in folio , so strongly , as i verily beleeve , i shall never see a full , and sufficient answer thereunto . the last testimony produced by the doctor , is from my lord of chichesters appeal , whom the doctor thus makes to speak unto his i●formers ; i have so good opinion of your understanding , though weak , that you will conceive the blessed sacrament of the altar , or the communion table ( which you please ) to be a sacrifice . ] and the doctor having a while infisted upon these words , in answer to his adversary , goes on out of the bishops book . walk you at random , and at rovers in your bypaths if you please , i have used the name of altar for the communion table , according to the manner of antiquity , and am like enough sometimes to use it stil ; nor will i abstain notwithstanding your oggannition to follow the steps and practice of antiquity , in using the words sacrifice and priesthood also . finally ( saith the doctor ) he brings in bishop morton , professing thus , that he beleeveth no such sacrifice of the altar as the church of rome doth , and that he fancieth no such altars as they imploy , though he professed a sacrifice and an altar . ) now for answer to this testimony , he that will be pleased but to peruse that chapter , will i presume , desire no farther satisfaction , the bishop having therein so clearly and fully unfolded himself , as if the doctor will stand to his judgement in the point , he will undoubtedly be cast . to the first allegation then , where the doctor makes a stop , the bishop thus goes on . not propitiatory , as they call it ( i will use this word . call it , lest you challenge me upon popery for using propitiatory ) for the living and the dead , not an externall , visible , true , and proper sacrifice , but onely representative , commemorative , spirituall sacrifice ; where the bishop as we see in downright and direct tearms denies the euch●ist to be a sacrifice properly so called , and for this immediatly he voucheth the testimony of doctor rainolds , and bishop morton , doctor rainolds ( saith he ) and bishop morton have granted , that though we have no proper altar , yet altar and sacrifice have a mutuall relation and dependance one upon another . and herein doth the bishop professe himself fully to accord with them . to the second allegation ; the bishop between the words vouched by the doctor , brings in these ; saint paul calleth the pagan altars ( which were indeed and truely altars ) tables , and why may not we name the lords table an altar ? whereby it appears , that he held the lords table an altar in none other sense than as the pagan altars were tables , that is both improperly . to the third allegation touching bishop morton , he thus brings him in not farre from the beginning of that chapter : but i rather choose ( saith he ) to speak in our bishop mortons words , apologizing for protestants against papists ; it may be i have taken licence in use of tearms , but no errour in doctrine can you finde , for to put off your imputation , from farther fastning , i beleeve no such sacrifice of the altar , as the church of rome doth , i fancy no such altars as they imploy , though i professe a sacrifice and an altar . ] in the same reverend bishops words , the lords table being called improperly an altar , can no more conclude a sacrifice understood properly , than when as saint paul calling titus his sonne according to the faith , which is improperly , a man may contend saint paul was his naturall father , according to the flesh . ] in which words we have both the bishops , and those excellently learned in terminis terminantibus , directly opposite to the doctors opinion , though by him alleadged in maintenance thereof . chap. viii . containing the testimonies of other reverend prelates , and great divines of our church , who have likewise opposed the proper sacrifice maintained by the doctor . vvith forraigne divines of the reformed churches i will not meddle , there being not so much as one of them , i thinke , of what partie soever , who in this point sides with the doctor , i will content my selfe with the suffrages of our owne divines , for learning and dignity the most eminent in our church , and consequently the fittest interpreters of her meaning . — doctor white lord bishop of ely , in his reply to fisher , pag. 465. the new testament acknowledgeth no proper sacrificing priests but christ jesus only , heb. 7. 23. 27 , 28. & cap. 10. 21. neither is there any word or sentence in our saviours doctrine concerning any reall sacrifice , but onely of himself upon the crosse , neither was any altar used and ordained by christ and his apostles ; and if in all reall sacrifices the matter of the oblation must be really destroyed and changed , and no physicall destruction or change is made in the body of christ , or in the elements of bread and wine by transubstantiation , then romanists have devised a reall sacrifice in the new testament , which hath no divine institution . doctor davenant , lord bishop of sarisbury , professor of divinity in the vniversity of cambridge , in his determinations , qu. 13. missa pontificia non est sacrificium propitiatorium pro vivis & mortuis . pontificii in hoc suo missatico negotio tres gravissimes errores nobis obtrudunt . esse nimirum in missa reale , externum & propriè dictum sacrificium . esse inihi sacerdotem qui actionem sacrificandi propriè dictam exercet ; esse denique potestatem huic sacerdoti pro voluntate & intentione sua applicandi tam vivis quam mortuis praedicti sacrificii efficaciam salutarem . nos è contra asserimus , primo in missa nihil posse nominari aut ostendi quod sit sacrificabile aut quod rationem & essentiam realis , externi & propriè dicti sacrificii , quamvis quae adhiberi in eadem solent preces , eleemosynae , gratiarum actiones , spiritualium sacrificiorum nomen sortiantur ; quamvis etiam ipsa representatio fracti corporis christi & fusi sanguinis figuratè sacrificium à veteribus saepenumero vocetur . secundo contendunt pontificii presbyteros suos esse secundarios quosdam novi testamenti sacerdotes , & in missa sua actionem sacrificandi propriè dictam praestare . sed nobis iesus christus est solus & aeternus , neque successorum , neque vicariorum indigus novi testamenti sacerdos . quaero enim cui bono alii sacerdotes substituerentur ipsi christo , non ut sacrificium ejus adumbrent , tanquam futurum est enim olim deo exhibitum , non hodie exhibendum , non ut significent tanquam factum , nam repraesentare illud ut factum est sacramentum celebrare non sacrificiū offerre . non denique ut agant quod actum fuit ab ipso christo seipsum offerente , nam hoc & mutile esset si fieret , & plane impossibile est ut fiat . hactenus igitur in missa pontificia , neque sacrificium propriè dictum , nequesacerdotem , neque actionem ipsam sacrificandi , vel ipsi missarum opifices ostendere potuerunt . doctor hall lord bishop of exeter in his book , intituled no peace with rome . sect. 9. what opposition is there betwixt the order of melchisedech and aaron , betwixt christ and the priests of the old law , if this office do equally passe and descend in a long pedigree of mortall successors ? or why were the legall sacrifices of the jewish synagogue so oft repeated , but because they were not perfect ? and how can or why should that which is most absolutely perfect , be reiterated ? what can either be spoken or conceived more plainly then those words of god . once offred , one sacrifice , one oblation , and yet these popish shavelings ( devout men ) take upon them to crucifie and sacrifice christ again . we will remember the holy sacrifice of christ ( as cassander well advises ) and celebrate it with a thankfull heart , we will not repeat it ; we will gladly receive our saviour offred by himself to his father , and offred to us by his father , we will not offer him to his father ; which one point , whilest we stick at ( as we needs must ) we are straight stricken with the thunderbolt of the anathema of trent ; here can be therefore no possibility of peace . doctor abbot late lord bishop of sarisbury , and publike professor of divinity , in the vniversity of oxford in his counterproof , against doctor bishops reproof of the defence of the reformed catholike . cap. 14. pag. 364. it is truely said by cyprian , that the passion of christ is the sacrifice which we offer , and because the passion of christ is not now really acted , therefore the sacrifice which we offer , is no true and reall sacrifice . now therefore the oblation of the altar , of which s. augustine speaketh hath no reference to the masse , which they hold to be a proper and reall sacrifice . but now strange it should seem , that the apostle in those words should be thought to have any intention of the sacrifice of the masse , who in the epistle to the hebrews ( if it were he ) whilest he destroyeth the jewish priesthood , for the advancing of the priesthood of christ , argueth impregnably to the disavowing of all reall sacrifice thenceforth in the church of christ . whilest he affirmeth but one priest in the new testament , insteed of many in the old , he absolutely taketh away all the ranke and succession of popish priests . doctor bilson late lord bishop of winchester in his book of the true difference between christian subjection , and unchristian rebellion , the 4 part. p. 691. if the death of christ be the sacrifice which the church offreth , it is evident that christ is not onely sacrificed at this table , but also crucified , and crufied in the self same sort and sense that he is sacrificed , but no man is so mad to defend , that christ is really put to death in these mysteries , ergo neither is he really sacrificed under the formes of bread and wine . his reasons why we do not use the word s●crifice so often as the fathers did , pag. 702. there are reasons why we do not think our selves bound , to take up the freq●ent use of their terms in that point , as we see you do , for first they be such words as christ and his apostles did forbear , and therefore our faith may stand without them . next they be dark , and obscure speeches , wholly depending on the nature and signification of sacraments . thirdly , we finde by experience before our eyes how their phrases have entangled your senses , whiles you greedily pursued the words , and omitted the rules which should have mollified and directed the letter : these causes make us the waryer , and the willinger to keep us to the words of the holy ghost , though the fathers applications , if you there withall take their expositions , do but in other terms teach that which we receive and confesse to be true . bishop jewell the iewell of bishops , in defence of his 17. article , which book is by publique authority to be kept in every church . even so s. ambrose saith christ is offred here on earth , ( not really and indeed , as master harding saith ) but in like sort and sense , as s. iohn saith , the lamb was slain from the beginning of the world that is , not substantially , or in reall manner , but in signification in a mystery , and in a figure . as christ is neither daily borne of the virgin mary , nor daily crucified , nor daily slain , nor daily riseth from the dead , nor daily suffereth , nor daily dyeth , but onely in a certain manner of speech , not verily and indeed , even so christ is daily sacrificed onely in a certain manner of speech , and in a mystery , but really , verily , and indeed , he is not sacrificed . archiepiscopus spalatensis , while he was ours , that is while he was himself , de rep. eccles. lib. 5. cap. 6. nobis satis est apud chrysostomum , eucharistiam in se continere sacrificium quoddam commemorativum , ac consequenter in ea non fieri verum sacrificium . confirmat haec omnia bellarminus ex eo quod in ecclesia antiquus sit usus & nomen altarium altare vero & sacrificium sunt correlativa . ] respondeo quale sacrificium tale altare , sacrificium impropriè , altare impropriè . esse verum sacrificium nunquam usque ad postrema cor rupta saecula invenio aut dictum , aut cogitatum , aut traditum aut practicatum in ecclesia . doctor rainolds , professor of divinity , extraordinary in the university of oxford , in his conference with hart. c. 8. divis . 4. sith the sacrifice offered in the masse , is a true and proper sacrifice ( as you define it ) and that of the fathers is not a true sacrifice , but called so improperly , it remaineth to be concluded that the fathers , neither said masse , nor were masse priests . laurence humphrey , doctor of the chair in oxford in his answer to campian de conciliis , p. 424. quale est sacrificium , talis est sacerdos , qualis sacerdos tale esse debet altaere , sive de christo propriè loquamur , sive de nobis christianis impropriè . de sacrarum literarum sententia , pag. 155. sacramentum propriè ab omnibus , metaphoricè à nonnullis patribus sacrificium nuncupatur . doctor field dean of glocester in his appendix to his third book of the church . pag. 207. christ was sacrificed on the crosse , when he was crucified and cruelly put to death of the jews ; but how he should now be really sacrificed , sacrificing implying in it a destruction of the thing sacrificed , it is very hard to conceive . doctor crakanthorp in his answer to spalat●nsis . cap. 74. sed nec omnino v●●um & propriè dictum sacrificium in missa ullum est . doctor whitaker publike professor of divinity in cambridge , in his answer to mr rainolds , cap. 4. p. 76. you cannot pull in sunder these two offices , but it you will needs be priests , and that properly according to the order of melchisedech , then seeing that order of priesthood hath a kingdome inseperably annexed to it , it must necessarily follow that you are also kings , and that properly , which were a very proper thing indeed , and greatly to be accounted of . doctor fulke , in his answer to the rhemists , on heb. 7. vers 12. neither doth any ancient father speak of a sacrifice in the form of bread and wine , although many do call the sacrament which is celebrated in bread and wine , a sacrifice unproperly , because it is a remembrance of the one onely sacrifice of christs death , and because the spirituall sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving is offered therein , not by the minister onely , but by the whole church that is partaker thereof . again the same author in hebr. 13. vers. 10. the apostle meaneth christ to be this altar , who is our priest , sacrifice , and altar , and not the table whereon the lords supper is ministred , which is called an altar , but improperly , as the sacrament is called a sacrifice . doctor willet , in his synopsis , controv. 13. quaest . 2. if there remain still in the church a read , externall sacrifice , then there must be also a reall and externall priesthood , and so a multitude of sacrificing priests , but this i● contrary to the scripture , that maketh this difference between the law and the gospel , that then there were many priests , because they were not suffered to endure by reason of death , but now christ hath an everlasting priesthood , heb. 7. 23 , 24. 50. so that he is the onely priest of the gospel , ergo , there being no more sacrificing priests , there is no such sacrifice , for it were a derogation to the everlasting priesthood of christ , to ordain other priests beside . master perkins , in his reformed catholique . 11. point of the sacrifice of the lords supper . heb. 7. 24 , 25. the holy ghost makes a difference betwixt christ the high priest of the new testament , and all leviticall priests in this , that they were many , one succeeding another , but he is the onely one , having an eternall priesthood , which cannot passe from him to another . now if this difference be good , then christ alone in his own very person , must be the priest of the new testament , and no other with or under him , otherwise in the new testament , there should be more priests in number than in the old . alexander nowell , dean of pauls , in his catechism , ordained for publique use , and so allowed in our church . m. an fuit instituta a christo coena ut deo patri hostia pro peccatis expiandis immolaretur ? a. minimè , nam christus mortem in cruce occumbens unicum illud sempiternum sacrificium semel in perpetuum pro nostra salute obtulit , nobis vero unum hoc tantum reliquum esse voluit , ut maximum utilitatis fructum , quem sempiternum illud sacrificium nobis praebet , grati ac memores percipiamus , quod quidem in caenae dominica praecipuè praestared bemus . thus have we seen that neither by the light of nature , nor by the definition of a sacrifice , nor by the institution of our saviour , nor by the practice of his apostles , nor by the suffrage of the primitive fathers , nor by the authority of our church , nor by the testimony of the most eminent writers therein , it yet appears , either that our ministers are properly called priests , or our sacrament of the eucharist properly a sacrifice , or our communion-table properly an altar , but rather the contrary that they are all improperly so called . which being so , whether the proper situation thereof should in congruity be either table-wise for the administring of a sacrament , or altar-wise for the offering of a sacrifice , i leave that to the prudent governours of our church , and better judgements than mine own to consider and determine of . finis . notes, typically marginal, from the original text notes for div a86378e-160 cap. 5. p. 26. cap 6. pag. 44. & 67. pag. 207. lib. 1. de missa cap. 27. ioh. 8 , 56. ●om 14. 23. 〈◊〉 . 11 6 22. qu. 85. a● . 3. heb 11. 4. lib. 1. de m●ss . cap 2. lib. ● . ca. 32. cap. 16. of the sacrament , lib. 6. ca. 1. de sac●am . eucharist . lib. 4. cap. 25. in sinc . lib. 1. de missi . cap. 14. com. in locum . de miss● sacrificio . lib. 4. cap. 34. de demonst. evingel . li● . 1. fr. mason of the consecration of bishops in the church of england . 〈◊〉 . 5. p 6. heb ● . heb. 7. lib 5 cap. 78. art. 28. part. 1 pag. 198. answ . to p●rron c. 6. re●p . ad card be●l . cap. 8. answ . to perron . cap. 7. l de civitate dei lib. 17. cap. 20. m e●ist . ad card. perron . defence of his fisth book against gardiner . cap. 29. pag. 365. pag. 424. pag. 427. pag. 204. pag. 280. pag 281. reas. 4. corpus christi: by edmund gurnay gurnay, edmund, d. 1648. 1619 approx. 92 kb of xml-encoded text transcribed from 58 1-bit group-iv tiff page images. text creation partnership, ann arbor, mi ; oxford (uk) : 2009-03 (eebo-tcp phase 1). a02396 stc 12527 estc s103556 99839307 99839307 3715 this keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the early english books online text creation partnership. this phase i text is available for reuse, according to the terms of creative commons 0 1.0 universal . the text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission. early english books online. (eebo-tcp ; phase 1, no. a02396) transcribed from: (early english books online ; image set 3715) images scanned from microfilm: (early english books, 1475-1640 ; 1069:08) corpus christi: by edmund gurnay gurnay, edmund, d. 1648. [4], 109, [1] p. printed by cantrell legge, printer to the vniuersitie of cambridge, [cambridge] : 1619. a sermon on matthew xxvi, 26. reproduction of the original in the henry e. huntington library and art gallery. created by converting tcp files to tei p5 using tcp2tei.xsl, tei @ oxford. re-processed by university of nebraska-lincoln and northwestern, with changes to facilitate morpho-syntactic tagging. gap elements of known extent have been transformed into placeholder characters or elements to simplify the filling in of gaps by user contributors. eebo-tcp is a partnership between the universities of michigan and oxford and the publisher proquest to create accurately transcribed and encoded texts based on the image sets published by proquest via their early english books online (eebo) database (http://eebo.chadwyck.com). the general aim of eebo-tcp is to encode one copy (usually the first edition) of every monographic english-language title published between 1473 and 1700 available in eebo. eebo-tcp aimed to produce large quantities of textual data within the usual project restraints of time and funding, and therefore chose to create diplomatic transcriptions (as opposed to critical editions) with light-touch, mainly structural encoding based on the text encoding initiative (http://www.tei-c.org). the eebo-tcp project was divided into two phases. the 25,363 texts created during phase 1 of the project have been released into the public domain as of 1 january 2015. anyone can now take and use these texts for their own purposes, but we respectfully request that due credit and attribution is given to their original source. users should be aware of the process of creating the tcp texts, and therefore of any assumptions that can be made about the data. text selection was based on the new cambridge bibliography of english literature (ncbel). if an author (or for an anonymous work, the title) appears in ncbel, then their works are eligible for inclusion. selection was intended to range over a wide variety of subject areas, to reflect the true nature of the print record of the period. in general, first editions of a works in english were prioritized, although there are a number of works in other languages, notably latin and welsh, included and sometimes a second or later edition of a work was chosen if there was a compelling reason to do so. image sets were sent to external keying companies for transcription and basic encoding. quality assurance was then carried out by editorial teams in oxford and michigan. 5% (or 5 pages, whichever is the greater) of each text was proofread for accuracy and those which did not meet qa standards were returned to the keyers to be redone. after proofreading, the encoding was enhanced and/or corrected and characters marked as illegible were corrected where possible up to a limit of 100 instances per text. any remaining illegibles were encoded as <gap>s. understanding these processes should make clear that, while the overall quality of tcp data is very good, some errors will remain and some readable characters will be marked as illegible. users should bear in mind that in all likelihood such instances will never have been looked at by a tcp editor. the texts were encoded and linked to page images in accordance with level 4 of the tei in libraries guidelines. copies of the texts have been issued variously as sgml (tcp schema; ascii text with mnemonic sdata character entities); displayable xml (tcp schema; characters represented either as utf-8 unicode or text strings within braces); or lossless xml (tei p5, characters represented either as utf-8 unicode or tei g elements). keying and markup guidelines are available at the text creation partnership web site . eng sermons, english -17th century. transubstantiation -early works to 1800. 2007-11 tcp assigned for keying and markup 2008-01 spi global keyed and coded from proquest page images 2008-02 elspeth healey sampled and proofread 2008-02 elspeth healey text and markup reviewed and edited 2008-09 pfs batch review (qc) and xml conversion corpvs christi : by edmvnd gvrnay printed by cantrell legge , printer to the vniuersitie of cambridge . 1619. ¶ to the very worshipfull , richard stubbe , esquire . * ⁎ * sir : i request you to bee god-father vnto this infant , as you haue beene sometime vnto my selfe . it is thought an abruptnesse to imprint anything without a dedication , which makes me thus bold with your name . i hope you will take it at my hands no otherwise then as a token of my thankefulnesse for your manifold and fatherly affection . in which respect i principally commend it vnto you : as also vnto your two daughters , my cosen yeluerton , and the ladie strange : i must also commend the perusall of it vnto mr. robert rudde of st. florence in southwales , and mr. henrie godly of onehouse in suffolke , my very good and learned tutors , togetherwith my singular friend mr. doctor porter of cambridge . finally , the vse and benefit of it i commmend , as vnto my christian friends the parishioners of edgfield , so also vnto as many as loue the single , gentle , and powerfull truth , especially in the text following . matth . 26.26 . this is my body . that this then is the body of our sauiour , it is without all question : yea , not onely his body , but euen himselfe ( a part beeing put for the whole ) it may be affirmed : but whether it bee his body indeed , and substance ; or onely by way of sacrament ; that is the terrible and vnappeaseable question at this day . the strife betwixt the archangell and the deuill about the body of moses , might well prefigure this strife , but exceed , it could not . and no maruell if ●he strife be so great , considering in the end that one of the two must be conuinced , both of highest impiety against god , and also of extreame folly amongst men . for whether to deny diuine honour vnto the creator , or to impart diuine honour vnto a creature , both are most impious : so againe , to affirme that to be corruptible bread , which indeed is very god ; or that to be very god , which indeed is corruptible bread ; both are extreamly foolish . you see then , reader , ●ow neerly it concernes you to be throughly aduised what part you take in so momental a cause : for if you chuse neither , then are you cōdemnable of irreligion : and if you cleane to the false , then are you culpable of impiety or idolatry , if not blaspheming . for the better directing therefore and stablishing your choice in so concerning a cause ; and whereby you may happily find a thred of expedition vnto the truth herein , wee commend vnto you the perusall of this treatise . wherein if you shall but so long indure vs vntill we haue , first laid downe the equity , conueniencie , and necessitie of the one exposition ; and then the vanitie , impiety , and deformity of the other ; we make no question , but you will more liuely imbrace the truth , and more mortally abhorre the falshood in this point , then euer you did . we then which expound this , to be his body , onely by way of sacrament , and as water in baptisme is his blood ; doe take the intent of our sauiour in this businesse to be for the ordayning and fastning a second seale vnto his new testament : that whereas now he had vndergone the condition of mans nature , and was about to finish the price of our redemption ; hee thought good not onely to haue it recorded in scriptures , and published all the world ouer what he had done for vs ( though that might haue beene thought sufficient for beleeuers , ) but also to ordaine certain visible tokens and formes of remembring his such performance : that so as his word did inwardly , these seales might outwardly , seuerally in baptisme , and ioyntly in this communion , expresse and impart vnto men the benefit of his incarnation and suffring ; and we thereby to haue both his hand and seales to our redemption . which seales also that they might the more inseparably be made one with his testament , and withall at the first blush more liuely represent the substance thereof ; he thought good to stampe and imprint them with his owne image and superscription : and therefore here in the text calleth the bread expressely his bodie , as an other scripture likewise calleth the other seale , his blood : ( the spirit , water , and blood are one : ) and all this finally the rather , that wheras the old testament had beside the same word inwardly containing it , also a couple of outward seales to giue a sensibility vnto it ; and they also both seuerally , as in the circumcision , and ioyntly as in the feast of passeouer , in like manner exhibiting the vse and benefit of it ; and finally beeing likewise cloathed and stamped with the names of the things signified ( circumcision beeing called the couenant , whereof it was but a seale , and the feast the passeouer , whereof it was but a celebration ) it might hereby come to passe , that the new testament should most perfitly resemble as well as accomplish the old ; and the olde as it did prefigure and fore-runne , so also might it imbrace , acknowledge , and giue place to the newe . now as touching our sauiours forme of speech , in calling that his bodie , which we expound to bee but a sacrament thereof ; wee further adde , that such : concisenesse of speech , is ordinary with the scipture , with our sauiour , and his apostles , and finally with all sorts of men . as for the scripture ; that euery where vseth such significant figures , and especially when it poynteth vnto our sauiour : as , when it calls him , a rocke , a stone , a lyon , a lambe , a starre , a dore , a vine , the way , the truth , the life , the resurrection , our head , our roote , our garment , our dwelling , our shepheard , our peace , &c. but aboue all , our sauiour himselfe so abounding in this kind , as that he ●orbare not in his publike morals ( when he meant to be most plaine , ) to bid men out off the offending hand , and plucke out the offending eye ; as if he expected euen from the vulgar to be otherwise vnderstood then the letter did import : and as for those of the wiser sort , he often grew angry with them for taking him at the letter ; as with nicodemus for so plaine vnderstanding his tearme of beeing borne againe ; with the disciples for their no better vnderstanding the leauen of the pharises ; and with the capernites for their like carnall vnderstanding the eating of his flesh . the apostles also , as they followed him in the steps of his life , so so did they vsually follow him in the same character of speech : in so much as paul was not nice to say plainely , the rocke was christ : as also he saith to all beleeuers , now are yee the bodie of christ , and members in particular : yea , we are the members of his body , of his flesh , and of his bones . and s. iohn forbeares not to say , that the spirit , water , and blood , these three are one : and that we are washed in his blood : both which sayings do giue as great and greater dignity vnto baptisme , if the letter should be pressed , then the calling bread his bodie , can giue to this other sacrament . and yet should not he be thought ( at least ) distempred in his wittes , that would hereupon inferre a substantiall change of that water ? though with farre lesse dishonour vnto god might such a consequence be inferred , and with farre better colour : for as much as baptisme ( if comparisons may be made in holy things ) is the sacrament of our first quickning , as this is of our nourishing ; and more noble it is of the two to make aliue , then to preserue life : baptisme againe beeing but once administred , but this often ; baptisme beeing expressely charged vpon the apostles to be administred vnto all nations , beeing also made a * ioynt-condition with faith vnto saluation , whereas this other in neither case is mentioned : and finally our sauiour himselfe openly partaking baptisme , and gracing it with miraculous opening the heauens ; whereas this , if he did at all partake it , was in priuate , and without any granted miracle . yea last of all , the fathers honouring baptisme with as high tearmes as might be ; one saying of it , the water hath the grace of christ , in it is the presence of the trinity . and an other thus ; in the sacrament of baptisme we are made bone of his bone , and flesh of his flesh . and austine thus : without doubt euery beleeuer is made a partaker of the bodie and blood of christ , when in baptisme hee is made a member of christ ▪ yea , though before the eating thereof hee depart the world . and leo , calling it the wonderfull sacrament of regeneration , saith in an other place of it ; christ gaue that to the water , which he gaue to his mother . in which sense also paulinus : the heauenly water ( saith he in his poeme ) marrieth with elementall water ; and so ( concipit vndi deum ) the water conceiueth god our sauiour . so likewise the rocke which is called ; not the body of christ , but expressely christ ; may it not farre aduance it selfe aboue this bread , if the letter be stood vpon ? especially for that the rock most miraculously , and sauiour like , did gush forth water to the refreshing a huge multitude in the wildernesse ; whereas this bread which our sauiour speakes of , made not the least shew of difference from common bread : the rocke also being but one and the same in particular , whereof it was first spoken , the rocke was christ ; whereas the bread which at this day is administred , is not that bread in particular , whereof our sauiour said , it was his bodie ; nor can attaine to that name and honour , but by the helpe of inference and figures , and that no lesse then thirty to make their exposition good , ( as dainty as they are of figures ) as a late father of our church hath obserued . againe , if the letter must be of such force ( though the letter is made to serue not to master our meanings ) why may not euery beleeuer account himselfe a member of christ indeed , and substantially according to those alleadged sayings of paul ? especially considering how the beleeuers are in scripture vsually said to be changed , conuerted , renewed , new created , &c. but neuer was it so said of this bread ? or why shall not euery beleeuer expect as well a litterall performance of that promise of christ , when he saith , behold , i stand at the doore and knocke , and willsup with him that openeth ? it beeing of the two , more conceiueable ( how thinke you ) that he should personally become our companion at supper , then the supper it selfe . to conclude ; as christs apostles , and the scriptures , so finally all sorts of men , both holy and common , doe ordinarily vse words , both beyond and beside the litterall sense : partly of necessity , when either they be driuen to borrow a word , or the hearer cannot so well vnderstand a proper word ; and partly againe for breuity sake ( when there is no likelihood to be mistaken , ) as when we call ●hat our hand , which is but our hand-writing ; that the lyon , which is but the signe or picture of the lyon ; that our will , or our deed , which is but a notifica●ion thereof ; or as ioseph said , the seauen eares are seauen yeares , when ●e meant they did signifie seauen ●eares ; and daniel saying likewise , the tree which thou sawest it is by selfe , o king ; meaning it was ●tended to decypher the kings partly also hyperbollically , when we affirme more then can be , to bring men beleeue as much as may be ; which forme of speech the scripture also does not abhorre : and partly finally to make our speech therby the more pearcing , significant , and emphaticall ; as when we say , the fields laugh , the sea roare , &c. or when we call that our heart , our ioy , our glory , or our strength , which wee glory , delight , or put confidence in . so as if our sauiour in the text did either necessarily , ( in regard of our weakenes ) or briefly , or significantly , or ( as departers vse to speake ) pathetically , or ( as founders take leaue to speake ) peculiarly , call that his body , which he meant for a pledge ; or earnest seale , signe , token , commemoration , celebration , exhibition conueyance , deed and sta●e , ses●e , testament ; or to vse one word ●orall , which is generally vsed of ●ll ; a sacrament of his bodie yet ●ould not his phrase be thought ●arsh , intricate , or vnusuall euen 〈◊〉 the eares of ordinary men : but ●nto them which haue their ●ares neuer so little touched ●ith the language of canaan , how ●n it seeme otherwise then most ●ire , sincere , and sensible ; yea , as ●itable and proper vnto the ●nse we plead for , as can be de●sed . testimonies out of the fathers prooue this sacramentall ex●sition , we might alleadge store ● as tertullian , saying thus : — cal●g the bread his bodie , to the ende ● may vnderstand that hee hath gi● bread to be a figure of his bodie . ●mens thus : the wine signifieth the ●od allegorically . origen thus : if ● take this saying [ except yee eate the flesh of the sonne of man , &c. ] according to the letter , the letter killeth ambrose thus : in the lawe was shadow , in the gospell an image , i● heauen the truth . chrysostome thus what is it to vnderstand carnally simply as the things are spoken , an● to seeke no further . hierome thus christ left bread and wine , as he th● goes a voyage leaues a gage . austin● thus : by reason of the resemblan● betwixt the sacraments and th● things , the sacraments often take th● names of the things : and elsewher● * thus , this is a perfect way to discerne whether a speach be proper a● figuratiue ; that whatsoeuer in scripture cannot stand with integritie ● manners , or veritie of faith , that r●solue thy selfe is figuratiue : wher● upon hee further inferreth , th● our sauiours phrase of eating h● flesh , was figuratiue , because acc●ding to the letter to 〈◊〉 a sinfull ● calling it also a carnall sense , to take figuratiue speaches properly , and a miserable bondage of the soule . but this kind of proofe , which proceedes vpon testimonies , in this our short intended treatise , wee purpose to be sparing in both because out of the mouth of two or three , as well as ten thousand witnesses , a truth may be established ; as also for that late writers of principall reading & learning , haue alreadie published , and still doe , intire tractates , containing the full consent of antiquitie in this point : the corruption also of editions , imperfection of translations , and vnworthinesse of authors , may make vs the lesse to set by this testimoniall proofe in matter of faith ; which finally when it was at the best , was neuer esteemed otherwise then a forraine proofe , and such at the scripture both olde and newe does rather repell vs from , then inuite vs vnto , when it saith ; say not , who shall goe vp to heauen , or beyond the seas to bring his word vnto vs. for it is very nigh● , ●en 〈◊〉 mouth , and in thy heart : which holy direction wee of these latter times may take more especially vnto our selues , for that we liue neere or neerest vnto those dayes whereof the lord thus speaketh ; behold , the da●es come when i will put my law in their inward parts — and they shall no more euery man teach his neighbour : for they shall all knowe me . they therefore which find not light enough neere hand ; and a● it were within doores ; let them , if they so thinke good , goe seeke abroad for it : but else when light so abounds in the house ( and what house is void of necessary light when the sunneshines ) then to goe into the yard for it , is but a gadding disposition , and which loues rather to gaze about then to take paines , rather slouthfull to behold the light then to make right vse of it : the best light also for man to worke by either in things heauenly or terrene , beeing the temperate and shadowed light ; that which is so open and glaring beeing a dazler and confounder , and which who so vseth himselfe vnto , may happe in the ende to be depriued of the light he hath , and be driuen to seeke out of himselfe to bee resolued in most palpable things . a notable example whereof our aduersaries haue made them●elues in the present cause . for whilest they would not be con●ent with that light which the window of our sauiours words lets in [ doe this in remembrance of me , ] but must needs be rouing and ranging abroad , passing and compassing seas and lands , tossing and ransaking all manner of writings whereby to find in this his bodie , an other manner of matter then a remembrance ; it is now at length befallen them , partly beeing confounded in their imaginations , and partly beeing peruerted in their iudgements ( thorough a skorne to bee content wit a home-growing truth after so great trauells ) that now they cannot perceiue a difference betwixt his remembrance , and his very reall presence ; betwixt the signe , and the thing ; the shell , and the kernell ; the shadow , and the substance : whereby finally by the iust iudgement of god , who suffreth men to beleeue lies which will not obey the truth , they haue not onely lost the substance by catching at the shadowe , with the dogge in the fable ; not onely smothered and ouerwhelmed the sacrament , by houering and doting vpon the outward element , as children with hugging and dandling choake their birds ; but also by conferring vpon it the same incompetible respects which their forefathers did vpon the brazen serpent , they haue in the end peruerted it vnto the like abhomination : and in stead of a faithfull remembrancer of gods infinite loue vnto man , erected vnto themselues a most execrable fore-staller of their hearts and deuotions vnto god , and so set vp the most pernicious idoll that euer was . which , christian reader , that you may more plainly acknowledge , do but a while draw neere , and as it were from the toppe of a peere with me , behold what a taile of most fowle , stupendious , and impious , or rather blasphemous consequents it drawes after it : that so you may , as ex vngue leonem , so also ex cauda draconem cognoscere , and accordingly abominari . for vpon their expounding this , in the text , to become his bodie and person indeed ; both body , soule , and diuinity , ( as the councell of trent decreeth ) really , verily , and substantially ( for els they agree with vs ; ) iudge whether these conclusions following doe not spawne and issue ; as , first , that the mediator beeing for euer returned vnto the state of glorification ; does notwithstanding ordinarily take vpon him a forme , farre inferiour vnto the forme of his humiliation ; as farre as the forme of a loafe or cake of bread , is inferiour vnto the forme of a perfect man. that when he meanes to be adored , and bodily bowed down vnto ; then especially he takes vpon him this breaden forme . that when he meanes to be adored in a breaden forme , he does not create , effigiat , or contract the same , as the holy ghost did the forme of a doue ( to point out vnto iohn baptist who was the christ : ) but wil take the forme of that bread which a little before the baker had made , and which , for ought can be perceiued , still is the same . that he which will be exalted among the heathen , and will be exalted vpon the earth : ( psal . 46.10 . ) yet will in the heathens eyes become more meane then the meanest worme , and at least seeme to them no better then a peice of bread . that he which derideth the idols of the heathen , for that they can neieher speake , nor stirre , nor saue themselues out of captiuity , ( isa . 42.2 . ) does notwithstanding present himselfe in such a forme to be worshipped , which euery liuing thing can make a prey of . that the breaden forme wherein he wil be adored , does there enter , where ( himselfe hath said it , matt. 15.17 . ) whatsoeuer entreth is cast forth into the draught . that he vnto whome it was an infinite abasement , but once to passe through the purest wombe ; does notwithstanding in his highest glory , make his ordinary passage through impure mouthes . that he is incomparably more present in the mouthes of men , then in the hearts of men : as much as the sunne is more present in his sphere , then in the eye of the beholder . that as oft as this body is rightly administred , so oft there doe concurre many miracles ; as amongst others these following : 1. an vtter extinquishing and nullifying , or new informing the substance of the elements : 2. a retaining the accidents after such substance be departed , or new informed : 3. an inuesting those acccidents or breaden substances , with the perfect bodie of man : 4. the so qualifying that body , both for shape , quantitie , and properties , as that it cannot bee outwardly discerned from a morsell of bread : 5. that body to be subdued vnto the iawes and digestions of the receiuer , without hauing a bone broken : 6. that the humane bodie which thus is eaten , is alwayes in the heauens notwithstanding : 7. that there beeing but one bodie for all the world , yet shall euery true beleeuer , wholly eat that particular bodie substantially : 8. that the appearance of all these miracles , is with-holden from sense & reason : 9. that as many seuerall administrations , so many seuerall performances there are of all these miracles : 10. finally , that the apostles , and their successors for euer , were indued with this diuinitie of power , to cause all these foresaid miracles as oft as they shall thinke good , vnto the end of the world . that he which hath so done his maruelous acts , as that they ought to bee had in remembrance , ( psal . 111. ) hee which will haue his works considered to the verie sparkes : ( eccl. 42. ) and he whose works doe not hinder one another : ( eccl. 16.26 . ) is not with standing the author of all those inglorious , obscure , and selfe-confounding miracles . that all these so strange , intricate , and ( to forbeare the qualitie of them ) so stupendious , operatious , and conditions , the mediatour does ordinarily vndergoe and performe , for no necessity of man , but this ; namely , to assure men of his incarnation , and suffering for them . that the meanes of faith are more hard to brooke , then the faith it selfe : as much as it is more hard to beleeue , that the sonne of god does vsually take vpon him the forme of a peice of bread for me , then to beleeue , that once he took the forme of a reasonable man for me . that miracles are ordinarily afforded to confirme that faith , which had nothing but heating to beget it . that greater miracles are ordinarily afforded to confirme faith , then euer were afforded vnto the first conuersion of any whomsoeuer vnto the faith . that whereas such as will not beleeue moses & the prophets , ( luk. 16.31 . ) will neither beleeue the greatest miracle : yet not withstanding must they which haue moses , and the prophets , and the gospel continually published amongst them , notwithstanding expect a continual course of the greatest miracles , toward onely the confirming their beleefe . that he which will not saue them that goe to sea , but by means , because he will not haue the workes of his wisedome to be idle : ( wis . 14.5 . ) will notwithstanding vse incredible miracles towards the producing that effect ( the strengthning of faith , ) which both , doth loose the grace the more it is supported by miracles , and also hath a speciall meanes ordained of god , for the breeding and furthering of it , namely , publike preaching : and finally , the al-sufficient and most necessarie operation of the holy ghost , promised and assigned thereunto . that whereas planting and watering are one , ( 1. cor. 3.8 . ) begetting and preseruing ( as generation and nutrition ) proceeding of the same causes : yet are such kind of miracles to bee expected , for the confirming and strengthening faith , which are not able in the least measure to beget faith : nothing beeing of force to conuert outwardly an vnbeleeuer vnto the faith , but that which the light of nature ( beyond which his capacitie cannot reach ) can entertaine ; whereunto these supposed miracles are most repugnant . that planting and watering beeing one ; and of the two , planting beeing the more noble : yet must the redeemer in his owne person water , whom by his ministers he daily planteth . that the sunne in the firmament so abundantly inlightning and refreshing all creatures here below , by meanes of ordinarie beames without any corporall descending ; yet must the sonne of righteousnesse , so infinitely surpassing that creature in glorie , brightnesse , state , and vertue , notwithstanding corporally and personally descend ( were it no more ) for the onely inlightening and refreshing his vineyard and plantation . that whereas kings and princes vpon earth haue this prerogatiue , to indow and possesse whome they thinke good with dignities and benefits , by the meanes of a patent , or a seale , without stirring a foote further : yet the king of kings hauing giuen his patents and seales , his couenants and testaments , yea himselfe once , & sacraments ordinarily , with his grace continually , must notwithstanding come himselfe in person , or else his gift must be of no force . that farre harder burthens are laid vpon the weakest vnder the gospel , then . vpon the strongest vnder the law , namely , to beleeue and expect those performances , which are farre lesse expectable at the hands of god , then ( the pitch of the strongest faith ) the remoouing of mountaines . that hee which will not bruise a broken reed , ( esa . 42.2 . ) but will so tenderly handle and foster it , as shall make it growe together againe ; does notwithstanding deale so extreamely with his littlest ones , as vnlesse they can beleeue that to bee their sauiour , which all the world would take to be a morsell of bread , they must looke for no saluation . that whereas the strong beleeuer moses , did doubt whether water would follow vpon his striking the rocke , ( numb . 20.10 . ) though god had expressely promised as much , and was readie to effect it : whereas also that vertuous sarah , and the blessed marie did likewise make question how those miraculous conceptions could betide them , which angels from heauen did sensibly and expresly promise them : yet notwithstanding must it be expected at the hands of the weakest beleeuers , ( when they shall see that which is confessed , and must be acknowledged for ordinarie bread ) that they presently vpon the speaking two or three words , beleeue vpon paine of damnation , that it is out-right become their very god : and that without hauing more motiues so to beleeue , then they haue to beleeue , a rocke , a lyon , a lambe , or &c. ( by which names he is as expressely called , as euer he was by the name of this bread ) to be their god. that he which appeared so glorious , and so wonderfull , when he shewed but a little of himselfe vnto some of his seruants ( moses and elias ) and that but seuerally ; yet when he meanes to make his personall approach vnto his spouse , the church , he then on the contrary puts off all his glorious apparell ; and without so much as a messenger going before him , without any noise , either of a wind , as at the descending of the holy ghost , or of a voice , loud , or soft , to giue notice of his comming , hee alwaies exhibites himselfe vnto her , thus contrarie to himselfe , in the common , senslesse , and silly forme of belly-bread , made a little before of the baker , and ( a strong motiue vnto the church , no doubt , to put all her confidence in him ) which euery worme can ouer-master . that he which in scripture ordinarily conuinceth men of idolatrie , onely vpon this , because they worship that , which their common sense can tell them is a sensles creature : does not with standing ordinarily present himselfe to bee worshipped in that forme which common sense does generally tell vs is a senslesse creature . that the euidence which our sauiour produceth to prooue himselfe to be risen from the dead , ( handle me , and see me , &c. luk. 24. ) is not sufficient to prooue , whether that which men handle , see , and tast , bee a peice of bread . that the only powers wherby mankind is able to discerne a man from a beast , whereby to auoid killing ; a wife from a stranger , whereby to auoid fornication ; our owne from an others , whereby to auoid stealing ; the hungry from the full , wherby to practise charity , &c. are notwithstanding generally , either so weake , or so false , as that certainely they cannot discerne a morsell of bread from the body of a man , a common creature from the creator . finally , ( to ransacke this denne of darkenes no further ) that wheras the lord thought it so great an indulgence vnto his most faithfull seruant iosuah , when he caused the sunne for a season to stand still at his prayer , as that he decreed neuer so againe to heare the voice of a man , ( iosuah , 10.14 . ) yet notwithstanding since that decree , he hath bound himselfe that at the voice , not of one man , but multitudes of men continually succeeding , should bee caused , not a creature but the creator , not to stay awhile in the heauens as that planet did , or as himselfe did when he was beheld of steuen at his martyrdome , but to leaue his throane , ( his glory at least ) and then to descend in such manner and forme , as ( did not the necessity of our confutation driue vs vnto it ) were not once to be named . these consequents , reader , how truly they follow vpon the exposition in question , for breuity sake we leaue to your selfe : onely this you know , that if but one of them all did truly follow ( beeing false ) it is enough to cōuince the principle it selfe to be according . but if they all , or most of them , doe both truely follow , and also are most false , vile , monstrous , and abominable ; then if you can discerne a lyon by his nayle , iudge this opinion to be a monster by his tayle of abominations trayling after it : yea say if it be not of the very breed of that red dragon , which with his taile drew the third part of the stars , & cast them to the earth : for surely had it strength to his length , what would it else but reach vp to the heauens , and wrestle with the starres , yea fasten vpon the throne of the highest ? or say if that beast could haue more names of blasphemy vpon his head then this hath ? for if it be * blasphemy to attribute any thing vnto god , which is not conuenient ; then what shall it be to attribute that vnto him which is as despightfull and reproachfull as can be imagined ? for what meant moses when he tooke that golden calfe , and beating it to powder , made the idolaters drinke of it ? what was his meaning ? was it to doe a honour vnto the idoll , or to ingraine the people in idolatry ? was it not in his vtmost hate and detestation of the idoll , and to shewe the people how that which they had made their god , was not able to saue it selfe out of the filthy gutter ? could there then be imagined a more abominable reproach against the highest , then once to imagine the like manner of receiuing him ? or does their adoring him , as they pretend , before they thus receiue him , helpe the matter ? so did the souldiers first crie , haile king , before they spit on him ; so did iudas first kisse him , before he betraied him ; and so their first ( like ) adoring him , and ( then with their good wills ) eating and swallowing him vp ; what ● it else but so much the more ●lasphemous mocking him , ●hen it is accompanied with ●ch abhominable entertainement ? yea , what more abominable vsage can be imagined ? ●ore dishonourable to the per●n of god ; more crosse to his ●isedome , prouidence , iustice , ●nd gouernement ; more re●ugnant vnto his goodnesse , ●entlenesse , tendernesse and ●ercie ; more obscuring , con●unding , defacing , and begoa●ng his most diuine , most ho● , most pure , and most glorious attributes , and properties ? ●magine who can ? imagine , o ●ucifer , if thou canst ? and if ●ou canst not imagine more ●bellious , more treacherous , ●ore impious , more hellish ●pposes against the state and person of thy creator ; the● ( since thy malice is incurable● and yet an excellent caldron to boyle thine owne torment ) ca● out vnto thy imps and furies t●●plie their fire-workes : for th● maine engine wherewith o● late thou hast inclosed suc● multitudes of idolaters vnt● thy kingdome begins to crac● call therefore vpon thy hang men to deuise new tortours , vp● on thy pen-men to forge new ● authors , to bowell , mangl● poison fathers , and perue● scriptures : let them face dow● all the world that all are blin● and must be blind in this myst●ry ( of darknesse thou meanest ; yea let them turne themselue● into angells of light , and become zealous pleaders of god cause : let them tell vs ( among other stuffe ) that his body i● of a peculiar nature ; for that it could walke vpon the water , could vanish out of sight , and is a glorified body : as if also the body of peter did not ( by the like miraculous suspension ) walke vpon the water ? as likewise philip vanished out of sight ; or as if glorification did take away the bodily nature ; or that he spake not of his body before it was glorified ? but principally and with most fell violence let them crie , out vpon all arguing and reasoning in this busines . and withall let them alleadge , how , god sees not as man sees , nor is affectable as man is ; that he often thinkes that precious , which man thinkes vile ; he could passe through the wombe of a woman without defilement , &c. but aboue all , let them neuer forget to tell vs of gods omnipotence , and that we infinitely robbe the same , by denying these their monstrous supposes , as if there were any thing impossible with him ? and thereupon finally let them glory in the strength of their owne faith , for that , it is so strong ( numbd , seared , and senselesse indeed ) as that with ease they can beleeue , that which their aduersaries are afraid once to imagine . and then last of all , let them close vp all with this pleasing conceit , that surely their opinion is inuincible : for why ? because ( no doubt ) it is builded vpon a rocke ; yea the most high and mighty rocke , the omnipotence of god. but , a lasse , poore , miserable , abominable fooles ! for if he be a foole that builds ( though neuer so good stuffe ) vpon a sandy foundation ; then how abominably foolish is he , that builds most rotten and most vile stuffe , vpon the most precious foundation ? as if cob-webs were any whit the stronger for beeing built in pallaces ? shall they not so much the sooner be swept away ? so this their like planting such spider-like , abominable stuffe thus at the right hand of god , so farre shall it bee from getting strength thereby , as that from thence it shall receiue most terrible confusion . the power of god , who denies it , yea wee glory in it that it is omnipotent : all things are possible vnto him ; we know it : scripture teacheth it : namely , so far forth as they carrie an honour in the performance . for else , why saies an other scripture , it is impossible that god should lie ? but to shew vs , that no kind of dishonourable actions ( whereof lying is one ) may bee ascribed vnto him : all power also to disgrace , diminish , or destroy ( finally ) either it selfe or other , beeing impotence and vnstaiednesse . before therefore they had presumed to affirme that god can doe so , or so ; they should first with feare and reuerence , haue considered whether it might stand with his glorie , so , or so , to worke . for that his power does neuer worke outwardly to the creature-ward , but as it is first beckned vnto , and cited by his glory : that beeing the ground and square of all power and possibility whatsoeuer : euen the power of sinne beeing grounded hereupon , because the glory of god is aduanced by subduing sinne : all sayings , finally , interpretations , and expositions whatsoeuer , beeing no further allowable , but so farre forth as they make for , or at least may stand with , this diuine glory . the church therefore interpreting those tearmes of face , eyes , hands , armes , wings , foote , &c. to be attributed vnto god improperly , and by way of his gracious condiscending vnto , and sympathizing with mans nature ; because beeing litterally taken , they are derogatory vnto his eternall glory , whereunto simplicity and vniformitie is of absolute necessity . are then thy supposes dishonourable vnto god ? so far then is the omnipotence from effecting them , or yeelding vnto them the least possibility of proceeding from him , as that infinitely it barres , repells and abhorres them . true indeed , time was , and wee blesse the time , when he tooke contempt vpon him ; ( so loued he the world , mans misery otherwise beeing endlesse ; ) but what of that ? is therefore honour and dishonour vnto him all one ? he passed through the wombe of a woman without defilement ; true : but was it without abasement ? where then is the merit thereof ? or he that humbleth himselfe , in that he does behold the things done in heauen and earth ; did he not infinitely more humble himselfe in descending into the heart of the earth ? or because also he was scourged and crucified without any defilement , shall that also be counted all one vnto him , that so thou mayest crucifie him , yea drinke his heart blood againe and againe ? we grant also that as he is pure god , he is not onely vnpollutable , but also vnaffectable with mans actions . but shall man therefore be carelesse of his actions ? the blasphemies of wicked men do no way hurt , or come nigh him ; shall it therefore be lawfull to blaspheame ? if thou sinnest ( saith iob ) what doest thou against him : or if thou be righteous , what giuest thou vnto him ? wilt thou therefore be indifferent whether thou sinnest or not , whether thou does well or not ? hee sees not as man sees ; well : his eternall and incomprehensible nature indeed , sees all things in a moment , and without obseruing time , place , or circumstance : but as he hath set himselfe in reference and aspect vnto his creature , especially that creature whose nature he hath assumed , he now hath determined to see , though not peruersly as wicked men , nor shallowly as all men , yet by those courses and formes of conceiuing , which he hath ingrained his creature withall : and therefore now forbeares not to say , i will goe downe , and see whether they haue done according to their crie , and if not , i will knowe : yea , now he will be affected with his creature , will be angred and pleased with it , will accept honour and euen outward respects from it : the holy baptist therfore professing himselfe not worthy to vntie the latchet of his shooes ; and the good centurion esteeming him too great to enter the roofe of his house : yea now he calls for the bending of euery knee , and the falling downe before his footestoole , with all possible praise , honour , and glorie . remember therefore , o presumptuous man , ( wormes meate , dust , and ashes , ) remember , that his reuealed law , not his incomprehensible nature , must bee thy square and gouernour . his law bids thee euery where ascribe vnto him all glorie , praise , power , and dominion ; giue him therefore that he cals for : and seeing he calls for honour , see thou offerest nothing vnto him , but that which , at least , thou thinkest to be most excellent , and most honourable : and whatsoeuer thou wouldest esteeme vile , inglorious , or contumelious , if it were offered vnto thy selfe , so farre must thou be from offring that vnto him , or supposing it by him , as thou wouldest be from blaspheming . thou reachest foorth thy hand in loue or fauour vnto some man ; he biteth it , or puts it in his mouth ; does hee honour thee in so doing ? or if thou takest such vsage for a fowle indignitie , wilt thou offer the like vnto him , vnto whome thou owest all honour , feare , dread , and reuerence vnto ? or belike when hee so calls for honour , glorie , maiestie , &c. hee meanes some other matter , or retaines some speciall notion vnder those words , which man neuer meant ? as if god speakes vnto vs in any other language but our owne ? or when he forbids murther , adulterie , stealing , &c. he meanes any thing else by such words , but as man ( the maker of words , as god is the maker of all things ) intended them to signifie ? then know , o peruerse man , that when he generally calls for honour , glorie , maiestie , wisedome , iustice , &c. to be ascribed vnto him , hee meanes nothing else but those respects and offices ( saue onely in the highest degree ) which man that made those words did first meane to vnderstand by such words ; vnlesse thou meanest to make his word of no effect , yea a very snare and intanglement vnto vs , and to speake by contraries , and so to blaspheme it as thou doest his omnipotence . but finally , were it so that these supposes did not indeed dishonour god , and so consequently might be allowed amongst things not impossible ; must they therefore of necessitie be beleeued ? because dooms day may be to morrowe , must it needs therefore so befal ? god can raise children out of stones , and humane bodies out of morsells of bread ; must it therefore so be expected ? does possibility impose necessitie ? to what purpose then is there so great labour to prooue a possibilitie of these things , which both they are infinitely shut from , and also were it graunted them , they are neuer the nearer . as little does it helpe them , but more and more condemne them , when they challenge all argument , and renounce all kind of euidence which either sense or reason offreth in this cause . for are not sense & reason the very ordinance of god , imprinted in mans nature when it was most perfect ? yea , in the estate we now are in , are they not the onely meanes whereby wee are both capable of his will , stand liable vnto his lawes , and tractable to his purposes ? does not euery word of god presuppose at least a reasonable vnderstanding , being otherwise as commendable vnto the beast ? yea , when the lord meanes most palpably to conuince men , does he not referre them to their senses ? are not not all his expostulations & messages whatsoeuer , directed vnto the conscience , whose ground is sense and science ? does he not send the vnbeleeuer to his touch , to feele the truth of his resurrection ? the ruffian to the light of nature , to see the deformitie of long haire ? and the hypocrite to the common opinion , to see the madnesse of speaking in an vnknowne tongue ? yea , does he not euerie where conuince men of the greatest sinne , euen of idolatrie , onely by this ; because they worship that which their common sense could tell them was a senslesse creature ? whereas if the power of common sense bee so blind , or so weake , or so false , as that it cannot certainely say , whether the thing it sees , handle , and tasteth bee a morsell of bread or not ; how shall it be able to say , whether that which it worshippeth be a stone or not , yea and that so infallibly , as that the worshipper thereof shall bee condemned , by the sentence of the most vpright iudge , to be an idolater thereupon ? for may not the idolater iustly plead , that howsoeuer his common sense told him it was a stocke , or a stone , yet might it indeede bee very god , as well as that which common sense affirmeth to be a morsell of bread , is notwithstanding very god ? and if it be replyed vpon him , that he might haue found scripture to warrant the person of god in the appearance of bread ; may he not readily answer againe , that there is as much scripture to warrant the person of god in the appearance of a stone , for that the same scripture calleth as expresly the same god by the name of a stone , and a rocke , whereof for ought hee knowes , his god may bee a peice ? and thus by the disabling the iudgement of common sense , shall the idolater be furnished with a faire excuse ; and may in the ende be iustified for taking a tree , and making a fire to warme himselfe with one part , does make a god of the other : as wel as they which of the same dough fill their bellies with one part , and then fall downe in adoration before the other . so as this renouncing of common sense , what is it but to cut in sunder the strings of gods prouidence ( wherewith hee leads men in and out before him , like a flocke of sheep , ) and flatly to peruert the rule , and blaspheme the proceedings of his iustice ? true indeed , the scripture often tells vs , that humane wisedome and vnderstanding is vanitie , foolishnes , yea , enmity with god ; partly because the wisedome of most men is foolishnesse indeed , and partly because in comparison with gods wisedome , the best is but foolishnesse : but principally , because vnder the dominion of vnbeleefe , malice , and concupiscence , it is abused , peruerted , and made enmity with god , as a weapon in the hand of a rebell becomes enmity against his prince : but shall we therefore from these-like respectiue , comparatiue , and abusiue speeches , proceed absolutely to frustrate and disanull the faculties themselues ? because the corruption of nature must be wrought out , must therefore nature it selfe be destroyed ? or because the light of nature must be subiect vnto the faith ( and so is a prince to his physitian , or pilot , in their elements ) shall therefore the faith cleane put out the light of nature ? does ruling ouer subiects consist in destroying subiects ? cannot my beast be subiect vnto me , vnlesse it falls downe vnder me ? or because the eye cannot heare , shall therefore the eare put out the eye ? so because sense and reason cannot lay hold of future things , shall therefore the faith deny their iudgement in present things ? yea take away these reasonable powers , and what shall become of the faith ? can it be ingrafted into the beast ? for as the naturall man is the wild oliue , vntill he shoots into the true vine ; so is the faith without effect , and must rerurne to him that gaue it , vnlesse it finds a reasonable ( though a wild ) stocke to receiue it , and finde materialls vnto it , or againe , how shall an infidell be conuerted ( though in the act of conuersion these naturall faculties most of all must be restrained ) if sense and reason be thus wholly laid aside ? for the onely meanes which grace vseth vnto mans conuersion , being preaching and miracles : take away sense , and what shall become of preaching ? how shall we heare , or how shall we read ? so againe take away reason , and what shall become of miracles ? how shal they mooue admiration and astonishment , or get acknowledgement ? in so much as it might bee a short decision of this whole cause , to retort their argument , and say ; common sense does acknowledge no substantiall change in this bread , nor any manner of miracle whatsoeuer ; therefore no such matter in this businesse may bee supposed . for all the miracles that euer we read of , not onely were acknowledged by these naturall faculties , but also were immediately directed vnto them , whereby to be conuaied vnto the heart of the natural man , toward his conuiction or conuersion . for the first intent of all miracles beeing to conuince vnbeleefe ; either in whole , as in the vnbeleeuer , or in part , as in the weake beleeuer : as for the vnbeleeuer ; nothing can possibly come at him but that which this naturall light ( beyond which he hath no capacity ) can entertaine : and as for the weake beleeuer ; considering that weakenesse of faith is ( in degree ) a want of faith , neither againe can he be outwardly wrought vpon toward the remoouing that his weakenes , but by those manner of meanes which can in some measure worke vpon vnbeleefe it selfe . so as those manner of miracles which this outward light of nature cannot acknowledge , must needs be as vaine ( and therefore not of gods working , ) as to point out the way to a traueller , and then to put out his eyes : the proper intent of all miracles beeing this ; outwardly to point vnto that supernaturall power , which inwardly grace onely does reueale . true indeed if the light of grace does affirme or reueale any thing which this light of nature cānot conceiue , or does contrary , there must it be suspended and renounced : but no such matter is there in the present businesse . for neither does the scripture , nor ( scriptures expositour ) the church ( the onely windowes of the light of grace ) affirme any substantiall change , any miracle , any con-or transubstantiation whatsoeuer to be wrought at this time . for first concerning scripture ; where does that affirme or import any such matters ? that he tooke , brake , blessed , and gaue bread , &c. all the reports of the first institution doe auouch : but that this bread was conuerted , changed , or any way in the nature thereof altred , but as all other bread is by the force of naturall digestion , no scripture makes any the least mention . it saith , this is my body ; true : and who saies otherwise ? but what meant he ? when he called peter a stone did he meane to turne him into a stone , as he did the vnbeleeuer into a pillar of salt ? he called also herode a fox , iudas a deuill , and the pharisies vipers ; himselfe also is vsually called a ●yon , lamb , stone , rocke , &c. ●s we haue noted ; cannot these sayings bee true , vnlesse they prooue so indeed ? if then the words may haue an other mea●ing , and that by the law both of common and diuine formes of ●peech ; must we needs suppose ●ese most incredible , mon●rous and impious operations , ●nely for this ende to help the words to a meaning ? yea had it ●ot beene farre better to haue ●rofessed ignorance of their meaning , then thus to con●ound and offer violence vnto god , and all his courses to●ard the filling vp of dead let●rs with a meaning ? or belike ●annot the intent of our saui●ur in this his ordinance take ●ffect , vnles these miracles , and especially his reall presence a●waies concurre ? so indeed they must say , or else nothing i● left them . but say then ; wha● was the intent of this our sau●ours ordinance ? if it was fo● his remembrance ; we know that the remembrance of a thing is not onely possibl● without the presence of it , bu● also does necessarily imply th● absence of it , and no way po●sibly can bee one and the sam● with it . so farre also is the remembrance of a thing from requiring any substantial change as that the more stable the elements and tokens are , so much the more firme and constan● remembrance shall bee cause● thereby . secondly , if our sauiours intent in this his ordinance was not onely for his remembrance , ( though to say more , what is it but to adde vnto his owne words , ) but also to giue the receiuers a full and reall possession of him and all his benefits : yet also may such a purpose be effected , not onely without any compounding or changing of natures , or this reall presence , but also without these elements or sacraments at al ; namely , by the publication of the gospell , wherein these benefits and all manner of promises , are most immediately tendred vnto the faith of the hearer . in which respect one of the fathers forbeares not to say , i take the gospell to be the body of christ , and that more truely then the sacrament : as also an other ; who so hath abundantly drunke of the apostles springs , hath alreadie receiued whole christ : and a third , the word made flesh , must be deuoured with hearing , chewed with vnderstanding , and digested by beleeuing . thirdly , if our sauiours intent was not onely to refresh his remembrance vnto vs , or to giue vs a full possession of him , but also to giue vs state and sesne of such possession ; yet neither hereunto is either his reall presence , or these miraculous supposes any way requisite : no more then they bee requisite vnto the same intent in the other sacrament of baptisme . fourthly , if the intent of this our sauiours ordinance be , not so much for our spirituall partaking him ( which is the worke of faith alone , ) nor againe onely for our visible partaking him , ( which is the intent of euery sacrament , ) but further that we may mutually and ioyntly so partake him , which is the most proper in●ent thereof ) yet as we be seue●lly made his visible mem●ers , by the sensible partaking ●aptisme , where no such pre●nce nor wonders are suppo●d : so may we be ioyntly and ●utually made his visible bo●e , by the sensible partaking ●is communion , though still ●e elements remaine simple , ●nd the same . fiftly , were it to ●e supposed , that the intent of ●is his ordinance , were to ●ue grace and faith vnto the ●ceiuer ; yet as the brazen ser●ent was neuer more then ( as ●zechias called it ) a peice of ●asse , though all that looked vpon did liue thereby : so might these ●mple elements neuer exceede ●eir naked and simple natures , ●ough as many as did eate ●ereof should get grace thereby . or finally , shall we suppo● the intent of this ordinance ● be ( as some of the aduersari● would haue it , ) for the exerci● and triall of our faith , whereb● to learne to beleeue his omn●potence , in first beleeuing h● bodily presence in so vnlike appearance ? and is this a fit e●ercise for to learne a weak fai● to beleeue , by putting vpon such manner of supposes ? h● that shall complaine of a wea● stomacke , shall he be prescribe to go eate the strongest mea● or he that can hardly stand o● his legges , shall he for his re●uery be aduised to runne race● then indeed may he that complaines of a weake faith , be w●shed vnto the exercises of th● strongest faith ; and hee th● would faine beleeue that th● sonne of god was once made man for him , let him be taught for a preparatiue to beleeue , that hee thus daily takes the forme of a peice of bread for him ; and so not only the means shall prooue incomparably more hard to brooke , then the end , most preposterously , but also that which was intended to comfort , or ( suppose ) to exercise the weake faith , shall ouerwhelme and breake the backe of the strongest faith : though ( who knowes not ) the intent of this sacrament is to refresh and nourish , not to exercise the faith ; and that the way thereunto should be by supplying new strength , and producing more plaine euidence ; not by increasing the burthen , and further perplexing the senses . last of all , what intent or benefit can there be imagined for the behoofe of man , which our sauiour cannot effect vnto vs without his bodily presence ? yea , the least miracle that euer we read of , and whereunto the omnipotence of god did least of all descend , were it but the softest voice , or the reaching forth of a hand , &c. would it not far more mooue and worke vpon the hearts of men , ( were miracles now to be expected , ) then this all-surpassing reall-presence , and most stupendious concurring operations ? wee conclude then , that no possible or imaginable intent of this our sauiours ordinance , does take any the least furtherance by these manner of supposes , but rather is vtterly oppressed and confounded thereby . for whereas the principall intent thereof , is to put vs in minde , that he tooke the forme of a man for vs : what doe these supposes , but teach the flat contrarie , namely , that hee hath left the forme of a man , and hath betaken vnto him the forme of common bread ; yea , not onely the intent of this sacrament , but euen the foundation of the christian faith is distempered ; and ( as much as in man lyes ) ouerturned hereby . for if hee that is a perfect man , seemes to be a morsell of bread ; if hee seemes to be bodily eaten , and seemes to be chewed with the teeth , when indeed hee is neither so eaten , chewed , or any way touched : shall not men hereby learne to imagine , that likewise when he was here vpon earth , he might seeme to be a man , and yet was not ; seemed to bleed , suffer , and die , and yet indeed did not ; and so the life and power of our saluation to come to nothing ? if then neither the words of our sauiour , nor any imaginable meaning of them doe inforce this reall-presence , where is the scripture that must make vs put out our eyes , and renounce all our wits for gain-saying it ? or that scripture which tells vs that wee must eate his flesh , &c. does it of necessitie bind vs to beleeue , that here it is in the forme of bread ? as if the true eating of this flesh indeed , did not consist in our onely beleeuing on him , and that before euer we tast of this sacrament ? or must we suppose , that though no scriptures expresly affirme these things , yet by inference or circumstance they may imply as much ? yea rather the cleane contrary : for had our sauiour intended , that this his ordinance should bee accompanied with these so vncouth and incredible operations , together with such deformitie of his presence , would he not haue giuen most expresse intelligence and warning thereof at the first institution ? would he haue giuen them no expectation of such wonders toward ? no caueat to heare with the right eare , and see with a single eie , as alwaies in matters of more importance then appearance , he vsed to quicken his hearers withall ? yea , had the disciples supposed any such wonders , would they haue bin so silent , without so much as asking , how can these things be ? or they which were so apt to make questions , and difficulties , and to wonder at his ordinary miracles ; yea , to be so astonished at a strange draught of fishes , could they let passe this masse of miracles vnregarded ? or if they so easily swallowed all these things , how was it that by and by after , when our sauiour did but say , yet a little while , and ye shall not see me ; and a little while and ye shall see me , &c. they were so troubled , as that they professed they knewe not what hee said ? could they conceiue immediately before , how hee could be here and there , and euery where , in all the corners of the earth bodily present , and at the same time , and yet now could not vnderstand , how a little while they should see him , and a little while not see him : and that when he told them that he went to the father ? or must wee suppose that the disciples were so fully resolued of our sauiours deity , as that therfore at this supper they made no maruell at any thing which he said or did . but had it been so , they would neuer so haue forsaken him presently after supper , and runne away from him , neither would they so slenderly haue beleeued his resurrection , as to thinke it an idle tale , when it was first reported ; especially beeing a thing farre more credible , and farre more becomming the almighty ( then the most tolerable amongst these supposes , ) and whereof he had often forewarned them , and shewed many experiments of his power therein . but be it so , that the apostles were so past all maruelling at our sauiours workes : yet could they be so vnmindfull of the weake beleefe , which future times are more and more subiect vnto , as in their epistles and gospells to leaue no mention of these wonders , concurring at euery sacrament , and beeing of such necessitie to be beleeued ? which also had they with many repetitions and inculcations put posterity in mind of , yea euen inserted into their creed , yet all would haue been little enough to haue procured vnto it the meanest degree of vnfained beleefe . or againe , how is it that they so often rehearse in the gospells the other miracles , and yet will not vouchsafe any of these once the naming ? was his turning water into wine so memorable , and yet his turning a morsell of bread into the perfect body of a man , or making them both one ( which is worse ) not worth the speaking of ? could his multiplying loaues be more wonderfull , then this multiplying humane bodies ? or was his transfiguration on the mount more meruailous , then this his transformation , or , transubstantiation , if it were not counterfeit ? or was the apostles power ouer scorpions and serpents more worthy to be recorded , then this incomparably exceeding ( supposed ) power ouer the mediatour , to cause him corporally to descend , when they and their successors should thinke good ? to conclude then , as no scripture affirmes or implies , so all circumstances are most contrary to this reall presence , and the rest of those intollerable supposes , which the light of nature is so shent for gain-saying . what then , in the second place , saith the church ? for the church hauing nothing but either from nature , as they are men ; or from scripture , as they are holy men ; it must follow , that where nature and scripture are silent , the church must needes be silent . those fathers also which tooke vpon them to write the meruells of both the testaments , for as much as they made no mention of these which are pretended , may it not be a faire argument , that the church neuer knew them ? would they haue omitted those wonders , which in regard of obscurenesse more needed , in regard of strangenesse more challenged , and in regard of ( supposed ) necessitie more required , notice and faith at the hands of men then any of the rest ? yea , hee which writ them at the full ( as all things else ) least he might be thought of forgetfulnesse to haue left out this biggest miracle , thus saith of the sacraments in an other place , that because they are knowne vnto men , and by men are wrought , they may haue honour as things appointed vnto religion , but wonder as things meruailous they cannot haue . euen thus much alone might it not bee sufficient to conclude the church to be negatiue concerning these supposes ? or must we rather goe search from age to age , the particular determination of the fathers and writers in their times about these matters ? so indeed would the aduersaries haue it : not because they thinke to help their cause thereby , but , partly because they haue no succour left , where-vnder to shelter themselues , but this pretence ; and partly for that by this kind of search , they hope to gaine time , and neuer come to an end . and yet notwithstanding euen in this kind hath the facility of our writers followed them , and discouered vnto the world how the ancient fathers neuer dreamed of these their monstrous supposes . and for a tast thereof , my selfe was purposed , christian reader , to haue noted from the first ( in time ) of note , clemens romanus , and so through ignatius , iustine martyr , ireneus , tertullian , clemens presb . alexandrinus , origen , cyprian , eusebius emissenus , eusebius caesariensis , concilium nicenum , athanasius , cyril , epiphanius , ambrose , greg nissen : chrysostome , greg. nazien . hierome , austine , fulgentius , vigilius concil . con●nt . beda , theodoret ▪ bernard , ●rtram pascha●us , r●banus m. dru h●u lumbard bonauen●ure , ius canonicum , vntill the ●imes of the first protestation , ●he elements in this sacrament were neuer esteemed to depart with their nature , nor were e●er counted more then as ●gnes , seales , tokens , figures , ●acraments , &c. of this his bo●y . but , partly for the reasons ●leadged in the beginning , i ●orbeare that labour ; and partly ●ecause this kinde of proofe , ●ough the authors were ne●er so worthy , must be answe●ed in the end as that woman of ●maria was by her country●en ; now beleeue we not for thy ●ying , for wee haue heard him our selues : there beeing a nearer and more contenting euidence , which the prouidence of god hath ordained , to stablish the heart of man , then the authority of any ( especially farre set ) whatsoeuer . but as touching the testimonies which they alleadge , we thus shortly answer : first , the authors which they vouch , so far forth as that notorious expurgatoriu● index hath had the trimming , or rather the bowelling of them , so farre wee might well returne them , as authors and sayings of their owne framing ▪ secondly , as holy and excellent tearmes and respects as any of them euer gaue to this bread ; they gaue euery way as holy and as great vnto the other sacrament of baptisme . thirdly , were it so that neuer so many made for thē , yea should angels from heauen teach vs to worship god in the shape or shew of bread , or in the likenes of any thing either in heauen or earth , we must abhor them . fourthly , were it so that some ●ate writers amongst their o●her workes haue infolded ● or rather rehearsed ) this ●heir opinion ; yet as holy aaron was ouer-borne by the multi●de , to set vp that golden ●alfe , which the people was so had vpon : so may it be ima●ined that men , well otherwise ●ffected , might in the like dread ●f a more fearce beast , then the multitude , be carried with the ●reame of the times , and yet ●etest it as aaron did , though ●o more excusable then aaron ●as . last of all ; those testimo●es which they truely alleadge out of the auncient fathers , for many hundred yeares together , immediately succeeding the first institution , are vrged and pressed of them beyond and contrary to the intent of the writer : namely , by taking those sayings according to the fulnesse and propriety of the letter , which they by way o● figure only , hyperbollically , o● comparatiuely , vsed to amplifi● and exaggerate the worthine● of this sacrament vnto the receiuer . as one saying of it thus thinke not that thou receiue bread , or wine , when thou come to these mysteries , &c. euen a neighbours will say when the● inuite one another , looke for ● good cheere &c. meaning tha● good cheere is not the inten● of their inuiting : yea some peraduenture not forbearing to sa● flatly , that the bread and the wine are conuerted into his bodie and blood , euen as monie may be said to be conuerted into land , a penny into a penny loafe , &c. an other againe saying ; the same thing which is beleeued with our faith , is receiued with our mouth : euen as the seale and the instrument , or the instrument and our act is all one . and some finally saying , in the bread , is receiued that which did hang vpon the crosse ; meaning , that nothing else is intended in the receiuing that bread , but the benefit of him that so died . these manner of phrases , and patheticall amplifications , the fathers are not scrupulous sometime to bestow vpon this bread : yet so as withall it may easily be discerned , how they neuer had therein any further intent , but partly to weane the conceit of the receiuer from regarding the belly-elements ; and partly by so attributing vnto the signe , the vertue and power of the thing , the spirit of the receiuer might the more kindly glide out of earthly shadowes and resemblances , into heauenly apprehensions and fruitions : so as from such kind of comparatiue , ardent , and hyperbolicall speeches , for any to gather positiue and absolute conclusions , beside the impiety of it , what is it else but extreame rudenesse and violence ? and as well may they conclude , that the anachims had cities fenced vp to heauen ; or that the earth did rend with the sound of musicke ; because so saith the letter of certaine scriptures : or that dauid was no man , because so ●e saith , i am a worme and no ●an : or , that paul was nothing , ●ecause he that planteth , &c. is ●othing , but god , &c. or , that we ●ust not bid a freind to din●er , because our sauiour saith , ●d not thy freinds , but the poore , 〈◊〉 : . euen all these may they ●nclude , as well as conclude ●at there is no bread in the sa●ament , because a father ●th , looke not for bread when ●ou commest thereunto : yea and 〈◊〉 well may they conclude ●m the same father , that we ●ust not thinke to receiue his ●die at this sacrament , be●use also these be his words in ● other place ; thinke not that ●n receiuest by the hand of man , ●e bodie of god , but that with ●gs thou receiuest fire from hea● , &c. yet these manner of ●ings they are which the aduersarie culls forth ; and stretc●ing them vpon his monstro● opinion , according to the v● most and hyperbolicall exte● of the letter , does thereupo● boast , that the church and f●thers are wholly of his side : a● so as one of the fathers saith ● the pharisies , that simplicem ● quendo literam occidunt fil● dei , may it most truely be sa● of them , that by their sticki● in the naked letter , they bo● ( as much as in them lies ) kil t● sonne of god , and also poiso● the good meaning of the f●thers , and all for the supporti● and maintaining their most ab●hominable idol . but , blesse be god , the church was a●waies waking , and quicke ●nough to discouer , and crie o● against such abhomination and as shee neuer failed to r●store the truth and sacraments vnto their integritie , as at any time they grewe tainted with vnwholesome compounds , or ●estered with traditions : so especially hath she in her elder ●eares , purged and redeemed ●hem euen with her blood , frō●asses of incumbrances and ●orruptions . in which busines , ●f her zeale to restore this sacrament to the first simplicitie , made her pare it to the quicke , ●nd withall peraduenture to ●ereaue it of some allowable respects , yet did shee therein no otherwise then as necessitie required : considering how prone ●ans nature is to goe a who●ng after euery fancie , and to ●ne the glorie of the inuisible god , not onely into the simili●de of a beast that eateth hay , ●ut also into the similitude of that which beasts and worme doe consume and eate . for such is the propertie of deceitful errour , when it cannot put the head forward , euen ( serpent like ) to put the taile forward when it cannot get in by mo● likely courses , to fetch about b● courses most vnlikely : when 〈◊〉 sees vs strongly prouided o● the left side , to trip vs vp ( assail● at least ) on the right side : whe● it cannot intice vs frō the lou● of good things , to make vs do● vpon the colours and shadowe of such good things : when 〈◊〉 cannot drawe vs from the lou● of scriptures , to make vs familiarly draw so neere , as to pinch presse , and tread vpon scripture : when it cannot perswad● vs that there is no such fruite i● them , then to perswade vs t● take the very leaues and lette● for the fruite of them : vnder which oftentimes if they carrie any breadth , it selfe will priuily lurke , and make them swell so fairely , and shew so goodly , as not onely the fruite shall be shadowed and sowred thereby , but also it selfe in the stead thereof most greedily gathered and intertained . as ( for a faire example ) these words of our sauiour [ this is my bodie , ] when it perceiued them to carrie more breadth and compasse then the meaning intended did require ; what does it but crowd it selfe within them , and filling them according ( indeed ) to the latitude of the letter , hath gotten it selfe to be preferred ( of the blind ) before the meaning intended ; namely , because by it the letter is more fully replenished : euen as the theife , which therefore challenged the garment , because his backe did better fit it . and this hath alwaies beene the practise of this subtile serpent , to worke both backward and forward : as yet more specially we may note in this businesse of the sacrament . for whereas at first it perswaded men to make no reckoning of it , but to resort vnto it as to an ordinarie feast , as if they had no other houses where to eate and to drinke ; and , ( as a father saith ) rather to fill their bellies , then for the mysterie : now at last , after they were beaten from such grosse prophanenes , principally by the apostles admonition , to discerne the lords bodie ( from the vse , not from the substance of bread ; ) and partly by the diligence of succeeding pastors , continually beating their conceit from minding the outward element , ( thinking it needles to put men in mind that still the outward element remained , ) what does this cunning serpent , but according to his old rule , assaile them with a most contrarie perswasion ; that when they would no longer esteeme it ( grossely ) as ordinary bread , he might make them now beleeue that it was no bread at all ; and so consequently ( for some thing it must be , ) his verie bodie indeed . euen as those barbarians did by paul , when first they iudged him to be some murtherer , and after , vpon occasion of a little miracle , would needs make him no ●esse then a god ; so this sallying ●eruersenes of man ( alwaies ●bbing or flowing in extremi●ies for want of foundation to settle vpon ) through the instigation of this crooked serpent , dealing by this sacrament ; whereas at first it esteemed it little , or no whit better then common bread , now , vpon occasion of those wholesome caueats of the fathers , will vphold it to be no lesse then verie god : first , not discerning the bodie of the lord ; now will not discerne the body of the bread : first , not discerning the spirituall ende of it ; now will not discerne the elementall beginnings of it : first resorting vnto it to fill their bellies with it ; now wil resort vnto it , as if they had no other god , to worship & adore it . which monstrous extremitie , beeing at first not perfectly discerned ; partly because it was so incredible , & partly because the first broachers of it were construed according to the fathers phrase , and as hauing no other intent in bestowing such superlatiue tearmes vpon it , but ●hereby to gaine reuerence ●nto it , and to preuent a relaps ●nto that corinthian grossenes , was therefore accordingly the ●esse gainesayed : but when the corruption plainely appeared , ●nd beganne to be authorised ; ●hen did the church double her most vehement asseuerations , and protestations against ●t : yea , they heaped vp their ●…ues for the ramming vp this gappe , which this monstrous opinion began to make , vntill the people of god might bet●er awake : which when they did ; and withall more perfectly espying what a monster made toward them , cried out vnto the lord of his goodnesse to succour them . then hee also awaked as one out of sleepe , and li● a gyant refreshed with wine , d● smite our enemies in the hinder parts , driue them home to their dennes , put them to a perpetua● shame : and finally , wringing the sword out of the beasts hand , which while the keepers slept , had made such hauocke withal ; restored it in good time vnto the true protectors & defendors of the faith. blessed be his soueraigne goodnesse and almighty mercy therefore . notwithstanding as hee which is conuerted , oweth this office of thankfulnes to strengthen others ; and who so is deliuered out of thrall , cannot performe a more acceptable sacrifice vnto his redeemer , then by furthering others vnto the like freedome : so does it concerne vs , not to take our finall ●est vnder our arbours , or inioy ● full fruition of this sweet li●erty , so long as we know any ●f the people of god elswhere ●ill to groane vnder the like ●aptiuity . for this cause , as they ●home god hath possessed with temporall power , cannot ●ore commendably extend it , ●hen toward the rescuing of ●hose which so groane and ●ffer ( the persecuting our bre●ren for the truth sake , beeing farre more iust cause of hosti●y , then the vexing our con●derats for trafficke sake : ) so ●e which rather inioy the be●efite , then haue the command ● such outward power , and are ●iuiledged to sleep ( as it were ) ● the day , in respect of bodily faires , whereby the better to ●tch in the night vnto inuisible busines ; what should we d● else but lift vp our voices , a● aduance our pens , at least , bo● for the incouraging the goo● hearted vnto perseuerance , a● also to keep the drowsie mi●ded from falling into the li●pit of darkenesse any mo● and the rather , let vs prouo● and stirre vp one another so● doe ; considering the doub● diligence of the aduersary ( a●cording to the children of th● generation , ) and how vncessa● they are ( hoping belike wh● they cannot preuaile by arg●ment , to tyre by importunit● in all kind of writings , paine and trauells , choosing , rath● then faile , with those ephesia● to support this their dia● though it be with nothing b● hourely out-cries : and shall ● then thinke it modesty or po●cy to be silent ? for what though the cause happily did not need our helpe , or that the truth were plaine enough ? what then ? does god call for thy seruice , because he needs it ? is it any thing to the almighty that thou art righteous ? is it not for thy exercise and benefite , that he puts duties and seruices vpon thee , that thou thereby mayst sweat out thy corruption , gather vp thy scattered soule , make it capable of blisse , and so waxe able to rellish heauenly things ? speake then the truth , o man , whether the truth needs it or not : speake it for thine owne good : for it is sweet : speake it , because thou hast a tongue : i beleeued ( saith the sweet psalmist ) and therefore i spake : we also beleeue ( saith the most feruent apostle ) and therefore speake : then if we all beleeue , let vs all speake , and magnifie his name together : let vs drowne the noyse of iniquity with the voice of truth and righteousnes . and if the aduersary thinkes with outcries to make great their diana of the ephesians ; let vs on the contrary be more loud , and more constant to cry , abominable is diana of the ephesians . as for faire and soft courses of argument , it is but lost vpon selfe-condemned heretikes ; as we haue more then probability to take these men to be , and that indeed they beleeue not themselues , that , which with extreame terrours and tortours they force vpon the faith of others : whether it be their pollicie ( most damnable though foolish ) that by making men swallow this monstrous opinion , they may then readily bring them to bibbe ●n all other creeping vncleane errours whatsoeuer : or whether it be their pride , as disdaining to be thought euer once to haue erred , but in sharpenes of wit to goe beyond all the world , beyond all sense and reason , yea beyond god himselfe : or whether it bee their foolish dotage vpon a few late forefathers ( aboue a thousand yeares since the first institution ) whose blind children they choose rather to be , then the right-sighted children of god : though therein also they contrary their best forefathers , which preferred the first rising of the gospel , before the old idolls of their heathen parents : or whether finally , the cause be in their siluer-smithes , and shrine-makers , those chalicers , iuglers , and wire-drawers , which finding daily as much foyson and fa● from this breaden , as those preists of bell euer found from that bourd , or those ephesia● crafts-men from their idoll ; doe set the people in the like foaming rage against all that go● about to vnmaske this thei● belly-god : whatsoeuer be the cause of this their wilfull besottednesse , there is no hope to preuaile with them by argument : all such courses are bu● lost labours , and whereby partly they gaine time , as he tha● vndertooke to make an asse to speake , and partly wind them selues from the point : choosin● with pleaders of fowle cause● to be any where rather then i● the matter , wherein they kno● they shall be grauiled and confounded . to such therefore , reader , be thou as farre from offering argument , as they will be farre from imbracing the truth , which howsoeuer in other matters they sufficiently can discerne , and with much perspicacitie afford ; yet in this businesse , they are resolued they must be blind , and will be blind : and therefore to offer them light herein , what is it els but to shew them their deadly foe to shoot at ? the strength of this their hold beeing affected and wilfull darkenesse . but as for such as haue not yet cast themselues into the nurture of these leaders , and yet do retaine a better opinion of ( falsly so called ) catholikes ; though knowledge , wisedome , temperance , iustice , grauity , and courage ( if these be the onely motiues of their affection ) haue abounded euen in pagans , heathens , philosophers , and naturall men , ( yea , and a scorne of equiuocation or treacherie against their enemies : ) yet if they haue not so vtterly renounced their owne light , as not to bee able to discerne betwixt the most distant things that are , ( the creator , and the most common creature ) such we make no question , will soone be brought to abandon the wilfull maintainers of this monstrous opinion . and as wee hope , a little the sooner , if they shall direct their consideration along , by the thred and byasse of this present treatise . the principal intent wherof , though it was for the protesting and exercising our due and necessary indignation against this idoll , which so aduanceth it selfe in the church of god , and in that very roabe which was ordained for the body of our lord ; yet , as we hope , we haue not so giuen way to our zeale , but that sufficient matter hath gone together withall , as well for the inlightning and resoluing others , as for the inflaming of our selues . notwithstanding , for as much as that spirit which requireth feruencie , does also commend vnto vs the loue of our enemies , ( and who are a christians enemies , but gods enemies , ) therefore , christian reader , according to the example of that blessed steuen , who at his last gaspe , prai●d for those which immediately before he had charged with al●aies resisting the holy ghost ; let vs also thus farre pray for our aduersaries : that so farre forth as they doe not maliciously renounce the light , nor wittingly make inquisition for the blood of those that loue the light ; they may find at the mercie of god some degree of that grace , wherewith that raging persecutor saul , was tempted into the humble professor paul : yea , lord ; they that are content to part with preferment , liberty , loue of friends , and life ( it seemes ) rather then with that ( falshood ) which they are perswaded is the truth : would no● they doe much more for the truth it selfe ? that truth the● which many contemne , ( a● least which so runne ouer , ) le● them be vouchsafed : were no● their eares bung'd vp , the● might prooue vessells farre be● ●er retentiue , then many which yet are not refused . but ●ll things shall be done in his ●e time ; to whome be ascri●ed , all honour , and glory , and ●raise ; all might , maiestie , and ●ominion ; all feare , respect , ●d subiection ; all grace , good●esse , and long suffering ; all ●art , good will , and good ●eaning ; all thanksgiuing , lo●ing kindnes , and deuotion , in ●e loue , grace , and fellowship ●f the almighty , three-in-●ne , for euer , and euer , amen . finis . notes, typically marginal, from the original text notes for div a02396-e220 iud. 9. 1. ioh. 5. ● . 1. cor 10.4 . 1. cor. 12.27 . ephes . 5.30 . 1. ioh. 5.8 . apoc. 1.5 . * mat. 16.16 . ambr. de . sacr. 1.5 . chrysost . in epist ad eph. hom. 20. aug. de vtil . per ● . c. 1. leo. ep. 13. serm. 4. de nativ . iewel art . 12. diui● . apoc. 3.20 . p●t 9.1 . 1. king. 1. ●0 . tert. cont . ma● . 3.19 . clem. pr● alex. in ped. 1. ● . orig. in leu. hom . 7. ambr. de off . c. 48. chrys . in ioh. hom. 46. hieron . in 1. cor. 11. aug. epist . 23. de doctrin . christ . l. 3. c. 10. ibid. cap. 5. deu 30 . 1● . rom. ● . 5 . ier. 31.31 . luk. 22.19 . concil . trid. less . 2. can. 3. & can . 1. apoc. 12.4 . apoc. 13. * aquin. 2.2 . q. 3. a. 3. c. psal . 123 5. iob 35.6 . gen. 18.21 . luk. 24 39. 1. cor. 11.14 . 1. cor. 14 23. isa . 8.17 . hierom. in psal . 147. greg. niss . in vit . mos . tertul. de resur . 2 king 18 4. luk. 5.9 . ioh. 16 . 1● . luk 24 11. aug in 3. libris . nazian . in poem . aug tom 3. l. 3. de trin . cap. 10. ioh 4.42 . deut. 9.1 . 1. king. 1.40 . chrysostom serm de e●char . 12. hieron . in matth lib. 3. cap. 16. 1. cor. 11. hieron in 1. cor. 11. act. 18. psal . 116.10 . 2. cor. 4.3 . psal . 34.3 . act. 7. the protestant's answer to the catholick letter to the seeker, or, a vindication of the protestant's answer, to the seeker's request williams, john, 1636?-1709. 1688 approx. 97 kb of xml-encoded text transcribed from 21 1-bit group-iv tiff page images. text creation partnership, ann arbor, mi ; oxford (uk) : 2005-10 (eebo-tcp phase 1). a66413 wing w2720 estc r2915 12498436 ocm 12498436 62597 this keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the early english books online text creation partnership. this phase i text is available for reuse, according to the terms of creative commons 0 1.0 universal . the text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission. early english books online. (eebo-tcp ; phase 1, no. a66413) transcribed from: (early english books online ; image set 62597) images scanned from microfilm: (early english books, 1641-1700 ; 951:86) the protestant's answer to the catholick letter to the seeker, or, a vindication of the protestant's answer, to the seeker's request williams, john, 1636?-1709. [4], 36 p. printed and are to be sold by randal taylor ..., london : 1688. reproduction of original in huntington library. attributed to john williams. cf. nuc pre-1956. the "protestant's answer" is robert nelson's transubstantiation contrary to scripture. table of contents: p. [3]-[4] errata: p. 36. created by converting tcp files to tei p5 using tcp2tei.xsl, tei @ oxford. re-processed by university of nebraska-lincoln and northwestern, with changes to facilitate morpho-syntactic tagging. gap elements of known extent have been transformed into placeholder characters or elements to simplify the filling in of gaps by user contributors. eebo-tcp is a partnership between the universities of michigan and oxford and the publisher proquest to create accurately transcribed and encoded texts based on the image sets published by proquest via their early english books online (eebo) database (http://eebo.chadwyck.com). the general aim of eebo-tcp is to encode one copy (usually the first edition) of every monographic english-language title published between 1473 and 1700 available in eebo. eebo-tcp aimed to produce large quantities of textual data within the usual project restraints of time and funding, and therefore chose to create diplomatic transcriptions (as opposed to critical editions) with light-touch, mainly structural encoding based on the text encoding initiative (http://www.tei-c.org). the eebo-tcp project was divided into two phases. the 25,363 texts created during phase 1 of the project have been released into the public domain as of 1 january 2015. anyone can now take and use these texts for their own purposes, but we respectfully request that due credit and attribution is given to their original source. users should be aware of the process of creating the tcp texts, and therefore of any assumptions that can be made about the data. text selection was based on the new cambridge bibliography of english literature (ncbel). if an author (or for an anonymous work, the title) appears in ncbel, then their works are eligible for inclusion. selection was intended to range over a wide variety of subject areas, to reflect the true nature of the print record of the period. in general, first editions of a works in english were prioritized, although there are a number of works in other languages, notably latin and welsh, included and sometimes a second or later edition of a work was chosen if there was a compelling reason to do so. image sets were sent to external keying companies for transcription and basic encoding. quality assurance was then carried out by editorial teams in oxford and michigan. 5% (or 5 pages, whichever is the greater) of each text was proofread for accuracy and those which did not meet qa standards were returned to the keyers to be redone. after proofreading, the encoding was enhanced and/or corrected and characters marked as illegible were corrected where possible up to a limit of 100 instances per text. any remaining illegibles were encoded as <gap>s. understanding these processes should make clear that, while the overall quality of tcp data is very good, some errors will remain and some readable characters will be marked as illegible. users should bear in mind that in all likelihood such instances will never have been looked at by a tcp editor. the texts were encoded and linked to page images in accordance with level 4 of the tei in libraries guidelines. copies of the texts have been issued variously as sgml (tcp schema; ascii text with mnemonic sdata character entities); displayable xml (tcp schema; characters represented either as utf-8 unicode or text strings within braces); or lossless xml (tei p5, characters represented either as utf-8 unicode or tei g elements). keying and markup guidelines are available at the text creation partnership web site . eng n. n. -catholic letter to the seeker. nelson, robert, 1656-1715. -transubstantiation contrary to scripture. catholic church -controversial literature. transubstantiation. 2005-01 tcp assigned for keying and markup 2005-01 aptara keyed and coded from proquest page images 2005-03 jonathan blaney sampled and proofread 2005-03 jonathan blaney text and markup reviewed and edited 2005-04 pfs batch review (qc) and xml conversion the protestant's answer to the catholick letter to the seeker : or , a vindication of the protestant's answer , to the seeker's request . imprimatur , liber cui titulus , [ the protestant's answer to the catholick letter to the seeker , &c. ] h. maurice rr. in christo p. d. wilhelmo archiep. cant. à sacris . maii 22. 1688. london , printed and are to be sold by randal taylor , near stationers-hall , m.dclxxxviii . the contents . the matter in debate stated p. 2. the sum of the protestant answer p. 4. transubstantiation confest by many of the church of rome not to be proved by scripture , pag. 5. joh. 6. 48. consider'd , p. 6. not for transubstantiation , by the confession of several in the church of rome , ibid. it 's also proved by several arguments . as that place had no special reference to the sacrament , p. 7. eating the flesh then spoken of , may be out of the sacrament as well as in it , ibid. proved to concern those present as well as others . p. 8. the sense of eating the flesh of christ proved to be figurative , p. 10. of figurative speeches , p. 12. particularly here , p. 13 , &c. of christ's being a vine , &c. p. 17. the words , this is my body , considered , p. 18. of the word this , p. 22. of christ's being in the sacrament after a spiritual manner , ibid. the texts produced by protestants for it , p. 24. 1. the letter of scripture for the protestant doctrine , p. 26. ( 1. ) where it 's call'd bread , and the fruit of the vine . ( 2. ) the body of christ had the natural properties of a body , p. 29. ( 3. ) the body of christ is in heaven , and circumscribed , p. 32. ( 4. ) that christ's body is glorified , and so not a sacrifice , p. 33. 2. the words which are figurative , are for us , such are these , this is my body , ibid. the protestant's answer to the catholick letter to the seeker , &c. here 's a catholick letter to the seeker , or a reply to the protestant answer to the seeker . but what 's become of the seeker himself , for this four months past ? what of the declaration he was in the conclusion to make for the catholick faith of rome , which we are now told of ? that according to the method , it seems agreed on , he may , after sentence pass'd in this case , proceed to the infallibility of the church , or other points of faith in difference betwixt them and the church of england ; as our author intimates there a little too early . the seeker had indeed given reason enough to judg on which side he was to be satisfied : that tho seemingly he was sent out like the dove , to try where he might find rest for the sole of his foot , yet we may see beforehand , what was the ark he was to return to ; and that they were as sure of him , as they are of a convert before they offer a conference . where 's now the resolution he was to come to ? has the protestant answer to the seekers request , broke these measures , and forced them to think of another expedient ? our author cannot altogether dissemble it . it seems the seeker was to put certain ties upon his answerers , to which his friend on the side of the church of rome submitted , and it was humbly conceived the protestant answerer would have done so too , as our author signifies , p. 1. but he being a lover of liberty more than courtship ; and of truth , and reason more than both , took upon himself , as its thought , too much authority , when together with his answer to the seekers request , he wrote a reply to the catholick answer to the seekers request . this is a course our author complains of , and perhaps he has some reason for it . but what has he to accuse the protestant answerer of ? that he has evaded the question . as how ? of this he gives a threefold instance . 1. that he has used the word transubstantiation . of this our author thus complains , p. 2. and 5. i do not find the word transubstantiation , so much as mentioned in either your request , or my answer . wherefore , how sincere the gentleman has been in this particular , let the world judg . a material point ! who would not think now , that the word transubstantiation was abominated by him , and as little used in their church , as it is in ours ? it 's fit therefore to know our authors mind in it . of this he saith , it 's a word devised by the church to express the conversion that 's made in the sacrauent , — and which mysterious change the holy catholick [ the roman ] church doth properly call transubstantiation , p. 2 , and 5. now , where is the fault ? where the insincerity ? the insincerity they may take to themselves ; but the fault is , that when they thought by the use of the phrase , real presence , common to both them and us , and by the forbearance of the word transubstantiation , which is peculiar to themselves , that they might have imposed upon the unwary reader , the protestant answerer used the word transubstantiation for their real presence , and so their design is discover'd , and in part defeated . 2. he saith , the protestant answerer evaded the question , when instead of speaking to the real presence , he betook himself to transubstantiation , p. 2. now , who would not think upon this charge , that his real presence and transubstantiation , are as inconsistent as truth and falshood ? here indeed he has put a question , which i confess i should have been ready to ask ; what 's this to the purpose ? is not the real presence and transubstantiation all as one ? p. 5. and i should be as ready to ask again , if they are all as one , how was the question evaded , when instead of speaking to the real presence , the answerer betook himself to transubstantiation ? in this , he thus acutely answers . no truly , they are not all as one , as you may think . for there is a great deal of difference betwixt a man , and the name by which he is distinguished . — 't is one thing to prove the real presence , and being of christs body and blood in the sacrament ; and another to shew , why this change is by the church call'd transubstantiation ; tho whoever believes the one , can't in truth deny the other . that is , the real presence and transubstantiation , are not all as one , because they are all as one : and the answerer has evaded the question , by using the one for the other , because whoever believes the one , can't in truth deny the other . 3. but he has not yet concluded the charge . for saith he , whereas the controversy is not about the word , the answerer has altogether banter'd at the word transubstantiation , and not spoken to the substance , p. 5. so before , the arians with as much reason might have objected against the word consubstantial ( which was devised against them ) as the protestant answerer has done , where p. 3. he says , that it 's enough for them to shew that transubstantiation is not taught in scripture , tho the being of christs body and blood in the sacrament is , — p. 2. if our author's skill in reasoning be no better than it appears to be in ecclesiastical history , his adversary has no great reason to fear him . that the word consubstantial was used against the arians , i acknowledg ; but that it was devised against them ( as our author saith ) is spoken at adventure . for the contrary is evident that it was in use long before in the christian church . so saith eusebius , we have known certain learned and famous bishops and writers among the ancients , who reasoning upon the divinity of the father and son , have used the word consubstantial , or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . but to return to the charge ; where is this controversy managed in the answer about this unscriptural word transubstantiation , which the protestant answerer altogether banter'd at ? he has found it out in somewhat that is not there ; i shall here set down the words of the answer , with his , and let 's see how they agree , cath. letter , p. 2. protestant answerer , p. 3. he [ the protestant answerer ] says , that 't is enough for them to shew that transubstantiation is not taught in scripture , tho the being of christs body and blood in the sacrament is . 't is enough for us to shew , that transubstantiation is not taught in scripture , and that those that pretend 't is there , cannot shew it ; nay , that the literal sense concludes not for it ; and that our notion of the real presence , is agreeable to it . where this author is guilty of a double perversion . first , that he translates what is spoken of transubstantiation in the notion , to the word ( when there is not a syllable that looks , that way ) and then , that he would represent the real presence in the protestant , that is a spiritual , sense , to be an acknowledgment of the being of christs body and blood in the sacrament , in their way . but after our author has for some pages entertain'd himself in managing this imaginary dispute against his adversary , yet in confutation of himself he finds out another sort of matter that he is obliged to consider , and if he can , to confute . the protestant answer consists of two parts . in the first , are considered the texts produced in the catholick answer to the seeker , to prove their real presence , which i hope i may now call transubstantiation . in the second , there is given a catalogue of such texts , as maintain the protestant doctrine of christs spiritual presence , and in confutation of the corporal presence held in the church of rome . and now let us view our author's undertaking , and see how he has quitted himself in both of these . part i. sect. 1 we are to consider in the first place , how our author has vindicated his own answer to the seekers request , and what reply there is made to the objections and arguments directed against his pretended proofs from scripture . in the entrance upon this matter , the protestant answerer suggested , that the seeker had put an unreasonable task upon his catholick priests , to prove their real presence , or transubstantiation , by the express text , and plain word of god ; since persons of the greatest note ; for quality and learning , in their church , have freely given it up , and granted it to be a vain attempt . such as scotus and biel , among the schoolmen , and the cardinals , alliaco , fisher , cajetan and bellarmin . what saith our author to this ? first , saith he , supposing it was so as these authors say , that there is not one place of scripture so express , that without the determination of the church , it would evidently compel a man to receive transubstantiation . — yet the same might as well be said of the consubstantiality of the son , p. 3. will our author venture to say , there is no more from scripture to prove the consubstantiality of the son , than there is to prove transubstantiation ? or hath he any heart to say it , after the publishing the doctrine of the trinity and transubstantiation compared , and as long as that book lies unanswered ? but let that be as it will. what , saith he , is this to the being , or not being of the body and blood of christ in the sacrament ? had be produced scotus , bellarmin , &c. to disprove the real presence , it had been something , tho not to your purpose . for the request was to satisfie you by scripture only , and not by citing our modern divines , &c. but by the express text , &c. but i think it was to the purpose to shew that some of the most eminent in their church declare it is not to be proved in that way , and i think to declare it cannot be proved , is little better than to disprove it . at last our author is content to yield up scotus , one of his modern divines , and bellarmin ; and he adds , if what they have said in that matter , will do the gentleman a kindness , he shall have it not only from them , but all the faithful . if so , i fear our author then will be left alone ; for if all the faithful are of the same mind with scotus and bellarmin ; then his undertaking to prove transubstantiation by the express texts of scripture , will be a fruitless attempt . but we go too far , for that 's to be understood with a reserve , viz. scripture without the determination of the church is not so express , &c. this premised , our author cheerfully proceeds , that altho the scripture were never so plain , we would yet submit to the determination of the church , for the true sense and meaning thereof . so that tho he pleads scripture , and would fain find out somewhat that looks like an express text ; yet he doth it not , nor would be understood , that he thereby renounced the determination of the church . for whether the scripture be plain for it or not , is not the foot this matter rests upon ; and altho it were never so plain , yet the church is to give it the true meaning ; and whatever meaning the church gives it , that is the true meaning ; and so , if the church had determined against transubstantiation , as it has determined for it , there would have been still express texts , and the case had been alike resolved . sect . ii. at last we are come to the main seat of the controversie , p. 6. the catholick answerer had produced two places of scripture as his plain texts for transubstantiation ; the first is , joh. 6. 48. here the protestant answerer interposed , and first directed the seeker , where he might find about thirty writers of the roman church , who reject that text as not serving to our author's purpose , pag. 4. and then proceeds to shew for what reasons they and we do so reject it . arg. 1. as it had no special reference to the sacrament ; and that for two reasons : 1. because this discourse of our saviour was delivered above a year before , ver . 4. to this first our author replies , that the fourth verse , [ the passover , a feast of the jews , was nigh ] is no rule to shew the sacrament was not instituted above a year after . for , saith he , that this word nigh should signifie above a year after , is such a figure as never was : and so gravely repairs to his concordance to prove the word nigh is not by express and plain scripture to be taken for above a year after . certainly there was never more need of express and plain scripture , when men cannot look a chapter or two before them . for would any one that was conversant in the gospels , think that st. john here , and st. luke 22. 1. must needs speak of the same passover , because st. luke hath the same word , now the feast of unleavened bread drew nigh , which is call'd the passover . i see our author wants here a little information . let him therefore turn to chap. 7. v. 2 , & 14. and he will find a feast of tabernacles ; and go on to chap. 13. 1. and he will find another passover . now i hope i need not acquaint him that these two feasts of the tabernacles and passover were kept in different months , and that the same passover could not be before and after the feast of tabernacles ; and consequently , it must be a year betwixt the passover , joh. 6. 4. and that joh. 13. 1. and as much above a year betwixt our saviour's discourse , joh. 6. and the passover , as that was before the approaching passover that was said to be nigh . 2. the protestant answerer proceeded to shew that this discourse of our saviour had no special reference to the sacrament , because the eating the flesh , and drinking the blood here spoken of , might be out of the sacrament as well as in it , and at that present as well as a year after . this he proved from vers. 53 , 54 , 56 , 57. in all which the present time is still spoken of , except ye eat . he that eateth . — my flesh is meat . to this our author replies : to say , that the flesh of christ may be eaten out of the sacrament , and even before it was instituted , &c. is indeed such a figure , as none but himself can unriddle , p. 8. i answer , but to say ( as he doth ) that christ would give us bread to eat in the sacrament , which should be the very same flesh which he would , and afterwards did give for the life of the world , that is , that he should give it before it was given , is a figure i doubt our author himself cannot unriddle ; who saith again , that before he gave it , 't was impossible for them to eat it ; but he gave it not , till he gave it on the cross. ( 2 ) but to say that the flesh of christ here spoken of ( an exposition our author left out ) might be eaten out of the sacrament , as well as in it , is no riddle , if it be true . and it is true if our saviour spoke here of his flesh that might be , and was then to be eaten , at the same time as he spoke it , by all those that were then his present auditors ; as the answerer proved from verses 53 , 54 , &c. to this our author opposes vers . 5. the bread which i will give is my flesh , &c. where , saith he , christ promised , and told them before that be would ( in the future tense ) give them bread to eat , which should be the very same flesh , which he would , and afterwards did , give for the life of the world . whence he infers , if the bread which he in the sacrament gives us to eat , saying , take , eat , this is my body , be not that bread which he promised he would give us to eat , pray ask your protestant answerer , where , when , and how did christ give us bread to eat , which should be his flesh , if this be not ? pag. 7. what is a little out of its place , in our author , i have here laid together , that i may give it its full force : to this i answer : 1. i readily own with our author , that the words , i will give , contain a promise , but then we differ about the time when they were fulfilled . he saith , they refer to his last supper , when he took bread , &c. under the forms of bread and wine . but now if i am examined upon the where , the when , and the how , i should refer it to the cross ; and that because of the following words , the bread which i will give is my flesh , which i will give for the life of the world . for he gave not his flesh for the life of the world in the sacrament ▪ but after the institution of that , on the cross ; not under the forms of bread and wine , but in his own proper form , and visible to the spectators . the reason of his mistake seems to be , that he reads the future tense after this manner , our saviour told them that he would give them bread to eat , which should be his flesh. where he is guilty of two over-sights . first , that he applies that to the future which is spoken of the present , for he reads it should be his flesh , as if it was first bread , and then was to be flesh , to put the better colour upon their doctrine of transubstantiation ; whereas our saviour saith , the bread is my flesh , which is directly against it ; and if it signifies any thing of that nature , would rather prove that his flesh should be bread. for it 's not said , the bread which i will give shall be my flesh , but rather that which is my flesh , i will give to be bread. 2. he alters the terms of the text , for the words are , which i will give for the life of the world ; and he reads them , which i will give them to eat : as if the promise refer'd only to the bread which they should eat ; and not to the flesh which was to be given for the world . so that we see what 's like to become of his question , he prays his seeker to ask his protestant answerer , viz. where , when and how did christ give us bread to eat which should be his flesh , if this be it not in the sacrament ? for he must frame his question anew , if he would have it to the purpose ; and must read st. john again ( notwithstanding what he saith he has done on this occasion , pag 8. ) and whatever he found before , i am apt to think after this little light given to him , he will not find those words in this chapter , he would give them bread to eat , which should be his flesh. and if he reads the protestant answer again , he will find no occasion for those words , where , &c. if this be it not ? for the answerer did not except the sacrament , and say the eating the flesh , and drinking the blood here spoken of , could not be in the sacrament , but that it might be out of the sacrament as well as in it ; intimating thereby that it was not to be understood in a sense peculiar to the sacrament , but in a sense common to that and other offices of religion ; and that eating and drinking were ( as he shew'd ) but other words for coming and believing . 3. but our author has a further reserve , and offers at a peculiar exposition of those phrases , i suppose it's ( in his phrase . p. 2. ) his private meaning ● v. 53 , &c. except ye eat , — he that eateth . not , saith he , that he did then give , or that they did then eat his flesh , and drink his blood , which they could not do before he took it , blessed it , brake it , and gave it . for at that time when he spake this , he only told them he would give it , and the eve before his passion , he performed it . and from that time i suppose the obligation bears force , ver . 53. except ye eat , &c. i will suppose that the present doth not here exclude the future , and that he that eateth my flesh , and drinketh my blood hath eternal life , will always hold true , and what all ages as well as those then present would partake of ; but methinks it 's very hard to make the present exclude it self , and to tell us that they did not , and could not then eat the flesh of christ , when our saviour saith they might and ought , as is evident from what follows . let us go to the thing to be eaten , and it 's represented in the present tense , v. 51. this is the bread. v. 51. i am the bread. v. 52. is my flesh. v. 55. my flesh is meat . let us go to the act , and in correspondence to the object , it 's also in the present , v. 51. if any man eat . thus the jews understood it , v. 52. how can this man give us his flesh to eat ? and accordingly our saviour answers , v. 53. except ye eat , &c. ye have no life in you . he speaks it to those present , ye ; and then applies it universally , v. 54. whoso eateth my flesh , &c. let us go to the thing signified by eating and drinking , and it 's after the same manner , v. 35. he that cometh , and he that believeth , v. 38 , 40 , 45 , 47. i shall conclude this with what was said in the protestant answer . if christ's flesh here spoken of , might be eaten , and his blood drank out of the sacrament , then it could not here be understood of that flesh and blood which our author saith the bread and wine are converted into in the sacrament ; nor , i may add , of carnal eating his flesh , and drinking his blood. our author resents this ill , for he saith , as to his carnal eating , we beg his pardon , if he means as we eat beef , and other meats . for that we truly and really receive the body and blood of christ ( to use his own words ) after an heavenly and spiritual manner ; we should agree , did we not differ in this , that they receive it in figure and fancy only , and we receive it in substance and truth , pag. 8. here i acknowledg i intended no hurt in the world , but thought i had exprest my self innocently enough . for when i had read in the catholick answer , that in the ▪ eucharist is truly , really , and substantially contained under the forms of bread and wine , the true body and blood of our lord jesus in the very substance wherein he was born of the virgin , and wherein he lived and died for us , with this difference only , that he was visible to the eye of flesh then , and invisible to the same now . i thought the word carnal was expressive of the thing , and indeed i find no great reason to alter it : for , 1. had i said metaphorically and figuratively , that by no means would suit what is corporal . and besides , i learn too from our author , pag. 17. that that is a deceitful , fictious manner . 2. had i said corporal , i see little distance betwixt that and carnal ; for as body and flesh is all one , so is corporal and carnal . 3. had i chosen the word spiritual , that 's a kind of contradiction , if applied to a body ; for spiritual eating of a body is little better than bodily eating of a spirit . and when a real presence by faith would not content them , if we deny a real presence by sense , seeker , pag. 6. i had as much reason to believe a spiritual eating would be no more allowed than a spiritual presence . 4. had i express'd it by heavenly , when it was somewhat eaten and drank corporally , and that what we took with the mouth was the very body of christ , it could not be sufficiently expressive of it . it was further urged , arg. 2. upon mature consideration of the whole , it appear'd to the protestant answerer , that the sense of eating the flesh of christ in this place must be figurative , and signifies no other than coming to christ , and believing in him ; which sure is out of the sacrament , as well as in it . and this indeed he proved from the promiscuous use of the words in that chapter ; but this our author conceals from his reader , that he might not too apparently contradict what he had said , pag. 2. that he says ( by no authority but his own ) that the sense of eating the flesh , must be figurative ; and right or wrong they are figurative , upon his own bare word , without scripture . but as the protestant answerer argued from the words and phrases of the chapter , so from the current of our saviour's discourse , that it could not be properly and literally understood . ( 1. ) because then all that properly eat the flesh of christ , would according to our saviour's promise , v. 54. have eternal life ; whoso eateth , &c. to this our author answers , very truel but with a qualification that recalls what he had granted . for it 's to be understood , saith he , of worthy receivers . but this is by no means consistent with our saviour's reasoning , which if the flesh to be eat , and the eating of it were to be understood properly , will necessarily infer the salvation of all such as thus eat after this manner ; as well unworthy as ●●worthy . since all that eat his flesh , and drink his blood , in the sense there meant , are the persons to whom eternal life is promised ; but if properly eating his flesh be the sense of our saviour's expressions there us'd , then we know what follows . 2. the protestant answerer urged further , that if the words eating the flesh , and drinking the blood , be properly to be understood , then the receiving the sacrament in both kinds will be necessary to salvation ; it being affirmed , v. 53. except ye eat the flesh of the son of man , and drink his blood , ye have no life in you ; and he shewed that for this reason , amongst others , cardinal cajetan would not admit that this discourse of our saviour belong'd to the eucharist . what saith our author to this ? truly nothing . as to this , saith he , of both kinds , it doth not properly relate either to your request , or my answer . a reply that may be made in any case . he goes on , and besides , i do not see where the necessity lies of defining the sacrament in both kinds to one that believes ▪ it in neither . that is , as much as to say , i beg his pardon , i will not vouchsafe an answer to such an one as he is ; but however , methinks he might have said somewhat , if it had been only for the satisfaction of the distressed seeker , to whom he writes his letter ; to let him see that there is no consequence in this argument . it puzled cardinal cajetan , a man of sense and sagacity ; and surely the seeker may then be led away by the error of it , and it may put off his declaration for the catholick faith four months longer . but there is no danger , it was not necessary to one that doth not believe ; but he declares he is ready to satisfie his seeker , that is , one that doth believe , as we may conceive . i know not whether this may not have put our author a little out of humour , for he cannot but abhor , he saith , to see men mould gods word into what form they please , and make every thing a figure , that doth not square with their fancy . is it because our saviour spake some things by way of parable , that all he said was such ? or that he never spake otherwise ? how comes it that mean capacities are ( by the church of st. martin's ) left to themselves , to judg of the true sense of scripture , according to d. t. who tells you in his true account of a conference , that a man after using all christian means , and the help of all ministerial guides possible , must at last judg for himself . — a special assertion indeed ! which if true , what need of teachers ? &c. pag. 10 ▪ but how doth he mould the word of god into what form he pleases , that understands that figuratively which was figuratively spoken ? and to whom doth our author speak when he thus expostulates , is it because our saviour spake some things by way of parable , that all he said was such ? had he no other way to get clear of his adversary , but to fix this upon him ? and had he no other way to meet with those that plead for the perspicuity of scripture , but to tell the world , that they own our saviour never spake otherwise than in parables ? how mean and ridiculous is this ? but however this was a fair occasion as he thought to make a special remarque upon the doctrine taught by the church of st. martin's . now here the protestant answerer is more immediately concerned as a parishioner ( though one of the mean capacities there taught ) and would fain see how our author would manage himself in a debate upon that argument ; especially when after his exclamation against it , he himself is forced to acknowledg the reasonableness of it . for if a man must not at last judg for himself ; or if so , that there will be no need of teachers ; then it 's in vain to send answers and letters to a seeker , and to propose texts to his examination : and yet in this special way doth our author proceed from the beginning to the end of his letter . he leaves it to his seeker to pass sentence upon what has been said by either party , pag. 1. whether , saith he , this hath any reference , be you the judg. pag. 7 , 13. he desires him to consult the words , and see whether those texts do imply , &c. pag. 8. seriously to distinguish and peruse the texts , pag. 33. so that it seems this special assertion ought to be one of his own , who teaches his seeker so far , after the same way as mean capacities are taught by the church at st. martin ' s. to come to a close of this argument ; the protestant answerer the better to represent his adversaries weakness in decrying figures and parables , shewed him how this discourse of our saviour so abounded in them , that there were no less than twenty expressions of that kind in it ; and accordingly drew out several of them for our author to try his skill upon , and to resolve them without a figure , pag. 8. first , saith he , let the catholick answerer tell me without a figure , what is that meat which endures to everlasting life ? here our author labours hard to prove that the meat in v. 27. is the bread and flesh , v. 51. and concludes , which flesh , without a figure , i humbly conceive is that meat which endureth unto everlasting life . but i as humbly conceive he has not reach'd the point ; for granting the meat , the bread , and the flesh to be one and the same , yet how is the flesh of christ bread and meat without a metaphor , when it 's only spiritually and not corporally eaten , as he saith , and when neither capable of digestion , nor we of nourishment by it ? again , if this be eaten only in the sacrament , how can it under the form of bread endure to everlasting life , or how can it be meat that thus endures , when it is not to be eaten in heaven , and all sacraments and institutions cease ? the other questions were . how the son was sealed by the father ? how jesus is bread , and the bread that came down from heaven ? how the bread and the flesh of christ could be the same ? v. 57. and if the same , how it could come from heaven , when he was of the seed of david , according to the flesh ? how one of his church can talk of a literal sense of , [ except ye drink his blood ] , which denies the cup to the laity ? to all these our author returns a general answer , as to his , how the son was sealed by the father , and the rest of his how 's ? they are such jewish expressions , as that all christian pretenders ought to be ashamed of them . so the jews said , v. 52. how can this man give us his flesh to eat ? so jewish it is to question god , how he could do it ? how this ? how that ? and so he runs on to the creation , and incarnation , &c. i am a little at a loss here , to what cause our authors mistake is to be assign'd ? surely he could not but understand that the how relates not to the manner , how these things be ? but , how these things could be thus applied to our saviour without a figure ? i am afraid that he saw the difficulty , and so slipt away from it ; for else , why should he answer directly to the first query , which would more plausibly bear it ; and indirectly and fraudulently to the rest ? and yet , as if he had to a demonstration proved what he had undertaken , and effectually confuted his adversary , he will still have the words express and plain , without a figure . for thus he concludes , p. 11. if these express and plain words of christ be a figure , where he says as plain , as plain can be , that he would give us bread to eat , which should be his flesh , [ but which i have shewed before , he did not say . ] i say , if these words are figurative , and must not be properly understood , i see no reasen , why the whole bible should not be a figure too . for if ever christ was plain in any thing , 't was in this ; especially in a point , wherein there was never more occasion to expound , if a figure , than when the jews ( to whom he came ) murmured and said , how can this man give us his flesh to eat ? and when some of the disciples said it was an hard saying , and thereupon walked no more with him . he that , in cases of less moment always explain'd his parables , should yet be dark and figurative in this of that importance , and which he well foresaw , occasions our differences at this day ; it would be contrary to his wisdom and goodness . but so far was christ from this , that he confirms it , v. 53. with a verily , verily , except ye eat the flesh , &c. i have transcribed this the more at large , because it contains some things very peculiar , and is indeed the utmost force of what he hath for his defence . i answer to this . 1. in general , it 's manifest , that our saviour is not literally plain ; since it 's acknowledg'd that his discourse is figurative , from ver . 32. to ver . 51. and is it not strange , that when he had so long discours'd after that manner , that yet in one verse , he should mean literally , and which if literally understood , would be so manifest a contradiction to the sense and reason of mankind , that if he had literally said he was bread , he could not have more astonished them , than when he said , except ye eat the flesh of the son of man , &c. if properly and literally to be understood . 2. whereas he saith our saviour always explain'd his parables ; that is too largely spoken . for even those , which he chuses out of mark 3. 10 , 13 , 31 , were not expounded to the multitude ; and if his argument signify any thing , must therefore be properly understood by them . but why did not he propound the case in dispute , and give us a like instance in figurative and metaphorical expressions ; such as our saviour uses in this chapter ? for , are sealing , hungring , &c. to be understood properly , because it 's not said , that they are to be understood figuratively ▪ nay , are eating his flesh , and drinking his blood , to be understood properly ? then certainly , the capernaits were in the right , that thought our saviour spoke of carnal eating , which yet our author will not allow . 3. he saith , there was never more occasion to expound , if a figure , than when the jews murmured , and some of his disciples went away ; and what he saw , occasions our differences . ( 1. ) as for the murmuring of the jews , there was no such occasion for our saviour's expounding it ; for thus also they murmured , because that christ said , i am the bread that came down from heaven , v. 41. and yet , tho he took notice of it , ver . 43. he thought not himself concerned to explain his meaning , where there might be more reason for their mistake , than there could be in this . indeed our saviour look'd upon them as an obstinate and intractable sort of people , and so did purposely conceal himself often , as was observed before , mark 13. and this we are not without some light in , in the case before us . for this discourse of his , was in the synagogue , v. 59. and they were the same people that before were offended and cavilled , ver . 41 , 52. and therefore our saviour left them in the dark , tho afterwards , when his disciples murmured , v. 60 , 61 , 63. he tells them , it was spiritually to be understood . ( 2. ) as for those disciples , it doth not appear , that they walked no more with him , because they were offended at his saying , ( for that he explain'd it to them ) but because he gave an intimation that he discovered their insincerity , v. 64. there are some of you that believe not ; and it follows , from that time many of his disciples went back , &c. ( 3. ) neither was there any such occasion for our saviour's expounding himself from our differences ; if he had meant it properly , i grant there could never be more occasion , because it 's a doctrine so contrary to the sense and reason of mankind ; but when it 's not so explain'd , the sense and reason of mankind may be thought a sufficient security against mistake . and there might be as much reason for our saviour to expound himself , when he saith , he is bread , a door , a vine , a rock . but all this while , our author supposes our saviour not to have explain'd himself . i grant it , he did not do it on their side ; but i think he has done it to all attentive and unprejudiced minds ; if they will either consult the foregoing part of this discourse , where he speaks of himself , under the allusions of bread and flesh , v. 33 , 35 , 48 , 51. and of believing in him under the the metaphors of coming and eating , v. 35 , 36 , 47 , 51 , 60 , 61 , 62. or if they consult the conclusion , v. 63. where he tells his offended disciples , it 's the spirit that quickneth , &c. as if he had said , the eating my flesh , and drinking my blood , which i propound to you , is not as those cavilling jews did misconstrue it ; and as you , i perceive , mistake ; for in that flesh , i am to ascend into heaven ; but it 's the heeding and obeying my precepts , the receiving my doctrine , and believing in me as your redeemer , that i require , and you are to regard . and indeed , thus st. peter understood him , who concludes almost in the same words , lord , to whom shall we go ? thou hast the words of eternal life . and we believe , &c. v. 68 , 69. 4. he saith , that christ was so far from meaning otherwise than plainly , as he spake , that to the murmuring jews he confirms it , v. 53. with a verily , verily , i say unto you , except , &c. whereas in parables be explained himself to them . that is , our saviour meant plainly , because he did not explain himself . but , saith he , he confirmed it . what did he confirm ? did he confirm the literal sense ? that he did not before give , and so could not confirm . or doth the repetition of it without explication shew it to be the literal sense ? that he contends for . but then by parity of reason our saviour meant properly , when he said , i am the door . for it 's there said in confirmation of what was before : verily , verily , i say unto you , i am the door , joh. 10. 1 , 7. but why did our saviour repeat it ? without doubt to shew that he spoke it not inconsiderately ; and if i add , to explain what he before said , it 's not without somewhat in the text to countenance it . for before he spoke of himself under the notion of flesh , v. 51 , 52. but then of flesh and blood , to intimate both the violence and manner of his death ; which he did usually speak with more caution and reserve about . if we reflect upon what has been said , we see how unwarily ( i am loth to add more ) our author delivers himself , when he saith , if these words are figurative , i see no reason why the whole bible should not be a figure too . and if ever christ was plain in any thing , it was in this . and , which i cannot recite without some indignation ; should he explain himself in matters of less weight , and yet be dark in this great concern , is what would be contrary to his wisdom and goodness , p. 10 , 11. so that there shall be no sense or perspicuity in scripture , nor wisdom and goodness in our saviour , if their doctrine be not his , and he be not of the same mind with them . indeed after all our author's confidence in this matter , and his questioning all things , if this be questioned : he determines that which the greatest authority in his church , the council of trent , would not determine . for when it had been sharply debated for and against these words being understood of the eucharist , it was at last agreed for the satisfaction of both sides , neither to affirm nor deny it , and to yield to those that deni'd it , that they had fathers and doctors on their side . and thus the council concludes ; however that discourse ( of our saviour's , joh. 6. ) be understood according to the divers interpretations of the holy fathers and doctors , sess 21. c. 1. here our author takes a great leap from pag. 9. of the answer , to pag. 22. but because it 's not amiss , i shall follow him : the protestant answerer put it to them to give as plain letter of scripture to prove christ was neither a door , rock , nor vine , as he could that he was all three : or that all christians are not turn'd into christ's natural body , when it 's said ephes. 5. 20. we are members of his body . this he did to shew that the phrases , eating the flesh , and , this is my body , were not of themselves sufficient to enforce us to take them in a proper sense ; since it 's no more plainly said , except ye eat the flesh , &c. and , this is my body ; than it 's said , i am the door , the vine , &c. now what course doth our author take to assoil this ? let 's see , saith he , whether the parity 'twixt i am the door , the vine , &c. be the same with , the bread is my flesh , and , this is my body , without ever explaining a syllable to the contrary . here he is a little too forward . for he is to remember that the thing requir'd is to give as plain scripture to prove that christ was neither a door , nor vine , &c. as there is for it . he knows who said it , i will prove the catholick doctrine of the real presence , and i defie the world to prove the contrary . cath. answ. to the seeker , pag. 1. and that declares again , it 's impossible to bring one text out of the whole bible to prove that the body and blood of christ is not in the sacrament , cath. letter , pag. 24. if now he so expects , then it may be so expected from him , that he should prove the negative , and that by as plain a text he should shew christ is not a door or vine , as we can shew that he is . i must confess i put him upon a ridiculous task , but who can help it , it 's in his own way . but to leave this trifling , let us return to see his parity ; though i doubt we shan't much better our selves . as for the door , he saith , the text tells us it was a parable , joh. 10. 6. this parable spake jesus . wherefore if the protestant answerer would be so kind , as to produce plain scripture for this of the sacrament's being a figure , as i have done for the door 's being a parable , he 'l certainly gain a proselyte of me . as for gaining him a proselyte by plain scripture , i have reason to despair , who declares beforehand that though the scripture were never so plain , he would yet submit to thi determination of the church , pag. 4. but where is this plain scripture for the door 's being a parable ? he points to the verse . but what was the parable he spoke ? it 's in the verses foregoing about a door , i grant ; but not of christ's being the door ; for that follows after , ver. 7. then said jesus unto them again , verily , verily , i am the door . so that if he keeps to his own way without explaining a syllable , he is where he was , and christ may be as properly a door , as we may properly eat the flesh of christ. he goes on : in like manner of the vine , christ saith , joh. 15. 1. i am the true vine , and my father is the husbandman , as mat. 20. 1. when he likened the kingdom of heaven to an housholder ; and so goes on explaining the same , ver . 4. as the branch cannot , &c. which if you read the chapter , you 'l find to be more plain . i perceive he is very serious , and i am of his mind , if the seeker read on , he would find it plain , that christ is not properly a vine , and so say i , if he reads joh. 6. he would find it as plain , that eating the flesh of christ is not properly to be understood . but if words will oblige us without attending the sense , and we must take them as we find them without explaining a syllable , then i say still it 's as plainly said , i am the true vine , as my flesh is meat indeed ; and according to our author's way of exposition , this can be no parable . for , saith he , you 'l find in all cases christ spake not by parables without telling them it was so , pag. 12. but here it 's not so said ; for as before , so after the words , v. 4. as the branch , &c. he saith , v. 5. i am the vine . he goes on : in like manner of the rcck , that he was the corner-stone , upon which the foundation was laid , &c. but how doth he prove christ was not properly a rock according to his own way ? because , saith he , he is a corner-stone , and a foundation , which is just as if he had been asked , how he would prove , without explaining a syllable , christ is not properly a corner-stone , or a foundation ; and he should say , because he is a rock . but what saith he to the last instance , to prove as plainly , christians are not turned into christ's natural body , when it 's said we are members of his body , ephes. 5. 20 ? to this an answer is to be expected . well , after all his windings and turnings , his parities , and without explainings , and his reading , and his in like manners , and his rules for understanding parables , the words are as plain and express that christ is a door , a vine , a rock , and we are members of christ's body , as they are that we eat the flesh of christ ; and if one be properly to be understood , there is as much reason from the meer words for the like understanding the other . after this digression , our author undertakes the last argument of the protestant answerer , viz. arg. 3. here is nothing of the conversion of the bread into the body of christ ; but rather the contrary ; for if the words are literally to be understood , then they would rather infer the conversion of christ's flesh and blood into bread and wine , when he saith , i am the bread of life , v. 5. my flesh is meat ( or bread ) indeed . as to the first , which is the conversion of the bread into the body of christ , and the chief thing proposed to him , he hath silently past it over ; perhaps he saw here also no necessity of defining or proving it to one that believes it not . but to make up this defect he gives his adversary a grave reprimend , that when he had just before said , that these words had no special reference to the sacrament , he should now so apply them , by an odd way of shufflng . and why did he not as sharply admonish him for offering to shew that the words might infer the conversion of christ's flesh into bread ? for both alike belonged to him . our author it seems apprehended not all this was argumentum ad hominem . but how doth he clear the point , and shew they infer no such conversion ? first he saith , for proof whereof , [ that christ's flesh is not turn'd into bread ] let us go to the words of conversion , this is my body . but , methinks , it would have better became him to have first proved the conversion of the bread into flesh from these words . as for st. john , he grants that had the words been , my flesh is bread indeed , as his adversary would fain have them , then he would have something on his side . but if that be the sense of it , and the words bread and meat are used by our saviour promiscuously ; then it 's so far acknowledged . and for that i shall refer our author to v. 26 , 27. but he will not allow v. 48. to look that way , nor indeed will i. but yet they will as soon prove christ turned into bread , as the words the bread that i will give is my flesh , will prove the bread turn'd into his flesh ; which they so little do , that they rather would imply the contrary , if understood literally , as i have shewed pag. 8 but he concludes , rather than differ , i 'le joyn in opinion with the protestant answerer , and these other divines , and with him and them submit to the determination of the church . but where is this the opinion of the protestant answerer ? surely our author is like him in aristotle , that where ever he went , fancied he saw himself . but what need is there to go to the church in this case ? for i hope he will think sense and reason sufficient to instruct men whether those words will prove that christ was turned into bread : and we think sense and reason as sufficient to inform them whether the words of our saviour will prove that bread was turn'd into christ's flesh. i now thought this matter had been at an end , when the protestant answerer past from this argument to the second text. but our author has not yet done with him . for he tells us , there is one argument yet , on which the gentleman seems much to depend ( pag. 9. ) when he says , since if christ be not , but where he intirely is , then ( says he ) he must be eaten intirely , &c. from whence he concludes the not being of christ's body in the sacrament , because ( as he conceives ) he is not there intire , for reasons ( not scripture ) of his own , p. 14. bless me ! thought i , where am i now ? in the land of oberon ? what shall i say ? he quotes pag. 9. i hastily turn'd thither , and there i was satisfied my memory had not yet forsaken me . the case is thus , the answerer , as is before observed , to shew the absurdity of our author's appealing to the mere letter , put several queries to him out of this chapter , which he desired him to resolve in his own way , without going to figures . the last of which was this , how he can literally interpret , ver . 57. [ he that eateth me ] that holds in the eucharist is contained the true body and blood , together with the soul and divinity of our lord jesus christ. — since if christ be not but where he intirely is , then he must be eaten intirely . this question amongst others was there drop'd by our author ; and the reason is apparent , for he must either have acknowledged that the words he that eateth me , must be understood figuratively and spiritually , and not corporally : or else that the soul and divinity of christ must be eaten with his body : or that the soul and divinity of christ are not in the eucharist with his body . the case , i confess , is hard to one that has somewhat else to respect than truth ; and therefore it became him to be silent . but why he should now bring it on the stage under another guise , i can't imagin , when thus to resume it , and pervert it , must as much expose his insincerity as the omission of it before , did his inability to answer it . the reader will see that the argument and the conclusion are none of the answerer's ; for that proposition , where ever christ is , there he intirely is , is a principle of our author's , and which is there made use of against him that profess'd to believe with the same faith he believes a god , that in the eucharist is truly and substantially contained the true body and blood , together with the soul and divinity of our lord jesus christ , cath. answ. to seeker , p. 4. and where our author found the conclusion . i know not , for there is nothing in the protestant answer like to this , that from thence concludes the not being of christ's body in the sacrament , because he is not there intire . however it may not be amiss to see how our author relieves himself : saith he ; to which , i answer and grant , that christ is not , but where he is intire . and whether christ who is perfect god , may not be intire in the sacrament , and in many places at one and the same time , is the query ? which if fully resolved , will overthr●w all his reasoning ware besides ? well , how will he prove christ intirely in the sacrament ? that is , the true body of christ with the soul and divinity . that was forgot before , and so is not to be remembred ; but if it may be accepted for a full and intire answer , he will prove his body may be intire in many places at one and the same time . what he saith of that , belongs to another place , and shall there be considered , p. 29. but what is this to his soul and divinity ; and to the literal sense of he that eateth me , and the argument the answerer prest upon him ? he will be able to answer it , when he can prove his proposition , that christ is not , but where he is intire ; for then his body must be omnipresent as well as his divinity , which after all the may be 's , and his attempts to prove it possible for christ's body to be in many places at one and the same time , i suppose he will have no allowance to publish , if he should have the imprudence to maintain . sect . iii. we are at length come to his second text to prove his real presence , viz. this is my body . here the protestant answerer shew'd how absurd the direction of the seeker was , that his answerers should produce their texts , without troubling themselves to tell the meaning on 't , because he was certain that the doctrine of transubstantiation could never be the literal meaning of those words . as for example , saith he , where is there one word , that the [ this ] whatever it means , is the true body and blood , together with the soul and divinity of christ , in the self-same substance wherein he was born of the virgin ? where that this true body and blood is truly , really and substantially contained under the forms of bread and wine ? where that the bread and wine are upon consecration turned into the true body and blood of christ ? let us see how our author replies to this , p. 17. let us note his where 's . where , says he , is there one word ? where that this true body and blood ? where that the bread and wine are upon consecration , turn'd into the true body and blood of christ , &c. which truly , are where 's indeed ? but what 's become of the soul and divinity of christ ? what of the self-same substance wherein he was born of the virgin ? what of the true body , truly , really , and substantially contain'd under the forms of bread and wine ? which are what he profess'd firmly and truly to believe by the same faith he believes a god ? and where ( to add another where ) will he find these literally in the words , this is my body ? he tells us one would think that so many where 's were not without a wherefore . and because the gentleman desires to know the where , he shall also know the when. certainly now to the confutation of scotus and biel , &c. and the confusion of all hereticks , we shall have a plain discovery , and that in so many words we shall find the true body and blood , together with the soul and divinity of christ , &c. for this go we to his when jesus took bread , &c. and said , this is my body , mat. 26. 26. then it was , saith he , and , here it is by power of these words of god , this is my body , that the bread is turned into the body of christ. this is indeed a submission to the seeker 's direction to produce the words without a meaning , and it is so because it is so ; this is my body , doth turn the bread into the body , because there are the words , this is my body . i hope the reader is satisfied , for in truth i am . the next thing proposed by the prot. answerer was , what the meaning is of this , in , this is my body ? if , saith he , it be bread , then the bread is in the literal sense , the substance of christ's body , and so overthrows the change to be made in transubstantiation . if by this , is not meant the bread , then the bread could never be turned into the body of christ by vertue of the words , this is my body . our author readily answers , ask the question , what ? and our saviour will resolve you , mat. 26. 26. this is ( what ? ) my body , he did not say , after he had blessed it , say , take , eat , this is bread , but my body ; than which , nothing can be more plain , than that it was his body . and to make all sure , he seriously proves it , because it 's not hic , but hoc est panis . it 's well 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the greek is of the same gender with panis . but let us admit of this learned criticism ( though by the way let me observe for our author's instruction , when the article relates to the sentence , it 's to be put in the neuter gender ) the difficulty put , yet remains ; for if the this relates to body , then the sense is , this body is my body . but saith he , let us suppose this to refer to bread , it yet follows that it is his body . but it follows also , as the answerer argued , that then the bread is the substance of christ's body , according to the letter ; and so could not be turned into it . so that our author has left the difficulty as he found it . but because the answerer here said , we have not faith to believe that reason the scripture hath not taught , he very subtilly argues after this manner : from whence , saith he , i gather , that notwithstanding all his arguments to disprove the real presence , yet he hath not faith ( though face ) to deny it . for that pag. 3. he tells you that besides their positive articles , they have a great many negative ones , [ and the answerer tells you , for which we are beholden to the corruptions and innovations of the church of rome ] &c. for that he hath not faith to believe , what the scripture hath not taught , that in the eucharist is not contain'd the body of christ. the gentleman therefore can have no faith to deny it . a very quaint argument ; which i shall dismiss with a parallel instance . he that hath not faith to believe that which the scripture hath not taught , hath not faith to deny that to be of faith which the scripture doth not teach : and therefore because mahometism is not taught in scripture , he hath not faith to deny it . but this spirit of acuteness doth not last long , for having labour'd to find inconsistencies in the doctrine of the church of england as set down in the answer , he blunders without end . he allows what our church saith , that the body of christ is eaten in the sacrament after an heavenly and spiritual manner ; but he adds , but this we believe to be a true and real manner , not a deceitful , figurative , or fictitious manner . — if you grant it after a spiritual manner , you must grant it there after a true manner . if christ be there in spirit , he is also there in truth ; and if there in spirit and truth , all my arguments are granted . i think not ; for the church of england saith , it 's only after an heavenly and spiritual manner . so that though they do agree , where christ is in spirit , he is there in truth ; yet i doubt me the word only alters the case , for he may be there in spirit and in truth , and yet not be corporally there . and i question whether any thing less will satisfie our author ; and so it appears ; for , saith he , christ is there after such an intire , real and substantial manner , as we believe , or he is in no manner there at all , p. 19 , 20. part ii. sect. 1. having thus considered the texts produced by the catholick answer to the seeker , and shew'd how little they serve their cause ; i shall proceed to the second part , and that is to vindicate the texts produced in the protestant answer , from the exceptions of our author . here our author sets his texts against those of the protestant ; but it would have done well if he had first set down what it is he should prove on his own side , viz. that in the eucharist is truly , really and substantially contained , under the forms of bread and wine , the true body and blood , together with the soul and divinity of christ in the same substance wherein he was born of the virgin , and wherein he lived and died for us ; and this by the conversion of the whole bread into the body , and the wine into the blood of christ. if this had been done , how meanly would it have look'd ▪ though he brought his 24 texts to prove it ? and surely he could not then have had the confidence to have said , as he now doth , i doubt not but it appears that the texts brought on the catholick [ roman ] side are abundantly plain and sufficient for the being of christ's body in the sacrament , as thus set down . and it would doubtless have been some gratification to his reader , if he had given us a paraphrase as his adversary had done , according to these his sentiments . but here he saith that the answerer pretends not to prove by these texts that the body and blood of christ are not in the sacrament , p. 24 why so ? because it 's one of their negative articles , and to require plain and express words of scripture to prove such a thing is not there taught , is , says he , to demand a proof , the thing is not capable of . — as if suppose there was not express words of scripture to confute arianism , therefore that could not be confuted by scripture . it 's enough that what is not in scripture is no article of faith ; it 's enough that there are such propositions in scripture as are sufficient to refute it , though there should not be express words . but however if he will take it in the words of our article , and if it may be to his content , we shall find it positively said that transubstantiation is repugnant to the plain words of scripture . and we have our author acknowledging that his adversary undertakes to shew that the protestants have the letter of scripture for them , meaning ( as he saith ) that in the sacrament is not contained the body of christ , p. 30. and now let us try whether the answerer did not give them more than his bare word for it ; in the use he made of his own quotations . as he observed from thence . sect . ii. 1. that it 's no contradiction to our saviour's manner of speaking , to interpret these words figuratively , since our author after all his exclamations of giving christ the lie , is forced ( tho here he slips over it ) elsewhere to acknowledg that the cup , yea and the word bread , is so used , p. 28. 2. that in many instances the letter of scripture is for us : as , arg. 1. that there is no substantial change in the elements , but they remain the same bread and wine after consecration as before . so it 's five times call'd bread , 1 cor. 10. 26 , &c. and the whole solemnity is call'd breaking of bread , act. 2. 42. to this our author replies several ways , as , by the word bread , saith he , is meant the communion of the body of christ , as by the word cup is signified the communion of the blood of christ , p. 24. but to this i answer , 1. that if the words bread and cup are not to be understood literally , but with a thereby is meant , and thereby is signified , then there is no more reason from the bare words to understand , this is my body literally : and that it may be as well interpreted , this is the representation , and sign of my body , as this bread is the communion of my body . 2. from hence it follows , that if the bread be the communion of the body of christ , as the cup is the communion of the blood of christ , then the bread is no more changed than the cup ; but as the cup remains the cup , so the bread remains the bread in the communion . 3. if the bread be the communion of the body of christ , then the communion of the body of christ is in the communion of the bread ; and so the bread is still bread. 4. our author has not touched the point , which was to shew the letter of scripture is for us , when it calls it bread after consecration . but he saith , saint paul mentions not the words , cup and bread , but he explains them to be the body and blood of christ , 1 cor. 11. 26. as often as ye eat this bread , ye do shew the lords death , which was not shewn , but by offering up his true and real body and blood. i answer , so we may better say he mentions not the body of christ , but he explains it , when he five times afterwards calls it bread : but how doth the shewing of the death of christ prove the bread to be his body , when it rather proves it not to be his body , because his body is not , according to them , visible , and to be shewn ? he saith further , how could they be guilty of the body and blood of the lord , v. 27. if the body and blood be not there ? i answer , as persons may be guilty of it out of the sacrament : thus we read heb. 6. 6. who crucifie to themselves the son of god afresh . and chap. 10. 29. who trod under foot the blood of the covenant . and so by unworthy receiving of the lords supper , in which his death was commemorated and represented , they after the same manner were by interpretation guilty of the body and blood of the lord. and this the next ver . 29. shews , not discerning the lords body ; which can be understood only of a spiritual discerning by faith. or rather as the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies , discriminating . lastly , he adds , 't would be hard a sinner should be damn'd meerly for moderate eating and drinking wine ; for according to the protestant answerer , the sacrament is no more , who tells you , p. 11. there is no other substance distributed among the communicants , than that of bread and wine . 1. but if our author had gone three or four lines further , he would have found those words , pag. 11. the body of christ is not otherwise present than it is eaten , that is , after an heavenly and spiritual manner , in the spiritual blessings and effects of his merits and sufferings in his body , to those that believe . so that he prevaricates , when he saith , sinners are damn'd meerly for moderate eating and drinking , and that we esteem the sacrament no more . 2. we look upon it as a divine institution , and by virtue of that institution a means of grace ; and that by a worthy participation of it , we partake of that grace which is thereto promised , therein exhibited , and thereby conveighed , as it 's there declared , p. 17. and consequently the damnation threatned is to the contempt of god's ordinance , and of the sufferings of christ therein represented , and of the grace of god purchased by those sufferings , and therein to be obtained . the answerer shew'd , also as the bread , so the wine was without alteration , from mat. 26. 28. who after he had said , this is my blood , calls it the fruit of the vine . and from the order in st. mark 14. 23 , 24. where the apostles are said to have drank of it , before our saviour said , this is my blood. this branch of the argument our author divides from the other , and casts it forward three or four pages , pag. 28. for it gave too much light to the other , whilst they were together . as to the former text , i will not drink of the fruit of the vine , he saith , st. luke gives the plainest order of it , chap. 22. 14. and that there it has relation to the paschal cup. i grant , that in st. luke it more immediately is joyn'd to the paschal feast , but yet in st. matthew and mark , christ is said to have spoke these words after the delivery of the cup in the lords-supper . and the least that can be observed from hence is , that it was indifferently to be applied to either ; and so it more strongly argues that it was alike to be understood [ that the wine in the eucharistical cup was the natural fruit of the vine , as that in the paschal ] as that the substance of both was one and the same , and no more change in the one than the other . but , suppose this , yet , saith he , the meaning of these words could in no wise be applied to the substance of wine proceeding from an earthly vine ; but to the substance of his blood , the fruit of the heavenly vine , for that it was to be drank new with them in his father's kingdom , which is heaven , where they neither keep taverns , nor drink wine , &c. some persons while they charge others with irreverence , themselves seem to have lost all due reverence for holy things . we will suppose , in favour of our author , that by the kingdom of god our saviour means heaven , and by the fruit of the vine , he means the substance of christ's blood ; yet how will it follow that it 's the same fruit of the vine they drink of in heaven as they drank of in the sacrament ; since the blood of christ is no more drank in heaven , than wine ; nor is the sacrament any more administred there , than the passover ? so that if by the kingdom of god , heaven is to be understood , then the phrase , till i drink it new , signifies mystically and figuratively according to the manner of scripture , which sets forth the happiness of that state by eating , mat. 8. 11. luk. 14. 15. and the excellency and perfection of it by the word new , revel . 14. 13 , &c. and so the meaning is , i shall not henceforth thus eat with you ; the next festival i shall observe , will be in heaven ; there we that have now thus eat and drank together , shall partake of the felicity of that state ; and this fruit of the earthly vine shall be exchanged for rivers of heavenly pleasures , which we shall there be entertained with . the next thing observed by the answerer in proof of the substance of the wine continuing so after consecration , was from the order observed in st. mark 14. 23. where it 's said the disciples drank of the wine , before our saviour said , this is my blood. here our author thinks himself excus'd from an answer , because of an error in the press , body being put for blood. but if he turned to the text , he might see that place was quoted right , and common sense would serve to rectifie it . however he courteously offers somewhat in the mean time , by way of answer , viz. whether st. mark expresseth the words in the same order as they were spoken or no , it matters not ; seeing he has the substance of what was said , and wherein they all agree ; to wit , that it was his blood. and it 's also apparent that christ first gave thanks , and blessed it , before he gave it , &c. pag. 29. but doth it not matter whether st. mark expresseth the words in order ? certainly if the order he recites it in , were the order observed by our saviour , and that the apostles received the cup , and drank of the wine before the words of conversion ( as they call them ) were used , then it follows ( as the answerer argued ) that they only drank of the substance of the wine , and that the words , this is my blood , could not signifie , and much less produce a conversion of the wine into the blood of christ. this our-author was sensible of , and therefore in his answer left out the main part of it . for what tho all the evangelists agree that the words , this is my blood ; were then used by our saviour ? what though christ first gave thanks , and blessed it , before he gave it , if he did not also use the words of conversion , before he gave it ? for all the rest he might do , and yet the wine be wine still ( as they own . ) but thus it was , if st. mark is right in the order , and it seems to be the proper order , because he only speaks of the particular , that they all drank of it . but we are not to have any thing to the purpose till ( as he saith ) the bill be amended , and that i take for his best answer . arg. 2. the protestant answerer shewed the letter of scripture is for us , that our saviour's body had the natural and inseparable properties of a body , such as extension , circumscription , &c. p. 15. here our author calls in the faith of a christian , and the almighty power of god to his succour ; and looks upon the answerer as a second didymus , because he will , like him , not believe except he sees ; and worse than him , who saw but the humanity , yet believed the divinity of christ , p. 30. but why all this , when he believes all the scripture teaches , and reason it self justifies ? may not a man believe , unless he believes contrary to what he himself sees , and the scripture teaches ? or why is he worse than thomas , when thomas would not believe unless he saw ? but the answerer is one of those ( thanks be to god ) whom our saviour pronounced blessed , that have not seen , and yet have believed . what is there he would have him believe ? it is what was never put to thomas , for our saviour convinced him by an ocular demonstration , joh. 20. 27. reach hither thy finger , and behold , &c. as much as if he had said , the resurrection is real , for it 's a real body that is before thee ; and it 's my body , for reach hither thy finger , &c. it 's plain our saviour here thought he gave an unquestionable proof of the truth of his resurrection by shewing his body to thomas , which could not have been , had not his body had the properties of an human body , without which it could not have been a body ; or which if it had been without , thomas could not have been convinced in that way , that it was his body . but our author here undertakes to prove , that this was not the condition of our saviour's body ; or , that he could by his power separate these essential properties of a body from his body . here i must confess my self indebted to him for an answer to what he offered to this purpose before , but not to the purpose of the argument there , and here repeats . pray , saith he , how was his body to be seen , extended , finite , and circumscribed , when he pass'd through walls and doors that were close ? john 20. 17. he entred the room , the doors being shut . — how came he through ? was his body intire , extended , finite , and circumscribed with limbs , bones , and sinews ? — such is the infinite power of god , that though they were inclosed in walls every where a mile thick , 't would yet be possible for christ to enter intire through all , p. 15. here is one thing omitted , and that is to prove , that as the doors were shut , when they assembled , for fear of the jews ( as the evangelist saith ) so they were not opened by christ , when he came and stood in the midst of them ; till which be proved , we shall say the letter of scripture is for us , and that christ's body had flesh and bones , might be beheld and felt , and did neither come through the walls , nor indeed could do , so long as it remains true that the penetration of dimensions is impossible . but i had need to recal this ; for i am for ever silenced if what he saith be true , that the answerer argues perfidiously of christ , as if he were not god , not distinguishing betweeen his glorious body and ours ; for as god , all things are possible to him . but where is that perfidiousness , since no more is denied to christ , than is to god ? for because all things are possible to god , doth he think that it 's perfidious to say , that it 's not possible for god to be ignorant or unfaithful , or circumscrib'd , and so to exist after the manner of a body ? or doth he think it 's perfidious to say , it 's impossible to make the body of christ to have been existent in different times , and really to have been existent before it was existent , and yet not to be existent till it was ? or is it perfidious to say , it 's impossible to make the circumscribed body of christ to be omnipresent ? the last he seems to affirm by his often repeated maxim , that christ is not but where he is intire , and placing therein the difference between christ's glorious body and ours . but of that more anon . our author , as he would prove the body of christ might lose all the properties of a body , so also that it might be contained under the forms of bread and wine , that is , to all appearance it might have all the properties of those elements , and yet be none of them , but the body of christ alone . and this he reasons upon , after this manner , where is the difficulty to believe but this may be , as the holy ghost under the form of a dove , with feather , beak , wing , and all the properties of a fowl ? or in the form of tongues of fire ? both which to our eyes were but as a perfect dove , and as perfect tongues ; yet those different objects to the eye of flesh , were but one holy ghost to the eye of faith. therefore nothing can be more plain than that objects may be one thing to the eye of flesh , and another thing to the eye of faith. so in the sacrament , to our sight and tast is plain bread and wine , but to our faith ( in gods word ) it is the real and intire body and blood of christ. an instance and inference not at all to the purpose . for the question is not , whether a spiritual being may not be under the appearance of a body ? for so it was with the angels when they appeared as men , and the holy ghost when it appeared like a dove . neither is the question , whether an object may be one thing to the eye of flesh , and another to the eye of faith ? for so our saviour appear'd to be man , and yet was god as well as man. all which yet is besides the matter , for in these cases there is an invisible being under a visible representation , or an invisible being in union to a visible . but here are two objects visible in their own nature , viz. the body of christ , and bread ; and the one of these so turn'd into the other , that there are all the properties of a visible being , which is not there , viz. bread ; and none of the properties of that visible being which is there , viz. the body of christ. so that the question should be thus propos'd , whether what is an object of sense , may have all the properties of another sensible object , without being that thing which they are the properties of ; and none of the properties belonging to its own nature and being ? arg. 3. the protestant answerer shew'd , that the letter of scripture is for us , that the body of christ as it ascended , so is to continue in heaven till the conclusion of the world ; and so cannot be in heaven and earth at the same time . this our author calls a barren conceit ; but as barren as it is , it is true , and has scripture and reason on its side , notwithstanding what he has objected to the contrary . the first argument he offers in answer to this is , that he is a perfect and omnipotent-god . and that he may be , and yet not reconcile contradictions ( as has been just before shewed . ) he confirms it by scripture , mat. 18. 20. c. 28. 20. where two or three are gathered together in my name , there am i in the midst of them . and if there , he is there intire , or not at all , p. 15. & 32. but when christ promised to be in the midst of them , did he promise to be there corporally ? if bodily , i would fain know under what form he is there ? and if he be intire where ever he is , and yet he is every where as god , then the body of christ must be as omnipresent as his divinity ; and so there would be no need , nor indeed possibility of his descending . he adds , our saviour is not so confined in heaven , as that he cannot also be upon earth ; for we read that he descended and overthrew saul in the way to damascus , and spoke to him , act. 9. 4. and he may be actually present without being seen , for the men with saul saw no man , v. 7. by all which it 's plain , that christ may be in earth , and in many places at the same time , as well as in heaven . but to this i answer , ( 1. ) it 's not certain that the apostle saw , or that christ appeared to his fleshly eye . for elsewhere he is said to see him in a trance , act. 22. 17. and here v. 4. to fall on the earth ; and so god is said to be seen , when yet there was no similitude , exod. 24. 10. deut. 4. 12. ( 2. ) if he was seen bodily , yet it 's not said , as our author would have it , that he descended , and was bodily present . but it might be as with st. stephen , who looked up to heaven , and saw jesus standing on the right hand of god , act. 7. 55. and so here v. 3. it 's said , that there shined round about ( st. paul ) a light from heaven . ( 3. ) much less is there so much as any intimation of what our author saith , that christ was bodily in heaven and the earth at the same time . for if he was in in the one , it 's certain he was not bodily in the other . and this our author unwittingly acknowledges , when he saith christ descended and overthrew saul . so vigilius tapsitanus , when the body of christ was in the earth , it was not in heaven ; and now because it is in heaven , 't is not in the earth . arg. 4. the answerer argued on , that the letter is for us , that christ was but once offered as a propitiatory sacrifice , &c. that his body is glorified and so not to be offer'd , heb. 9. 28 , &c. but to this our author has made no reply . sect . iii. from hence the prot. answerer proceeded to shew , that as the letter of scripture is for us , so are the words which are figurative , as in those , this is my body , p. 16. the method was here orderly and distinct , but our author runs one into another . i shall gather up what he saith as well as i can . the arguments by which the answerer proved those words to be figurative , are as followeth . arg. 1. from the word this , which if to be understood of the bread , bellarmine grants , then the word body must be figuratively understood . and that it was the bread , at least in conjunction with the other acts relating to it , the answerer shew'd , which our author le ts pass . arg. 2. the answerer argues , if the words are to be understood literally and properly , when these words were said by our saviour , then the body would be broken , before it was broken . to this our author answers , ( 1. ) p. 26. though his natural body be there , yet the manner of it's being is spiritual and sacramental , and the manner of its breaking follows the manner of its being ; his body is there broken in the sign , not the substance . i answer , that to speak of a body's being after the manner of a spirit , is as much as to say on the contrary , a spirit exists after the manner of a body : that is , that body may be a spirit , and a spirit a body . 2. if the body be in the manner of its being only spiritual and sacramental , and the breaking in the manner of its breaking be only spiritually , then why not the body be only spiritual and sacramental ? or why should we any more profess our selves jews or infidels ( as he would have it ) to doubt , whether , nay to affirm , what christ said was improper and metaphorical , when we say , this is my body is to be understood figuratively and spiritually , than it 's to say ( as he doth ) it 's broken spiritually ; since , as the answerer observ'd it 's as well said , this is broken , as this is my body : and our author saith , the manner of its being and breaking , are spiritual and sacramental , mystical and representative ? 3. but this is besides the case ; for the question is not about the manner of breaking , but how christ could say , this is broken ( if not figuratively understood ) before it was broken . but to this we are to expect an answer . but he adds ▪ ( 2. ) moreover these words [ which is broken ] do prove ( as the holy catholick church always did , and ever will hold ) it to be a true , proper sacrifice ; for the being broken , explains the nature of a sacrifice , which imports the destruction of the thing offered , if corruptible and liable to destruction : but the body of christ being incorruptible and immortal , can't be really hurt , therefore the manner of breaking , is only mystical and representative . setting aside that what he saith concerning the catholick church , is spoken gratis , i answer , if the nature of a sacrifice imports the destruction of the thing offered , if corruptible and liable to destruction , then the body of christ must have been destroy'd ( if a proper sacrifice ) before it was destroy'd ; for the body of christ ( when christ spoke these words , this is my body ) was certainly liable to destruction . and so he has fastned the objection , instead of answering it . ( 3. ) he concludes , if this manner of breaking , pleases not the gentleman ( as in truth it doth not , and he has now given his reasons for it ) let us see whether the body of christ were not otherwise broke before he instituted the sacrament . now his body was pierced , and blood spilt at his circumcision , followed by unspeakable pains , restless labours , &c. what his agony in the garden ? what his being crowned with thorns and bloody whipping at the pillar ? — wherefore with truth our saviour might have said of his body [ which is broke ] without supposing any thing improper or untrue . 1. what doth our author mean when he saith he would see , whether the body of christ were not otherwise broken before he instituted the sacrament : and instances in his agony in the garden , his crowning with thorns , and whipping ? doth he think these were before the sacrament ? 2. if this was the meaning of our saviour , when he said , this is my body which is broken , that he was circumcised , and in an agony , &c. then where is the sacrifice , which he saith , imparts the destruction of the thing ? which these things were neither literally nor mystically . arg. 3. the answerer urged , that jesus himself then took the bread , &c. when he said , this is my body , and yet jesus had at that time a body which was not broken , &c. no not so much as mystically . so that the same body was whole and broken . here our author is silent . arg. 4. he argued from the words , do this in remembrance of me , which supposes absence ; and therefore an institution set up in remembrance , and yet in which the body was to be actually present , is to suppose the body to be absent and present at the same time . to this he answers . 1. that those words no way relate to the laity , who only receive the sacrament , but to the priests , who consecrate and administer , for it 's no where said , this eat , this take , this receive , but , this do. a. 1. if this be so , then there is no command to the people to receive . 2. to whom did the apostle write his epistle , but to laity as well as priests . 3. surely he did not read 1 cor. 11. 24. where the apostle saith , take , eat , this is my body . this do ; what ? but , take , eat ; so v. 25. this do ye , as oft as ye drink it in remembrance of me . this do : what ? but , drink this . but after all , what is this to the argument ? for whether these words were spoke to the laity or priests , relates not to the case ; but the question is , whether remembrance of persons , is in its true notion consistent with presence ? to this he answers , the seeker unanswerably observed , that the remembrance of its being , doth no way make it cease to be . a wise observation ! but what then ? doth it not suppose the absence of the thing ? this he saith is a weak piece of sophistry , as if , saith he , my remembrance of your being with me , when present , did any wise suppose your absence from me . but i thought , with the rest of mankind , that remembrance and sight are as distinct in their notion , as absence and presence ; and that i may as well see what is absent , as remember what is present : what is present we see and know , but what is unseen and absent , we remember . after all , we see that the author has left no rule to direct a true seeker to , no guide to direct him , no arguments to settle his wavering mind ; and if there be not a better rule , guide , or arguments than he has offered toward his conviction , there is no help for it , but the seeker must live and dye a seeker . it 's impossible to convince a man that has sense and reason , that he must not use them , and that whatever use they may be of in temporal matters , they ought to be of none in religion : and he that will undertake this difficult task , must either prove he doth not contradict himself when he will shew and refer him to the letter of scripture , and wish him to use his eyes to see it , and his reason to judg of it ; or else he must prove that both parts of a contradiction may be true . and having brought our author hither , i may safely leave him , and conclude his argument , together . finis . errata . pag. 10. lin . 21. for seeker pag. 6. [ seeker pag. 6. ] with braces . p. 27. l. 32. for whe r. where . advertisement . transubstantiation contrary to scripture ; or the protestant's answer to the seeker's request . an apology for the pulpits ; being in answer to a late book , intituled , good advice to the pulpits . together with an appendix , containing a defence of dr. tenison's sermon about alms ; in a letter to the author of this apology . notes, typically marginal, from the original text notes for div a66413-e690 cath. letter to a seeker , p. 1. and 34. eccl. hist. l. 1. c. 8. part. 1. sect. 1. sect. 2. sect. 3. part 2. sect. 1. sect. 2. the absolute impossibility of transubstantiation demonstrated johnson, samuel, 1649-1703. 1688 approx. 118 kb of xml-encoded text transcribed from 38 1-bit group-iv tiff page images. text creation partnership, ann arbor, mi ; oxford (uk) : 2003-01 (eebo-tcp phase 1). a46941 wing j820 estc r28745 10750213 ocm 10750213 45654 this keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the early english books online text creation partnership. this phase i text is available for reuse, according to the terms of creative commons 0 1.0 universal . the text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission. early english books online. (eebo-tcp ; phase 1, no. a46941) transcribed from: (early english books online ; image set 45654) images scanned from microfilm: (early english books, 1641-1700 ; 1405:27) the absolute impossibility of transubstantiation demonstrated johnson, samuel, 1649-1703. johnson, samuel, 1649-1703. second five year's struggle against popery and tyranny. the second edition. xv, 55 p. : ill. printed for william rogers, london : 1688. attributed to s. johnson by wing. this item also appears as pages [157]-233 in samuel johnson's second five year's struggle against popery and tyranny (wing j843) at reel 386:10. reproduction of original in the union theological seminary library, new york. created by converting tcp files to tei p5 using tcp2tei.xsl, tei @ oxford. re-processed by university of nebraska-lincoln and northwestern, with changes to facilitate morpho-syntactic tagging. gap elements of known extent have been transformed into placeholder characters or elements to simplify the filling in of gaps by user contributors. eebo-tcp is a partnership between the universities of michigan and oxford and the publisher proquest to create accurately transcribed and encoded texts based on the image sets published by proquest via their early english books online (eebo) database (http://eebo.chadwyck.com). the general aim of eebo-tcp is to encode one copy (usually the first edition) of every monographic english-language title published between 1473 and 1700 available in eebo. eebo-tcp aimed to produce large quantities of textual data within the usual project restraints of time and funding, and therefore chose to create diplomatic transcriptions (as opposed to critical editions) with light-touch, mainly structural encoding based on the text encoding initiative (http://www.tei-c.org). the eebo-tcp project was divided into two phases. the 25,363 texts created during phase 1 of the project have been released into the public domain as of 1 january 2015. anyone can now take and use these texts for their own purposes, but we respectfully request that due credit and attribution is given to their original source. users should be aware of the process of creating the tcp texts, and therefore of any assumptions that can be made about the data. text selection was based on the new cambridge bibliography of english literature (ncbel). if an author (or for an anonymous work, the title) appears in ncbel, then their works are eligible for inclusion. selection was intended to range over a wide variety of subject areas, to reflect the true nature of the print record of the period. in general, first editions of a works in english were prioritized, although there are a number of works in other languages, notably latin and welsh, included and sometimes a second or later edition of a work was chosen if there was a compelling reason to do so. image sets were sent to external keying companies for transcription and basic encoding. quality assurance was then carried out by editorial teams in oxford and michigan. 5% (or 5 pages, whichever is the greater) of each text was proofread for accuracy and those which did not meet qa standards were returned to the keyers to be redone. after proofreading, the encoding was enhanced and/or corrected and characters marked as illegible were corrected where possible up to a limit of 100 instances per text. any remaining illegibles were encoded as <gap>s. understanding these processes should make clear that, while the overall quality of tcp data is very good, some errors will remain and some readable characters will be marked as illegible. users should bear in mind that in all likelihood such instances will never have been looked at by a tcp editor. the texts were encoded and linked to page images in accordance with level 4 of the tei in libraries guidelines. copies of the texts have been issued variously as sgml (tcp schema; ascii text with mnemonic sdata character entities); displayable xml (tcp schema; characters represented either as utf-8 unicode or text strings within braces); or lossless xml (tei p5, characters represented either as utf-8 unicode or tei g elements). keying and markup guidelines are available at the text creation partnership web site . eng transubstantiation. 2000-00 tcp assigned for keying and markup 2001-12 apex covantage keyed and coded from proquest page images 2002-01 tcp staff (michigan) sampled and proofread 2002-01 tcp staff (michigan) text and markup reviewed and edited 2002-02 pfs batch review (qc) and xml conversion imprimatur , liber cui titulus , [ the absolute impossibility of transubstantiation demonstrated . ] maij 3. 1688. guil. needham rr. in christo p. ac d. d. wilhelmo archiep . cant. a sacr. dom. the absolute impossibility of transubstantiation demonstrated . the second edition . london , printed for william rogers , at the sun over against st. dunstan's church in fleetstreet . m dc lxxxviii . the preface . upon a careful review of this ensuing discourse , i find no cause to make any abatement from the title of it , which promises to the reader no less than strict demonstration . if any of the following arguments should happen to fall short of these pretensions to the highest and clearest sort of proof that can be , it is wholly my fault , and i will mend it upon the first notice of it . for i am sure that the subject-matter is capable of the most rigorous demonstration that ever was ; and it has always been held , that the essential properties and affections of a body , such as quantity , figure , and its relation to place , &c. are the proper subject of demonstration . and let me here add , that such a doctrine as transubstantiation , neither is , nor can be a matter of revelation . for scripture was given us , either ( i st ) to reveal things which were unknown to us by natural light : such as the manner of the creation of the world , and the greater and more amazing secret of the redemption of it , wherein all heaven was engaged ; the father sent the son , and the son afterwards sent the holy ghost ; upon which occasion we have a clear and manifest declaration of that doctrine , which is commonly called the trinity of persons in the godhead , which was not so express before , under the old testament . to these may be added , the assurance which is given us of a resurrection , and of a future iudgment , and of the different portion of good and bad men ; of the one in happiness with all the blessed company of heaven , and of the other in eternal torments prepared for the devil and his angels . now these are things which are vndiscoverable by natural light ; but being revealed , are very agreeable to it , and in nowise contradict it . or ( 2dly ) to furnish us with an history of providence , and of god's government of the world : wherein most of the divine attributes are visibly displayed . his holiness and justice are to be seen in his judgments , his mercy in deliverances , his power in miracles ; his knowledg , faithfulness and truth , in prophesies ; and the like . now this part of scripture does only clear up and exemplify our natural knowledge of god ; and our reason is so far from being distressed , that it is very much strengthened and confirmed by it : as to compare great things with small , the grammar rule is proved and confirmed by the example . or ( 3dly ) it was given us to improve our natural notices , and inforce our natural obligations to those duties , which we owe to god , our neighbour and our selves . and here our reason triumphs , and is made perfect . or ( 4thly ) to establish certain religious ordinances and institutions ; such as are the sacraments , religious assemblies , preaching , and the like : which our very reason does subscribe and approve as wise and holy appointments , and as highly instrumental to a good life . now these are matters worthy of god , and such as all the wisdom in the world would expect should be the contents of a divine revelation . if god should vouchsafe to make new discoveries to the world , a man would look for somewhat of this nature , which should improve us , and supply the defects of human vnderstanding , and tend to the perfecting of our nature . but no man would expect that god should send after us from heaven to unteach us all that ever he had taught us in the day of our creation , and to bless us with such discoveries as these . that the same body is in the same place , and is not in the same place at the same time . that the duration of 24 hours is the duration of 1688 tears . that a miles distance , and the distance of 10000 miles is equal . that the same thing may exist , and not exist at once . that the self-same single thing may have two contrary natures at the same time , and not be what it is ; together with the rest of the mysteries of transubstantiation . we are sure that a divine revelation cannot contradict the common sense and reason of mankind ; for that would be to pronouce them false witnesses of god , when by these alone we know that there is a god , and are led to the discovery of his eternal power and godhead ; which must be known before we can think of revelation . for it is in vain to talk of the word of god , till we know that there is a god whose word this revelation is . in short , if any supposed revelation should contradict the plain principles of reason , it would be the same thing , or rather worse , than if that revelation should contradict it self . for if a revelation should contradict it self , we could not indeed receive it upon those terms , because we should be bound to believe it and disbelieve it at once , and therefore we could not believe it at all ; but if this revelation should contradict the plain principles of reason , then it would overthrow that vnderstanding which we are sure we received from the hands of god : and therefore if we should renounce our reason to believe such a revelation , we must in that case part with a certainty for an uncertainty . for we cannot know ( unless we will receive it blindfold , and then we know nothing ) that ever any revelation came from god , till our reason has made it out to us that it did : and therefore to abandon our reason for the sake of any revelation , is to make our selves surer of the thing proved , than of the proof it self , which is very absurd ; for that which makes us certain of another thing , must needs be first and best known to us . i should not have put such a case as this , for it is an impossible case , but that the papists themselves have put it , and have decided it the wrong way , and have made axiomes and self-evident principles out of the false determination of it . so cartes concludes his first book of principles ; that we must fix this in our minds as the chief and principal rule , that those things which are revealed to us by god , are to be believed as the most certain of all others : and although perchance the most clear and evident light of reason that can be , should seem to suggest to us the contrary , yet we must believe divine authority alone , rather than our own judgment . now this i say is an impossible case ; for we have not a more clear and evident proof , than the most clear and most evident light of reason that can be , either that god has revealed any one doctrine in particular , or made any revelation at all , or that there is a god. and therefore if any revealed doctrine in particular can be supposed to contradict the most clear and most evident light of reason that can be , so that it ought to be set aside and disbelieved as false ; then that doctrine does therein overthrow both its own credit , and the belief of a revelation in general , and even of a deity : and consequently it is , as i said , an impossible case , and a perfect inconsistency ; for at once it supposes the belief of a divine revelation , and yet destroys the belief of any such thing . the gentlemen of the port royal , in their logick or art of thinking , have advanced this rule of cartes to the state and degree of an axiome , or undoubted principle : for in part 4. chap. 7. they make this , together with two other axiomes which usher it in , to be the foundation of faith. i shall consider them all three . axiome viii . a man ought not to deny that which is clear and evident , for not being able to comprehend that which is obscure . this is but a lame axiome ; for tho it be truth , yet it is not the whole truth in this matter : for a man ought not to deny that which is clear and evident upon any acceunt what soever . he ought not to go against known truth , ( for that is the english of what is clear and evident ) for the sake of any thing , either known or unknown . axiome ix . it is of the nature of a finite mind , not to be able to comprehend that which is infinite . this is an undoubted truth , and no man can gainsay it ; only it has the misfortune to be found here in bad company , and to be applied to false purposes , as we shall see by and by . axiome x. the testimony of a person infinitely powerful , infinitely wise , infinitely good , and infinitely true , ought to have more force to persuade our minds , than the most convincing reasons . but i ask again , have we any more than the most convincing reasons , to persuade us that there is any such person thus qualified ? or that this infinitely credible and adorable being has given any testimony at all ? if not , then i say , that this axiome is an inconsistency , it supplants it self , and undermines the very ground on which it stands . that must needs be a very tottering and ruinous foundation of faith , which is established upon a contrariety and opposition to the most convincing reasons : but an absurd religion may be glad of such axiomes as it can get , and must be content to be served with an absurd logic. the messieurs promise us here to say somewhat more of faith afterwards , which accordingly they do , chap. ii. and therefore thither we will follow them , and see how they apply these axiomes to establish transubstantiation . where first they inculcate their former axiome in these words , il est certain , &c. it is certain that divine faith ought to have more power over our minds , than our own reason . and this is certain , even by reason it self , which shews us , that we ought always to prefer that which is more certain , before that which is less certain ; and that it is more certain that what god says , is true , than what our reason persuades us ; because god is more uncapable of deceiving us , than our reason of being deceived . now , if what reason persuades us , be not certain , when , for instance , it persuades us that there is a god , then there is no possible certainty of a revelation , which shall stand in competition with reason , and be preferred before it . and therefore this is the old enchantment over again , which perfectly turns the reason of mankind into a stone , so that it cannot move one step either forward or backward . for if the most clear and evident light of reason that can be , ( as cartes's word is ) , if the most convincing reasons ( as the port-royal word is ) may be false , then it is impossible for us us to know any thing : nay , it is impossible for us so much as to know , that we know nothing . but in the very next words they relent , and tell us quite another story . neanmoins a considerer , &c. nevertheless to consider things exactly , that which we evidently perceive , both by reason , or by the faithful report of our senses , is never contrary to that which divine faith teaches us . but that which makes us believe so , is , that we take no heed where it is that the evidence of our reason and of our senses ought to stop , and to go no further . methinks men should consider things exactly before they lay down axiomes and first principles , and not after : for now it seems that revelation is never contrary to the evidence of reason , or the faithful report of our senses , ( for if they are never contrary to that , then that is never contrary to them ) and therefore the opposition which was supposed to be betwixt them , and the renouncing of reason , and cleaving to faith , which followed thereupon , proves to be wholly a mistake . so that they have plainly given up their 10th axiome for nonsense ; and now they are upon a new question , which is concerning the just bounds and full extent of sense and reason , and to shew how short sighted they both are in discerning a bit of bread. their next words are these : par exemple , &c. for example , our senses shew us clearly in the sacrament some roundness and whiteness ; but our senses do not teach us whether it be the substance of bread which causes our eyes to perceive this roundness and whiteness : and thus faith is not contrary to the evidence of our senses , when it tells us , that this is not the substance of bread , which is abolished , having been changed into the body of jesus christ by the mystery of transubstantiation , and that we see nothing more than the species and appearances of bread which still remain , although the substance be abolished , and be no more . when the papists are disposed to make themselves merry with the follies of us poor hereticks , there is no such happy subject of their drollery as this , that we pretend to see substances , and have such exquisite senses as will penetrate farther and deeper than all other mens . now on the other hand we can tell them very seriously , that we never saw roundness or whiteness in our lives , nor can any of our senses shew us any such rarities : we cannot deny but that we have seen round and white substances or bodies , or pieces of matter , call them what you will ; but as for roundness and whiteness , we believe them to be objects so dazling , that they would certainly blind us . the roundness , and whiteness , and sweetness which they see and tast in the sacrament without a subject , are the round , and white , and sweet nothings which we never yet saw nor tasted , tho we sometimes promise them to our children for fairings . but substances we continually see , and cannot look beside them : for every thing which is seen , heard , smelt , tasted , or felt , is a substance , and which is more , it is a gross material substance , or else it could not affect and make an impression upon such gross material organs of sense as ours are . what is it that so fēelingly moves our senses , and resists our touch , but a body or material substance ? for ten thousand roundnesses and whitenesses will not make up one object of sense . and as for the instance which lies before us , of a piece of bread , it is a substance the most familiar , and best known to us of all others . we can see , and taste , and seel , and smell it , and know it blindfold and not only we , but most of the creatures about us can see , and taste , and smell the substance of bread as well as we , and know it very distinctly , and will single it out from twenty other round and white substances whatsoever . and their senses were certainly given them to discern substances and not accidents , for otherwise a round and white stone , or a round and white chip , would serve their turn as well ; but figure and colour are not their business , but a substance , which will nourish them , and which will be altered and assimilated into the substance of flesh and blood. and therefore whether the substance of a wafer be bread , or whether it be a humane body , i will refer it wholly to all the animals in the world , which love bread , and will not seize upon a living man ; for they are competent and indifferent judges in this matter : always excepting those animals which are the masters of the school of the eucharist ; for they are all parties and bigots , and especially the dog of lisbon . in short , i challenge all the world to tell me what there is belonging to the substance of bread , which we do not see and discern by our senses , and which is not faithfully reported to us by them . and therefore when our senses evidently shew us , that a wafer is the substance of bread , and on the other hand , the popish faith teaches us that it is not the substance of bread , but the substance of a human body , that faith is plainly contrary to the evidence of our senses ; which because the messieurs said before , divine faith never is , it leaves their faith under a different character from that which is divine . they proceed in the following words , nostre raison de mesme , &c. our reason in like manner shews us that one single body is not at the same time in divers places , nor two bodies in one and the same place ; but this ought to be understood of the natural condition of bodies , because it would be a desect of reason for a man to imagine that our mind being finite , is able to comprehend how far the infinite power of god reaches . and therefore when hereticks , in order to destroy the mysteries of faith , as the trinity , incarnation and eucharist , do object those pretended impossibilities which they draw from reason , in this very thing they themselves do visibly depart from reason , in pretending to be able to comprehend in their finite mind the infinite extent of the power of god. in this short passage there are many things liable to exception . for ( 1st , ) our reason does not only shew us , that one single body is not at the same time in divers places , but it shews us also that it cannot be in divers places at once , for this reason , because in that case one single body would be divers bodies , which is a contradiction . and therefore ( 2dly , ) the limitation which follows , is false , that this ought to be understood of the natural condition of bodies , and restrained only to that . for whether bodies be in a natural condition , or supernatural , one single body cannot be divers bodies at the same time , for then it is no longer one single body . no supernatural case or condition can make a contradiction to be true . for instance , st. john baptist told the jews that god was able of those stones , which lay upon the banks of jordan , to raise up children unto abraham . in their natural condition they were stones , but in this supernatural condition they would have been men ; but in no condition was it possible for them to be both stones and men at the same time , because it is a repugnancy , for to say , a stone is a man , is to say a stone is not a stone , that is to say , it is not , or it is nothing at all , which i hope no man will say is the work of an infinite power . and therefore ( 3ly , ) in saying , that one body cannot be in divers places at once , we do not thereby imagine that a finite mind can comprehend how far the infinite power of god reaches ; this is both a false charge , and a false inference . for what has omnipotency to do with nothing ? to effect nothing , is a derogation to all power , much more is it beneath that which is infinite . when therefore we vindicate the divine power , and assert the infinity of it , and say it is removed at the greatest distance from all defect , is this to say that a finite mind can comprehend it ? no ; god forbid that our heads should be filled with such cross popish contradictions , as to say , that every contradiction is impossible , and yet this contradiction is possible ; that a finite may hold an infinite , and that the greater may be contained by the less . we admire and adore the infinite power of god , and we are sensible of it every minute , for in him we live and move and have our being , and yet we do not comprehend it ; neither have we the least thought or imagination of comprehending it ; for we know that this is utterly inconsistent with the necessary imperfection and limitation of a creature state . the infinite power of god stands like a great mountain . now we can see a great mountain only by parts , and cannot view it all round at once , much less can we grasp or comprehend it , and take it up in our arms. but yet as we know and see , that this incomprehensible mountain ( which is an object too big for our senses ) is not a valley ; so we are full as sure that perfection is not imperfection , and that infinite power ( tho we never pretended to measure the extent of it ) is free from all impotency , and cannot atchieve impossibilities and nothings . as we know by his necessary existence that god cannot cease to be , and by his infinite wisdom that he cannot err , and by his infinite truth that it is impossible for god to lye : so we are assured by his insinite power that he cannot make a contradiction , a nothing , an inconsistency , which is always unmade again as fast as it is made . if god should create and annihilate a thing at once , he would plainly effect neither , and nothing would follow upon such an impossible act. ( 4thly , ) the messieurs insinuate , as if the impôssibilities which are brought against transubstantiation were of the same sort , and as false and pretended , as those which are objected against the trinity , and the incarnation of our saviour ; but i shall leave that to the judgment of every indifferent reader , after he has weighed and considered the following discourse . and thus i have at least-shaken those axiomes , which were purposely erected as strongholds , to cover and shelter the absurd doctrines of the church of rome , and especially that of trasubstantiation , by feigning that revelation and reason are at variance , and that in that case reason is to be abandoned . it may justly be admired that cartes , a man of clear sense , should begin such rules ; but it is to be remembred , that he was to make some amends for the bold truths he had elsewhere delivered ; and likewise , that he was able to complement the church of rome , as well as he did particular persons , without being a slave to his complement : for when he was pressed with what he had said upon such occasions , and with his own very words ; he used to tell them , urbanitas styli gallici te fesellit , you did not understand a french complement . i doubt not but the learned men of the port royal did very well understand it ; but it is their craft to make silver shrines for diana ; and all the commendation we can give them , is to say , that they are very able workmen , and masters of their trade , such a one as it is . to conclude , reason is that whereby we chuse our religion , and judg whether it be a revelation which came from god , and whereby we distinguish betwixt the bible and the alchoran . and , as cartes says , if a turk or a heathen , being induced by some false reasonings , should embrace christianity , and did not know that it came from god , he would not thereupon be a christian , but rather he would be guilty of a sin , in not using his reason aright . reason is that whereby we interpret a revelation ; or else a man can give no reason why he interprets it in that manner , rather than in another . and as st. paul speaks in another case , do ye not know that the saints shall judg the world ? &c. do ye not know that reason must judg of the sum of religion ? and if the whole must be judged by it , is it unworthy to judg in the smallest matters , such as a phrase , or a figure ? shall it not judg in so plain and so easie a case as this ? that christ's body on which the woman poured her alabaster box of ointment , matth. 26. 12. was his living natural body ; and the body which joseph of arimathea begged and buried , matth. 27. 58. was his dead natural body ; and the body of christ which is to be edified , eph. 4. 12. is the church , or society of all christian people ; and the body of christ which is to be eaten , matth. 26. 26. is the sign , or sacrament , or memorial of his body ? if reason may not judg in this case , by considering and examining these several places , but is to be set aside or renounced , and the letter of scripture is to determine it ; then i am sure , that if the communicant , by virtue of those words , this is my body , eats the natural body of christ either dead or alive , at the same time he also eats up all christian people by virtue of st. paul's words , who in like manner expresly calls them the body of christ. in a word , whatsoever is believed or done in religion , must be by reason , or else it is an irrational belief and practice . for reason is the principle of a man ; and whatsoever is not done by it , is not done by the man , it is not an humane act , but the act of a brute . whenever therefore i become a scholar in the school of the eucharist , and renounce the reason which god has given me , to embrace the romish doctrine of transubstantiation , i am fully resolved to keep a decorum in it , and i will certainly go over to that church upon all four. i have not thus much insisted upon reason , because we are destitute of scripture-proof , to shew that transubstantiation is false ; for we have not a clearer and fuller evidence from revelation , that our saviour came into the world , than we have that his body , even since his resurrection , is such , as cannot possibly be present in form of bread . as to name no more , luke 24. 39. behold my hands and my feet , that it is i my self : handle me and see , for a spirit hath not flesh and bones , as ye see me have . these are the scripture-marks of our saviour's body , which he himself gave on purpose to know it by . but can we possibly behold hands and feet in a wafer ? can we handle and see flesh and bones in it ? if we cannot , then it is not he himself ; otherwise these are fallacious marks of him , for roundness and whiteness , and no hands and feet , and no flesh and bones , might have been the marks as well . but i was hereby willing to shew , that as scripture is against transubstantiation , so the primitive light of reason is against it too , the unwritten as well as the written word of god : and that as transubstantiation tends to the destruction of all that is man or christian in us ; so on the other hand , common sense , reason , christianity , and all that is within us , does rise up in opposition against so monstrous and mischievous a doctrine . the absolute impossibility of transubstantiation demonstrated . transubstantiation is not the name of one single absurdity , but it signifies as legion does , many thousands in one . for which reason it is very hard to draw them up , or put them into any good order , which however i shall endeavour to do under these two heads : first , of intellectual absurdities . and secondly , of practical absurdities . 1. the first head is of intellectual absurdities ; by which i mean such falshoods as are repugnant to the common reason and understanding of mankind . and i purposely wave all those absurdities of transubstantiation which contradict our senses , because if a man be bent upon it , and will outface me out of all my senses , as i cannot believe him , so i cannot disprove him : if he says the sun does not shine , when at the same time i am really dazled with the light and brightness of it , i can only say as i find , and appeal to his own senses , and desire him to do me right . in case a romanist should bear me down , that the bible in my hand is not a book , but the living judg of controversie , pope innocent the eleventh , and all the bishops of the christian world sitting together in council ; i cannot help my self : especially if he pretend to have chang'd the book into such , and so many living men by saying some powerful charming words over it ; and further , if in condescension and compliance with the frailty of human sense , he likewise acknowledges that it looks like a printed and bound book , and is cloath'd with all the accidents and properties of a book , and that one part of the enchantment lies in this , that tho in all appearance it is a book , yet it is in reality pope innocent the eleventh , and an assembly of living bishops ; in this case i cannot plead my senses , because he has already foreclosed the use and evidence of them . but if he goes on to tell me utter impossibilities , and after having affirm'd to me that the two epistles of st. peter are nothing else but pope innocent in person ; and that the very same holy father ( whom i have in my hand at london ) is also at the self same time personally present at rome , and at paris , and at vienna , and in ten thousand other very remote places ; he then puts me into a way to break the enchantment , and to overthrow his delusion with such arguments , as will not be satisfied by saying , that the senses may be deceived , and cannot dive into the essence of things . it is not such a light and ludicrous cheat as this i have been now speaking of , which the church of rome has put upon the world for many ages together ; for then i question whether i should ever have employed my pen against it ; ( though it is an indignity to mankind to impose upon them , to deceive and make children of them ) but the romish delusion is of an higher nature , for it is the cheat of a bit of bread which you must believe to be a man's body , nay to be a god : and accordingly if you will not worship and bow down to this bit of bread , and acknowledg it to be your maker , then shall you be condemned for an heretick ; then will they zealously tell you , that they will no more pray for you than they will for a dog ; and that as your body fries in a smithfield fire , so your soul shall for ever burn in hell. and therefore it is of as great consequence to men , as their souls and bodies are worth , to know the truth of this matter ; for which cause i earnestly intreat them to weigh and ponder the arguments , and carefully to attend to the demonstrations , which i shall here lay down before them . to proceed with the more strength and clearness in this matter , and to avoid needless repetitions , and such like incumbrances of a discourse , i shall here premise some very reasonable demands , which without any man's leave i shall take for granted : 1. that a doctrine which consists of impossibilities , is an impossible doctrine . 2. that omnipotency it self cannot make an impossibility ; for what cannot be done at all , cannot be done by almighty power . supposing an infinite excess of power , ( as we are sure there is in god ) yet it cannot do what cannot be done . 3. that a contradiction is an impossibility . from these premises i shall infer , that every contradiction which is contained in the doctrine of transubstantiation , is an undoubted proof of the impossibility of it ; so that it never was , is , or can be true , and that the pretence of omnipotency it self cannot support it . to avoid the force of this and such like demonstrations , the representer of popery tells us , that christ gives to his body a supernatural manner of existence , by which being left without extension of parts , and rendred independent of place , it may be one and the same in many places at once , and whole in every part of the symbols , and not obnoxious to any corporeal contingencies . thus far he . it may be , a few new-devised terms , and half a dozen inconsistent words contradictiously jumbled together , are able to overthrow a demonstration . we will try whether they can or no. as for the privileges and prerogatives of this body ( which it must always be carefully remembred is an organized human body ) to exist without extension of parts , to be whole in every part of the symbols , and not to be obnoxious to any corporeal contingencies , they are mysteries which will keep cold , and we shall consider them by and by . the thing to be thought of at present , is a supernatural manner of existence , whereby this body is rendred independent of place , and may be one and the same in many places at once . this body which exists in a supernatural manner , must either , ( r. ) be every where , and in all places ; which manner of existence is immense and infinite , and peculiar to god alone . it is a divine attribute ; and where there is one divine attribute , there are all the rest . but if by an impossible supposition this manner of existence were communicable to a body , yet it would not serve their purpose ; for then this body would be in too many . places at once , in all other places out of the sacrament , as well as in it ; and so there would be no need of priests to make christ's body in the sacrament , which would be a thing very inconvenient at least for that order of men. or else ( 2. ) this body which is independent of place , must be in no place ; and then with its supernatural manner of existence , it does not exist at all ; for that which is no-where , is nothing . or ( 3 dly and lastly ) it must be somewhere ; for let the manner of existence be what it will , natural , or supernatural , or infinite , still this body , which is independent of place , must either be every where , or somewhere , or no where . if this body be every where , as was shewed before , it would be infinite , which is blasphemy ; for if a body may have divine attributes , and be a god , then god may be a body . and then again , if this body be no-where , it is non-existent and nothing . and therefore it remains that it be somewhere : and this is easily granted ; for it is said to be in many places at once , which is many some-wheres . well , if it may be in many places at once , it may be in one of those many places : this is undeniable , and must be granted us . let us make use therefore once again of the former scheme , and let this one place be a , and d the body in it ; and now at last , though this body d be independent of place , yet we are sure of it in one place , for it is in a. but it seems , it may be in several other places at the same time : be it so , and let b and c be two of those other places , and let d be the self-same independent body in those places ; and then we are haunted again with all the former contradictions . d is in a , and at the same time d is not in a , for it is in b , which is not in a. again , d is wholly in b , and d is wholly out of b at the same time , for it is in c , which is wholly out of b. so that this pretended supernatural manner of existence , is full of contradictions , that is to say , it is impossible . which was to be demonstrated . in this foregoing demonstration i have taken the word place in the largest sense , so as to contain angels and spirits , who are somewhere , and who cannot be elsewhere at the same time . and this i did on purpose to shew , that though the body of christ should be present after the manner of a spirit , without filling a place , or having any relation to the dimensions of it , ( which was the old hypothesis , before the representer came with his new jargon ) ; and though it took up no more room than a thought does in a man's mind , yet it were impossible for it to be in many places at once . so that if we should grant matter to be immaterial , and a body to be a spirit , yet the papists are so intangled in the absurdity of this doctrine , that it would do them no good to allow them half a score contradictions , neither would it any way relieve them , or free them from the rest . whereas on the other hand , a body is known to fill and possess the place in which it is , and is circumscribed by the bounds and limits of the place , which is commensurate to the magnitude and figure of the body : so that if a body should be in many places at once , it might not only have quite contrary situations , and be east , west , north , and south of it self , be above it self , and below it self all at once ; but also it would be circumscribed and not circumscribed at the same time ; which is a very plain and open contradiction . 2. the second head of contradictions are those which attend the doctrine of transubstantiation in point of time. every thing that has now a being , either always had a being , and is eternal ; which only god is ; or else it had a beginning of its being , in which it has continued ever since ; which is the condition of all creatures ; and this continuance of a creature in being we call the duration of it , which is so essential to all substances , whether material or immaterial , that it is absolutely inseparable from them : for when their being began , their duration began ; and when their duration ceases , their being ceases . this duration is counted by days , months , and years , and such like greater or lesser portions of time ; which time is nothing else but the measure of duration , whereby we reckon how long a substance has continued or persevered in being . and now we have a test in our hands , to try whether it be not absolutely impossible for the transubstantiation-body in the sacrament to be the very body of christ , which was born of the virgin mary . the body which was born of the virgin mary has continued in being 1688 years ; whereas the body which the priest a made yesterday , has continued in being but one day ; but the duration of one day only , cannot be the duration of 1688 years : and the duration of 1688 years is now inseparable from the body of christ born of the virgin mary , for the duration of a substance is inseparable from the substance ; therefore the body which the priest made yesterday , cannot be the body which was born of the virgin mary . which was to be demonstrated . again ; if the body in the sacrament which was made , that is , began to be yesterday , is the same body which has continued 1688 years , then the same body continued 1687 years , and upwards , before it began to be ; but before it began to be , it was not in being ; and consequently , in every minute during that 1687 years , the same body was in being , and was not in being . which amounts to millions of contradictions . once more . it must be granted , that the cause is in being before the effect ; and it would be a double repugnancy to say the contrary ; for then the effect would be both before it self , for it is not an effect till it be caused ; and also before its cause , and so would be caused by that which is not . now the causes of the transubstantiation-body are these amongst others . 1. the bread out of which it is produced ; which is so necessary , that this change cannot be wrought out of any other substance in the world , flesh nor fish , pillar nor post , nor any thing else that can be named ; and therefore this is the necessary matter of the transubstantiation . body , or the cause out of which it is made . 2ly , the baker by whom the bread was made ; for he that is a cause of the cause , is a cause of the thing caused . 3ly , the marvellous operator , the priest , who makes the body , together with his intention . 4ly , which seems to be an instrumental cause , his pronouncing these words , hoc enim est corpus meum , in one breath . 5ly , the consideration which moved him to say a mass at that time . but neither the bread nor the baker , nor the priest nor his intention , nor his voice nor his breath , nor the proposal , suppose of twelve-pence , to him to say a mass ; neither all nor any of these , which were the causes of that transubstantiation-body , which was made yesterday , and did contribute more or less to the producing of it ; i say , none of these causes were in being an hundred years ago : and if the causes were not in being , much less was the effect in being , otherwise the effect must be before the cause , which is impossible . but the body of christ , born of the virgin mary , was in being 1600 years ago , which is more than one hundred years ago , and this is impossible for the transubstantiation-body which was made yesterday ; therefore it is impossible for the transubstantiation-body to be the body of christ born of the virgin mary . q. e. d. i wonder , that when the representer's hand was in , and he had made christ's body independent of place , he had not likewise made it independent of time , for that was full as necessary to be done as the other . 3. the third head of contradictions are those which relate to quantity ; under which head i was going to demonstrate , that the same body cannot at the same time be bigger and less than it self ; that it cannot be an organized humane body , five foot and an half long , and at the same time bestowed within the compass of a wafer no bigger than a six-pence , nay within the compass of every crumb of that wafer , though not so big as a pins-head . but i am interrupted from proceeding any further in this attempt ; for by a slight conveyance , the very subject-matter of my demonstration is taken away ; and instead of a solid body , with figure and dimensions , with different and distinct parts , divisible and measurable , they have left me only the appearance of a body , which no demonstration can fasten upon . for they say , that this body is induced with a supernatural manner of existence , by which being left without extension of parts , it may be whole in every part of the symbols , and not obuoxious to any corporeal contingencies . now though we cannot demonstrate any property of such an incomprehensible body as this is , ( no more than we can draw the picture of a non-entity , or weigh it in a pair of scales ) for it scorns and tramples upon all the principles and axioms of euclid ; yet we may a little consider the terms of art by which it is exprest . 1. it is a body without extension of parts . so that it is a whole which has parts , though those parts are without extension ; and accordingly as it follows , it may be whole in every part of the symbols . but if the parts be without extension , so is the whole , for the whole is nothing else but all the parts put together . now at this rate , a part is as big as the whole , and has as much extension , because either of them has none at all . is this indeed the body which the wonder-working priest produces ! a body without extension is a mere nothing , and a perfect contradiction in terms ; for extension is the very essence of a body , and the foundation of all the other properties that are in it ; the 3 dimensions , as also figure , divisibility , and impenetrability , do all flow from it . again ; so much as you add to the quantity of a body , so much you add to the substance ; and so much of the extension as you take away , just so much of the substance goes along with it . in a word , body and extension are reciprocal , for every body is an extended substance , and every extended substance is a body ; so that they are but different names for the same thing . 2. this body is whole in every part of the symbols , that is of the elements of bread and wine . but the bread has , suppose , an hundred distinct parts , one of which is not the other , and therefore this body being whole in every distinct part , has an hundred distinct wholes , one of which is not the other , and yet is but one body all the while , which , as i take it , is contradiction by whole-sale . 3. this body is not obnoxious to any corporeal contingencies . if it be a body , what may happen to one body , may happen to another . to use terence's words in this case , homo sum nihil humanum a me alienum puto : i am a man , and what is incident to a man , is incident to me . and so if a body could speak , it would say , corpus sum nihil corporeum a me alienum puto ; i am a body , and what belongs to a body , belongs to me . whatever body is subject to be eaten , is subject to be pressed and grinded with the teeth , to be swallowed down , and afterwards voided ; and i suppose this last clause was added on purpose to avoid such inconveniencies , and to save the honour of this body , which they call god's body : but in my opinion it was a needless clause , for a body without extension can never take hurt , nor come to any damage at all . for a man may bite till his jaws ake , and grind all his teeth out of his head , before he can fasten upon that which is not , and which never yet had any existence in the world , save in a parcel of insignificant words ill put together on purpose . it is an endless thing to encounter shadows , and to oppose these manifest impossibilities , which are so contrary to the reason of manking , that the papists themselves own they would not hold them , were it not for the sake of revelation : which is to be believed , they say , before reason , and ought to outweigh all other reasons . they are over-ruled , they say , in this case , by the express words of our saviour , who in the same night in which he was betrayed , took bread , and said , take , eat , this is my body , do this in remembrance of me ; and who has all power in heaven and earth to make his words good . we allow these words to be our saviour's ; neither do we question his power , but conclude , that he accomplished all that he intended , and did make the bread his body in that sense in which he meant it should be . so far we are agreed on both sides . the question therefore in short is this , what he did to the bread , when he said , this is my body ? whether he metamorphosed and changed the nature of it ? or only altered the use of it , that it might be a token of his body , and serve to remember him by , to all those excellent purposes of religion , which we acknowledg to be design'd by him . the latter is undoubtedly the true sense , considering all the circumstances of the place . as ( 1st . ) considering that our saviour was upon his departure , at which time men use to leave memorials of themselves with their friends , to be remembred by in their absence . ( 2ly . ) considering that the frequent use of the world is , imports no more than signifies . as in very many places , where the scripture says one thing is another , it means only that that thing must be expounded by the other , it signifies or stands for the other : and consequently , this is my body , i. e. this signifies my body , is the literal sense . and ( 3ly , ) considering that clause which shews the end and meaning of this whole passage , and is the very key to unlock it , do this in remembrance of me . for it is an absurd speech to say , take my body in remembrance of my body ; take me for a token to remember me by . so that if there were not one contradiction or impossibility , or any such rock to be shunned in the doctrine of transubstantiation , yet every thing in the text leads us into this sense , which i have now delivered : we are plainly determined to this sense , by reasons taken out of the very bowels of the text ; the text expounds its self . but still the papists are very urgent and pressing upon us , and say , that unless we believe the bread to be changed into christ's real and natural body , when he says it is his body , we make him a lyar. take heed of that . for our saviour calls many things by the name of those things , into which they never were substantially changed . he called his body a temple , when he said , destroy this temple , and in three days i will rear it up : and yet his body was never substantially changed into a pile of building . and so likewise when that temple was in destroying , and our blessed redeemer was hanging upon the cross , we have a marvellous tender passage of his dutiful care to provide for his mother , when he was in the extremity of his sufferings , john 19. 26 , 27. seeing his mother and his disciple john standing together by the cross , he said to her , woman , behold thy son. which was equivalent to this proposition , that man is thy son. and he said to john , behold thy mother ; wherein he calls the virgin mary , john's mother , which she was not . but upon this john took her for his mother , and carried her home to his own house . and so in this present case , this is my body . look not upon this as common bread , for it stands for my body ; consider it under that notion , and remember me by it . behold thy mother : repute her as such . but if it be a reflection upon our saviour to say that it is bread , when he calls it his body , is it not the same reflection upon saint paul to say , that it is not bread , when he calls it bread three or four times over ? 1 cor. 11. no , no , it was not scripture which led the papists into the doctrine of transubstantiation ; but by engaging themselves in the defence of image-worship , they were betrayed into it ; and were driven to take shelter and sanctuary in it , to avoid the force of an argument which they could not otherwise answer . every body knows , that when image-worship was first set up , there was a great number of christians who stoutly opposed it , and gathered councils to condemn it ; and these went by the name of image-breakers . on the other side , the image-worshippers were furiously bent upon it , and gathered councils to maintain it , particularly that famous one of blessed memory , the second nicene council . in these oppositions and disputes , one argument which the image-breakers made use of in reference to the images of our saviour , was this . if our saviour has left one image of himself , which is of divine institution , then it is not lawful to erect other images of him which are of humane invention ; but he has left one image of himself , ( namely in the sacrament ) which is of divine institution , ergo. to make it good , that the sacrament was an image of our saviour of his own appointment , they shew that all the ancient fathers had called it the image , the figure , the type , the antitype , the resemblance or representation of our saviour . this very argument was used by the preceding council at constantinople , and is recited by the nicene council , which was presently after . but how does the nicene council answer it ? they could not deny the major proposition , and therefore they were forced to break through the minor after this fashion : they say that the sacrament is not the image , resemblance , figure , type , antitype of our saviour , but his own body ; for he himself expresly says , hoc est corpus meum . it is not therefore an image or figure of him , but it is he himself in person . and thus they rescued and disengaged themselves from a very close and distressing argument , and so their show of image-worship went on . this is the first time that the literal interpretation , as they call it , of hoc est corpus meum , is to be met with , which it is plain likewise the former council was not aware of ; for if they could have foreseen so full and so ready an answer , common sense would never have suffered them to make use of that argument . now after the literal interpretation was thus broached to serve a present turn , and they had used it as a man does the next thing that comes to hand , to stop a gap , it was yet a long time before transubstantiation was imposed as a doctrine of faith : it had done good service in solving an argument , and the image-breakers were all broken and destroyed themselves , and therefore there was no further occasion for it . but in process of time they could not but discover many other advantages in it ; as , amongst the rest , that it would deck the priesthood with the highest honour in the world , and advance them above all thrones and crowned heads , if it were once believed that they could make their maker when they pleased . and therefore it is no wonder that they were so very sharp upon berengarius , when he set himself to oppose it . and from that time forwards they were forming this doctrine into shape , and at last , four hundred and odd years after the first invention of it , it was made an article of faith in the great lateran council , and christened by the name of transubstantiation . this was done by a good token in king john's time , when the pope made himself landlord of the realm of england , and put it under a servile tribute , which lasted for several kings reigns . thus you see the rise of transubstantiation , which came not into the world by the papists sticking close to the scripture ; but by their cleaving to the idolatry of image-worship ; whereby they are faln , according to david's imprecation , from one wickedness to another ; and to the worship of their holy images , they have joyned the idolatry of host-worship . but what we call an idol , that they say is god's body , which they affirm to be the plain and literal sense of those words , this is my body ; let us therefore see at last what their literal exposition is . now it runs after this manner . this which i now give you to eat was lately bread , but i have changed the substance of the bread into the self-same body with which i now deliver it to you : i tell you the late bread is i my self , it is mine own body . * for in that which you now have in your hands , assure your selves there † is whole christ ; i am there body and soul , yea , and my divinity is there also : so that there is contained under the appearance of that bit of bread , my divine nature , and my whole humane nature which consists of my soul , and all the parts of my body , together with my blood. my true real natural body which was born of the virgin mary is there , together with whatsoever belongs to a true humane body , as bones and sinews . you will say that notwithstanding all that i have said , it appears to be bread still . that is true ; for though the substance of the bread be gone , yet the figure , colour , smell , taste , and all the other qualities and conditions of the bread remain , and † hang by geometry . || and this i have most wisely ordered : for these accidents of bread disguise my body , that it may the better go down , and that you may not be filled with horror at the eating of man's flesh , which humane nature detests . and then besides , what would the infidel world say , if they saw you devouring your lord , and eating him up in his own shape ? and lastly , this way of receiving of my body , the more remote it is from your senses , the better it is for the improvement of your faith , and will make it the more meritorious . but you will wonder , especially now i am by in person , and you have an opportunity of comparing this one same body together , how this large body which you see is at least five foot and a half long , and of a proportionable bulk , can be contained at the same time within the compass of a small crumb of bread , without any alteration at all ; for it is the self-same body within the sacrament , as it is without . now you may soon be satisfied in that point . † for as i am now sitting at table , i am in the condition of other bodies which are in a place , which are always endued with magnitude ; but the other same i which am in the sacrament , am not as in a place , but i am there as a substance , and under that notion i am neither big nor little , for that belongs to quantity , which is in another predicament . for the substance of the bread is turned into my substance , not into my magnitude or quantity . now no body doubts but a substance may be contained in a little room as well as in a great . for both the substance of air , and its whole nature , must be alike in a small portion of air as in a greater , as also the whole nature of water no less in a small pitcher , than in a river . seeing therefore that my body succeeds and comes in the place of the substance of the bread , you must acknowledg , that my body is in the sacrament plainly after the same manner , as the substance of the bread was before the consecration . but to say , whether the substance of the bread was under a greater bulk , or under a less , was nothing at all to the thing . now this exposition of these words , this is my body , is an authentick and infallible exposition , for it is the very interpretation of them which the romish church delivers to all her parish priests in the trent-catechism , which was written on purpose for their instruction ; so that i have taken it from the fountain head , and have it at the first hand . this they say is the meaning of those words of our saviour , this is my body ; and therefore they make our saviour to say all this : which is such a sense of his words , as any considerate christian would sooner die , than put it upon them . is this the literal sense and proper meaning of na organized human body , that it has no magnitude , and is neither little nor big ? that it is a solid , massy bulk , consisting of flesh and blood , bones and sinews , and yet can be perceived by no sense ; can neither be seen , felt , nor understood , but only believed ? that it has a head , trunk , and four large limbs , which may all be contained in the compass of a pins-head ; which , according to the letter , will not hold the fourth part of a little finger nail ? methinks these are all strange figures , and the most harsh abuses of speech imaginable . at this rate , the literal sense of east , is west , and the literal sense of noon-day is midnight . the private spirit never made such expositions as these , neither would any man alive receive them , if he were not first practis'd upon , and his belief widened for that purpose . we have an instance of these preparatory arts in the 42d section , where the pastors are charged if they cannot otherwise avoid discoursing of these matters , to remember in the first place that they fore-arm the minds of the faithful , with that saying , luke 1. 37. for with god nothing shall be impossible . this is neither better nor worse than one of their pious frauds ; for i am sure they know , that this scripture is very deceitfully applied to the case of transubstantiation . the virgin mary scrupled the possibility of her being a mother when she knew not a man , and asked , how this thing could be ? upon this the angel told her , that the most high would employ his power in it , and bring it to pass in an extraordinary way , to whom nothing was impossible : and the omnipotence of god was a just ground of her belief upon this occasion , who very well knew , that as god had made the first adam , so if he pleased he could make the second , without the concurrence of either man or woman ; and as he had formed eve of her husband's rib , so he could make the messiah of the substance of his mother . so that tho this was beside the common course of nature , yet god was not tyed to that ; for what he had done , he might do again . but what argument is this to induce the belief of transubstantiation , which involves manifold contradictions , which the papists themselves acknowledg do not fall under the divine power ? they themselves know full well that the scripture says , it is impossible for god to lye , to whom nothing is impossible : and he who can do all things , cannot deny himself , because these are contradictions to his own being . and for the like reason they know that he cannot make a contradiction in any kind , because a contradiction destroys it self , it has within it self an utter repugnance to being . to make a thing to be , and not to be , at the same time , is such an inconsistency , that one part of it overthrows the other ; and therefore it is no act of possibility , but is an utter impossibility , which is the contradiction of all power , even of that which is infinite . methinks st. austin very well lays open the reason , why an almighty power cannot make a contradiction . contra faustum l. 26. c. 5. quisquis dicit , si omnipotens est deus , faciat ut quae facta sunt facta non fuerint , non videt hoc se dicere , si omnipotens est , faciat ut ea quae ver a sunt , eo ipso quo vera sunt , falsa sint . whosoever says , if god be almighty , let him make those things which have been done , never to have been done , does not see that he says this in other words , if he be almighty , let him make the things which are true , to be false , even wherein they are true. so that the angel does not tell us in this text , that the doctrine of transubstantiation shall not be impossible with god ; he does not tell us that god can make a heap of contradictions : no , for if all the angels of heaven ( according to st. austin's expression ) should say , that a thing may be false , even wherein it is true ; so may what they say be , and consequently there is no believing of them , nor indeed of any being in the world upon those terms . we are able therefore to bring their expositions of scripture upon this occasion , to this infallible test. if they contain in them things contradictious and impossible , then they are not the true sense and meaning of that revelation which came from god , for if he cannot do an impossibility , neither can he say it . and just such as their divinity expositions are , so deceitful are their philosophical illustrations : as particularly , when they shew , how the whole body of christ may be in the least particle , or crumbling of the bread , by the two instances of air and water . their words are these , the substance of bread is turned into the substance of christ , not into his magnitude or quantity . now no body doubts but a substance may be contained in a little room as well as in a great . for both the substance of air , and its whole nature , must be alike in a small portion of air , as in a greater ; as also the whole nature of water , no less in a small pitcherful , than in a river . in these words there are no less than two egregious fallacies . for , 1. their instances are of homogeneous or similar bodies , that is such bodies whose parts are all alike , and which have the same name and nature ; so every part of air is air , and every drop of water is water , and has the whole nature of water in it , as well as that aggregate body of it , which is in the ocean : but these instances are very deceitfully applied to an heterogeneous dissimilar organized body , as a human body is , which consists of parts altogether unlike , and of different names and natures . for bone is not flesh , nor either of them blood , nor any of them brain . the thumb-nail has not the whole nature of the eye , nor the skull of the cawl : the hand is not the heart , nor the head the foot. and as these parts are of different natures , so there is a necessity of their keeping a considerable distance in their situation , because there are many essential parts of the body interposed betwixt them , which would otherwise be swallowed up . but 2ly , suppose a human body were no compound , but as pure element as air or water , yet the same substance could not be contained in a less room as well as in a greater . for the air which is contained in a bubble , is indeed a substance of air , but it is not the same substance of air as fills a chamber , for it is not the hundredth part of that substance . nor is a spoonful of water the same substance with an hogshead of water ; for an hogshead of water cannot be contained in a spoon , but is at least a thousand spoonfuls : and in common arithmetick , units are not the same with thousands . so that when they bring air and water to prove that the same substance may be contained in a little room , as well as in a greater , their proofs seem to partake of the nature of those two elements , for they are as light as the one , and as weak as the other . this tedious digression , which has proceeded to an unexpected length , has not been wholly unprofitable ; for i have again recovered materials out of the infallible exposition it self , to furnish my intended demonstration , which i shall now re-assume . in the 31st section we are told , that the real body of christ is in the sacrament , and whatsoever belongs to the nature of a body , as bones and sinews : and that all the parts of the body are contained in it ; and in the smallest crumb of it , sect. 42. from whence i gather , that if all the parts of the body are contained in the smallest crumb , then the hand is , which is one of the parts of the body ; and if the whole hand , then all the fingers and thumb , for they are parts of the hand , which is part of the body ; and for the same reason if all the fingers , then all the joynts of those fingers . now i want but one joynt of any one finger to manifest the contradictions and absurdities of this doctrine ; nay , the bone in the first joynt of the fore finger will serve the turn . now a bone is a solid firm hard substance , which as to its use serves to strengthen the fabrick of the body . and if it have not these properties , it is not a bone , it is not the thing we speak of ; for a fluid loose or soft substance is not a bone , neither will it serve for the above-mentioned use in the body . having therefore these properties , it consists of parts extended impenetrable and firmly joined together , so that they cannot be separated without great force , and consequently they resist the touch , and feel hard. besides , this bone in particular is of a cylindrical figure , an inch long , and as much in compass round about . now if any of the parts of this bone be diminished , then all the parts of the body are not there , for the parts of this bone which are parts of the body , are not there : and if the parts be altered , the nature of the thing is destroyed , and it is not a bone . so that with much ado we have gained a bone entire , of an inch in magnitude , which according to the infallible doctrine is contained in a crumb of the sacrament of the compass of a pins-head . now the fortieth part of this bone is equal to that crumb , as is manifest either by applying them to one another , or by their filling the same place ; but the crumb is greater than the whole bone , for it contains it , and therefore the fortieth part of the bone is greater than the whole bone , which is impossible . so that the whole bone cannot possibly be contained in that crumb , but yet it is contained in it , which is a plain contradiction . q. e. d. corollary . now if that bone cannot be contained in such a crumb of the sacrament , much less can the whole body , for that bone is not the five hundredth part of the whole body ; which we have proved , by the hypothesis , to be there full and entire , and in its just dimensions ; because all the parts of the body are there , and consequently every part of every member of the body , which make up the integrity of the whole . so that we have here at once about twenty thousand contradictions , that is to say , so many impossibilities . again , this is an everlasting truth , those things which are equal to one and the same thing , are equal to one another : insomuch that all the syllogisms and demonstrations in the world are in a manner built upon this axiome : and whoever gainsays it , must assert one of these two things , either that one and the same thing is not the same ; or else that what is equal , is not equal at the same time . now a body of five foot and an half long , and one foot diameter , is equal to the natural body of christ ; but a crumb of bread less than a pins-head is equal to the self-same natural body of christ , for a crumb of bread as big as a pins-head is bigger than the natural body of christ , and contains it , therefore a crumb of bread less than a pins-head , is equal to a body of five foot and an half long , and one foot diameter . furthermore , by another undeniable maxim , which says , if of equal things you take as much from the one as from the other , the remainders shall be equal , let us take the quantity of a pins-head from the body of five foot and an half long , and there remains a body of five foot , five inches , and two barley corns , and somewhat better : let us likewise take the same quantity of a pins-head from the crumb of bread which is less than a pins-head , and there remains transubstantiation , that is to say , something worse and less than nothing . nevertheless , because they are the equal remainders of equal bodies , as much having been taken away from the one as from the other , i say that the remainder of the crumb is equal to the remainder of the body of five foot and an half long , which is clearly impossible . q. e. d. in this last demonstration , for dispatch sake , i have been forced to do as the papists do , and to lay contradictions and impossibilities upon heaps , because i hasten to proceed to other heads : only i must stay to demonstrate some gross contradictions , which may be referred either to this head of quantity , or to the former of place . supposing christ's natural body to be five foot and an half long , and one foot diameter , if the self-same body be in another place at the same time , where ever it is , the self-same body must have the self-same dimensions , as we † have already proved ; and consequently if it be in four several places at once , it is but five foot and an half long , and at the same time it is four times five foot and an half long , which is two and twenty foot long : and so likewise it is but one foot diameter , and at the same time it is four times one foot diameter , which is two foot diameter . and by the vast number of places in which the papists have bestowed it , it will be but five foot and a half long , and one foot diameter , and at the same time it will be as big as mount atlas , or pen men maur , or the pic of tenariff . 4. the fourth head of contradictions are those which relate to number , in spight of which the papists make ten thousand several bodies to be but one and the same body . now as we have already proved it to be impossible for one and the same body to be in several distant places , so we shall here demonstrate that it is equally impossible for what is in several distant places to be one and the same body . the unity of a body consists in this , that it be undivided from it self , and divided from all other bodies ; so that if a body be an individual body , that is to say , one and the same , it must be undivided from it self . now if : christ's body in the pix at limestreet be the same individual body which is in the pix at st. james's , or at posnanie in the higher poland , then the self-same individual body is both undivided from it self , and divided from it self . for in the former case the same individual body is divided from it self not only by two * wonderful coverlets of the accidents of bread , and by the less wonderful covers of two pixes , but also by the greatest part of two great cities , london and westminster . and in the latter case of posnanie in poland , it is divided from it self by vast tracts of land , and a very wide sea ; so that the self-same individual body is undivided from it self , and yet at the same time is divided from it self , which is impossible . q. e. d. on the other hand , there is not any thing which more infallibly proves a real distinction betwixt substances , and shews that they are divers , and that the one is not the other , than this , that the one can be without the other , and that they can exist separately and apart . now christ's body at limestreet in london , and christ's body at rosnanie in poland , do exist separately and apart , for it is a long and weary pilgrimage to go from one to the other : and the one can be without the other , for that body at posnanie was many years without the other , and had raised thirty six persons from the dead , long before the body at limestreet was made . and therefore these are distinct and divers bodies , that is to say , they are not the same body ; and yet they are the same body , which is impossible . which was to be demonstrated . corollary . it is to be supposed , that when anti-christ comes with lying wonders , no body will be so unmannerly as to call them lying wonders , and therefore we shall not question the truth of any one of those miracles which are in the school of the eucharist a : only thus much we gather from the former demonstration , that the good example of the birds ; b beasts and vermin , which worshipped gods body in other ages and countries , is wholly useless to us . for the gods body which is at limestreet , and st. james's , or any where hereabouts to be had , is not the same gods body which those devout creatures meekly worshipped , and which the stubborn black horse c was forced to worship with one knee ; and therefore we are not in a capacity of worshipping the same gods body , if we would . 5. the next head of contradictions is of those that arise from the consideration of that space or distance which is betwixt one body and another , which is always measured by a straight line drawn from a point of the one body to a point of the other body ; which is the shortest line that can be drawn betwixt them , and consequently there can be but one straight line drawn betwixt the same terms , which measures and describes the just distance of them . now we are allowed to draw a straight line from any one point to another . corollary . from the same demonstration it follows , that st. peter's in rome , corpus christi church at posnanie in poland , and other the remotest places in the world where god's body is , are as near neighbours to the monument in fishstreet as the very mass-house in limestreet is . and there is likewise an infinite variety of other contradictions , which would result from drawing but half a score right lines from god's body which is in so many several quarters , which should all meet together in the point c. for this , as the meanest mathematician easily understands , would not only confound all distances , but also overthrow all the everlasting principles of geometry . 6. the sixth head of contradictions is in reference to quality , whereby a thing is rendred like or unlike to another . now the self-same body of christ , by the doctrine of transubstantiation has quite contrary qualities , and is like and unlike to it self at the same time . for in heaven it is in form of an human body , and in earth it is in form of bread. and so again upon earth , it has a light about it like a pillar of fire which reaches up to heaven , and it has not such a light about it at the same time . it is stabbed by a jew , and is red with blood , and at the same time the same body has no redness nor mark of blood upon it . it is marked with a crucifix , and at the same time it is not marked with a crucifix , but with i h s and a glory . now these are manifest contradictions , for the self-same thing is affirmed and denied of the self-same body at the self-same time . but before i proceed to demonstrate the contradictions and impossibilities which fall under this head , lest i should lose all my pains in so doing , it will be fit to consider a shuffling answer which the papists have invented to rid their hands of all contradictions of this kind . it is in these words , a body in two places is equivalent to two bodies , and therefore one may say of it the most opposite things without contradiction . it seems this is no new answer , but i confess it was new to me ; for i first met with it in the late six conferences concerning the eucharist , p. 89. where that very learned and judicious author has answered it , and sent it home again with such arguments ad hominem , as would close the mouths of any body but papists . but because it now also lies just cross my way , i ought likewise to say something to it . 1st therefore i say , that the supposition of one body in two places at once , is an utter impossibility ; which i have already demonstrated over and over again , both under the 1st head of place , and also under the 4th head of number . 2ly , one body equivalent to two , that is , one body which to all intents and purposes is two , is a contradiction in terms ; for at this rate one and one is three , and three and one is five , and in short , there is a full end of all arithmetick . 3ly , it is not one body in two places which will serve their turn , but it must be one body in ten thousand places . for it must be one body in form of flesh , and the same body in form of new bread , and the same body in form of old bread , and the same body in form of sweet wine , and the same body in form of sowre wine , and the same body at limestreet , at rome , at avignion , and in a word , in all places , where a bit of bread , a mass priest , and a slate , are to be found together . and this , as i have already shewn , draws after it millions of millions of contradictions . 4thly , i say , that even the impossible supposition of one body in several places , does plainly deny all difference and dissimilitude in that body ; it allows indeed a multiplication of the same body , but it perfectly excludes any alteration of it : for if it be altered , it is not the body which was supposed to be multiplied . for instance , i will suppose the same pint of milk to be in several places , but then it must be a pint of milk in all those places . for i cannot say , without contradiction , that the same pint of milk in another place is neither pint , half-pint , nor spoonful , but perhaps an unperceivable drop , for then it is a pint and not a pint. and so likewise i cannot say , that it is a pint of milk in this place in the form of milk , and in another place it is a pint of milk in form of aqua vitae , having the smell , taste , colour and virtues of aqua vitae : in another place it is a pint of milk in the form of a pen-full of ink : and in another place it is a pint of milk in the form of a bandelier full of gunpowder . for in these cases it is so altered that it is not milk , it is not the thing we spoke of , and which we supposed to be multiplied : and at the same time though it be neither milk nor measure , yet in the way of transubstantiation it is still a very good pint of milk. these men had better let their contradictions alone , than offer to assoil them , for the doctrine of transubstantiation is perfectly of the nature of birdlime , the more they stir and flutter in it , the faster they are caught . so that this sorry evasion being of the same piece with transubstantiation it self , or rather an aggravation of contradiction , i shall set it aside as if it had never been , and proceed to my intended demonstration . we have not in our minds a clearer and brighter first principle than this is , that , nothing can be present and absent from the same subject at the same time . now the mark of ihs is present to christ's body , being imprinted upon it , and at the same time it is absent from the self-same body , having , instead of ihs , a crucifix upon it ; and therefore the mark of ihs is present to christs body , and absent from the self-same body at the same time , which is impossible . q. e. d. again , god's body in form of bread is not god's body in form of wine ; for if it were , then the form of bread , and the form of wine would be the same ; wine would be bread , and bread would be wine , that is to say , bread would be not bread. but according to the papists , god's body in form of bread , is god's body in form of wine , that is to say , bread is not bread , which is impossible . which was to be demonstrated . 7. the last head of contradictions arise from this part of the doctrine of transubstantiation , which says , that when the substances of bread and wine are abolished , and wholly cease to be , still all the accidents of bread and wine are seen to remain without any subject at all . for the substances of bread and wine are departed and gone , and these accidents cannot cleave and be united to the body and blood of christ , and therefore it remains , that in a supernatural way they must subsist of themselves . this is their own infallible doctrine , trid. catech. de euch. sect. 25. & 44. in which few words there is plenty of contradictions . for ( 1st , ) i shall demonstrate , that accidents subsisting without a subject , are substances , that is to say , are not accidents . and because the papists themselves are sensible how absurd and impossible this doctrine of theirs is , therefore they fly to miracle and omnipotency , which is no refuge nor sanctuary for contradictions and impossibilities , as we have already shewn . now the very essence of an accident is to subsist in a subject , and the essence of a substance is to subsist of it self without a subject ; so that if god by his omnipotency should make an accident to subsist of it self without a subject , he would give one and the same single thing two contrary natures : whereby the same thing would be what it is , and would not be what it is ; it would subsist in a subject , and not subsist in a subject at the same time , which is impossible . q. e. d. i have been beholden to the great philosopher des cartes , a man of their own communion , for this demonstration , and have gathered it out of his answer to the fourth and sixth objections which were made against his meditations , and out of his notes upon the programma of regius , as i suppose . and it has been heretofore no small diversion to me to see how the papists stood on tiptoe , when that great restorer of natural knowledg appeared , expecting whether his new philosophy would favour their old transubstantiation . but when they found that he was not a man for substantial accidents , and such kind of contradictious stuff , dr. arnault of the sorbonne , puts it home to him in the fourth objections , and tells him , that according to his philosophy , the doctrine of the church concerning the sacrament of the altar could not remain safe and sound ; because it is of faith , that the accidents in the sacrament remain without a subject ; whereas monsieur cartes seemed to hold , ( for he had not as yet spoke out , nor expressed himself fully in that matter ) , that accidents are inseparable from a subject , and that a body , and the affections of that body could not subsist apart , nor be made to exist separately by an infinite power . wherefore monsieur arnauld prays him to take great care , lest that while he is proving a god , and the immortality of the soul , he should endanger that faith by which himself hoped to be saved . here cartes was beset , and forced to declare himself , and therefore was put upon his invention , which was first to contrive a way of solving the appearances of bread and wine which are in the sacrament , by a new hypothesis of the superficies ; which he told them he should more fully make out in his physics : and when he had thus first entertained them with a new hypothesis , then he shews them what impossible absurdities real accidents are , and how full of repugnancy and contradictions ; and that these contradictions made men dissenters from the church of rome . and then he concludes , that he hoped the time would come , when the divines of that church would hiss the doctrine of real accidents out of the world , as an unreasonable , incomprehensible , and unsafe doctrine to be believed ; and that his superficies would be embraced instead of it , as certain and indubitable . monsieur arnault was a man of sense , and therefore i doubt not but he let fall his ears at this answer . and the paris divines sent cartes word afterwards in their sixth objections , scruple the 7th , that they did not understand his supersicies , and knew not what to make of it : and that though he put them in hope that he would make things plainer in his physics , yet they were inclined to believe they should never part with their old opinion concerning accidents , for his new one . but though they were of this mind , yet we find a very considerable person , epist. vol. 2. epist. 3. who had better thoughts of it , and says , that he had happily shewn how the inseparableness of accidents from a substance , might be consistent with the sacrament of the altar ; but then he desires to know of cartes , whether he had bethought himself of a way to reconcile another part of his philosophy with christ's body , being without local extension upon the altar ; for otherwise he would expose to great peril the most sacred thing in the world . upon this cartes stops short , and does not care to give any thing more concerning the sacrament under his hand , but offers to meet him if he pleases , and to tell him his conjectures by word of mouth , ibid. epist. 4. and was not this a pleasant way of proceeding ? which is in effect as if they had said , sir , you are a great philosopher of our own church , you know we hold the doctrine of transubstantiation , and you your self hope to be saved by it ; see therefore what can be done for it , pray make it as reasonable as you can . it is too like the comical story of the woman , who after she had eaten pig in smithfield , went to rabbi buisy , and prays him to make the eating of pig as lawful as he can . and is it not likewise a neat turn , to quiet them with his doctrine of the superficies ? now the superficies is much such another rationale of transubstantiation , as the following argument is a proof of purgatory . if there be one whose words are recorded in scripture , who when he died went neither to heaven nor hell , then there is such a middle place as purgatory ; but there is one whose words are recorded in scripture , &c. ergo. i have seen a papist catch at this syllogism very greedily , and as impatient to know who that one was , as if he would presently have gone a converting with the argument . but he was as blank when he was told that it was baalam's ass , as i fancy dr. arnault was , when he had read and considered the long story of the superficies ; which , i believe , never yet drew one of those back again to the church of rome , whom cartes complains the doctrine of real accidents drove away . 2. this proposition , nihili nullae possunt esse affectiones , that nothing cannot possibly have any qualities or affections , is a necessary and everlasting truth ; and it is so clear and self-evident , that all words and discourse about it would but darken the natural light which is in it . now a wafer or singing cake is an extended , round , white substance , having all the qualities and affections of bread ; and when this substance ( a ) wholly ceases to be , it is nothing . but if the extension , roundness , whiteness , and all the bready qualities of it still remain , then at the same time there do remain the extension , the roundness , the whiteness , and the bready qualities or affections of nothing , which is impossible . and that nothing , whose extension , roundness , whiteness and bready qualities are still remaining , is an extended , round , white and bready nothing ; which are so many contradictions and impossibilities . q. e. d. i see that i must either break off abruptly , or never have done . for i find the dividing of the accidents of a wafer into 3 parts , which is one of the operations performed in the mass ; and with the self-same division , the dividing of christ's body into 3 wholes ; and many more of their absurdities coming thick into my head ; and therefore i will here conclude in time . all these demonstrations hitherto are arguments to all mankind . i have now an argument or two ad hominem , or to the papists themselves . and i st , by their own infallible doctrine of concomitancy i shall demonstrate , that there has been never a god's-body , as they call it , upon earth these 1600 years ; provided they will allow me , first , that christ's body has been in heaven these 1600 years . and 2ly , that heaven and earth are different and distant places . i reckon that infallibility her self , either has granted me both these postulata already , in these following words , tr. cat. de euch. sect. 37. but it is plainly impossible , that the body of christ should be in the sacrament , by coming out of one place into another , for so it would come to pass , that the body of christ would be absent from its seat in heaven ; ( now i presume , if it has not been absent from its seat in heaven , to come and be present in the sacrament these 1600 years , it has not been absent upon any other account ) : or else i reckon that because the things demanded are very reasonable , she will not now stick at the granting of them . now the rule of concomitancy is this , tr. cat. de euch. sect. 33. si enim duo aliqua inter se reipsa conjungantur , ubi unum ' sit , ibi alterum etiam esse necesse est . if any two things are really joined together , where the one is , there of necessity the other must be also . that is to say , it is impossible for it to be in any other place . but no two things in the world are more really joined together , than one and the same thing is with it self ; and if it were not so , no one thing could be really joined to another . the union of one and the same thing with it self , is the most close and intimate that can be , and consequently the concomitancy must be the strictest . nay the very reason , ground , bottom , and foundation of the rule of concomitancy is this , because from two single things really joined together , there results one compound . the union is the cause of the concomitancy , becaufe it is impossible for the same thing to be divided from it self . so that if two things which are really joined together , must always of necessity keep company together , then it is utterly impossible for one and the same thing to straggle from it self , but it must ever be its own individual companion . from these premises i say , that christ's body having been in heaven these 1600 years , if in that space of time it has been upon altars here on earth , then it has not been at the same time where it has been , but it has broken the rule of concomitancy , and has strangely straggled from it self ; which is impossible . q. e. d. i have studied with all the application of mind of which i am capable , to forecast in my thoughts what fault the papists would find with any of the former reasonings , or with this last in particular , and cannot foresee nor imagine any . for though we should allow christ's body to be independent of place , or to have any other impossible prerogatives which they list to invent , yet still this body must be subject to the rule of concomitancy , because they themselves are forced to make use of it , to prove that the body of christ is under the species of wine , and that the blood of christ is under the species of bread ; and it is the only proof they have . now if of necessity the body must be by concomitancy where the blood is , then by an antecedent necessity the blood must be where the blood is ; for the blood 's being there , is the cause of the bodies being there likewise . so the body being under the form of bread , is the reason that the blood is there also ; but then to be sure the body must be there . from whence , as i shewed before , it undeniably follows , that christ's body is only in heaven ; or else it is not where it is , which overthrows the very foundation of concomitancy . 2. the second argument shall be drawn from their form of consecration , for this is my body , being the words of our saviour from whence they have wrested the doctrine of transubstantiation . now to give them a samplar of their own , and to shew them how they themselves interpret scripture , i say that it appears by the very words of consecration , that the priest himself is also transubstantiated ; for the body is christ's , and yet the priest says it is my body , which cannot be true , unless the priest and christ be the same : and that cannot be , but by an admirable change and conversion , which the holy catholick church has conveniently and properly named transubstantiation . no , say the papists in great anger , there is no such change at all , for the priest only stands for christ , and a sustains his person ; he only represents him in that action , and is in christ's stead ; so that we are not to look upon the priest in that solemn action as friar john , but as christ himself . and therefore the priest may say with truth , this is my body , tho literally and properly , and in strictness of speech , it is christ's body , and not his. to which i again reply . why this is the very exposition of these words of our saviour , for which the hereticks have all along been burnt , namely , this bread stands for my body , and represents it in this action ; it is instead of my body , and bears the character of it ; and you are not so much to consider it as bread , but to look upon it as the representation of my body , which is given for you . and therefore with truth i can say it is my body , though literally and properly , and in strictnefs of speech , it is bread , and not my natural body . now therefore let the papists give or take . either the bread is not transubstantiated ; or if it be , by virtue of the self-same words the priest is transubstantiated too . for every word in the prolation with one breath , ( except the word enim , sect. 20. ) does operate as well as signifie , and does what it says , and therefore if the word corpus be effectual to make it a body , then the word meum makes it the priests body . the wit of man cannot find an evasion , and i doubt not but i am able to maintain this argument against all the popish priests in the world . for all the advantage lies clearly on the protestant side . for our saviour visibly took bread , and gave it the office of representing him , and made it the figure of his body , as tertullian's word is ; he erected it as a standing memorial to be used in remembrance or commemoration of him , as s. luke's word is ; to shew forth his death till he come , as s. paul speaks . 't is true , he commanded his disciples to repeat the same action , and to do as he had done ; but where did he bid the priest to personate him ? that he gave us the bread by the name of his body , three of the four gospels witness , and by the name of his broken body , s. paul witnesses ; but where did he ever say , that he himself would always sacrifice himself by the priests hands , and say , hoc est corpus meum , to the end of the world , by the priests mouth ? and further , there is not one word which the papists have said in behalf of the bread being transubstantiated , but holds as strongly for the priests being transubstantiated ; which makes full as much for the dignity and majesty of the sacrament , for the abasing and mortifying of our deceivable senses , and for the improving and exalting our faith , and making it meritorious , as the other can . we have gained such considerable advantages by the foregoing part of our discourse , that now we are able unalterably to renounce the doctrine of transubstantiation . for having demonstrated the impossibility of it , we have thereby demonstrated , that though heaven and earth should pass away , yet that doctrine can never be true. we have likewise at the same time demonstrated the protestant exposition of those words of our saviour , this is my body , to be the true and necessary sense of them ; for either there is a change of the bread into the body of christ , or there is not : but because such a change is an utter impossibility , as we have abundantly proved , therefore it remains , that the protestant doctrine , which asserts there is no such change , is demonstrably true. we have also made it as clear as the light , that neither the letter of a divine revelation , nor the pretence of an infinite power , nor any thing in the world can support one single contradiction ; because if one single contradiction could stand , it would destroy the very being of god himself , and deprive the world of the adorable object of all religion . for supposing it impossible for a being of necessary existence to exist , which is but supposing a contradiction , and we have immediately lost the author of all divine revelation ; and not only so , but the whole universe likewise must presently sink into nothing , or rather indeed it could never have been at all . but more particularly we shall find the benefit of the former demonstrations in the short remainder of our present discourse , for they will add to what we have further to say against transubstantiation all the force and strength which demonstration can give . costerus the jesuit acknowledges , ( and i suppose all papists with him ) that if the bread be not changed into the body of christ , the worship of the host is gross idolatry ; but we are past all iss and and 's , and have demonstrated that there can be no such change of the bread into christ's body : and consequently we have demonstrated , that the papists in worshipping of the host , are guilty of gross idolatry , and the best friends they have in the world cannot free them from it . so likewise it can be no longer a moot-point , or a disputable matter , whether it be criminal to call the host their lord god , their maker , their former , and their creator ; when we have demonstrated that it cannot be so , and that it is only a bit of bread ; and to affirm bread to be a god , if it be not blasphemy , it wants a name in our language . in short , that can never be a divine mystery which is not in a possibility of being a divine truth : and consequently the mystery and miraculousness of transubstantiation , which has been the old and dark stronghold of popery , is utterly demolished : and the papists having lost that shelter , not only all the absurdities of their belief concerning it will fall upon them with their whole weight , but also all their absurd practices in reference to it , to which i shall now proceed . 2. the second general head is of practical absurdities , by which i mean such unreasonable and unworthy actions , as are done by the papists in pursuance of their doctrine of transubstantiation . and here i can by no means charge them with eating their maker , or eating man's flesh , and drinking man's blood in the sacrament : for i have shewn it to be impossible for them to do either of these . but yet because they intend and profess to do both , perhaps the guilt is no less than if they really did them . and the absurdity of their practice in this behalf is very equally matched with the absurdity and contradictiousness of their belief . for as they hold the sacrament to be the natural body of christ , and yet say it is in several places at once , and is made at several times , and is in the form of bread , whereby it appears to be not the natural body of christ , but a piece of bread ; wherein they say and unsay at once : so likewise they worship and serve , and pray to that which i have demonstrated to be a bit of bread , as if it were a god , and immediately they undo all that they have done , and treat him not at all like a god , but eat him up as if he were a bit of bread. so also they say expresly , that the common nature of mankind abhors the eating of man's flesh , and drinking of man's blood , and yet they eat and drink that , of which they say they have greater assurance that it is man's flesh , and man's blood , than the testimony of all their senses can give them . but omitting these things , and the great indignity which is offered to our blessed saviour by such like practices , i shall ( i st ) take notice of their idolatry in worshipping a piece of bread as if it were god himself . and this practice is unavoidable idolatry if the doctrine of transubstantiation should chance to be false : and if it be not false , then a thousand millions of contradictions must be all of them true . so that if the apostles rent their clothes , when the lycaonians said that the gods were come down in the likeness of men , and were going to give them divine honour ; surely they would hardly spare their flesh , but rend that too , if they should be shewn more than an hundred god almighties together in the form of bread , and should see divine worship paid to them : especially , since the apostles evangelized men to turn away from idolatry to the living god who made heaven and earth ; if moreover the papists should plead gospel for their idolatry , and say that they were evangelized into it . i have often thought what st. paul and barnabas would have said and done in that case . but what they then cried out and said to the lycaonians , sirs , why do ye these things ? for we are men of like passions with you ; methinks the host it self says as loud every day to the papists . sirs , why do ye these things ? for i am no object of worship , but like another piece of bread. i have all the properties , and am subject to all the casualties of any other bit of bread : for either i am presently eaten and swallowed down as any other bread is , or else if i be kept , i grow stale and mouldy . i am put into a box for fear of mischances , for if the mouse gets me , i am gone . alas , i am bread , i am no god. thus to my apprehension the host it self continually cries out and reasons with them . and oh would to god that they would consider to as good purpose as the lycaonians did ! i should be content to endure great hardships to see that happy day . 2. the reproach which is done to our saviour in the worshipping of the host is intolerable . for would it not be an unsufferable affront to the majesty of earthly princes , to take a bundle of rags , and place it in the throne , and serve it upon the knee , and cry , god save the king , and treat it in every respect like a crown'd head ; and to destroy every good subject that would not join in this contumelious pageantry ? and is it nothing for the great god of heaven to be used in a more reproachful manner ? for i appeal to all mankind , considering the infinite distance there is betwixt the persons , whether it be not a less scorn and indignity to set up a king of clouts , than a breaden god ? a contemptible crumb of dough , which is kneaded , and baked , and crossed , and muttered into the most high god , god over all , blessed for evermore ? i might descend to many more particulars , and enlarge upon them , but this has already been done by learneder hands . and now , o ye papists , i have discharged my conscience ; for it has troubled me that i had not long since laid these things plain and open before you : and if i knew how to incline you to consider them , i would not think much to kneel down at your feet . but if you will not consider them with that evenness of mind which is always necessary to conviction , but rather will consider them with that prejudice and indignation which shall put you upon contradicting and objecting , and using all your subtilties and evasions ; then i beg of you to do this throughly , and spare me not . for i have written this discourse only for the honour of god , and out of love to truth , which never loses any thing by being tried and examined , but still comes the brighter out of the fire . it is the cause of god my saviour who died for me , and i am willing to spend the remainder of my days in it , or lay down my life for it , even which of the two he shall please . and as for you , o ye protestants , you have great reason to bless god , that you were born into the world since the reformation ; whereby you enjoy the benefit of having god's own book in your own vulgar tongue : and thereby are taught to know god and his creatures asunder , and have learnt to distinguish our saviour christ from his sacraments , and to know your maker from a bit of bread. who have the advantage of reading god's pure word , without either romish comments or rhemish annotations which overthrow the text. who are allowed to see with your own eyes , that if scripture should be so forced and wrested as the papists have used it in this case , then we must all be anthropomorphites , and either believe that god is of human shape , or else give him the lye i know not how oft . for the right hand of god , and many other bodily parts of him , are ten times oftner asserted in scripture , than this is my body . if the papists say , that the scripture in affirming that god is a spirit , does sufficiently rectifie all such blockish mistakes ; i say so too : and withal , that our saviour has done abundantly more to prevent and foreclose the no less blameable mistake concerning transubstantiation . for after he had called the cup his blood , he afterwards again called it the fruit of the vine ; and after his resurrection it self , he gave his disciples this test to judg and discern his body , and to know it by , luke 24. 39. behold my hands and my feet , that it is i my self : handle me and see : for a spirit hath not flesh and bones , as ye see me have . from whence we are bound to conclude , that where we cannot see hands and feet , where we cannot see and feel flesh and bones , where we cannot handle and see christ's body , there it is not he himself : well may there be some sign , or token , or memorial of his body , but it cannot be he himself . i shall not stand to enquire whether this be the criterion to know human bodies from those bodies which angels heretofore assumed ; but we are sure that these are infallible marks to know our saviour's body by , and that is all our present business . but as for the noise they have lately made about our saviour's surprizing the disciples , and entring into the room , when the doors were shut , there never was any thing more incongruous than the sense which the papists have put upon that place , as if our saviour had passed through the doors . for there were two things , as appears by the scripture , which disturbed the disciples ; first , that a person should come into the room without knocking or giving them any warning , when they had made all fast , and kept themselves close for fear of the jews : and the second was , that he entred in such a manner as made them apprehend him to be a spirit . now how did ever angels or spirits enter into a room , or st. peter come out of prison under the conduct of an angel , but by the doors opening before them of their own accord , and shutting again after them ? as in the case of all the apostles , where the officers found the prison shut with with all safety , act. 5. 23. and i never yet heard or read of angel or spirit , which entred a room through crannies or keyholes , or through inch-boards . but let that be as it will , if our saviour had entred in any such manner , it had absolutely overthrown the criterion which he gave them at the same time to judg of his body , and to demonstrate that he was not a spirit . for common sense would have taught the disciples to reply , it is true indeed , whatever you are , man or spirit , that you have now a gross human body , and we cannot deny it ; but that , it seems , is only when you please , for you had not such a one a while ago , when you were pleased to come in at the keyhole ; whereas there was nothing at all of this , but they knew and owned him , and were glad to see the lord. but to conclude , is not this a very pertinent proof of transubstantiation , when the doctrine of transubstantiation asserts a thing quite contrary to the passing through doors ? for it asserts that our saviour's body is present in a room , not by being translated , or by passing out of one place into another , but by being produced in all fresh places , and by being within doors , and without doors , at the same time. in short , o my protestant country-men , you see what infinite reason there is , that you should for ever renounce transubstantiation ; for otherwise you owe your saviour but little service , if you will not do him so much right as to say , that he is not a bit of bread. and there is the same reason that you should renounce that church , which employs her infallibility in contradicting the plainest scripture ; in defacing those eternal truths which are deeply engraven upon the minds of men ; and in doing the utmost dishonour to our saviour , by making his religion the scorn of mankind . what averroes said , is recorded by papists ; and is too well known to be repeated upon this occasion ; and for my part i should take it much more patiently to be forced to believe that i my self am a wafer , than that a wafer is my god. so that the blessed martyrs were infinitely in the right , to stake down their lives against this doctrine ; for they plainly saw that it was not a moot point , or a disputable matter , ( against which no wise man would lay down an hair of his head ) ; but they saw that it was a bottomless pit of falshood , which swallows up all the natural and theological verities which ever came from god. and he that dies for so much important truth , most certainly dies for god. you see moreover that the papists are very ill holpen up , when they have recourse to the almighty power of god , to support their doctrine of transubstantiation : for for that very reason , because he is almighty , he is infinitely removed from the imperfection of making an endless number of impossible falshoods . shall that nonsense and inconsistency , which it is a very great imperfection even in imperfect creatures to affirm , be a perfection to make ? no certainly ; for the farther any thing is from truth , the farther it is from god. lastly ; you see what a thick and palpable darkness overspreads the papacy , when you , through the undeserved distinguishing mercy of god , have light in your dwellings . you are happy , if you know your own happiness , and are not weary of it . while you have the light , rejoice in it , and walk worthy of it , and then god will continue it to you and to your posterity . so be it . finis . books lately printed for w. rogers . the doctrines and practices of the church of rome , truly represented , in answer to a book , intituled , a papist misrepresented , and represented , &c. quarto . third edition . an answer to a discourse , intituled , papists protesting against protestant popery ; being a vindication of papists not misrepresented by protestants . 4to . an answer to the amicable accommodation of the differences between the representer and the answerer . quarto . a view of the whole controversie , between the representer and the answerer ; with an answer to the representer's last reply ; in which are laid open some of the methods by which protestants are misrepresented by papists . quarto . the doctrine of the trinity and transubstantiation compared as to scripture , reason , and tradition ; in a new dialogue between a protestant and a papist , in two parts . sermons and discourses , some of which never before printed : the third volume . by the reverend dr. tillotson , dean of canterbury . 8vo . a new and easie method to learn to sing by book . a book of cyphers or letters reverst . a perswasive to frequent communion in the sacrament of the lord's supper . by john tillotson , dean of canterbury . in 8vo . price 3 d. a discourse against transubstantiation . in 8vo . pricc 3 d. the state of the church of rome when the reformation began . a letter to a friend , reflecting on some passages in a letter to the d. of p. in answer to the arguing part of his first letter to mr. g. the reflecters defence of his letter to a friend , against the furious assaults of mr. i. s. in his second catholic letter . in four dialogues . 40. a vindication of some protestant principles of church-unity and catholick-communion , from the charge of agreement with the church of rome . in answer to a late pamphlet , intituled , an agreement between the church of england and the church of rome , evinced from the concertation of some of her sons with their brethren the dissenters . by william sherlock , d. d. master of the temple . the protestant resolved : or , a discourse shewing the unreasonableness of his turning roman catholick for salvation . the 2d edition . a discourse concerning the nature of idolatry ; in which the bishop of oxford's true and only notion of idolatry is considered and confuted 4to . a letter to the superiours , ( whether bishops or priests ) which approve or license the popish books in england , particularly to those of the jesuits order , concerning lewis sabran a jesuit . a preservative against popery ; being some plain directions to unlearned protestants , how to dispute with romish priests . in two parts . a vindication of both parts of the preservative against popery . a discourse concerning the nature , unity and communion of the catholick church ; wherein most of the controversies relating to the church , are briefly and plainly stated . the first part. 4to . these four last by william sherlock , d. d. master of the temple . notes, typically marginal, from the original text notes for div a46941-e160 resp. ad 2. obj. art. 5. notes for div a46941-e1290 see the book of marryrs in q. marie's reign . a conficiunt christicorpus & sanguinem catech. trid. de euch. ss . 82. edit . lngdun . 1676. † catech. trid. de euch. sect. 31. † sect. 44. ipsa se , nulla alia re nisa , substentant . || sect 46. nam cum a communi hominum natura maxime abhorreat humanae carnis esca , &c. † sect. 43 sect. 43. † coroll . 1. * trent . cat. de euch. sect. 30. admirabili integumento . a translated into english , and printed at london 1687. b school of the eucharist , pag. 2 , 4 , 7 , 8. 19. &c. c preface to the school of the eucharist , pag. 22. a sect. 25. ut omnino esse desinant . a sect. 82. personam suscipiunt personam gerens . transusbstantiation examin'd and confuted in two sermons on the lord's supper / preach'd in the reign of queen elizabeth by h. smith, sometime preacher at st. clement danes. smith, henry, 1550?-1591. 1688 approx. 118 kb of xml-encoded text transcribed from 24 1-bit group-iv tiff page images. text creation partnership, ann arbor, mi ; oxford (uk) : 2005-12 (eebo-tcp phase 1). a60427 wing s4049 estc r37565 16974116 ocm 16974116 105577 this keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the early english books online text creation partnership. this phase i text is available for reuse, according to the terms of creative commons 0 1.0 universal . the text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission. early english books online. (eebo-tcp ; phase 1, no. a60427) transcribed from: (early english books online ; image set 105577) images scanned from microfilm: (early english books, 1641-1700 ; 1159:16) transusbstantiation examin'd and confuted in two sermons on the lord's supper / preach'd in the reign of queen elizabeth by h. smith, sometime preacher at st. clement danes. smith, henry, 1550?-1591. [2], 44 p. printed by j. wallis, and are to be sold by most booksellers, london : 1688. "licensed june the 12th, 1688." imperfect: cropped and stained, with loss of print. reproduction of original in the huntington library. includes bibliographical references. created by converting tcp files to tei p5 using tcp2tei.xsl, tei @ oxford. re-processed by university of nebraska-lincoln and northwestern, with changes to facilitate morpho-syntactic tagging. gap elements of known extent have been transformed into placeholder characters or elements to simplify the filling in of gaps by user contributors. eebo-tcp is a partnership between the universities of michigan and oxford and the publisher proquest to create accurately transcribed and encoded texts based on the image sets published by proquest via their early english books online (eebo) database (http://eebo.chadwyck.com). the general aim of eebo-tcp is to encode one copy (usually the first edition) of every monographic english-language title published between 1473 and 1700 available in eebo. eebo-tcp aimed to produce large quantities of textual data within the usual project restraints of time and funding, and therefore chose to create diplomatic transcriptions (as opposed to critical editions) with light-touch, mainly structural encoding based on the text encoding initiative (http://www.tei-c.org). the eebo-tcp project was divided into two phases. the 25,363 texts created during phase 1 of the project have been released into the public domain as of 1 january 2015. anyone can now take and use these texts for their own purposes, but we respectfully request that due credit and attribution is given to their original source. users should be aware of the process of creating the tcp texts, and therefore of any assumptions that can be made about the data. text selection was based on the new cambridge bibliography of english literature (ncbel). if an author (or for an anonymous work, the title) appears in ncbel, then their works are eligible for inclusion. selection was intended to range over a wide variety of subject areas, to reflect the true nature of the print record of the period. in general, first editions of a works in english were prioritized, although there are a number of works in other languages, notably latin and welsh, included and sometimes a second or later edition of a work was chosen if there was a compelling reason to do so. image sets were sent to external keying companies for transcription and basic encoding. quality assurance was then carried out by editorial teams in oxford and michigan. 5% (or 5 pages, whichever is the greater) of each text was proofread for accuracy and those which did not meet qa standards were returned to the keyers to be redone. after proofreading, the encoding was enhanced and/or corrected and characters marked as illegible were corrected where possible up to a limit of 100 instances per text. any remaining illegibles were encoded as <gap>s. understanding these processes should make clear that, while the overall quality of tcp data is very good, some errors will remain and some readable characters will be marked as illegible. users should bear in mind that in all likelihood such instances will never have been looked at by a tcp editor. the texts were encoded and linked to page images in accordance with level 4 of the tei in libraries guidelines. copies of the texts have been issued variously as sgml (tcp schema; ascii text with mnemonic sdata character entities); displayable xml (tcp schema; characters represented either as utf-8 unicode or text strings within braces); or lossless xml (tei p5, characters represented either as utf-8 unicode or tei g elements). keying and markup guidelines are available at the text creation partnership web site . eng bible. -n.t. -corinthians, 1st, xi, 23-28 -sermons. transubstantiation -controversial literature. lord's supper. 2005-04 tcp assigned for keying and markup 2005-05 apex covantage keyed and coded from proquest page images 2005-07 andrew kuster sampled and proofread 2005-07 andrew kuster text and markup reviewed and edited 2005-10 pfs batch review (qc) and xml conversion transubstantiation examin'd and confuted , in two sermons on the lords supper , preach'd in the reign of queen elizabeth . by h. smith , sometime preacher at st. clement danes . licensed , june the 12th . 1688. london , printed by j. wallis , and are to be sold by most booksellers . 1688. the first sermon on the lord's supper . 1 cor. xi . 23 , 24. the lord jesus in the night that he was betrayed took 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 ye in remembrance of me . the word and the sacraments are the two breasts wherewith our mother doth nurse us . seeing every one receiveth , and few understand what they receive , i thought it the necessariest doctrine to preach of the sacrament ; which is a witness of gods promises , a remembrance of christs death , and a seal of our adoption : therefore christ hath not instituted this sacrament for a fashion in his church , to touch , and feel , and see , as wee gaze upon pictures in the windows , but as the woman which had the bloody issue , touching the hem of christs garment , drew vertue from himself , because she believed : so christ would that we touching these signs should draw vertue from himself , that is , all the graces which these signs represent . therefore as the levites , under the law , were bound to prepare their brethren before they came to the passeover ; so preachers of the gospel should prepare their brethren before they come to the supper of the lord. for which purpose i have chosen this place to the corinthians , which is the clearest and fullest declaration of this sacrament in all the scripture . the lord jesus in the night , &c. the summe of all these words is , the institution , and use of the lords supper . first , paul sheweth the author of it , the lord jesus ; then the time when it was instituted , in the night that he was betrayed ; then the manner how he did institute it , he took bread and when he had given thanks , he brake it , and gave unto his disciphes , &c. then the end why he did institute it , for a remembrance of his death . touching the author , he which is signified by it , was the author of it , the lord jesus hath bid us to supper , i am not worthy ( sayth john ) to loose his shoe : so we are not worthy to waite at his trancher , and yet he will have us to sit at his table . to him belongeth the power to ordain sacraments in his church , because he fulfilled the sacraments of the law. when christ came , the passeover ceased , because he is our passeover ; that is , the lamb by whose blood we are saved . when christ came , circumcision ceased , because he is our circumcision , that is , the purifier and clenser of our sins . now these two sacraments are fulfilled : he hath appointed two other sacraments for them ; in stead of the paschal lamb , which the jews did eat , he hath given us another lamb to eat , which john calleth the lamb of god , that is himself upon whom all do feed , whosoever do receive this sacrament with an assured faith that christ died to possess them of life . the breaking of the bread doth signify the wounding of the body : the powring out of the wine doth signify the shedding of his blood. the eating of the bread and drinking of the wine doth signify that his flesh and blood do nourish in us life eternal , as the bread and wine do nourish the life present . in stead of circumcision , which began at abraham , he hath ordained baptisme , which began at john , a more lively representation of the true circumcision of the heart , because it representeth unto us the blood of christ , which washeth our souls as the water in baptism washeth our bodies . touching the time , in the night ( saith paul ) therefore this sacrament is called the lord's supper , because it was instituted at night when they used to sup . but what night ? even that night ( saith paul ) when he was betraied : that night which he should have cursed , as job did the day of his birth , if he had suffered against his will : that night when he should have thought to destroy men , as men conspired to destroy him . that night ( saith paul ) this sacrament of grace , and peace , and life began : even that night when we betraied him . many nights did he spend in watching and praying for us ; and is there a night now for us to betray him ? that was a dark night , when men went about to put out the sun which brought them light . who can but wonder , to see how christ and they for whom christ came , were occupied at one time ? when they devised mischief against him , and sought all means to destroy him , then he consulted how to save them , and instituted the same night this blessed sacrament , to convey all his graces and blessings unto them , even that night when they betraied him . the reason why this action was deferred until night , is , because that was the time appointed by the law to eat the pass-over which was like a predecessor of this sacrament . the reason why he deferr'd it untill his last night , was , because the passeover could not be ended before the fulness of time , and the true paschal lamb were come to be slain in stead of the other . therefore how fitly did christ end the pass-over , which was a sign of his sufferings , so presently before his suffering ; and beside , how sweetly did he confirm his disciples faith , when as they should see that the next day performed before their eyes , which over night both in the pass-over and in the sacrament , was so lively resembled unto them ? if any man from this do gather , that we ought to eat the lords supper at night , as christ did , he must understand that we have not the same cause to do so which christ had , because of the passover . and therefore the church which hath discretion of times and places , hath altered both the time and the place , using the temples in stead of the chamber , and the morning in stead of the evening : for indifferent things are ruled by order and decency . touching the manner , he took bread , and when he had geven thanks , he brake it and gave it unto them . he would not eat it , not break it , before he had given thanks to god. what need he which was god , give thanks to god , but to shew us what we should do when we eat our selves ? in all things give thanks ( saith paul ) whereby we declare that all things come from god : but the wicked believe easier that god doth take , than that he doth give , and therefore they never pray heartily unto him for any thing , nor feelingly thank him for it . for which the lord complaineth , saying : i have loved you , yet ye say , wherein hast thou loved us ? shewing that we are worse then the ox , which knoweth his feeder . and if that we acknowledg all things from god , yet we do like lot , is it not a little one , ( saith he ) when he craved to go unto zoar ? as though it were not much which he asked : so we mince and extenuate the gifts of god , before we receive them and after : like them which have a grace for dinner , and none for breakfast , as though they had their dinners from god , and breakfasts of their own . our example did not so , although it was but bread which he received , yet he was more thankful for bread , than many which bury the fouls , and fishes , and beasts in their belly : for if account of all were kept , for one that prayeth ; give us this day our daily bread , a hundred take their bread , and meat , and sleep too which never pray for it . after he had given thanks , he brake it , and gave unto them , and said . take , eat ; for when he had given thanks to god , then it was sanctified , and blessed , and lawful to eat . so when thou servest god , then it is lawful for thee to use gods blessings , then thou maist eat and drink as christ did , but not before : for these things were created to serve them which serve god : if thou doest not serve him for them , thou encrochest upon gods blessings , and stealest his creatures , which are no more thine , then thou art his : for the good god created all things for good men , as the devils possessions are reserved for evil men . therefore as christ would not break the bread before he had given thanks to the founder , so know , that there is some thing to be done before thou receive any benefit of god , and presume not to use his creatures with more liberty than his son did , which did not eat without giving thanks , nor rise again without singing a psalm . it followeth , this is my body . here is the fruit of his thanks before ; he prayed that the bread and wine might be blessed , and they were blessed . as isaac's blessing shewed it self upon jacob whom he blessed , so christ's blessing appeared straight upon these mysteries : for it could not be said before , this is my body , because it was meer bread ; but now it may be called his body because his blessing hath infused that vertue into it , that it doth not only represent his body , but conveys his body and himself unto us . the efficacie of his blessing is in this sacrament ever since , sanctifying it unto us as well as it did to the apostles , even as christ's prayer stayed peter's faith after christ was dead . now you have heard the meaning of these words , he took bread , and blessed it , and brake it , and gave it : you shall see with what a mystical resemblance they unite christ and us . first , as christ in the supper took bread to feed us , so in his birth he took our flesh to save us . secondly , as christ when he had taken the bread , blessed the bread to make it a spiritual food : so christ when he had taken our flesh , powred forth most rich and precious graces into it , to make it food of life unto us . thirdly , as christ when he had blessed the bread , brake the bread ; so christ when he had filled his body with most precious graces , brake it up like a rich treasure-house , his hands by the nailes , his back by the stripes , his head by the thorns , his side by the spear , that out of every hole a river of grace and goodness might issue and flow forth unto us . lastly , as christ gave the bread when he had broken it , so christ ( by a lively faith ) communicateth his body after he hath crucified it . hereby we are taught , that when we see the minister take the bread to feed us , we must conceive , that christ ( being god from everlasting ) took our flesh to save us . when we see the minister bless the bread to a holy use , we must conceive , that christ ( by uniting the god-head unto it ) sanctified his flesh for our redemption . when we see the minister break the bread to sustain our bodies , we must conceive that christ in his death , break his body to refresh our souls . when we see the minister give the bread to our hand , we must conceive , that christ as truly offereth himself to our faith , to be received of us . because upon these words the papists ground their transubstantiation , that is , that the bread is changed into christ's flesh , and the wine is turned into christ's blood , whereby we eat the same body which dyed upon the cross ; and drink the same blood which issued out of his side . that you may see the blindness of this popish dream , i would have you but mark every word of the scripture , how they make against transubstantiation , that ye may see them slain like goliah with their own sword : even as god made caiphas speak against himself , so the scriptures which papists and other hereticks alledge , do make against themselves , like the baalites which wounded their own flesh . i may liken their al●egations to satan's when he tempted christ in the wilderness , he alledged but one sentence of scripture for himself , and that psalm out of which he borrowed it made so plain against him , that he was necessitated to pick here a word and there a word , and leave out that which went before , and skip in the midst , and omit that which came after , or else he had marr'd his cause . the scripture is so holy , pure , and true , that no word or syllable thereof can make for the devil , or for sinners , or for hereticks : yet as the devil alledged scripture , tho' it made not for him but against him ; so do the libertines , epicures and hereticks , as tho' they had learned at his school . now there is no sentence of the scripture , which the wiser papists alledge boldly for transubstantiation but this , that christ said , this is my body : by which they may prove as well , that christ is a door , because he saith , i am the door : or a vine , because he saith , i am a vine : for his sayings are alike . figurative speeches must not be construed literally , but this is hereticks fashion . if you mark you shall see throughout , that all the testimonies which the papists alledge for their heresies , are either tropes or figures , allegories , parables , allusions or dark speeches , which when they presume to expound allegorically , or literally , without conference of any other scriptures ; then they wander and stray from the mark , or else it is impossible that the truth should maintain error , that is , that the scripture should speak for heresie , if it were not wrested and perverted : therefore we see that eve never erred , untill she corrupted the text. now we will enter the lists with our adversaries , and see whether these words do prove that the bread and wine are turned into christ's body . paul saith , jesus took bread : well then ; yet it is bread : when he had taken it , then he blessed it ; what did he bless ? the bread which he took ; well then , yet it is bread : when he had blessed it , then he break it ; what did he break ? the bread which he blessed ; well then , yet it is bread : when he had broken it , then he gave it ; what did he give ? the bread which he break : well then , yet it is bread : when he had given it , they did eat it ; what did they eat ? the bread which he gave them ; well then , yet it is bread : when they did eat it , then he said , this is my body ; what did he call his body ? the bread which they did eat ; well then , yet is it bread. if it be bread all this while , when he did take it , and bless it , and break it , and gave it , and they did eat it , when is it turned into his body ? here they stand like the sadduces , as mute as fishes . now that ye may see , that not we only say it is bread and wine after the consecration ; in the 27. verse , christ himself doth call it bread and wine after he had given it , as he did before . and in mark he saith , i will drink no more of the fruit of the vine . here christ saith , that it was the fruit of the vine which he drank ; but his blood is not the fruit of vines , but wine , therefore wine was his drink , and not blood. beside , if you would hear paul expound christ , he sheweth that all our fathers had the same substance of christ in their sacraments , that we have in ours ; for he saith , they all did eat the same spiritual meat , and all drank the same spiritual drink . straight he saith , that this meat , and this drink was christ. mark that he saith not onely , they did eat the same meat that we eat ; but he saith , that this meat was christ : and not only so , but to shew that christ is not a corporal meat , as the papists say ; he saith , he is a spiritual meat as we say : therefore you see that we do not eat him corporally , no more then our fathers , but that as they did eat him spiritually , so do we ; for spiritual meat must be eaten spiritually , as corporal meat is eaten corporally . again , for the signs to be turned into the thing signified by them , is utterly against the nature of a sacrament , and makes it no sacrament , because there is no sign : for every sacrament doth consist of a sign , and a thing signified : the sign is ever an earthly thing , and that which is signified is a heavenly thing . this shall appear in all examples : as , in paradise there was a very tree for the sign , and christ the thing signified by it : in circumcision there was a cuting off of the skin , and the cuting off of sin : in the passover there was a lamb , and christ : in the sabbath there was a day of rest , and eternal rest : in the sacrifice there was an offering of some beast , and the offering of christ : in the sauctuary there was the holy place , and heaven : in the propitiatory there was the golden covering , and christ our cover : in the wilderness there was a rock yielding water , and christ yielding his blood : in the apparition there was a dove , and the holy ghost : in the manna there was bread , and christ : in baptism there is very water which washeth us , and christ's blood washing us : so in the supper of christ there is very bread and wine for the sign , and the body and blood of christ for the thing signified , or else this sacrament is against the nature of all other sacraments . again , there must be a proportion between the passover and the lord's supper , because this was figured by the other . now the jews had in their passover , bread and wine , and a lamb : so our saviour christ instituting his last supper , left bread and wine , and a lamb : the which name is given to himself , because he came like a lamb , and dyed like a lamb. again , if christ's very body were offered in the sacrament , then it were not a sacrament , but a sacrifice , which two differ as much as giving , and taking : for in a sacrifice we give , and in a sacrament we receive , and therefore we say our sacrifice , and christ's sacrament . again , every sacrifice was offered upon the altar . now mark the wisdom of the holy ghost , least we should take this for a sacrifice , he never names altar when he speaks of it , but , the table of the lord. therefore it is no doubt but the devil hath kept the name of altar , that we might think it a sacrifice . again , if the bread were christ's flesh , and the wine his blood , as these two are separate one from the other ; so christ flesh should be separate from his blood , but his body is not divided , for then it were a dead body . again , that which remaineth doth nourish the body , and relish in the mouth as it did before , which could not be , but that it is the same food which it was before . again , i would ask , whose are this whitness , and hardness , and roundness , and coldness ? none of them say that it is the whitness , and hardness , and roundness , and coldness of christ's body : therefore it must needs be the whiteness , and hardness , and roundness , and coldness of the bread , or else qualities should stand without substances , which is , as if one should tell you of a house without a foundation . again , as christ dwelleth in us , so he is eaten of us : but he dwelleth in us onely by faith , ephe. 3. 17. therefore he is eaten onely by faith . again , none can be saved without the communion of the body of christ : but if all should communicate with it corporally , then neither infants , nor any of our fathers , the patriarchs , or the prophets , should be saved , because they received it not so . again , christ saith not , this wine , but this cup : and therefore by their conclusion , not only the wine should be turned into blood , but the cup too . again , paul saith , they which receive unworthily , receive their own damnation . but if it were the flesh of christ , they should rather receive salvation than damnation , because christ saith : he that eateth my flesh , and drinketh my blood , hath life everlasting . john 6. 54. again , if they would hear an angel from heaven : when christ's body was glorified , an angel saith to the woman , he is risen , and is not here , mat. 28. as if he should say ; his body is but in one place at once , or else he might have been there though he was risen . again , why do they say in receiving this sacrament , ever since the primitive church , lift up your hearts , if they have all in their mouths ? to end this controversy , here we may say as the disciples said to christ , whither shall we go from thee ? i mean we need not to go to any other expositor of christ then christ himself , therefore mark what he saith : at first , when christ said that he was the bread of life , and that all which would live , must eat him , they murmured until he expounded his words , and how did he expound his words ? thus , he that cometh unto me hath eaten , and he that beleeveth in me , hath drank . after when he instituted this sacrament , in like words , they murmured not , which they would as before , if he had not resolved them before , that to eat his body , and to drink his blood , was nothing but to come to him , and believe in him . after he had said so , they murmured not , because they did see some reason in it , as it is plainly said , this is my body : so it is plainly said , these words . are spirit : that is , they must be understood spiritually , and not literally . but if it be flesh indeed , why do they not satisfy the simple people how they may eat this flesh in lent , when they forbid them to eat any flesh , they must needs eat it doubtfully , and he which doubteth , saith james , receiveth nothing : therefore he which eateth the mass , receiveth nothing . i did not alledge the fathers in my sermon , but if any suspend his assent , till they bring in their verdict , let him hear them make confession of their belief . augustin saith , the lord doubteth not to say , this is my body ; when he gave only a sign , or sacrament of his body . tertullian saith , this is my body , that is a sign of my body . ambrose saith , the bread and wine remain still the same thing that they were . theodoret saith , after the consecration , the mystical signs do not cast off their own nature , but abide still in their first substance and form . origen saith , the bread that is sanctified with the word of god , as touching the material substance thereof , goeth into the belly and forth again like other meats . irenaeus saith , that it hath two things in it , one earthly , and the other heavenly . cyril saith , our sacraments avouch not the eating of a man. cyprian saith , the lord called bread made of many grains , his body ; and called wine made of many grapes , his blood. athanasius saith , christ made mention of his ascension into heaven , that he might withdraw his disciples from corporal and fleshly eating . chrysostome saith , god giveth us things spiritual , under things visible and natural . and again , being sanctified , it is delivered from the name of bread , and is exalted to the name of the lord's body , although the nature of the bread still remain . and because they believe that the pope cannot err , pope gelasius setteth too his hand , and saith with the rest : neither the substance of the bread , nor nature of the wine , cease to be more than they were before . tell us papist , do not these fathers speak as plain as we ? canst thou avouch transubstantiation more flatly then they deny it ? how had this heresy bin chased , if the divel had hatched it in their time ? thus the scriptures on the one side , and the fathers on the other side , did so trouble three arch-papists , biel , tonstall , and fisher , that gabriel biel saith , how the body of christ is in the sacrament , is not found in the canon of the bible . tonstall saith , it had been better to leave every man to his own conjecture , as they were before the councel of lateran , than to bring in such a question . fisher saith , no man can prove by the words of the gospel , that any priest in these days doth consecrate the very body and blood of christ. here is fulfilled , out of thine own mouth i will condemn thee . but we will not carry the matter so , because a judg must have two ears , therfore now let them speak . because they cannot tell how the bread and wine should be turned into flesh and blood , and yet appear bread and wine still , they say it is a miracle : but how do they prove it ? if they contend it is a miracle , they must shew us a sign : for every miracle may be seen , like all the miracles of moses and christ , and the apostles : and therfore a miracle is called a sign , because it may be seen like a sign , and the word signifieth a wonder . and the jews craving a miracle , said ; shew us a miracle : as though they were taught to judg of miracles by sight . all which doth shew that a miracle may be seen : but here no miracle is seen . again , a miracle ( especially in the time of the gospel ) is an extraordinary thing : but they make this an ordinary thing : for if the bread and wine be turned into flesh and blood , then miracles are as common as sacraments , and so because they have mass every day , they should work miracles every day . lastly , this seemeth strange that augustin ( whom they so much honour ) gathered all the miracles which are written in the scripture , and yet amongst all , speaks not of this : therefore then it was counted no miracle : but paul speaks of lying miracles , and this is one of them . if they say that christ can turn bread and wine into his body , and therefore he doth . first , they must prove that he will , for they can do many things themselves which they do not , because they will not : therfore it is an old answer , that from can to will no argument followeth . the leper did not say unto christ , if thou canst , thou wilt : but , if thou wilt , thou canst . but the question which they think cannot be answered , like their invincible navies , is this . if the bread be not his body , why doth he call it his body ? resolve this knot , and all is clear . mark then , and we will loose it as well as we can : he saith , this is my body : as he saith after , which is broken for you : why ? his body was not broken before he suffered , how did he say then , which is broken , before it was broken ? there is no sense of it but this , the bread was broken , and signified that his body should be broken . now as the breaking of the bread did signifie the breaking of his body , so the bread must needs signifie his body : but as his body was not broken indeed when the bread was broken , so the bread could not be his body indeed , for then his body should have been broken when the bread was broken : yet let them object what they can . if ( say they ) the bread and wine be not changed into his body and blood , why doth he speak so darkly ? he might have spoken plainer . i answer , though this seem dark to papists , yet it was not dark to the apostles , they understood his meaning well enough , and all the rest for 1215 years after christ , before transubstantiation was spoken off . if the apostles had not understood his meaning , they would not stick to ask him , as their manner was , until they were acquainted with christ's phrase , whensoever they doubted upon any of his speeches , they were wont to come unto him and say ; master , what is the meaning ? but they were used to such phrases : for it was christ's manner to teach by similitudes , shewing one thing by another , which is the plainest manner of teaching , and most used in holy scripture , especially in the types and shadows of this sacrament . for example , christ calleth the lamb the passover , in place whereof this sacrament succeeded , and therefore presently after they had eaten the passover , christ instituted the sacrament to be used for it . christ ( i say ) called the lamb the passover , and yet the passover was this , an angel passed over the houses of the israelites , and struck the egyptians : this was not a lamb ; and yet because a lamb was a sign of this passover , as the bread and wine is of christ's body , therefore christ called the lamb the passover , as he calleth the bread and wine his body . again , circumcision is called the covenant , and yet circumcision was nothing but the cutting away of a skin : but the covenant is , in abrahams seed all nations shall be blessed , i will be their god , and they shall be my people , i will defend and save them , and they shall serve and worship me . this is not circumcision , and yet as though circumcision were the covenant it self , it is called the covenant , because it signifieth the covenant ; so bread and wine are called christ's body , because they signifie christ's body . again , baptism is called regeneration , and yet baptism is a dipping of our bodies in water ; but regeneration is the renewing of the mind to the image wherein it was created . this is not baptism , and yet as though baptism were regeneration it self , it is called regeneration , because it signifieth regeneration : so the bread and wine are called christ's body , because they signifie christ's body . again , the cup is called the new testament ; and yet the cup is but a piece of mettal filled with wine : but the new testament is : he which believeth in the son shall be saved . this is not a cup , and yet as though the cup were the new testament it self , it is called the new testament , because it signifieth the new testament : so the bread and wine are called christ's body , because they signifie christ's body . they which knew that the lamb is not the passover , though christ called it the passover ; that circumcision is not the covenant , though god calleth it the covenant ; that baptism is not regeneration , though it be called regeneration ; that the cup is not the new testament , though christ called it the new testament ; could they not as well understand , that the bread and wine were not christ's body , though christ called them his body ? as they understood these speeches , so they understood this speech : therefore they which say , that the bread and wine are christ's body , because christ saith , this is my body ; may as well say , that the lamb is the passover , because christ calleth it the passover ; that baptism is regeneration , because paul calleth it regeneration ; that this cup is the new testament , because christ calleth it the new testament . if every sacrament was called by the thing which it signified , and yet never any sacrament was taken for the thing it self ; what reason have they to take this sacrament for the thing it self more than all the rest ? it is the consent of all writers , that a sacrament is a sign , therefore not the thing signified : no more than the bush at the door is the wine in the seller . if i call the prince a phoenix , the university a fountain , the court a peacock , the city a sea , the countrey an hermite : why , can the papists understand me , and not understand christ ? what a dark , and strange , and intricate , and incredible speech had this been for them to understand grosly , and literally ? would they think that they did eat christ's body , when his body stood before them , and he had told them before that his body was like their body ? nay this would have required more words , and made them come again ; with master , what is the meaning ? for they were not so instructed yet before the resurrection , to believe every thing without questioning , if it were contrary to sense and reason : but as they asked , who had given him any meat , then he said that he had meat , and they could see none : so they would have asked , what meat is this which we see not ? how can every one of us eat his body , and yet he hath but one body , and that body is whole when we eat it ? loe , he standeth before us and saith , that his body is like unto ours , and yet he takes bread and breaks it , and gives it unto us to eat , and when we eat it , he saith , this is my body , and yet his body stands before us still . if his body be like ours ( as he saith ) how can it be eaten , and be there , for ours cannot ? thus they would have questioned , if they had not been used to such phrases : but as they could understand him , when he called himself a stone , a rock , a door , a window , and a vine : so they pickt out his meaning when he had said that bread was his body : for he had told them before , that he was the bread of eternal life . now the bread of eternal life is not eaten with teeth , for the body cannot eat spiritually , no more than the soul can eat corporally ; and therefore he is such a bread as is eaten with faith , and so himself saith in the gospel of st. john. mark this eating by faith , and all the strife is ended . flesh and blood indeed need not faith to chew them , for the teeth can chew them well enough . therefore if the bread and wine were the body of christ , then we need not faith to eat it , but all those which have teeth might eat christs body , yea the mice might eat it as well as men , for they eat the same bread that we do , as well after it is consecrated , as before . if this bee not enough to batter the ruines of this upstart heresie , i will come to interrogatories , and see whether they have learned it by rote , or by reason . if they ground their transubstantation upon these words of christ this is my body , which he spake to his disciples , i ask them , whether they receive that body which was mortal , or that body which is glorified ? because one of these bodies they must needs receive , either his mortal body , or his glorified body . if they say that it is his mortal body , the mortal body will not profit them : for you see that mortal food is but for this mortal life : neither hath christ a mortal body now to communicate unto them , because it is changed to an immortal body ; therefore they cannot receive the mortal body , because christ hath not a mortal body to give unto them . if they say , that they receive his glorified body , then they must fly from this text : for at that time christ had not any glorified body . when this sacrament was instituted , and christ said , this is my body , his body was not glorified , because the sacrament was instituted before his death , and his body was glorified after his resurrection . therefore if they receive the same body which the apostles received , as they say they do , they cannot receive a glorified body , because then christ had not a glorified body to communicate unto them . thus the rocks and sands are of both sides them , they receive a body neither mortal nor immortal : if christ have any such body , judg you . here they stand like a fool , which cannot tell on his tale . nabuchadnezzar dreamed a dream and knew not what it meant . beside i ask them to whom christ spake when he said , this is my body ? s. mark saith , he spake to them , that is , to his disciples : well then , if these words , this is my body , were not spoken to the signs , but to the persons : not to the bread and wine , but to the receivers , as the words which follow , do this in remembrance of me : if these words were not spoken to the bread and wine , then it is plain that they do not change the nature of the bread and wine . if the nature of them be not altered , then the substance remaineth , and then we receive no other substance with them , because two substances cannot be in one place . what then , is there nothing in the sacrament but bread and wine , like an hungry nunscion ? nay , we say not that the sacrament is nothing but a bare sign , or that you receive no more than you see : for christ saith , that it is his body : and paul saith , that it is the communion of christ's body and blood : therefore there is more in sacramental bread then in common bread ; though the nature be not changed , yet the use is changed : it doth not onely nourish the body as it did before , but also it bringeth a bread with it which nourisheth the soul : for as sure as we receive bread , so sure we receive christ ; not onely the benefits of christ , but christ : although not in a popish manner , yet we are so joyned and united unto him , even as though we were but one body with him . as the spouse doth not marry with the lands and goods , but with the man himself , and being partaker of him , is made partaker of them : so the faithful do not onely marry with christ's benefits , but with christ himself , and being partakers of him , they are made partakers of his benefits , for christ may not in any wise be divided from his benefits , no more than the sun from his light . it is said , the father gave us his son , and so the son giveth us himself . for as the bread is a sign of his body , so the giving of the bread is a sign of the giving of his body . thus he lieth before us like a pellican , which letteth her young ones suck her blood : so that we may say , the lord invited us to supper , and he himself was our meat . but if you ask how this is ? i must answer . it is a mystery : but if i could tell it , it were no mystery . yet , as it is said , when three men walked in the midst of the furnace , one like the son of god walked amongst them : so , when the faithful receive the bread and wine , one like the son of god seemeth to come unto them , which fills them with peace , and joy , and grace , that they marvel what it was which they received besides bread and wine . for example , thou makest a bargain with thy neighbour for house or land , and receivest in earnest a piece of gold : that which thou receivest is but a piece of gold : but now it is a sign of thy bargain , and if thou keep not touch with him , happily it will clasp thee for all that thou art worth : so , that which thou receivest is bread , but this bread is a sign of another matter which passeth bread . again , thou hast an obligation in thy hand , and i ask thee what hast thou there ? and thou sayest , i have here an hundred pounds : why ( say i ) there is nothing but paper , ink , wax : oh , but by this ( saist thou ) i will recover an hundreth pounds , and that is as good . so beloved , this is as good , that under these signs , you receive the vertue of christ's body and blood by faith , as if you did eat his body , and drink his blood indeed , which is horrible to think that any should devour their god , thinking thereby to worship him : never nay heretick nor idolater , conceived so grossely of their god before the papist . we read of a people which did eat men , but never of any people which did eat their god. all the apostles say , that it was needful that christ should take our flesh : but no apostle saith , that it is needful that we should take christ's flesh ; for all the blessings of christ are apprehended by faith , and nothing fit to apprehend him whom we see not , but faith : and therefore one of their own pillers said , believe and thou hast eaten . faith doth more in religion than the mouth , or else we might say with the woman , blessed are the breasts which gave thee suck : and so none should be blessed but mary : but mary was not blessed because christ was in her body , but because christ was in her heart : and least this should seem incredible unto you , because mary is called blessed among women ; when christ heard the woman say , blessed are the breasts which gave thee suck , he replyed unto her , blessed are they which hear the word of god and keep it : these are my brethrea , and sisters , and mother , saith christ , as though the rest were no kin to him in heaven , though they were kin in earth . thus if christ were in thy body , and thou shouldest say as this woman : blessed is the body that hath thee in it , nay would christ say , blessed is the heart that hath me in it . if mary were no whit better for having christ in her arms , nor for having him in her body , how much better art thou for having him in thy belly , where thou canst not see him ? must the sun needs come to us , or else cannot his heat and light profit us ? nay it doth us more good , because it is so far off : so this sun is gone from us , that he might give more light unto us , which made him say , it is good for you that i go from you : therefore away with this carnal eating of spiritual things . many daughters have done vertuously , but thou ( saith salomon ) surpassest them all . so many hereticks have spoken absurdly , but this surpasseth them all , that christ most be applied like physick , as though his blood could not profit us , unless we did drink it , and swallow it as a potion . is this the papists union with christ ? is this the manner whereby we are made one flesh with christ , to eat his flesh ? nay , when he took our flesh unto him , and was made man , then we were united to him in the flesh , and not now . christ took our flesh , we take not his flesh , but belive that he took ours , therefore if you would know whether christ's body be in the sacrament , i say unto you as christ said unto thomas , touch , feel , and see . in visible things god hath appointed our eyes to be judges , for as the spirit discerneth spiritual objects , so sense discerneth sensible objects . as christ taught thomas to judge of his body , so may we ; and so should they : therefore if you cannot see his body , nor feel his body , you may gather by christ's saying to thomas , that he would not have you believe that it is his body , for my body ( saith christ ) may be seen and felt . and thus transubstantiation is found a lyar . now , if you ask me why christ calleth the sign by the name of the thing it self , i ask thee again ; maist thou say when thou seest the picture of the queen , this is the queen , and when thou seest the picture of a lyon , this is a lyon ? and may not christ say when he seeth a thing like his body , this is my body ? i shewed you before , that every sacrament is called by the name of the thing which it doth signifie , and therefore why should we stumble at this more then the rest ? the reason why the signs have the name of the things , is to strike a deeper reverence in us , to receive this sacrament of christ reverently , sincerely , and holily , as if that christ were there present in body and blood himself , and surely , as he which defaceth the queens seal is convicted of contempt and treason to her own person ; so he which prophaneth the seals of christ , doth not worship christ , but despite him , and that contempt shall be required of him , as if he had contemned christ himself . this is the reason why christ calleth the signs of his body his body , to make us take this sacrament reverently , because we are apt to contemn it , as the jews did their manna . it followeth ; do this in remembrance of me : that is , these signs shall be a remembrance of my death : when you break the bread you shall remember the wounding of my body , and when you drink the wine you shall remember the shedding of my blood . if we do this in remembrance of christ's body , which was broken like the bread , it is an argument that his body is not there , because remembrance is not of things present , but of things absent ; we remember not , but we see that which is before us . this might put the papists in remembrance that christ is not sacrificed now , when we do but remember his sacrifice ; this is not christ's sacrifice , but a remembrance of his sacrifice : he was sacrificed before , and now it is applied , lest his sacrifice should be in vain . this was done once really , when he offered himself upon the cross , therefore that offering was called a sacrifice , because he was sacrificed indeed ; but this offering is called a sacrament , because it is but a sign of his sacrifice . if christ in this sacrament were offered indeed , then it should be called a sacrifice , as his once offering was : but because it is but a remembrance of his sacrifice , therefore it is called a sacrament . this is not a sacrifice of christ , but a sacrifice of our selves . least we should take it to be a sacrifie of christ , christ himself calleth it a remembrance of his sacrifice , do this in my remembrance . here is our work , as christ hath done , so must we do , so we minister , and so you receive , we can give you nothing but that which we have received from him , as paul saith . therefore if christ did not give his mortal body which stood before them , and could not profit them ; nor his glorified body , which was not glorified then , and when it was glorified , ascended up into heaven , and there abideth : how can these juggling priests make their god again , which made them ? they can no more turn wine into blood , and bread into flesh , than they can command a gnat to be a camel ; for it is a greater work to make god , than to make the world. therefore as christ saith , when they tell you here is christ , or there is christ , believe them not : so when they tell you that christ is in heaven , and that christ is in earth , in this place and that place , believe them not ; for elias's ascension was a figure of christ's ascension : when elias was ascended , yet some sought for his body upon earth : so though christ be ascended , yet many seek his body upon earth ; but as they could not find elias's body , so these cannot find christ's body , altho' they have sought 300 years . but if his body were upon earth , as they say , should we handle it , and touch it , now it is glorified ? after his resurrection he said unto mary , touch me not , because his body was glorified : that is , not to be touched with fingers any more , but with faith. therefore we read of none that touched his body , ( after it was risen ) but only thomas , to settle his faith. thus you see we need to suborn no witnesses , for every word in this text which you seem to alledge for transubstantiation , doth make against transubstantiation , whereby if antichrist doth signifie those which are against christ , you see who may be called antichrist . there is no question in popery ( except purgatory the popes publican and tasker ) about which the papists are at such civil wars among themselves , as about this transubstantiation . they cannot tell when the change beginneth , nor what manner of change it is , nor how long the change continueth : some hang one way , and some another , like the midianites , which fought one against another . and no marvel though their consciences stagger about it ; for to shew you the right father of it , it was one of the dreams of innocentius the third , in the year of our lord 1215. so many years passed before transubstantiation was named , and then a pope set it first on foot : so it came out of rome , the mother of all heresies , and for want of scriptures , hath been defended with fire and sword , and swallowed more martyrs than all the gulfs of the papal sea beside , now , when the doctrines of men go for scriptures , you shall see how many errors rush into the church ; for grant but this to pope innocentius , as the papists do , that the bread and wine are are changed into christ's body : first it will follow , that christ's body is not ascended up to heaven , because it remaineth upon earth , and so one of the articles of our faith shall be falsified , which saith , he is ascended into heaven , or if he be ascended , and descended again , another article will be falsified , which saith , that he sitteth at the right hand of his father , that is , as peter saith , he abideth in heaven . secondly , it will follow , that christ hath not a true body , but a fantastical body , because it may be in many places at one time : for if his body be in the sacrament , he must needs have so many bodies as there be sacraments ; nay , he must have so many bodies as there be bits in every sacrament . thirdly , it will follow , that his body is divided from his soul , and consequently is a dead body , because the bread is only changed into his body , and not into his soul. fourthly , it will follow , that the wicked and prophane , and reprobate , may receive christ as well as the godly , because they have a mouth to eat as well as the best . fifthly , it will follow , that christ's sacrifice once for all , was not sufficient , because we must sacrifice him again , and break his body , and shed his blood , as the jews crucified him upon the cross , sixthly , it will follow , that the bread being turned into the body of our redeemer , hath a part of our redemption as well as christ. seventhly , it will follow , that christ did eat his own body : for all the fathers say , that he did eat the same bread which he gave to his disciples . lastly , it will follow , that a massing priest shall be the creator of his creator , because he makes him which made him . all these absurdities are hatch'd of transubstantiation . thus when men devise articles of their own , while they strike upon the anvil , the sparks fly in their face ; and they are like the man which began to build , and could not finish it . when i see the papists in so many absurdities for entertaining one error , methinks , he seemeth like a collier , which is grimed with his own coals . therefore , as in manners , we should think of peter's saying , whether is it meet to obey god or men ? so in doctrines we should think , whether it be meet to believe god or men ? thus you have heard the author of this sacrament , the lord jesus ; the time when it was instituted , in the night that he was betrayed ; the manner how it was instituted , after thanksgiving : the end why it was instituted , for a remembrance of his death ; and the discovery of transubstantiation , one of the last heresies which babylon hatch'd . now , they which have been patrons of it before , should do like the father and mother of an idolater , that is , lay the first hand upon him to shorten his life . thus i end : think what account ye shall give of that ye have heard . the end of the first sermon . the second sermon on the lord's supper . 1 cor. xi . 25 , 26 , 27 , 28. after the same manner also he took the cup when he had supped : saying , this cup is the new testament in my blood , this do , as aft as ye drink it , in remembrance of me . for as often as ye shall eat this bread , and drink this cup , ye shall shew the lord's death till he come . wherefore , whosoever shall eat this bread , and drink the cup of the lord unworthily , shall be guilty of the body and blood of the lord. let a man therefore examine himself , and so let him eat of this bread , and drink of this cup. here i am to speak of the second service , as it were , at the lords table , and of that preparation , which is like the wedding garment , that every man must bring to this banquet . these words are diversly repeated of the evangelists . here it is said , this cup is the new testament in my blood. in mathew and in mark it is said , this cup is my blood of the new testament . this is the first mention which christ makes of a testament , as though now his promises deserved the name of a testament , because the seal is set unto them , which before this sacrament was not sealed , but like a bare writing without a signet . this word testament , doth imply a promise , and therefore teacheth us , that the sacrament doth confirm , and strengthen , and nourish our faith , because it sealeth the promise which we should believe . here is to be noted , that christ doth not only speak of a testament , but he calleth it a new testament : which words never met together before , as though the law were for the old man to mortifie him , and the gospel for the new man to comfort him again : or , as if the old testament had so wash'd her face , and chang'd her apparel at christ's coming , that one would not think it the same , but a new testament , because even now she was shadowed with a thousand ceremonies , and now they are gone from her , like a mist at the sun-rising . as christ calleth love , a new commandement , because he renewed it like a law worn out of memory ; so he calleth the promise of salvation , a new testament , because as it was renewed to sem , and after renewed to abraham , and after renewed to david , so now he renewed it again , which should be alway new and fresh unto us . every tsteament is confirmed with blood , the old testament was confirmed by the blood of goats , and bullocks , and rams ; but the new testament is confirmed by the blood of christ : my blood ( saith christ ) is the blood of the new testament : nay , this cup ( saith christ ) is the new testament . you may see then that they may gather as well out of christ's words , that the cup is the new testament , as that the wine is his blood : for christ saith , this cup is the new testament , as well as he saith , this wine is my blood , or this bread is my body . beside , when christ speaks of a new testament , he implyeth that the old testament is fulfilled ; the sacrifices and ceremonies of the law did signifie christ before he came , therefore they are fulfilled in his coming : no more sacrifices , no more ceremonies , for the truth is come : sacrifices and cerimonies are honorably buried with the priesthood of aaron , let them rest : it is not lawful to violate the sepulchers of the dead , and take their bodies out of the earth , as the witch would raise samuel out of his grave . therefore they which retain ceremonies , which should be abrogated , reliques of judaism , or reliques of papism , may be said to violate the sepulchers of the dead , and disturb the deceased , like the witch , which presumed to raise samuel out of his grave . this testament is called a testament in blood , because the testament and will of a man is confirmed , when the man is dead : so christ confirmed his testament by his death . moses saith , that life is in the blood : so the blood of christ is the life of this testament . if christs blood had not been shed , this testament made unto us had been unprofitable , as the testament of a father is unto his son , if the father should not die but live : therefore the apostle saith , without shedding of blood , there is no remission of sins . therefore the testament or covenant of the remission of our sins , is called the testament in blood : the blood of christ is the seal of the testament , which we have to shew unto god , for the remission of our sins , and the two sacraments are a seal of that blood , to witness that it was shed . again , this is a matter regarded in testaments and wills ; to the testament of him that is dead , no man addeth or detracteth , but as the testator made it , so it standeth without alteration : so should this testament of christ , and this sacrament of christ , no man should alter it now he is dead , for he which addeth or detracteth , hath a curse in gods book . therefore christ when he instituted this sacrament , commanded , do this ; that is , do as i do : least they should swerve one whit from his own manner : yet how many gawdes have the papists adeed to it , that he which had heard christ say , do this in remembrance of me , and should see how they handle the matter in their mass , could see nothing to remember christ by but a vail to hide christ from him . therefore this commandment was repeated again , when he gave the wine , do this , &c. as he commanded them to eat the bread in remembrance of him , so he commanded them to drink the wine in remembrance of him : nay , he speaks more precisely of the wine than of the bread : for he saith of the wine , drink ye all of this , which he saith not of the bread . surely , christ did foresee that some proud hereticks would do otherwise after him , even as it is come to pass : for the papists do break this commandement of christ , as flatly as saul break the commandement of samuel . samuel commanded him to kill the sat and the lean , saul killed the lean , but not the fat ; so christ commandeth to receive bread and wine : they teach to receive bread , but not wine . christ saith , drink you all of this : they say , drink not all of this : christ gave the bread and wine to all ; they give the bread to all , and the wine to some : their priests receive all , but the people must content themselves with half ; the priest eats and drinks , but the people must not drink for spilling on their cloaths . is this the church which cannot err ? do they think to hem christ in their mass , and shut his ordinance out of their mass ? the souldiers divided christs coat , but these divide his body , and seperate the bread and wine which christ hath joyned . paul speaketh of hereticks which taught , louch not , tast not , handle not : so these say , touch not , tast not , handle not ; when they should say , touch , and tast , and handle . of all heresies either old or new , there is none so injurious to the common people , as the pasture of shavelings popery : for 1st . they may not read the scriptures , 2. they may not come to councels , 3. they may not examine that which is tought them , 4. they may not be buried without a mortuary , 5. they may not drink at the communion : as the their priests were their lords . therefore we may say as a heathen did , there is no charity in the papists sacrament : because like ananias , the priests keep back that which they should distribute , and mangle the sacrifice as tho ely his sons had left his book to the massing friers . thus that ye may know who succeeded the pharisees , they have fulfilled that which the pharisees did , that is , by their own commandements , they have made the commandement of god of no effect . for whereas the purpose of christ was to tie our faith wholly to himself , that we should not seek for any thing without him , knowing that the maintenance of this life hath need both of meat and drink , to teach us that all sufficiency is in himself : by bread and wine he sheweth , that he is in stead both of meat and drink , that is , in stead of all : which signification is taken away where the wine is not given as well as the bread . therefore as it is said of a horrible and odious crime , consider the matter , and give sentence : so i wish all to consider this innovation , and give sentence of it . can there be any cleerer contradiction to the word , or bolder check to christ , then when he saith , drink ye all of this ; to say , drink not all of this ? it is even as when god said , ye shall dye , the devil said , ye shall not dye : shall we go now to a councel , or a father , or a doctor , to enquire whether this doctrine be like christs doctrine ? i do verily think that none is here so simple , but that he seeth , that if any thing can be contrary to christs speech , this is contrary to it : but this is only their detraction from the sacrament . now you shall hear their additions to the sacrament : look upon their vestures , and their gestures , and their altars , and their pix , and their incense , and their becks , and their nods , and their turnings , all this is more than christ did : and therefore the prophet may say again , who hath required this of you ? did christ command you to do more than he did , and not do as he did ? therefore let them which have eyes to see , be thankful for their light , when they hear how blind they were whom god gave over to be seduced . the fruit of this sacrament is noted in these words , which is broken for you , which is shed for you , that is ( as matthew interpreteth ) shed for the remission of sins . as all was made for us , so all which christ spake , he spake for us , and all which christ suffered , he suffered for us , that the sins of men might be forgiven , and yet so few apprehend this benefit , that the way to heaven is called a narrow way , as though all these pains did ransom but a small number , and certain order of men. all are not saved by christs death , but all which are saved , are saved by christs death : his death is sufficient to save all , as the sun is sufficient to lighten all : but if any man wink , the sun will not give him light : so if any man contemn , and will not receive christ , he will not thrust him into heaven , but every man will have that which he chuseth , ( as david saith ) blessing to him that loveth blessing , and cursing to him that loveth cursing . there wants not a hand to give , but a hand to take , i would ( saith christ ) but you would not . stretch forth thy hand , and here is christs hand , which takes gods hand , and mans hand , and joyns them together , and then the remission of sins is sealed . this is the will and testament of christ. he had no goods , nor lands , nor money to give by his testament . a rich man when he dieth , bestoweth the money which he hath gathered , and forgiveth many debts which are owing him : but christ hath nothing to give , nor any thing to forgive . the lord of all had least of all , and he might say like his servant peter , gold and silver i have none , no not a grave to bury his body in , but the grave that joseph made for himself , served to bury christ. his father was a carpenter , but never made any house for himself : his mother lay in a stable for want of a chamber : his disciple was fain to borrow twenty-pence for him of a fish : therefore when one offered , master i will follow thee , thinking to gain by his service , like retainers to noblemen ; he replyed unto him , the foxes have holes , and the fowles have nests , but the son of man hath not a house to hide his head : shewing that the bèasts and fowls were richer than he , therefore when he had nothing to give , he gave himself , and when he had no debters to forgive , he forgave his enemies . what then , this is a poor and weak testament , which gave nothing ? oh the goodliest testament that ever was made , for it bringeth to us the remissions of sins : it is such a matter to forgive sins ? yea , the greatest benefit in all the world , nay , a greater benefit than all the world : for thus it stood , thou hadst committed high treason against the queens person , thou art detected , apprehended , accused , convicted , and condemned upon it to be hanged , and drawn , quartered , and thy quarters to be set up for a spectacle , like a carcass which thou hast seen hanging upon a gibbet , and the crows pecking upon it . what a horror and shaking to thy mind , to think of that day , when all these torments , and shame and fear shall surprize thee at once , which would make thee quake and tremble if thou shouldst see but another so dismembred before thy face ? thou hast no comfort now but this , when i have suffered ▪ i shall be free , before to morrow at this time all my pain will be past , though my shame continue , and my children be beggers . what grace , what favour , what mercy , now to pardon thee all this , and save thy life , and set thee at liberty , as though thou hadst never offended ? so i and thou , and every one here had committed treasons against the king of kings , and stood condemned for it , not to suffer , and then be free , like them which break the laws of men : but to suffer and suffer , and ever to suffer all that the devils would heap upon us . then came the mercy of god for christ , which shed his blood , like an umpire between god and us , and said as esay said to hezechia , * thou shalt not die , but live , loose him and let him go , for he is mine . so we were stayed like the widows son , when he was carried to his grave . this is the benefit of christs death , and this sacrament is the remembrance of it , and therefore whensoever we receive it , this addition cometh with it , which is shed for the remission of sins : our fault was so heinous and grievous , that no ransom could countervail it , unless god himself had suffered for us . being in this extremity , neither man , nor angel , offered his life for us , but the prince himself , which should have crucified us , came to be crucified of us for us , that we might say with stedfast saith , i believe the remission of sins , not the satisfaction of sins , but the remission of sins . mark this distinction against popish merits of works or penance , christ hath satisfied and not we , we are remitted , and not christ ; therefore we say in our confession , i believe the remission of sins , which i may call the quintessence and sweetness of the twelve . therefore who but antichrist durst deprave it ? if there be a satisfaction for our sins by works , or by pilgrimages , or by our masses , or by our penance , let christ never be called a forgiver , but an exchanger , like the pope , which selleth his pardons . wretched creatures which will not receive the lord , when he comes to their door . christ saith ; take for nothing , and they say no , we will not take , but buy . vile , base , miserable man , disdain to take grace of god without satisfaction , but they will cope with the lord , and give him so many pilgrimages , fast so many days , hear so many masses , and pay so many works for it , untill they have done as much good as they have done evil . our sins are infinite , & god is infinite : but our works are finite in number & measure ? therefore be content with josephs brethren , to take your money again , and say that you have corn for nothing , that is , you are saved for nothing , or else when you say , i believe the remission of sins , you lie unto god , because you do not believe the remission of sins , but satisfaction for sins , like the papists . it followeth , as often as ye shall eat this bread , and drink this cup , ye shall shew the lords death till he come . here are three invincible arguments against popish transubstantiation , like the three witnesses , under which every word doth stand . first we are said to eat bread ; then it is not flesh , but bread. secondly , we are said to shew the lords death ; then it is but a shew or representation of his death . thirdly , it is said , until he come ; if he be to come , then he is not come : if he be come , how can we say , untill he come ? the effect of this verse was shewed in these words , do this in remembrance of me . for to say , do this in remembrance of me , and to say , so oft as ye do this , you shew my death , is much at one : so that if you call this sacrament a shew of christs death , as it is called here , then it is not christ ; or if you call it a remembrance of christ , as it is called there , yet is it not christ , but a shew or remembrance of christ ; but this is such a shew and remembrance , that the next verse saith , whosoever receiveth it unworthily , is guilty of the body and blood of christ. will ye know who receiveth unworthily ? in the 29th verse , paul saith , he discerneth not the lord's body : i. e. which putteth no difference between this bread and othes , but eateth like a child , the meat which he knoweth not : and after the bread seemeth stones to him , & the wine poyson , because his conscience telleth him , i have received unworthily , before i could say like david , my heart is prepared . my sheep ( saith christ ) know my voice : as they discern christs body , and therefore so often as they come into the lords table , they seem to come into the lords presence ; there they greet , and kiss , and imbrace one another with affections , which none can know but they that feel , like john which leaped in the womb , so soon as christ came near him . will ye know beside , what it is to be guilty of the body and blood of christ ? even as judas was guilty for betraying him , and pilate for delivering him , and the jews for crucifying him : so they are guilty which receive this sacrament unworthily , as pilate , and caiphas , and judas were . if they be guilty of christs death , they are guilty of their own death too ; as if they had committed two murthers : and therefore paul saith after , that many of the chorinthians died , only for the unworthy receiving this sacrament . as the word is the savour of death to them which receive it unworthily , so the sacrament is the savour of death to them which receive it unworthily : it never goeth into their mouth , but they are traitors ipso facto , and may say to hell , this day have i taken possession of thee , because i am guilty of christs blood . therefore it followeth immediately , let a man examine himself before he eat of this bread , or drink of this wine : as if he should say , if he which receiveth this sacrament unworthily , be guilty of christs death , like judas which hanged himself ; if these signs be received to salvation or damnation , like the word ; the next lesson is to examine your selves before you receive , lest you receive like the son of perdition , which swallowed the bread and the devil together . therefore , let a man examine himself , and so let him eat ; that is , let him examine first , and receive after ; for if we should receive the bread of the earth reverently , how should we receive the bread of heaven ? when jehonadab came to jehu his chariot , he said , is thy heart upright as my heart is towards thee ? so when we come to the lords table , he would have our hearts upright to him . the golden ring sitteth highest at our table , but the wedding garment sitteth highest at this table . it is safer eating with unwashed hands , than with an unwashed heart . the jews were taught to choose the lamb of the pass-over on the tenth day of the first month , in which month they came out of egypt . and the fourteenth day after , they were taught to eat him : so they had four days respite between the choosing and the killing , to prepare and sanctifie themselves for the pass over , which was a sign of the lords supper . this admonished them that the matter ( now to be performed ) was very weighty , and therefore they were deeply to consider it : for now was the action and sum of all salvation in handling . if they did prepare themselves so before they did receive the figure of this sacrament , how should we be prepared before we receive the sacrament it self ? therefore as josiah commanded the levites to prepare the people ; so paul adviseth the people to prepare themselves , that is , to examine whether they have faith , and love , and repentance before they come to this feast . by this all may see ; first , that paul would have every lay-man skilfull in the scripture , that he be able to examine himself by it : for this admonition is not to them which minister the sacrament , but to all which receive the sacrament . and the rule by which we must examine our selves , is the law by which we should obey : therefore if the rule be unknown , the examination must be undone . our doctrine must be examined by the doctrine of the prophets and apostles ; our prayers must be examined by the sixth petition of christs prayer ; our belief must be examined by the twelve articles of faith ; our life must be examined by the ten commandments of the law. now , he which hath this touch-stone may try gold from copper ; but he which hath it not , takes one for the other : therefore before paul's examine , you had need to learn christ's search , search the scriptures , and they will lighten you to search your selves . this is the doctrine with which i will end , and the necessary point for which i chose this text , to teach ( if i could ) that christian art how to examine your selves . let a man examine himself before he eat . here is first an examination : secondly , an examination of our selves : thirdly , an examination before we come to the sacrament . touching the first , here paul saith , examine your self , but in 2 chron. 13. he doubleth his charge , prove your selves ; and again at next word , examine your selves : as if he should say , this work must be done whon it is done , because it is never throughly done ; and therefore we must double our examination , as paul doubleth his counsel . if a man suspect his enemy , he will try him with a question : if that will not search him , he will put sorth another : if that be spyed , he will move another , like one which putteth divers keys into a lock until it open : so he which examineth , must try and try , prove and prove , search and search : for the angel of darkness is like an angel of light , and we have no way to discover him , but that of john , try the spirits . god examineth with trials , the devil examineth with temptations , the world examineth with persecutions ; we which are thus examined , had need to examine too . if any man skill not what examining meaneth , the very word examine is so pregnant , that it prompteth us how we should examine ; for it signifieth to put our selves unto the touchstone , as if we would try gold from coper . therefore one saith , that examination is the eye of the soul , whereby she seeth her self , & her safety , and her danger , and her way which she walketh , and her pace which she holdeth , and the end to which she tendeth ; she looks into her glass and spieth every spot in her face , how all her graces are stained ; then she takes the water of life , and washeth her blots away . after she looks again , and beholdeth all her gifts , her faith , fear , love , patience , meekness , and marketh how every one doth flourish or whither . if they fade and decay , that she feeleth a consumption ; then she takes preservatives and restoratives of prayer , and council , and repentance , before the sickness grow . thus every day she letteth down a bucket into her heart , to see what water it bringeth up , least she should corrupt within , and perish suddenly . to hear , and read , and pray , and sast , and communicate , is a work of many : but to examine those works is the fashion of few : and therefore jeremie complaineth , no man saith , what have i done ? as if he should say , no man examineth himself . and therefore in all the scripture it is said but of one , that he feared all his works ; as though he durst not think , nor speak , nor doe any thing before he had examined what it was , from whence it came , and whether it went ; so the more precious treasure is deeper hid in the ground . the second point is to examine our selves ; paul saith , try all things , much more should we try our selves . the good sower doth sow his own ground , but the bad sower doth sow another mans ground , as the devil did . the disciples of christ said , master , is it i ? not , master , is it he ? the disciples of john asked , master , what shall we doe ? not , master , what shall they do ? we must obey some , and hear others , and admonish others , and love all ; but examine our selves . that which we apply unto others , the apostle applieth unto our selves : for when we speak of an examiner , we intend one which examineth other ; when we speak of an accuser , we intend one which accuseth other ; when we speak of a judge , we mean one that judgeth others : but the scripture crieth , examine thy self , accuse thy self , judg thy self ; that is , be not curious to search a mete in thy brothers eye , but pull out a beam which is in thine own eye . this doth shew that they which sit in gods chair to judg others , commonly have greater fault themselves , than they whom they use to judge : and therefore christ calleth their fault a beam , and the others a moat . this made david say , examine thy heart : thy heart is thine own heart , therefore thou must examine whether thou pray , whether thou watch , whether thou sast ; and not whether he pray , whether he watch , whether he fast , as the pharisee examined the publican , least thou have peters check , when he examined what john should do , christ said , what is that to thee ; follow thou me . thou art a private man and hast a private examination , therefore let thy question be , what have i done ? and make thy anatomy of thy self . see beloved , we may not believe our selves , before we have examined our selves ; for we are falshearted , and the notablest cousoner that deceiveth most , for one time that he deceiveth others , ten times he deceiveth himself . because the flesh is a wily servant , and will lie like gehezi to his master , & face him that he hath not sinned , when it cometh from sin ; therefore as elisha examined his servant , so the soul must examine her servant , that is , man must be jealous of himself , and take himself for a lyer , for a flatterer , for a dissembler , until he be throughly acquainted with himself ; for no man is so often bebeguiled as by himself , by trusting his double heart , and taking his own word without further tryal . if paul had bid us examine others , we would have sifted them like satan . satan hath desired to sift thee , ( saith christ to peter ) so we have a desire to sift others . even peter which was sifted of satan , longed to sist john , and know what he should do , before he harkened to his own charge . therefore the help of examination is a needfull preservative , altho' we were as sound as peter . they which are suspected of a crime , do not examine themselves , but are examined of others , lest they should be partial : but a christian must examine himself of his crime , and be his own judge , his own accuser , and his own condemner : for no man knoweth the spirit of man , but the spirit which is in man , which will condemn him if he be guilty , and tell him all that he hath done , and with mind he did it , and with what mind he did it , and what he deserveth for it . this is the private arraignment , or close sessions , when conscience sits in her chair to examine , and accuse , and judge , and condemn her self , because she will not be condemned of god. thus holy men have kept their sessions at home , and made their hearts the fore-man of the jury , and examine themselves as we examined others , the fear of the lord stood at the door of their souls , to examine every thought before it went in , and at the door of their lips , to examine every word before it went out , whereby they escaped a thousand sins which we commit , as though we had no other work . so thou shouldst sit in judgment of thy self , and call thy thoughts , and speeches , and actions , to give in evidence against thee , whether thou be a christian or an infidel , a son , or a bastard , a servant , or a rebell , a protestant , or an hypocrite : if thou find not faith , nor fear , nor love , nor zeal , when thou examinest thy self , let no man make thee believe that thou art holy , that thou art sanctified , that thou art a christian , that thou art a believer , that thou art a gospeller , because thou art worse than thou seemest thy self : for every man is partial to himself when he is most humbled . therefore if my heart tell me that i do love god , whom shall i believe before my self ? as solomon saith , no man can search the heart of the king : so paul saith . no man knoweth the spirit of any man , but the spirit which is in man : that is , no man feeleth the heart of man so well as himself . and yet himself , although he have lived with it ever since he was born , doth not know his own heart , unless he examine it narrowly , no more then he knoweth his own bones , or his veins , or his sinews , or his arteries , or his muscles , how many are in his body , or where they lie , or what they do . this seems strange that a man should not know his own heart : yet it is true that the best of all doth not know his own heart , tho' he hath dwelt with it from his mothers womb . for christ saith to his disciples , you know not of what spirit you are , that is , you think better of your selves than you are , and know not what the clock striketh within . there is a zeal without knowledge , and there is a knowledge without zeal : there is a faith without obedience , and there is an obedience without faith , there is a love without fear , and there is a fear without love , and both are hypocrites . therefore as dalilah searched where sampson's strength lay , so let every man search where his weakness lyeth , and alway be filling the empty gap . now this examination must go before us to the sacrament . every meat worketh according as it is digested , and this meat worketh according as it is received . therefore when christ had taught what we should do in receiving the sacrament , now paul sheweth what we should do before we receive the sacrament . let a man examine himself . but some will come before they examine themselves : and therefore as the priests of the law had authority to put by lame and blind sacrifices , so the ministers of the gospel have power to put by lame and blind receivers , and he which doth not so , giveth a sword into their hands to kill themselves . if the pastor would use this examination duly , it were the only way to make every one examine himself , lest he be put by like non proficients as jiphtah discerned the ephramites , because when they should pronounce shibboleth , they pronounce sibb●leth : so all which cannot pronounce christ , that is , give a reason of their faith , are to be thrust from this table . there is a hearing , and a preparative before hearing . there is a praying , and a preparative before praying . there is a receiving , and a preparative before receiving : which if it be wanting , the receiver receiveth uncomfortably , the prayer prayeth idly , the hearer heareth unfruitfully , like those which do eat before hunger , and drink before thirst . this preparative before hearing , and praying , and receiving , doth signifie that there is a kind of physick in these three : for preparatives are ministred always before physick , and as the preparative which goeth before , maketh way to the physick , or else it would do no good , but hurt : so unless examination go before the sacrament , we seal up the threatnings which are written against us , in stead of the promises which are made unto us : for the sacrament is a seal , and therefore sealeth good or evil , as every other seal doth . the preparative before we receive , is to examine . as jobn was the fore-runner of christ , so examination is the fore runner of the sacrament , like the harbinger which rideth before to prepare the room . for if job commanded his sons to sanctifie themselves before they did come to his sacrifice , how should we sanctifie our selves before we come to christ's sacrament , wherein we are commanded to do as the lord himself did which instituted it ? it is said that the chamber wherein christ did institute this sacrament , was trimmed ; the chamber wherein the apostles received this sacrament , was trimmed : if judas's chamber , his inner chamber had been trimmed so too , he had received this sacrament with as much comfort as the other disciples did : but because his heart was not trimmed : therefore he was the first which was condemned for the unworthy receiving of the sacrament . adam did not think that death had been in an apple , so you would not think that death should be in bread : but as a coal hath fire in it , beside the coal it self , which fire doth either warm , or burn ; so this meat hath another meat in it , beside that which is seen , which doth either save or destroy : therefore he which commeth to this spiritual meat , must examine whether he have a spiritual mouth , as well as a carnal mouth , or else he shall receive no more than he seeth , and that which he seeth not shall destroy him . no man ( saith christ ) putteth new wine into old vessels , lest the vessels break , and the wine leak . this wine is new wine , therefore put it into new vessels , holy vessels , sanctified vessels , or else it will leak forth and break the vessel , and thou shalt have no more taste of it , than while the relish of bread is in thy mouth . when christ commeth to our house , shall we not look whether our chamber be trimmed , as the chamber was trimmed against his coming to the passover ? but how shall we trim it ? when a man takes an office , he examineth his substance ; when takes a trade , he examineth his skill : when he goeth to fight , he examineth his strength : but these wants are no wants when he goeth to sacrament . wilt thou know now upon what articles thou must enquire at that time , that is , how thou shouldst examine thy self . as some prayer may be at all times , and some rejoycing may be at all times ; so some examination is at all times . thus job examined himself every day , nay , every hour , because he scanned all that he did . but there is a special examination before the sacrament , because it is the bread which is received to salvation or damnation ; because it is the feast , to which whosoever cometh without his wedding garment , shall be cast into utter darkness ; because it is a seal which sealeth a curse or a blessing . therefore having observed that examination is the necessariest lesson in christianity , and less known than other , i have studied since my sermon to lay down three examinations which you should use at all times , and a special examination , for the communicants catechism , which leadeth immediately to the sacrament as a guest is handed to the table . in the first examination i will shew thee a rule how thou shalt try others spirits , and how thou shalt try thine own . thou shalt try strange spirits by their manner of speaking , plainly , or doubtfully , boldly or fearfully : therefore we read that the oracles of the heathen had a double meaning , and that the false prophets never spake boldly , but where their patrons were ready to flesh them . by the proportion of faith : for every heresie is contrary to some article of our belief , as every sin is against some of the ten commandments . by the event of their speeches ; for they take not effect , as it is said in deuteronomie , chap. 18. and therefore they are called false prophets . by their fruits : for none of the false prophets were good men . by their success : for if they be not of god they will come to nought , as the arrians , and manichees and pelagians are vanished , as if they had never been : fortune shall wear out every doctrine that is not truth . this is thy rule to try other spirits . thou shalt try thine own spirit by the motions that it hath to good or evil . for as a good stomach turneth all that it eats into nutriment ; and a bad stomach turneth all that it eats into raw humours ; so likewise a good mind converteth all that it heareth , and that it seeth , and all that it feeleth , unto some profit : but a bad mind maketh a temptation of every thing : therefore it is said , to the clean all things a clean , and so , to the unclean nothing is clean ; that is , they defile themselves with every thing . secondly , by the first cause or preparation which thou hadst unto it ; for whatsoever it be , thy thoughts will be where thou lovest : to verifie that saying , where are mans treasure is , there will be his heart : for lightly , the beginning is a picture of the end , and the act is like the thought which set it a work . thirdly , by the manner of the consolation in it , whether it be of knowledge , or ignorance , whether it be constant , or mutable , calm , or boy sterous , simple , or mixt : for as a clear fountain yieldeth clear streams , so a pure heart hath pure joys . fourthly , whether it bring to christ , or take any thing from him to thy self , like all the parts of popery , which mangle his honour either to angels , or to saints , or to pope , or to images . if it abide all these questions , and draw thee not from any good , then thou mayst say it is from god , water the seed , o lord , which thou hast sowen . this is the fruit of thy first examination . in the second , by making thee discern whether another be a christian , i will teach thee to know whether thy self be a christian ; which that thou mayst reach to , observe this direction , and thou shalt see of what side thou art . it must needs be , that they which walk to contrary ends , should go divers ways : therefore there be more differences between the children of god , and the children of the world , than there be between men and beasts . first they are distinguished in will : for the wicked strive to bring gods will to their will , like balaam , which when he had an answer , stayed for another ; but the faithful labour to bring their will to gods will , like christ which said ; not as i will , but as thou wilt . they are distinguished in faith : all men have not faith ( saith paul ) but the just live by faith : as if he should say , the just believe , and the unjust believe not . the just believe , and apply that they believe to themselves ; the wicked may believe like the devils , but their faith is like the gadding hen , which carrieth her eggs to other , and never layeth at home : so they believe that other shall be saved , but not themselves . they are distinguished in hope : for because the wicked hope not for any mends of god , therefore they never deferr their reward : but if they do any good , they are trumpets of it themselves , for fear it should be blazed enough : and therefore christ said , that the pharisees had their reward already , because they were boasters of their works : and if they do not good but evil , yet they would be magnified as much for evil , as others are for good . but the faithful are likened to handmaids , which wait their reward : their left hand seeth not when their right hand doth well , and they are afraid to take honour of men , for losing their honour with god , like john baptist , which made his virtues meaner than they were , and debased hemself , when he might have got a name above his lord. they are distinguished in obedience : therefore christ teacheth us to judge men by their fruit , as an unfallible rule : for the evil . tree will bring forth evil fruit , and the good tree good fruit , and neither change his property , although the evil fruit is sometimes beautiful , and the good fruit sometime blasted . all slip , but in the wicked one sin teacheth another , and in the faithful one sin preventeth another . they are distinguished in repentance : for the wicked do but weep for their sins past , but the godly purpose to sin no more : so pharaoh , saul , and judas said , i have sinned : but sadrach , meshech , and abednego said , we will not sin : therefore the heart of the godly is called a contrite heart , but the heart of the wicked is called a heart that cannot repent . beside , as christ cast out a legion of divels at once , so the godly would be purged for all their sins together ; but the wicked never consent to leave all , but as naaman said , let the lord spare me in this , so ever he excepteth one sin , which is his beloved sin ; like herod , which reformed many things , and yet would not leave his brother's wife . they are distinguished in charity : for ye shall never see the wicked love their enemies : and therefore when the pharisees could not love their enemies , they taught that men might hate their enemies : and christ speaking of publicans and sinners , exhorteth his disciples not to love like them , because they loved none but their friends . they are distinguished in prayer : for the wicked cannot pray , therefore david saith , they call not upon the lord : as if they had not the spirit of prayer : and therefore christ calleth their prayer babling , for they think not of god when they speak unto him they are distinguished in patience : no hypocrite can bear the cross , but saith like cain , it is heavier than i can suffer : but paul and silas sing in prison for a faithful man would have something to humble him , and rejoyce to bear his masters marks , because the wounds of a lover are sweet . they are distinguished in the use of adversity : for this is a proper and peculiar mark of god's children , to profit by affliction : and therefore we read not in all the punishments of the wicked , that one of them said like david , it is good for me that i have been afflicted . they are distinguished in humility : for the wicked are not humbled before the cross , like pharaoh that never sorrowed , but when he suffered : but the apostles learned humility of their master , before their persecution came . they are distinguished in their judgement of the word : for to the wicked it seemeth the hardest , and simplest , and unpleasantest book that is : and therefore st. paul saith , that it is foolishness unto them : but to the godly it seemeth the wisest , and cloquentest , and sweetest and easiest book of all others , as though god did suddenly bring the understanding of it to them , as jacob said of his venison : according to that , he that will do his will shall know his doctrine . they are distinguished in their judgement of god : the wicked are perswaded now and then of god's mercy for the present time while they feel it , as the jews praised him always , when he did as they would have him ; but they cannot perswade themselves that god will be merciful to them still , like job , which said , though the lord kill me , yet will i trust in him : therefore the hope of the righteous is called hope in death . beside , if the wicked love god , it is but for his benefits , as saul loved him for his kingdom . and this is always to be noted , that in the wicked , the fear of hell is greater than is their hope of heaven : but in the faithful , the hope of heaven is greater than the fear of hell. they are distinguished in their delights : for the sport of the ungodly is folly , like belshazzer's , and therefore when they are sick or troubled , they never run to the word for comfort , as though god's promise pertained not to them ; but to feasts , or tables , or tales , or mnsick , as saul did to the harp. but all the delights of the godly are like david's dance about the ark ; they are never merry but when they are doing well ; nor at peace , but when their prayers have overcome god , like jacob. they are distinguished in their opinions of death : for the faithful long to be dissolved , and although they might live for ever in continual prosperity , yet they would not stay so long out of heaven : but the wicked would never be dissolved , because death comes always unto them like a jaylor to hale unto prison , as achab said to michaiah , that he never prophesied good to him . hereby a man shall know whether he have faith : for if he do believe the promises , he wi●l be glad to receive them . they are distinguished in their sence of sin : wicked men feel the lothsomness of their vices , but none but the faithful feel the defects of their righteousness . the natural man never complaineth of his good works , but vaunteth of them : but a godly man findeth fault with his prayers , and his alms , and his watches , like isaiah , that said , his righteousness was like a menstruous cloath . as christ met the temper in the wilderness , a place of prayer , and fasting , and meditation : so a godly man meeteth the tempter in his prayer , and in his fasts , and in his meditations , that is , he finds some let , or spot , or want in all his devotions . therefore unless thy righteousness mislike thee as well as thy prophaneness , know that yet thou art no farther than the wicked . they are distinguished in their ends : for the children of god propose the glory of god , and level all their thoughts , and speeches , and actions , as if they were messengers sent to carry him presents of honour . thus did david when he said , all that is within me praise the lord. as though himself had rather been without praise than his master : but the children of the world set up their own glory for their mark , like nebuchadnezzer , which said , for the honour of my majesty , dan. 4. 27. therefore they speak , and look , and walk , as if they did say to their tongue , and eyes , and feet , and apparel , as saul said to samuel , honour me before this people . lastly , they are distinguished in perseverance : for the zeal of the wicked lasteth not , and therefore god saith , they are soon turned out of the way : but the zeal of the faithful was represented by the fire of the temple , which never went out . by these differences thou mayst see how much thou dost differ from the wicked , or whether thou be of their band . then come to the third examination : as the devil tempteth thee , to see what thou wilt do for him , so thou must tempt thy self , and get of thy soul what it would do for god , and what it should suffer for him , which hath suffered death for it . therefore here we will set down certain interrogatories , whereof thou shalt examine it . first , whether thou hast the heart of joshua to worship god ; as boldly as thou dost , though all the world did renounce him , and every one did mock thee as they did noah , while he built the ark ? whether thou wouldst not deny christ as peter did , if thou were in peters straights , and nothing to succour thee but policy ? whether thou wouldst not steal , if thou didst see a booty as fit as achan , which thou mightst catch up , and no one spy thee ? whether thou wouldst refuse a bribe like elisha , if thou didst meet with one which were as willing and able to give it as naaman ? whether thou wouldst not deceive , if thou were in such an office as the false steward , whose master referred all unto him , and knew not when he kept any thing back ? whether thou wouldst not fulfil thy lust as david did , if thou hadst the oportunity and allurement , and mightst do it without danger of law like a king , as david might ? whether thou wouldst not tell a lye , as abraham did , if it stood upon thy life , which made him twice dissemble that his wife was his sister , lest he should dye for her beauty ? finally , if it should be said unto thee , as the devil said to christ , all these will i give thee , if thou wilt fall down and worship me : that is no more , but if thou wilt sin , whether thou wouldst yield or no ? if thou hast sinned thus and thus before , i will not say , therefore the lord will not hear thee . but david saith , if i regard wickedness in my heart , the lord will not hear me , that is , if for any cause a man purpose and carry a mind to sin when he is tempted , the lord is so far from helping him , that he will stand like baal , as tho' he did not hear him : for he hath a traytors mind as deep as any , which thinks , for a dukedom i would betray my prince , though he never play the traytor in his life . thus you have heard how to try spirits , and how to discern a christian from an hypocrite , and how to oppose your hearts , that ye may be sure to judge rightly what ye are . now we come to that examination , which is the epitome or abridgment of all these , for memory is short , and all are not of one strength : but some run , and some go , and some creep , and all do well , so long as they strive to perfection . the matters whereof principally the mind should be examined before the sacrament , are these . first , whether thou have faith , not only to believe that christ died , but that he died for thee : for as the scripture calleth him a redeemer , so job calleth him his redeemer . the second article is , whether thou be in charity , not whether thou love them which love thee ; but whether thou love them which hate thee : for christ commandeth us , to love our enemies . the third article is , whether thou repent , not for thy open and gross sins , but for thy secret sins , and petty sins , because christ saith , that we must give account for every idle word . the fourth article is , whether thou resolve not to sin again for any cause , but to amend thy evil life , not when age cometh , or for a spurt , but to begin now , and last till death : for christ is alpha and omega , both the beginning and the end , as well in our living as in our being , which hath made no promise to them which begin , but to them which persevere . the last article is , whether thou canst find in thy heart to dye for christ , as christ died for thee : for we are bid not only to follow him , but to bear his cross : and therefore we are called servants , to shew how we should obey : and we are all called souldiers , to shew how we should suffer . these are the receivers articles , whereof his conscience must be examined before he receive this sacrament : happy is ●●e which can say , all these have i kept : for the dove was not so welcome to noah , as this man is to christ. but if thou find ●ot these affections within , but a nest of vices , leave thine ●●ffering at the altar , and return to thine examination again : ●or thou art not a fit guest to sup with the lord , until thou ●ave on this wedding garment . how is it then , that some regard their other garments more ●●an this ? st. paul saith , examine your selves , and they exa●ine their apparel : if they have new cloaths in the country , ●●en they are ready to receive . i have known many kept ●●om the sacrament a whole year together by their masters , for nothing , but for want of a new sute to set them forth with their fellows . others respect whether it be a fair day , that they may walk after service , making that day upon which they receive , like a scholars thursday , which he loves better than all the days in the week , only because it is play-day . thus like the jews , they sit down to eat and rise up to play , that as christ calleth the pharisees prayer babling , matth. 6. 7. so their receiving may be called dallying . when they have the sacrament in their belly , they think that all is well , as micah , when he had a levite in his house thought that god loved him : but as the levite did not prof●● him , because he received nothing but the levite , so the brea● and wine do them no good , because they receive nothing b●● bread and wine for want of faith. marvel not then if yo● have not felt that comfort after the sacrament , which yo● looked for , for it is comfortable to none but to them whic● prepare their hearts and examine themselves before , because is not the mouth but the heart which receiveth comfort . now it may be the most that are here have brought mouth and not a heart , these go away from the sacrament despight christ , as judas went from the sacrament to betr●● him . the other go away like one which hath received a cheer countenance of the prince , all his thoughts are joy , and t● countenance of the prince is still in his eye . as he which h●● eaten sweet meat , hath a sweet breath : so they which ha●● eaten christ , all their sayings and doings are sweet , like a p●●fume to men , and incense to god , their peace of conscien●● and joy of heart , and desire to do good , will tell them w●●ther they have received the bare signs , or the thing signified . every one which receiveth this sacrament , shall feel him better after it , like the apostles : or else he shall find him worse after it , like judas . hereby ye shall know whether have received like the apostles , or like judas . thus we 〈◊〉 ended the doctrine , of the lord's supper . now if you can remember all that i have said , yet remember the text : 〈◊〉 is , examine your selves before you receive the sacrament 〈◊〉 after finis . notes, typically marginal, from the original text notes for div a60427-e160 the two breasts of the church . mat. 9. 20. ● chr. 35. 6. the division . the author . ioh. 1. 27. none but christ may ordain sacraments . joh. 1. 29. rev. 7. 1. iohn 1. 29. gen. 17. 10. who was therefore called john the baptis . mat. 3. 1. lev. 1. 5. ▪ 2. why the sacrament was instituted at night why it was deferred to his last night . why we receive not the lord's supper at night . gen. 19. 20. zuke 11. 3. note . mat. 26 26 gen. 27. luke 22. heb. 2. 16. john 17. 1. 1 pet. 2 24. ephes. 3. 17. 1 sa. 17. 5. joh. 18. 14. 1 k. 18. 28. hereticks alledge scripture like the devil . mal. 4. psal. 91. mat. 26. 2. joh. 10. 7. 9 joh. 15. 1. note . gen. 3. 3. arguments against popish transubstantiation . mat. 22. 34 mar. 14. 25 1. cor. 10. 4. uerse 3. 4. verse 4. gen 2. 9. gen. 17. 11. exod. 12. 3. exod 23 11 heb. 9. 1. exod. 30. exod 25. 24 exod 17. 16 mat. 3 16. john 6. 49. john 1. 33. 2 cor. 11. 19 exod. 12. mat. 26. 26 john 19. exod 27. john 6. 68. john 6. 60. john 6. 35. john 6. 63. aug. upon the 3 psal. tertul. against marcion the 4. book . 4. book 4. can . of sacraments . in his first dialogue upon the 15 of mat. iren. 4. book cap. 34. against valentinus ad ob theod . anathematis . 1. book of epi. in that gospel whosoever speaketh a word &c. hom. 60. to the people of antioch . to caesirius the monk against eutiches the heretick . upon the canon lect . 40. 1 book of the sacra . pag. 46. against the captivity of babylon , made by m. luther . luk. 19. 22. the papists allegations for the real presence . exod. 4. 8. & 21. exod. 9. 2. thes. 2. objection . answer . mar. 1. 40. objection . answer . objection . answer . luke 8. 9. mat 26. 17 exod 12. 27 gen. 17. 13. gen. 12 3. tit. 3. 5. 1 cor. 5. luke 22. 2. john 3. 35. mat. 26. 25 luk. 9. 8. john 4. 33. luk. 24. john 6 3. mat. 26. 2. whether christs mortal body can be in the sacrament . dan. 4. 15. mar. 14 24 christ spake not to the bread and wine , but to his disciples . more in the lord's supper , then bread and wine . 1 cor. 10. a similitude . rom. 8. 3. dan. 2. 25. a similitude . another similitude . augustin . luk. 11 27. luk 8. 21. note . joh. 16. 7. pro. 31. 29. a way to know whether christ's body be in the sacrament . john 20. 27 why christ calleth the bread his body . verse 24. if christ's body were in the sacrament , it were not a sacrament but a sacrifice . mat. 24. 23 2 kin. 2. 17. joh. 20. 17. judg. 7. 22. a monster of his age. eight absurdities which follow transubstantiation . 1. act. 19. 11. rom. 8. 37. act. 3. 21. 2. 3. 4. 5. heb. 9. 28. and 10. 12. 6. 7. 8. act. 5. 29. conclusion . deut. 13. 9. and 9. notes for div a60427-e4510 mat. 26. 28. mar. 14. 24. joh. 13. 34. heb. 9. 18. matt. 26. luk 22. 20 heb. 8. 13. for types and figures . 1 sa. 28. 14 lev. 1 ●●1 heb. 9. 22. deut. 4. 2. rev. 22. 18. the popish receiving under one kind confuted . mat. 26. 27. 1 sam. 15. 3. mat. 27. 35 how the popish priests do injure the d●●p●e . col. 2. 21. acts 5. 2. 1 sam. 2. 13 mar. 7. 13. jud . 19. 30 gen. 2. 27. esay 1. 12. verse 24. mat. 26. 2. gen. 1. 2 cor. 4. 1. mat. 7. 13. ps. 119. 17. matth. 23. acts 3. 6. mar. 15. 46 mat. 13. 55 luk 2. 16. mat. 17. 27 luk. 9. 57. luk. 23. 3. a similitude of mans estate his words are not so , but the effect of his words . * kings 20. 5 luk. 7. 15. matt. 26. 28. the merciful article . rev. 21. 6. gen. 42. 25 verse 26. three arguments against transubstantiation in one verse . dan. 17. 6. vers. 27. what it is to receive unworthily . john 10. 27 luke 1. 41. how receivers may be guilty of christs death . mar 14. 44 mar 25. 15 mar 15. 25 vers. 30. 1. cor. 2. 16. how we should be prepared before we come to the lord , table . joh. 13. 17. 1 sam 9. 13 1 kings 10 15. sam. 2. 2. exod. 12. 3. & 6. 2 chr. 35. all are bound to know the scriptures act. 17. 11. note . exod. 20 1. &c. 2 cor. 13. 5. joh. 5. 39. ters . 28. the divsion . 2 cor. 11. 14. 1 john 4. 1 a description of true examination . jer. 3. 6. joh 9. 28. mat. 13. 14. 1 thes. 5. 21 mat. 13. 25 mat. 26. 12 luke 3. 10. 1 cor. 11. 13. matt. 7. 3. psal. 4. 4. luk. 18. 11 joh. 21. 22. 2 kin. 5. 25 2 kin. 5. 26 luk. 22 31 1 cor. 2. 11. pro. 25. 3. 1 cor. 2. 11. luk. 9. 11. judg. 16. 6 luk 8. 18. eccl. 4. 17. luk. 1. 76. the second examination . job 1. 5. luk. 22. 12. gen. 3. 6. mar. 2. 22. 1 thes. 2. 16 job 9. 28. 1 cor. ii . 29. mar. 22. 11 the first examination upon the marks of true spirits and the false in our selves or others . 1 king. 22. 11. deu. 18. 22 mat. 7. 15. mat. 7. 16. rom. 14 14 tit. 1. 15. mar. 6. 21. the second examination upon the difference between the wicked & the godly . num. 22. 19. mat. 26. 39. rom. 1. 17. iam. 29. 1. 3 matth. 6. 2 tim. 3. psal. 123. matth. 6. joh. 1. 12. mat. 7. 17. exo. 10. 16. 1 sa. 15. 30. mar. 17. 3. dan. 3. 18. isa. 51. 17. rom. 2. 5. luk. 8. 30. 2 kin. 5. 18. matt. 14 3. 6. mat. 5. 43. luk 6. 32. psal. 14. 4. z●ch 12. ●0 rom 8. 16. 8. gen. 4. 13. act. 16. 25. gal. 6. 17. 9. psal. 119. ●1 . 10. exo. 8. 15. mat. 11. 29. 11. 1 cor. 1. 18. gen. 27. 20. joh. 7. 17. 12. ex. 15. 20. job 13. 15. pro. 14. 32. pro 23. 18. 1 sam. 10. 6 dan. 5. 4. 1 sam. 16. 23. 2 isa. 6. 14. gen. 51. 28. phil. 1. 23. luke 2. 29. 1 kin. 22. 8. esa 64. 6. psal 16. 2. mat. 4. 12. psal. 103. 1 dan. 4. 27. 1 sa. 15. 30 exod. 2. 38. levit. 6. 12 the third examination . mat. 4. 9. josh. 24. 15 mat. 26. 70 josh. 7. 8. 1. 2 kin 5. 16. luk 16. 6. although this is a parable , yet it carrieth the signification of a history . 2 sa. 11. 4. gen. 12. 13 gen. 20. 2. mat. 4. 9. psa 66. 18. 1 kin. 18. 26. the fourth examination . heb. 61. the receivers articles . esa. 59. 20 job 19. 25. mat. 5. 44. mat. 12. 36 rev 22. 13 rev. 2. 11. luk. 12. 38 2 tim. 3. 4. mat. 19. 20 gen. 8. 11. mat. 5. 24. mat. 22. 11 the preparation of country-folk before they receive . judg 17. joh. 13. 30. how a man shall know whether he have received well . a rational discourse concerning transubstantiation in a letter to a person of honor from a master of arts of the university of cambridge. hutchinson, william, fl. 1676-1679. 1676 approx. 121 kb of xml-encoded text transcribed from 25 1-bit group-iv tiff page images. text creation partnership, ann arbor, mi ; oxford (uk) : 2004-11 (eebo-tcp phase 1). a70303 wing h3838 estc r2970 09657613 ocm 09657613 43930 this keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the early english books online text creation partnership. this phase i text is available for reuse, according to the terms of creative commons 0 1.0 universal . the text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission. early english books online. (eebo-tcp ; phase 1, no. a70303) transcribed from: (early english books online ; image set 43930) images scanned from microfilm: (early english books, 1641-1700 ; 791:42, 1334:11) a rational discourse concerning transubstantiation in a letter to a person of honor from a master of arts of the university of cambridge. hutchinson, william, fl. 1676-1679. 46 p. s.n.], [london : 1676. written by william hutchinson. cf. wing. place of publication from wing. reproduction of original in the british library and duke university library. created by converting tcp files to tei p5 using tcp2tei.xsl, tei @ oxford. re-processed by university of nebraska-lincoln and northwestern, with changes to facilitate morpho-syntactic tagging. gap elements of known extent have been transformed into placeholder characters or elements to simplify the filling in of gaps by user contributors. eebo-tcp is a partnership between the universities of michigan and oxford and the publisher proquest to create accurately transcribed and encoded texts based on the image sets published by proquest via their early english books online (eebo) database (http://eebo.chadwyck.com). the general aim of eebo-tcp is to encode one copy (usually the first edition) of every monographic english-language title published between 1473 and 1700 available in eebo. eebo-tcp aimed to produce large quantities of textual data within the usual project restraints of time and funding, and therefore chose to create diplomatic transcriptions (as opposed to critical editions) with light-touch, mainly structural encoding based on the text encoding initiative (http://www.tei-c.org). the eebo-tcp project was divided into two phases. the 25,363 texts created during phase 1 of the project have been released into the public domain as of 1 january 2015. anyone can now take and use these texts for their own purposes, but we respectfully request that due credit and attribution is given to their original source. users should be aware of the process of creating the tcp texts, and therefore of any assumptions that can be made about the data. text selection was based on the new cambridge bibliography of english literature (ncbel). if an author (or for an anonymous work, the title) appears in ncbel, then their works are eligible for inclusion. selection was intended to range over a wide variety of subject areas, to reflect the true nature of the print record of the period. in general, first editions of a works in english were prioritized, although there are a number of works in other languages, notably latin and welsh, included and sometimes a second or later edition of a work was chosen if there was a compelling reason to do so. image sets were sent to external keying companies for transcription and basic encoding. quality assurance was then carried out by editorial teams in oxford and michigan. 5% (or 5 pages, whichever is the greater) of each text was proofread for accuracy and those which did not meet qa standards were returned to the keyers to be redone. after proofreading, the encoding was enhanced and/or corrected and characters marked as illegible were corrected where possible up to a limit of 100 instances per text. any remaining illegibles were encoded as <gap>s. understanding these processes should make clear that, while the overall quality of tcp data is very good, some errors will remain and some readable characters will be marked as illegible. users should bear in mind that in all likelihood such instances will never have been looked at by a tcp editor. the texts were encoded and linked to page images in accordance with level 4 of the tei in libraries guidelines. copies of the texts have been issued variously as sgml (tcp schema; ascii text with mnemonic sdata character entities); displayable xml (tcp schema; characters represented either as utf-8 unicode or text strings within braces); or lossless xml (tei p5, characters represented either as utf-8 unicode or tei g elements). keying and markup guidelines are available at the text creation partnership web site . eng transubstantiation -early works to 1800. 2004-06 tcp assigned for keying and markup 2004-07 apex covantage keyed and coded from proquest page images 2004-08 emma (leeson) huber sampled and proofread 2004-08 emma (leeson) huber text and markup reviewed and edited 2004-10 pfs batch review (qc) and xml conversion a rational discourse concerning transubstantiation . in a letter to a person of honor , from a master of arts of the university of cambridge . printed in the year , mdclxxvi . a rational discourse concerning transubstantiation . sir , having lately had the honor of your company , you were pleased to signifie a particular difficulty which you had , to believe the great mystery of love , and grand stumbling block of more ingenious protestants , the mystery of transubstantiation ; in which , if i could give you satisfaction , to my best remembrance , you promised me to reconcile your self to the church of rome . non ignara mali miseris succurrere disco . my own sad misfortune to have been educated in the misbelief of this sublime article of our christian faith , till the five and twentieth year of my age , makes me very tenderly compassionate both to your self and all others whom i see to be involved in the same misery . the all good and all powerful god ( who has so firmly made me to believe this strange miracle of love , that had i a thousand lives , i would most willingly , through god's assistance , lay them all down to seal it with my blood ) give your honor , and all mis-believers the like satisfaction to your and their eternal comfort . what satisfies me , i shall in the best manner i am able , candidly propose to your mature and impartial consideration . sir , my sentiment concerning the adorable eucharist , is , that it is neither less nor more than the sacred body and blood of god ; neither less nor more than whole christ. god and man , soul , body , and divinity , though for the love and service of us sinners , veiled under the vile accidents and appearances of common bread and ordinary wine . concerning which mystery my first assertion shall be . assertion 1. it is possible to the omnipotent power of god , to change the substance of bread and wine into the substance of our blessed saviours body and blood. and this our adversaries generally grant . whence by the way , take notice , that all such arguments , and most of them are such , as pretend to prove transubstantiation impossible , even in the judgment of our adversaries , are sophisms , and do not prove their proposers inintent : else they must confess that two contradictories may be true , and that they can , and do believe them both . to wit , that transubstantiation is both possible and impossible , and they can , and do believe as much . 't is possible that they grant , and 't is also impossible , for that their arguments attempt to prove . further. i prove transubstantiation possible , thus . what you and i can do , and every day actually do in four and twenty hours , surely god almighty can do in a moment . but you and i in four and twenty hours turn bread and wine into the substance of our bodies , by eating , drinking , and digesting of them . therefore our b. saviour in a moment , without eating and drinking , by a mere fiat , or will , that the substance of bread and wine be turned into the substance of his body and blood , can effect it . but then you will say , the substance of the bread and wine must be transferred into heaven , that it may be changed into the substance of our lord's body there . but why so ? is it not sufficient that the substance of our-lord's body in heaven , be made to be under the accidents of bread and wine here ? but how can the substance of our saviours body be in heaven under such a measure of quantity , and such accidents there , and at the same time be here on earth under a different quantity and accidents ? why , how is the substance of the same air condens'd under a lesser quantity to day , which rarified yesterday , was under a greater quantity ? for the antient and commonly received definition of rarefaction , is : a little matter under a great quantity ; and of condensation , is , a great deal of matter under a little quantity . for example : in a weather-glass , the same air rarified , fills twice as much space as did the same air condens'd , as is evident to your eye . so that the same substance of air , when it is rarified , fills the spaces a. and b. which when it was condens'd fill'd only the space a. and this without any addition of any new substance of air , only the same substance by vertue of rarefaction is under a greater quantity than it was before . and will you pawn your soul , the omnipotent god cannot by consecration make his own body be present to the spaces a and b , which before consecration was only present to the space a. now who would ever have imagin'd such doctrin as this concerning rarefaction and condensation should have been taught by an aristotle to explicate nature , and not rather have been invented by some christian philosopher , to declare the supernaturality of transubstantiation , so aptly does it agree with that hidden and holy mystery ? 2. none make difficulty of a spirits being in different places at once . the soul is generally acknowledged to be all in the head , and all in the foot : as almighty god is all in france , and all in england ; not one part of him here , and another there ; not one god in france , and another in england . we indeed , because we never saw the same thing in two places , but always different things in different places , are apt to imagine it impossible for the same thing at the same time to be in two different places . hence it follows , whatsoever involves not a contradiction , being possible to god almighty , let our phansie say what it will , we must follow our reason , and acknowledge almighty god can make not only a spiritual substance , but even a material one be in two places at once , unless we can shew it includes a contradiction . to be here , and not to be here , is indeed a contradiction ; but to be here and there at the same time , is no contradiction ; else neither our soul , nor god almighty himself , could be all here , and all in another place at the same time . now will any one , who is forced by his faith and reason to acknowledge a spiritual substance is actually in two places at once , pawn his eternal salvation ( as he does who purely for this difficulty continues protestant ) that god almighty cannot by all his omnipotency , make a corporeal substance be here and in heaven at the same time ? now that the bread and wine in the holy eucharist should affect our senses in the same manner as they did before their change into our b. saviours body and blood , this ought to seem no impossible wonder to a christian , who believes so many miracles in our lords incarnation , conception , and nativity of a virgin. such a miracle as this our lord wrought when he appeared to s. mary magdalen in the shape of a gardner . his face no doubt was his own true face , but it wrought upon s. mary magdalens eyes as if it had been the face of the gardiner . and here i had thought to have inserted the different ways , which different schools of catholick divines take , to explicate how this high mystery is wrought . but my design being to satisfie unbelievers as to the substance of the mystery , and not to puzle the faith of believers , by making them glare too wistly upon the manner how this divine secret is wrought , it being more safely admired , together with the mystery of the incarnation and ever blessed trinity , then curiously pried into ; i resolved to draw a veyl before it , by a profound silence of the several explications of divines , and to content my self with letting you know in general , how different doctors of different philosophical principles , according to their several philosophies , differently explicate the mystery of the h. eucharist , and defend it differently against calvinists , as they do the mystery of the b. trinity against the antitrinitarians , and of the incarnation of the eternal word against the arrians ; some by virtual distinction , others by real formal , and others otherwise . and yet all hold , that after consecration , the bread is no longer bread , but is changed into the body of our lord ; but how it is done , some say one way , some another , according to their different tenets in philosophy , still all agreeing that this change is fitly called transubstantiation , and that with good reason ; for the same remaining the same , must needs be the same , and cannot possibly be made what it was not , without some change . the bread then that it may become our savious body , must have some change wrought in it ; but in its accidents its evident there is none , they remaining the same as before , therefore the change must be in the substance . and can now the change of the substance of bread , into the substance of our b. lords body , be called by a fitter name than a substantial change , or transubstantiation ? and this some of the learnedst of the church of england would do well to reflect on ; who urged by the clearness of our saviviours own words ; this is my body , and the multitude of testimonies of the fathers of the first six hundred years , and the impossibility of such a doctrins over spreading the whole christian world , without any appearance of its beginning , and the opposition it must needs have found by reason of its strangeness both to sence and reason , and its engaging the whole church in a material , at least , idolatry , unless it had been taught the world at first by our b. lord and his apostles : i say some of the learnedst of the engglish glergy being urged by such considerations as these , confess the holy eucharist , as they begin to call it , after consecration to be really and truly our b. saviours body , and therefore fall down before it , and adore it : and for this cause disown the new rubrick of the common-prayer-book , which saies our lords body is in heaven , and not upon the altar . these doctors will tell you they acknowledge the thing , only they dare not be so bold as the romanists , to determine the manner . and one of the learnedst of them , mr. thorndike , asks ; why cannot our b. saviour appear to us in what shape he pleases ; in the shape of a gardiner , or if it so please him , in the shape of bread and wine ? these doctors , i say , would do well to reflect the church of rome has not determin'd the manner of our b. saviours bodies being in the sacrament , and therefore her divines , some explicate it one way , some another ; but only the thing it self , the manner how , being left to the dispute of her doctors . 2. assertion . if our b. saviour would have left us his sacred body and blood , instead of all the sacrifices of sheep and oxen , under the mosaical dispensation , to be offered up by christian priests , and to be fed upon by the christian people , it would have been a favour worthy of his excessive love to mankind , by reason of the innumerable benefits which would have accrued to us by the continual oblition and presence of so worthy a sacrifice . what an incentive would this have been to christian piety ? how would such a sacrifice as this have compell'd high and low , rich and poor , learned and unlearned , with a strange reverence to have flocked about our christian altars , where not a lamb or a beast , but the body of god , and the blood of god , and by concomitancy whole god and man , christ jesus , should have been offered up by choice persons to the almighty for the good of the world ? how would the presence of such an oblation have kept them attentive , and encreased their servor in their prayers ? when they should have been able to have said ; this before me , which i see with my eyes , is my dear redeemer , and god that was crucified for me , and is to be my judge . how earnestly should we have made all our petitions to him , and how heartily should we have thanked him for all his love ? to understand this : imagin our b. saviour should appear to you in your chamber every morning , in that very body and shape he is now in heaven ; were you assured it was he , and not an illusion , with what humility would you prostrate your self before him ? how heartily would you cry him mercy for all your sins , and earnestly recommend all the desires of your soul unto him ? and how would this high favour melt your soul into a mòst tender affection towards him ? but these would have been the happy circumstances of the whole christan world , would our omnipotent lord , out of his abundant goodness , have left us his sacred self , under the disguise of the accidents of bread and wine . the same petitions , with a like fervour , would every christian have made every holy mass , which you would have made every morning upon such an apparition as was supposed . my dear jesus , true god and man , the very same who art in heaven in all splendor and glory , art here upon the holy altar before me , veiled under the vile appearances of common bread and ordinary wine ; and all this for my sake , that to my souls health thou mightest be seen , handled , and tasted by me . nor couldst thou be hindred from this excess of love to me unworthy sinner , although thou didst foresee the revilings thou wert to endure for it from ungrateful calvinists . who for this would call thee a breadden god , and reproach thy devout adorers , as more stupid idolaters than the very pagan worshippers of sun and moon . rather then i should want the delicious comfort of thy continual presence , the happy pledge of eternally seeing thee face to face : all this , and yet greater indignities wouldst thou subject thy self unto , by one to to be reviled by his impious tongue ; by another to be trampled under his foul feet ; by a third , to be cast into some sink or jaques . o impiety , o ingratitude of finful men ! o unheard of goodness of our dearest lord , thus to abject himself for our sakes ! but what wonder , if when he was in a passible mortal body he would permit himself by wicked miscreants to be torn with cruel whips , to be bespatterd with filthy spittle , and to be made black and blew with ignominious buffets ; what wonder now , when he is become immortal and impassible , and can suffer no more defilement from the basest ordures , than do the bright sun beams from the foulest mud when they shine upon it , that he should permit himself to be eaten by mice or doggs , or suffer other viler indignities , if sacrilegious sinners will permit or cause them ? moreover , such a presence of our great lord , what an incitement would it have been to pious munificence in adorning our christian churches with the richest gold and most precious stones , or what ever else that 's rare and splendid , which nature or art does afford , making them little heavens for lustre and glory , and thereby exciting in the hearts of all that should enter them a due reverence to the almighty , whom we worship ? if solomon so adorned his temple , where only a sheep , or a calf , or a little incense was offered to the creator of all things ; what glory could have been thought too rich for our christian churches , where an oblation , worthy of the great god , should every day have been sacrificed unto him ; the lamb of god that takes away the sins of the world ; the god-man christ jesus . in fine , what vertue should not our dear saviour have given us example of , by such a charitable humiliation of himself ? obedience , to come down from heaven to earth at the voice of every christian priest , though never so simple for his understanding , or never so wicked for his life and manners . charity , humility , patience , contempt of the judgments or sayings of men , &c. 3. assertion . the bread and wine in the holy eucharist , are by the omnipotent power of god actually , and in deed changed into the body and blood of our b. saviour jesus christ : which i prove thus . this was the universal belief of the christian world in the nineth century after our b. saviour , as is evident by the testimony of all the writings of that age , and by the universal testimony of the tenth age , who profess in all christian countrys to have received this faith from their immediate ancestors . nor do our adversaries deny it , and therefore appeal to the first six hundred years , in which they say the christian doctrine remained incorrupt . but if the doctrine of the real mutation of bread and wine in the holy eucharist into our b. saviours body and blood was generally believed in the nineth age , it must necessarily be taught in the first age by the apostles , to their first converts over all the world , and consequently be most certainly true . for it cannot be doubted but that the first converts of the h. apostles , did not only understand what the apostles taught them concerning this great mystery , but also did throughly believe it , and highly esteem it ( as they did all other doctrines and practices taught them by the same their first maffers ) as not only of exceeding profit above all the things of this life , but also as highly necessary to them and their children to bring them to eternal bliss . which being so , none can doubt but that the same first disciples , both could and would , and actually did teach the very same doctrine which they so highly esteemed , as to embrace it with the bazard of their lives , to their children and successors . and this they taught them not as an invention of their own , but as a doctrine taught them by the apostles of jesus christ , who confirmed their mission from the infallible god by evident miracles . in like manner it cannot be doubted but these taught their children also concerning this mystery what they had been taught by their fathers , and not as the invention of their fathers , but as a doctrine taught their fathers by the undoubted messengers of heaven , the holy apostles . the like may be said of all the intervening generations for the first six hundred years , which our adversaries do not deny , ( though it be all one to the force of this argument , to grant so much only for the first four hundred years ) . now if transubstantiation was not taught for the first six hundred years , but the contrary ; whatsoever age , be it the seventh , eighth , or nineth , would begin to teach the doctrine of the real presence of our lord● body in the sacrament ; they could not possibly have the impudence to tell their children the bread and wine in the eucharist were turned into the true body and blood of our saviour ; and thus they had been taught by their fathers and grandfathers uninterruptedly from the apostles . this , i say , it is impossible they could have the impudence to assert , when every one must needs know his father and grand-father had believed and taught him otherwise . what must they pretend then , to impose upon their children this new and strange mysterious doctrine ? they must tell them their fathers and grand-fathers , and other ancesters , for some hundreds of years had been in an error , and had forsaken the doctrine taught by the apostles , and their first converts as to this mystery , and confirm their assertion by the clear words of holy scripture , take and eat , this is my body , &c. and by other testimonies out of the writers of the first or second century . but no history makes mention of any such manner of bringing in the doctrine of transubstantiation in the seventh , eighth , or other century : therefore it was never so brought in , but was always believed ; nor indeed could it ever in any century be brought in by the church of christ , whose custom has ever been , not only in the seventh and eighth , but in every other century before & after , alwaies to teach , and to pretend to teach her children , not doctrins devised or found out by herself by reading the holy scriptures or other means , but what was taught her by her fore . elders uninterruptedly from the apostles : and still when hereticks , or beginners of any new doctrin , in any age , pretended scriptures for them , she opposed : we have been taught otherwise by our ancesters , and to understand those scriptures in another sense than you understand them . which way of teaching a bringer in of a new doctrine , its evident could not use . for if he did not begin to teach his child otherwise than he was taught by his father he should teach no new or other doctrine . but if he did begin to teach his child otherwise than his father taught him , he could not at the same time tell his child , thus he was taught by his father , and so upward from the apostles , when both his own conscience , and all his neighbours would testifie the contrary . calvin , for example , could not tell his child that he was taught by his father to deny transubstantiation . no more could the first teacher of transubstantiation in the seventh or other century , had it been a novelty tell his child he was so taught to believe by his father , but must have pretended to have more light than his father and ancesters , as our adversaries did when they began to deny it . hence it is evident transubstantiation was not begun in the seventh or other century , but was alwaies believed since the apostles , seeing that in the nineth century christians universally believed , that in the holy eucharist the bread and wine were changed into the body and blood of our saviour ; and as such adored them , and embraced this doctrine of the real presence , not as a doctrine newly found out by themselves , or their immediate fore-fathers by reading the holy scriptures or other means , but as taught them by their fore-fathers uninterruptedly from the apostles ; and seeing likewise this has ever been the way of the catholick church to teach and pretend to teach posterity not new doctrines of her own , but what she had learnt from her ancestors . hence s. vincent lerinensis , twelve hundred years ago , in his golden treatise against the profane innovations of heresies , upon those words of s. paul. siquis , &c. if any one evangelize to you , besides what you have received , let him be anathema . sed forsitan , &c. but perhaps those things were commanded the galatians only . then those things also which follow in the same epistle , were commanded the galatians only . be not desirous of vain-glory , provoking one another , envying one another . or perhaps was it then commanded , if anyone announce , besides what has been announced , let him be anathema●ized ; but now it is not commanded . therefore , and that also which he there saies : but i say , walk in the spirit , and do not perfect the desires of the flesh , was then only commanded , but is not now commanded . but if it be impious and pernicious to believe so , it necessarily follows , that as these things are to be observed by all ages , so those things also which are established concerning not changing the faith , are commanded to all ages . wherefore it was never lawful , it is not now lawful , nor ever shall be lawful to christian catholicks to announce any thing besides what they have received — let him cry and cry again , and to all , and alwaies , and every where let him cry by his epistle that vessel of election , that master of the gentils ; that trumpet of the apostles , that preacher of the world , conscious to the secrets of heaven let him cry ; if any one preach a new doctrine let him be anathematiz'd . and on the contrary side , let certain froggs , and cynifes and flies that are to perish ; such as are the pelagians reclame and this to gatholiks ; we , say they , being authors , we being heads , we being expositors , condemn what ye did hold , hold what ye did condemn , reject the ancient faith , the institutions of your fathers , the depositions of your ancestors , and receive ; but what ? i have a horror to mention them , for they are such proud things , &c. but may not general councils at least presume to reach new doctrines ? hear the same s. vincent , chap. 32. hoc semper neque quicquam praeterea , &c. the catholick church excited by the novelties of hereticks , by the decrees of her councils even did this , and not thing more than this , what she had received by tradition only ; this she consigned to posterity by writing , comprehending a great , sum of things in a few letters , and for the most part for the light of understanding , signing the not new sense of faith with the propriety of a new name . take notice that the christian church using this means to preserve the faith first received , its impossible she should ever lose or change it . for if fathers from the beginning had resolved to teach their children what they had learnt , or even thought they had learnt from their parents , as to the point of the real prefence or other doctrine , its impossible they should teach another doctrine . for should they teach another doctrine , it must happen , either because they were ignorant what was taught them by their parents , which is impossible , not only to whole nations , but even to the inhabitants of one small town , or else , because , though they knew what was taught by their parents , yet they would teach otherwise than they had been taught ; but then they must forsake their first resolution of teaching their children what they thought they had learnt from their fathers , contrary to the supposition . but on the other side let us suppose a book fully written , as to all points to be believed by christians , by the first teachers of christianity . let them together , with this book , give charge to their 〈◊〉 converts , neither to add to it , nor to diminish it , and to believe as in their consciences they shall think that book shall teach them . though generation after generation be never so faithful to such a charge , yet they may in after ages come to lose or change their faith because the book may seem to one generation to bear one sense , and to another generation to bear another : especially if the mysteries , to be believed be very sublime , and the book obscure in many places , and admit of divers senses when it speaks of those mysterie● . for example , these words , this is my body , may seem to one age to bear this sense , this is a sign of my body ; and ●o another , this is really and truly my body . but no ten families who have been taught by their parents , either to believe our saviours body is in the euecharist , or that it is not there , can possibly mistake what their immediate fathers taught them , and frequently inculcated to them , as to this point , both by themselves and choice persons ordained on purpose for this end to teach what they learnt from their immediate masters and fathers . nothing can make a change here , but a resolution to go contrary to what they know was taught them by their parents . wherefore seeing god almighty is resolved not to teach every age by immediate infallible missionants from himself , but to send inspired ambassadors to one particular generation only , and to leave that generation to teach their children successively till the day of judgment , what they learnt from the immediate infallible messengers of heaven : and seeing also a book , with a charge not to change or alter it , and with a charge also to follow what should seem to every generation to be the sense of it , and supposing every generation faithful to such a charge , would not have been a sufficient means to keep the first divine faith from corruption , we may safely conclude the almighty has not taken that way to teach the world . but seeing oral teaching by inspired pastors at first , with a charge to every generation to follow what they thought was taught them by their immediate parents and teachers , provided every generation were true to this charge , would have kept the first faith inviolate , we may also conclude the almighty has taken this way . especially finding a congregation of so vast a spread in being , who pretends to have made use of this means to preserve her first faith , taught her ancestors many hundred years ago ; nor can she be evinced by any history or tradition , or any thing but mere sayings and ungrou●●●d surmises , to have lost or changed her first belief . and if you 〈◊〉 make use of a book to guide you in your faith , as the catholick church also does , you must resolve to interpret it , ( if you will be sure not to mistake ) as she does ; that is , in that sense in which it was understood by your fathers , and not in that sense it shall seem to bear to you , if contrary to the sense it seemed to bear to your ancestors . pardon sir , this long digression , i hope it will conduce to your more full satisfaction . and take notice , that wheresoever transubstantiation is believed , the believers of it profess to have been so taught by their fore-fathers uninterruptedly from the apostles : & wheresoever this mystery is denied , the deniers of it do not profess to have been taught to deny it by their fathers uninterruptedly from the apostles , but only by their ancestors for about a hundred and fifty years ; and that their ancestors about the year fifteen hundred , had more light than their progenitors for about a thousand years , who were all in darkness , and had left the right faith taught by the apostles , and for the first fix hundred years of christianity . an evident conviction this , that the denial of transubstantiation is a novelty , and the asserting of it the antient verity . for had transubstantiation been a new doctrin , and never heard of before the seventh or eighth age , the assertors of it must have been forced to plead for it , after the manner its opposers plead against it ; by saying their fore fathers only for so long , for example , for eight hundred years had believed it ; but in the year eight hundred , their ancestors had more light than their fore-fathers , and they by reading the holy scriptures and fathers of the first century , came to understand that our saviours true body was in the holy eucharist , and that their immediate progenitors for five or six hundred years , had left the first apostolical doctrin as to this mystery . if you remember , i supposed from the confession of our adversaries , that the christian doctrin remained pure and incorrupt for some centuries of years , after its first planting ; which i now shall endeavor to prove . and indeed whosoever maturely considers the genius and temper of the christian doctors and bishops , for the first centuries after our saviour , will find it impossible for all the power of hell to impose a novelty upon them , especially such an one as would make them all idolaters . for they were not like the seeming zelots of our age , pretenders to new lights , but their profession was not to correct antiquity , not to deliver to posterity doctrine of their own devising , but carefully to keep what they had received from their fore-fathers , and faithfully to teach their children what they had been taught by their fathers : and their great answer to introducers of new doctrirs or practices , was , nihil nouandum nisi quod traditum est : we must innovate nothing , but stick close to what has been delivered to us by our fore-fathers . as for pretenders to discover new truths by reading of the holy scriptures , it s easily conceivable how such persons may be imposed upon by subtil sophisters , and made to believe erroneous doctrins ; to wit , by bad and new interpretations of good and antient scriptures . but on the other fide , how shall a teacher of novelties deceive a christian country , which is resolved to hold fast whatsoever doctrin was taught them by their immedate progenitors , who received the same doctrin by an uninterrupted delivery from father to son , from the apostles ? let him pretend scriptures , and bring a thousand places out of the law , psalms , prophets , and apostles ; what will the reply be ? the scriptures you alledge we reverence , and have ever been taught to reverence them as divine ; but we have been taught to interpret and understand them in another manner and sense than you alledge them . let him pretend authority of doctors , as learned as origen , as holy as cyprian ; nay , if he will , of a whole provincial council , as numerous as that in africa , which determin'd rebaptization of persons baptized by hereticks ; they reply , we must not innovate , we must hold to what was taught us by our ancestors . what means then to make persons thus disposed to leave their an●ient faith , and admit of a novelty ? you must prove to them , that you and they , and other christians in several countrys , have been taught so to believe by your immediate predecessors , and uninterruptedly from father to son , from the apostles : but then you cease to be a teacher of novelties , contrary to the supposition . now that such was the disposition of the primitive centuries of christianity , hear s. vincent lerinensis , who lived in the fifth age ; who testifies , that often asking of very many his contemporaries , famous for their sanctity and learning , how he might be able to discern the truth of the catholick paith from the falsity of heretical prayity , he always received this answer in a manner from them all : that if he desired to remain sound in his faith , he must fortifie it ; first with the authority of the divine law , and then with the tradition of the catholick church . that is , as he explicates himself afterwards , he must examin what has always , all over the christian church , and by all christian doctors , or in a manner by all ▪ been believed , and hold to that against all novelty ; though defended by private doctors , never so holy , or never so learned , or producing never so many scriptures for themselves , if interpreted after a new manner . but saies the same s. vincent , chap ▪ 2. here perhaps some body may ask , seeing the canon of the scriptures is perfect , and is it self sufficient , and more than sufficient for all things , what need is there to add to it the authority of the ecclesiastical , or churches understanding of it ? because the holy scripture , by reason of its depth , is not by all taken in one and the same sense . — for photinus expounds it one way , sabellius another , donatus another , arrius another . and ch . 41. he tells us how the third general council held in his days at ephesus , proceeding according to this rule , condemn'd nestorius . for the fathers of that christian synod , in number about 200 having consulted the sentiment of their predecessors , the eminent doctors of the oriental and western churches , s. peter of alexandria , s. athan●sius , s. theophilus , s. gregory nazianzen , s. basil , s. gregory n●ssen , s. felix , s. julius , s. cyprian , concerning their controversie in debate , they resolved to hold their doctrin , to follow their counsel , to believe their testimony , to obey their judgment . quae tandem , &c what were at length ( saies s. vincent ) the voices and votes of them all , but that what was antiently delivered should be kept , what was of late invented should be exploded ? after which we admired and proclamed the great humility and sanctity of that council . in which so many priests , in a manner as to the greater part , were so many metropolitans , and of so great erudition and learning , as they were almost all able to dispute of dogms . to whom , when their gathering together in one , seemed to add a confidence of daring , and decreeing something from themselves , yet notwithstanding they would presume nothing , arrogate nothing at all to themselves , but took all possible heed lest they should deliver to their posterity what themselves had not received from their fathers ; and not only well disposed the matter for the present , but also gave example to them that were to come after them , to wit , that they should reverence the dogms of sacred antiquity , and condemn ( adinventa ) the additional inventions of profane novelty . this then was not an age wherein to introduce new doctrins into the church , nor any other before s. vincent . for he tells us , chap. 9. mos iste , &c. that custome has always flourished in the church , and by how much any one hath been more religious , the more readily has he opposed new inventions . we have hereof plenty of examples every where . the same s. vincent witnesses , that in the third age , the assertors of rebaptization wanted neither wit nor eloquence , nor number , nor verisimilitude of truth , nor oracles of the divine law , but understood in a bad and new manner . chap. 9 , and 10. how came they then to lose their cause ? s. stephen and his collegues reclamed , nihil novandum , &c. nothing is to be innovated besides what has been delivered to us . agrippinus , bishop of carthage , holding rebaptization against the rule of the universal church , against the sense of all his fellow priests , against the custom and institutions of his ancestors ; and hereby ( as s. vincent observes ) giving a form of sacriledge to all hereticks , this overthrew him . had now the doctrin of the real presence been an idolatrous novelty , its manifest no introducer of it could have perswaded it to a christian church thus principled as the doctors of these times were . they would all unanimously have reclamed ; nothing must be innovated , besides what has been delivered to us by our ancestors . moreover , that the christian doctrin remained pure and incorrupt for some centuries of years , after its first planting , is further evinced by considering the state of the christian church for the first 300. years ; to wit , that it was severely persecuted all the world over . now can any reasonable man imagin , that they who were continually exposing their lives for their religion , would if they could agree together , so notoriously to change it , as to make themselves most gross idolaters by adoring bread and wine , as the true body and blood of their creator and god. nor can it be imagin'd when the centuries of the persecuted state of the church were ended , that the christians now in a full liberty of professing and practising their faith , would all on the sudden so notoriously change that faith which had been delivered them by their fore-fathers , who had seal'd it with their blood . and this none can doubt of , who reflects how tenacious all man kind is of that religion they were bred up in . in so much , as let any one consult the whole world , and he shall never find so much as one nation or country , to have changed their religion without a great deal of ●oise and difficulty , and a considerable length of time ; and so as posterity could for many ages give an account of such a change , how and by what means it happened , so as to satisfie any rational demander of an account of such a change , without flying to imperceptible mutations , by little and little , but when or by whom no account is to be given : the usual refuge of our adversaries , when we demand of them how not one country , but all the christian countrys in the world , came to believe so universally this strange doctrin of the change of bread and wine into our b. saviours body and blood . the whole world formerly in a manner pagan , except a handful of jews , is now become christians ; we give an account of it . twelve men dividing the world amongst them by stupendious miracles a holy life and glorious death , converted great numbers of several nations to the christian faith ; and these taught it their children under sharp persecutions for some three hundred years ; and after that , through the favour of emperors and kings , converted to be christians , it made that spread we now see . arrianism over-ran a great part of the christian world , and we are able to give an account how , and by what means , without recurring to imperceptible growing by little and little . arrius first broach'd that heresie , and by the favour of emperors ; it got a great footing in christendom . in like manner had the strange doctrin of transubstantiation been a novel invention ; 't is not possible , but at first teaching , it must needs have been opposed , and could not have so over-spread the christian world in the nineth century , as its evident to any one versed in ecclesiastical history it did , without great preaching of its first abettors , and strange favour of christian princes . that the whole christian world , for the first six hundred years , should be wholly ignorant of this strange mysterious doctrin , and so hard to be believed ; and that in the nineth century it should be generally believed , and not as a new doctrin neither , which was pretended by that age to have been found out by vertue of greater light , by reading the holy scriptures , &c. but as a doctrin they had been taught from their fore-fathers by an immemorable tradition , is harder to believe than the mystery it self to any judicious considerer ; how difficultly , as i hinted above , we are perswaded to leave the doctrins we have been taught by our parents from our child-hood . in confirmation of this , let but any one consider the state of our own country . about the year 1500 we generally believed and adored the bread and wine in the h. eucharist , as our b. saviours true body and blood . now 't is confess'd , we , a hundred for one , believe the contrary . but how was this new faith bred in us ? by stopping the mouthes of all the preachers of the antient mysterious doctrin , and by persecuting with severe laws , all professors of that antient faith. and yet you see even all this diligence has not been able to root out the antient belief universally neither . much-less was what has been done , been effected so without noise ; but all our chronicles mention how our new belief was wrought . and can any one think that not one kingdom , but all the kingdoms of the christian world , could be brought so universally to change their faith without any mention in any history , how and by whom this strange change was wrought ? especially if he reflect how hardly human nature does believe strange things which neither sense nor reason can give any evidence of : and on the contrary , how easily and gladly we relinquish beliefs which have been imposed upon us , when we have , as we think , the evidence both of sense and reason for our change . all which notwithstanding , you see how that after a 150 years labour , neither eloquence of false teachers , nor force of civil powers , has been able so wholly to pervert our nation as to the belief of that high mystery of the real presence , but even still there remain a considerable number retainers of the antient belief . and can you think that not in a much greater space of time , to wit , betwixt the sixth and nineth century all the christian world could be perswaded to admit so strange a doctrin to nature and reason ; and yet no man by vertue of history or tradition should be able to give any account what orators prevailed with the world to relinquish the belief of their ancestors , or what power of civil magistrates forced them to it ? especially seeing there have not wanted ecclesiastical historigraphers who have made mention of matters of far less note than such a change of faith must needs have made . but what place will there remain for doubting , that this high mystery was always believed , if not only all writers be silent as to any change , but also the seventh and eighth age ; yea , the most primitive times do positively attest this very mystery by the pens of the chiefest champions of the christian church , who have left us any memorials of their learning and piety in their deservedly admired works ? i shall faithfully recount their words ; be your own judge what their sentiment was . in the first place then , glorious saint , and great doctor s. augustin , tell us your faith concerning the holy eucharist ; is it bakers bread , or the body of our lord and god ? i remember , saies the holy doctor in his 28. ser. de verbis domini , when i treated of the sacraments , i told you that before the words of christ , that which is offered up is called bread , but when the words of christ shall have been pronounced , now it is no longer called bread , but the body of christ. and explicating those words of the royal prophet , psal. 98. v. 5. exalt ye our lord god , and adore his foot-stool , for it is holy . now what is this foot-stool of god ? why saies this great doctor , the earth is his foot-stool . but how is the earth holy , and to be adored by us ? the saint goes on and tells us how : our lord took earth of the earth , because flesh is of the earth ; and he took flesh of the flesh of mary . and because he walked here in flesh , and gave to us that very flesh to be eaten by us to our salvation ; but no body eats that flesh , unless he shall first have adored it . and indeed what could we expect that s. austin should teach and believe concerning this divine sacrament , but what he had been taught by his father and instructor in christ , the glorious st. ambrose . and what was that ? hear his words , lib. 4. de sacramentis . thou wilt perhaps say nnto me , my bread is ordinary bread ; but that bread is bread before the sacramental words ; but when consecration has been made of bread , it is made the flesh of christ. but how can bread be the body of christ ? by consecration : consecration ; by what and whose words is it perfected ? by the words of our lord jesus . for all other things which are said , praise is given to god : by prayer supplication is made for the people , for kings , for the rest . when the time is come that the venerable sacrament is to be made , now the priest does not use his own words , but the words of christ ; therefore the word of christ makes this sacrament . but what word of christ ? that word by which all things were made . our lord commanded and heaven was made ; our lord commanded and the earth was made : our lord commanded , and the seas were made : our lord commanded , and every creature was produced . doest thou see then how operative the word of christ is ? if then there be so great force in the word of our lord jesus , that it could make things which were not begin to be ; how much rather is it operative , that those things which were , should be and be charged into another thing ? heaven was not , the sea was not , the earth was not ; but hear him saying : he said the word , and they were made ; he commanded , and they were created . that therefore i may answer thee ; the body of christ was not before consecration ; b● after consecration , i say unto thee , that now the body of christ is . he said it , and it was made : he commanded , and it was created . and in chap. 5. of the same book . before the words of christ , the chalice is full of wine and water ; but when the words of christ have bad their operation , then it is made the blood which redeemed the people . see then in how many kinds of things the word of christ is able to change all things . moreover our lord jesus himself testifies unto us , that we receive his body and blood ; ought we then to doubt of his testification ? add to s. austin and s. ambrose , the learned s. hierom in his epistle ad heliodorum . far be it from me , saies the saint , that i should speak amiss of those who succeeding the apostles , do make the body of christ with their sacred mouth . and in his 85. epistle to enagrius . by whose prayers the body and blood of christ is made . take notice that these three holy fathers lived not four hundred years after our b. saviours death . s. cyprian yet nearer the apostles age , does no less clearly nor fully attest the same verity , in his serm. de caena domini . that bread which our lord gave to his disciples , being changed not in shape , but in its nature , by the omnipotency of the word was made flesh. and in his book , de lapsis ; reprehending such as were angry with the priests of god , who refused to admit them to the holy communion of the b. sacrament , after they had polluted themselves with the profane sacrifices of heathen idolaters , expresses their sin in these words . he that has fall'n from his faith , threatens them that have stood firm . sacrilegious w●etch , he is angry with the priests of god , that he is not prosently admitted with defiled hands to receive the body of our lord , or to drink his blood with his defiled mouth . and this was the very doctrin of his learned master tertullian , who yet nearer approached the holy apostles , lib. de resur . cur . the flesh is fed with the body and blood of christ , that the soul may be made fat with god. and in his book de idololatria , he complains of the prosaneness of some christians , who made no scruple to day to be working in their shops , making idolatrous statues for the heathens , and yet to morrow would presume to come into the christian congregations , and receive the sacred mysteries of our lords body and blood , and communicate them to others . his words are these ; to touch the body of our lord with those hands which give bodies to devils . nor is this all ; their crime would be less , did they only receive from the hands of others what they contaminate and pollute ; but moreover they deliver to others what they have polluted . makers of idols are admitted into the ecclesiastical hierarchy . o impiety ! once the jews laid profane hands on christ ; these daily violate his body : o hands deserving to be cut off ! but shall we desire a greek father or two , to give us their sense concerning our present controversie . s. crysost . ho. 60. ad . pop . antioch . because the word saies , this is my body , let us assent and believe . and a little after , how many are there now adaies that say , o that i could see his figure , his garments , his shooes ? lo thou seest himself , thou touchest him , thou eatest him . thou desirest to see his garments , but he give thee not only to see , but also to eat and touch , and take himself into thee . and a little after , consider what an indignation thou hast against the traytor judas , and against those that crucified him : therefore consider lest thou also beest not guilty of the body and blood of christ. they killed his most holy body ; and thou receivest it with a polluted soul after so many benefits . for he was not satisfied to be made man , to be buffetted and crucified : but moreover , he does mix himself with us , and makes us his body , not only by faith , but in very deed . and ho. 24. in ep. 1. ad corin. christ has given us his body , both that we might have it and might eat it , which is the greatest sign of love . wherefore job chap. 31. that he might show the love of his servants to him , said they oftentimes of their execeeding great love to him , would say concerning him , who will give us of his flesh , that we might be filled with it . even so christ has given us his flesh , that we might feed upon it , thereby to allure us to love him very much . this body the sages adored in the manger . — thou seest it not in the manger , but npon the altar ; not a woman holding it in her arms , but a priest present . — nor do i show thee angels , nor arch-angels , nor heaven , nor the heaven of heavens , but the very lord of all these things . — nor doest thou only see him , but touch him ; not only touch him , but eat him ; and having received him , returns to thy home . and hom. 60 ad pop . antioch . and 83. in math. let us every where believe god , and not oppose him , although that which he saies seem absurd to our sense and thoughts ; let his speech overcome both our sense and our reason ; which let us do in all things , and especially in the mysteries , not only regarding those things which lie before us , but also holding fast to his words . for we cannot be deceived by his words , but our sense is most easily deceived : those cannot be false , this is deceived very often . because therefore he has said this is my body , let us make no doubt but believe , and see it with the yes of our understanding . and in his 3. ho. in ep. ad ephes let us think that him that sits above , who is adored by the angels , 't is him that we tast , that we feed upon . and ho. 2. ad pop . antioc . elias left his disciple his mantle , but the son of god ascending , left us his flesh. but elias indeed put off his mantle , but christ both left us his flesh , and retaining it , ascended with it . let us not therefore be dishartened , nor lament , nor fear the difficulty of the times . for he that has not refused to shed his blood for us , and has communicated to us both his flesh and blood , will not refuse to do any thing for our salvation . hear another greek doctor , s. cyril of jerusalem , in his catechistical discourses , which are the plainest declarations of the mysteries of our holy faith. catech. 4. mys. seeing then christ himself so affirms and says concerning the bread , this is my body who after this can dare to doubt of it ? and the same also affirming and saying , this is my blood , who i say can doubt of it , and say it is not his blood . he changed water into wine in cana of galilee , by his sole will , and shall he not be worthy whom we may believe , that he changed wine into his blood ? for if being invited to a corporeal wedding , he wrought a stupendious miracle , shall we not confess him much rather to have given his body and blood to the children of the bridegroom ? wherefore with all assurance let us take the body and blood of christ ; for under the appearance of bread , is given to thee his body ; and under the appearance of wine , is given his blood ; that having received the body and blood of christ , thou maiest be made partaker together with him of his body and blood. so shall we be christophers , such as carry christ in them , when we shall have received his body and blood into our members ; and so as s. peter saies , shall be made partakers of the divine nature . — do not therefore look upon it as bare bread and bare wine ; for it is the body and blood of christ , according to the words of our lord himself . for although thy sense suggest this to thee , yet let faith confirm thee ; do not judge of the thing by thy tast , but rather from faith hold for certain , so that thou hast no doubt that the body and blood are given to thee . knowing and accounting for most certain , that this bread which is seen by us is not bread , although our tast judge it to be bread , but that it is the body of christ. and the wine , which is seen by us , although it may seem wine to our sense of tasting , that yet it is not wine but the blood of christ. can the holy council of trent have plainer words than these , or fuller to our present purpose . add the testimony of s. justin martyr , who lived yet nearer the age of the apostles , in his apology for the christians to antoninus the emperor , in which he gives him an account of the christian faith ; and where certainly he would not make it more mysterious than it was , nor more hard to be believed , according to any part of it , then the truth and common belief of christians forced him ; but rather would moderate the mysteriousness of it , than encrease it . hear him then giving an account of the holy eucharist . this meat is called by us the eucharist , because no body may partake of it , but he who believes those things to be true which we say , and lives so as christ has taught us . for we do not take these things as common and ordinary bread , but as by the word of god , our saviour jesus christ was made man , and had flesh and blood for our salvation ; so we have been taught that this meat , which is consecrated by the prayers of that speech we received from him , is the flesh and blood of jesus christ , who was made man. for the apostles in their commentaries , which are called gospels , have delivered that christ so commanded , and that having taken bread , when he had given thanks , he said , do this in memory of me , this is my body ; and having taken the cup , when we had given thanks , he said also , this is my blood , and gave it to them only . mark how this holy father saies , that what we have received concerning the holy eucharist , is , that it is both the flesh and blood of jesus christ , who was made man. now would any man in his wits have given such an account of the christian faith to an unbelieving heathen , with a desire to convert him , and to recommend our holy faith to him , had the blessed eucharist been a mere sign of the flesh and blood of christ. this he would easily have understood to be very feasable , whereas the other strangely shocks both his sense and reason . for other testimonies out of these and other holy fathers , i refer you to our books of controversie on this subject , which are full of them . and who now that has the least grain of humility and modesty , would not blush to accuse so many and so grave doctors of christ's church of idolatry and damnable error ? and here sir , you must give me leave to bespeak our adversaries in the words of s. augustin , directed by him to jul●an the pelagian , after a like citation , about another matter , of these very holy fathers by me now cited , as to a good part of them . tu qui tam crebro , &c. thou sadly deluded calvinist , that doest so often object to us catholick christians the crime of idolatry for adoring the holy eucharist ; if thou beest awake , see what and what kind of men , and how glorious defenders of the christian faith , thou darest to be spatter under our names , with so execrable a crimination . go now and object to us the crime of idolatry , dissemble and feign thy self not to know what they say in this point ; over-look them as it were , and attack us only , as not knowing that under our name they are reviled ; and confidently insult over so many and so great doctors of the church of christ , who after a most saintly life , and having beaten down the errors of their times , most gloriously went out of this life before you and your camerades bubled up . doest thou see with what kind of men we sustain thy reproaches ; doest thou see with whom we have the same common cause , which without any sober consideration thou calumniates and endeavours to expugn ? doest thou see , proud calvinist , how pernicious it is unto thy self , to object so horrible a crime of idolatry to such men as these , and how glorious it is to us to sustain the charge of any crime , together with such doctors ? or if thou doest see , see , and hold thy peace , and let so many catholick tongues silence thy calvinistical tongue , and submit thy brazen forehead to the venerable mines of so many grave fathers . the russian polemus to compleat his wilde ramble , would needs early in the morning , half drunk with his night-revels , go to the school of the grave sophist xenocrates , to affront him and his scholars . but he was no sooner entred the school of that sober platonist , but the very fight of the modest and grave comportment of the philosopher and his scholars did so strike my young gallant , that he was quite out of countenance ; and asham'd of himself , he pull'd off his drunken bayes , and compos'd himself to modesty , and became his convert , whom he came on purpose to deride and scoff at . such force had the grave countenances of a sober platonist and his school to comp●●at a rude russian . finding my presuptuous calvinist drunk with pride and self-conceit , i could think of no better means to reduce him to sobriety , then to bring him , not into the school of a sober ethnick philosopher , but into a grave assembly of the most memorable bishops and doctors of the school of christ. to whom certainly so much a greater reverence and respect is due , by how much their doctor and master christ , is greater then xenocrates 's master and doctor plato . i desire now my conceited calvinist , that thou wouldst think it worth thy while , to eye , to look upon so many and so grave prelates of the catholick church ; and imagin them to look as it were upon thee , and mildly and gently to say unto thee : itanè nos fili juliane , &c. is it so indeed son stilling fleet , are we 〈◊〉 idolaters ? what answer wouldst thou give them . with what face wouldst thou look upon them ? what arguments would occur to thee ? wouldst thou dare , wouldst thou have the face to produce such wodden daggers as thou art ever and anon drawing upon us ? or rather would not such pittiful weapons fall out of thy hand , at the presence of so great doctors , and such grave prelates of gods church ? wouldst thou have the forehead to tell the great s. augustin our b. lord said , do this in remembrance of me ; the words which i speak unto you are spirit and life ; i am a door , i am a true vine , &c. as if that great doctor and his venerable fellows could be ignorant of such petty cavils as those . tautumne apud te , &c. can a calvin , or a stillingfleet have so much authority with any person of sobriety , that he should for their regards , not only for sake so many and so great doctors and defenders of the christian faith , from the rising of the sun to the going down thereof ; but also dare to call them i dolaters and abertors of damnable errors ? i desire my conceited calvinist , would but consider into what an assembly i have brought him . 't is an assembly of saintly doctors , not of the popular multitude : such as were not only children , but fathers of the church ; famous in their generations for learning and sanctity , who well furnished with spiritual weapons , strenuously warred against the hereticks of their days , and having happily finished the labours of their dispensation , holily went to rest in peace . nor was the doctrin , we are now disputing , any new devised opinion of theirs ; but what they learnt in the church of christ , in the time of their rudiments , that they taught the church of christ in time of their honors . that which they found in the church , that they held . that which they received from their fathers , they delivered to their children . and if my calvinist will perhaps say , he does not charge s. augustin , or s. chrysostom with the crime of idolatry , he must give me leave to tell him , nor then does he justly charge us , whom he sees in the same cause to have followed their steps . but if he will only reproach us with such a calumny , nor for any other reason , but because we think concerning the holy eucharist what they thought , hold what they held , preach what they preacht ; who does not see that he openly reviles us only , but secretly has the like judgement of them ? for what they believe , we believe ; what they teach , we teach , yield to them , and you yield to us ; acquies● in their sentiments , and you 'l cease to condemn ours . moreover this grave assembly of antient doctors , to whom we appeal , then judged concerning this our cause , when no body could say they had favor or ill will for either party . they had neither friendship nor enmity with you or us . we did not as yet appeal with you to them as judges , and our cause was decided by them . neither you nor we were known to them , and we recite their sentence given for us against you . we did not yet contest with you , and they pronouncing sentences for us , we have overcome you . or will my calvinist have the impudence to accuse ( as some do ) th●se grave doctors of blindness ? a multitude of blind men forsooth avails nothing to find out the truth ! and these were the errors and mistakes of those learned prelates . what an age are we fal'n into ? truth must be called error , and error truth , light darkness , and darkness light . s. augustin , s. ambrose , s. crysostom , s. hierom are blind , but calvin and stillingfleet see . these doctors i have called a council of , were persons of such learning and sanctity , that if a synod of bishops were gathered out of the whole world , it would be much if so many , and such doctors could be found to sit in it . neither indeed were these all at one time , but god almighty as pleases him , and as he judges to be expedient , scatters a few more excellent and faithful dispensers of his mysteries , in several ages , and distances of places . by such planters , waterers , builders , pastors , nursing fathers after the apostles , the holy church has encreased now what an imprudence , and what an impudence must it be for any to presume to accuse of the horrible crime of idolatry , so many holy , egregious , and memorable doctors of the catholick verity , and moreover together with them the whole church of christ ; to which divine family they faithfully ministring spiritual food , flourished with great glory in our lord. nay further , they who dare to oppose the manifest sentiment , not of so many platonical , aristotelieal or zenonical doctors , but of so many saints and illustrious prelates in the church of god , and these some of them singularly endowed with human litterature , and all of them eminently learned in the sacred letters , have reason not so much to fear them as him who made them profitable vessels to himself . these judges , by how much the more desirable they ought to be unto thee , if thou didst hold the catholick faith , by so much thou hast more reason to fear them , because thou opposest the catholick faith , which they ministred to little and great , and manifestly and stoutly defended against its enemies , yea against you , then not as yet born . for not only when they lived did they by their words , but also by their writings which they left to posterity , did they strenuously defend the catholick faith , that they might break in pieces your arguments . hitherto s. augustin , l. 1. et . 2. contra julianum . i thought fit to adjoyn this reflexion of s. augustin , though superabundant to the force of my argument , it being sufficient for my purpose to prove that the doctrin of the real presence was generally believed in the primitive centuries of christianity , and so much evidently follows from the authorities above cited . for though some may be so self-conceited as to confess that s. ambrose , s. crysostom , and the rest of the holy fathers , greek and latin , believed the doctrin of the real presence , but they with humble submission deemed it to be an idolatrous and damnable doctrin : yet few i think but have so much regard for th●se primitive doctors , as to allow them so much iudgement , as to know what was the belief of their several churches in their daies , and so much fidelity as to write the truth as to this particular , which is sufficient for the purport of my discourse . unless you can think that these holy fathers were of one faith , and their several flocks , who reverenced them as saints , of another . an answer to an objection . but you will say , if there be such a miraculous change wrought in the bread and wine in the holy eucharist , why does it not appear to our senses , as well as other miraculous works of our lord jesus did ? when he turn'd water into wine , it appeared such to the sight and tast of the guests at the marriage-feast . he did not barely tell them , the water was turn'd into wine , and exact their belief of his word , contrary to the evidence of all their senses , but convinced them that it was so by their very senses . why then in our present case , if he turn wine into his blood , does it not appear to our fight to be blood ? but barely to tell us , that it is his blood , and yet to let it tast and appear as it did ; how is this credible ? how is it not contrary to one , but to all the miracles that ever he wrought ? and this argument is further strengthned , for that it would hence follow , we might call in question the whole mystery of christianity . for we therefore believing in our lord jesus , as one indeed sent from god , to teach us nothing but truth , because of his miracles , and we having no assurance of his miracles but from our senses , if our senses may be mistaken , how can we tell but those who were eye-witnesses of his wonders were illuded : and water , for example , was not turned by him into wine , but only seemed wine to the tast and sight of those which were present , and indeed remained water as before . for why may not water remain water , and yet seem to my tast wine , as well as wine be changed into blood , and yet seem to my tast and sight to remain wine ? for answer to this objection , we must distinguish two sorts of miracles , with the ends for which they are wrought . some miracles are wrought by almighty god , to draw the world to the christian faith ; and these must necessarily be the object of our senses ; else it could not reasonably be expected , they should work their intended effect in them for whose sakes they are wrought . for example ; if any one will by miracle prove he is sent from god , by raising a dead man to life , or by turning water into wine ; he must make it evident to my senses , that the man who was dead is alive , and the water now wine , and not barely tell me so . else he will be derided as an impostor and impudent lyer , instead of being admired and received as a messenger from heaven , and oracle of truth . there are other miracles which are wrought by the almighty , not as a motive to induce us to receive the true faith , but to sanctifie us when we have received it , or for the necessity of working the salvation of the world . such are the miracles of the incarnation of the son of god , and all the spiritual effects wrought in the souls of christians by any of the sacraments . now these miraculous effects are not the object of our senses , nor is there any reason they should be . for the church of christ does not urge these to perswade unbelievers to acknowledge the true faith ; but only professes , that by these her members are sanctified . for example ; we say by baptism as an outward and visible sign , is wrought an invisible grace in the soul of the person baptized . though view the child as much as you please , you can by none of your senses perceive any mutation to be wrought . in like manner the church professes to believe the mystery of the incarnation of the son of god : that our lord jesus , though to outward appearance a mere man , was also true god , and yet by no sense was the hypostatical union of his soul and body to the second person of the blessed trinity , discernable . this was no doubt a great miracle , yea the miracle of miracles wrought amongst us ; but the end of its working , being not by it as a motive to draw the world to christianity , but to constitute a fit person for the working of the salvation of the world , it was not necessary it should be the object of our senses . the same lord and saviour telling us that he was god , though we could discern no characters of divinity in him by any of our senses , he saying that he was god , & proving by other miracles to our senses , that he was sent from god to teach us nothing but truth ; this was sufficient to secure our belief of his deity . in like manner , in the mystery of the holy eucharist , this miraculous change being not wrought , to allure strangers to the christian faith , but to sanctifie believers , and to work all those spiritual effects in them above-mentioned , by being received by them , and offered up in their presence for them , &c. it was not requisite this change should be the object of our senses . nay it was necessary it should not be the object of our senses . for it being wrought to the intent we should eat and drink our dear lord his body and blood , it was necessary only the substance of bread and wine , should be turned into the substance of our lords flesh and blood , the accidents of bread and wine remaining ; for that otherwise we should have a horror to eat raw flesh , and drink true appearing blood . as to the confirmation of the argument , that hence it would follow we cannot trust our senses , and consequently not be certain of any miracle wrought by our saviour . to this i answer ; we may alwaies trust our senses about their own objects , and in due circumstances , and when we have not positive grounds to think , either god almighty by himself , or by an angel , or permissively by a devil , represents things otherwise then they are . the three children in the fiery furnace , might really think themselves in the midst of scorching flames , though they felt them not , because they had reason to surmise god almighty wrought a miracle ; out of those circumstances they had no reason to believe any thing to be ordinary fire , which should not burn as fire . nor must they for this , for ever after be in doubt , whether they were not environed with flames of fire or no. nor must abram , because once in a particular circumstance he mistook three angels for three men ; therefore never after believe his eyes , whether he saw a man or no , unless he first pinched him by the arm , and felt that he had flesh and blood as himself . nor must one who in the presence of a conjurer had taken pibble stones for grapes , for ever after be doubtful whether he saw grapes or no , till he tasted them . nor does it follow , s. mary magdalen could not be certain she ever saw our b. saviour , because once her senses were mistaken concerning him , taking him for the gardener . and in our present case , our b. saviour telling us that the holy eucharist is his body , we have all reason to think that by miracle he makes it to be so , whatsoever it seems to our senses . nor do catholicks therefore , out of such a circumstance , doubt of all the bread they see , whether it be not their lords body or no ? though i must tell you , even here your senses are not mistaken ; for they do perceive what they seem to perceive ; that is the accidents of bread and wine , which remain and affect them in the same manner , as when the substance under them , was the substance of bread and wine , but now is the substance of our lords body and blood . substances are not discernable by any sense ; only we conclude by a physical certitude , such a substance is under such a complex of accidents , when we have nor positive grounds that god almighty works a miracle , as here we have ; he saying expresly of this object before us , 't is his body , and 't is his blood . but if there be so much to be said for this great mystery , how comes it to pass so many have so great difficulty to believe it ? it is not because the mystery is not highly credible , but it is partly from nature and partly from education , and partly from want of a serious and frequent consideration of those arguments which strongly evince the credibility of it , and partly for want of strange desires of the happiness of the other life , and of a heart void of inordinate affections to the things of this life , pleasures , riches , and honors . 't is partly from nature i say . for 't is not more difficult to our senses to practice sobriety , temperance , chastity and fasting , then it is to our understanding to assent to truths which seem to shock our reason and senses , though proposed by never so great authority . should you have seen our b. saviour sucking his mothers breast in the stable of bethlehem , whosoever should have told you , the little infant there was god almighty , the maker of heaven and earth , nature would have found a great difficulty to believe so strange an assertion , and no less then it does now to believe that a little wafer in the hands of a priest , is the same christ both god and man , veiled under the appearance of the common accidents of bread . but had it been moreover from your infancy continually noysed in your ears , by such as you reverenced for their learning and skill in divine matters , that it was impossible for god to become man ; this would strangely have encreased your difficulty to believe a little infant , in nothing different as to outward appearance from other children , should be god. but if to all this you should add , never or very seldom , and slightly to consider the positive arguments for the belief of that mystery of the incarnation , but were ever still poring upon the difficulty , and unlikeliness and seeming impossibility of any such thing , 't is not possible you should ever come to the belief of it , though the mystery be never so true in it self , nor the arguments to prove it , never so evident and cogent . but this is the case of us generally in england , as to the mystery of the b. sacrament , and therefore no vvonder if generally it be not believed by us : but we rather wonder at their stupidity and fond credulity , who can believe any such thing . but to get a right , strong and well grounded faith concerning this high mystery , what must we do ? first reflect we are christians , and as such must necessarily believe very many strange things , unless we will renounce christianity . for example ; we must believe that there are three distinct persons , and every one of these is god ; and yet there are not three gods , but only one god. we must also believe this one god is infinitly merciful , and yet he will permit millions of souls to lament and howl amidst scorching flames for ever , though with a word he could ease them of all their pains . moreover we must believe that 1600. years ago , one of the three divine persons was incarnat , and became a true mortal man , flesh and blood as we are ; and after 33. years , which he lived upon our earth , he was nailed to a cross , hands and feet , till he died ; and after three daies came to life again , and after 40. days ascended into heaven , where he remains to this day . these would seem strange things to believe , to one that should never have heard them before ; and yet stranger to one , that from his childhood should have been taught to laugh at such stories as mere fables and idle fictions of cheating priests , who knew them well enough to be such ; but for their own gain and interest seem'd to believe them , and with a great deal of confidence , taught them for infallible truths to the credulous multitude . which being so , reflect 2d y. no christian must bogle at any thing as to the belief of it , merely for the strangeness of it , and seeming unlikeliness to his senses or reason . but must consider what grounds he has to judge the strange mystery he is required to believe , was taught his fore-fathers by our b. saviour and his apostles ; and if he find he has good grounds for this , he must immediately submit his understanding , and believe it . 3dly . let us reflect upon the state of our own country , as it is at present , and as our annals represent it to have been ever since our first receiving of the christian faith. at present we have a considerable number of families who believe transubstantiation , and have believed it from their fore-fathers time out of mind , and they say ever since the first planting of the christian faith amongst us . we have also far greater multitudes who do not believe it , but yet so as there 's scarce one who is fifty years old , whose great grand-father did not believe it , but when his great grand-father , or his great grand-fathers ancesters began to believe it , we are able to give no acconnt . moreover two hundred years ago , in all the several shires or provinces of england we all universally , bishops , priests , and people , rich and poor , learned and unlearned believed it : and this not as a new doctrin found out by themselves by reading the holy scriptures . no. they were enemies to all novelties , and professed they must hold fast what had been taught by their fore-elders , and interpret scripture in the sense their fore-elders had done . now how is it possible they should come to believe such a strange doctrin , unless it had been taught them from their fore-fathers , and the first preachers of christianity in our nation ? especially they not reading the holy scriptures as we do now , nor having such store of bibles , that they might perhaps by their private reading have come to believe this hard and high mystery contrary to what had been taught them by their fore-elders . how came they to learn it then ? did they some strange morning or other , all awake of a different belief from what they had been of the evening before ? or did it come into some schollars head by studying the holy scriptures ; reading for example those words , this is my body , so often repeated in the evangelists & s. paul ; and he hereupon was convinced they had all been in an error for so many years , and by preaching and disputing perswaded others ? but how comes it to pass then , we having had historians that have mentioned far less matters , yet say not a word of any such thing ? or did the britons before s. austin the monk , believe no such thing ? how came they then not to clash about it , or if they did , how comes it to pass other differences are recorded and this is omitted ? besides if s. austin taught it our ancesters , he confirm'd the religion he taught by miracles , as all our stories testifie . and also he lived within the first 600 years , to which dr. n. n. in one of his sermons appeals : nor did that blessed man pretend to teach us a new religion neither , newly found out at rome , but what was alwaies believed ever since s. peter . 4. let us consider why we are christians , and we shall find if we be so rationally and groundedly , and not merely because we were so brought up from our childhood : i say we shall find our faith to be grounded upon such principles , as if we be true to them , they will force us as strongly to believe transubstantiation as the incarnation , the real presence as the deity of our saviour . for example , i believe the man jesus christ , who lived 1600. years ago , was also god. and why ? because he said he was so , and proved by evident miracles that he was sent to teach the world truth , and nothing but truth . and why all this ? because it could not stand with the providence of god , to suffer a deceiver to work such miracles as he wrought , teaching withal , and practising such sanctity as he did . for then the most sincere desirers to know the truth would be most subject to miss of it . but how do i know jesus christ wrought such miracles ? because i find them recorded in certain books , which several nations all over the world , have immemorially looked upon as faithful & true stories , ever since the time the miracles are said to have been wrought . now 't is not possible but the men then alive must needs certainly know whether he did work such strange miracles or no. and if they had known no such thing was wrought by him ; but that these things were at first feigned by some of his friends , and afterwards committed to writing by them , they could never contrary to the evidence of their own knovvledge , have told unanimously such notorious lyes to their posterity , and have made them believe them as they did . nor could have recommended the books vvherein they vvere recorded to their children , and have made them reverence them as unquestionable and infallibly certain histories , as they did . but hovv do i knovv that jesus christ taught that he vvas god ? vvhy certainly the apostles understood him vvhat he said concerning himself ; vvhether he vvere only a holy man like to their great moyses , or else vvere true and substantially god , and consequently to be worshipped by them as such . and no doubt but they taught their first converts vvhat they had learnt from their master jesus as to this point , and their converts their children till arrius ; the church being till then under persecution , and consequently cannot be supposed all that vvhile so notoriously to have changed their faith , they vvere every day in danger to dye for . now finding the vvhole christian world in the belief of the divinity of our saviour , and worshipping him as god , and this immemorially from their fore-fathers , and as they professed from the apostles . so as arrius never vvent about to evince them , that such or such a doctor in such an age since the apostles , had brought in the nevv doctrin of our lords divinity : and finding him also called god in the holy scriptures , and vvhole nations of christians immemorially understanding them in a proper , literal sense , and not only in the sense vvhich kings and princes are called god ; notvvithstanding all arrius his reasons drawn from the impossibility of the thing , or from scriptures understood by him after a nevv manner ; i conclude my saviour vvas true god. in like manner no doubt but our b. saviviour taught his apostles concerning the holy eucharist , whether it was only a sign of his body , or else his true body , and consequently to be adored and worshipt by them or no. and no doubt but they taught their first converts what they had learnt from their master concerning this mystery , and these their posterity the same for the first 300. years of the churches persecution . now finding whole christian countrys in the time of berengarius , about the year one thousand und fifty , unanimously believing the holy eucharist to be our lords true body , and adoring it as such , and this as they professed immemorially from their ancesters , from the apostles , and berengarius never undertaking to show , when or how this strange belief was wrought in the christian church , nor finding any beginning of it in any ecclesiastical history of any one country ; and finding it also called so expresly over and over our lords body , and whole countrys understanding those sacred texts in a proper sense , and not one christian province understanding them otherwise ; for all berengarius his arguments , drawn as he pretended from the impossibility of the thing , or from scriptures by him interpreted after a new manner , the wont of all misbelievers , i conclude it is our lords true body . 5. let us consider impartially the testimony of the present church in communion with the see of rome , which averrs the holy eucharist to be our b. saviours true body . travel in your thoughts , all over europe , asia , africa , and america , and view well the vast multitudes of roman catholicks in the present age , and by the confession of our adversaries in the ten last ages . take notice of their circumstances , of learning , study , vertue , meditation , retiredness from all secular encumbrances , as to vast multitudes of them ; the prodigies of sanctity , we profess to have appeared amongst us in several ages , like the extraordinary prophets of old amongst the jews , to awaken drowsie souls : our bennets , bernards , cuthberts , bedes , dominicks , francis's , ignatius's , &c. the miracles we undoubtedly believe in every century since the apostles ; yea , in this very age wrought amongst us . for which we have such records , as you have no way to evade , but by saying they are forged , without any further proof then your own uncharitable surmise . records of such wonders , so publick and notorious , as had they been false , the ages wherein they are said to have been wrought , could not be ignorant of it , und consequently could not unanimously have told their posterity such notorious lyes , nor have recommended the books to them , wherein they are recounted as true stories . consider moreover how this numerous congregation professes her self to be the mistriss of truth , the light of the world , fitly for this end dispersed in all countrys throughout all ages , with indefatigable industry scattering the rayes of the gospel by her missionants throughout the whole earth , fearing no encounter , but challenging the whole world to dispute of what they will , and as long as they will , of the most strange articles of her faith. and then think if it could not stand with the providence of the all good god , to permit one single person , our lord jesus , for three or four years in one small country , to alarum the world with stupendious miracles and doctrins of sanctity , unless he had been indeed a true teacher : consider i say , how it can stand with the providence of the same all good god , to permit a congregation made up of so many thousands , for so many ages , so universally spread over the earth , accompanied with no less wonders , if any credit can be given to such human testimony as never yet fail'd concerning matters of fact ; if all this while this congregation teaches damnable idolatry , and is the greatest cheat that ever appear'd in the world , and yet that the divine providence should work nothing like miracles or singular and over-topping sanctity , in those who pretend to be raised up by him extraordinarily , to discover to the deceived world this grand imposture . how can this stand with the almightys desire , that the world should not mistake the true religion ? in confirmation of what i have said above , i add these considerations . 1. let but any one take the pains to look into modern or antient writers of ecclesiastical history ( which he may do in a little time , and without any great labor , by looking in the index the word eucharistia , or some such head ) and he shall find , that whensoever there has been any dispute concerning this mystery , some one or few opposed it , and all the rest of the country stood up in defence of it , as of a doctrin they had immemorially been taught by their ancestors . an evident conviction , that the antient faith of that country was , that indeed the holy eucharist was our b. saviours body and blood , and the denial of this mystery was a novelty . for example , let him consult ecclesiastical historiographers , what happen'd about the year one thousand and fifty , and he shall find that one berengarius , arch-deacon of the church of angiers oppugned this mystery , but not as a new doctrin then endeavored by some bishop or other to be imposed upon the people , but as then generally believed ; a clear sign that his own opinion was a new error , and the common faith of the country was the antient christian verity . now let him in the whole history of the catholick church , greek and latin , find me but one instance in any one christian country , on the contrary , and i 'le yield him the cause . that is , any one doctor , bishop , or priest , that about such a year of our lord , in such a country , began to preach the mystery of the real presence , upon pretence of clear scripture for it , or other arguments , and that he was opposed by the whole country , as a teacher of a new strange doctrin they had never heard of before : or else that upon such a doctors appearing they presently yielded to the force of his reasons and arguments , and relinquished their former antient faith. which notwithstanding certainly must have happen'd , not only in one , but in all christian countries , were the doctrin of the real presence a new invention , and the denial of it the antient christian faith. else how came all christendom , according to the confession of our adversaries for many ages universally to believe it ? now can any one imagin , that the belief of so strange a mystery , and which in practice makes all the believers of it idolaters , unless it be true ; could be introduced both into the greek and latin church , without any opposition , or if it were opposed , that no one writer in any one country , should make mention who they were that opposed it , and how they lost their cause ? and this , though there have not wanted writers of what has happen'd in the christian church , who have made mention of far lesser accidents , in any age wherein this belief can be pretended to have been brought in ; nay , which have taken notice in several ages and countries , how certain deniers of this mystery have attempted the bringing in of their new doctrin , & by whom they were opposed , and how they were silenced . read our own chronicles about the year 1370. concerning john wiclef , and see whether he was not opposed by all the bishops and priests of our english church as a teacher of a doctrin contrary to what they had been taught by their ancestors , when he began to teach our lord's body was not in the eucharist ? and then reflect with your self , if the doctrin of the real presence was not taught our nation , when we were first converted to christianity , how comes it to pass that all our chronicles should be silent , when or by whom we were taught this mysterious doctrin , and what assistance they had from the civil power , so unversally to impose upon our country such a strange belief ; which in all reason require ; a far greater power to make it prevail then the contrary doctrin . and yet you see where the contrary doctrin is believed , it cost no small pains and force , and time to introduce it , nor has all this neither been able to make it universal , in so much as in one christian province . make the like reflexion upon the city of rome , and consider that in the apostles daies they believed aright concerning this great mystery , and for some hundreds of years according to the concession of our adversaries . now this great and cultivated city , has memorials of what has past in it , as we have of what has past in london , and yet they make no mention of any one that ever began since their first conversion to christianity , to teach this strange doctrin and worship of the holy eucharist , but that they have immemorially from s. peter believed and adored it , as the body of their saviour and god. nor indeed can it be imagin'd how they could ever possibly change their first faith , having ever opposed all teachers of novelties , with that answer of s. stephen pope to the clergy of africa , concerning rebaptization ( never heeding all their seeming reasons , or texts of scripture understood after a new manner , as s. vincent lirinensis observes ) nihil novandum nisi quod traditum est : we must innovate nothing , but stick to the doctrin delivered to us by out ancestors . when think you should we in london be brought universally to believe the real presence , if we were resolved for ever tenaciously to adhere to the doctrin taught us by our immediat predecessors , notwithstanding whatsoever argument should be brought against us from reason or scripture ? 2. consider how our adversaries would triumph over us , could they find but one city in the whole world , which should prosess to have believed immemorially , since their first reception of the christian faith , as they do concerning the holy eucharist , and all their cronicles were either silent , or positively testified as much , and we were not able positively to shew when they began their faith , but should answer : their chronicles were corrupted , or antient records lost , or by little and little they left off imperceptibly believing as they were first taught . but if to all this they could produce in several ages , how such a doctor upon pretence of cleer scripture , endeavor'd to make them leave their antient faith , but they still retained it , opposing to all his seeming strong arguments , that thus they had been taught time out of mind by their ancestors , from their first conversion to christian religion , and to understand those scriptures otherwise . but if to all this , they could produce in several ages recorded miracles in confirmation of their faith , and we should have nothing to reply but that these miracles were feigned . think if they would not return upon us , that such wild answers open'd a way to atheists to deny all the miracles of moyses and our b. saviour . and then consider impartially whether this be not our case . 3. consider though our adversaries but very irrationally deny any miracles to have been wrought in our church , yet they cannot deny but we have records without number of notorious and most evident miracles , and such records as in civil matters no body questions . men , for example , of good judgment and honest repute attesting upon their oaths , that upon such a day , such and such miraculous events happen'd , & they were eye-witnesses of them , &c. and then reflect how it can stand with the providence of god and his desire of mankinds worshipping him according to his will , to permit even such records of miracles in a false church . for certainly a sincere desirer to find out the truth , must needs be strangely enclin'd to give credit to such records , and which moreover he should find to be credited by persons of as good judgment and integrity as himself in all christian provinces in communion with the see of rome . and indeed such records of false miracles would be as apt to deceive impartial judicious enquirers , as even the sight of false miracles themselves . for why are we so assured our senses cannot deceive us ? is it not because we never experienced them to fail us in due circumstances ? and also because if we should be necessitated by them to judge of things otherwise than they are , god almighty , who has so made our senses , would be the cause of our mistake , which were to tell a real lye ? and did tradition duely circumstantiated , ever yet fail ? and would not god almighties providence in the government of man-kind be deficient , ( it being necessary for us to know certainly not only things that are present to us , which we do by our senses ; but also things that are distant from us both in place and time , which we can only know by the report of others ) if no assured certain credit could be given to the restimony of men , though never so many in number , and of never so good repute ? especially when he obliges us to be of a religion which was taught our ancestors 1600. years before we were born , and yet we can give no assured credit to history or immemorial testimonies of whole countrys ? moreover , we finding by the experience of the age we live in , that though fabulous stories be told and printed too , yet we easily distingnish betwixt them and true histories of the present times . for that true histories gain an universal credit amongst persons of the best understanding , and the historigraphers that write them , are commended to posterity as faithful witnesses of truth ; whereas fables and fictions , every one of ordinary capacity , looks upon them as such , nor do we give any other recommendation of them to posterity then as of fabulons romances . this we experiencing in the present age , persons of humility and solid judgment , deem the like to have happen'd in the daies of their fore-fathers ; and consequently give another kind of credit to stories , how strange so ever recounted by a s. bernard , a venerable bede , or a s. bonaventure , then they do to the fictions of a don quixot , a guy of warwick , &c. and he that will consult what has happen'd in the world , will find mens eyes and other senses to have been as often mistaken , as he will find whole towns and countries to have confidently told a lye to their posterity , which they evidently knew to be a lye. and this the atheists of our days would do well to reflect on , when they so senselesly call in question the history of moyses or book of exodus , concerning the wonders wrought by almighty god in aegypt . and dr. n. n. too , must one day give a sad account for all his drollery , as merry as he makes himself with the history of lorretto , and other stories registred by persons of noted sanctity and integrity . and would he reflect a little on the difficulty of making whole countrys believe a lye , contrary to the evidence of their senses ; he would find it a greater miracle that the whole territory of lorretto should so immemorially believe so great a lye , as he would make his reader think they do , then the wonder it self he sacrilegiously scoffs at : to wit , the translation of the house , in which our b. lord was conceived by his holy mother at nazareth , out of the holy land , first into dalmatia , and then afterwards into italy . let the dr. cause a house to be built in a night , in s. james's park , and then tell the citizens of london , it was brought thither by angels out of a forreign country , and see if he can make them so universally to believe it , as they shall , no body contradicting , make their posterity believe as much ; and i perswade my self he may with the same ease , bring such a house from geneva or new-england in a night , as make the numerous multitude believe such a notorious lye. o england , england , dear native soyl , at length open thine eyes , and acknowledge the illimited goodness of the divine majesty to be such , that not contenting himself with giving us prodigies of sanctity for the first planters of christianity , and with confirming their sublime and holy doctrins with evident signs and wonders , he is ever now and then awakening the drowsie world with a s. dominick , a s. francis , or a s. xauerius , and ceases not by undeniable miracles to confirm the languishing faith of tepid christians . the sight of present miracles strangely strengthens our faith of wonders past and done long since . and believe it , 't is a next disposition to antichristianism and atheism , freely to give our selves the liberty to scoff at all miracles , though attested by never so grave authors , except such as are recorded in the four gospels : and to laugh at all lives of christian saints as ridiculous , but those of the twelve apostles ; though to an impartial considerer , one egg does not more resemble another , then do the persons we so freely deride , express the first followers of our dear redeemer , in their holy and divine conversations . 4. consider the force of s. austins argument to prove the truth of christianity . the world has actually submitted to christianity , as to a religion taught from heaven . from whence the saint argues thus . the world believed the high mysterious doctrins of christianity , either upon miracles wrought by the first teachers of them , or without miracles . if upon miracles , then you who doubt have reason also to believe them . or if the world submitted their faith to believe such strange mysteries , without any miracles , this is the greatest miracle of all , that such vast multitudes , and innumerable of these , of ripe judgement and quick understanding , should believe such strange things upon the authority of the proposer without a miracle . apply this to our present mystery . two hundred years ago the whole christian world believed the h. eucharist to be our b. saviours body , and adored it as such . hereupon i argue . these vast multitudes , and many of them of great learning and judgement , began to believe this strange mystery , either for miracles wrought by the first teachers of it , or without miracles . if upon miracles then you ought to believe it also : if without miracles , this is the greatest miracle of all that such vast multitudes , and these innumerable of them , well cultivated with learning , besides their natural ripeness of judgment , and sharpness of wit , should believe so strange a mystery , without any miracles wrought by those who first demanded their belief of it . finally consider with your self how many millions there are who believe this mystery , and would sooner part with their life then their faith of it , and these , if you have the least grain of humility , such , as you have reason to think them of as good learning , wit , and judgment as your self : add , as good christians as your self , for either piety to god , or charity to their indigent neighbor , or mortification to themselves . imagin you saw all these , as holy and as wise as your self in the several christian countrys of the whole world , all upon their knees , adoring a seeming wafer-cake , as their creator and god ; bishops , priests , doctors of divinity in vast numbers , kings and princes , men and women of all degrees and condition . and can you now think , all these people to be in their wits , and not have some strong reasons and arguments which induce them to such a faith and such a practice ? had you and i been in the stable of bethlehem in the night of our lord's nativity , and s. joseph should have told us that the little infant we saw there sucking his mothers breast , was the maker of heaven and earth ; we should no doubt have found great difficulty to believe him . but should we have staied there a while , and have seen the shepherds come in , and fall down upon their knees before him , by the admonition as they pretended of an angel that had appeared to them , as they were keeping watch over their flocks ; this doubtless would a little have enclined us to think , that at least there was something extraordinary in the new born babe . but had we staied till the comeing of the three kings , and seen them in like-manner fall down before him , making him rich presents upon the admonition , as they said , of a miraculous star which had appeared to them in their own country ; such circumstances as these , would sure have strangely urged us to the belief of that wonder of wonders . and to make use of a homebred example . who would have taken our gracious soverain charles the second , for the king of great brittain , france , and ireland , that should have seen him under the disguise of a sheepherd , sea-man , or other habit he was forced to assume , to secure his royal person ? but could you and i have peeped into this private chamber , and seen his small retinue all bare before him , and some one of them upon his knees presenting him with a cup of beer or wine : should we not think you have begun to suspect : surely this person , however and for whatsoever reasons he may disguise himself , is of another quality then his outward garb represents him to be ? nor do i less perswade my self , did you and i see the many thousands all over the world , as well of the grecian as roman church , who upon their knees with an assured faith , devoutly adore a consecrated wafer as their creator and god , if we have any , respect to reason and man-kind , and do not imagin all the world to be fools except our selves : such a prospect as this , would make us suspect in the secret of our hearts : surely under this disguise of a contemptible wafer , there is veiled some hidden majesty or other , who forces the highest adoration from such vast multitudes of all nations , and many of them so sharp-witted , and of such solid judgements , and such impartial enquirers after truth , and of so good and holy lives . say then , and we have reason to say it heartily , and without the least scruple or doubt . 't was the same out gracious soverain , who lay hid in a common oak at white-ladys , under the disguise of a peasants weed , who sits now at westminster in his princely throne invested in his royal robes . and 't is the same christ jesus our only saviour and god , who under the humble disguise of common bread and wine , is immolated here below every day upon our christian altars , who in transcendent splendor and glory , sits at the right hand of his eternal father in the heavens . sir , i have done my part , the almighty do the rest , and make you a happy child of his holy church . but sir , i beseech you give me leave to add a postscript to my fellow collegians . my dearest companions , whom with my soul i wish the same happiness with my self , both in this life and the other . i beseech you , before you be engaged in the world , and hindred from an industrious impartial enquiry after truth , by the cares of a family , and fears of wanting a competent subsistance , do your selves and your country that right , as to consider with as little passion and prejudice as you can , these my scattered thoughts ; and do not rashly conclude against transubstantiation until you have fully heard what its affertors , as well as what its deniers have to say for themselves . i was once as you are , and many suspicions of the truth of the roman catholick faith came into my mind , but still i was hindred from examining of it , with this one thought : if i turn papist , i must believe transubstantiation , but i know that 's an impossibility , and this made me sit down contented with the religion in which i was educated . but afterwards making it my business more in good earnest to save my soul , and setting my self impartially to examin what was the belief of the primitive times concerning this mystery , and finding mostclear testimonies for the real presence in the most renowned . primitive christian doctors , i was much amazed , having been always taught they were of a contrary faith. i read the citations to a clergy-man of my acquaintance , i demand of him what he thought their belief was , who in those words expressed their faith ? he told me , no doubt but they believed as the church of rome believes . i consult the authors themselves , read the context before and after the said citations , i am still more and more convinced , s. augustin , chrysostom , cyril , &c. believed as the church of rome now believes . hereupon i resolve not to venture my soul upon a point of philosophy , for example , whether god almighty by all his omnipotency can make a body be in two places at once or no ? i believe two mysteries already , both which puzzle and shock my reason as much as transubstantiation , to wit , the b. trinity and the incarnation of the son of god , why may not i believe a third as well ; especially when i have the same arguments for one as the other : clear scriptures , the immemorial belief of all nations ever since the apostle , &c. and indeed , if god almighty will oblige me to believe what was taught sixteen hundred years before i was born , how should he expect i should come to the knowledge of this , but by such books as were written in those times , and near those times , and by the testimony of all christian countrys what has been immemorially believed by them ever since they were christians ? now if it be too long a journey to go over all christendom , to ask of them , what is , and what alwaies has been their paith as to transubstantiation , and how they have always understood the holy scriptures that speak of that mystery go but to the royal exchange in london , and there you may meet with persons , which at least have been in all or most christian countrys , and ask of them what the belief and practice of christendom is , and you will find they all believe and adore the b. sacrament , and have done so , as they say , immemorially ever since they were christians , as roman-catholicks do in england ; or else if they do for so me numbers amongst them believe and practice otherwise , 't is only since such a time above , &c. and then reflect how by such an argument you prove , as you think , efficaciously against an antiscripturist , that the books of the old and new testament are infallible , and you securely believe every particular story in them , though never so strange ; in like manner the change of saturday-sabbath into sunday , against the sibbatarians ; and fasting in lent as apostolical with bishop gunning against non-conformists . and indeed it is impossible such an universal effect should ever be without a proportionate universal cause . that so many several christian countrys should immemorially abstain from certain meats on fridays every week , and in lent every year , or adore a consecrated piece of bread as their creator and god , unless they had been either first taught so to do by the first planters of christianity ; or by some preachers since ; or had agreed so to do in some general council by their representatives , is impossible . should we ever think you , even in the single city of london , have fall'n by little and little to have shut up our shops , on the anniversary of the death of our gracious soverain charles the first , unless we had been commanded so to do by some universal authority , ecclesiastical or civil ? take notice , by this argument is also proved all other points of catholick practice , or faith , as purgatory , prayer for the dead , &c. but especially such as nature has a difficulty to believe or do . that one man should kill himself is no wonder , but that all the inhabitants of a populous city should kill themselves , would be such a wonder as never yet happen'd in nature . against all that has been said , i doubt not but you will be apt to reply . we acknowledge for divers ages , our own and other christian countrys believed the holy eucharist to be really and substantially our b. saviours true body & blood , & adored it as such , but yet we cannot believe that either s. peter and paul at rome , or s. joseph of arimathia in our own country taught any such doctrin , but that imperceptibly by little and little the whole christian world changed the faith that was first planted by the apostles , as particular men grow gray , and whole countries change their languages imperceptibly . for answer to this reply , let us not discourse in generals , but consider and devise with our selves how possibly such a thing might practically happen . for example , let us take the city of rome into our consideration . it s confessed by all , that the inhabitants of that cultivated city , priests and people universally do believe , and have for many generations believed , a consecrated wafer to be jesus christ , god and man , veiled with the outward appearance or species of common bread : now we are to enquire , how they came to this strange faith ? say then ; rome by little and little began to believe this mystery , first one and then another , till at length the whole city was of that belief . but how ? without a teacher , and all in the same year , or in what length of time ? that one man , or some few in a populous city , should of themselves fall to the belief of such a strange mystery , contrary to what has been believed by their ancestors , might be granted ; but that the whole city learned and unlearned , priest and people , should so change their faith , and that for such a strange one too , without a master or a teacher , that 's wholly incredible : or if some bishop or priest of rome since the apostles , had perswaded the people to believe the strange doctrin of transubstantiation , how comes it to pass , seeing the belief of the doctrin is still retained , that the authors name is not retained with singular honor and reverence by the believers of it , as the names of calvin and luther are by calvinists and lutherans ; and the names of the first preachers of christianity by the several christian countrys they converted ? besides , whosoever priest or layman should have begun to preach such a strange and incredible doctrin to nature , must needs have met with great opposition from all sorts of persons ; from good men , because his doctrin tended to make them all gross idolaters , and worshippers of a piece of bread as god ; from bad men , because his doctrin strangely shocked their sense and reason , which nature and vitious followers of nature would by no means endure . now if opposition were made at the first introducing of this new faith , how comes it to pass , all , both roman and other histories are silent as to any such thing ? should i by way of prophesie tell you , that the great city of london , within these 300. years , shall as universally , as does now the city of rome believe and adore the holy eucharist as jesus christ himself , and this so imperceptibly , that neither they , nor neighbouring citys or countrys shall perceive it , till the whole city be quite changed : nay 300. years hence , when they shall be charged with idolatry and innovation for such their belief and practice , they shall profess that they have always so believed and practised ever since they were christians . and all this , though they shall for these 300. years have priests and bishops , whose office it shall be to teach the quite contrary doctrin , and these priests shall be such zealous retainers of the doctrin they now believe , that when in the compass of this 300. years to come , there shall rise up teachers of new doctrins , deniers of the divinity of our saviour , and the eternity of the torments of impenitent sinners , &c. and shall alledge strong human reasons and seeming scriptures for themselves , these priests shall oppose , we must innovate nothing , we must stick to the belief our ancestors were of in the year 1675. then god almighty testified from heaven , by evident miracles , the truth of our fore-elders faith , and then we had charge not to change our faith , though on angel from heaven should accuse us of mistake , and therefore you must pardon us if we adhere to this faith. add. there shall not want frequent assemblies of the wisest and best learned in the city , and they shall meet on purpose to enquire whether the faith and practice of the year 1675. be kept , and yet they shall never take notice of so gross and notorious a change , as the believing and adoring a piece of bread as god , till the whole city be in such a belief and practice , but other mistakes that some particular men were bringing in , they shall observe and correct . nay 300. years hence , there shall rise up a certain priest , who shall accuse all the priests and people of the city for believing otherwise th●n their ancestors did in 1675 , but yet shall not be able by vertue of any history or oral tradition , to shew how , or by whom they were perswaded to that strange faith they shall then be of ; and yet there shall not want historiographers neither , who shall take notice of other notorious changes that shall happen both in church and state in those 300. years . think now seriously with your selves , how impossible it is for any such thing to happen in nature , and examin impartially whether the deniers of transubstantiation be not forced to affirm the like incredible wonder to have happen'd not in one city alone , but in many cities and whole countrys . but the wonder would be yet greater , if there were not one believer of transubstantiation in the year 1675. in the city of london , nor never had been one since the first planting of christianity , neither there , nor in any other neighbouring city or country : and yet all this must be solved by deniers of transubstantiation to be apostolical doctrin . for , place your self in what age of christianity you please , and suppose the known cities and countries of christendom to believe universally concerning the holy eucharist as the citizens of london generally do now . take for example the year 500. after our b. lord ( though our adversaries pretend to be willing to be judged by the doctors of the first 600. ) add to 500. a decursion of 300. or 500. years ; and then see what faith the christian world is of , and you 'l find they universally believe and adore the holy eucharist as rome does at this present . joyn now your selves with berengarius in the year one thousand and fifty or thereabouts , and see what account you can give , how all your fellow clergy and laity came so to have changed and 〈…〉 from what it was in the fifth century ? for you ●●●ll not think the several councils gathered against that denier of the real presence , the bishops in them , then first began to believe the real presence , and that when they returned to their several diocesses they taught them a strange new doctrin , which they by inspiration had newly learnt when they were assembled together ; but they only gave in their verdicts what immemorially had been believed in their several countrys they came from , as to that mystery . as if , for example , a synod of all the bishops in england should meet in the year 1675. to examin concerning the quakers , whether they preached false and antichristian doctrin or no , in denying baptism and all other sacraments ; and they should conclude against those innovators ; would you infer thence , the church of england only in the year 1675. and never before , reverenced baptism or any other sacrament of christ ? and yet this is just our case , when our adversaries will have the belief and adoration of the b. sacrament to have not been heard of before the councils that condemned berengarius . as to your instances of a man growing gray , and whole countrys imperceptibly changing their language ; is it possible think you for any mans whole head by little and little to grow gray , and neither he nor any other should take notice of it , till he were as white as snow , and this , though he and others were charged to take notice of every hair that should grow gray , and to pluck it out immediatly , and he and others should frequently consult whether any such change were made in his head or no ? say the same concerning a whole countrys changing their language by little and little . impose a severe penalty against any one that in writing or speech should introduce a new word , and appoint officers to take notice of all such new coyned words , and let these officers have frequent consults to this purpose . add a menace of death both to overseers and people , if any such alteration through their neglect of their duty should happen . and then think how it could be possible for a whole country by little and little imperceptibly to change its language ? the like change and menace gave jesus christ to the pastors of his church not to change their faith. and yet after all this can not one country , but the whole christian world have so changed their faith , as they became imperceptibly most stupid idolaters ? to conclude , if you examin the matter well , you will find , you must either resolve to believe the strange doctrin of transubstantiation , or else something far more incredible . soli christo gloria . a brief discourse of the real presence of the body and blood of christ in the celebration of the holy eucharist wherein the witty artifices of the bishop of meaux and of monsieur maimbourg are obviated, whereby they would draw in the protestants to imbrace the doctrine of transubstantiation. more, henry, 1614-1687. 1686 approx. 170 kb of xml-encoded text transcribed from 48 1-bit group-iv tiff page images. text creation partnership, ann arbor, mi ; oxford (uk) : 2003-07 (eebo-tcp phase 1). a51288 wing m2643 estc r25165 08788055 ocm 08788055 41811 this keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the early english books online text creation partnership. this phase i text is available for reuse, according to the terms of creative commons 0 1.0 universal . the text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission. early english books online. (eebo-tcp ; phase 1, no. a51288) transcribed from: (early english books online ; image set 41811) images scanned from microfilm: (early english books, 1641-1700 ; 1266:3) a brief discourse of the real presence of the body and blood of christ in the celebration of the holy eucharist wherein the witty artifices of the bishop of meaux and of monsieur maimbourg are obviated, whereby they would draw in the protestants to imbrace the doctrine of transubstantiation. more, henry, 1614-1687. wake, william, 1657-1737. 94 p. printed for walter kettilby, london : 1686. attributed to henry more, and also to william wake--nuc pre-1956 imprints. reproduction of original in the huntington library. created by converting tcp files to tei p5 using tcp2tei.xsl, tei @ oxford. re-processed by university of nebraska-lincoln and northwestern, with changes to facilitate morpho-syntactic tagging. gap elements of known extent have been transformed into placeholder characters or elements to simplify the filling in of gaps by user contributors. eebo-tcp is a partnership between the universities of michigan and oxford and the publisher proquest to create accurately transcribed and encoded texts based on the image sets published by proquest via their early english books online (eebo) database (http://eebo.chadwyck.com). the general aim of eebo-tcp is to encode one copy (usually the first edition) of every monographic english-language title published between 1473 and 1700 available in eebo. eebo-tcp aimed to produce large quantities of textual data within the usual project restraints of time and funding, and therefore chose to create diplomatic transcriptions (as opposed to critical editions) with light-touch, mainly structural encoding based on the text encoding initiative (http://www.tei-c.org). the eebo-tcp project was divided into two phases. the 25,363 texts created during phase 1 of the project have been released into the public domain as of 1 january 2015. anyone can now take and use these texts for their own purposes, but we respectfully request that due credit and attribution is given to their original source. users should be aware of the process of creating the tcp texts, and therefore of any assumptions that can be made about the data. text selection was based on the new cambridge bibliography of english literature (ncbel). if an author (or for an anonymous work, the title) appears in ncbel, then their works are eligible for inclusion. selection was intended to range over a wide variety of subject areas, to reflect the true nature of the print record of the period. in general, first editions of a works in english were prioritized, although there are a number of works in other languages, notably latin and welsh, included and sometimes a second or later edition of a work was chosen if there was a compelling reason to do so. image sets were sent to external keying companies for transcription and basic encoding. quality assurance was then carried out by editorial teams in oxford and michigan. 5% (or 5 pages, whichever is the greater) of each text was proofread for accuracy and those which did not meet qa standards were returned to the keyers to be redone. after proofreading, the encoding was enhanced and/or corrected and characters marked as illegible were corrected where possible up to a limit of 100 instances per text. any remaining illegibles were encoded as <gap>s. understanding these processes should make clear that, while the overall quality of tcp data is very good, some errors will remain and some readable characters will be marked as illegible. users should bear in mind that in all likelihood such instances will never have been looked at by a tcp editor. the texts were encoded and linked to page images in accordance with level 4 of the tei in libraries guidelines. copies of the texts have been issued variously as sgml (tcp schema; ascii text with mnemonic sdata character entities); displayable xml (tcp schema; characters represented either as utf-8 unicode or text strings within braces); or lossless xml (tei p5, characters represented either as utf-8 unicode or tei g elements). keying and markup guidelines are available at the text creation partnership web site . eng bossuet, jacques bénigne, 1627-1704. maimbourg, louis, 1610-1686. transubstantiation. 2002-12 tcp assigned for keying and markup 2003-02 apex covantage keyed and coded from proquest page images 2003-05 rina kor sampled and proofread 2003-05 rina kor text and markup reviewed and edited 2003-06 pfs batch review (qc) and xml conversion imprimatur . guil. needham r mo in christo patri ac d. d. wilhelmo archiep. cantuar. à sacr . domest . ex aedib . lambeth . iul. 2. 1686. a brief discourse of the real presence of the body and blood of christ in the celebration of the holy eucharist : wherein the witty artifices of the bishop of meaux and of monsieur maimbourg are obviated , whereby they would draw in the protestants to imbrace the doctrine of transubstantiation . john 6. v. 54 , 63. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . calvin instit. lib. 4. cap. 17. in sacra sua coena jubet me christus sub symbolis panis ac vini corpus ac sanguinem suum sumere , manducare ac bibere . nihil dubito quin & ipse verè porrigat & ego recipiam . tantum absurda rejicio quae aut coelesti illius majestate indigna , aut ab humanae ejus naturae veritate aliena esse , apparet . london , printed for walter kettilby at the bishop's head in s t paul's church-yard , 1686. a brief discourse of the real presence . chap. i. 1. the occasion of writing this treatise . 2. the sence of the church of england touching transubstantiation . 3. three passages in her articles , liturgie and homilies that seem to imply a real presence . 4. a yielding at least for the present that the church of england is for a real presence , but of that flesh and blood of christ which he discourses of in the sixth chapter of st. john's gospel , though she be for a real absence of that which hung on the cross. 5. that our saviour himself distinguishes betwixt that flesh and blood he bore about with him , and that he there so earnestly discourses of . 6. that this divine food there discoursed of , the flesh and blood of christ , is most copiously to be fed upon in the holy eucharist , and that our communion-service alludes to the same , nor does by such a real presence imply any transubstantiation . 1. the occasion of writing this short treatise was this . i observing the papers here in england , published in behalf of the church of rome , and for the drawing off people from the orthodox faith of the church of england , which holds with the ancient pure apostolick church in the primitive times , before that general degeneracy of the church came in , to drive at nothing more earnestly , than the maintaining their grand error touching the eucharist , viz. their doctrine of transubstantiation : into which they would bring back the reformed churches , by taking hold of some intimations , or more open professions of theirs , of a real presence ( though they absolutely deny the roman doctrine of transubstantiation ) and thus entangling and ensnaring them in those free professions touching that mystery of the eucharist , would by hard pulling hale them into that rightfully relinquish'd errour , for which and several others , they justly left the communion of the church of rome : i thought it my duty so far as my age , and infirmness of my body will permit , to endeavour to extricate the reformation , and especially our church of england from these entanglements with which these witty and cunning writers would entangle her , in her concessions touching that mysterious theory , and to shew there is no clashing betwixt her declaring against transubstantiation and those passages which seem to imply a real presence of the body and bloud of christ at the celebration of the holy eucharist . 2. concerning which , that we may the more clearly judge , we will bring into view what she says touching them both . and as touching the former ( article 28. ) her words are these : transubstantiation ( or the change of the substance of bread and wine in the supper of the lord ) cannot be proved by holy writ , but it is repugnant to the plain words of scripture , overthroweth the nature of a sacrament , and hath given occasion to many superstitions . and in the latter part of the rubrick at the end of the communion-service , she says , that the sacramental bread and wine remain still in their very natural substances , and therefore may not be adored ( for that were idolatry to be abhorred of all faithful christians ) and the natural body and bloud of our saviour christ are in heaven and not here , it being against the truth of christ's natural body to be at one time in more places than one . this is sufficiently express against transubstantiation . 3. now those passages that seem to imply a real presence in the eucharist are these . in the above-named article 28. the body of christ , saith our church , is given , taken , and eaten in the supper only after an heavenly and spiritual manner . and the mean whereby the body of christ is received and eaten in the supper , is faith. against which our adversaries suggest ; that no faith can make us actually receive and eat that , which is god knows how far distant from us , and that therefore we imply that the body of christ is really present in the eucharist . another passage occurs in our catechism ; where it is told us , that the inward part of the sacrament , or thing signified , is the body and bloud of christ , which are verily and indeed taken and received by the faithful in the lord's supper . where [ verily ] and [ indeed ] seems to imply a real presence and participation of the body and bloud of christ. the last place shall be that in the homily , of worthy receiving and reverend esteeming of the sacrament of the body and bloud of christ. the words are these . but thus much we must be sure to hold , that in the supper of the lord there is no vain ceremony , no bare sign , no untrue figure of a thing absent . but as the scripture saith , the table of the lord , the bread and cup of the lord , the memory of christ , the annunciation of his death , yea the communion of the body and blood of the lord , in a marvellous incorporation , which by the operation of the holy ghost ( the very bond of our conjunction with christ ) is through faith wrought in the souls of the faithful . whereby not only their souls live to eternal life , but they surely trust to win their bodies a resurrection to immortality . and immediately there is added , the true understanding of this fruition and union which is betwixt the body and the head , betwixt the true believers and christ , the ancient catholick fathers both perceiving themselves , and commending to their people , were not afraid to call this supper , some of them , the salve of immortality , and sovereign preservative against death ; others the deifick communion , others the sweet dainties of our saviour , the pledge of eternal health , the defence of faith , the hope of the resurrection ; others the food of immortality , the healthful grace and the conservatory to everlasting life . there are so many high expressions in these passages , that our adversaries who would by this hook pluck us back again into the errour of transubstantiation , will unavoidably imagine and alledge from hence that if we will stand to the assertions of our own church , we must acknowledge the real presence of the body and bloud of our saviour in the sacrament . 4. and let us be so civil to them as at least for the present to yield , that understanding it in a due sense , we do acknowledge the real presence . but it does not at all follow from thence that we must hold that that very body of christ that hung upon the cross , and whose bloud was there shed , is really present in the sacrament , but that our church speaking conformably to christ's discourse on this matter in the sixth of iohn , and to the ancient primitive fathers , whose expressions do plainly allude to that discourse of our saviour's in the sixth of s. iohn , doth assert both a real presence of the body and bloud of christ to be received by the faithful in the eucharist , and also a real absence of that body and bloud that was crucified and shed on the cross. and this seems to be the express doctrine of our saviour in the above mentioned chapter of s. iohn , where the eternal word incarnate speaks thus — john 6. v. 51. i am the living bread which came down from heaven , ( viz. the manna which the psalmist calls the food of angels also ) if any eat of this bread he shall live for ever ( viz. of this true manna , of which the manna in the wilderness was but a type ) and the bread that i will give is my flesh ( which therefore still is that immortalizing manna , the true bread from heaven ) which i will give for the life of the world , that the whole intellectual creation may live thereby , it being their vivifick food . for as you may gather by vers . 62 , 63. he does not understand his flesh that hung on the cross. and it was the ignorance of the iews that they thought he did : and therefore they cryed out on him , saying , v. 52. how can this man give us his flesh to eat ? and that is because they took him to be a mere man , or an ordinary man , not the incarnate logos . which logos clemens alexandrinus calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , the impassible man ; and trismegistus , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , that one man the son of god born of him , which he says is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , the author of regeneration , as having the life in him , the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , iohn 1. v. 4. and this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or life the divine or spiritual body , one necessary element of regeneration , which mystery we cannot here insist upon . but in the mean time let us observe our saviour's answer to this scruple of the iews , he is so far from receding from what he said , that he with all earnestness and vehemency asserts the same again . then iesus said unto them , verily , verily , i say unto you , except you eat the flesh of the son of man ( that is of the messias , or the word incarnate ) and drink his bloud , you have no life in you . whoso eateth my flesh and drinketh my bloud hath eternal life , and i will raise him up at the last day . for my flesh is meat indeed , and my bloud is drink indeed . he that eateth my flesh and drinketh my bloud dwelleth in me and i in him . as the living father hath sent me and i live by the father , so he that eateth me ( viz. that eateth his flesh and drinketh his bloud ) even he shall live by me . this is that bread that came down from heaven , not as your fathers did eat manna and are dead ; he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever . 5. this is that earnest , lofty and sublime discourse of our saviour touching his real flesh and blood , that the scandal given to the jews could not drive him off from , and persisting in it he gave also offence to his disciples , that muttered and said , this is an hard saying , who can hear it ? wherefore i must confess ingenuously , that it seems to me incredible , that under so lofty mysterious a style , and earnest asseveration of what he affirms , though to the scandal of both the iews and his own disciples , there should not be couched some most weighty and profound truth concerning some real flesh and blood of his , touching which this vehement and sublime discourse is framed , which is a piece of that part of the christian philosophy ( as some of the antients call christianity ) which origen terms 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . the object of this eating and drinking is the flesh and blood of christ : but to rectifie the errour of his disciples , he plainly affirms , that he doth not mean what he said of the flesh and blood he then bore about with him . in v. 61 , 62 , 63. does this offend you ( saith he to them ) what and if you shall see the son of man ascend up where he was before ( then my particular natural body will be far enough removed from you , and your selves then from so gross a conceit as to think i understand this of my natural , particular body or flesh ) . no says he , the flesh profiteth nothing , it is the spirit that quickens ; the words that i speak unto you , they are spirit and they are life , that is to say , they are concerning that spiritual body and life or spirit that accompanies it ( that which is born of the flesh is flesh , and that which is born of the spirit is spirit ) the both seed and nourishment of those that are regenerate ; the principles of their regeneration , and the divine food for their nutrition , whereby they grow up to their due stature in christ. 6. and where , or where so fully is this divine food to be had , as in that most solemn and most devotional approaching god in the celebration of the communion of the body and blood of christ , where we both testifie and advance thereby our spiritual union with him , according as he has declared in iohn ch . 6. he that eateth my flesh , and drinketh my blood , dwelleth in me , and i in him . upon which our communion-service thus glosses : that if with a true penitent heart and lively faith we receive this holy sacrament , we then spiritually eat the flesh of christ and drink his blood , we dwell in christ and christ in us , we are one with christ and christ with us . and whereas the adversaries of our church object , we cannot eat the flesh of christ and drink his blood , in the celebration of the lords supper , unless his flesh and blood be really present ; we do acknowledge that that flesh and blood which our saviour discourses of in s t iohn , and which our liturgie alludes to , as also those notable sayings of the fathers above-cited out of the homily , touching the worthy receiving the lord's supper , is really present in the eucharist . and that there is that which christ calls his flesh and blood distinct from that which he then bore about with him , and was crucified on the cross , he does most manifestly declare in that discourse in s t iohn , as i have already proved . so manifest is it that the real presence does not imply any transubstantiation of the bread and wine into the body and blood of christ. chap. ii. 1. the bishop of meaux his establishing transubstantiation upon the literal sense of [ this is my body ] . 2. that according to the literal sense , the bread that christ blessed was both bread and the body of christ at once , and that the avoiding that absurdity cast them upon transubstantiation . 3. that transubstantiation exceeds that avoided absurdity as contradicting the senses as well as reason , and labouring under the same absurdity it self . 4. further reasons why the road of the literal sense is to be left , and that we are to strike into the figurative , the former contradicting the principles of physicks . 5. of metaphysicks . 6. of mathematicks . 7. and of logick . 8. that transubstantiation implies the same thing is and is not at the same time . 9. a number of absurdities plainly resulting from transubstantiation . 1. and therefore to prop up this great mistake of transubstantiation , they are fain to recur and stick to a literal sense of those words of our saviour [ this is my body ] which i finding no where more handsomely done than by the right reverend bishop of meaux , i shall produce the passage in his own words ( that is the translation of them ) in his exposition of the doctrine of the catholick church , sect. 10. the real presence , says he , of the body and blood of our saviour is solidly established by the words of the institution ( this is my body ) which we understand literally ; and there is no more reason to ask us why we fix our selves to the proper and literal sense , than there is to ask a traveller why he follows the high road. it is their parts who have recourse to the figurative sense and who take by-paths , to give a reason for what they do . as for us , since we find nothing in the words which jesus christ makes use of for the institution of this mystery obliging us to take them in a figurative sense , we think that to be a sufficient reason to determine us to the literal . 2. in answer to this , i shall , if it be not too great a presumption , first accompany this venerable person in this high road of the literal sence of the words of institution ( this is my body ) and then shew how this road , as fairly as it looks , is here a mere angiportus that hath no exitus or passage , so that we must be forced to divert out of it , or go abck again . first then , let us take this supposed high road , and say the words ( this is my body ) are to be understood literally . wherefore let us produce the whole text and follow this kind of gloss , luke 22. 19. and he took bread , and gave thanks , and brake it , and gave unto 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 blood , which is shed for you . now if we keep to the mere literal sense , this cup ( as well as this bread is the body of christ ) must be really the new testament in christ's bloud , which is a thing unavoidable if we tye our selves to the literal sense of the words . but why is not the cup the bloud or covenant in christ's bloud ? but that a cup and bloud are disparata , or in general , opposita , which to affirm one of another is a contradiction ; as if one should say a bear is a horse , and therefore we are constrained to leave the literal sense , and to recur to a figurative . but precisely to keep to the institution of that part of the sacrament that respects christ's body ; it is plain that what he took he gave thanks for , what he gave thanks for he brake , what he brake he gave to his disciples , saying , this ( which he took , gave thanks for , brake , and gave to his disciples , viz. the above-mentioned bread ) is my body . wherefore the literal sense must necessarily be , this bread ( as before it was this cup ) is my body . insomuch that according to this literal sense it is both really bread still , and really the body of christ at once . which , i believe , there is no romanist but will be ashamed to admit . but why cannot he admit this but that bread and the body of christ are opposita , and therefore the one cannot be said to be the other without a perfect repugnancy or contradiction to humane reason ; as absurd as if one should say a bear is a horse , or a rose a black-bird , whence , by the bye , we may note the necessary use of reason in matters of religion , and that what is a plain contradiction to humane reason , such as a triangle is a circle , or a cow an horse , are not to be admitted for articles of the christian faith. and for this reason , i suppose the church of rome fell into the opinion of transubstantiation , ( from this literal way of expounding these words [ this is my body ] ) rather than according to the genuine leading of that way , they would admit that what christ gave his disciples , was both real bread and the real body of christ at once . 3. but see the infelicity of this doctrine of transubstantiation , which does not only contradict the inviolable principles of reason in humane souls , but also all the outward senses , upon which account it is more intolerable than that opinion which they seem so much to abhor , as to prefer transubstantiation before it , though it contradict only reason , not the outward senses , which rightly circumstantiated are fit judges touching sensible objects , whether they be this or that , fish or fowl , bread or flesh. nay i may add that these transubstantiators have fallen over and above that contradiction to the rightly circumstantiated senses , into that very absurdity , that they seemed so much to abhor from , that is the confounding two opposite species into one individual substance , viz. that one and the same individual substance should be really both bread and christ's body at once . but by their transubstantiating the individual substance of the bread into the individual substance of christ's body , they run into this very repugnancy which they seemed before so cautiously to avoid ; two individual substances ( as species infimae ) being opposita , and therefore uncapable of being said to be the same , or to be pronounced one of the other without a contradiction . it is impossible that the soul of socrates , for example , should be so transubstantiated into the soul of plato , that it should become his soul , insomuch that it may be said of socrates his soul , that it is the soul of plato ; and there is the same reason of transubstantiating the substance of the bread into the substance of the body of christ. so that the substance of the bread may be said to be the body of christ , or the substance of his body , which it must either be , or be annihilated , and then it is not the transubstantiation of the substance of the bread , but the annihilation of it , into the body of christ. 4. and having rid in this fair promising road of the literal sense , but thus far , i conceive , i have made it manifest , that it is not passable , but that we have discovered such difficulties as may very well move me to strike out of it , or return back . and further , to shew i do it not rashly , i shall add several other reasons , as this venerable person ( that thinks fittest to keep in it still ) doth but rightfully require ; as declaring , it is their parts who have recourse to the figurative sense , and who take by-paths to give a reason why they do so . wherefore besides what i have produced already , i add these transcribed out of a treatise of mine writ many years ago . besides then the repugnancy of this doctrine of transubstantiation to the common sense of all men , according to which it cannot but be judged to be bread still , i shall now shew how it contradicts the principles of all arts and sciences ( which if we may not make use of in theology , to what great purpose are all the universities in christendom ? ) the principles , i say , of physicks , of metaphysicks , of mathematicks , and of logick . it is a principle in physicks , that that internal space or place that a body occupies , is equal to the body that occupies it . now let us suppose that one and the same body occupies two such internal places or spaces at once . this body therefore is equal to two spaces which are double to one single space ; wherefore the body is double to that body in one single space , and therefore one and the same body double to it self , which is an enormous contradiction . 5. again in metaphysicks , the body of christ is acknowledged one , and that as much as any one body else in the world. now the metaphysical notion of [ one ] is to be indivisum à se ( both quoad partes and quoad totum ) as well as divisum à quolibet alio ; but the body of christ being both in heaven , and without any continuance of that body here upon earth also , the whole body is divided from the whole body , and therefore is entirely both unum and multa , which is a perfect contradiction . 6. thirdly , in the mathematicks ( concil . trident. sess. 13. ) the council of trent saying , that in the separation of the parts of the species ( that which bears the outward show of bread and wine ) that from this division there is a parting of the whole , divided into so many entire bodies of christ , the body of christ being always at the same time equal to it self . it follows , that a part of the division is equal to the whole that is divided , against that common notion in euclid , that the whole is bigger than the part . 7. and lastly , in logick , it is a maxim , that the parts agree indeed with the whole , but disagree one with another ; but in the above said division of the host or sacrament , the parts do so well agree , that they are intirely the same individual thing . and whereas any division , whether logical or physical , is the division of some one into many , this is but the division of one into one and it self , which is a perfect contradiction . 8. to all which you may add , that the transubstantiation of the bread and wine into the body and blood of christ implys , that the same thing both is and is not at the same time ( which is against that fundamental principle in logick and metaphysicks , that both parts of a contradiction cannot be true ) which i prove thus . for that individual thing that can be made , or is to be made of any thing , is not ; the progress in this case being à privatione ad habitum , as the schools speak , and the terms of generation or of being made , viz. à quo and ad quem being non esse and esse , or non-existent and existent , so that that passing , is from non-existent to existent . now the individual body of christ is to be made of the wafer consecrated , for it is turned into his individual body . but his individual body was before this consecration ; wherefore it both was and was not at the same time . for in the making thereof there was a passing from the terminus à quo , which is the non-existency of the thing to be made , to the terminus ad quem , to the existency of it , which yet was in being before . 9. these difficulties are sufficient to show that this high road of the literal sense taken to establish transubstantiation is not passable , so that there is a necessity of diverting or going back . nor will it be much needful to hint briefly these or other like absurdities more intelligible to the vulgar capacity , such as , that the same body at the same time is greater and lesser than it self ; is but a foot distant from me or less , and yet many thousand miles distant from me : that one and the same person may be intirely present with himself , and some hundred thousand miles absent from himself at once : that he may sit still on the grass , and yet journey and walk at the same time : that an organized body that hath head , feet , hands , &c. is intirely in every part of it self , the comely parts in the more uncomely : that the same body now in heaven may really present it self on earth without passing any space either directly or circuitously : that our saviour christ communicating with his disciples in the last supper , swallowed down his whole intire body , limbs , back , belly , head and mouth and all into his stomach , which might amuze and puzzle one to conceive how it was possible for his disciples not to miss the sight of his hands and head , though his cloaths were still visible as not being swallowed down into his stomach . or , whether our saviour swallowed down his own body into his stomach or no , this puzzle will still remain , how his disciples could swallow him down without his cloaths , he being still in his cloaths ; or how they could swallow him down in his cloaths , the bread being not transubstantiated into his cloaths , but into his body only . these and several such absurdities it were easie to enumerate . but i hope i have produced so much already that i may , and any one else , be thought to have very good cause to leave this high road of the literal sense , and betake our selves to that more safe path of the figurative , whereby transubstantiation with all its absurdities is avoided . chap. iii. 1. an evasion of the incredibility of transubstantiation drawn from the omnipotency of god. 2. ans. that it is no derogation to god's omnipotency not to be able to do what it implies a contradiction to be done . 3. if this transubstantiation had been fecible , yet it had been repugnant to the goodness and wisdom of christ to have effected it . 4. a marvelous witty device of taking away all the absurdities of transubstantiation , by giving to christ's body a supernatural manner of existence . 5. that the neat artifice of this sophistry lies in putting the smooth term of supernatural for counter-essential or asystatal . 6. that it is an asystatal manner of existence , proved from the author's description thereof in several particulars . arguments from the multiplication of christ's body , and difference of time of its production . 7. from non-extension of parts . 8. from independency of place . 9. to make a body independent of place as unconceivable as to make it independent of time. 10. the argument from being whole in every part of the symbols . 1. out of which absurdities the most witty evasion offered to our consideration that i have met with , is in that ingenious and artfully composed treatise , entitled , a papist mis-represented and represented . in his chapter of the eucharist toward the end , it is well worth the transcribing that i may offer some brief answers to the things there comprized . the papist represented , saith he ( pag. 11. lin . 22. ) not at all hearkning to his senses in a matter where god speaks ; he unfeignedly confesses , that he that made the world of nothing by his sole word , that cured diseases by his word , that raised the dead by his word , that expelled devils , that commanded the winds and seas , that multiplied bread , that changed water into wine by his word , and sinners into just men , cannot want power to change bread and wine into his own body and bloud by his sole word . 2. it is an invidious thing to dispute the power of the eternal logos or word incarnate , who is god of god , very god of very god , and therefore omnipotent , and can do all things that imply no contradiction to be done , as most certainly none of these things there specifi'd do imply it . but things repugnant to be done we may , and that with due reverence , declare god cannot do . as the apostle does not stick to say , god cannot lye , hebr. 6. 18. and why is it impossible for god to lye , but that it is repugnant to the perfection of his nature , and particularly that attribute of his veracity . nor will any adventure to affirm that he can make a globe or cylinder which shall be equidistant from , or touch a plane though but in half of their spherical or cylindrical superficies : or a circle from whose center the lines drawn shall be unequal , or a rectangle triangle , the power of whose hypotenusa shall not be equal to both the powers of the basis and cathetus . and in fine , there are sixt and immutable ideas of things , and such necessary and inseparable respects and properties of them , that to imagine them mutable , or that god can change them , is to disorder and change the eternal and immutable intellect of god himself . of which those indeleble and necessary notions , which the minds of all mankind are conscious to themselves of , if they be but awakned into free attention thereto , is but a compendious transcript . and therefore god his being not able to do any thing that is a contradiction to those eternal ideas and habitudes of them in his own mind , is no lessening of his omnipotency , but to imagine otherwise , is to dissolve the eternal frame of the divine intellect , and under a pretence of amplifying his omnipotency , to enable god to destroy himself , or to make him so weak or impotent as to be capable of being destroyed by himself , which is a thing impossible . 3. but suppose the eternal word incarnate could have turned the bread and wine into his own individual body and bloud , and the thing it self were fecible , though it seems so palpably contradictious to us : yet there would be this difficulty still remaining , that it is repugnant to his wisdom and goodness so to do ( as the apostle says , it is impossible for god to lye ) in that manner he is supposed to have done it , that is , in declaring , a thing is done that is repugnant so apparently to our intellectual faculties , and leaves so palpable an assurance to all our senses , though never so rightly circumstantiated , that it is not done , but that it is still bread ; and yet that these species of bread and wine should be supported by a miracle , to obfirm or harden us in our unbelief of this mystery of transubstantiation . how does this sute with either the wisdom of god , if he would in good earnest have us to believe this mystery , or with his goodness , to give this scandal to the world , for whom christ died , and to occasion so bloudy persecutions of innumerable innocent souls , that could not believe a thing so contrary to all sense and reason , and indeed to passages of scripture it self , whose penmen he did inspire ? wherefore this is a plain evincement that our saviour meant figuratively when he said [ this is my body ] and that his disciples understood him so ( there being nothing more usual in the jewish language than to call the sign by the name of the thing signified ) and that this literal gloss has been introduced by after-ages without any fault of our saviour . but in defence of the literal sense which he would have to infer transubstantiation , our author holds on thus , viz. 4. that this may be done without danger of multiplying his body , and making as many christs as altars , or leaving the right hand of his father , but only by giving to his body a supernatural manner of existence , by which being left without extension of parts , and rendred independent of place , it may be one and the same in many places at once , and whole in every part of the symbols , and not obnoxious to any corporeal contingencies . and this kind of existence is no more than what in a manner he bestows upon every glorified body , than what his own body had when born without the least violation of his mother's virginal integrity , when he rose from the dead out of the sepulcher without removing the stone ; when he entered amongst his disciples , the doors being shut . 5. this is , as i said , a witty contrived evasion to elude the above-mentioned repugnancies i have noted , and exquisitely well fitted for the amusing and confounding of more vulgar and weak minds , or such as have not leisure to consider things to the bottom , and for the captivating them into a profession of what they have no determinate or distinct apprehension of , by distinctions and exemplifications that give no real support to the cause they are brought in for to maintain . for first , to pretend that by a supernatural manner of existence a body may be in more places than one at once , at the right hand of god the father in heaven , and on the altar at the same time , &c. the artifice of the sophistry lies in this , that he has put a more tolerable and soft expression in lieu of one that ( according to his explication of the matter ) would sound more harsh , but is more true and proper in this case . for this manner of existence of a body which he describes is not simply supernatural , which implies it is a body still , as a mill-stone by a supernatural power held up in the air is a mill-stone still , though it be in that supernatural condition . but the condition he describes is such as is not only supernatural but counter-essential or asystatal , that is , repugnant to the very being of a body , or of any finite substance in the universe . it is as if the mill-stone were not only supernaturally supported in the air , but were as transparent , as soft and fluid , and of as undetermined a shape as the air it self , or as if a right-angled triangle were declared to be so still , though the hypotenusa were not of equal power with the basis and cathetus , which is a thing impossible ; but if instead of a supernatural manner of existence , it had been said an asystatal manner of existence , that is , an existence repugnant to the very being of a body or any finite substance else , it would have been discovered to be a contradiction at the very first sight , and therefore such as ought to be rejected , as well as the affirming that what christ gave was really bread and really his body at once . 6. and now , notwithstanding this soft and smooth term of [ supernatural ] that it is an asystatal manner of existence , that is here given to the body of christ , may appear from our author's description thereof . for in vertue , he saith , of this supernatural manner of existence , there may be a transubstantiation without danger of multiplying christ's body , and making as many christs as altars . but it is impossible this absurdity should be avoided , supposing transubstantiation . for there is not a more certain and infallible sign of two bodily persons being two bodily persons , and not the same person , that distance of place , wherein they are separate one from another , and consequently two not one body , and this is the very case in transubstantiation , which manifestly implies , that the body of christ is in many thousand distant places at once . which imagined condition in it is not supernatural but asystatal , and contradictious to the very being of any finite substance whatever , as has been intimated and firmly proved before , chap. 2. and as distance of place necessarily infers difference of bodies or persons , so does also difference of time of their production . that which was produced , suppose sixteen hundred years ago and remains so produced cannot be produced suppose but yesterday , or at this present moment , and so be sixteen hundred years older or younger than it self . this is not only supernatural but asystatal , and implies a perfect contradiction ; but yet this is the very case in transubstantiation . the body of christ born suppose sixteen hundred years ago , is yet produced out of the transubstantiated bread but now or yesterday , and so the same body is sixteen hundred years older or younger than it self , which is a perfect contradiction . 7. secondly , the papist represented declares , that the body of christ by vertue of this supernatural manner of existence , is left without extension of parts , which is a perfect contradiction to the very nature and essence of a body , whose universally acknowledged definition is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , implying a trinal inpenetrable dimension or extension . besides , did christ's body at his last supper so soon as he had transubstantiated the bread into it , lose all extension of parts ? what then filled out his cloaths as he sat with his disciples at table ? or how could the jews lay hold on christ's body to crucifie it , if he had no extension of parts to be laid hold on ? how could there be hands and feet and organization of parts , either at the table or on the cross , if there were no extension of parts to be organized ? and lastly , being the transubstantiated bread is the very individual body of christ , if they would have this being left without extension of parts , to be understood of it , how can the very same individual body of christ have extension of parts and have no extension of parts , have organization of parts and have no organization of parts at once : so that the condition of christ's body here supposed is plainly asystatal , not as is smoothly expressed only supernatural . 8. thirdly , whereas the papist represented declares , that this supernatural manner of existence of christ's body renders it independent of place , what can the meaning of that be , but that by vertue of this priviledge it might exist without any place or ubi , which bodies in their natural condition cannot ? but this clashes with the very story of our saviour christ , who was certainly in the room in which he ate the passover with his disciples , after he had transubstantiated the bread into his individual body , and therefore it did not exist independently of place , in virtue of any such supernatural manner of existence as is imagined . and as this does not agree with matter of fact , so it is a perfect contradiction to the essence of any body or finite substance to be exempted from all connexion with place or ubi , but a finite substance must be in a definite ubi , and while it is in such a definite ubi , it is impossible to conceive that it is in another place or ubi , whether intra or extra moenia mundi . he that closely and precisely considers the point , he will not fail , i think , to discern the thing to be impossible . and what contradiction it implies i have demonstrated above . so that we see there can be no such supernatural manner of existence conferred on a body in making it independent of place or ubiety , as to capacitate it to be one and the same body in diverse places at once , but that this supposed supernatural manner is truly an asystatal manner , and such as is repugnant to the very being of a body , or any finite substance whatsoever . 9. to make a body in this sense independent of place or ubiety , is as unconceivable as to make it independent of time , which yet would so compleat this impossible hypothesis , that under this pretence when a thing has such a supernatural existence as exempts it from all connexion with or relation to time , but supposes it utterly independent thereof , as was explained before touching place , we may suppose what we will of a body , that it may be bread and not bread at the same time , that it may be at thebes and at athens at the same time , as we ordinary mortals would phrase it , sith it is lifted up above all relation and connexion with time , nor hath any thing to do with any time. but yet this assuredly is not a mere supernatural manner of existence , but plainly asystatal , and such as if god could cause , there would be no eternal and immutable truths , but under a pretext of exalting the omnipotence of god , they would imply him able to destroy his own nature , which would argue an impotency in him , and to extinguish and confound the inviolable ideas of the divine intellect , as i intimated above . 10. and fourthly and lastly , that in vertue of this supernatural manner of existence , the body of christ should be whole in every part of the symbols , and thereby become not obnoxious to any corporeal contingencies ; ( which is said , i suppose , to avoid the absurdity of grinding a pieces the body of christ with our teeth when we chew the supposed species ) thus to exist whole in every part , is not a mere supernatural manner of existing , but asystatal , and implies either that the least part of christ's body is as big as the whole , or that the whole body is god knows how many thousand times bigger than it self . for certainly the whole body comprized under the whole bread or species of bread , is many thousand times bigger than one particle thereof no bigger than a pins point . besides that this making the body of christ whole in every part , takes away all possibility of distinct organization of his body , unless you will have every pins point of it to have head , feet , hands , arms , and the rest of the parts of an humane body , or have the same individual body organized and unorganized at the same time , which are as palpable contradictions as any can occur to the understanding of a man. and thus much i thought fit to intimate touching this witty distinction of a natural and supernatural manner of existence of a body , and to shew that this pretended supernatural manner of the existence of christ's body , arising from the bread transubstantiated , as the papist represented describes it , is indeed an asystatal manner of existence , and inconsistent with the being of any body , or finite substance whatsoever . chap. iv. 1. the supernatural manner of the existence of a body consisting in non-extension of parts , independency of place , and being whole in every part. 2. the first exemplification of such a manner of existence in glorified bodies , not to reach the case . 3. nor the second , in christ's body born without the least violation of his mothers virginal integrity . 4. nor the third in christ's rising out of the sepuloher without the removing of the stone . 5. nor the fourth , in christ's entring amongst his disciples the doors being shut . 6. transubstantiation implying a number of contradictions as harsh as that of the same body being both christ ' s body and bread at once , and there being no salvo for them but this device of a supernatural manner of existence , and this so plainly failing , it is impossible that transubstantiation should be the true mode of the real presence . 1. it remains now that we only touch upon lightly the exemplifications of this supernatural manner of existence of a body , consisting in these peculiarities , non-extension of parts , independency of place , and being whole in every part , and to note how none of these instances reach the present case . 2. as first that of a glorified body . what scripture , reason or authority ever suggested to us that the glorified body of christ himself , much less every glorified body , is without extension of parts , has no relation to or connexion with place , or is whole in every part . for without extension of parts it cannot be so much as a body . and were not moses and elias together with christ at his transfiguration on mount tabor , at least lively figures of the state of a glorified body , but it is evident by the description that they had extension of parts , else what should shining garments do upon what is unextended , and what glory can issue from a single mathematical point as i may so call it ? and in that they were on mount tabor together , it is manifest they had a connexion with or dependency on place , nor did exist without being in some ubi . and that the glorified body of christ is in heaven not on earth , is plain from act. 3. 21. and touching his body he rose in , and therefore was his resurrection-body , matt. 28. 6. the angel says , he is not here , for he is risen ; which had been a mere non sequitur , if his body could have been in more places than one at once , which property the papist represented gives it upon account of transubstantiation . and for as much as the transubstantiated bread and the body of christ is one and the same individual body , and that this that is once christ's body never perishes , it is evident , that the body he rose in , being one and the same body with the transubstantiated bread , must have the capacity by this supernatural manner of existence above described , to be in more places than one at once , which is a perfect contradiction to the angels reasoning : he is not here , for he is risen , and gone hence . for according to this supernatural manner of existence , which they suppose in christ's body upon the account of transubstantiation , he might be both there and gone thence at once . 3. the second instance of this supernatural manner of existence of a body , is christ's body born without the least violation of his mothers virginal integrity , which is such a secret as the scripture has not revealed , nor any sufficient authority assured us of : the mother of christ still continuing a virgin , because she had nothing to do with any man , though that which was conceived in her by the overshadowing of the holy ghost came out of her womb in the same circumstances there , that other humane births do . but suppose the body of christ pass'd the wicket of the womb without opening it , as the sun-beams pass through a crystal or glass , does this import that his body is either independent of place , or is devoid of extension , or whole in every part ? surely no , no more than that light that passes through the pores of the crystal : so that there is nothing repugnant to the nature of a body in all this . no non-extension , no independency of place , no penetration of corporeal dimensions , nor any being whole in every part . 4. the third instance is christ's rising out of the sepulcher without removing the stone . but this instance may very justly be rejected , it disagreeing with the very history of the resurrection , which tells us the stone was removed , matt. 28. 2. and behold there was a great earthquake , for the angel descended from heaven , and rolled back the stone from the door , and sate upon it . wherefore we see the stone was removed . nor can i imagine why this should make a third instance , viz. christ's body passing out of the sepulcher , the stone unremoved from the door thereof , unless from an heedless reflection on the fore-going verse ( where mary magdalen and the other mary are said to go to see the sepulcher ) and connecting it to an ill grounded sense with what follows in the second verse , and behold there was a great earthquake ; as if it were implyed that the earthquake and the rolling away the stone were at that very time that these two women went to see the sepulcher , and christ having risen before , that it would follow that he rose before the stone of the sepulcher was removed ; but this is a mistake . for agreeably to vatablus his gloss ( who for erat [ & ecce erat terrae motus magnus ] puts fuerat , and for descendit , descenderat , and for devolvit lapidem , devolverat ) which implies the thing done before these women came to the sepulcher ; it is manifest out of the other evangelists that the matter was altogether so ; for mark 16. 2. it is said of the two above said parties , that very early in the morning , the first day of the week they came unto the sepulcher at the rising of the sun , and they said among themselves , who shall roll us away the stone from the door of the sepulcher , and when they looked they saw the stone was rolled away , &c. and it is expresly said in luke , that they found the stone rolled away from the sepulcher . and the like is recorded in st. john , ch . 20. so that it is a plain case the stone was rolled away before their going to the sepulcher . what time therefore can we imagine more likely of this rolling away the stone and terrible earthquake , than at the very resurrection of christ , who rose in this awful terrour to the keepers , the earth quaking , and the too glorious angels officiously opening the stony door of the sepulcher , that the king of glory might pass out , without any further needless or useless miracle , such as he ever declined in his life time , before his death and resurrection ? wherefore this third instance , it is plain , cannot with any shew be accommodated to the present case , it being raised out of a mere mistake of the story . 5. the fourth and last instance is , christ's entring amongst his disciples , the doors being shut , recorded john 20. 19 , and 26. there the disciples are said to be gathered together privately or secretly for fear of the jews , for which cause they lockt or bolted the doors with-inside , that no man might suddenly come upon them . but while they were in this privacy or closeness , christ , notwithstanding , suddenly presented himself in the midst of them , for all this closeness or secrecy , and not without a miracle , supposing himself or some ministring angel to unlock or unbolt the door suddenly , and softly , sine strepitu , which upon this account would be more likely , in that if he had come in , the doors being still shut , that might have seemed as great an argument to thomas that he was a spirit , as the feeling his hands and side that he was no spirit . wherefore , i conceive , it is no sufficiently firm hypothesis , that christ entred among his disciples , the doors in the mean time , at his very entrance , remaining shut . but suppose they were so , this will not prove his body devoid of extension , to be independent of place , and whole in every part , more than his passing the wicket of the womb , like light through crystal , did argue the same in the second instance but the truth of the business will then be this , that he being then in his resurrection-body ( even that wherewith he was to ascend into heaven , which yet he kept in its terrestrial modification , and organization , for those services it was to do amongst his disciples while he conversed with them after his resurrection upon earth ; as he made use of it in a particular manner to s t thomas ) he had a power to modifie it into what consistencies he pleased , aerial , aetherial , or coelestial , it remaining still that individual body , that was crucified . this therefore might easily pass through the very pores of the door , and much more easily betwixt the door and the side-posts there , without any inconvenience more than to other spiritual bodies . for the resurrection-body is an heavenly and spiritual body , as s t paul himself expresly declares . but yet as truly a body as any body else ; that is , it hath impenetrable trinal dimension , is not without place or ubiety , nor whole in every part . this very story demonstrates all this , that his body is not without place . for it stood in the midst of the room amongst his disciples . nor the whole in every part ; for here is distinct mention of christ's hand and his side , as elsewhere of his flesh and bones , luke 24. 26. which would be all confounded , if every part were in every part . and if there be these distinct parts , then certainly his body hath extension , and this ingeniously excogitated distinction of the natural and supernatural manner of existence of a body , can by no means cover the gross repugnancies , which are necessarily imply'd in the doctrine of transubstantiation . 6. a doctrine raised from the literal sense of those words [ this is my body ] which literal sense if we were tyed to , it would also follow that that which christ gave to his disciples was as well real bread as his real body : [ this ] plainly referring to what he took , what he blessed , and what he gave , which was bread , and of this he says , this is my body . wherefore adhering to the literal sense , it would be both real bread and the real body of christ at once . but this , as being a repugnancy , as was noted above , and contradiction to the known inviolable and immutable laws of logick and humane reason , is justly rejected by the church of rome , for this very reason , that it implies a contradiction , that one and the same body should be bread and the real body of christ at once . wherefore transubstantiation containing , as has been proved , so many of such contradictions , every jot as repugnant to the inviolable and immutable laws of logick , or humane reason ( that unextinguishable lamp of the lord in the soul of man ) as this of the same body being real bread and the real body of christ at once : and there being no salvo for these harsh contradictions , but the pretence of a supernatural manner of existence of a body , which god is supposed to give to the bread transubstantiated into the body of christ , that is , into the very individual body of christ , they being supposed by transubstantiation to become one and the same body . i say this neat distinction of a supernatural manner of existing being plainly demonstrated ( so as it is by the papist represented , explained ) not to be a mere supernatural manner of existence , with which the being of a body would yet consist , but a counter-essential , asystatal , and repugnant manner of existence , inconsistent with the being of a body ; and none of the instances that are produced as pledges of the truth of the notion or assertion at all reaching the present case , it is manifest that though there be a real presence of christ's body and bloud in the celebration of the holy eucharist , acknowledged as well by the reformed as the pontifician party , that it is impossible that transubstantiation , which the papist represented here declares , should be the true mode thereof . chap. v. 1. the author's excuse for his civility to the papist represented , that he shews him that the road he is in is not the way of truth touching the mode of the real presence . 2. that the bishop of meaux makes the real presence the common doctrine of all the churches as well reformed as un-reformed , and that it is acknowledged to be the doctrine of the church of england , though she is so wise and so modest as not to define the mode thereof . 3. the sincere piety of our predecessors in believing the real presence , and their unfortunateness afterwards in determining the mode by transubstantiation or consubstantiation . 1. and therefore the papist represented , being in so palpable a mistake , and by keeping to the literal sense having so apparently wandred from the path of truth , i hope my thus industriously and carefully advertizing him thereof for his own good , will be no otherwise interpreted than an act of humanity or common civility , if not of indispensable christianity , thus of my own accord , though not roganti , yet erranti comiter monstrare viam , or at least to assure him that this of transubstantiation is not the right road to the due understanding of the manner or mode of the real presence of the body and blood of christ in the celebration of the holy eucharist . 2. which opinion of the real presence the bishop of meaux declares to be the doctrine of all the churches as well reformed as un-reformed ; as i must confess i have been of that perswasion ( ever since i writ my mystery of godliness ) that it is the doctrine of the church of england , and that the doctrine is true . and this i remember i heard from a near relation of mine when i was a youth , a reverend dignitary of the church of england , and that often , viz. that our church was for the real presence , but for the manner thereof , if asked , he would answer , rem scimus , modum nescimus , we know the thing , but the mode or manner thereof we know not . and the assurance we have of the thing is from the common suffrage of the ancient fathers , such as the above-cited place of our homilies glances at , and from the scripture it self , which impressed that notion on the minds of our pious predecessors in the church of god. 3. for i do verily believe that out of mere devotion and sincere piety , and out of a reverend esteem they had of the solemnity of the eucharist , they embraced this doctrine as well as broached it at the first . and if they had kept to the profession of it in general , without running into transubstantiation or consubstantiation , and had defined no further than the plain scriptural text in the sixth of st. iohn and the suffrages of the primitive fathers had warranted them , viz. that there was a twofold body and blood of christ , the one natural , the other spiritual or divine , which we do really receive in the holy communion ( within which limits i shall confine my self here without venturing into any farther curiosities ) it had been more for the peace and honour of the christian church , and it might have prevented much scandal to them without , and much cruelty and persecution amongst our selves : the history of which is very horrid even to think of . but though there have been these mistakes in declaring the mode , yet the thing it self is not therefore to be abandoned , it being so great a motive for a reverend approaching the lord's table , and duly celebrating the solemnity of the holy eucharist . nor can we , as i humbly conceive , relinquish this doctrine of the real presence of the body and blood of christ , without the declining the most easie and natural sense of the holy scripture , as it stands written in the sixth chapter of st. iohn . chap. vi. 1. gratian his distinction of the flesh and blood of christ into spiritual or divine , and into that flesh that hung on the cross , and that bloud let out by the lance of the souldier . 2. the same confirmed out of s. austin , who makes the body and bloud of christ to be partaken of in baptism , and also from s. paul and philo. 3. other citations out of philo touching the divine logos agreeable with what christ says of himself in his discourse john 6. and out of which it further appears that the antient fathers ate the same food that we , the divine body of christ , but not that which hung on the cross. 4. a strong confirmation out of what has been produced , that gratian his distinction is true . 5. the first argument from our saviour's discourse , that he meant not his flesh that hung on the cross , because he says , that he that eats it has eternal life in him . 6. the second , because his flesh and bloud is the object of his discourse , not the manner of eating and drinking them . 7. the third , because of his answer to his murmuring disciples , which removes his natural body far from them , and plainly tells them , the flesh profiteth nothing . 8. gratian's distinction no novel doctrine . 1. out of which sixth chapter of s. iohn , that is manifest which a member of the roman church her self , has declared , an eminent canonist of theirs , gratian , in [ canon dupliciter ] as it is cited by philippus mornaeus , lib. 4. de eucharistiâ , cap. 8. dupliciter intelligitur caro christi & sanguis : vel spiritualis illa atque divina de quâ ipse dicit , caro mea verè est cibus , & sanguis meus verè est potus , & nisi manducaveritis carnem meam , & biberitis sanguinem meum , non habebitis vitam aeternam ; vel caro quae crucifixa est , & sanguis qui militis effusus est lanceâ . i the rather take notice of this passage , because he makes use of the very phrases which i used without consulting him in my philosophical hypothesis of the great mystery of regeneration , calling that body or flesh which christ so copiously discourses of , iohn 6. spiritual or divine , which he plainly distinguishes , as christ himself there does , from that body that hung on the cross , and that blood that was let out by the lance of the souldier . 2. for we cannot be regenerate out of these in baptism , and yet in the same place s. augustine says , we are partakers of the body and blood of christ in baptism ; and therefore as terrestrial animals are not fed ( as they say the chamaeleon is ) of the air , but by food of a terrestrial consistency , so our regeneration being out of spiritual principles , our inward man is also nourished by that food that is spiritual or divine . and that is a marvellous passage of st. paul , 1 cor. 10. where he says , the fathers did all eat the same spiritual meat , and did all drink the same spiritual drink , for they drank of that spiritual rock that followed them , and that rock was christ , where st. austin , anselm , thomas aquinas , and others , as you may see in iacobus capellus , avouch , that the ancient patriarchs ate the same spiritual food that we , which therefore must be the flesh and blood of christ , in that sense christ understands it in , iohn 6. and that passage of philo ( that grotius notes on the same place ) is worth our taking notice of , and that in two several treatises of his he interprets the manna of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , the divine logos , which agrees hugely well with our supposing that the flesh and blood of which our saviour saith , it is meat indeed and drink indeed , he speaks this as he is the eternal logos , to whom appertains the universal divine body , as being the body of his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , life or spirit , as i have noted in my analytical account of the fore-part of the first chapter of st. iohn's gospel . see my scholia at the end of my enchiridium ethicum . 3. and it is marvellously applicable to our purpose what philo says on that passage of deuteronomy , chap. 32. v. 5. he made him to suck honey out of the rock , and oyl out of the flinty rock ( in his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ) where he says the rock signifies 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . the solid , steady and infrangible wisdom of god ; implying the immutableness and unalterableness of the natures , properties , and respects of the ideas of things in the divine intellect , the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , not to be changed or violated for any superstitious purposes whatsoever , as i have intimated before . wherefore as s t paul calls christ , who is the eternal logos , a rock , so does philo , by saying , that rock moses mentions in his song is the steady , solid and infrangible wisdom of god. which therefore is that essential wisdom , the same that the divine logos , or second hypostasis of the trinity . and not many lines after in the same treatise , the lawgiver , says he , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , calls this rock manna the divine logos that was before all beings , and without whom nothing was made that was made , as s t iohn testifies . and in his [ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ] speaking of israel , which he would have signifie one that sees god : he , says he , lifting up his eyes to heaven sees , and thence receives , ( 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ) the manna , the divine logos , the heavenly incorruptible food of the soul devoted to holy speculation . which passages i could not forbear to produce , they having so great an affinity with that which our saviour professes of himself , that he is this bread from heaven , the true manna , and incorruptible food of the soul , whereby she is nourished to eternal life , iohn 6. out of all which may be more easily understood how the fathers did all eat the same spiritual meat , and drink the same spiritual drink , which cannot well be conceived but of such a divine body and bloud of christ , as is universal , not restrained to his particular humane nature , but belonging to him as he is the eternal logos , in whom is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 life or spirit , which goeth along with the divine body of this life or spirit of christ , and consequently is rightly called his body . which being the necessary principles of regeneration ( for ex eisdem nutrimur ex quibus constamus ) and there being no salvation without regeneration , and no regeneration continued and advanced without congenerous food ; we must necessarily conclude with s t paul , that , the fathers all ate the same spiritual meat , and drank all the same spiritual drink , water , honey , oyl out of the same rock , christ , the eternal word or logos . and certainly that body and blood of christ out of which the fathers were regenerate , and by which they were fed , cannot be the very body and bloud of christ which hung on the cross , and whose bloud was there let out by the lance of the souldier that pierced his side : and therefore there was a body and bloud of christ before he was incarnate , for the regenerate souls of the antient people of the iews to feed upon , belonging to him as he is the eternal logos ; in whom is the life and that spirit of which it is said , that which is born of the flesh is flesh , and that which is born of the spirit is spirit . which things are more fully treated of in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , or a philosophical hypothesis touching the great mystery of regeneration . 4. wherefore there is all the reason in the world , if not plain necessity to admit , what we cited out of gratian that famous canonist of the church of rome . that we are to understand that there is a two-fold flesh and bloud of christ , either that spiritual and divine flesh , of which he himself says , my flesh is meat indeed , and my bloud is drink indeed , and , unless you eat my flesh and drink my bloud , ye shall not have everlasting life . or that flesh which was crucified , and that bloud that was let out of his side by the lance of the souldier , which we shall now endeavour briefly to demonstrate out of that discourse of our saviour in the sixth of s t iohn . 5. first then , that the flesh of christ that hung once on the cross , and into which the bread of the romanists is supposed to be transubstantiated in the sacrament of our lord's supper , is not the flesh here meant is plain from what is said thereof in this sixth chapter of s t iohn v. 54. whoso eateth my flesh and drinketh my bloud hath eternal life . but every one that eateth the bread transubstantiated into the body of christ , that once hung upon the cross , in the roman communion , has not eternal life in him . nay if that souldier that pierced our saviour's side and let out his bloud with his lance had drunk also thereof , and cut some piece of his flesh from his body and eaten it , is any one so fond as to think , that he thereby would have been made partaker of eternal life ? but if christ meant that body or flesh of his and not some other that is rightly also called his flesh or body , it would follow that that souldier by doing that savage and inhumane act , would have obtained everlasting life . wherefore it is plain from hence , that there is another body or flesh of christ and another blood , distinct from that blood that was shed on the cross , and from that body that hung there , which our saviour aims at in his discourse . 6. secondly , it is plain that our saviour's discourse in that chapter ( he passing from that temporal food which he had lately procured for the multitude , to a spiritual and eternal ) has for its object or subject not the manner or way of receiving his body and blood , as if it were meant of that very flesh and blood on the cross , but that it was to be received in a spiritual manner , which interpreters , several of them , drive at ; but the object of his discourse is his very flesh and blood it self , to be taken ( as the fish and loaves were wherewith he lately fed them ) or it is himself in reference to this flesh and blood which belongs to him as he is the eternal word , and in this sense he says , he is the bread of god that cometh down from heaven and giveth life to the world , v. 33. and v. 48. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , i am the bread of life , and speaking of the manna he presently adds , your fathers ate manna , and yet died , viz. the natural death , the natural manna being no preservative against the natural death . and v. 51. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , as before he called himself 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . for in him is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ( iohn 1. ) or life and spirit , and this spirit or life in the divine body . i am the living bread coming down from heaven ( as the manna is said to do , and to which philo compares the divine logos ) if any one eat of this bread he shall live for ever . he speaks not of the manner of eating of it , but of the bread it self to be eaten , and yet immediately thereupon he calls this bread his flesh , which he says , he will give for the life of the world , that is to the end that they may be enlivened thereby , he thus communicating to them his divine body and spirit together . and then presently upon the iews striving amongst themselves and saying , how can this man give us his flesh to eat ? ( the reason whereof was because they took him to be a meer man , and thought that christ himself understood it of his humane flesh ) he affirms with greater earnestness and vehemency , verily , verily , i say unto you , unless ye eat the flesh of the son of man ( viz. of the messias , who is the logos incarnate ) and drink his bloud , ye have no life in you . whoso eateth my flesh , and drinketh my bloud hath eternal life , and i will raise him up at the last day . for my flesh is meat indeed , and my bloud is drink indeed . and so all along to the very end of his discourse , he speaks of a really eating his flesh , and drinking his blood , not of the manner of eating , as if it never came nigh them , but only they thought of flesh and blood god knows how far distant from them , and so ate the humane flesh of christ by meer thinking of it , and drank his bloud after the same imaginary manner , which would , i think , be a very dilute and frigid sense of such high and fervid asseverations of our saviour , if the mystery reached no farther than so . 7. but thirdly and lastly , that it does reach further than so , is exceeding evident from what our saviour utters upon his disciples being scandalized at this strange discourse of his , v. 61. when iesus knew in himself , that his disciples murmured at it , he said unto them , does this offend you ? what if you shall see the son of man ascending where he was before , which he must needs understand of his particular visible body which he bore about with him , and which his humane soul did actuate , and which was appropriated to his humane nature , which is finite and circumscribed . it is an elliptical speech of his , but thus naturally to be supplyed as i have also noted above , as if he suppressed by an aposiopesis this objurgatory sense insinuated thereby . will you then imagine so grosly as if i understood it of this very flesh i bear about with me , when as this particular body of mine after my ascension into heaven will be removed at a vast distance from you . i tell you this flesh of mine , as to this purpose i have all this time driven at , profiteth nothing , you cannot feed of it at such a distance if it were to be fed on . the text runs thus , v. 63. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , it is that quickening spirit i aim at in my discourse , that divine or spiritual body of mine . 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , that flesh , which you understand and are so scandalized at the eating thereof , profiteth nothing as to this purpose , nor the blood taken in your sense has any thing to do here . the words that i speak unto you they are spirit and they are life . the object of those words spoken is my spiritual body and blood , not as i am a man , but the eternal word , the divine logos , which contains in it the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or spirit , and my divine body universal , that belongs to that my life or spirit . this is the true mystery of the matter , for by these two things asserted by our saviour , 1. that we are to eat his flesh and drink his blood as we hope ever to have eternal life . 2. and his declaring his flesh profiteth nothing , it is manifest that that distinction of gratian is true , which he seems to have taken out of st. hierom , or some other ancient father , who tells us the flesh and blood of christ is twofold , the one natural and which he bore about with him and hung once on the cross , the other spiritual and divine , which we may really eat and drink , that is really receive and draw in at the celebrating the holy eucharist by a sincere , fervid and devotional faith. and consequently there is a real presence of the body and blood of christ in partaking of the lord's supper , whereby our souls are nourished to eternal , life . and in that , he says , his natural flesh profiteth nothing to this purpose ( for it cannot be said that it profiteth nothing at all , since in vertue of the crucifixion of that flesh , and effusion of that blood on the cross , we have the remission of our sins ) christ plainly infers that he has ( which cannot be well understood but as he is the eternal logos ) another flesh , viz. that spiritual and divine flesh , which is mainly profitable for this purpose , for the maintaining , perfecting and renewing the inward man , that he may attain to his due growth in christ. and lastly , how can christ say his flesh that was crucified on the cross profiteth nothing , when by being meditated upon at the solemnity of the holy eucharist , and also at other times , it may serve to kindle and inflame our love and devotion towards him , and so urge us to greater degrees of repentance and mortification , and serious holiness ; it therefore being useful and profitable for all this , i say , why does he then affirm it profiteth nothing , but that he does on purpose advertise us that it profiteth nothing as to the present case he has spoke to all this while , viz. to be the real meat and food of the inward man , and to be really received into him , to maintain and increase those divine principles in him out of which he is regenerated . this his particular flesh and blood , that hung on the cross , cannot be profitable for , nor can be come at , at such a distance , to be taken in and received ; which therefore plainly implies those other , which were mentioned above out of gratian ( the divine or spiritual flesh and blood of christ only ) to be properly useful to this purpose . 8. and for this divine and spiritual flesh and blood of our saviour distinguished from his natural ; besides st. hierome you have also the suffrage of clemens alexandrinus , in his paedagogus , lib. 2. cap. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . the blood of our lord is twofold , the one carnal , by which we are redeemed from corruption ; the other spiritual , wherewith we are anointed , and by vertue of drinking thereof we attain to incorruption . 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . and as he makes the blood of our lord twofold , so we may be sure he makes his body or flesh , because his mystical body and blood go together . according to that which m r pelling in his pious and learned discourse of the sacrament , quotes out of s t ambrose , who , says he , speaking of that body which is received in the eucharist , calls it the spiritual body of christ , the body of a divine spirit ; and he does confidently affirm of all the antients who have either purposely interpreted , or occasionally quoted the words of christ , in the sixth of s t iohn , touching the eating his flesh and drinking his blood , that they all understand him to speak of a spiritual flesh and blood , distinct not only from the substance of the holy elements , but also from that natural body of christ which he took of the substance of the holy virgin , pag. 233. so little novelty is there in this distinction of the body and blood of christ into natural , and spiritual or divine . chap. vii . 1. an apology for being thus operose and copious in inculcating the present point from the usefulness thereof . 2. the first usefulness in that it defeats monsieur de meaux his stratagem to reduce us to transubstantiation , as if no real presence without it . 3. the second usefulness , for the rectifying the notion of consubstantiation . 4. the third for more fully understanding the mystery of the eucharist , with applications of it to several passages in our communion-service . 5. the fourth for a very easie and natural interpretation of certain passages in our church-catechism . 6. the priviledge of the faithful receiver , and of what great noment the celebration of the eucharist is . 7. the last usefulness in solidly reconciling the rubrick at the end of the communion-service , with that noted passage in our church-catechism . 1. the reader may haply think i have been over operose and copious in inculcating this distinction of gratian's , touching the body and blood of christ in the holy eucharist . but the great usefulness thereof , i hope , may apologize for this my extraordinary diligence and industry . for the notion being both true and unexceptionable , and not at all clashing , so far as i can discern , with either the holy scripture , or right reason and solid philosophy , to say nothing of the suffrage of the primitive fathers , but rather very agreeable and consentaneous to them all ; and also having , as i said , its weighty usefulness , it was a point , i thought , that was worth my so seriously insisting upon ; and as i have hitherto endeavoured faithfully to set out the truth thereof , i shall now , though more briefly , intimate its usefulness . 2. and the first usefulness is this , whereas that reverend prelate the bishop of meaux tugs so hard to pull back again the reformed churches to the communion of the church of rome , by this concession , or rather profession of theirs , that there is a real presence of the body and blood of christ at the celebration of the eucharist , to be received by the faithful , and that therefore they must return to the doctrine of transubstantiation , as if there were no other mode of a real presence to be conceived but it : the force of this inference is plainly taken away , by this distinction that gratian , one of their own church , hath luckily hit upon , or rather taken out of some antient father , and is more fully made out in this discourse , that there is a spiritual and divine body of christ , distinct from that particular body of his that hung on the cross , which the faithful partake of in the lord's supper . whence it is plain there is no need of transubstantiation , which is incumbred with such abundance of impossibilities and contradictions . 3. secondly , this notion of ours is hugely serviceable for the rectifying of the doctrine of consubstantiation in the lutheran church , who are for an ubiquity of the particular body of christ that hung on the cross , which assuredly is a grand mistake . but i believe in the authors thereof there was a kind of parturiency , and more confused divination of that truth , which we have so much insisted upon , and their mistake consists only in this , that they attributed to the particular body of christ , which belongs to his restrained and circumscribed humane nature , that which truly and only belongs to his divine body , as he is the eternal logos , in whom is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , the life or spirit of the logos , to which spirit of his this body belongs , and therefore is rightly called his body , as appertaining to his spirit . for this body , this divine and spiritual flesh , as gratian calls it , is every where present , though not to be received as the food of the inward man , but only by the faithful and regenerate , so that according to this notion there may be a consubstantiation rightly interpreted , that is a compresentiation , or rather compresentiality of both the real bread and wine , and the real body and blood of christ at once ; so that they both may be really and indeed received by all true believers . and lutheranism in this point thus candidly interpreted , will prove a sound and unexceptionable doctrine . and i charitably believe the first authors of it , if they had fully understood their own meaning , meant no more than so . and i wish i had as much reason to believe that the pontificians meant no more by their transubstantiation , but a firm and fast hold of the real presence . i hope the most ingenuous of them at this time of the day mean no more than so , viz. that they are as well assured of the real presence of the body and blood of christ to be received in the celebration of the eucharist ; as if the very bread was turned into his body , and the wine into his blood by a miraculous transubstantiation . 4. thirdly , it is from this notion or distinction of the antient fathers , as i hinted above , of the body and blood of christ into natural and spiritual or divine , that we have ever been well appointed to give a more full and distinct account of the nature of the solemnity of the eucharist as it is celebrated in our church , it plainly comprizing these two things . the first the commemoration of the death of christ , of the breaking his body or flesh , viz. the wounding thereof with nails and spears . the other , the partaking of the divine body and blood of christ , by which our inward man is nourished to eternal life : which our eating the bread and drinking the wine are symbols of . both which in our communion-service are plainly pointed at . the first fully , in the exhortation to communicants , where it is said , and above all things you must give most humble and hearty thanks to god the father , the son , and the holy ghost , for the redemption of the world by the death and passion of our saviour christ , both god and man , who did humble himself even to the death upon the cross for us miseable sinners — and to the end we should always remember the exceeding great love of our master and only saviour jesus christ thus dying for us , and the innumerable benefits , which by his precious blood-shedding , he hath obtained to us , he has instituted and ordained holy mysteries as pledges of his love , and for a continual remembrance of his death . and in the prayer of consecration , the celebration of the eucharist is again said to be a continued or perpetuated commemoration of christ's precious death till his coming again . but now for our receiving the spiritual and divine body and blood of christ , such passages as these seem to intimate it . in the exhortation to the communicants , it is there said , if with a true penitent heart and lively faith we receive this holy sacrament , then we spiritually eat the flesh of christ and drink his blood , then we dwell in christ and christ in us , we are one with christ and christ with us . this passage plainly points to our saviour's discourse , iohn 5. v. 56. where he says , he that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood , dwelleth in me and i in him . and he thus dwelling in us , he enlivens us , we becoming one with christ in a manner as the soul and body makes one , as it followeth in the next verse , as the living father has sent me , and i live by the father , so he that eateth me shall live by me , and so we become one with christ and christ with us , we living by christ as he by his father ; that is to say , as christ ▪ lives by his father , so we live by the spirit of christ dwelling in us , rom. 8. 11. which spirit or life of christ always implies the divine body . as he that is joined unto the lord in this body is one spirit , 1 cor. 6. 17. now this exhortation so plainly alluding to this passage of our saviour's discourse , which speaks not of his particular natural flesh , but of that which is his spiritual or divine flesh , it is plain that the genuine sense of the exhortation in this place is , that we really though spiritually ( that is by a fervent and devotional faith ) eat or receive the real body and blood of christ , viz. that divine and spiritual body and blood of his above-mentioned . and this passage of our saviour's discourse is again alluded to in the prayer immediately before the prayer of consecration in these words , grant us therefore , gracious lord , so to eat the flesh of thy dear son jesus christ , and to drink his blood that our sinful bodies may be made clean by his body , and our souls washed through his most precious blood , and that we may evermore dwell in him and he in us , john 6. 56. and these two places so plainly alluding to our saviour's discourse in the sixth of s t iohn , it is very easie and natural to conceive that what occurs in the thanksgiving after our receiving the sacrament does sound to the same purpose . almighty and everlasting god , we most heartily thank thee for that thou dost vouchsafe to feed us who have duly received these holy mysteries , with the spiritual food of the most precious body and blood of thy son and our saviour jesus christ — the words even of themselves do very naturally point at a real though spiritual partaking or receiving into us the body and blood of christ , namely , of that flesh and blood which our saviour discourses of , iohn 6. and therefore we may be much more assured that they do so , if we take notice , the sense is so back'd and strengthned by the other two passages which do plainly relate to the body , or flesh and blood christ discourses of , in the sixth of s t iohn's gospel . i will only add one consideration more , and that is from the title of our communion-service . can there be any more likely reason why the lord's supper is called the holy communion , than that it refers to that of s t paul , 1 cor. 10. 16. the cup of blessing which we bless , is it not the communion of the blood of christ ? the bread which we break , is it not the communion of the body of christ ? because there is one bread , we being many are one body . for we are all partakers of that one bread. which is that bread from heaven , which our saviour discourses of in the sixth of s t iohn . but the words i have chiefly my eye upon are those : the cup being called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , the communion of the blood , and the bread , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , the communion of the body of christ ; and the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , in all likely hood , having the same sense that it had , 2 pet. 1. 4. in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , where we are said to be called to the participation of the divine nature , communion here in s t paul's epistle to the corinthians must naturally imply our real receiving or partaking of the body and blood of christ in the celebrating of this holy communion , and that by thus partaking of that one divine body and blood of his , signified by the eating and drinking the bread and wine , we , though many , become one body : not in a political sense only , but , if i may so speak , divinely natural , we being made all members of that one universal divine body of christ , as he is the eternal logos , and so becoming 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , 2 pet. 1. 4. wherefore , that passage in s t paul's epistle to the corinthians , does marvelous-fully set out the nature of that part of the lord's supper , that is distinguished from the commemoration of his death ; and gives the most genuine reason of its being called the holy communion , it implying the real communication of that one divine body of christ to the faithful , and their real union thereby with christ and with one another , which is a full and perfect holy communion indeed . 5. fourthly , this notion of the fathers touching the spiritual or divine body and blood of christ , affords us a very easie and natural interpretation of that passage in our church-catechism , touching the sacrament of the lord's supper , where to the question , what is the inward part , or thing signified ? it is answered , the body and blood of christ which are verily and indeed taken and received by the faithful in the lord's supper . in the answer to a former question , why was the sacrament of the lord's supper ordained ? it is answered , for a continual remembrance of the sacrifice of the death of christ , and the benefits received thereby . one eminent benefit whereof is the remission of our sins through the bloud of christ shed on the cross , for without blood there is no remission ; the other is the feeding of the regenerate soul , or inward man , by the real , but spiritual or divine body and blood of christ , which contains in it our through sanctification , which is also a fruit or benefit of the sacrifice of the death of christ , forasmuch as we had not been capable of regeneration and of growth and degrees of sanctification by the feeding on and really receiving the spiritual and divine body of christ , without our reconciliation by his blood shed on the cross , which our church here calls the sacrifice of the death of christ. now as in this answer there is contained that great benefit of the remission of our sins in the blood of christ , and thereby of our reconciliation to god ; so in the answer mentioned before is contained that singular benefit of perfecting our sanctification by the nourishing and corroborating our inward man by eating or partaking of the spiritual or divine body and blood of our saviour , which are verily and indeed taken and received by the faithful in the lord's supper . [ verily ] that is to say , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , truly , in counterdistinction to typically , or symbolically , the bread and wine being but types or symbols of this . touching which in the answer to the question , what are the benefits whereof we are made partakers thereby ? it is said , the strengthening and refreshing our souls by the body and blood of christ , as our bodies are by the bread and wine , viz. which are but types of the true , spiritual or divine body and blood of christ , but they have a very handsome analogy the one to the other . but we proceed to the following words , [ and indeed ] that is to say , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , reverâ , or really , not as one scoptically would make us to profess , that this real participation of the body and blood of christ , has no reality any where but in our phancy , which we call faith. to which sense the translator of the peaceable method for the re-uniting protestants and catholicks , speaks in his preface to his translation . to which exception , this notion of the primitive fathers , according to which our communion-service is framed , and our homilies allude to , and we so much insist upon , is not lyable . [ by the faithful ] and that only by them , which body and blood the faithful do not receive by champing it with their teeth , and swallowing it down their throat . but by a fervid and living devotional faith more than ordinarily kindled at the celebrating the holy eucharist , they draw this divine and celestial food ( the true manna from heaven ) into their hearts , whereby their inward man is fed and strengthened , and nourished up to eternal life , and so the new birth getting growth daily , arrives at last to the due measure of the stature of christ. 6. this is the priviledge of the faithful receiver . but for those that are devoid of this true and living faith , though the divine body and blood of christ is every where present to the faithful , yet they who are unregenerate , and consequently devoid of the divine life , are capable of no union therewith , nor of any growth or strength therefrom . but it is like the light shining into a dead man's eye , of which there is no vital effect . but for those who are regenerate , and consequently have a real hunger and thirst after the righteousness of god , though the great feast upon this heavenly food is more especially and copiosely injoyed in the celebration of the holy eucharist , yet they may in some good measure draw it in day by day by faith and devotion , as without the presence of the bread and wine we may at any time devotionally think of the sacrifice of the death of our saviour . but certainly this solemn institution of celebrating his last supper , being particularly and earnestly injoyn'd us by christ , if we conscientiously observe the same , it will have a more than ordinary efficacy in us for the ends it was appointed . 7. sixthly and lastly , as those words of the catechism [ the body and blood of christ which are verily and indeed taken and received , &c. ] have , considered in themselves , a very easie and natural sense so explained , as we have according to the analogy of the doctrine of the primitive fathers and our church's homilies that allude to them , explained them ; so do they not at all clash with those words of the rubrick affixed at the end of the communion-service , where it is affirmed , that the sacramental bread and wine remains still in their very natural substances , and therefore may not be adored ( for that were idolatry to be abhorred of all faithful christians ) and the natural body and blood of our saviour christ are in heaven , and not here , it being against the truth of christ's natural body to be at one time in more places than one . there is i say , in this , no contradiction to what occcurs in the catechism , which affirms that there is a real presence of the body and blood of christ , which are verily and indeed taken and received by the faithful in the lord's supper , though here a real presence is denyed of the natural body of christ. but it is to be considered that this affirmation and negation is not of the same body of christ , and therefore can be no contradiction , and further to be observed , how the very rubrick suggests to us this distinction of the natural body of christ ( which is appropriated to his particular soul , and which hung on the cross and was crucified ) and his divine or spiritual body , the body of the essential life or spirit of the eternal logos , and therefore rightly termed the body of the logos incarnate , or of christ. and therefore when passages of the ancient fathers in the primitive times before the degeneracy of the church came in , may some of them favour a real absence , other a real presence of the body and blood of christ according as different places of the scripture might occur to their minds touching this matter , the controversy might well be composed by distinguishing betwixt the natural body of christ and his divine or spiritual body . according to the former whereof is the real absence , according to the latter the real presence of christ's body and blood , to be received by the faithful in the celebration of the holy eucharist . chap. viii . 1. monsieur maimbourg so cunning and cautious as not to attempt to bring the protestants to transubstantiation by their common consent in the real presence , but by a more general maxime , which , he says , we are all agreed in . 2. the aforesaid maxime with the explication thereof . 3. six supposals surmiz'd for the strengthening this engine for the pulling the protestants into the belief of transubstantiation . 4. a counter-engine consisting of sixteen common notions , in which , not only the romanists and we , but all mankind are agreed in . 5. an examination of the strength of monsieur maimbourg's engine , by recurring upon occasion to these common notions ; the first prop examined , viz. the churches infallibility by assistance of the spirit , and discovered to be weak from the dissention of churches in matters of faith in his sense . 6. from the promise of the spirit being conditional . 7. and from the predictions in the prophetical writings of a general degeneracy of the church . 8. the examination of the second prop , that would have transubstantiation believed upon the synodical decision of a fallible church . 9. the examination of the third prop , that would have the synodical decision pass into an article of faith. 10. the fourth prop examined by defining truly what heresy and schism is . 11. the fifth prop further explained by mounsieur maimbourg , in two propositions . 12. an answer to the two propositions . 1. i have , i hope by this time , sufficiently proposed and confirmed both the truth and usefulness of the distinction of the body and blood of christ ( which occurs in the primitive fathers ) into natural , and spiritual or divine . from whence it may plainly appear to any pious and uprejudiced reader , that the inference of a transubstantiation of the bread and wine into the real body and blood of christ , from a real presence of them in the lord's supper , is very weak and invalid . which monsieur maimbourg ( as well as the bishop of meaux , formerly bishop of condom ) though he take special notice of in his peaceable method , viz. that this real presence of the body and blood of christ in the lord's supper , is generally acknowledged by the protestants , chap. 3. whom he will have to hold , that the sacrament is not a figure or empty sign without efficacy , but they do maintain , saith he , that it does communicate unto us in a most real and effectual manner , the body of jesus christ to be the food of our souls ; and he will have monsieur claud himself acknowledge , that before this novelty of transubstantiation was introduced , every one believed that iesus christ is present in the sacrament , that his body and blood are there truly received by the faithful ; yet he is so wise and cautious as not to trust to the strength of this engine for the pulling us back into a belief and profession of that incredible hypothesis , but according to the fineness of his wit , has spread a more large net to catch us in and carry us captive , not only into this gross errour of transubstantiation , but into all other errours which the church of rome has broached , or may hereafter broach and propose as articles of faith. and therefore it is a point worth our closest consideration . 2. his general maxim is this , that that church in which are found two parties concerned , has ever had the power to determine all differences , and to declare that as matter of faith , which before there was no obligation to believe , and that we are bound to acquiesce in her decisions , under penalty of being schismaticks . by the church her declaring as matter of faith ( which seems to sound so harshly ) he does not mean , that the church has authority to frame new articles of faith , ( pag. 17. ) but that she is to act according to a rule , which is holy scripture , and tradition truly and purely apostolical , from which we have also received the holy scripture it self . and ( page 18. ) the church never did make , and undoubtedly never will make any new articles of faith , since it is not in her power to define any thing but according to the word of god , which she is always to consult with , as with her oracle , and the rule she is bound to follow . his meaning therefore must be this , that besides those plain and universally known articles of the christian faith , and acknowledged from the very beginning of christianity , such as are comprised in the apostles creed , there have been , and may be other articles of faith more obscurely and uncertainly delivered in scripture , which , until the church in a lawful synod or council has determined the sense of those places of scripture that appertain to the controversie , men have no obligation to believe , but go for the present , for but uncertain and indifferent opinions . but when once the true church , in which the parties differing in opinion are , and her lawful representative assisted by the holy ghost , ( as is affirmed chap. 2. pag. 28. ) a canonical assembly , which alone has full power and sovereign authority to say juridically ( chap. 4. pag. 27. ) it seemed good to the holy ghost and to us , has given definitive sentence touching the controversie , that which before was but an indifferent opinion , becomes now matter of faith , and is to be received as an article of faith by the dissenting party , upon penalty of being schismaticks and hereticks . this i conceive to be his precise meaning . but the great artifice of all is , that he will have this meaning of his to be the general opinion also of the protestant churches . who can , says he , ( page 27. ) question , but the protestant churches of england , france , germany , and switzerland and the low countries do hold as a fundamental maxim , that in such controversies as do arise concerning doctrine in matters of religion , the true church of which the dissenting parties are members , has full and sovereign power to declare according to the word of god , what is of faith , and that there is an obligation of standing to her decrees , under pain of being schismaticks . and ( page 35. ) i demand , saith he , nothing more for the present : i will content my self with what themselves do grant ; that that church of which the parties contesting are members , ( be she fallible or infallible ) has full power to decide differences , and her decrees do oblige under the penalty of being schismaticks . 3. now from this general maxim granted , as he conceives , on both sides , and which he does chiefly endeavour to prove from the carriage of the synod of dort , toward the arminians ( all which things to repeat here would be too moliminous and inconsistent with the brevity i intend , a full answer to monsieur maimbourg's method requiring some more able pen ) he declining , i say , all dispute touching the merit of the cause , the point of transubstantiation , he would hence draw us in , to the imbracing that doctrine merely because we were once of that church that has synodically determined for it , and consequently reconcile us to all the rest of the errours of the church of rome . but that we may not so easily be taken in this net , or pulled in by this engine , we will first examine the supposals that support the strength of it , or of which it does consist . the first and chiefest whereof is , that such synods to whose definitive sentence he would have us stand , are assisted by the holy ghost . the second , that whether they be or be not , we are to stand to their determination . the third , whatever matters of opinion ( as they are for the present but such ) are decided by such a synod , pass into articles of faith the fourth , that those that will not close with these decisions be they what they will , they are guilty of schism , as being bound to assent . the fifth , that these decisive synods or assemblies , are to decide according to the rule of the word of god. the sixth and last , that both the protestants and papists are agreed in all these . 4. now before i examine these particulars , these supposals , parts or props of his general maxim , by which he would draw the protestants again into the church of rome , and make them embrace transubstantiation , and all other superstitions and errours which they have synodically decided for matters of faith : i will , following the very method of this shrewd writer , propose not only one maxime , but several maximes , wherein both the romanists and we , and indeed all mankind are agreed in , and which therefore i will instead of maximes call common notions , in allusion to those of euclid . and the first shall be this , i. that which in it self is false , no declaring or saying it is true can make it true . ii. whatever is plainly repugnant to what is true is certainly false . iii. whatever is false can be no due article of a true faith or religion . iv. the senses rightly circumstantiated are true judges of their object , whether such an object be earth , air , fire , or water , body or spirit , and the like . besides that this is a common notion with all mankind , the incarnate wisdom himself has given his suffrage for it , in his arguing with s t thomas , iohn 20. v. 27. then saith he to thomas , reach hither thy finger , and behold my hands , and reach hither thy hand and thrust it into my side , and be not faithless but believing . what is this but the appealing to the truth of sense by our saviour himself ? and luke 24. v. 29. behold my hands and my feet that it is i my self , handle me and see , for a spirit has not flesh and bones as ye see i have . here is an appeal both to sense and reason at once , and that about the very body of christ , touching which the great controversie is raised . v. an essence or being that is one , so long as it remains so , as it is distinct from others , so it is undividable or inseparable from it self . vi. the whole is bigger than the part , and the part less than the whole . vii . in every division , though the parts agree with the whole , yet they disagree amongst themselves . so that the part a. is not the very part b. nor the part b. the very part c. nor can each part be truly and adequately the whole by the foregoing common notion . viii . the same body cannot be actually a cube and a globe at once , and there is the same reason of any other different figures of a body . ix . no revelation , the revealing whereof , or the manner of the revealing whereof is repugnant to the divine attributes , can be from god. x. no tradition of any such revelation can be true , for as much as the revelation it self is impossible . xi . no interpretation of any divine revelation that is repugnant to rightly circumstantiated sense and pure and unprejudiced reason , whether it be from a private or publick hand , can be any inspiration from god. xii . no body can be bigger and less than it self at once . xiii . that individual body that is already , nor ceaseth to be , cannot be made while it is already existing . xiv . one and the same body cannot be both present with it self and many thousand miles absent from it self at once . xv. one and the same body cannot be shut up in a box , and free to walk and run in the fields , and to ascend into the very heavens at the same time . xvi . and lastly ( to omit many other such self-evident truths or common notions ) it is impossible , that a man should swallow his whole body , head , feet , back , belly , arms , and thighs , and stomach it self , through his mouth , down his throat into his stomach , that is , every whit of himself into one knows not what of himself , less than a mathematical point or nothing . for if all be swallowed , what is there left of the man for it to be swallowed into , but a mere point or rather nothing ? 5. certainly all the world as well papists as protestants , as soon as they do but conceive the meaning of the terms , will assent to the truth of these propositions at the very first sight ; which therefore has made me call them common notions . let us now apply our selves to the use of them in the examining the strength of monsieur maimbourg's general maxime , wherein he will have the papists and protestants agreed . the first prop thereof is , that the true church is infallible by the promise made to her of being assisted by the holy ghost . but here i demand whether this promise be made to the universal church or any particular church or churches throughout all ages . that it is not made to the universal church throughout all ages , is plain , in that the parts thereof have been and are still divided in several matters of faith. that no such promise is made to any particular church or churches , is plain from hence , that these churches are not named in any part of the scripture ; which omission is incredible if there had been any such entailment of infallibility upon any particular church or churches . but of all churches , i humbly conceive , it is impossible it should be the church of rome , unless it be possible that all those common notions which i have set down , and in which all the world , even the church of rome her self , if they will speak their consciences , are agreed in , be false , which they must be if transubstantiation be true . and therefore let any man judge whether is themore likely , viz. that transubstantiation should be false or those common notions not true . 6. again , how does it appear that this promise of the assistance of the holy ghost is not conditional ? indeed christ says , iohn 16. 13. when the spirit of truth is come he will guide you into all truth , viz. the same spirit that is promised , chap. 14. v. 15 , 16 , 17. but the words of this pretended charter of infallibility are there set down more fully : if you love me keep my commandments ; and i will pray the father and he shall give you another comforter that he may abide with you for ever , even the spirit of truth whom the world cannot receive — the promise of the assistance of the holy ghost for the infallibly concluding what is true , even from the words of this pretended charter of infallibility , is conditional , that is to say , if they so love christ as to keep his commandments , and become not worldly and carnal ( for the world cannot receive this spirit of truth ) then this spirit which leadeth into all truth shall assist them . wherefore as many as christ sends this infallible spirit to , he first fits them for it by mortifying the spirit of the world in them , and making them members of his truly holy church ; for the calling themselves holy church , makes them never a jot the more holy , if they really be not so , by the first common notion . and besides , if the words of this charter of infallibility had not been so express , yet in common sense and reason this condition would necessarily have been understood . forasmuch as nothing can be more absurd than to imagine the assistance of the holy ghost to be so cheap and trivial a thing , as to be procured for the concluding controversies arising or set on foot in the church , which are needless and frivolous , or more for satisfying curiosity than edification , and which tend to division , and tearing the church violently into parts , which was one before and in a salvable condition without this decision , as monsieur maimbourg confesses himself : or that the holy ghost will assist such assemblies as are worldly and carnally minded , and are called to conclude for the worldly advantage and interest of a worldly polity , who for the upholding and increasing their temporal empire ( whereby they lord it over the world , and ride on the necks of kings and princes ) call themselves spiritual . certainly when all christian truth tends to real and indispensable holiness , if mankind were not left to the liberty of their own will , but christ would have them so infallibly wise , he would all along have prepared them for it , by making them unexceptionably holy , that they might become wise in his own way and method 7. and lastly , there being predictions in daniel and the apocalpyse of an antichristian state in the church to come ( in which there will be such a general apostasie from the apostolick purity ) even according to their own interpreters , i demand what assurance we have that these times came not ( in a very great measure ) upon the church , some hundreds of years before transubstantiation was concluded on by the roman church , which therefore must much invalidate the pretence of the infallibility of any such councils . and our church of england , as all know , in her homilies , whether by inspiration or by mere solid reason and judgement refers the vision of the seventeenth chapter of the apocalypse , to the church of rome . and , i hope , to any unprejudiced reader , that has leisure to examine things , i have even demonstratively made out that truth in my exposition of the apocalypse , and most punctually and distinctly of all in my ioint-exposition of the thirteenth and seventeenth chapters thereof , synops. prophet . book 1. chap. 11 , 12 , 13 , &c. with the preparatory chapters thereto . let any one read them that please , and in the due fear of god consider them . wherefore , to conclude , touching this first prop of his general maxim , whereby he would insinuate that synods , to whose definitive sentence he would have us to stand , are assisted by the holy ghost , it does not only not underprop , but undermine his grand maxim. forasmuch as we have no assurance that those roman councils which have concluded for transubstantiation were assisted by the holy ghost , but rather quite contrary . 8. the second prop is , that whether a synod be or be not assisted by the holy ghost , we are to stand to their determination . if the synod be not assisted by the holy ghost then they are fallible , and may be in the wrong : so that the sense is , whether the synod determine right or wrong , yet we are to stand to their determination . which as odly as it sounds , yet in some sober sense , i must confess ingenuously , for ought i know , may be true , that is , in such things as are really disputable , and which for no sinister base design , but merely for the peace of the church and her edification , it has been thought fit to make a synodical decision of the controversie . but is this colour enough for the church of rome's determination to be stood to ? of making the bread in the sacrament to be transubstantiated into the very body of christ that hung on the cross at ierusalem ( and has ever since his ascension been in heaven ) by the priest's saying over it , this is my body , the bread still remaining bread to all outward appearance , as before , so that christ is fain to be at the expence of a perpetual miracle to make the transubstantiated bread look like bread still , though it be really the body of christ that hung on the cross at ierusalem . which , as i have noted above , is against his wisdom and goodness , in that , if transubstantiation be a true article of the christian faith , this is the most effectual way imaginable to make men , if left to their own free thought , to mis-believe it , however force and cruelty might constrain them to profess it : and so it is against his goodness , to expose so great a part of his church to such bloody persecutions as this article has occasioned in the christian world. that christ should do a perpetual miracle not that will confirm mens faith , but subvert it , not to edifie his church but distract it , and lay all in confusion and blood ! let any one consider how likely this is to be . this therefore could never be a point , bonâ fide , disputable , but to such as were horribly hoodwinkt with prejudice , and blinded with a desire of having a thing concluded by the church which was of such unspeakable advantage , as they then thought , for the magnifying the priest-hood , though i believe nothing will turn more to their disrepute and shame in the conclusion . now i dare appeal to monsieur maimbourg himself , whether we are to stand to the determination of a fallible synod in a point , that , besides what i have already hinted , contradicts all those common notions , which i have above recited , and in which all mankind are agreed . and such is this point of transubstantiation . 9. now for the third prop , that whatever matters of opinion ( as they are for the present but such ) are decided by such a synod , pass into articles of faith ; this prop is also really a puller down of this general maxim. for by an article of faith , must be meant such an article as after the synodical decision , is necessary to be believed by all parties upon pain of damnation but to this i answer , first , no falshood can be an article of faith , nor can what is in it self false , by all the declaring in the world that it is true , become true , by the first common notion . and secondly , since the whole church before , in which arose the controversie , were in a salvable condition , how unchristian an act must this be , to put so many thousand souls in the state of damnation , by so unnecessary , nay mischievous a synodical decision ! and therefore what pretence can there be to the assistance of the holy ghost , which christ has promised his church , when they machinate that , which so manifestly tends , according as the synod acknowledges , to the damnation of such a multitude of souls , which before the decision were in a salvable condition , and also to most barbarous persecutions of their persons , as it is notoriously known in history , touching transubstantiation . 10. the fourth prop charges those with the guilt of schism and heresie that will not close with the above-said synodical decisions , be they what they will. in which matter we cannot judge whether the charge be right , unless we first understand what is truly and properly heresie and schism . the former whereof i demand what it can be , but a dissent from the catholick church even in those things in it , that are apostolical . for whatever national church is found to have all and nothing else in it but what is apostolical , or not inconsistent with the apostolical doctrine and practice , is most assuredly one part of that one catholick and apostolick church , which we profess our belief of in our creed . and for the latter it can be nothing else but a separation from the catholick church , or from any church that is part thereof , even then , when she approves her self to be catholick , that is to say even then , when she is apostolick , or , though she be apostolick , and offers no opinions or usages but such as are conformable to the usages and doctrines of christ and his apostles , or have no repugnancy thereto . to separate from the church in such circumstances as these , certainly is that great crime of schism ; but to separate from that part of the church which imposes opinions and practices plainly repugnant to the precepts of christ and his apostles , this is no schism but union with the truly antient catholick and apostolick church . and the declaring it schism does not , nor can make it so , by common notion the first .. and if it were schism to separate from such a church as propounds things repugnant to the precepts of christ and his apostles , the guilt of this schism is not upon them that thus separate , but upon those that impose such anti-apostolical matters . 11. the fifth prop , that these decisive synods or assemblies are to decide according to the rule of the word of god , the strength of this prop he endeavours more fully to display pag. 34. and he calls upon the brethren of the reformed churches to reflect seriously upon these two propositions he sets down . the first is , that as the word of god is infallible in it self , so certainly the judgment of him who truly judges according to this rule is also infallible : and consequently they are obliged to believe , that the church when she judges according to this rule or the word of god , does not only not err , but that she also cannot err . the second , that they [ the reformed ] are bound [ as well as we the romanists ] to believe that the church of god deciding controversies of faith , does judge according to the true sense of the word of god : because upon the matter it is concerning this very sense that she gives judgment betwixt the parties , who give it a different sense , and who are obliged in conscience to submit to her judgment , under pain of being schismaticks and hereticks , as their synod of dort has positively declared . 12. the first of these propositions may pass for firm and sound , provided that the meaning of her judging according to this rule is the giving the right and genuine sense thereof : of which she can neither assure her self nor any one else , but by being assured of that holiness , integrity , and singleness of heart , in those of the synod , that makes them capable of the assistance of the holy ghost ; and also that their decision clashes not with those indeleble notions in the humane soul , that are previous requisites for the understanding the meaning of not only the holy scriptures , but of any writing whatever . and unto which if they find any thing in the letter of the sacred writ repugnant , they may be sure it is a symbolical or figurative speech , but in other writings , that it is either a figurative speech or nonsense . he that has not this previous furniture , or makes no use of it , it is impossible he should prove a safe judgeof the sense of scripture . and if he runs counter to what is certainly true , it is evident his interpretation is false by the second common notion , and that he is not inspired by common notion the eleventh . touching the second proposition , i demand how any can be bound to stand to the judgment of any synod , if they decline the previous requisites , without which it is impossible to understand the right meaning of any writing whatsoever ; and whether their pretending to judge according to a rule , does not imply , that there are some common principles , in which all parties are agreed in , according to which , though they cannot discern that the synod has certainly defined right , yet if the synod run counter to them , they may be sure they have defined wrong , touching the very sense controverted between the parties . their professing they judge according to the rule , implies the rule is in some measure known to all that are concerned . nor does it at all follow , because the object of their decision is the very sense controverted between the parties , that the synod may give what judgment she will , break all laws of grammar and syntax in the expounding the text , much less contradict those rules which are infinitely more sacred , and inviolable , the common notions which god has imprinted essentially on the humane understanding . if such a violence be used by any interpreters of scripture , neither the synod of dort , nor any reformed church , has or will declare , that under pain of being schismaticks and hereticks , they are obliged in conscience to submit to their determination . chap. ix . 1. the examination of the sixth prop , by demanding whether the maxime monsieur maimbourg proproses is to be understood in the full sense , without any appeal to any common agreed on principles of grammar , rhetorick , logick and morality . 2. instances of enormous results from thence , with a demand whether the protestant churches would allow of such absurd synodical decisions . 3. that the citations of history , touching the synod of dort , prove not , that all synodical decisions pass into proper articles of faith , with the authors free judgment touching the carriage of that synod , and of the parties condemned thereby . 4. his judgment countenanced from what is observed by historians to be the sentiments of king james in the conference at hampton court. 1. and yet the sixth and last prop of the general maxime implies as much , which affirms , that both the protestants and papists are agreed in all the five foregoing supposals , or to speak more compendiously in that his general maxime . that that church in which are found the two parties concerned , has ever had the power to determine all differences , and to declare that as matter of faith , which before there was no obligation to believe , and that we are bound to aquiesce in their decisions under the penalty of being schismaticks . but i demand here of monsieur maimbourg , whether he will have his maxime understood in a full latitude of sense , and that immediately without recourse to any principles in which the synod and the parties are agreed , and counter to which , if any determination be made it is null , such as grammatical syntax and lexicographical sense of words ; and ( which are laws infinitely more sacred and inviolable ) the common notions ( as i said before ) essentially imprinted on the soul of man , either of truth or morality , whether without being bounded by these , the protestant churches as well as the pontifician are agreed , that we are to stand to the determination of a synod , under the penalty of being schismaticks . 2. as for example , if a synod should interpret , drink ye all of this , of the clergy only , and declare it does not reach the laity , though the apostles and primitive church understood it did : if notwithstanding s t paul's long exhortation against religibus exercise in an unknown tongue , 1 cor. 14. they should by some distinction or evasion conclude it lawful . if when as it is said , thou shalt not make to thy self any graven image to worship and fall down before it , they should distinguish and restrain it only to the graven images of the heathen gods. if when as it is said , thou shalt have no other gods but me , they should distinguish gods into supream and subordinate , and declare , we may have many subordinate gods , but only one supream . if when as it said , honour thy father and thy mother , they should restrain it to a father or mother of the same religion with our selves , whether political father or natural , otherwise we are free from this command , and may despise both our natural parents and our prince , if they be not of the same perswasion with our selves . and whereas it is said , thou shalt not commit adultery , if they should understand it only of such an adultery as is committed for the mere pleasure of the flesh , not for the health of the body , or assisting the conjugal impotency of his neighbour . if the commandment against murther , or killing an innocent person , they should restrain to murther that is accompanied with delight in cruelty , not that which is committed to raise a livelyhood , or secure an interest the murtherer has espoused . if the commandment against stealing , they should restrain to such theft as is against men of our religion and perswasion , but that we may rob and steal from others without sin . and according to the same tenour they should interpret , thou shall not bear false witness against thy neighbour , &c. i demand , i say , whether monsieur maimbourg does conceive , that the protestants , nay , or his own party , are agreed that all such determinations are to be submitted to upon penalty of being schismaticks . let him ask the reformed churches if they be thus agreed , or rather let him ask his own conscience , if he think they are . wherefore it is plain , that what he produces out of the history of the synod of dort , reaches not the point that he drives at , that is to say , that it is acknowledged by them , that after a synod has decided the controversie , or given the sense of places of scripture controverted , be it what it will be , the decision is to be stood to , under penalty of being schismaticks , and that there are not some commonly known truths , common notions of reason and morality , with which if the determination of a synod does clash , it is ipso facto null , and a demonstration that the spirit of god did not assist . 3. i observe farther , that all the citations that are produced either by monsieur maimbourg himself , or his translator , in his preface and appendix , will not amount to the protestants professing that every controversie or controverted opinion , after the decision of the synod , passes into an article of faith , which properly signifies such a doctrine , as without the belief of which , when it is proposed , he that mis-believes it forfeits his salvation ; for hereby the synod of dort had damned all the lutheran churches . for my own part i must confess , that in points that are so obscure , intricate , and abstruse , and which , as touching the main part of them , have exercised and much baffled humane understanding through all ages , it had been a great piece of christian prudence for that synod to have made decrees against all bitterness of speech of the disagreeing parties one against another , and to have admonished them that they were bound , notwithstanding their difference of opinion , to live in mutual love one to another , which is the true badge of christ's genuine disciples , rather than to have exasperated one party against another , by making that doctrine authentick , which is really in it self from places of scripture , and reason so intricate and disputable . but it seems to have been the sleight of satan for the weakning the reformed churches that drove them to it . but i must say , on the other side , that when the synod had determined , they who were determined against , ought to have submitted to her determination in a thing so really disputable , and by this christian policy to have conserved the peace of the church , and out-witted the devil . for if they had had any modesty in them , they might very well in such abstruse , dark and disputable points have compromised with the synod , and preferred the peace and safety of the reformed churches , before the satisfaction of their own opinionativeness . 4. and that wise prince , king iames the first of blessed memory , seems to come near to what i have said , in the words delivered by his embassadour at the synod of dort , as they are cited by monsieur maimbourg himself in his peaceable method , pag. 23. that for the allaying those troubles , there was but that one only means which the church had ever made use of , a national synod , which was to be judge in the case , and to decide which of the two opinions was more conformable to the word of god : or at least how and in what manner the one or the other might be tolerated in the church of god. which latter part is cunningly left out by the translator , in his preface , pag. 3. but in those latter words , king iames plainly intimates his moderate sentiments touching the controversy , and that he would not have the decision made too rigidly and pinchingly on either side . and sutably to this excellent judgment of his , in the conference at hampton-court , when the puritans would have had the nine lambeth articles , which are more full and express against the points of arminianism , to be embodyed into the articles of our church , concluded on in the convocation holden at london , in the year 1562. the king earnestly refused it . and in his instructions to his divines he sent over to the synod of dort , this remarkable one was amongst the rest , that they would advise the churches that the ministers do not deliver in pulpit to the people those things for ordinary doctrines , which are the highest points of the schools , and not fit for vulgar capacities , but disputable on both sides . and we may be sure when he was so careful in this for the foreign churches , he would not neglect to infuse the same good principles into his own . and that he could not easily believe that upon the decision of the synod of dort , that passed into an article of faith , without which there is no salvation , which yet he would have hid from the knowledge of the people . chap. x. 1. what synodical decisions are capable of passing into proper articles of faith , and what not . 2. the necessity of distinguishing the doctrinal decisions of synods into articles of faith , properly so called , and articles of communion . 3. the meaning of the king's answer to mr. knewstub , in the conference at hampton-court : and that synods have unlimited power to put what sense they please on places of scripture , and make them pass into articles of faith , not proved to be the opinion of the protestant churches . 4. that our english church is against it , largely proved out of her articles . 5. no article of faith pre-existent in scripture that cannot be fetched thence but by interpreting against the proleptick principles of rightly circumstantiated sense and common notions ingrafted essentially in the humane understanding . 6. of decision of points necessary to salvation , and to the justifying the christian worship , and those that are less necessary , and less clear , and lastly , those that have an insuperable difficulty on both sides . 7. monsieur maimbourg's general maxime , that it is not agreed in by the protestant churches , abundantly demonstrated , with a note of the subtilty of the romanists in declining the dispute of the particular merits of their cause , and making it their business to perswade , first , that their church is infallible . 8. a meeting with monsieur maimbourg once more in his own method , and thereby demonstrating that transubstantiation is grosly false , and consequently the church of rome fallible , with an hint of a true peaceable method of reconciling papists and protestants . 1. wherefore it seems needful to take notice of this distinction of the doctrinal decisions of synods , that some pass into , or rather are of the nature of the articles of faith , the knowledge of them being necessary to keep us from sin and damnation . and such were the doctrinal decisions of those ancient primitive councils , who out of scripture plainly declared , the truth of the divinity of christ and triunity of the god-head , without which the church would be involved in gross idolatry . and therefore the decisions of the controversies did naturally pass into professed articles of the christian faith , and such as our salvation depended on . but to imagine that every doctrinal decision of a synod passes into a proper article of faith , without which there is no salvation , and that a synod has power to make that an article of faith , before which men were safe and sinless as to that point , is to put it into the power of a synod to damn god knows how many myriads of men which christ dyed for , and had it not been for these curious , or rather mischievous decisions , might have been saved ; than which what can be more prodigious ? 2. whence we see plainly it is most necessary to make this distinction in doctrinal decisions of synods , that some may be articles of faith , others only articles of communion , that if any oppose or disparage the said articles , whether they be of the clergy or laity , they make themselves obnoxious to excommunication ; and if a clergy-man does not subscribe to them , he makes himself uncapable of ecclesiastical imployment . this is all that monsieur maimbourg can squeeze out of all his citations out of the story of the synod of dort , so far as i can perceive , or his translator in his preface and appendix , out of those he produces touching the church of england . 3. and that which his translator in his preface would make such a great business of , viz , this wise kings answer to m r knewstubs , at the conference at hampton court , when he was asked , how far an ordinance of the church was to bind men without impeachment of their christian liberty : to which he said , he would not argue that point with him , but answer therein as kings are wont to speak in parliament , le roy s'avisera . and therefore i charge you never speak more to that point how far you are bound to obey when the church has once ordained it . i say nothing more can be collected out of this answer , but that he modestly intimated his opinion , that he meant not that all synodical decisions passed into articles of faith , but may be only articles of communion in the sense i have already explained . and what i have already said , if seriously and considerately applyed to what he produces in his appendix , will easily discover that they prove nothing more touching the church of england , than what we have already allowed to be her doctrine touching the authority of synods . but that a synod without any limitation or appeal to certain principles in which both the synod and parties contesting are all agreed in , may by her bare immediate authority , give what sense she pleases on places of scripture , alledged in the controversy , and that her decision passes into an artiticle of faith , which the parties cast are bound to assent to , under the pain of becoming hereticks and schismaticks . nothing can be more contrary than this to the declarations of the church of england . so far is it from truth , that all the protestant churches are agreed in his grand maxime above mentioned . 4. let the church of england speak for her self , artic. 19. as the church of jerusalem , alexandria , and antioch , so also the church of rome has erred , not only in their living and ceremonies , but also in matters of faith. and article 21. general councils may not be gathered together without the commandment and will of princes . and when they be gathered together ( forasmuch as they be an assembly of men , whereof all be not governed with the spirit and word of god ) they may err , and sometimes have erred even in things appertaining to god , wherefore things ordained by them , as necessary to salvation , have neither strength nor authority , unless it may be declared that they be taken out of the holy scriptures . here our church plainly declares , that forasmuch as a council or synod consists of fallible persons , they can determine nothing necessary to salvation , but what they can make out that it is clearly , to any unprejudiced eye , contained in the scripture , not fetched out by weak and precarious consequences , or phanciful surmises , much less by a distorted interpretation , and repugnant to common sense and reason , which are necessarily supposed in the understanding of any scripture or writing whatsoever , as i have intimated above . and even that article ( 20. ) which the translator produces in his preface , in the behalf of monsieur maimbourg's grand maxime , do but produce the whole article and it is plainly against it . for the words are these : the church has power to decree rites and ceremonies and autority in controversies of faith ; and yet it is not lawful for the church to ordain any thing that is contrary to god's word written , neither may it so expound one place of scripture that it be repugnant to another . wherefore although the church be a witness and keeper of holy writ , yet as it ought not to decree any thing against the same , so beside the same , ought it not to inforce any thing to be believed for necessity of salvation . it is true , the church is here said to have authority in controversies of faith. as certainly if any should raise new stirs in any national church , touching such points as the antient primitive synods have concluded for , in the behalf of the divinity of christ , and triunity of the god-head , pretending they have clearer demonstrations than ever yet were proposed against those decisions or any of like nature , which may concern the iustifiableness of our christian worship , and indispensable way of salvation , the church has authority as she ever had , in such controversies , to ratifie such articles of faith , but she is not said to have authority to make every synodical decision an article of faith , whether the nature thereof will bear it or no. nay her authority is excluded from inforcing any thing besides what is clearly enough contained in the scripture ( as assuredly those points are above mentioned , though with weak or cavilling men they have been made questionable ) to be believed for necessity of salvation . which is the proper character of an article of faith , according as the preface to the athanasian creed intimates . and monsieur maimbourg himself is so sensible of this main truth , that in the explication of his general maxime , he acknowledges that the church has no autority to coin any new articles of faith , but only to declare she has discovered them existent before in the scriptures , but not so clearly espi'd or discerned as by an assembled synod . 5. but certainly no article of faith , that is to say , no truth necessary to salvation can be said to be pre existent in the scriptures , and having lain hid to be discovered afterwards , that is not discovered but by such forced interpretations of the text , that are repugnant to common sense and reason . is not this a reproach to the wisdom of god , that he should inspire the holy penmen to set down truth necessary to salvation so obscurely , that the meaning cannot be reached without doing violence to common sense and reason , and running counter to those previous principles , without which it is impossible to make sense of any writing whatever ? or without interpreting one place of scripture repugnantly to the plain sense of another . which this article expresly forbids as unlawful . so plain is it that our church limits the authority of a synod to certain rules agreed of on all hands , against which they have no authority to define any thing : and plain places of scripture is one rule , contrary to which it is not lawful to interpret any either pretendedly or really obscure place . nor can any place at all be plain without the admittance of those proleptick principles of rightly circumstantiated sense and common undeniable notions essentially ingrafted in the mind of man , whether they relate to reason or morality . these , both synod and contesters , are supposed to be agreed on , and therefore no synodical decision repugnant to these according to our church in interpreting of scripture ( if i rightly understand her ) ought to have autority with it . 6. but as for doctrinal decisions , such as concern the justifiableness of the christian worship , and are of necessity to salvation , and such as , although either weak or willful cavilling men may make questionable , yet are clearly enough delivered in scripture , these , questionless , a synod has autority to determine as articles of faith. and such as have not the like clearness nor necessity , as also innocent and indifferent rites and ceremonies , when the one and the other seem advantagious to the church , such synodical decisions may pass into articles of communion , in that sense i have above explained . and lastly , as in that case of the synod of dort , when the points controverted have on both sides that invincible obscurity and intricacy , and there seems to be forcible arguments for either conclusion . what , i humbly conceive , is to be done in that case , i have fully enough expressed already , and therefore think it needless again to repeat . 7. in the mean time , i hope , i have made it manifoldly apparent that monsieur maimbourg's general maxime , viz. that the church , in which are found the two parties concerned , has ever had the power to determine all differences , and to declare that as matter of faith , which before there was no obligation to believe ; and that we are bound to acquiesce in her decisions under the penalty of being schismaticks , is not , ( especially as he would have his maxime understood ) agreed on by all churches , as well protestant as pontifician . and that therefore this snare or net , wherewith he would catch and carry captive the protestants into a profession of the infallibility of the church in synodical decisions ; so that the church must be first allow'd infallible , that we may glibly swallow down whatsoever she decides , even transubstantiation it self , with all other errours of the church of rome ; this net or snare , i hope , i have sufficiently broken . and i will only note by the bye , how the subtilest romanists declining the merits of the cause , labour tooth and nail to establish the absolute infallibility of their church . but our saviour tells us , by the fruit you shall know them . wherefore any man or company of men that profess themselves infallible , their infallibility must be examined by their doctrines , which if they be plainly any one of them false , their boast of infallibility most certainly is not true . 8. but forasmuch as an appeal to a maxime pretended to be agreed upon by both sides , both papists and protestants , is made use of with so much wit and artifice , to ingage the protestants to imbrace transubstantiation and the rest of the romish errours : i hope monsieur maimbourg will not take it amiss , if i civilly meet him again in his own way , and show him by an appeal , not only to one maxime but above a dozen at least of common notions , which i did above recite , and in which both papists and protestants , and all mankind are agreed , that it may demonstratively be made evident that the doctrine of transubstantiation is grosly false . for that which in it self is false , no declaring or saying it is true , though by the vote of an entire synod , can make it true , by the first of the common notions above-mentioned , chap. 8. sect. 4. secondly , whatever is plainly repugnant to what is true , is certainly false , and consequently can be no due article of a true faith or religion , by the second and third common notions . and therefore transubstantiation cannot pass into an article of faith by the authority of any synod whatever . thirdly , now that the doctrine of transubstantiation is false , is manifest from the assurance of our senses rightly circumstantiated . to which our saviour christ appeals , who is wiser than all the synods that ever were or will be , as was observed in common notion the fourth . but our senses assure us it is bread still , not the body of christ. fourthly , if transubstantiation be true , an essence or being that is one remaining still one , may be divided or separated from it self , which is repugnant to the fifth common notion . fifthly , if transubstantiation be true , the whole is not bigger than the part , nor the part less than the whole , which contradicts the sixth common notion . sixthly , if transubstantiation be true , the parts in a division do not only agree with the whole , but agree one with another , and are indeed absolutely the same ; for divide a consecrated wafer into two , viz. a. and b. this a. and b. are the same intire individual body of christ according to this doctrine , which contradicts the seventh common notion . seventhly , if the said doctrine be true , one and the same body may be a cube and a globe at once , have the figure of an humane body and of a pyramid and cylinder at the same time , according as they shall mould the consecrated bread , which is repugnant to the eighth common notion . eighthly , transubstantiation , if it be any truth at all , it is a revealed truth ; but no revelation the revealing whereof , or the manner of revealing is repugnant to the divine attributes , can be from god , by common notion the ninth : but if this doctrine of transubstantiation were a truth , it seems not to sute with the wisdom of god to reveal a truth that seems so palpably to overthrow and thwart all the innate principles of humane understanding , and the assurance of the rightly circumstantiated senses , to both which christ himself appeals , and without which we have no certainty of the miracles of christ and his apostles . and he hence exposes his church to be befool'd by all the lucriferous fictions of a fallacious priesthood . and besides this , the circumstances or manner of its first revelation at the lord's supper as they would have it , shows it cannot be ; for the consecrated bread retaining still the shape and all other sensible qualities of bread without any change , and that by a miraculous supporting them , now not inherent in their proper subject bread , which is transubstantiated into that very body that holds it in his hands , or seems so to do . i say , as i have also intimated before , to be thus at the expence of so vast a miracle here at his last supper , and to repeat the same miracle upon all the consecrations of the bread by the priest , which is the most effectual means to make all men infidels , as to the belief of transubstantiation , and to occasion thence such cruel and bloody persecutions , is apparently contrary to the divine wisdom and goodness ; and therefore neither pretended tradition nor fresh interpretation of the inspired text , can make so gross a falshood true , by the tenth and eleventh common notions . ninthly , if transubstantiation be true , one and the same body may be many thousand times bigger or less than it self at the same time , forasmuch as the least atom or particle of his body or transubstantiated bread is his whole body as well as the bigger lump according to this doctrine , which contradicts the twelfth common notion . tenthly , if this doctrine be true , the same individual body still existing and having existed many years , may notwithstanding be made whiles it already exists , which contradicts the thirteenth common notion . eleventhly , if transubstantiation be true , one and the same body may be present with it self and many thousands of miles absent from it self at once , be shut up in a box and free to walk in the field , and to ascend into heaven at the same time , contrary to the fourteenth and fifteenth common notions . and lastly , if this doctrine be true , a man may swallow his own body whole , head , feet , back , belly , arms , and thighs , and stomach it self through his mouth , down his throat into his stomach , that is to say , every whit of himself into one knows not what of himself , less than a mathematical point or nothing . this christ might have done , and actually did if he did eat the consecrated bread with his disciples , which contradicts the sixteenth common notion . wherefore since in vertue of one single maxim , monsieur maimbourg supposing the protestants as well as the paepists agreeing therein ( though in that , as i have show'd , he is mistaken ) would draw in the protestants to imbrace the doctrine of transubstantiation , and other ertors of the roman church , i appeal to him how much more reasonable it is , that he and as many as are of his perswasion should relinquish that doctrine , it contradicting so many common notions , which not only all papists and protestants , but indeed all the whole world are agreed in . and hence clearly discerning the infallibility of the roman church , upon which this and other erroneous doctrines are built ( such as invocation of saints , worshiping of images , and the like ) plainly to fail , that they should bethink themselves what need there is to reform their church from such gross errours , and to pray to god to put it into the mind of their governours so to do ; which would be a peaceable method indeed for the reuniting protestants and catholicks in matters of faith , and principally in the subject of the holy eucharist , as the title of his method has it . but to require an union , things standing as they are , is to expect of us that we cease to be men to become christians of a novel mode unknown to the primitive church , and under pretence of faith to abjure the indeleble principles of sound reason , those immutable common notions which the eternal logos has essentially ingrafted in our souls , and without which neither certainty of faith can consist , nor any assured sense of either the holy scriptures or any writing else be found out or understood . soli deo gloria . the doctrine of the trinity and transubstantiation compared as to scripture, reason, and tradition. the first part in a new dialogue between a protestant and a papist : wherein an answer is given to the late proofs of the antiquity of transubstantiation in the books called consensus veterum and nubes testium, &c. stillingfleet, edward, 1635-1699. 1688 approx. 200 kb of xml-encoded text transcribed from 49 1-bit group-iv tiff page images. text creation partnership, ann arbor, mi ; oxford (uk) : 2004-08 (eebo-tcp phase 1). a61550 wing s5589 estc r14246 13589094 ocm 13589094 100628 this keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the early english books online text creation partnership. this phase i text is available for reuse, according to the terms of creative commons 0 1.0 universal . the text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission. early english books online. (eebo-tcp ; phase 1, no. a61550) transcribed from: (early english books online ; image set 100628) images scanned from microfilm: (early english books, 1641-1700 ; 851:31) the doctrine of the trinity and transubstantiation compared as to scripture, reason, and tradition. the first part in a new dialogue between a protestant and a papist : wherein an answer is given to the late proofs of the antiquity of transubstantiation in the books called consensus veterum and nubes testium, &c. stillingfleet, edward, 1635-1699. the second edition. 48, [1] p. printed for w. rogers ..., london : 1688. written by edward stillingfleet. cf. wing. advertisement on p. [1] at end. reproduction of original in huntington library. created by converting tcp files to tei p5 using tcp2tei.xsl, tei @ oxford. re-processed by university of nebraska-lincoln and northwestern, with changes to facilitate morpho-syntactic tagging. gap elements of known extent have been transformed into placeholder characters or elements to simplify the filling in of gaps by user contributors. eebo-tcp is a partnership between the universities of michigan and oxford and the publisher proquest to create accurately transcribed and encoded texts based on the image sets published by proquest via their early english books online (eebo) database (http://eebo.chadwyck.com). the general aim of eebo-tcp is to encode one copy (usually the first edition) of every monographic english-language title published between 1473 and 1700 available in eebo. eebo-tcp aimed to produce large quantities of textual data within the usual project restraints of time and funding, and therefore chose to create diplomatic transcriptions (as opposed to critical editions) with light-touch, mainly structural encoding based on the text encoding initiative (http://www.tei-c.org). the eebo-tcp project was divided into two phases. the 25,363 texts created during phase 1 of the project have been released into the public domain as of 1 january 2015. anyone can now take and use these texts for their own purposes, but we respectfully request that due credit and attribution is given to their original source. users should be aware of the process of creating the tcp texts, and therefore of any assumptions that can be made about the data. text selection was based on the new cambridge bibliography of english literature (ncbel). if an author (or for an anonymous work, the title) appears in ncbel, then their works are eligible for inclusion. selection was intended to range over a wide variety of subject areas, to reflect the true nature of the print record of the period. in general, first editions of a works in english were prioritized, although there are a number of works in other languages, notably latin and welsh, included and sometimes a second or later edition of a work was chosen if there was a compelling reason to do so. image sets were sent to external keying companies for transcription and basic encoding. quality assurance was then carried out by editorial teams in oxford and michigan. 5% (or 5 pages, whichever is the greater) of each text was proofread for accuracy and those which did not meet qa standards were returned to the keyers to be redone. after proofreading, the encoding was enhanced and/or corrected and characters marked as illegible were corrected where possible up to a limit of 100 instances per text. any remaining illegibles were encoded as <gap>s. understanding these processes should make clear that, while the overall quality of tcp data is very good, some errors will remain and some readable characters will be marked as illegible. users should bear in mind that in all likelihood such instances will never have been looked at by a tcp editor. the texts were encoded and linked to page images in accordance with level 4 of the tei in libraries guidelines. copies of the texts have been issued variously as sgml (tcp schema; ascii text with mnemonic sdata character entities); displayable xml (tcp schema; characters represented either as utf-8 unicode or text strings within braces); or lossless xml (tei p5, characters represented either as utf-8 unicode or tei g elements). keying and markup guidelines are available at the text creation partnership web site . eng gother, john, d. 1704. -nubes testium. sclater, edward, 1623-1699? -consensus veterum. transubstantiation -early works to 1800. trinity -early works to 1800. 2004-02 tcp assigned for keying and markup 2004-03 apex covantage keyed and coded from proquest page images 2004-04 jonathan blaney sampled and proofread 2004-04 jonathan blaney text and markup reviewed and edited 2004-07 pfs batch review (qc) and xml conversion the doctrine of the trinity and transubstantiation compared , as to scripture , reason , and tradition . in a new dialogue between a protestant and a papist . the first part . wherein an answer is given to the late proofs of the antiquity of transubstantiation , in the books called consensus veterum , and nubes testium , &c. the second edition . imprimatur . ex aedib . lambeth . jan. 17. 1686. guil. needham rr. in christo pat. ac d. d. wilhelmo archiep. cant. à sacris . london , printed for w. rogers at the sun over against st. dunstan's church in fleet-street . m dc lxxx viii . the doctrine of the trinity and transubstantiation compared , as to scripture , reason , and tradition . in a new dialogue between a protestant and a papist . pr. i remember your last words at parting were , farewel ; and god give his holy spirit to instruct you . which have run much in my mind : for if the holy spirit instruct us , what need is there of an infallible church ? i hope those were not only words of course with you . pa. no ; but i meant that the holy spirit should instruct you about the authority of the church . pr. was this indeed your meaning ? then you would have me believe the church infallible , because the holy spirit which is infallible will instruct me about it , if i seek his directions . p. yes . pr. but then i have no reason to believe it ; for the holy spirit after my seeking his instructions , teaches me otherwise . and if the holy spirit is infallible which way soever it teaches , then i am infallibly sure there is no such thing as infallibility in what you call the catholick church . p. come , come ; you make too much of a sudden expression at parting ; i pray let us return to our main business , which is to shew , that there is the same ground from scripture , reason , and tradition , to believe transubstantiation , as there is to believe the trinity . and this i affirm again , after reading the answers to the former dialogue ; and i now come somewhat better prepared to make it out . pr. so you had need . and i hope i shall be able not only to defend the contrary , but to make it evident to you , that there is a mighty difference in these two doctrines , as to scripture , reason , and tradition . but i pray keep close to the point : for i hate impertinent trifling in a debate of such consequence . p. i must confess , i over-shot my self a little in the former dialogue , when i offer'd to prove the doctrine of the trinity unreasonable and absurd : for no church can make such a doctrine , which is unreasonable and absurd in it self , not to be so to me ; no church can make three and one to be the same , if they be repugnant in themselves . but my meaning was , that mens disputes about these things will never be ended , till they submit to the authority of the church . pr. and then they may believe three , or three hundred persons in the trinity , as the church pleases . is that your meaning ? p. no. but i said to my carnal reason it would appear so ; but not to my reason as under the conduct of an infallible guide . pr. then an infallible guide can make three hundred to be but three ; which is a notable trick of infallibility . p. no ; i tell you i meant only that we are not to follow carnal reason , but the church's authority , i. e. we are not to search into mysteries above reason , but only believe what the church delivers . and i intend now to argue the point somewhat closely with you . do you believe that there are any mysteries in the christian doctrine above reason , or not ? if not , you must reject the trinity ; if you do , then you have no ground for rejecting transubstantiation , because it is above reason . pr. you clearly mistake us ; and i perceive were very little acquainted with our doctrine : for we do not reject any doctrine concerning god , meerly because it is above our reason , when it is otherwise clearly proved from scripture . for then we own our selves bound to submit in matters of divine revelation concerning an infinite being , though they be above our capacity to comprehend them . but in matters of a finite nature , which are far more easie for us to conceive , and which depend upon the evidence of sense , we may justly reject any doctrine which overthrows that evidence , and is not barely above our reason , but repugnant to it . p. i do not well understand you . pr. so i believe ; but i will endeavour to help your understanding a little . and i pray consider these things : 1. that there is a great difference in our conceptions of finite and infinite beings . for , whatsoever is infinite , is thereby owned to be above our comprehension , otherwise it would not be infinite . the attributes of god which are essential to him , as his wisdom , goodness and power , must be understood by us , so far as to form a true notion of that being which is infinite ; but then the infinity of these attributes is above our reach . and so his infinite duration , which we call eternity ; his infinite presence which we call his immensity ; the infinite extent of his knowledg , as to future contingencies ; all these must be confessed to be mysteries , not above our reason , but above our capacity . for we have great reason to own them , but we have not faculties to comprehend them . we cannot believe a god , unless we hold him to be infinite in all perfections : and if he be infinite , he must be incomprehensible ; so that religion must be overthrown , if something incomprehensible be not allowed . and as to finite beings , so far as they run into what we call infinite , they are so far out of our reach ; as appears by the insuperable difficulties about the infinite divisibility of quantity . 2. that we have certain notions of some things in the visible world ; both that they are , and that they have some attributes essential to them . we daily converse with things visible and corporeal ; and if we do not conceive something true and certain in our minds about them , we live in a dream and have only phantasms and illusions about us . if we are certain that there are real bodies , and not meer appearances , there must be some certain way of conveying such impressions to our minds , from whence they may conclude , this is a horse , and this a man , and this is flesh , and this blood , and this is wood , and this stone ; otherwise all certainty is gone , and we must turn meer scepticks . 3. that in examining the sense of scripture we may make use of those certain notions of visible things which god and nature have planted in us ; otherwise we are not dealt with as reasonable creatures . and therefore we must use those faculties god hath given us , in reading and comparing scriptures , and examining the sense that is offered by such notions which are agreeable to the nature of things . as for instance , the scripture frequently attributes eyes and ears and hands to the almighty : must we presently believe god to have an human shape because of this ? no ; we compare these with the necessary attributes of god , and from thence see a necessity of interpreting these expressions in a sense agreeable to the divine nature . so if other expressions of scripture seem to affirm that of a body which is inconsistent with the nature of it ; as , that it is not visible , or may be in many places at once , there is some reason for me to understand them in a sense agreeable to the essential properties of a body . 4. there is a difference between our not apprehending the manner how a thing is , and the apprehending the impossibility of the thing it self . and this is the meaning of the distinction of things above our reason , and contrary to our reason . if the question be , how the same individual nature can be communicated to three distinct persons ? we may justly answer , we cannot apprehend the manner of it , no more than we can the divine immensity , or an infinite amplitude without extension . but if any go about to prove there is an impossibility in the thing , he must prove that the divine nature can communicate it self no otherwise than a finite individual nature can : for all acknowledg the same common nature may be communicated to three persons , and so the whole controversie rests on this single point as to reason ; whether the divine nature and persons are to be judged and measured as human nature and persons are . and in this , i think we have the advantage in point of reason of the anti-trinitarians themselves , although they pretend never so much to it . p. good night , sir ; i perceive you are in for an hour ; and i have not so much time to spare , to hear such long preachments . for my part , talk of sense and reason as long as you will , i am for the catholick church . pr. and truly , she is mightily obliged to you for oppoposing her authority to sense and reason . p. call it what you will , i am for the churches authority ; and the talk of sense and reason is but canting without that . pr. the matter is then come to a fine pass ; i thought canting had rather been that which was spoken against sense or reason . but i pray , sir , what say you to what i have been discoursing ? p. to tell you truth , i did not mind it ; for as soon as i heard whither you were going , i clapt fast hold of the church , as a man would do of a mast in a storm , and resolved not to let go my hold . pr. what! altho you should sink together with it . p. if i do , the church must answer for it ; for i must sink or swim with it . pr. what comfort will that be to you , when you are called to an account for your self ? but if you stick here , it is to no purpose to talk any more with you . p. i think so too . but now we are in , methinks we should not give over thus ; especially since i began this dialogue about the trinity and transubstantiation . pr. if you do , we know the reason of it . but i am resolved to push this matter now as far as it will go ; and either to convince you of your mistake , or at least to make you give it over wholly . p. but if i must go on in my parallel , i will proceed in my own way . i mentioned three things , scripture , reason , and tradition . and i will begin with tradition . pr. this is somewhat an uncouth method ; but i must be content to follow your conduct . p. no , sir , the method is very natural ; for in mysteries above reason , the safest way is to trust tradition . and none can give so good account of that as the church . pr. take your own way : but i perceive tradition with you is the sense of the present church ; which is as hard to conceive , as that a nunc stans should be an eternal succession . p. as to comparing tradition , i say , that the mystery of the trinity was questioned in the very infancy of the church , and the arians prevail'd much against it in the beginning of the fourth age ; but transubstantiation lay unquestion'd and quiet for a long time ; and when it came into debate , there was no such opposition as that of arius , to call in question the authority of its tradition ; the church received it unanimously , and in that sense continued till rash reason attempted to fathom the unlimited miracles and mysteries of god. pr. i stand amazed at the boldness of this assertion : but i find your present writers are very little vers'd in antiquity ; which makes them offer things concerning the ancient church , especially as to transubstantiation , which those who had been modest and learned , would have been ashamed of . p. i hope i may make use of them to justify my self , tho you slight them , i mean the consensus veterum , the nubes testium , and the single sheet about transubstantiation . pr. take them all , and as many more as you please , i am sure you can never prove transubstantiation to have been , and the trinity not to have been the constant belief of the primitive church . p. let me manage my own argument first . pr. all the reason in the world. p. my argument is , that the doctrine of the trinity met with far more opposition than transubstantiation did . pr. good reason for it , because it was never heard of then . you may as well say , the tradition of the circulation of the blood lay very quiet , from the days of hippocrates to the time of parisanus . who was there that opposed things before they were thought of ? p. that is your great mistake ; for transubstantiation was very well known , but they did not happen to speak so much of it , because it was not opposed . pr. but how is it possible for you to know it was so well known , if they spake not of it ? p. i did not say , they did not speak of it , but not so much , or not half so express ; because it is not customary for men to argue unquestionable truths . pr. but still how shall it be known that the church received this doctrine unanimously , if they do not speak expresly of it ? but since you offer at no proof of your assertion , i will make a fair offer to you , and undertake to prove , that the fathers spake expresly against it . p. how is that ? expresly against it ? god forbid . pr. make of it what you please , and answer what you can : i begin with my proofs . p. nay , then , we are in for all night . i am now full of business , and cannot hearken to tedious proofs out of the fathers , which have been canvassed a hundred times . pr. i will be as short as i can ; and i promise you not to transcribe any that have hitherto written , nor to urge you with any spurious writer , or lame citation at second or third hand ; and i shall produce nothing but what i have read , considered , and weighed in the authors themselves . p. since it must be so ; let me hear your doubty arguments , which i cannot as well turn against the trinity ; for that is my point . pr. i leave you to try your skill upon them . the first shall be from the proofs of the truth of christ's incarnation ; and i hope this will not hold against the trinity . and those arguments which they brought to prove christ incarnate , do overthrow transubstantiation effectually . so that either we must make the fathers to reason very ill against hereticks ; or , if their arguments be good , it was impossible they should believe transubstantiation . for can you suppose that any can believe it , who should not barely assert , but make the force of an argument to lie in this , that the substance of the bread doth not remain after consecration ? and this i now prove , not from any slight inconsiderable authors , but from some of the greatest men in the church in their time . i begin with st. chrysostom , whose epistle to coesarius is at last brought to light by a learned person of the roman communion ; who makes no question of the sincerity of it , and faith , the latin translation which only he could find entire , was about five hundred years old ; but he hath so confirm'd it by the greek fragments of it , quoted by ancient greek authors , that there can be no suspicion left concerning it . p. what means all this ado before you come to the point ? pr. because this epistle hath been formerly so confidently denied to be st. chrysostom's ; and such care was lately taken to suppress it . p. but what will you do with it now you have it ? pr. i will tell you presently . this epistle was written by him for the satisfaction of caesarius a monk , who was in danger of being seduced by the apollinarists . p. what have we to do with the apollinarists ? do you think all hard words are akin , and so the affinity rises between apollinarists and transubstantiation ? pr. you shall find it comes nearer the matter than you imagined . for those hereticks denied the truth of the human nature of christ after the union , and said that the properties of it did then belong to the divine nature ; as appears by that very epistle . p. and what of all this ? do we deny the truth of christ's human nature ? pr. no ; but i pray observe the force of his parallel . he is proving that each nature in christ contains its properties ; for , saith he , as before consecration we call it bread , but after it by divine grace sanctifying it through the prayer of the priest , it is no longer called bread , but the body of our lord , altho the nature of bread remains in it ; and it doth not become two bodies , but one body of christ ; so here the divine nature being joyned to the human , they both make one son , and one person . p. and what do you infer from hence ? pr. nothing more , but that the nature of bread doth as certainly remain after consecration , as the nature of christ doth after the union . p. hold a little . for the author of the single sheet , saith , that the fathers by nature and substance do often mean no more than the natural qualities , or visible appearances of things . and why may not st. chrysostom mean so here ? pr. i say , it is impossible he should . for all the dispute was about the substance , and not about the qualities , as appears by that very epistle ; for those hereticks granted , that christ had all the properties of a body left still ; they do not deny that christ could suffer , but they said , the properties of a body after the union belonged to the divine nature , the human nature being swallowed up by the union . and therefore st. chrysostom , by nature , must understand substance , and not qualities ; or else he doth by no means prove that which he aimed at . so that st. chrysostom doth manifestly assert the substance of the bread to remain after consecration . p. but doth not st. chrysostom suppose then , that upon consecration , the bread is united to the divinity , as the human nature is to the divine ; else what parallel could he make ? pr. i will deal freely with you by declaring , that not st. chrysostom only , but many others of the fathers , did own the bread after consecration to be made the real body of christ ; but not in your sense , by changing the substance of the elements into that body of christ which is in heaven ; but by a mystical union , caused by the holy spirit , whereby the bread becomes the body of christ , as that was which was conceived in the womb of the blessed virgin. but this is quite another thing from transubstantiation ; and the church of england owns , that after consecration , the bread and wine are the body and blood of christ. p. but altho this be not transubstantiation , it may be something as hard to believe or understand . pr. by no means . for all the difficulties relating to the taking away the substance of the bread , and the properties of christ's body , are removed by this hypothesis . p. let us then keep to our point : but methinks this is but a slender appearance yet ; st. chrysostom stands alone for all that i see . pr. have but a little patience , and you shall see more of his mind presently . but i must first tell you , that the eutychians afterwards were condemned in the council of chalcedon for following this doctrine of apollinaris ; and that council defines , that the differences of the two natures in christ were not destroyed by the union ; but that their properties were preserved distinct and concur to one person . and against these , the other fathers disputed just as st. chrysostom had done before against the apollinarists . theodoret brings the same instance , and he affirms expresly , that the nature of the elements is not changed , that they do not lose their proper nature , but remain in their former substance , figure and form , and may be seen and touched as before . still this is not to prove any accidental qualities , but the very substance of christ's body to remain . p. but was not theodoret a man of suspected faith in ●he church ? and therefore no great matter can be made of his testimony . pr. yield it then to us ; and see if we do not clear theodoret ; but your own learned men never question him , as to this matter ( at least ) and the ancient church hath vindicated his reputation . and he saith no more than st. chrysostom before him , and others of great esteem ●fter him . p. who were they ? pr. what say you to a pope , whom you account head of the church ? pope gelasius writing against the same hereticks , produces the same example ; and he expresly saith , the substance of the bread and wine doth not cease . p. i thought i should find you tripping . here you put a fob-head of the church upon us . for the author of the single sheet saith , this was another gelasius , as is prov'd at large by bellarmin . pr. in truth , i am ashamed of the ignorance of such small authors , who will be medling with things they understand not . for this writer , since bellarmin's time , hath been evidently proved from testimonies of antiquity , such as fulgentius and john the second , to have been pope gelasius , and that by some of the most learned persons of the roman communion , such as cardinal du perron , petavius , sirmondus , and others . p. have you any more that talk at this rate ? pr. yes . what think you of a patriarch of antioch , who useth the same similitude for the same purpose ; and he affirms , that the sensible substance still continues in the eucharist , tho it hath divine grace joyned with it ? and i pray , now tell me seriously , did the tradition of transubstantiation lie unquestion'd and quiet all this while ? when we have three patriarchs , of constantinople , rome , and antioch , expresly against it ; and one of them owned by your selves , to be head of the church ; and held by many to be infallible , especially when he teaches the church ; which he doth , if ever , when he declares against hereticks . p. i know not what to say , unless by nature and substance they meant qualities and properties . pr. i have evidently proved that could not be their meaning . p. but i am told monsieur arnaud in his elaborate defence against claude goes that way , and he saith , the eutychians and apollinarists did not absolutely deny any substance to remain in christ's body , but not so as to be endued with such properties as ours have . pr. i grant this is the main of his defence ; but i confess , monsieur arnaud hath not so much authority with me , as a general council which declared the contrary ; viz. that the eutychians were condemned for not holding two substances or natures in christ after the union . and domnus antiochenus , who first laid open the eutychian heresie , saith , it lay in making a mixture and confusion of both natures in christ , and so making the divinity passible ; and to the same purpose others . there were some who charged both apollinaris and eutyches with holding , that christ brought his body from heaven , and that it was not con-substantial with ours ; but apollinaris himself , in the fragments preserved by leontius , not only denies it , but pronounces an anathema against those that hold it . and vitalis of antioch , a great disciple of his , in discourse with epiphanius , utterly denied a coelestial body in christ. vincentius lerinensis saith , his heresie lay in denying two distinct substances in christ. st. augustin saith , he held but one substance after the union ; so that he must deny any substance of a body to remain after the union , which he asserted to be wholly swallowed up , and the properties to continue : which was another kind of transubstantiation ; for no more of the substance of christ's body was supposed to remain after the union , than there is supposed to be in the elements after consecration . but in both cases the properties and qualities were the same still . and it is observable , that in the acts of the council of chalcedon , eutyches rejected it , as a calumny cast upon him , that he should hold that christ brought a body from heaven . but the eutychian doctrine lay in taking away the substance of the body , and making the divinity the sole substance , but with the accidents and properties of the body . and for this they produced the words of saint john , the word was made flesh ; which they urged with the same confidence that you now do , this is my body . and when they were urged with difficulties , they made the very same recourse to god's omnipotency , and the letter of scripture , and made the same declamations against the use of reason that you do ; and withal , they would not have the human nature to be annihilated , but to be changed into the divine ; just as your authors do about the substance of the bread. so that it is hard to imagin a more exact parallel to transubstantiation than there is in this doctrine ; and consequently there can be no more evident proof of it , than the fathers making use of the instance of the eucharist , to shew , tha● as the substance of bread doth remain after consecration ; so the substance of christ's body doth continue after the union . and when the fathers from the remaining properties do prove the substance to remain , they overthrow the possibility of transubstantiation . for , if they might be without the substance , their whole argument loses its force , and proves just nothing . p. but all this proves nothing as to the faith of the church ; being only arguments used by divines in the heat of disputes . pr. do you then in earnest give up the fathers as disputants to us ; but retain them as believers to your selves ? but how should we know their faith but by their works ? p. i perceive you have a mind to be pleasant ; but my meaning was , that in disputes men may easily over-shoot themselves , and use ineffectual arguments . pr. but is it possible to suppose they should draw arguments from something against the faith of the church . as for instance ; suppose now we are disputing about tran substantiation , you should bring an argument from the human nature of christ , and say , that as in the hypostatical union the substance is changed , and nothing but the accidents remain ; so it is in the elements upon consecration . do you think i should not presently deny your example , and say , your very supposition is heretical ? so no doubt would the eutychians have done in case the faith of the church had then been , that the substance of the elements was changed after consecration . and the eutychians were the most sottish disputants in the world , if they had not brought the doctrine of transubstantiation to prove their heresy . p. methink you are very long upon this argument ; when shall we have done at this rate ? pr. i take this for your best answer ; and so i proceed to a second argument , which i am sure will not hold against the trinity ; and that is from the natural and unseparable properties of christ's body ; which are utterly inconsistent with the belief of transubstantiation . and the force of the argument in general lies in this , that the fathers did attribute such things to the body of christ , which render it uncapable of being present in such a manner in the sacrament as transubstantiation supposes . and no men who understand themselves , will assert that at one time , which they must be bound to deny at another ; but they will be sure to make an exception or limitation , which may reconcile both together . as if you should say , that the body of christ cannot be in more places than one at once , upon the doctrine of st. thomas ; ye would presently add , with regard to the sacrament , i. e. not in regard of its natural presence , but in a sacramental it may : so , if the fathers had an opinion like yours as to the body of christ , they would have a reserve , or exception , as to the sacrament . but it appears by their writings , that they attribute such properties in general to the body of christ , as overthrow any such presence , without exceptions or limitations . but that is not all : for i shall now prove , 1. that they do attribute circumscription to christ's body in heaven , so as to exclude the possibility of its being upon earth . 2. that they deny any such thing , as the supernatural existence of a body after the manner of a spirit . p. what do you mean ? i am quite tired already ; and now you are turning up the other glass . pr. since you will be dabling in these controversies , you must not think to escape so easily . i have been not a little offended at the insolence of some late pamphlets upon this argument ; and now i come to close reasoning , you would fain be gone . p. i am in a little haste at present ; i pray come quickly to the point . pr. as soon as you please . what think you , if a man now should bring an argument to prove a matter of faith from hence , that christ's body could not be in heaven and earth at once , would this argument hold good ? yet thus vigilius tapsitanus argues against those who denied two natures in christ ; for , saith he , the body of christ when it was on earth , was not in heaven ; and now it is in heaven , it is not upon earth ; and it is so far from being so , that we expect him to come from heaven in his flesh , whom we believe to be now present on earth by his divinity . how can this hold , if the body of christ can be in heaven and earth at the same time ? p. he speaks this of the natural presence of christ's body , and not of the sacramental . pr. the argument is not drawn from the manner of the presence , but from the nature of a body , that it could not be in heaven and earth at the same time . and so st. augustin said , that christ was every where present as god ; but confined to a certain place in heaven according to the measure of his true body . p. this is only to disprove the ubiquity of christ's body ; and not his being in several places at the same time . pr. then you yield it to be repugnant to the nature of a body to be every where present . p. yes . pr. but what if there be as great a repugnancy from st. augustin's argument , for a body to be present in several places at once ? p. i see no such thing . pr. no ? his argument is from the confinement of a true body to a certain place . and if it be in many places at once , it is as far from being confined , as if it took up all places . and there are some greater difficulties as to a body's being distant from it self , than in asserting its ubiquity . p. i perceive you are inclined to be a lutheran . pr. no such matter . for i think the essential properties of a finite and infinite being are incommunicable to each other , and i look on ubiquity as one of them . p. then the same argument will not hold as to presence in several places , for this is no infinite perfection . pr. you run from one argument to another . for these are two distinct ways of arguing ; and the argument from the repugnancy of it to the nature of a body , doth as well hold against ubiquity , as that it is a divine perfection . and st. augustin in that excellent epistle doth argue from the essential properties and dimensions of bodies , and the difference of the presence of a spirit , and a body . i pray read and consider that epistle , and you will think it impossible st. augustin should believe transubstantiation . p. st. augustin was a great disputant , and such are wont while they are eager upon one point , to forget another . but st. augustin elsewhere doth assert the presence of christ's real body in the sacrament . pr. then the plain consequence is , that he contradicted himself . p. but he doth not speak of a sacramental presence . pr. what again ? but st. augustin makes this an essential difference between a divine and corporal presence ; that the one doth not fill places by its dimensions as the other doth ; so that bodies cannot be in distant places at once . what think you of this ? p. i pray go on . pr. what think you of the manichees doctrine , who held that christ was in the sun and moon when he suffered on the cross ? was this possible or not ? p. what would you draw from hence ? pr. nothing more , but that st. augustin disproved it , because his body could not be at the same time in the sun and moon , and upon earth ? p. as to the ordinary course of nature , st. augustin's argument holds , but not as to the miraculous power of god. pr. there is a difference between the ordinary course of nature , and the unchangeable order of nature . p. let me hear this again ; for it is new doctrine to us . pr. that 's strange ! those things are by the ordinary course of nature , which cannot be changed but by divine power ; but imply no repugnancy for god to alter that course ; but those are by the unchangeable order of nature , which cannot be done without overthrowing the very nature of the things ; and such things are impossible in themselves , and therefore god himself cannot do them . p. it seems then you set bounds to god's omnipotency . pr. doth not the scripture say , there are some things impossible for god to do ? p. yes ; such as are repugnant to his own perfections ; as it is impossible for god to lye . pr. but are there no other things impossible to be done ? what think you of making the time past not to be past ? p. that is impossible in it self . pr. but is it not impossible for the same body to be in two different times ? p. yes . pr. why not then in two or more different places ; since a body is as certainly confined , as to place , as it is to time ? p. you are run now into the point of reason , when we were upon st. augustin's testimony . pr. but i say , st. augustin went upon this ground , that it was repugnant to the nature of a body to be in more places than one at the same time . and so likewise cassian proves , that when christ was upon earth he could not be in heaven , but in regard of his divinity . is there not the same repugnancy for a body in heaven to be upon earth , as for a body upon earth to be in heaven ? p. these are new questions , which i have not met with in our writers , and therefore i shall take time to answer them . but all these testimonies proceed upon a body considered under the nature of a body ; but in the sacrament we consider christ's body as present after the manner of a spirit . pr. that was the next thing i promised to prove from the fathers , that they knew of no such thing , and therefore could not believe your doctrine . have you observed what the fathers say about the difference of body and spirit ? p. not i ; but i have read our authors , who produce them for our doctrine . pr. that is the perpetual fault of your writers , to attend more to the sound of their words , than to the force of their reasonings . they bring places out of popular discourses intended to heighten the peoples devotion , and never compare them with those principles which they assert , when they come to reasoning ; which would plainly shew their other expressions are to be understood in a mystical and figurative sense . but i pray tell me , do you think the fathers had no distinct notion of a body and spirit , and the essential properties of both ? p. yes doubtless . pr. suppose then they made those to lye in such things as are inconsistent with the presence of christ's body in the sacrament after the manner of a spirit ; do you think then they could hold it to be so present ? and if they did not , they could not believe transubstantiation . p. very true . pr. what think you then of st. augustin , who makes it impossible for a body to be without its dimensions and extension of parts ? but you assert a body may be without them ; or else it cannot be after the manner of a spirit , as you say it is in the sacrament . p. i pray shew that st. augustin made it inconsistent with the nature of a body to be otherwise . pr. he saith , that all bodies how gross or subtle soever they be , can never be all every where ( i. e. cannot be indivisibly present after the manner of a spirit ) but must be extended according to their several parts , and whether great or little , must take up a space , and so fill the place , that it cannot be all in any one part. is this possible to be reconciled with your notion of a body being present after the manner of a spirit ? p. to be present after the manner of a spirit , is with us , to be so present , as not to be extended , and to be whole in every part . pr. but this st. augustin saith , no body can be ; and not only there , but elsewhere he saith , take away dimensions from bodies , and they are no longer bodies . and that a greater part takes up a greater space , and a lesser a less ; and must be always less in the part than in the whole . p. but he speaks of extension in it self , and not with respect to place . pr. that is of extension that is not extended ; for if it be , it must have respect to place ; but nothing can be plainer , than that st. augustin doth speak with respect to place . and he elsewhere saith , that every body must have place , and be extended in it . p. but he doth not speak this of the sacrament . pr. but he speaks it of all bodies wheresoever present ; and he doth not except the sacrament , which he would certainly have done , if he had believed as you do concerning it . p. st. augustin might have particular opinions in this , as he had in other things . pr. so far from it , that i shall make it appear , that this was the general sense of the fathers . st. gregory nazianzen saith , that the nature of bodies requires , that they have figure and shape , and may be touched , and seen , and circumscribed . st. cyril of alexandria saith , that if god himself were a body , he must be liable to the properties of bodies , and he must be in a place , as bodies are . and all those fathers , who prove , that god cannot be a body , do it from such arguments as shew , that they knew nothing of a bodies being after the manner of a spirit : for then the force of their arguments is lost , which are taken from the essential properties of a body , such as extension , divisibility , and circumscription . but if a body may be without these , then god may be a body after the manner of a spirit ; and so the spirituality of the divine nature will be taken away . p. i never heard these arguments before , and must take some time to consider . pr. the sooner the better ; and i am sure if you do , you will repent being a new convert . but i have yet something to add to this argument ; viz. that those who have stated the difference between body and spirit , have made extension , and taking up a place , and divisibility , necessary to the very being of a body ; and that what is not circumscribed , is incorporeal . p. methinks your arguments run out to a great length . i pray bring them into a less compass . pr. i proceed to a third argument from the fathers , which will not take up much time ; and that is , that the fathers knew nothing of the subsistence of accidents without their substance , without which transubstantiation cannot be maintained : and therefore in the roman schools , the possibility of accidents subsisting without their subjects , is defended . but on the contrary , maximus , one of the eldest of the fathers , who lived in the second century , affirms it to be of the essence of accidents to be in their substance . st. basil saith , nature doth not bear a distinction between body and figure , altho reason makes one . isidore p●lusiota , saith , that quality cannot be without substance . gregory nyssen , that figure cannot be without body , and that a body cannot be conceived without qualities : and that if we take away colour , and quantity , and resistance , the whole notion of a body is destroy'd . take away space from bodies , saith st. augustin , and they can be no where ; and if they can be no where , they cannot be : and so he saith , if we take away bodies from their qualities . and in plain terms , that no qualities , as colours , or form , can remain without their subject . and that no accidents can be without their subject , is in general affirmed by isidore hispalensis , boethius , damascen , and others , who give an account of the philosophy of the ancients . p. all this proceeds upon the old philosophy of accidents : what if there be none at all ? pr. what then makes the same impression on our senses when the substance is gone , as when it was there ? is there a perpetual miracle to deceive our senses ? but it is impossible to maintain transubstantiation , as it is defined in the church of rome , without accidents : they may hold some other doctrine in the place of it , but they cannot hold that . and that other doctrine will be as impossible to be understood . for if once we suppose the body of christ to be in the sacrament , in place of the substance of the bread , which appears to our senses to be bread still : then suppose there be no accidents , the body of a man must make the same impression on our senses , which the substance of bread doth , which is so horrible an absurdity , that the philosophy of accidents cannot imply any greater than it . so that the new transubstantiators had as good return to the old mumpsimus of accidents . p. i suppose you have now done with this argument . pr. no : i have something farther to say about it , which is , that the fathers do not only assert , that accidents cannot be without their subject , but they confute hereticks on that supposition ; which shew'd their assurance of the truth of it . irenoeus overthrows the valentinian conjugations , because truth can no more be without a subject , than water without moisture , or fire without heat , or a stone without hardness ; which are so joined together , that they cannot be separated . methodius confutes origen's fancy about the soul having the shape of a body without the substance , because the shape and the body cannot be separated from each other . st. augustin proves the immortality of the soul from hence , because meer accidents can never be separated from the body , so as the mind is by abstraction . and in another place he asserts it to be a monstrous absurd doctrine , to suppose that , whose nature is to be in a subject , to be capable of subsisting without it . claudianus mamertus proves , that the soul could not be in the body as its subject ; for then it could not subsist when the body is destroy'd . p. i hope you have now done with this third argument . pr. yes ; and i shall wait your own time for an answer . i go on to a fourth : and that is from the evidence of sense asserted and allowed by the fathers , with respect to the body of christ. p. i expected this before now . for , as the author of the single sheet observes : this is the cock-argument of one of the lights of your church ; and it so far resembles the light , that like it , it makes a glaring shew , but go to grasp it , and you find nothing in your hand . pr. then it 's plain our senses are deceived . p. not as to transubstantiation : for he believes more of his senses than we do : for his eyes tell him there is the colour of bread , and he assents to them ; his tongue , that it has the taste of bread , and he agrees to it : and so for his smelling and feeling : but then he hath a notable fetch in his conclusion : viz. that his ears tell him from the words spoken by christ himself , that it is the body of christ , and he believes these too . is not here one sense more than you believe ? and yet you would persuade the world , that we do not believe our senses . pr. this is admirable stuff ; but it must be tenderly dealt with . for i pray what doth he mean when he saith , he believes from christ's own words , that it is the body of christ ? what is this it ? is it the accidents he speaks of before ? are those accidents then the body of christ ? is it the substance of bread ? but that is not discerned by the senses , he saith : and if it were , will he say , that the substance of bread is the body of christ ? if neither of these , then his believing it is the body of christ , signifies nothing ; for there can be no sense of it . p. however , he shews , that we who believe transubstantiation , do not renounce our senses , as you commonly reproach us : for we believe all that our senses represent to us , which is only the outward appearance . for , as he well observes , if your eyes see the substance of things , they are most extraordinary ones , and better than ours . for our parts , we see no farther than the colour or figure , &c. of things which are only accidents , and the entire object of that sense . pr. is there no difference between the perception of sense , and the evidence of sense ? we grant , that the perception of our senses goes no farther than to the outward accidents ; but that perception affords such an evidence by which the mind doth pass judgment upon the thing represented by the outward sense . i pray tell me , have you any certainty there is such a thing as a material substance in the world ? p. yes . pr. whence comes the certainty of the substance , since your senses cannot discover it ? do we live among nothing but accidents ? or can we know nothing beyond them ? p. i grant we may know in general that there are such things as substances in the world. pr. but can we not know the difference of one substance from another , by our senses ? as for instance , can we not know a man from a horse , or an elephant from a mouse , or a piece of bread from a church ? or do we only know . there are such and such accidents belong to every one of these ; but our senses are not so extraprdinary to discover the substances under them ? i pray answer me one question , did you ever keep lent ? p. what a strange question is this ? did you not tell me , you would avoid impertinencies ? pr. this is none , i assure you . p. then i answer , i think my self obliged to keep it . pr. then you thought your self bound to abstain from flesh , and to eat fish. p. what of all that ? pr. was it the substance of flesh you abstained from , or only the accidents of it ? p. the substance ? pr. and did you know the difference between the substance of flesh and fish by your tast ? p. yes . pr. then you have an extraordinary tast , which goes to the very substance ? p. but this is off from our business , which was about the fathers , and not our own judgment about the evidence of sense . pr. i am ready for you upon that argument . and i only desire to know whether you think the evidence of sense sufficient , as to the true body of christ , where it is supposed to be present ? p. by no means ; for then we could not believe it to be present , where we cannot perceive it . pr. but the fathers did assert the evidence of sense to be sufficient , as to the true body of christ ; so irenoeus , tertullian , epiphanius , hilary , and st. augustin . i will produce their words at length , if you desire them . p. it will be but lost labour , since we deny not , as cardinal bellarmin well saith , the evidence of sense to be a good positive evidence , but not a negative , i. e. that it is a body , which is handled , and felt , and seen ; but not , that it is no body which is not . pr. very well ! and i pray then what becomes of your single sheet man , who so confidently denies sense to be good positive evidence as to a real body ; but only as to the outward appearance ? p. you mistake him ; for he saith , we are to believe our senses , where they are not indisposed , and no divine revelation intervenes , which we believe there doth in this case ; and therefore , unless the fathers speak of the sacrament , we have no reason to regard their testimonies in this matter . but we have stronger evidence against you from the fathers , for they say we are not to rely on the evidence of sense , as to the sacrament . so st. cyril , st. chrysostom , and st. ambrose . pr. i am glad you offer any thing which deserves to be considered . but have you already forgot bellarmin's rule , that sense may be a good positive evidence , but not a negative , i. e. it may discover what is present as a body , but not what is not , and cannot be so present , viz. the invisible grace which goes along with it ; and as to this the fathers might well say , we are not to trust our sense . p. this is making an interpretation for them . pr. no such matter . it is the proper and genuine sense of their words ; as will appear from hence . ( 1. ) they assert the very same , as to the chrism and baptism , which they do as to the eucharist . ( 2. ) that which they say , our senses cannot reach , is something of a spiritual nature , and not a body . and here the case is extremely different from the judgment of sense , as to a material substance . and if you please , i will evidently prove from the fathers , that that wherein they excluded the judgment of sense in the eucharist , was something wholly spiritual and immaterial . p. no , no , we have been long enough upon the fathers , unless their evidence were more certain one way or other . for my part , i believe on the account of divine revelation in this matter , this is my body ; here i stick , and the fathers agreed with us herein , that christ's words are not to be taken in a figurative sense . pr. the contrary hath been so plainly proved in a late excellent discourse of transubstantiation , that i wonder none of your party have yet undertaken to answer it ; but they write on , as if no such treatise had appear'd : i shall therefore wave all the proofs that are there produced , till some tolerable answer be given to them . p. methinks you have taken a great liberty of talking about the fathers , as tho they were all on your side ; but our late authors assure us to the contrary ; and i hope i may now make use of them , to shew that transubstantiation was the faith of the ancient church . pr. with all my heart , i even long to hear what they can say in a matter , i think , so clear on our side . p. well , sir , i begin with the consensus veterum , written by one that professed himself a minister of the church of england . pr. make what you can of him , now you have him ; but i will meddle with no personal things , i desire to hear his arguments . p. what say you to r. selomo , interpreting the 72. psal. v. 16. of wafers in the days of the messias ; to r. moses haddarsan , on gen. 39. 1. and on psal. 136. 25 , to r. cahana , on gen. 49. 1. who was long before the nativity of christ ; r. johai , on numb . 28. 2. and to r. judas , who was many years before christ came . pr. can you hold your countenance when you repeat these things ? but any thing must pass from a new convert . what think you of r. cahana , and r. judas , who lived so long before our saviour , when we know that the jews have no writings preserved near to our saviour's time , besides the bible , and some say the paraphrasts upon it . i would have been glad to have seen these testimonies taken from their original authors , and not from galatinus , who is known to have been a notorious plagiary , as to the main of his book , and of little or no credit as to the rest . but it is ridieulous to produce the testimonies of jewish rabbins for transubstantiation , when it is so well known that it is one of their greatest objections against christianity , as taught in the roman church , as may be seen in joseph albo , and others . but what is all this to the testimony of the christian fathers ? p. will not you let a man shew a little jewish learning upon occasion ? but if you have a mind to the fathers , you shall have enough of them ; for i have a large catalogue of them to produce , from the consensus veterum , nubes testium , and the single sheet , which generally agree . pr. with coccius or bellarmin , you mean ; but before you produce them , i pray tell me what you intend to prove by them ? p. the doctrine of our church . pr. as to what ? p. what have we been about all this while ? pr. transubstantiation . will you prove that ? p. why do you suspect me before i begin ? pr. i have some reason for it . let us first agree what we mean by it . do you mean the same which the church of rome doth by it , in the council of trent ? p. what can we mean else ? pr. let us first see what that is . the council of trent declares , that the same body of christ , which is in heaven , is really , truly and substantially present in the eucharist after consecration , under the species of bread and wine . and the roman catechism saith , it is the very body which was born of the virgin , and sits at the right hand of god. ( 2. ) that the bread and wine after consecration , lose their proper substances , and are changed into that very substance of the body of christ. and an anathema is denounced against those who affirm the contrary . now if you please , proceed to your proofs . p. i begin with the ancient liturgies of st. peter , st. james , and st. matthew . pr. are you in earnest ? p. why ; what is the matter ? pr. do not you know , that these are rejected as supposititious , by your own writers ? and a very late and learned dr. of the sorbon , hath given full and clear evidences of it . p. suppose they are , yet they may be of antiquity enough , to give some competent testimony as to tradition . pr. no such matter : for he proves st. peter 's liturgy , to be later than the sacramentary of st. gregory ; and so can prove nothing for the first 600 years ; and the aethiopick liturgy , or st. matthew's , he shews to be very late . that of st. james , he thinks to have been some time before the five general councils ; but by no means to have been st. james's . p. what think you of the acts of st. andrew , and what he saith therein , about eating the flesh of christ ? pr. i think he saith nothing to the purpose . but i am ashamed to find one , who hath so long been a minister in this church , so extreamly ignorant , as to bring these for good authorities , which are rejected with scorn by all men of learning and ingenuity among you . p. i am afraid you grow angry . pr. i confess , ignorance and confidence together , are very provoking things ; especially , when a man in years pretends to leave our church on such pitiful grounds . p. but he doth produce better authorities . pr. if he doth , they are not to his purpose . p. that must be tried ; what say you to ignatius ? i hope you allow his epistles ? pr. i see no reason to the contrary . but what saith he ? p. he saith , that some hereticks then would not receive the eucharist and oblations , because they will not confess the eucharist to be the flesh of our saviour christ. and this is produced by both authors . pr. the persons ignatius speaks of , were such as denied christ to have any true body , and therefore did forbear the eucharist , because it was said to be his body . and in what ever sense it were taken , it still supposed that which they denied , viz. that he had a true body : for , if it were figuratively understood , it was as contrary to their doctrine , as if it were literally . for a figure must relate to a real body , as tertullian argued in this case . and ignatius in the same epistle , mentions the trial christ made of his true body , by the senses of his disciples , take hold of me , and handle me , and see , for i am no incorporeal doemon ; and immediately they touched him , and were convinced . which happen'd but a few days after christ had said , this is my body ; and our saviour gave a rule for judging a true body , from an appearance , or spiritual substance ; a spirit hath not flesh and bones , as ye see me have . therefore it is very improbable that ignatius so soon after , should assert that christ's true and real body was in the eucharist , where it could be neither seen nor felt : for then he must overthrow the force of his former argument . and to what purpose did christ say , that a spirit had not flesh and bones , as they saw him to have ; if a body of christ might be so much after the manner of a spirit , as tho it had flesh and bones , yet they could not possibly be discerned ? but after all , suppose ignatius doth speak of the substance of christ's flesh , as present in the eucharist ; yet he saith not a word of the changing of the substance of the bread into the substance of christ's body ; which was the thing to be proved . p. but justin martyr doth speak of the change , and his words are produced by all three . and they are thus rendred in the single sheet . for we do not receive this as common bread , or common drink , but as by the word of god , jesus christ our redeemer being made man , had both flesh and blood for our salvation ; so also , we are taught that this food , by which our blood and flesh are by a change nourished , being consecrated by the power of the word , is the flesh and blood of jesus christ incarnate : what say you to this ? pr. i desire you to consider these things . ( 1. ) that justin martyr doth not say , that the bread and wine are by consecration changed into the individual flesh and blood , in which christ was incarnate ; but that , as by the power of the word , christ once had a body in the womb of the virgin ; so by the power of the same word , upon consecration , the bread and wine do become the flesh and blood of christ incarnate ; so that he must mean a parallel , and not the same individual body , i. e. that as the body in the womb became the body of christ by the power of the holy spirit ; so the holy spirit after consecration , makes the elements to become the flesh and blood of christ , not by an hypostatical union , but by divine influence , as the church is the body of christ. and this was the true notion of the ancient church , as to this matter , and the expressions in the greek liturgies to this day confirm the same . ( 2. ) he doth not in the least imply that the elements by this change do lose their substance ; for he mentions the nourishment of our bodies by it ; but he affirms , that notwithstanding their substance remain , yet the divine spirit of christ , by its operation , doth make them become his body . for we must observe , that he attributes the body in the womb , and on the altar , to the same 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , or divine word . for he did not think hypostatical union necessary , to make the elements become the body of christ , but a divine energy was sufficient , as the bodies assumed by angels are their bodies , tho there be no such vital union , as there is between the soul and body of a man. p. i go on to irenoeus , from whom two places are produced , one by the consensus veterum , where he saith , that which is bread from the earth , perceiving the call of god , now is not common bread , but the eucharist , consisting of two things , one earthly , and the other spiritual . pr. very well ! then there is an earthly , as well as a spiritual thing in the eucharist , i. e. a bodily substance , and divine grace . p. no ; he saith , the earthly is the accidents . pr. doth irenoeus say so ? p. no ; but he means so . pr. there is not a word to that purpose in irenoeus ; and therefore this is downright prevarication . i grant irenoeus doth suppose a change made by divine grace ; but not by destroying the elements , but by super-adding divine grace to them ; and so the bread becomes the body of christ , and the wine his blood. p. the other place in irenoeus is , where he saith , that as the bread receiving the word of god , is made the eucharist , which is the body and blood of christ , so also our bodies being nourished by it , and laid in the earth , and there dissolved , will arise at their time , &c. pr. what do you prove from this place ? p. that the same divine power is seen in making the eucharist the body and blood of christ , which is to be in the resurrection of the body . pr. but doth this prove , that the substance of the bread is changed into the substance of christ's body ? p. why not ? pr. i will give you a plain argument against it ; for he saith , our bodies are nourished by the body and blood of christ. do you think that irenoeus believed the substance of christ's body was turned into the substance of our bodies , in order to their nourishment ? no ; he explained himself just before in the same place ; de calice qui est sanguis ejus , nutritur ; & de pane qui est corpus ejus ; augetur : so that he attributes the nourishment to the bread and wine ; and therefore must suppose the substance of them to remain , since it is impossible a substantial nourishment should be made by meer accidents . and withal , observe , he saith expresly , that the bread is the body of christ ; which your best writers ( such as bellarmin , suarez and vasquez ) say , is inconsistent with transubstantiation . p. my next author is tertullian , who is produced by the consensus veterum , and the single sheet , but omitted by the nubes testium ; but the other proves , that bread which was the figure of christ's body in the old testament , now in the new , is changed into the real and true body of christ. pr. this is a bold attempt upon tertullian , to prove , that by the figure of christ's body , he means his true and real body . for his words are , acceptum panem & distributum discipulis corpus illum suum fecit , hoc est corpus meum dicendo , id est , figura corporis mei . he took the bread , and gave it to his disciples , and made it his body , saying , this is my body ; i. e. this is the figure of my body . how can those men want proofs , that can draw transubstantiation from these words , which are so plain against it ? p. you are mistaken ; tertullian by figure meant , it was a figure in the old testament , but it was now his real body . pr. you put very odd figures upon tertullian : i appeal to any reasonable man , whether by the latter words he doth not explain the former ? for he puts the sense upon corpus meum , by adding dicendo to them ; i. e. this is the meaning of that speech , when he calleth the bread his body . p. doth not tertullian say , that it had not been the figure , unless it had been the truth ? pr. this is again perverting his words , which are , figuratum non fuisset nisi veritatis esset corpus ; i. e. there had been no place for a figure of christ's body , unless christ had a true body . for he was proving against marcion , that christ had a true body ; and among other arguments he produces this from the figure of his body , which he not only mentions here , but in other places ; where he saith , that christ gave the figure of his body to the bread ; which cannot relate to any figure of the old testament . p. but doth not tertullian say afterwards , that the bread was the figure of christ's body in the old testament ? pr. what then ? he had two designs against marcion ; one to prove , that christ had a true body , which he doth here from the figure of his body : and the other , that there was a correspondency of both testaments : and for that purpose he shews , that the bread in jeremiah , was the figure of christ's body . p. but the author of the single sheet , cites another place of tertullian , where he saith , that our flesh feeds on the body and blood of christ , that our soul may be filled with god. pr. by the body and blood of christ , he means there , the elements , with divine grace going along with them ; as appears by his design , which is , to shew how the body and soul are joyned together in sacramental rites . the flesh is washed , and the soul is cleansed ; the flesh is anointed , and the soul consecrated ; the flesh is signed , and the soul confirmed ; the flesh hath hands laid upon it , and the soul enlighten'd ; the flesh feeds on the body and blood of christ , that the soul may be filled with god. now unless tertullian meant the elements , the parallel doth not proceed ; for all the rest are spoken of the external symbols ; and so this doth not at all contradict what he saith elsewhere , no more than the passage in the second book aduxorem doth . for there he speaks of christ , with respect to the invisible grace , as he doth here , as to the outward symbols . p. clemens alexandrinus saith , that melchisedeck gave bread and wine in figure of the eucharist . pr. and what then ? what is this to transubstantiation ? p. origen saith , when you eat and drink the body and blood of our lord , then our lord enters under your roof , &c. pr. are you sure that origen said this ? but suppose he did , must he enter with his flesh and bones , and not much rather by a peculiar presence of his grace ? for is it not origen who so carefully distinguishes the typical and symbolical body of christ , from the divine word , and so expresly mentions the material part of the elements after consecration , which pass into the draught , &c. is all this meant of the accidents only ? p. what say you to st. cyprian de coena domini ? pr. i beg your pardon , sir ; this is now known and acknowledged to be a late author , in comparison , and cannot come within your 600 years ; and therefore is not ancient enough to be considered . p. but in his genuine writings he speaks of those who offer'd violence to the body and blood of our lord in the eucharist . pr. and i pray what follows ? that the substance of the elements is gone : where lies the consequence ? but st. cyprian saith , the bread was his body , and the wine his blood ; therefore their substance must remain . p. what say you to eusebius emesenus ? pr. that he is not within our compass ; and withal , that he is a known counterfeit . p. i perceive you are hard to please . pr. you say very true , as to supposititious writers . p. i hope you have more reverence for the council of nice . pr. but where doth that speak of transubstantiation ? p. it calls the eucharist the body of christ. pr. and so doth the church of england ; therefore that holds transubstantiation . i pray bring no more such testimonies , which prove nothing but what we hold . p. i perceive you have a mind to cut me short . pr. not in the least , where you offer any thing to the purpose . but i pray spare those who only affirm , that the eucharist is the body and blood of christ after consecration . for i acknowledg it was the language of the church , especially in the fourth century , when the names of the elements were hardly mention'd to the catechumens ; and all the discourses of the fathers to them , tended to heighten the devotion and esteem of the eucharist . by which observation you may easily understand the meaning of the eloquent writers of that age , who speak with so much mystery and obscurity about it . if you have any that go beyond lofty expressions , and rhetorical flights , i pray produce them . p. i perceive you are afraid of s. greg. nazianzen , and s. basil , but especially s. chrysostom , you fence so much beforehand against eloquent men. pr. as to the other two , there is nothing material alledged by any to this purpose ; but s. chrysostom , i confess , doth speak very lofty things concerning the sacrament in his popular discourses , but yet nothing that doth prove transubstantiation . p. what think you of his homilies , 51 and 83. on s. mat. 46. homily on s. john 24. homily on 1st to the corinth . the homilies on philogonius and the cross ? are there not strange things in them concerning the eucharist ? about eating christ , and seeing him lie before them slain on the altar ; about touching his body there , and the holy spirit , with an innumerable host , hovering over what is there proposed , with much more to that purpose . pr. you need not to recite more ; for i yield that st. chrysostom delighted in the highest flights of his eloquence , on this subject , in his homilies ; and he tells for what reason , to excite the reverence and devotion of the people . but yet himself doth afford us a sufficient key to these expressions , if we attend to these things concerning his manner of speaking : ( 1. ) that he affirms those things which no side can allow to be literally understood . as when he so often speaks of our seeing and touching christ upon the altar , which is inconsistent with the doctrine of transubstantiation : for christ is utterly invisible on the altar , even by divine power , saith suarez . he is invisible in the sacrament . saith bellarmin ; and he saith also , that he cannot be touched . what then is to be said to such expressions of s. chrysostom ? behold thou seest him , thou touchest him , thou eatest him . it is not his sacrament only which is offer'd us to touch , but himself . what if you do not hear his voice , do you not see him lying before you ? behold christ lying before you slain . christ lies on the holy table , as a sacrifice slain for us . thou swearest upon the holy table where christ lies slain . when thou seest our lord lying on the table , and the priest praying and the by-standers purpled with his blood. see the love of christ ; he doth not only suffer himself to be seen by those who desire it , but to be touched and eaten , and our teeth to be fixed in his flesh. now these expressions are on all sides granted to be literally absurd and impossible ; and therefore we must say of him as bonaventure once said of s. augustin , plus dicit sanctus & minus vult intelligi ; we must make great allowance for such expressions , or you must hold a capernaitical sense . and it is denied by your selves , that christ is actually slain upon the altar ; and therefore you yield , that such expressions are to be figuratively understood . ( 2. ) that he le ts fall many things in such discourses which do give light to the rest : as , ( 1. ) that flesh is improperly taken when applied to the eucharist . ( 2. ) he calls the sacrament the mystical body and blood of christ. ( 3. ) that the eating of christ's flesh is not to be understood literally , but spiritually . ( 4. ) he opposes christ's sacramental presence , and real corporal presence to each other . ( 5. ) he still exhorts the communicants to look upwards towards heaven . and now if you lay these things together , this eloquent father will not , with all his flights , come near to transubstantiation . p. no! in one place he asserts the substance of the elements to be lost . pr. thanks to the latin translators , for the greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , as the criticks observe , doth not signify to destroy , but to refine , and purify a substance . but i do not rely upon this ; for the plain answer is , that s. chrysostom doth not there speak of the elements upon consecration , but what becomes of them , after they are taken down into the stomach . st. chrysostom thought it would lessen the peoples reverence and devotion , if they passed into the draught , as origen affirmed ; and therefore he started another opinion ; viz. that as wax , when it is melted in the fire , throws off no superfluities , but it passes indiscernably away ; so the elements , or mysteries , as he calls them , pass imperceptibly into the substance of the body , and so are consumed together with it . therefore , saith he , approach with reverence , not supposing that you receive the divine body from a man , but as with tongs of fire from the seraphims : which the author of the consensus veterum translates , but fire from the tongues of seraphims . s. chrysostom's words are , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 : and the sense is , that the divine body ( i. e. the eucharist , after consecration , being by the divine spirit made the divine body , as in st. chrysostom's liturgy , there is a particular prayer for the holy ghost to come , and so make the bread to be the divine body , or the holy body of christ ) , is to be taken , not with our mouths , which can only receive the elements , but after a divine manner , as with tongs of fire from seraphims ; by which he expresses the spiritual acts of faith and devotion , as most agreeable to that divine spirit which makes the elements to become the holy body of christ. but that st. chrysostom did truly and firmly believe the substance of the bread to remain after consecration , i have already proved from his epistle to coesarius . p. i pray let us not go backward , having so much ground to run over still . pr. i am content , if you will produce only those who speak of the change of substance , and not such as only mention the body and blood of christ after consecration , which i have already told you , was the language of the church ; and therefore all those testimonies are of no force in this matter . p. then i must quit the greatest part of what remains , as optatus , gaudentius , s. jerom , and others ; but i have some still left which will set you hard . what say you then to gregory nyssen , who saith , the sanctified bread is changed into the body of the word of god. and he takes off your answer of a mystical body ; for he puts the question , how the same body can daily be distributed to the faithful throughout the world , it remaining whole and entire in it self ? pr. gregory nyssen was a man of fancy , and he shewed it in that catechetical discourse : however , fronto ducoeus thought it a notable place to prove transubstantiation , which i wonder at , if he attended to the design of it ; which was to shew , that as our bodies , by eating , became subject to corruption , so by eating they become capable of immortality ; and this he saith , must be by receiving an immortal body into our b dies , such as the body of christ was : but then , saith he , how could that body , which is to remain whole in it self , be distributed to all the faithful over the whole earth ? he answers , by saying , that our bodies do consist of bread and wine , which are their proper nourishment ; and christ's body being like ours , that was so too ; which by the uni●n with the word of god , was changed into a divine dignity . but what is this to the eucharist , you may say ? he goes on therefore , so i believe the sanctified bread , by the power of the word of god , to be changed into the body of god the word . not into that individual body , but after the same manner , by a presence of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , or god the word in it ; and that this was his meaning , doth evidently appear by what follows . for , saith he , that body , viz. to which , he was incarnate , was sanctified by the inhabitation of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , dwelling in the flesh ; therefore , as the bread was then changed into a divine dignity in the body , so it is now ; and the bread is changed into the body of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , ( not of jesus christ ) as it was said by the word , this is my body . and so by receiving this divine body into our bodies , they are made capable of immortality . and this is the true account of gregory nyssen's meaning , which if it prove any thing , proves an impanation , rather than transubstantiation . p. but hilary's testimony cannot be so avoided ; who saith , that we as truly eat christ's flesh in the sacrament , as he was truly incarnate ; and that we are to judg of this ; not by carnal reason , but by the words of christ , who said , my flesh is meat indeed , and my blood is drink indeed . pr. i do not deny this to be hilary's sense . but yet this proves nothing like to transubstantiation . for it amounts to no more than a real presence of the body of christ in the sacrament ; and you can make no argument from hence , unless you can prove that the body of christ cannot be present , unless the substance of the bread be destroy'd , which is more than can be done , or than hilary imagined . all that he aimed at , was to prove a real union between christ and his people , that christ was in them more than by meer consent ; and to prove this , he lays hold of those words of our saviour , my flesh is meat indeed , &c. but the substantial change of the bread into the substance of christ's body , signifies nothing to his purpose ; and bellarmin never so much as mentions hilary in his proofs of transubstantiation , but only for the real presence . but i must add something more , viz. that hilary was one of the first who drew any argument from the literal sense of john 6. i do not say , who did by way of accommodation , apply them to the sacrament , which others might do before him . but yet , there are some of the eldest fathers , who do wholly exclude a literal sense , as tertullian look'd on it , as an absurdity that christ should be thought truly to give his flesh to eat . quasi vere carnem suam illis edendam determinasset . and origen saith , it is a killing letter , if those words be literally understood . but this is to run into another debate , whereas our business is about transubstantiation . if you have any more , let us now examine their testimonies . p. what say you then to st. ambrose , who speaks home to the business , for he makes the change to be above nature , and into the body of christ , born of the virgin ? there are long citations out of him , but in these words lies the whole strength of them . pr. i answer , several things for clearing of his meaning . ( 1. ) that st. ambrose doth parallel the change in the eucharist , with that in baptism ; and to prove regeneration therein , he argues from the miraculous conception of christ in the womb of the virgin ; but in baptism no body supposes the substance of the water to be taken away ; and therefore it cannot hold as to the other , from the supernatural change ; which may be only with respect to such a divine influence , which it had not before consecration . ( 2. ) he doth purposely talk obscurely and mystically about this matter , as the fathers were wont to do to those , who were to be admitted to these mysteries . sometimes one would think he meant that the elements are changed into christ's individual body born of the virgin : and yet presently after , he distinguishes between the true flesh of christ , which was crucified and buried , and the sacrament of his flesh. if this were the same , what need any distinction ? and that this sacramentum carnis , is meant of the eucharist , is plain by what follows ; for he cites christ's words , this is my body . ( 3. ) he best explains his own meaning , when he saith , not long after , that the body of christ in the sacrament , is a spiritual body , or a body produced by the divine spirit ; and so he parallels it with that spiritual food , which the israelites did eat in the wilderness : and no man will say , that the substance of the manna was then lost . and since your authors make the same st. ambrose , to have written the book de sacramentis , there is a notable passage therein , which helps to explain this ; for there he saith expresly , non iste panis est qui vadit in corpus , sed ille panis vitoe eternoe qui animoe nostroe substantiam fulcit . it is not the bread which passes into the body , but the bread of eternal life , which strengthens the substance of our soul. where he not only calls it bread after consecration , which goes to our nourishment ; but he distinguishes it from the bread of eternal life , which supports the soul , which must be understood of divine grace , and not of any bodily substance . p. i perceive you will not leave us one father of the whole number . pr. not one . and i hope this gives an incomparable advantage to the doctrine of the trinity in point of tradition , above transubstantiation : when i have not only proved , that the greatest of the fathers expresly denied it , but that there is not one in the whole number who affirmed it . for altho there were some difference in the way of explaining how the eucharist was the body and blood of christ ; yet not one of them hitherto produced , doth give any countenance to your doctrine of transubstantiation , which the council of trent declared to have been the constant belief of the church in all ages ; which is so far from being true , that there is as little ground to believe that , as transubstantiation it self . and so much as to this debate , concerning the comparing the doctrine of the trinity and transubstantiation , in point of tradition ; if you have any thing to say further , as to scripture and reason , i shall be ready to give you satisfaction the next opportunity . finis . books lately printed for w. rogers . the doctrines and practices of the church of rome , truly represented ; in answer to a book , intituled , a papist misrepresented , and represented , &c. quarto . third edition . an answer to a discourse , intituled , papists protesting against protestant popery ; being a vindication of papists not misrepresented by protestants 4to . second edition . an answer to the amicable accommodation of the differences between the representer and the answerer . quarto . a view of the whole controversie , between the representer and the answerer ; with an answer to the representer's last reply . 4to . the doctrine of the trinity and transubstantiation compared as to scripture , reason , and tradition ; in a new dialogue between a protestant and a papist , the first part ; wherein an answer is given to the late proofs of the antiquity of transubstantiation , in the books called , consensus veterum , and nubes testium , &c. quarto . the doctrine of the trinity , and transubstantiation , compared as to scripture , reason , and tradition , in a new dialogue between a protestant and a papist , the second part ; wherein the doctrine of the trinity is shewed to be agreeable to scripture and reason , and transubstantiation repugnant to both . quarto . a discourse concerning the nature of idolatry ; in which the bishop of oxford's true and only notion of idolatry is considered and confuted . 4to . the absolute impossibility of transubstantiation demonstrated . 4to . a letter to the superiours , ( whether bishops or priests ) which approve or license the popish books in england , particularly to those of the jesuits order , concerning lewis sabran a jesuit . a preservative against popery ; being some plain directions to unlearned protestants , how to dispute with romish priests . the first part. the fourth edition . the second part of the preservative against popery ; shewing how contrary popery is to the true ends of the christian religion . fitted for the instruction of unlearned protestants . the second edition . a vindication of both parts of the preservative against popery ; in answer to the cavils of lewis sabran , jesuit . a discourse concerning the nature , unity aed communion of the catholick church ; wherein most of the controversies relating to the church , are briefly and plainly stated . the first part. 4to . these four last by william sherlock , d. d. master of the temple . imprimatur , guil. needham rr. in christo p. ac d. d. wilhelmo archiep. cant. a sac. dom. ex aedib . lambeth , feb. 4. 1686. the doctrine of the trinity and transubstantiation compared , as to scripture , reason , and tradition , in a new dialogue between a protestant and a papist . the second part . wherein the doctrine of the trinity is shewed to be agreeable to scripture and reason , and transubstantiation repugnant to both . london : printed for william rogers at the sun in fleet-street , over against st. dunstan's church . mdc lxxx vii . the doctrine of the trinity and transubstantiation compared , &c. pr. i hope you are now at leisure to proceed with your parallel between the doctrine of the trinity and transubstantiation , as to scripture and reason . p. yes , and am resolved to make good all that i have said , as to both those . pr. and if you do , i will yield the cause . p. i begin with scripture . and the whole dispute as to both , depends on this : whether the scripture is to be understood literally or figuratively . if literally , then transubstantiation stands upon equal terms with the trinity ; if figuratively , then the trinity can no more be proved from scripture , than transubstantiation . pr. as tho there might not be reason for a figurative sense in one place , and a literal in another . p. it seems then , you resolve it into reason . pr. and i pray , into what would you resolve it ? into no reason ? p. into the authority of the church . pr. without any reason ? p. no : there may be reason for that authority , but not for the thing which i believe upon it . pr. then you believe the doctrine of the trinity , meerly , because the church tells you it is the literal sense of scripture which you are to follow . but suppose a man sees no reason for this authority of your church ; ( as for my part , i do not ) have you no reason to convince such a one that he ought to believe the trinity ? p. not i. for i think men are bound to believe as the church teaches them , and for that reason . pr. what is it , i pray , to believe ? p. to believe , is to give our assent to what god reveals . pr. and hath god revealed the doctrine of the trinity to the church in this age ? p. no ; it was revealed long ago . pr. how doth it appear ? p. by the scripture sensed by the church . pr. but whence come you to know that the church is to give the sense of the scriptures ? is it from the scripture , or not ? p. from the scripture doubtless , or else we could not believe upon the churches testimony . pr. but suppose the question be , about the sense of these places which relate to the churches authority , how can a man come to the certain sense of them ? p. hold a little , i see whither you are leading me ; you would sain draw me into a snare , and have me say , i believe the sense of scripture from the authority of the church , and the authority of the church from the sense of scripture . pr. do you not say so in plain terms ? p. give me leave to answer for my self . i say in the case of the churches authority , i believe the sense of scripture without relying on the churches authority . pr. and why not as well in any other ? why not as to the trinity , which to my understanding , is much plainer there , than the churches authority ? p. that is strange : is not the church often spoken of in scripture ? tell the church . upon this rock will i build my church , &c. pr. but we are not about the word church , which is no doubt there , but the infallible authority of the church ; and whether that be more clear in the scripture than the doctrine of the trinity . p. i see you have a mind to change your discourse , and to run off from the trinity to the churches authority in matters of faith ; which is a beaten subject . pr. your church doth not tell you so ; and therefore you may upon your own grounds be deceived ; and i assure you that you are so ; for i intended only to shew you , that for points of faith we must examine and compare scripture our selves , and our faith must rest on divine revelation therein contained . p. then you think the trinity can be proved from scripture ? pr. or else i should never believe it . p. but those places of scripture you go upon , may bear a figurative sense , as john 10. 30. i and my father are one ; and 1 john 5. 7. and those three are one ; and if they do so , you can never prove the trinity from them . pr. i say therefore , that the doctrine of the trinity doth not depend merely on these places , but on very many others , which help to the true sense of these ; but transu●stantiation depends upon one single expression , this is my body , which relates to a figurative thing in the sacrament ; and which hath other expressions joined with it , which are owned to be figurative ; this cup is the new testament in my blood ; and which in the literal sense cannot prove transubstantiation , as your own writers confess , and which is disproved by those places of scripture , which assert the bread and the fruit of the vine to remain after consecration . p. shew the literal sense as to the trinity to be necessary ; for i perceive you would fain go off again . pr. will you promise to hold close to the argument your self ? p. you need not fear me . pr. i pray tell me , were there not false religions in the world when christ came into it to plant the true religion ? p. yes ; but how far is this from the business ? pr. have a little patience ; did not christ design by his doctrine to root out those false religions ? p. that is evident from scripture and church history . pr. then christs religion and theirs were inconsistent . p. and what then ? pr. wherein did this inconsistency lie ? p. the gentiles worshipped false gods instead of the true one. pr. then the christian religion teaches the worship of the true god instead of the false ones . p. who doubts of that ? pr. then it cannot teach the worship of a false god instead of the true one. p. a false god is one that is set up in opposition to the true god , as the gods of the heathens were . pr. is it lawful by the christian doctrine to give proper divine worship to a creature ? p. i think not ; for christ said , thou shalt worship the lord thy god , and him only shalt thou serve : which our church understands of proper divine worship . pr. but the scripture requires proper divine worship to be given to christ ; which is to require proper divine worship to be given to a creature , if christ be not true god by nature . p. may not god communicate his own worship to him ? pr. but god hath said , he will not give his glory to another , isa. 42. 8. and the reason is considerable , which is there given ; i am the lord , that is my name ; which shews that none but the true jehovah is capable of divine worship : for adoration is done to god only on the account of his incommunicable perfections , and therefore the reason of divine worship cannot reach to any creature . p. not without gods will and pleasure . but may not god advance a mere creature to that dignity , as to require divine worship to be given to him by his fellow-creatures ? pr. wherein lies the nature of that which you call proper divine worship ? p. in a due esteem of god in our minds , as the first cause and last end of his creatures , and such acts as are agreeable thereto . pr. then proper divine worship doth suppose an esteem of god as infinitely above his creatures ; and how then is it possible for us to give the same worship to god , and to a creature ? for if the distance be infinite between god and his creatures , and we must judg of things as they are , then we must in our minds suppose a creature to be infinitely distant srom god ; and if we do so , how is it possible to give the same divine worship in this sense to god , and to any creature ? p. and what now would you infer from hence ? pr. do not you see already ? viz. that god cannot be supposed to allow divine worship to be given to christ , if he were a mere creature ; and therefore since such divine worship is required by the christian doctrine , it follows , that those expressions which speak of his being one with the father , cannot be figuratively understood . p. but where is it , that such divine worship is required to be given to christ in scripture ? for , according to my principles , the church is to set the bounds and measures of divine worship , and to declare what worship is due to god ; what to christ ; what to saints and angels ; what to men upon earth ; what to images , sacraments , &c. and if we depart from this rule , i know not where we shall fix . pr. i pray tell me , doth the difference between god and his creatures , depend on the will of the church ? p. no. pr. is it then in the churches power to give that to a creature , which belongs only to god ? p. i think not . pr. who then is to be judg what belongs to god , and what not ? god or the church ? p. god himself , if he pleases . pr. then our business is to search what his will and pleasure is in this matter , by reading the scriptures , wherein his will is contained : and there we find it expressed , that all men should h●nour the son , even as they honour the father , john 5. 23. let all the angels of god worship him , heb. 1. 6. blessing , and honour , and glory , and power be unto him that sitteth on the throne , and to the lamb for ever and ever , revel . 4. 13. that at the name of jesus every knee should bow , of things in heaven , and things in earth , &c. phil. 2. 9. if it were gods great design , by the christian doctrine , to restore in the world a due sense of the infinite distance between god and his creatures ; could any thing be more repugnant to it , than in the same doctrine to advance a creature to a participation of the same divine honour with himself ? so that in plain truth , the idolatry of the world lay only in a bad choice of the creatures they were to worship , and not in giving proper divine worship to a creature ; for that christianity it self not only allows , but requires , on supposition that christ were god merely by office , and was originally a creature , as we are . but i pray observe the force of the apostles argument , speaking of the gentile idolatry ; he saith it lay in this , that they did service unto them , which by nature are no gods , gal. 4. 8. p. you know , i must now personate the anti-trinitarian ; and he answers , that by nature no more is implied , than truly and really , i. e. god did not advance those creatures among the gentiles to that worship and honour , which he hath done christ. pr. then you make it lawful by the gospel to believe christ to be a mere creature , and at the same time to give him divine worship , which supposes him not to be a creature ; and so you must believe him to be a creature , and not to be a creature , at the same time . p. how do you make that appear ? pr. from your own words ; for you say , proper divine worship lies in a due esteem of god in our minds , as the first cause and last end , and in actions agreeable thereto ; then to give divine worship to god , we must believe him to be above all creatures as to his nature and being ; and theresore to give christ divine worship , must imply our believing him not to be a creature , and to be a creature at the same time . p. but the meaning of divine worship here must not then relate to acts of the mind , but to outward acts of adoration in the church . pr. were the gentiles guilty of idolatry in that respect , or not ? p. yes ; but not those , whom god requires to worship in such a manner . pr. then the sin of gentile-idolatry lay only in giving divine worship to a creature without gods command ; which lessens it to that degree , as to make will-worship and idolatry the same ; and to blame the apostles , for making such a dreadful sin of it , and disswading christians so much from returning to the practice of it : for they had the priviledg of giving divine worship to a creature by gods command , which others were damned for doing without a command ; which makes the christian religion not to appear so reasonable , as the anti-trinitarians contend it is . but here are four foul mistakes in point of reason , which they are guilty of . ( 1. ) in making the sin of idolatry so arbitrary a thing ; which depends not on the nature of the object which is worshipped , but on the will and pleasure of god. ( 2. ) in making the gentiles guilty of a great sin , meerly in wanting a divine command , which was out of their power . ( 3. ) in making the christian religion to set up the worship of a creature , when its design was to root out idolatry . ( 4. ) in making a fictitious god , or a creature to be advanced to the throne of god. which i think is far more contradictious to reason , than a trinity of persons in the unity of the same nature . for nothing can be more absurd than to make that to be god , which wants all the essential attributes and perfections of god ; as every creature must do : such as self-existence , eternity , independency , immensity , omnipotency , &c. what a contradiction is it , to suppose a weak , impotent , depending , confined , created god ? and such every creature must be in its nature , or else it is no creature . i do not at all wonder to find the socinians after this , to lessen the natural knowledg of god , and his infinite perfections , both as to power and knowledg ; for it was their concernment to bring the notion of god as low as possible , that a creature might be in the nearer capacity of being made god. but those who consider and know what god is , and what he must be , if he be god , will find far greater difficulty in making man to be god , than in believing god to be made man. for this implies no greater difficulty , than meerly as to our conception , how an infinite being can be so united to a finite , as to become one person ; which implies no repugnancy , but only some thing above our capacity to comprehend . and we confess our selves puzled in the manner of conceiving how a finite spitit , which can pass through a body , can be so united to it , as to make a man by that union ; yet we all acknowledg the truth of this . but to suppose a creature capable of being made god , is to overthrow the essential difference between god and his creatures , and the infinite distance between them . which is of very pernicious consequence , as to the great ends of the christian religion , which were to reform the world , and to restore the distinction between god and his creatures ; which by the prevalency of idolatry was almost lost in the world : the supreme god being hardly discerned in such a croud of created and fictitious gods. and this very argument is enough to turn my stomack against socinianism or arianism . p. i had thought all men of sense among you , had been socinians ; i have often heard them charged with being so . pr. you see how grosly you are deceived , notwithstanding your pretence to infallibility . i do not pretend to any deep reach , but i see reason enough to be no socinian . p. let us return to our matter in hand . what say you to those texts which are said to be inconsistent with the literal sense of those before mention'd , which relate to the unity between father and son ? pr. what texts do you mean ? p. what say you to joh. 10. from the 30. to the 39 ? pr. i wonder what it is produced for . p. it is said , joh. 10. 30. i and my father are one ; now it is highly unreasonable to interpret these words literally , because of those which follow . pr. how doth that appear ? for v. 31. it is said , that the jews took up stones to stone him : which shews , that they look'd on him as speaking blasphemy . but what blasphemy was it for christ to declare an unity of consent between him and his father ; which in truth is nothing , but doing his father's will ? therefore it is plain that the jews did apprehend more in those words of our saviour . and they explain themselves , v. 33. what they understood by them , because that thou being a man , makest thy self god. which shews that they thought not an unity of consent , but of nature , was meant . p. but christ's answer shews , that he speaks only of a god by office , and not by nature , v. 34. jesus answered them , is it not written in your law , i said ye are gods ? pr. i pray go on , and see how christ argues , v. 35 , 36. if he called them gods , unto whom the word of god came , and the scripture cannot be broken ; say ye of him , whom the father hath sent into the world , thou blasphemest , because i said i am the son of god ? p. this only shews that christ had greater reason to be called god , but not that he was so by nature . pr. i pray go on still , v. 37 , 38. if i do not the works of my father , believe me not . but if i do , tho ye believe not me , believe the works , that ye may know and believe that the father is in me , and i in him . p. is it not said elsewhere , that he that keepeth his commandments dwelleth in him , and he in him ? 1 joh. 3. 24. would you hence infer an unity of nature between christ and believers ? pr. i do not lay the weight on the phrase , but as it is the conclusion of the dispute between christ and the jews . and it ought to be observed , that this was the end of the third conference between christ and the jews upon this argument . the first was john 5. and then from christ's saying , the father worketh hitherto , and i work , v. 17. the jews infer'd v. 18. that he made himself equal with god. in the second conference , john 8. he said , before abraham was , i am , v. 58. and then the jews took up stones to cast at him . after this followed this third conference , john. 10. and this runs again into the same point , that he being a man , made himself god. and these conferences were all publick , in or near the temple , and this last was in solomons porch , john 10. 23. a place of great resort , and near the place where the sanhedrim sate , who were the judges in the case of blasphemy . now the force of my argument from hence , lies in these things : ( 1. ) that christ certainly knew , that the jews did think by his discourse , that he made himself equal with god. 2. that if it were not true , it was notorious blasphemy , and so esteemed by the jews . 3. that such a mistake ought to have been presently corrected , and in the plainest manner ; as we find it was done by st. paul , when the men of lystra said , the gods are come down to us in the likeness of men ; for he ran in presently among them , and said , we are men of like passions with you , acts 14. 11 , 15. it is impossible for me to think , that if christ had known himself to be a meer man , he would have suffered the jews to have run away with such a mistake as this , without giving them the clearest and plainest information ; whereas in all his answers he vindicates himself , and endeavours rather to fasten those impressions upon them , as appears by this conclusion of the last conference , that ye may know and believe , that the father is in me , and i in him . doth this look like correcting a dangerous mistake in the jews ? and is it not rather a justification of that sense , which they took his words in ? and in the first conference , john 5. our saviour is so far from doing as st. paul did , that he challenges divine honour as due to himself , that all men should honour the son , as they honour the father , v. 23. from whence it follows , that christ must be charged as one , who being a meer man , did affect divine honour ; or else , that being god as well as man , he looked on it as justly due to him . i pray tell me what sense do your friends the socinians make of those words of st. paul , phil. 2. 6 , 7. who being in the form of god , thought it not robbery to be equal with god , but made himself of no reputation , &c. p. the sense they give , is this , that he did not make a shew or ostentation of his own greatness , but studiously concealed it , and therein shewed his great humility . pr. but is there any greatness like that of divine honour ? and yet this he challenged to himself . p. but he knew what the father designed him for , and so spake those things by way of prediction . pr. he knew no creature could deserve divine worship , and he deliver'd that as part of his own doctrine ; and therefore those words , where he is said , to make himself equal with god , must be understood of nature , and not of office. p. but st. john 17. 22. saith , that christ prayed to his father , for his disciples , that they may be one , as we are one ; and that is not by unity of nature . pr. i grant it . but our saviour there speaks of a true , but a lower kind of unity ; or else the socinians must think every believer as capable of divine honour , as christ himself , if they take those words strictly , that they may be one , as we are one . p. st. paul saith , he that planteth , and he that watereth , is one , 1 cor. 3. 8. pr. who doubts but there are other sorts of unities , besides that of nature ? but , doth this prove that there is no unity of nature between the father and the son ? if we have no better arguments against transubstantiation , we will give over disputing . p. i know you have other arguments for the trinity , but they prove as little without the authority of the church ; as from those places where christ is called god , as joh. 1. 1 , 2. rom. 9. 5 , &c. pr. and i think the argument from those places , very good and strong , especially from john 1. 1 , 2 , 3. and it seems directly contrary to the whole design of scripture to call any one god over all , blessed for evermore , as christ is called , rom. 9. 5. but he that is god by natuce . p. how do you prove that john 1. 1. relates to any thing beyond the beginning of the gospel , and that christ the word , was before john the baptists preaching ? pr. i desire any one to read the text impartially , and he will find the socinian sense to be unnatural , forced , obscure and jejune , proving a thing of no moment at that time ; but the sense we give , to be strong , weighty , consistent , and of very great consequence at that time , when the cerinthians denied the divinity of christ. the sentences are short , the words lofty and significant , the manner of beginning unusual ; so that any one would expect some great and extraordinary matter to be said in these few verses ; but what a frustration were this , if after all , they intended no more , than that altho john baptist preached in publick before christ , yet that christ was in being before that ? which is a sense so mean , so remote from the occasion of his writing , as it is deliver'd by the ancients , that nothing but a miserable necessity could make men of wit and subtilty to put such a sense upon st. john's words . p. but they deny there was any such occasion of st. john's writing , as the cerinthians heresy at that time . pr. i know socinus doth so ; but he might as well have denied that there was any such person as cerinthus . and i think the cerinthian heresy not only to have been the occasion of st. john's writing , but that the understanding of it , gives the greatest and truest light to the words of the evangelist , shewing the force and importance of them . p. wherein i pray , did that heresy consist ? pr. i shall not meddle with other parts of it , but only what relates to the present subject ; and that lay in these things . ( 1. ) that there was a supreme and unknown father , who was before the beginning , and therefore they called him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , who was the fountain of all emanations . iren. l. 1. c. 1. 19. ( 2. ) that the world was not made by him , but by a power at a distance from him , called demiurgus , iren. l. 1. c. 25. and in the egyptian school where cerinthus was educated , the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 word , was one of the intermediate emanations between the father , and the demiurgus , iren. l. 1. c. 23. ( 3. ) that this world was in a state of darkness and confusion , as to the supreme father of all ; only some few had some beams of light from him , by which they knew him . ( 4. ) that jesus was a mere man , born as other men are , of joseph and mary , but of extraordinary goodness , wisdom , and sanctity . ( 5. ) that the supreme father at his baptism did send down a divine power upon him , in the shape of a dove , which enabled him to declare the unknown father , and to work miracles , which returned to its own 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , or fulness above , when jesus suffer'd . this is a short scheme of that heresy , as delivered by the ancient fathers . and now let any one compare st. johns words with it ; and he will find his design was to countermine this heresy by two things . ( 1. ) that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 word , was eternal . for the cerinthians said , the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was not in the beginning , but made a great space of time between the eternal being of the father , and the emanation of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , wherein he was in perfect silence , as irenoeus expresses it ( l. 1. c. 1. ) and so in the beginning , doth imply the eternity of the word . but that is not all , for he saith , it was with god , and was god , and was the demiurgus , or the maker of the world , and the revealer of god to mankind , joh. 1. 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 9 , 10. and so there was no place for those several emanations between god and the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and demiurgus , as the cerinthians said . ( 2. ) that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or word , was incarnate , which he affirms , v. 14. and the word was made flesh , and dwelt among us , &c. and was the only begotten son of the father ; and so he not only cuts off the other emanations , but declares that jesus was far from being a mere man. and to this purpose he brings in the testimony of john baptist , v. 15. and applies what he had said to the person of jesus christ , v. 17. now this being st. johns design , his words afford a demonstration to us of the union of the divine and human nature in christ , when he saith , the word was made flesh. p. but doth not the scripture in other places imply that there is a subordination in christ to his father , which is not consistent with such an equality of nature ; see heb. 1. 8 , 9. 1 cor. 8. 4 , 5. — 15. 27 , 28. rev. 3. 12. pr. the first place is a proof for the divinity of christ ; for the words are ; but unto the son , he saith , thy throne , o god , is for ever and ever , &c. it is true , in the next verse , it is said with respect to his office , therefore god , even thy god hath anointed thee , &c. but we do not deny that christ was anointed as mediator , and in that respect , god was his god ; but doth this prove that he that is mediator , cannot have a divine nature in conjunction with the human ? the second place , i suppose , is mistaken , 1 cor. 8. not 4. and 5. but 6 verse , but unto us , there is but one god the father , of whom are all things , and we in him ; and one lord jesus christ , by whom are all things , and we by him . and this is one of the strongest holds of the socinians . but two considerations will take off the seeming force of it . ( 1. ) that the apostle in his disputes with the gentile idolaters , concerning whom he speaks , v. 4 , 5. doth utterly deny any divinity in the beings they worshipped instead of god , when he saith , an idol is nothing in the world , and that there is none other god but one . he knew very well that they worshipped many , v. 5. as there be gods many , and lords many among them ; but unto us ( christians ) there is but one god , and one lord : i. e. we have but one supreme god , to whom we give divine worship ; and instead of the multitude of mediators , we have but one mediator ; and so his design is in opposition to their many gods , to assert the unity of the divine nature , ( not so as to exclude a distinction of persons , but thereby to exclude other gods as the proper object of worship ) , and the unity of a mediator , in opposition to their many lords . ( 2. ) that if this place excludes christ from the unity of nature with god , it doth exclude him from being the object of divine worship ; for it saith , that there is no other god , but one ; therefore no creature can be made god : and to us there is but one god , the father ; therefore the son cannot be god. if therefore the name lord be taken in opposition to god , then christ cannot be god in any sense ; for we must have but one god : but the plain meaning of the apostle was , that by one lord he meant one mediator , by whom alone we have , in this new frame of things by the gospel , access unto god the father . the third place , 1 cor. 15. 27 , 28. speaks plainly of christs kingdom , as mediator . the fourth place , rev. 3. 12. where christ speaks several times of my god , proves no more than his words on the cross , my god , my god , why hast thou forsaken me : for surely christ might own a particular relation to god , and interest in him , as he was in human nature , without overthrowing the divine nature in him . p. but he owns , that though he is to be our judg , he knows not the time , mark 13. 32. which seems inconsistent with the divine nature , which knoweth all things . pr. the son there spoken of , was christ , as endued with a human soul , when he was upon earth ; which could not understand a secret so much out of the reach of mans understanding , without immediate revelation . but it was not necessary by virtue of the union of both natures , that the divine nature should communicate to the human soul of christ all divine mysteries : but as the human body was notwithstanding subject to passions and infirmities incident to it , so the human soul might continue ignorant of the day of judgment in this state ; both to let us know how great that secret is , and that christ had the proper capacity of a human soul , which could not extend to such things without divine revelation . p. there is one argument more , which seems to prove christs divinity , and doth not ; viz. the making of all things visible and invisible , being attributed to him , john 1. 3. heb. 1. 10. col. 1. 16 , 17 , 18 , 19. pr. now i confess this doth more than seem to me to be a very strong argument ; and that for this reason , the apostle saith , the invisible things of him from the creation of the world , are clearly seen , being understood by the things which are made , even his eternal power and godhead , rom. 1. 20. was this argument of the apostle good or not ? p. no doubt it was . pr. then the creation of the world is an invincible proof of the true god. p. what follows ? pr. then if the making of all things be attributed to christ , he must be true god ; but this is plain in the new testament , in which the making of all things is as clearly attributed to the son , as it is to the father ; all things saith st. john , were made by him , and without him was not any thing made , that was made , john 1. 3. for by him were all things created , saith st. paul , that are in heaven , and that are in earth , visible and invisible , whether they be thrones , or dominions , or principalities , or powers , all things were created by him , and for him , col. 1. 16. thou , lord , in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth , and the heavens are the work of thy hands , heb. 1. 10. now compare these expressions with those wherein the creation is attributed to the father , the world is said to be made by bim , rom. 1. 20. that he hath created all things , rev. 4. 11. that of him , and for him , and to him , are all things , rom. 11. 36. and let any impartial mind discern the difference . therefore we have as much reason from scripture to believe christ to be god , as we have from the creation of things to believe a god. p. but you do not take notice of the different expressions in scripture , concerning the father and the son ; all things are said to be of the father , and by the son , 1 cor. 8. 6. and that the father created all things by jesus christ , eph. 3. 9. which proves no more , than that the son was gods instrument in the creation . pr. what do you mean by gods instrument in the creation ? do you think one creature can create another ? how then can the creation prove an infinite power ? if you believe the instrument uncreated , then you must assert him to be true god by nature ; and then we have all we desire . p. but the socinians do not like this answer of the arians , and therefore they interpret these places , of the state of things under the gospel , and not of the creation of the world. pr. they have not one jot mended the matter ; for , ( 1. ) where the new creation is spoken of , some circumstances are added , which limit the sense to it , as when st. paul saith , we are created in christ jesus unto good works that we shoul walk in them . eph. 2. 10. vvho could possibly understand this of the old creation ? and so , if any man be in christ jesus , he is a new creature , 2 cor. 5. 17. but in the other places the same expressions are used , which are attributed to the old creation , without limitation from circumstances , or from the context and occasion of them . ( 2. ) there are some things said to be created by christ jesus , which cannot relate to the new creation ; for by him were all things created , that are in heaven , and that are in earth , visible and invisible , whether they be thrones , or dominions , or principalities or powers . col. 1. 16. how are these created by preaching the gospel , when they are uncapable of the proper means of it , which are the doctrine of the remission of sins upon repentance , and the renewing and sanctifiing grace of god ? p. but st. paul doth not mention the heaven and earth , but only intellectual beings , angels , and men , and therefore he speaks of the new creation . pr. a mighty argument indeed ! do not all things comprehend the heaven and earth ? and the particular enumeration of angels by several denominations , shews that he speaks of another creation distinct from that by the gospel preached to the vvorld ; for the apostles were christs instruments in this new creation , which they could not be to the invisible powers above . p. we have now gone through the true and only grounds of the doctrine of the trinity . pr. you are extreamly mistaken . for we have other grounds besides these , although these may be sufficient . p. name one more . pr. i will name several , which you cannot disallow . p. what are they ? pr. the several heads of arguments made use of by cardinal bellarmin , to prove the divinity of christ : who alone is a convincing evidence of the vast disparity between the proofs of this doctrine , and of transubstantiation from scripture . for , 1. he proves christ's divinity from those places of the old testament , which are expounded in the new ; being in the old testament , spoken of the true god ; and in the new applied to christ. as numb . 21. 5 , 6. compared with 1 cor. 10. 9. exod. 20. 2. with jude 5. psal. 68. 18. with eph. 4. 8 , 9. psal. 97. 7. & 102. 25 , 26. with heb. 1. 6 , 10 , 11. isa. 6. 1 , 3. with john 12. 41. and revel . 4. 8. isa. 8. 14. with luke 2. 34. and rom. 9. 33. isa. 40. 3. with mat. 3. 3. mark 1. 3. luke 1. 76. john 1. 23. — isa. 45. 23. with rom. 14. 11. — isa. 44. 6. with revel . 1. 8 , 17. mal. 3. 1. with mat. 11. 10. 2. from the places of the old testament , which attribute to christ those things which belong to god ; as power and adoration , psal. 2. 7 , 8 , 12. being the first and last , isa. 48. 1. 12 , 16. working miracles , isa. 35. 5. being the god of israel , isa. 52. 5 , 6. the only god , isa. 45. 5 , 6. the lord of hosts , zach. 2. 8 , 9 , 10 , 11. jehovah , zach. 3. 2. pouring out of the spirit , zach. 12. 10. 3. from the places of the new testament , which attribute divinity to christ. as when he is called , the son of the living god , mat. 16. 16. the only begotten son of god , john 3. 16. his own son , rom. 8. 32. his true son , 1 joh. 5. 20. his dear son , col. 1. 13. his son above all others , heb. 1. 5. the express image of his person , heb. 1. 3. making himself equal with god , john 5. 18. being one with the father , joh. 10. 30. lord and god , john 20. 28. god blessed for ever , rom. 9. 5. who thought it no robbery to be equal with god , phil. 2. 6. one with the father and spirit , 1 john 5. 7. the true god , 1 john 5. 20. 4. from the proper names of god , isa. 9. 6. john 20. 28. acts 20. 28. rom. 9. 5. revel . 4. 8. 1 john 3. 16. the name jehov●● , jer. 23. 5 , 8. isa. 40. 3. the lord , by which the lxx render jehovah , mat. 21. 3. joh. 13. 13. the most high , psal. 87. 5. a name above every name , phil. 2. 9. the invisible one , 1 tim. 1. 17 , & 6. 16. the god of glory , act. 7. 2. 1 cor. 2. 8. psal. 24. 7 , 8 , 9. king of kings and lord of lords , 1 tim. 6. 15. revel . 17. 14. & 19. 16. the one lord , 1 cor. 8. 6. the true god , john 5. 20. the only lord , jud. 4. the great god and our saviour , titus 2. 13. 5. from the proper attributes of god ; as eternity , prov. 8. 22 , 23. mic. 5 , 2. joh. 1. 1 , — 17. 5. immensity , john 3. 13. mat. 18. 20. omnipotency , rev. 1. 8. — 4. 8. — 11. 17. wisdom , colos. 2. 3. joh. 21. 17. majesty and adoration , heb. 1. 6. mal. 3. 1. invocation , joh. 14. 13. acts 7. 59. & 9. 14. 2 cor. 12. 8. 1 cor. 1. 3. 2 joh. 3. 6. from the proper works of god : as not only creation , ( of which already ) but conservation , heb. 1. 3. colos. 1. 17. salvation , matth. 1. 21. foretelling future events , joh. 13. 19. 1 pet. 1. 11. rev. 2. 23. working miracles by his own power , mark. 4. 39. and giving power to others to work them , mat. 10. 1. what think you now of the proofs of the trinity in scripture ? do you think bellarmin could produce any thing like this for transubstantiation ? no ; so far from it , that where he sets himself in a whole chapter to prove it from scripture , he produces a first without a second . the first argument , saith he , is taken from christ's words , this is my body . very well ! but where is the second ? for no more could be produced , but this one single passage , about which he spends his whole chapter , and then betakes himself presently to the fathers . p. but one plain and clear place is sufficient , if we be certain of the sense of that one ; for we are as much bound to believe god when we are sure he speaks it once , as an hundred times . pr. we have been all this while comparing these two doctrines as to scripture , and now you see the disproportion so very great , as to number and variety , you say , one is as good as an hundred ; but that one had need to be wonderfully clear , which this is very far from , since many of your own writers do confess transubstantiation cannot be drawn from it ; as bellarmin himself owns , and he affirms it not to be improbable , that no place of scripture is so clear and express for transubstantiation , but learned and acute men may doubt whether it can be drawn from it , setting aside the churches declaration . but neither bellarmin , nor any one who attends to the force of the former proofs of the divinity of christ , can say , that any reasonable man can doubt of it ; and that he must at last resolve all into the church's authority . p. have not learned and acute men doubted of the divinity of christ , as of transubstantiation ? and therefore in that respect they are both alike . pr. we do not insist upon men's bare doubting , but on the reason of their doubting . and when but one single place is produced , which is yeilded not to be sufficient of it self to prove the doctrine ; there is much more cause of doubting , than where such multitudes of places are produced ; and no doubt is made by those who favour transubstantiation , but that they do fully prove the divinity of christ. p. it seems then we must come to reason at last . and for my part , i must tell you , i i think that parallel much the easiest . for , that three distinct persons should be in one individual nature , and that the most pure and simple being , seems to me to be more absurd than transubstantiation . pr. let us set aside the comparing absurdities at present , and only examin in point of reason , the great absurdity of three persons being in one individual divine nature . p. i did hardly believe you would have the courage to defend the doctrine of the trinity in point of reason ; but i see you are a bold man , and will venture farther than wiser men. pr. it may be others have not had the leisure or curiosity to examine a mystery believed to be so much out of the reach of our understanding ; or have confounded themselves and others so much with school-●erms , as to leave the matter rather more obscure than it was before . but i shall endeavour to make things as clear as they will bear . and that which i insist upon is , that the absurdities are not to appearance so great as those of transubstantiation . and therefore i desire you to produce those which appear the most dreadful . p. i shall reduce all to these two , which comprehend the rest . 1. how there can be three persons and but one god. 2. how these can agree in a third , and not agree among themselves . for the first , it seems very absurd , that there should be three persons really distinct , whereof every one is god , and yet there should not be three gods ; for nothing is more contradictions than to make three not to be three , or three to be but one . pr. i hope now you will give me leave to make an answer to your difficulty , as distinct as possible . we do not say , that three persons are but one person , or that one nature is three natures ; but that there are three persons in one nature . if therefore one individual nature be communicable to three persons , there is no appearance of absurdity in this doctrine . and on the other side , it will be impossible there should be three gods , where there is one and the same individual nature ; for three gods must have three several divine natures , since it is the divine essence which makes a god. but to make this more plain , do you make any difference between nature and person ? p. yes . pr. wherein lies it ? p. excuse me , sir , for you have undertaken to explain these things . pr. i will begin with person . which name was originally taken among the romans from some remarkable distinction of one from another ; either by some outward appearance , as a vizard or habit , or some particular quality or disposition . and from hence it came to be applied to those inward properties , whereby one intelligent being is distinguished from another ; and from those properties , to the person who had them . thus person is used even by tully himself , at least twenty times in his books of rhetorick : and the old civil law speaks of personal rights and personal actions . so that the criticks , such as valla , and others , had no cause to find fault with boethius , for applying the notion of a person , to an intelligent being subsisting by it self , ( and so the soul is no person in men , but the man consisting of soul and body ) having some incommunicable properties belonging to him . therefore i cannot but wonder at the niceness of some late men , who would have the names of person , and hypostasis , and trinity , to be laid aside ; since themselves confess boëthius his definition of a person to be true enough ; but they say , it belongs to the creatures , and not to god , for it would make three gods. which is to suppose , without proving it , that the divine nature can communicate it self after no other manner than a created nature can . this is now to be more strictly enquired into . and it is very well observed by boëthius , de trin. l. 1. principium pluralitatis alteritas est : that diversity is the reason of plurality : and therefore in the trinity , so far as they are different , they are three , i. e. in regard of personal properties and relations ; but so far as they agree , they are but o n e , that is , as to the divine nature . it is very true , that according to arithmetick , three cannot be one , nor one three ; but we must distinguish between the bare numeration , and the things numbred . the repetition of three units , certainly makes three distinct numbers ; but it doth not make three persons to be three natures . and therefore as to the things themselves , we must go from the bare numbers to consider their nature . where-ever there is a real distinction , we may multiply the number , tho the subject be but one. as suppose we say the soul hath three faculties , understanding , will and memory ; we may , without the least absurdity say , there are three and one ; and those three not confounded with each other , and yet there is but one soul. p. but the socinians object , that there is a difference between three properties , and three distinct persons ; because a person is an individual being ; and so three persons must be three individual beings ; and therefore as there is but one divine being , there can be but one person . pr. this is the main strength of the cause ; to which i answer , that altho a person be an individual being , yet it implies two things in it ; ( 1. ) something common with others of the same nature ; as three men have one and the same nature , tho they be three persons . ( 2. ) something peculiar and incommunicate to any other ; so that john cannot be peter , nor peter , james . p. but what is it which makes one not to be the other , when they have the same common nature ? pr. you ask a hard question , viz. about the principle of individuation ; but if it be so hard to resolve it , as to created beings , there is certainly far less reason for us to be unsatisfied , if it appear difficult to clear the difference of nature and person in an infinite being . yet all mankind are agreed in the thing , viz. that there is a community of the same nature , and a real distinction of persons among men , tho they cannot tell what that is which discriminates the humane nature in john , from the same humane nature in peter and james . and it is observable , that as beings arise in perfection above each other , it is still so much harder to assign that which is called the principle of individuation . in gross and material beings we can discern a number of accidents , or peculiar modes and properties , which distinguish them from each other ; but it is much harder to assign it in spiritual and intellectual beings , whose natures and differences lie not so open to our understandings . if so be then it appears more difficult in an infinite and incomprehensible being , what cause have we to wonder at it ? but we must always make a difference between what we have reason to believe , and what we have a power to conceive . altho we have all the reason in the world to believe that there is a god , i. e. a being infinite in all perfections ; yet we must yield that his essential attributes are above our comprehension . as for instance ; ( 1. ) we must believe god to be eternal , or we cannot believe him to be god. for , if he once were not , it is impossible he should ever be . and therefore we conclude necessary existence to be an essential attribute of the divine nature . but then , how to conceive that a being should be from it self , is at least as hard , as how one and the same individual nature should be communicated to three distinct persons ; nay , it is somewhat harder , since we see something like this in other beings ; but we can see no manner of resemblance of a thing that hath its being wholly from it self . ( 2. ) we must allow god to be omnipresent , or else we must suppose him so confined and limited to a certain place , as to be excluded from any other ; and if he can act in all places , he must either be present in them , or his power must be larger than his being , which is infinite ; but after this , we have not a power to conceive how a being should be present in the whole world , and not to be extended ; and if it be extended , how it should be uncapable of being divided into parts ; which is certainly repugnant to the divine nature . i therefore produce these two instances , to let the antitrinitarians see , that what they object in point of reason as to the incomprehensibility of the mystery of the trinity , will in consequence overthrow the divine nature . but as there is the highest reason to believe there is a god , tho we cannot comprehend his perfections ; so there may be great reason to believe the doctrine of the trinity , tho we cannot comprehend the manner of it . p. i had thought you intended to explain the mystery of it , and now you tell us it is incomprehensible . pr. it is a good step to our believing it , to make it plain , that the difficulty of our conception ought not to hinder our faith. and i have made some advance towards the explication of it , by shewing , that since mankind are agreed about the difference between nature and person , the whole difficulty comes to this , that the same common nature in mankind makes three persons ; but that it is the same individual nature in all the persons of the trinity . and now let us consider the infinite perfection and simplicity of the divine nature ; and we shall think it unreasonable that it should be so bounded as to the manner of its communication , as the nature of man is . every individual man hath not only individual properties , but an individual nature , i. e. the common nature of man , limited by some unaccountable principle , that doth make him different from all other men having the same nature with himself . the difficulty then doth not lie in a community of nature , and a distinction of persons , for that is granted among men , but in the unity of nature with the difference of persons . and supposing the divine nature to be infinite in its perfection , i do not see how it is capable of being bounded , as the common nature of man in individuals is ; and if it be not capable of being bounded and limited , it must diffuse it self into all the persons in the same individual manner ; and so this doctrine of the trinity is not repugnant to reason . p. but what say you to the athanasian creed ; is not that repugnant to humane reason ? pr. i think not ; but that it is a just explication of the doctrine of the trinity rightly understood . p. i see now you are upon hard points , you will stick at nothing , and transubstantiation it self will down with you anon . pr. i doubt that ; but at present we are upon the athanasian creed . and i desire but one principle to clear it , which follows from what is said already , viz. that what is affirmed of the divine nature , as such , must be common to all three persons ; but whatever is affirmed of the several persons , as such , must be peculiar to themselves . now this is a clear principle of reason , and hath no appearance of absurdity in it . and from hence the athanasian creed will easily be cleared . for eternity , incomprehensibility , omnipotency , belonging to the divine nature , as such , we ought to say , that they are not three eternals , three incomprehensibles , three almighties , but one eternal , one incomprehensible , one almighty . because the attributes belonging to the persons , by reason of the divine nature , and the attributes being really the same with it , the nature is the proper subject of them ; which being but one , we are not to distinguish them as to essential attributes , but only as to personal relations and properties . p. but if the three persons be coëternal , how is it possible to conceive there should not be three eternals ? pr. this seems the hardest expression in the whole creed ; but it is to be interpreted by the scope and design of it : which is , that the essential attributes are not to be distinguished , though the persons be . and so eternity is not taken as a personal attribute , but as essential ; and so they are not three eternals , but one eternal . and the great design of the creed was , to shew , that the christian church did not believe such a trinity as consisted of three persons , unequal and different in nature , and substance , and duration . p. but what say you to the damning all those who do not believe it , in the beginning and end of it ? pr. this is off from our business . but to let you see i will not avoid the difficulties you offer , i will give an answer even to this . the meaning is not , that every one is damned who doth not conceive aright of the difference of nature and person in the trinity , or of the essential and personal attributes ; but that those who set up in opposition to it the worship of a meer creature as god , or the worship of more gods than one , or who wilfully reject this article of the christian faith , when it is duly proposed to them , are guilty of a damning sin. for even the disbelief of christianity it self , is not supposed to be the cause of mens damnation , but where the doctrine of the gospel hath been proposed in a way of credibility . if when this doctrine of the trinity is proposed to mens minds , they will not consider it , nor weigh the arguments on both sides impartially , but with scorn and contempt reject it , and endeavour to bring reproach upon christianity for the sake of it , and disturb the peace of the church about it ; such cannot be said to receive or believe it faithfully , and by such sins they do run the hazard of perishing everlastingly . p. i see you have a mind to smooth every thing relating to the trinity , i wish you would do the same about transubstantiation . but yet you have not answer'd the other great difficulty in point of reason , viz. that those things which agree or disagree in a third , must agree or disagree one with the other . and therefore if the father be god , the son god , and the holy ghost god ; then the father must be son and holy ghost , and the son and holy ghost must be the father . if not , then they are really the same , and really distinct ; the same as to essence , distinct as to persons ; and so they are the same , and not the same , which is a contradiction . pr. and now i think you have drawn out the most refined spirits of socinianism , to make the doctrine of the trinity and transubstantiation parallel , because you say , it implies a contradiction ; which is the nearest parallel you have yet offered at . but this terrible argument is grounded on the same supposition , viz. that the divine essence is no more capable of communicating it self to three distinct persons , than any created being is . the reason of that axiom being , that created things , by reason of their finite nature , cannot diffuse or communicate themselves to more than one ; and therefore those which agree in a third , must agree together ; but supposing it possible that the same finite nature could extend it self to several individuals , it would be presently answered , the axiom did hold only , where they did adequately and reciprocally agree , and not where they did agree only in essence , but differ'd in the manner of subsistence . for where a different manner of subsistence is supposed possible , in the same individual nature , the agreement in that cannot take away that difference which is consistent with it ; which we attribute to the unlimitedness and perfection of the divine nature . p. but you can bring no other instance but the thing in question ; and therefore this is a petitio principii , or taking that for granted which is in dispute . pr. i do not think it to be so , where the reason is assigned from the peculiar properties of the divine nature , to which there can be no parallel . and i think it very unreasonable in the socinians , to send us to created beings for the rules and measures of our judgment concerning a being acknowledged to be infinite . p. are not the divine persons infinite , as well as the divine nature ? and therefore as created persons do take in the whole nature , so infinite persons will do the infinite nature . pr. no question , but the persons are infinite in regard of the nature which is so ; but if an infinite nature be communicable to more persons than one , every such person cannot appropriate the whole nature to it self . p. if the difference be on the account of infinity , then there must be an infinite number of persons in the divine essence . pr. i answer , that infiniteness of number is no perfection ; and as to the number of persons , we follow not our own conjectures , nor the authority of the church ; but divine revelation , which hath assured us , that there is but one god , and yet there are three that are one . which depends not meerly on the place of st. john , but the form of baptism is remarkable to this purpose , which joyns together the father , the son , and the holy ghost ; without any other distinction besides that of order and relation . and it is against the fundamental design of christianity , to joyn any created beings together with god in so solemn an act of religion . and st. paul joyns them together in his benediction : the grace of our lord jesus christ , and the love of god , and the communion of the holy ghost be with you all . amen . 2 cor. 12. 14. from whence the christian church hath always believed a trinity of persons in the unity of the divine nature . p. you have taken a great deal of pains to clear the doctrine of the trinity from any absurdity in point of reason , why should you not do as much now as to transubstantiation ? pr. in plain truth , because i cannot ; for here lies a vast difference between them . in the trinity we consider'd an infinite being , to which no bounds can be set without destroying its nature ; but in transubstantiation , we suppose a true finite body , which hath its natural bounds and limits to one certain place , and yet you will and must suppose this body to be equally present in many thousand distant places at the same time ; which implies so great a repugnancy to the very nature of a body , that i can by no means give my assent to it . p. alas ! is this it which chokes your reason , so that you cannot swallow the doctrine of the church in this matter ? you do not consider , that tho we allow nothing infinite in the body it self ; yet we suppose an infinite power to be imploy'd about it : and an infinite power may produce things above our comprehensions , about bodies in themselves finite . pr. this is the utmost your cause will bear ; but i pray tell me , is there any such thing as a repugnancy in the nature of things or not ? i. e. are there not some things which are endued with such properties , that if you alter them , you destroy their very nature ; as , to suppose an indivisible line , a triangle without lines , a body without dimensions ? p. hold a little ; a body must have dimensions belonging to it , but it is not necessary it should have those dimensions where-ever it is present . for it may be present in one place as a body , and in another after the manner of a spirit . pr. you might as well have said , a body may be consider'd two ways ; as it is a body , and as it is not a body : for there can be no body , where there are no dimensions proper to it . p. see how you are mistaken ; for it is 〈…〉 the dimensions which seem to hinder a body being in 〈◊〉 places at once , but its unity ; as bellarmin well observe● . pr. i say both of them 〈◊〉 . for 〈◊〉 body can no more be without it● dimensions , than a line without divisibility . p. i grant , that naturally it cannot , but by divine power it may . pr. will you make the power of god to change the essential properties of things , while the things themselves remain in their true nature ? you may as well say , that naturally man is a reasonable creature ; but by divine power he may be a true man , and yet want the faculty of reasoning : that naturally two and two make four , but god can make two and two to be joyned together in a supernatural manner , so as that four shall not result from them ; that tho , naturally speaking , white-washing a wall makes it look white , yet by an extraordinary power , there may be the presence of all things which make a wall white , yet it shall not do so ; just so it is to make a body present , and yet to have no dimensions of a body . is there any real difference between the nature of a body and spirit ? wherein lies it ? is it not as repugnant for a body to be after the manner of a spirit , as for a body and spirit to be the same ? p. all this proceeds upon not considering the difference between the essential extension of a body , and that which is quantitative , and hath relation to place . pr. the essential extension of a body without quantity , is non-sense , and a contradiction . for it is to make a body extended and not extended , at the same time . i pray tell me what you mean by a body , as it is opposed to a spirit ? p. i mean as all mankind do , such a substance which consists of parts extended and divisible . pr. then being extended and divisible , are the natural and essential properties of a body . and therefore , to suppose a body not to be extended and divisible , is to suppose it not to be a body , which is a plain contradiction . p. you are to distinguish between the intrinsecal quantity , which is an inseparable property of a body , and the extrinsecal relation it hath to a place . pr. intrinsecal quantity without relation to place , is intrinsecal non-sense . for , how is it possible for extended parts to have no relation to place ? p. by relation to place , i mean , when the parts of a body answer to the parts of a place : but by intrinsecal quantity , i mean , that there is the real order and proportion of parts in the body it self , but it doth not fill up the place . pr. then you do suppose the body of christ in the eucharist , to have all the distinct parts of a body , with their due order and proportion , but to be in the sacrament after an indivisible manner . p. why not ? pr. do you think it possible for the real and entire body of a man to be crouded into the compass of a wafer , with all the difference of its parts , so that no true part of the body be missing ? p. yes , by divine power . pr. do you think a far less thing possible than that , viz. that a man's head , and shoulders , and arms , should be contained entire and distinct under the nail of his little finger ? p. why not ? pr. then why may not the greatest body be within the least ? why may not an elephant be caught in a mouse-trap , and a rhinoceros be put into a snuff-box ? for either there is a repugnancy in the nature of the thing , for a greater body to be within a less , or there is not ; if not , then these mentioned instances are possible ; if there be , then the supposition of divine power can give no relief , unless you suppose , that god can do things repugnant in themselves , i. e. that he can do things which cannot be done . but i pray tell me , if the very body of christ be by transubstantiation in the wafer , with all its parts in their due order , then the head must be distant from the feet , and all other organs in their proper places ; but this cannot possibly be supposed , where there is no measure of distance as place is , and the whole body is in a point . p. i say again , there is the just order of parts considered in themselves , but not with respect to place . pr. then it is impossible there should be any distance ; without which it is impossible there should be the order of parts in a human body . thus , there is a repugnancy in the very supposition of christ's body being in the wafer , tho there were but one single wafer ; but when to this we add , that it is equally thus present in thousands of wafers at what distance of place soever , the absurdities do increase and multiply so fast upon us , that it is hardly possible to imagin any thing concerning a body , which doth imply more than this doth . as that one and the same body should be indivisibly present in many places , where it must be divided from it self , by so many bodies interposing : so that it is impossible to apprehend how two bodies can be divided from one another more effectually , than such a body must be from it self , if it be present in many places at once . p. i pray stop here ; for reckon up as many absurdities as you will , they are all but the effects of carnal reason , and we must captivate our understanding to the obedience of faith. pr. then it is to no purpose to argue any farther , on the point of reason ; and i thought you designed this for one part of your parallel . p. so i did ; and i still say , there are things as hard to make out about the trinity , which you have not yet taken notice of . pr. i pray let us hear them , that we may put an end to this discourse . p. what say you then to one and the same nature being in three distinct persons , which bellarmin saith , is more wonderful , than that one body should be in many places ; because the nature is identified with the persons , but the body is not so with the places in which it is present . if therefore the same nature be not divided from it self in the persons of the trinity , how much more easily may one body be present in several places , and not be divided from it self ? pr. it is strange neither bellarmin nor you should discern the difference . for the reason why a body must be divided from it self , being in several places , is , because it is finite ; and there being no penetration of dimensions in bodies , the interposing of other bodies must needs divide the same body in distant places ; but the reason why the same divine nature may be in several persons , is , because it is infinite ; and therefore nothing can bound or discontinue it . p. you have talked much of contradictions ; is there any greater about transubstantiation , than that of eternal generation of the son in the mystery of the trinity ? for , if it be not proper generation , then you cannot infer from it , that the son is of the same substance with the father ; if it be , then it must be a proceeding from not being to being , and so an eternal generation is a contradiction . pr. it is a rule in common reason , that all attributes must be understood according to the nature of the subjects . and therefore , if the subject here spoken of , be of such a nature , as to be uncapable of proceeding from not being to being , then whatever is affirmed of it , must be so understood , as not to destroy its nature . the term of generation alone is not , it may be , sufficient to prove the son co-essential with the father , because it might have been used improperly and metaphorically . but when from the scripture , it otherwise appears that the son of god being the word , was in the beginning with god , and was god , john 1. 1. and we soon after find him called the only begotten of the father , ver. 14. and the only begotten son , ver. 18. we have reason to infer from hence his eternal generation . which must not be understood in such a mean sense as is agreeable to creatures , but as it is consistent with the essential attributes of god , of which necessary existence is one . so that by eternal generation , no more can be meant , than such an emanation of the son from the father , as doth suppose them to have the same nature and co-existence : which is best represented by the rays of the sun coming from the fountain of light , if they were permanent , and not successive . p. what say you then to the mystery of the incarnation ? is it not more wonderful , as bellarmin observes , that there should be one hypostasis in two natures , than one body in two places ? since the union is greater between the hypostasis and the natures , than between the body and the places it is in ; the one being intrinsecal and substantial , the other extrinsecal and accidental . and that hypostasis is the same with the divine nature , and yet is most closely united with the human nature , which is so different from the divine ; so that it is incomprehensible by us , how in that union the natures are not confounded , or the hypostasis divided . pr. suppose now we grant all this , that there is an incomprehensible mystery in the incarnation , what follows from thence ? have i not hitherto owned , that there must be something incomprehensible by us , in what relates to the divine nature ? and it is the less wonder it is so in the incarnation , wherein an union is implied between an infinite and finite nature ; when the union of the soul and body , though both finite , is above our comprehension , though we our selves consist of souls and bodies so united ? but what consequence is it , if we are not able to explain this , that then we must admit that the same body may be not meerly in two , but in ten thousand places at the the same time ? i. e. if we cannot explain the hypostatical union , then all manner of absurdities must go down with us , that relate to things of a very different nature from it . p. i am glad to find you are set at last , and that now you have a difficulty before you which you can never get through . pr. be not too confident ; i have only hitherto denied the consequence as to the difficulties of transubstantiation . but it is possible , that setting aside the confusion of school-terms , i may be able to give a far more intelligible and reasonable account of the incarnation it self , than you can ever do of transubstantiation . p. first shew that it is possible , and then explain the manner of it . pr. but let us in the first place agree what we mean by it . p. by the incarnation , i mean , the union of the divine and humane nature , so as to make one person in christ. pr. if this be not possible , it must either be , 1. because two natures different from each other , cannot be united to make one person : the contrary whereof appears in the union of soul and body to the person of a man. or , 2. because it is impossible that an infinite nature should be united to a finite . p. how can there be an union possible , between two beings infinitely distant from each other ? pr. not in that respect wherein the distance is infinite ; but if there be nothing destructive to either nature in such an union , and the infinite nature do condescend to it , why may it not be so united to an intelligent finite being , as to make one person together with it ? for in respect of union , the distance is not so great between finite and infinite , as between body and spirit . p. the distance is infinite in one case , but not in the other . pr. i do not speak of them , with respect to perfections , but to union ; and an infinite distance in that must imply an absolute repugnancy , which you can never prove : for , since body and spirit may be united to make one person , an infinite spirit may be united to a finite nature . p. but the manner of the hypostatical union is impossible to be conceived . pr. let the thing be granted possible , and the difficulty of conceiving the manner may be as great in the union of soul and body . will you undertake to explain that to me ? and yet i hope you believe it . but , let us hear your difficulties again , which you object from bellarmine . p. that there should be but one hypostasis in two natures ; and that in the union the natures should not be confounded , nor the hypostasis divided . pr. all these difficulties arise from the sense of the word hypostasis . which originally signifies a real being , and not such which depends only on fancy and imagination ; from thence its signification was enlarged , not only to things real , ( in opposition to meer appearances , and creatures of the mind ) but to such a thing which did subsist of it self , and had not its subsistence in another , as accidents had . so that an hypostasis was a real substance which had subsistence in it self . but such are of two kinds , as the greek fathers observe . ( 1. ) such as are real substances in themselves , but yet are capable of being joined with another , to make up a person ; thus the soul and body have two different hypostases , and make up but one person of a man. ( 2. ) it is taken , for a compleat individual subsistence , which is not joined with any other as a part ; and so hypostasis is the same with a person , which is nothing else but a compleat , intelligent , individual hypostasis . and in this sense there can be but one hypostasis in christ , i. e. one person , tho there be two natures . p. but our divines say , that the humane nature after the union hath no hypostasis , it being swallowed up by the divine . pr. i know they do ; but if they mean that the humane nature , after the union , loses that subsistence which is proper to the humane nature , it is impossible for them to avoid the eutychian heresy , condemned by the council of chalcedon ; but if they mean no more than that there is a true nature , but no person , save only that which results from both natures ; they then agree with the sense of the church , which condemned the eutychians . for as much as the heresies of nestorius and eutyches differ'd in themselves , they were both built on the same ground , viz. that there could be no true nature , but there must be a person ; and that two natures could not make one person . from whence nestorius asserted there were two persons in christ ; and eutyches denied that there were two natures . p. what doth all this signify , but that the authority of the church must determine whether there be two natures , or two persons in christ ? pr. it seems then , the whole business wherein the general councils were so warmly concerned , was only to make an ecclesiastical dictionary , and to appoint what words are to be used , and what not . do you think then , there were no such real heresies as nestorianism and eutychianism , but only they happened to take the words nature and person in another sense than the church would have men use them ? p. i trust the church for all these things . pr. then if the church would have you affirm two persons and one nature , or two natures and one person , it were all one to you . p. why not ? since the church must determine . pr. what if you had been to dispute with nestorius and eutyches ? p. i would have told them , they must submit to the church about the use of words . pr. and they would have laughed at you for your pains : for the controversy was really about the truth of christ's incarnation , ( as the fathers proved , and the councils determined ) which in consequence was rejected by both of them ; as i will evidently prove , if you have any longer patience . p. i beg your pardon , sir , i have heard enough of all conscience already . pr. i think so too , to make you ashamed of your parallel between the doctrine of the trinity , and transubstantiation . and methinks , for the sake of our common christianity , you should no more venture upon such bold and unreasonable comparisons . do you in earnest think , it is all one , whether men do believe a god , or providence , or heaven , or hell , or the trinity and incarnation of christ , if they do not believe transubstantiation ? we have heard much of late about old and new popery ; but if this be the way of representing new popery , by exposing the common articles of faith ; it will set the minds of all good christians farther from it than ever . for upon the very same grounds , we may expect another parallel between the belief of a god and transubstantiation ; the effect of which will be , the exposing of all religion . this is a very destructive and mischievous method of proceeding ; but our comfort is , that it is very unreasonable ; as i hope , hath fully appeared by this discourse . finis . errata omitted in the former dialogue . page 10. line 25 , dele not . 18. l. 2 , dele not . 14. marg. l. 8. read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . in this dialogue . page 4. line 5. read viz. the sacrament . 5. l. 19. for done , r. due . 8. l. 30. for fictitious , r. factitious . 23. l. 22. r. doubted as well . books printed for william rogers . the doctrines and practices of the church of rome truly represented ; in answer to a book intituled , a papist mis-represented and represented , &c. quarto . an answer to a discourse intituled , papists protesting against protestant popery ; being a vindication of papists not misrepresented by protestants : and containing a particular examination of monsieur de meaux , late bishop of condom , his exposition of the doctrine of the church of rome , in the articles of invocation of saints , and the worship of images , occasioned by that discourse . quarto . an answer to the amicable accommodation of the difference between the representer and answerer . quarto . a view of the whole controversy between the representer and the answerer , with an answer to the representer's last reply ; in which are laid open some of the methods by which protestants are misrepresented by papists . quarto . a discourse against transubstantiation , in octavo . price 3d. sermons and discourses , some of which never before printed ; the third volume . by the reverend dr. tillotson dean of canterbury . 80. a manuel for a christian soldier . written by erasmus , and translated into english. twelves . the doctrine of the trinity and transubstantiation , compared as to scripture , reason , and tradition . in a new dialogue between a protestant and a papist . the first part. wherein an answer is given to the late proofs of the antiquity of transubstantiation , in the books called consensus veterum , & nubes testium , &c. quarto . the doctrine of the trinity and transubstantiation compared , as to scripture , reason , and tradition . in a new dialogue between a protestant and a papist . the second part. wherein the doctrine of the trinity is shewed to be agreeable to scripture and reason , and transubstantiation repugnant to both . quarto . notes, typically marginal, from the original text notes for div a61550-e340 sicut enim antequam sanctificatur panis , panem nominamus , divinâ autem illum sanctificante grati● , mediante sacerdote , liberatus est quidem ab appellatione panis , dignus autem habitus est dominici corporis appellatione , etiamsi natura panis in ipso permansit , & non duo corpora , sed unum corpus filii praedicatur , sic & hic divina 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ( 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in graec. exemplar . ep bigot . ) id est inundante corporis natura unum filium , unam personam utraque haec fecerunt . papist misrepresented , and represented , 2 part. ch . 3. p. 23. concil . chalced . act. 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . dial. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . dial. 2. certè sacramenta quae sumimus corporis & sanguinis domini divina res est , propter quod & per eadem divinae efficimur consortes naturae , & tamen esse non desinit substantia vel natura panis & vini . gelas. in biblioth . patr. to. 4. pag. 20. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . ephraem . antioch . ap . phot. cod. 229. tom. 3. 1. 5. c. 1 , 6 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11. ap. facund . 1. 8. c. 5. ap. canis . antiq . lection . to. 4. p. 112 , 114 , 127. epiph. haer . 77. vincent . common . aug. de haeres . c. 55. concil . chal. . ced . act. 1. theodor. dial. 1. & 2. nam quando in terra fuit , non erat ubique in coelo . et nunc quia in coelo est , non est ubique in terra , & in tantum non est , ut secundum ipsam ( carnem ) christum spectemus esse venturum de coelo● quem secundum verbum nobiscum esse credimus in terra . cont. eutych . l. 4. n. 14. et ubique totum praesentem esse non dubites tanquam deum — & in loco aliquo coeli propter veri corporis modum . ad dardan . non enim corpora sunt quorum amplior sit in tribus quam in singulis magnitudo , nec loca suis molibus tenent , ut distantibus spatiis simul esse non possint . ad dardan . secundum praesentiam verò coporalem simul & in sole & in luna & in cruce esse non posset . c. faust. l. 20. c. 11. et cum in terra loquitur in coelo utique nisi per dei infinitatem esse non possit . de incarn . l. 4. c. 6. sive ista crassiora , sivesubtiliora , sed tamen corpora , quorum nullum potest esse ubique totum , quoniam per innumerabiles partes aliud alibi habeat necesse est . et quantumcunque sit corpus , seu quantulumcunque corpusculum , loci occupet spatium , eundemque locum sic impleat , ut in nullâ ejus parte sit totum . ad volusian , quanquam si hoc demas corporibus , quantum mea opinio est , neque sentiri possunt , neque omnino corpora esse rectè existimarem . de quant . animae , c. 4. quod per loci spatium aliqua longitudine , latitudine , altitudine ita sistitur vel movetur , ut majore sui parte majorem locum occupet , & breviore breviorem , minusque sit in parte quam in toto . ad hieron . ep. 166. non omnino potest esse aliquod corpus , sive coeleste , sive terrestre , sive aereum , sive humidum , quod non minus sit in parte quam in toto , neque ullo modo possit in loco hujus partis simul habere aliam partem , sed aliud hic , aliud alibi habens per quaelibet spatia locorum distantia & dividua , vel potius ut ita dicam , sectili more distenditur . c. epist. manich. c. 16. omne corpus locale est , & omne locale corpus est . 63. quaest. c. 35. corpus quodlibet per localia spatia porrectum est . 83. quaest. c. 51. orat. 34. & in ep ad cledon . dial. 2. de trin. claud. mamert . de statu animae , l. 1. c. 5 , 17 , 18. l. 3. c. 14. apud euseb. de praep. evangel . l. 7. c. 22. basil. epist. 43. isidor . epist. l. 2. ep. 72. greg. nyssen . in hexaem . p. 13 de hom. opificio . c. 24. aug. ep. ad dardanum . cont . julian . l. 5. c. 9. isid. origin . l. 2. c. 26. boeth . de praedic . damascen dial. c. 1. alcuin . dial. c. 5 , 12. iren. l. 2. c. 14. apud . phot. cod. 234. aug. de immort . anim. c. 10. soliloq . l. 2. c. 13. de statu animo . l. 3. c. 3. iren. l. 3. 20. 5. 7. tertul. decarne christi , c. 5. advers . marc. l. 4. c. 43. l 3. c. 8 , 11. epiphan . haer . 42 , 64. hilar. in psal. 137. aug. c. faust. l. 29. c. 2. l. 14. c. 10. 83. quaest. c. 14. serm. 238. de euch. l. 1. c. 14. cyril . mystag . 3 , & 4 , 5. catech. 3. chrysost. in matt. hom 83. ambros. de his qui initiantur , c. 9. consensus veterum , p. 21 , 22 , 23. consens . vet. p. 27. nouvelle biblioth . des antienes ecclesiastiques par ellies du pin. 1686. p. 22. p. 23. consens . p. 30. consens . veter p. 30. nubes testium , p. 109. tertull. c. marcion . l. 4 , c. 40. apol. 2. p. 31. iren. l. 4. c. 34. iren. l. 5. c. 11. con. marcion . l. 4. c. 40. con. marcion . l. 3. c. 19. l. 5. c. 8. de resur . c. 8. strom. 4. hom. 5. in divers . loc . comment . in matth. 15. cypr. de lapsis . epist. 63. n. 6. nubes testium . p. 120. &c. consens . vet. p. 54 , &c. disp. 53. sect. 4 de euch. l. 1. c. 2. hom. 83. in mat. hom. 51. in mat. in heb. hom. 14. in rom. hom. 8. ad pop. antioch . hom. 15. de sacerd. l. 3. in joh. hom. 45. hom. in gal. c. 5. hom. de resur . to. 5. hom. 46. in joh. hom. 28. in 1. ep. ad corinth . hom. 24. in 1. ad corinth . hom. 22. in hebr. hom. de poenit . to. 6. p. 56. eucholog . p. 77. greg. nyssen . orat. catech. 37. nubes testium , p. 124. tertul de resur . carn . c. 37. orig. hom . 7. in levit. ambros. de his qui initiantur , c. 9. c. 3. de sacram. l. 5. c. 4. notes for div a61550-e21120 rom. 1. 21 , 23 , 24. 1 cor. 10. 7 , 14. 1 joh. 5. 21. bell. de christo . l. 1. c. 4 , &c. bell. de euch. l. 3. c 19. cap. 23. an answer to a discourse against transubstantiation gother, john, d. 1704. 1687 approx. 211 kb of xml-encoded text transcribed from 41 1-bit group-iv tiff page images. text creation partnership, ann arbor, mi ; oxford (uk) : 2008-09 (eebo-tcp phase 1). a41592 wing g1326 estc r30310 11294072 ocm 11294072 47309 this keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the early english books online text creation partnership. this phase i text is available for reuse, according to the terms of creative commons 0 1.0 universal . the text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission. early english books online. (eebo-tcp ; phase 1, no. a41592) transcribed from: (early english books online ; image set 47309) images scanned from microfilm: (early english books, 1641-1700 ; 1462:3) an answer to a discourse against transubstantiation gother, john, d. 1704. 80 p. printed by henry hills ..., london : 1687. reproduction of original in the harvard university library. created by converting tcp files to tei p5 using tcp2tei.xsl, tei @ oxford. re-processed by university of nebraska-lincoln and northwestern, with changes to facilitate morpho-syntactic tagging. gap elements of known extent have been transformed into placeholder characters or elements to simplify the filling in of gaps by user contributors. eebo-tcp is a partnership between the universities of michigan and oxford and the publisher proquest to create accurately transcribed and encoded texts based on the image sets published by proquest via their early english books online (eebo) database (http://eebo.chadwyck.com). the general aim of eebo-tcp is to encode one copy (usually the first edition) of every monographic english-language title published between 1473 and 1700 available in eebo. eebo-tcp aimed to produce large quantities of textual data within the usual project restraints of time and funding, and therefore chose to create diplomatic transcriptions (as opposed to critical editions) with light-touch, mainly structural encoding based on the text encoding initiative (http://www.tei-c.org). the eebo-tcp project was divided into two phases. the 25,363 texts created during phase 1 of the project have been released into the public domain as of 1 january 2015. anyone can now take and use these texts for their own purposes, but we respectfully request that due credit and attribution is given to their original source. users should be aware of the process of creating the tcp texts, and therefore of any assumptions that can be made about the data. text selection was based on the new cambridge bibliography of english literature (ncbel). if an author (or for an anonymous work, the title) appears in ncbel, then their works are eligible for inclusion. selection was intended to range over a wide variety of subject areas, to reflect the true nature of the print record of the period. in general, first editions of a works in english were prioritized, although there are a number of works in other languages, notably latin and welsh, included and sometimes a second or later edition of a work was chosen if there was a compelling reason to do so. image sets were sent to external keying companies for transcription and basic encoding. quality assurance was then carried out by editorial teams in oxford and michigan. 5% (or 5 pages, whichever is the greater) of each text was proofread for accuracy and those which did not meet qa standards were returned to the keyers to be redone. after proofreading, the encoding was enhanced and/or corrected and characters marked as illegible were corrected where possible up to a limit of 100 instances per text. any remaining illegibles were encoded as <gap>s. understanding these processes should make clear that, while the overall quality of tcp data is very good, some errors will remain and some readable characters will be marked as illegible. users should bear in mind that in all likelihood such instances will never have been looked at by a tcp editor. the texts were encoded and linked to page images in accordance with level 4 of the tei in libraries guidelines. copies of the texts have been issued variously as sgml (tcp schema; ascii text with mnemonic sdata character entities); displayable xml (tcp schema; characters represented either as utf-8 unicode or text strings within braces); or lossless xml (tei p5, characters represented either as utf-8 unicode or tei g elements). keying and markup guidelines are available at the text creation partnership web site . eng tillotson, john, 1630-1694. -discourse against transubstantiation. transubstantiation. lord's supper. 2007-09 tcp assigned for keying and markup 2007-10 apex covantage keyed and coded from proquest page images 2008-01 judith siefring sampled and proofread 2008-01 judith siefring text and markup reviewed and edited 2008-02 pfs batch review (qc) and xml conversion an answer to a discourse against transubstantiation hic est filius meus dilectus — ipsum audite . this is my beloved son — hear ye him , matth. 17. 5. permissu superiorum . london , printed by henry hills , printer to the king 's most excellent majesty , for his houshold and chapel . 1687. introduction . if public applause , and popular acclamations of your own party , are to be believed , your discourse against transubstantiation has sufficiently shewed , that the scriptures cannot clearly demonstrate this miraculous change ; nor the perpetual belief thereof in the christian church , illustrate it ; and that there are all the reasons in the world against it . yet if a serious consideration , and weighing of your arguments in the scale of justice , be the deciders of the present debate , we shall find neither scripture , nor belief of the primitive church , nor any reason in the world , against transubstantiation . and therefore in christian duty , i think my self obliged , to endeavor , after my poor manner , a discovery of your winning artifices , and a removal of your plausible appearances ; dividing this following answer into two parts . in my first , i 'll examin , whether there be any tolerable ground for transubstantiation . and my second , is designed to counterpoise ( as you think ) your invincible objections . part i. i sub-divide my first part into five sections , comprehending the five pretended grounds , one or more of which , you suppose the church of rome builds this doctrin on . first , the authority of scripture . or secondly , the perpetual belief of this doctrin in the christian church . or thirdly , the authority of the church to make , or declare an article of faith. or fourthly , the absolute necessity of such a change , for the benefit of those who receive this sacrament . or fifthly , to magnify the power of the priest . sect . i. whether scripture authorise transubstantiation . before i begin to discuss whether scripture authorise transubstantiation : i think it convenient to premise two reflections , upon two considerable circumstances , delivered in your introduction . first reflection upon the word transubstantiation . in the very first entrance of your discourse , you complain it is a hard word ; and afterwards increase your complaint with this unparallel'd exaggeration . it was almost 300 years before this mishapen monster of transubstantiation could be lick'd into that form in which it is now setled and established in the church of rome . bold assertions ought to be supported with great proofs : and monstrous vilifications of the divine goodness expiated with more than ordinary repentance . heaven forbid , that our blessed saviour should ever prove a mishapen monster , even to those who most oppose revealed truth expressed in transubstantiation . a hard word , and who can endure it ; a new word , and who will admit it ? st. hilary answers you in this reply to the arian heretics , importuning the primitive church of christ with the like expressions , say rather , if you speak wisely , will you not wage new wars against new enemies ; or take fresh counsels against new treasons ; or drink counterpoison against venomous infections ? nor was st. athanasius's interrogation of less force : are you offended at the newness of the name ? or affraid of the verity of the mystery ? the sentiment of these two great ornaments of the church , is the common practice of whole sacred antiquity ; according to the golden sentence of vincentius lyrinensis , the church ordinarily appropriates some new term to signifie more pathetically the true sense of faith. thus did the first oecumenical council write 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 consubstantial , and the arians could not digest the hardness of the word . thus did the ephesian prelates stile the b. virgin , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 mother of god , which was no softer to the nestorians . and thus did the lateran bishops subcribe to transubstantiation , and the berengarians and modern opposers of the roman truth , expostulate with us for this word , and modestly term it a mishapen monster . second reflection upon the evidence of sense . here you bring in aristotle , who long since hath pronounced , there ought to be no dispute of the matter of sense . i beg pardon if i am not at leisure , to digress with you towards paganism . neither can i think you serious , when you quote the philosopher's determination , for the mystery of the lords supper , who never professed a revealed religion , and died many hundred years before christianity was promulgated and established . nor do i apprehend the least danger to be overburden'd , with the heavy matter of sense , when my way leads to the sublime matter of revelation . you cannot deny , sense , reason , and faith , are three various perfections ; so likewise are their objects distinguished . the * stagyrite never pretended sense should reach farther than to the accidents and appearance of things . and reasons employ was the contemplation of essence , nature , and substance . how could aristotle pronounce , the matter of sense was never to be disputed , when 't was always to be pry'd into , and regulated by reason ? yet we do not dispute with you , the prerogative of sense in the mystery of the sacrament . for we see the outward shape and appearance of bread and wine ; nor is tast wanting . all this is granted . unless then you perplex and embroil the question , sense reposes , without violation , quiet and contented in its own objects . nor ought you to believe , that reason can securely , without error , always determin in natural sciences , according to the received impression , from the visible sign , or object of sense . this maxim is given to novices entring the list of dialecticks , and admitted by the sect of peripateticks . so reason enlarges the greatness of the sun , and assures us , it far exceeds in bigness the terrestrial orb , tho' sense inclose it in the small circumference of a ball. sense indeed and reason combining together , and following the prescript of logick , are the proper deciders of philosophical contestations . sense pleads for no more , and if the reason of aristotle surviv'd , it would be abundantly satisfi'd with this voluntary concession . if for all this you resolve to seat reason in the chair of judicature , even where revelation intervenes , divine authority will easily rescue christian religion from the information of sense . reason following the dictamen of outward existence , told abraham , what appeared were men ; revelation corrected the mistake , and assured him they were angels . reason affirmed what descended in the shape of a dove , was that innocent creature : revelation reformed the judgment , and intimated it was the holy ghost . reason regards the species of bread as inherent to the proper substance : revelation changes that substance into the body of christ . abraham saw the figure and shape of men , and yet the substance of man was wanting . the feathers in appearance exhibited a dove ; the real substance was supply'd with the presence of the holy ghost . again , it was a maxim of philosophy , what is , was from something . and this evidence vanishes at the sight of revelation , which teaches the whole universe was created of nothing . 't was a principle , there 's no return from privation , to the habit , from death to life ; and this perswasion ceases , acknowledging our saviours resurrection . reasons reluctancy proceeding from senses information , must yield to the power of revelation , or we must cease to be christians . thus julian apostatised , and derided christians that they were so stupid , to blindfold reason with the bare word of a crede , you must believe . this in st. gregory nazianzen is recorded . st. clement in the second centurie relates the same of the greek philosophers , and confutes them by this definition of supernatural faith : faith which the greeks look upon as vain and unreasonable , is a voluntary anticipation , a pious yielding , the substance of things which are hop'd for , and an evidence of what is not seen , according to the divine apostle . faith is first according to this ancient father , a voluntary anticipation of reason ; and you wilfully anticipate faith by reason . secondly , faith is a pious assent to divine testimony ; and you boldly contradict our saviours own words . thirdly , it is the substance of things hop'd for ; and you reply there 's nothing to be hoped for of substance in the sacrament . lastly , faith is an evidence of things not seen ; and you contend reason evidences the contrary . reason rather with st. ambrose , who declares , we believe fisher-men ; we do not believe philosophers . st. cyril of alexandria , conceived it impossible to believe where reason intermixes inquiries . st. chrysostom avow'd the very letting of an , how can it be , is a beginning of incredulity . st. augustin avers , that if we first demonstrate and afterwards believe , we become both ignorant and incredulous . and our b. saviour adds the heavy burden of condemnation , as we read in st. mark , who will not believe , shall be condemned . this is sufficient to shew , that reason in matters of religion ought to take her information , not from sense , but from the proposal of god and divine scriptures . now i examin ; whether scripture authorise transubstantiation ? you say we pretend for this doctrin the authority of scripture in those words of our saviour , this is my body . so likewise do we pretend for the same doctrin , the authority of scripture from the 6 chapter of st. john , which you passing over in silence as inconsiderable , i shall endeavor to manifest , as of great importance . let us not mix confusedly the thing which our saviour promises to give , and the manner of receiving the gift . a worthy receiving the gift ▪ is spiritually by faith. this is not contested . the question is , what is the thing promised to be given , whether the true body of christ or not ? our saviour gives two promises , both of the same thing , his own substance ; both contained in the 51 verse of st. john , the bread that i will give , is my flesh ; behold the promise of himself , in the sacrament : and , which i will give for the life of the world , intimates the promise of himself to the cross . the promises are distinguished ; the substance is the same ; because the same spirit of truth which delivers two promises , assures one substance . what is then this bread which christ promised to give in the sacrament ? christ answers it is my flesh , and that flesh which he will give for the life of the world. was this a piece of bread , or the true substantial body of christ ? this is peculiarly seconded from our saviours appeasing the murmur of the capharnait's , and raising their incredulity to the mystery of his flesh , by presaging the resuscitation of his own dead body , what if ye shall see the son of man ascend up where he was before ? if i should now return your sense of the sacrament for a reply to our b. saviour , and say , we understand the promise given of your flesh , to be eaten in figure only , not in substance ; would not the reader straight subsume , then only the figure of his body ascended into heaven , and so void our b. saviours argument , and destroy the miraculous ascension ? another discontent succeeding among the jews , caused our saviour to instance once more the power of his divinity . it is the spirit that quickeneth , the flesh profiteth nothing . this spirit they were promised to receive in the sacrament , and this spirit is truly christ , god and man. the flesh profiteth nothing , if we believe st. austin ; as science , according to st. paul , puffeth up : science all alone , barren of charity ; for so properly , science puffeth up . add charity to science with the divine apostle , and then science flourishes and is fruitful . the body of christ as a mortal and fading creature profiteth nothing . joyn god to man , and the flesh of christ profiteth exceedingly . thus it profited on the cross , and profiteth in the sacrament . st. cyril of alexandria giving the same literal exposition , says , when christ called himself spirit , he did not by this deny , that he was flesh ; and so concludes , that this spirit was christ himself . if this spirit then be christ , who promised to give in the sacrament , what he promised to give for the life of the world , on the cross ; who will question that he did not perform what he promised ? or would promise what he could not effect ? 't is dangerous to limit the power of the deity ; 't is impious to question the promise of god. and yet alas ! some men are so enamoured with what they can feel to have some substance in it , that idolizing with sense , they are not sensible how christ promised to give himself in the sacrament ; they question the very gift it self , and endeavor to make good these two things , 1st . that there 's no necessity of understanding these words of our saviour , this is my body , in the sense of transubstantiation . 2ly . that there is a great deal of reason to understand them otherwise . these two general arguments deserve to be the subject of two chapters . chap. i. of the necessity of understanding our saviours words in the sense of transubstantiation . if there be any such necessity ; you pretend it must be , either 1st . because there are no figurative expressions in scripture , or else because a sacrament admits of no figure . 2ly . you are willing to stand to the plain concession of a great number of the most learned writers of the church of rome in this controversie . these two main proofs shall be considered in the following articles . article 1. examen of your first proof . i know not upon what account you say , that if our saviours words , can be taken in the sense of the roman catholic assertion , this must be ; either because , there are no figures in scripture ; or because , a sacrament admits of no figure . had any of our authors made use of such reasons , or inclined the least this way , you would not have omitted such authority . but if you write what you have not read , for the pretended ground of transubstantiation ; i 'm sure you have not writ what you have read , for the real understanding thereof . i shall remind you of some few motives , which induce roman catholics to believe our saviours words can import no less than the verity of transubstantiation . first motive . the written law shadowed future truth , and this truth was christ . so we read moses sprinkled with blood , the book , and people , saying , this is the blood of the testament which god hath enjoyned unto you . the blood of the ancient covenant was the figure of the blood of jesus christ in the sacrament . this appears from the words of our saviour in the institution ; this is my blood of the new testament , which is shed for many . this miraculous concord of the old and new covenant : this repetition of the very same phrase , is an evidence beyond denyal , that the former was a symbol of the latter . and since you cannot understand the latter of christs blood spilt on the cross ; because you pretend st. luke says , his blood was then shed , which is shed for many , which preceded the crucifiction : it follows necessarily to be understood , of the true blood of christ in the sacrament . because a figure is not without the reality , nor a shadow without a true body . second motive . as it is true that jesus took bread , so are we taught , that he blessed it . and what he brake , and what he gave to his disciples , was without doubt , what he had blessed or consecrated . the question is , what this was ? none of the evangelists say , that he gave bread ; they say jesus took bread , and jesus assures , what was blessed , broken , and given , was his body , saying , this is my body . if it was then bread , as the evangelists note , jesus took bread ; and after the divine benediction or consecration became his body , as jesus affirms , this is my body : then without extorting or racking of scripture , without adding figurative glosses , ( and wicked is the man who superads to scripture ) the facile sense of scripture readily leads to the plain article of transubstantiation . third motive . the circumstances of our saviour urge for the literal acceptation of this is my body . for jesus spoke to his apostles ; to his dearest friends ; preparing to bid his last adieu ; and then , if ever , sincerity discloses it self , without difficulty , and after a facile and intelligible method . he 's wisdom it self , and knew how to phrase his thought . he 's omnipotent , and so can surmount what human frailty might conceive as impossible . he 's goodness it self , and cannot deceive us . and therefore said what it was , and what he said was true . fourth motive is the conformity of scriptures . for if christ had ever design'd to signifie , that the eucharistical bread was only the figure of his body , it would surprize us what inclin'd him to make use of this speech , this is my body ; and after such a choice , to leave it barely without explanation , when he so carefully taught his disciples the true meaning of many easier parables : 't would astonish us , finding the three evangelists with st. paul ( who testifies he received the same doctrin from revelation ) not constrain'd , nor combining to joyn in expression , yet to repeat all the same words , without the least alteration . and we read in latin , greek , syriac , arabic , all versions and languages , nothing but the same expression , and equal confirmation . fifth motive . the very same interpretation of other scriptural passages , wherein are grounded the chief articles of christian belief , enforces the sequel of transubstantiation . for , i believe , adhering to scripture as the rule of faith , that this passage , the word was made flesh , imports a substantial union . i believe the consubstantiality of the son with the father , included in these words , i and my father are one . i believe one divine essence of three distinct persons revealed , in these three are one . upon these testimonies of holy writ substantially understood , i quietly repose my belief of the incarnation of our saviour ; the son's divinity ; and of the sole and undivided nature of the blessed trinity . this method is further secur'd by the consent of all those who are , and pretend to be true members of christ's religion . now if i follow this determination , so authorized , and so certain ; if i follow this motive of my own conviction in other like articles , extending the same uncontrol'd interpretation , to this is my body , i must necessarily grant this inference , this is my substantial body . thus my faith seeks to be one ; as scripture is one , and god one truth . as this literal reflection is sincere and pious ; the figurative explanation of our saviour's words wants no fallacy nor impiety . for , if i may presume to give this sense to our saviour's words , this is not my substantial body , this presumption ought to be strongly grounded , as allowable , just , and in equity to be follow'd . and if so , then i may lawfully give the same exposition to the three alledg'd articles . for the scripture urges not more out of this passage , the word was made flesh , the substantial connexion of the second person with human nature ; or out of these words , i and my father are one , the identity of the son with the father ; or out of , these three are one , the unity of nature in three divine persons ; than out of this is my body , the substantial body of christ . if therefore i might lawfully understand our saviour's words in an empty figurative exposition , saying , this is not my substantial body , i might rightly deduce ( following the same interpretation ) then the word was not substantially made flesh , and so deny the mystery of the incarnation ; i and my father are not substantially one , and so prosess arianism ; these three are not substantially one ; and so dividing the divine nature , constitute many gods. can such a figurative explanation be thought a sincere part of the true religion , which undermines , and utterly destroys the whole fabrick of christianity ? and ought not my own motive in the most considerable mysteries of christianity , contained in scripture , be to me the same in the determination of the true sense of this is my body ? sixth motive . the true sense of our saviour's words may be gathered from the doctrin which the learned and ancient fathers maintain'd against incroaching heresie . what if i should now advance , that the successors of the apostles upbraided heretics for denying the eucharist to be the flesh of christ , that flesh which suffered for us upon the cross ; would you not look upon it as an invincible undertaking ? and yet the glorious martyr st. ignatius , elected bishop of antiochia thirty eight years after our saviour's passion , plainly delivers . they ( certain heretics , whose names he thought convenient not to mention ) do not receive eucharists , or sacrifices , because they do not confess that the eucharist is the flesh of our saviour jesus christ , which flesh suffered for our sins , and which the father raised again by his benignity . nor is it enough to say , these heretics could not admit the eucharist to be a figure , because they deny'd that christ had true flesh . this perchance is true . but it is not here the sense of the martyr , who says expresly , that they reject eucharists , because they do not confess , that the eucharist is that flesh which suffered for our sins . the flesh which suffered for us , and rose again , was it a figure , or was it true flesh ? if i should affirm that the language of the second century , spoke after the same manner , and told us that they were taught the eucharist was not common bread , but was the flesh of our saviour made man , and jesus incarnate ; would you not reply it was a roman invention ? and yet st. justin the martyr leaves this convincing testimony . we do not receive these things as common bread , or common drink : but as by the word of god jesus christ our saviour being incarnate , had both flesh and blood for our salvation : so are we taught that this food , by which ( chang'd by digestion in our bodies , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ) our flesh and blood are nourish'd , eucharistated [ or transformed ] by the prayer of this divine word , is the flesh and blood of that incarnate jesus . if for all this you should reply , that the eucharistic food is onely figuratively the flesh and blood of christ ; then might the reader likewise aver , christ being incarnate had onely figuratively both flesh and blood. for 't is more to say , the blessed bread is the flesh and blood of incarnate jesus , because this speech implies a substantial change , than to say , jesus being incarnate had both flesh and blood , because this speech can signifie no more than a substantial union . and to say less in either , is to diminish and change the martyr's sense . if i should instance the third age was a faithful imitator of the precedent ; so dividing between the divine mystery , and the grace of the mystery , that the body of man received the body and blood of christ , and the soul was replenished with the grace of faith , or effect of the sacrament ; would you not be surprized at the acknowledgment of what was given in communion ? and yet tertullian furnishes us with a sufficient manifestation of this truth ; saying , our flesh is sed with the body and blood of christ , that our soul may be filled with god. again , these words , our flesh is fed with the body and blood of christ , cannot be deluded in an eating by faith , because the body of man is incapable of an act of faith. if i should continue the fathers of the fourth century , when the church was beautified , and enriched with an innumerable offspring of pious and learned children ; if i should alledge how these worthy champions of christian purity forbid posterity to judge of the sacrament by tast , and taught them the body was given them under the species of bread ; and as christ changed water into wine , so did he wine into his own blood ; would you not swear this language was unknown in those times ? and yet both the greek and latin church conspire in this doctrin . hearken to that grecian prelate st. cyril of jerusalem , and acknowledge the plain truth of these words . do not judge the thing by tast , but by faith. under the species of bread is given to thee the body ; and under the species of wine is given to thee the blood. christ formerly changed water into wine ; and is he not to be believed , changing wine into his blood ? nor are these words of the learned latin bishop gaudentius of less force . jesus giving to his disciples bread and wine , said , this is my body : let us believe , it is what he said . truth is incapable of error . the creator of all nature , and lord , who produces bread from the earth , made again of this bread ( because he can , and promised ) his proper body ; and because he did make wine of water , of wine he makes his blood. i know there are several expressions and comparisons in the fathers , which only declare a spiritual change effected in the worthy receiver . but do not the foregoing authorities prove something more , a change not in the receiver , but in the thing received ? and this can be no less than a substantial one . for when catholics argue , that as christ changed water into wine , so does he bread into his body : protestants readily deny the sequel , because this would be to profess transubstantiation . if this reasoning of catholics include a substantial change of the bread into christ's body , as you grant ; how comes it to pass , that the very same words , and very same reason in the father's writings , must have quite another interpretation ? if the fathers had design'd to have writ for transubstantiation , they could but have said what they do , and you might still explicate them in a spiritual sense , or wrested interpretation . if i should urge on , that i rightly profess the consecrated bread transfigur'd and transelemented into the body of christ ; would you not exclaim , these are as hard and mishapen words as that of transubstantiation ? and yet many fathers of this fourth age after christ , use the same expressions . witness this language of st. ambrose , as often as we receive the sacraments , which by the mystery of prayer are transfigurated into flesh and blood ; witness this speech of st. gregory nyssene . i properly believe the bread sanctified , by the word of god , to be changed into the body of god the word . and this is effected , the nature of what appears being transelemented , by vertue of benediction , into the body of the word christ . i close up this motive with the decision of the synod in egypt , celebrated before the second oecumenical council , to both which presided st. cyril of alexandria . these fathers composing a creed , inserted these words in the end of their introduction , this is the faith of the catholic and apostolic church , in which the east and west agree . then immmediatly follows their creed , divided into many articles . what if their seventh article should decree the flesh received in the sacrament to be the very flesh of christ , which made one person and two natures in one son ; and not two sons , one of god , divine ; and another of the blessed virgin , human , as nestorius heretically taught ; you could require nothing more for transubstantiation . and yet these are their words , we do not receive in the sacrament our saviour's flesh , as common flesh : god forbid . nor again , as the flesh of a sanctified man , or associated to the word by unity of dignity , but as the true vivificative , and proper flesh of the word himself ; truly the flesh of him , who for our sake was made , and called the son of man. the council admitting with nestorius what was received to be true flesh , defines against the heretic ( who pretended our saviour , as he was the son of the virgin mary , had not only a nature , but likewise a human person , and so constituted two persons in christ ) that we do not receive this as common flesh , or the flesh of an ordinary person . secondly , the council adds , nor as the flesh of a sanctified man , or associated to the word by the unity of dignity , which excluded that accidental union , by which the nestorians joyned together two persons , that of the son of god , and that of the son of man , in one christ . thirdly , the council declares , they receive it as the all-vivificating , and proper flesh of the word , that word who was made and called man , professing one person in christ , to whom this human nature properly belonged . now if all this were to be expounded of a figure , what wresting would there be of this article ? and how could the council conclude the proper flesh of christ was that of the divine word , one person and two natures , and speak of neither , but of a pure figure ? the sacrament might have been a figure of the passion , and yet two distinct persons admitted in christ . seventh motive . the council of trent declares , that because jesus christ our redeemer , truly said , that 't was his own body , which under the appearance of bread he offered and gave to his disciples , the church of god was alwaies perswaded , that this wonderful change was operated by the conversion of the substance of bread into the substance of christ's precious body , and therefore renews the canon of transubstantiation . and you know , that as our saviour commanded his apostles to preach the gospel , so did he oblige the people to receive the promulgated word , and be obedient to their pastors . the obligation of this obedience , will last to the end of the world : and consequently in the mean time will be still due , to the true successors of the apostles , with whom christ had promised to remain till the consummation of the world. you cannot deny but the romish church has true succession from christ and his apostles , and we are sure you have left this society of true successors . obedience therefore to the true successors of the apostles , who have defined this catholic verity , obliges me , in the last instance to believe , this is my body , can import no less than the sense of transubstantiation . i think a slight consideration of the foregoing motives , easily shews catholics pretend not , as you would have them , that if transubstantiation can be , it must be , either because there are no figures in scripture , or because a sacrament admits of no figures . you seem to be perswaded of this , your self , turning these imaginarie reasons against the roman catholic assertion . but alass ! they are no more against , than they were for transubstantiation . for our saviour's words may be literally true , and yet many figures admitted in scripture . there may be given many spiritual interpretations of the sacred text , and yet this passage , the word was made flest , litterally signifie that the second person of the blessed trinity was substantially man. there are questionless in the old and new testament many figures , and neither lookt upon as a meer figure . there may be then many figures in holy writ , and this is my body , not at all be concerned in these figurative interpretations . nor is your second reason more efficacious than the former . for these words , this is my body , literally received , are not at all prejudiced , by an outward sign or figure of a sacrament . the very notion of a sacrament in st. austin's opinion , shews part , and hides the remainder . what appears in the sacrament of the altar , is a sign , an accidental shape , or resemblance , and this is the object of sense . what is understood and believed , can be no less than what our blessed saviour warrants us of , his own body . how then is the substance of the elements not changed , because the eucharist is a sacrament , and a sacrament is a sign ? a man is an image of god , yet a substance . the divine son is a figure of his father's substance : and who can wrest from him the same substance with his eternal father ? 't is true , it was an arian error , the son 's an image ; therefore not god. is your illation stronger , the eucharist is a sacrament or sign , therefore it is not the substance ? this error ought to correct yours . now this is my body may be taken , i think , in the sense of transubstantiation , and the eucharist remain a sacramental sign , or resemblance . had you foreseen this answer , i presume you woul have smothered this instance , viz. when he gave the cup , he said , this cup is the new testament in my blood , where first the cup is put for the wine , and if any thing be changed , it must be the cup. the speedy quitting of the contested proposition , this is my body , is a ready confession that you were unable to discover therein couch'd any figurative exposition , and so hasten to busie your reader with a metonymy contain'd in the word cup , put for wine . had this been so , how easily could sense and reason have unfolded , what appeared difficult ? but why do i say , difficult ? it is our common language , to ask for a cup or glass , when we mean drink . nor was the phrase amongst the jews otherwise . this is cleared from the triple repetition of the same phrase in s. paul to the corinthians , drink this cup. if this then was the proper speech , and our saviour did not speak improperly , who could be so remote from sense , to guess , the cup or chalice was to be drunk ? would you not think that person extravagant , who hearing you ask ( in a place where people were drinking wine ) for a glass , should apprehend you would swallow down the glass , and so the vessel be turn'd into your substance ? which must be true , if it be false , that sense and reason without the support of some father assistance , could be deceived in so facile and usual an expression , of a cup or glass , put for wine . if then the holy ghost had used in scripture the cup for wine ; i know not who could have refused such a figure . and because i find no metonymy , no figure couch'd in this is my body , i exclude all figurative insinuations . i said if the holy ghost had put the cup for wine . wine you say , the divine spirit writes blood , and so the cup is metonymically put for the contained drink , in the chalice , or blood. for what we read in st. luke , this cup the new testament in my blood , is equivalent to , this blood , and so the cup is blood. if you suspect the supposal , harken how st. matthew phrases it , this is my blood of the new testament ; which is repeated by st. mark , and who dare contradict two divine testimonies ? if the spirit of god was careful to plain so small a nicety , in so familiar a phrase , is it credible that he would have omitted , the most important in the world ? which he has done , if this is my body be but a figure of his body , since the scripture discovers nothing to diminish the reality of christ's true body . what you add , if any thing be chang'd , it is the cup into the covenant , is very strange . till you make this good by reason , or evince it from scripture , give me leave not to credit your authority . and if you think the word testament , in this passage this cup or blood is the new testament , excludes real blood , st. paul proves quite the contrary , demonstrating , if there be a testament , there must be true blood , and so concludes , whereupon neither the first testament , was dedicated without blood , and without sheding of blood is no remission . lastly , you urge , besides his blood which is said to be shed , which was not till his passion , which followed the institution and first celebration of this sacrament . we do not dispute with you the actual effusion of christ's natural blood , which was a sanguinary sacrifice . but can you deny that in those words you alledge from st. luke , where christ's blood is said to be shed , is contained a mystical sacrifice ? st. austin calls this , the oblation of christ's body on the altar : st. cyprian four times in the same epistle , the dominical sacrifice : st. gregorie nazianzen , the unbloody sacrifice . two sacrifices we acknowledge with the holy fathers , different in manner , not distinct in substance . the same blood spilt naturally once upon the cross , and mystically offered daily on the altar . because the same caracteristical mark of true blood is attributed to both the sacrifices . ( viz. ) the remission of sins by effusion of blood. hence st. matthew speaking of christ's blood in the sacrament , says , that it is shed for many for remission of sins . and st. paul in the foregoing lines , without sheding of blood is no remission . article ii. examen of your second proof . you are willing to stand in the second instance , to the plain concession of many learned roman catholic writers , concerning the necessity of understanding our saviour's words in the sense of transubstantiation . and because you begin with the concession of the acute schoolman , let us examin what was the opinion of scotus . scotus distinguishing two sorts or classes of people , the worthy and unworthy receivers , thus delivers himself . it is undoubtedly to be held , the good not only sacramentally , but also spiritually receive ; the bad , only sacramentally ; that is , subjoyns scotus , under the visible species , the flesh of christ , that flesh which was born of the virgin mary ; they do not mystically receive the benefit of the sacrament . this he proves from st. gregorie the great 's determination , the true flesh and true body of christ is received by sinners and unworthy communicants , in essence not in benefit . then scotus quotes st. austin for the same evidence , and concludes with the testimony of st. paul , to the same purpose . this acute schoolman asking afterwards ( q. 3. ) whether the bread be changed into the body of christ : answers , ( num . 13. ) that it is changed into the body of christ . 't is true , he brings in one objecting ( n. 4. & n. 7. ) that our saviour's words may receive a more facile sense than that of transubstantiation . and scotus replies , the more difficile sense is not to be admitted , if it be not true ; but if it be true , and can be proved evidently to be so , then the more difficile ought to be chosen ; and this is the case of the present article . he pushes on the resumpt . but why did the church prefer the more difficile sense , when she might have chosen a more facile in appearance ? i answer , says scotus , the scriptures are expounded by the same spirit , by which they were dictated ; and 't is to be supposed , the catholic church expounded them by the same spirit , by which truth is delivered , taught by the spirit of truth , for it was not in the power of the church to make that true , but in the power of god the institutor . now what is this to your purpose ? for if you take the concession of scotus , you must profess both the real presence and transubstantiation . and this necessarily deduc'd from scripture . because the scripture efficaciously moved the church to declare for the same doctrin , according to scotus's words ; it was not in the power of the church , to make that true or not true . the church then necessarily followed scriptural evidence . and what was necessarily compulsive to the church , was not otherwise to scotus , who tacitly intimated the cogent necessity of scriptures authority , for the real change of the substance of bread into the body of christ , instancing it was determined by the church for transubstantiation . bellarmin was of opinion , that according to the two literal senses of this is my body read in the acute school-man , the sole evidence of scripture , could not in scotus's mind , abstracting from the declaration and universal practice of the church , evidently compel the admittance of transubstantiation . bellarmin was severe enough upon scotus . yet he diminished much this severity , saying , the acute schoolman added , ( because the catholic church has declared in a general council , the true meaning of scripture ) transubstantiation may manifestly be proved from scripture so declared . but of what mind scotus was , the foregoing page will sufficiently remind the unprejudic'd reader . nor can you conclude bellarmin himself , granted evidence of scripture was wanting for the roman cause , because he said scotus's assertion was not altogether improbable . in like manner you may argue , against the strongest demonstration in nature . you may frankly concede an acute objection , not altogether improbable , and notwithstanding this concession , stick fast to the former evidence of your demonstration . this is bellarmin's case , as the following words out of the same place testifie . for although , adds bellarmin , scripture , which we have heretofore alledged , may seem so clear to us that it can compel a moderate man , ther 's evidence of scripture for transubstantiation , and bellarmin's opinion ; yet the acuteness of bright understandings leaves some doubt : this is what is not altogether improbable . but we ought to reflect , these words of bellarmin , not altogether improbable , are grounded upon a meer supposal of two literal senses , which touches not our controversie . for bellarmin plainly denies , a figurative exposition probable of our saviours words , speaking of things as they are instituted . for thus he argues , these words , this is my body , necessarily infer , either the true change of bread as catholics believe ; or a metaphorical mutation , as calvinists contend . this calvinistical sense he had already , declared as improbable , saying , we will generally demonstrate that 't is not probable our saviour would figuratively speak . and for the lutherans error holding both substance of bread and the body together in the sacrament , he says it shares not in the sense of our saviour's words . thus the true change of bread into the body of christ naturally follows according to bellarmin , from the plain and evident text of scripture . durandus divides the substance of bread into matter and form. then adds , the bread is converted by conseration into the body of our lord ; and the form perishing , the matter is animated with the soul of christ . a strange manner of explication . but what doth this avail your cause ? for if the form of bread perishes in durandus's explication , and the matter be animated with the soul of christ , the remaining accidents can neither claim matter nor form of bread , and so the whole substance of bread is wanting . but durandus calls your sentiment , holding bread remains after consecration , the doctrin of profane novelty . suarez and vasquez , treat durandus , as one divine doth anothers opinion . but you might have well omitted their names , for one that is moderately learn'd in divinity , knows how copiously they both shew from scripture and fathers , the roman catholic doctrin . occham . you have not faithfully delivered this divine's authority , who thus answers to the second query . i say that in the sacrament is true transubstantiation . then he delivers four manners of understanding this transubstantiation . 1. that the bread may remain with the body . 2. that the substance of the bread may suddenly be removed away . 3. that it may return to matter the common subject of all , or receive some other form. 4. that it may be reduced to nothing . he admits all four as possible . the first manner he prefers in these words , which are your objection , the first manner may be held , because it is neither repugnant to reason , nor to scripture , and is more reasonable , and easier than the other ( three ) manners . these are scholastic opinions . and therefore this divine leaving them , adheres to the true sense of transubstantiation in these following words ; yet because we find extant the churches determination contrary to this exposition , and all doctors universally hold that the substance of bread remains not there , ( in the sacrament ; ) therefore i also hold , that the substance of bread remains not , but the species of bread , and with this outward shape of bread coexistent the body of christ . will you acknowledge what this divine holds and professes ? gabriel biel. you have corrupted biel. these are his words ; although it be expresly delivered in scripture that the body of christ is truly contain'd under the species of bread , yet we find not express in the canon of the scripture , how the body of christ is there , whether by conversion of some thing into himself , or whether without conversion , the body begins to be with the bread , the substance and accidents of bread remaining . this author is so far from speaking , what you force him to say , as to any thing expressed in scripture , a man may believe that the substance of bread and wine doth remain after consecration ; that he proves we ought to believe the contrary sense contained in scripture . and this upon two accounts . 1. although the manner of christ's existence in the sacrament , be not in this divine's opinion , evidently couch'd , yet it is sufficiently particularized , in the canon of the scripture . for if this which was bread , is christ's body , according to our saviour's words this is my body , and christ's true body be there expresly delivered in scripture , as biel affirms , it necessarily folows , that the substance of bread is changed . for how can this ( which was bread ) be christ's true body , and not lose its own substance ? 2. he expounds the scripture after this same manner from the lateran council , st. austin , st. ambrose , and then concludes , from these and many other authorities of saints , 't is held that the body of christ is in the sacrament by transubstantiation of the substance of bread and wine into the body and blood of christ . does this favour the protestants ? you named , but expressed not melchior canus's authority , who says , the body and blood of christ was offered in the sacrifice , and his proof is the evident testimony of st. luke . this i think prejudices us not in the least . petrus ab alliaco . you have misrepresented ab alliaco , who disputing upon meer possibilities , proposes ( among others ) two questions . first , whether it is not possible that the body of christ may remain united to the substance of bread in the sacrament . secondly , whether the substance of bread may not be suddenly removed away by divine power , the accidents only remaining with christ's body . this divine thinks neither impossible , and prefers the first as more rational and conformable to scriptures . these are his words . 't is possible the body of christ may assume the substance of bread , and this manner is not repugnant to reason , or to the authority of scripture ; it is more easie and more rational than that manner , which pretends the substance of bread leaves the accidents . now for the second . it is not impossible to god , that the substance of bread may be suddenly elsewhere convey'd , the species remaining in the place coexistent to the body of christ ; this manner would not be so rational as the first . all this is upon possibilities . but not to enlarge in scholastic opinions , when matters of faith are debated , cannot i dispute of what is possible , but you will necessarily deduce i deny the being of what is actually present ? if i should say , 't is possible god may create another world , and people it with another generation of creatures ; can you deduce from this , that there is no necessity of admitting any men alive at this present in the whole universe ? cajetan , 't is true writ , the scripture did not evidently enforce the roman catholic tenet . great wits speak sometimes without consideration . yet the good cardinal retracted afterwards his error in these words . we can prove christ's real presence from the words of the gospel . and thus in some manner amended , as soto remarks , what was before amiss . you instance the words you object out of cajetan , in the roman edition , are expunged by order of pope pius v. i answer , a worthy remark to demonstrate the vigilancy of the roman see was not wanting to blot out innovation in its very first rise and appearance . bishop fisher , that glorious martyr of the church of rome , confesseth , we cannot prove from the bare words of scripture , that priests consecrate the true body and blood of christ . i shall not dispute whether this concern our present controversie or not ; but i 'le beg you 'll take the following explication of the pious bishop ; that is , continues the holy martyr in the same place , not because this thing is now doubtful , but because the certainty of this doctrin cannot be gathered so strongly from the bare words of the gospel , as from the father's interpretation , together with the continued practice of so long a time surviving in succeeding posterity . the blessed bishop gives us this reason , why he provoked to the fathers , lest any one should ( says he ) pertinaciously adhere to the pure words of scripture , despising fathers authorities , as luther did . if this will not suffice , i 'le translate , when you require it , the fourth chapter of this same book , wherein bishop fisher proves the bread changed into christ's body from the three evangelists . and i 'le rank your objections collected from luther's instances , and oecolampadius's objections on one page , and on the opposite place bishop fisher's solutions to them both in vindication of the roman catholic assertion . i finish this scholastic disceptation with this querie , whether you would not think it weakness in me disputing for transubstantiation , to use in my own defence these words of yours , which somewhat favour my undertaking . i readily acknowledge the fathers do , and that with great reason , very much magnify , and frequently speak of a great sacramental change made by the divine benediction . if from hence i should vigorously assert , you granted the fathers were for the substantial change , because since you admit a wonderful change made by the divine benediction , and that the species remain unaltered , the change must be acknowledged in the substance of bread and wine ; would you not condemn this weakness , and appeal to the other parts of your treatise to manifest this impossibility ? and yet all these schoolmen actually write ( in those very places you mention ) against the sectarists , or roman opposers . and almost every one of them , produce from scripture and fathers , more reasons for , than you have done objections against transubstantiation . i appeal to your own judgment conscious of this truth . and you know , that if you do follow their writings , and imitate the religion , they professed and died in , you must declare yo●●self a member of the roman catholic church . chap. ii. whether there be any reason to understand our saviour's words contrary to the sense of transubstantiation . you are sure there are a great many reasons ; and are not scant of them . these may be reduced to five heads , parables , similitudes , the context of st. matthew , st. paul to the corinthians , and the silence of the apostles at the institution . i follow this order , and examin in so many articles , these considerable reasons against transubstantiation . article i. whether parables exclude the sense of transubstantiation . 't is a maxim among divines , no efficacious argument can be drawn from parables . this calvin acknowledges . and st. austin goes farther , admonishing the donatists , n'er to endeavour an establishment of dogm's from scriptural passages , which are obscure , or ambiguous , or figurative : which if true , the sense of transubstantiation , will not in the least be prejudic'd , by your objections from parables . you first object this parable of christ . i am the door . i answer the 7th verse explicates . i am the door of the sheep . and he 6th verse , this parable spake jesus unto them . what more pressing a figurative understanding of this passage , i am the door ? but when we read , this is my body , we cannot over-see , which shall be given for you , which maintains the reality . you instance , christ said , i am the true vine : i answer , the cyriac interprets , i am the vine of truth . descend to the 5th verse , and christ says , i am the vine , as , you are the branches : both a full attestation of a parable . but where jesus tells me , the bread which i will give is my flesh , and that flesh which i will give for the life of the world , what more conclusive for the catholic interpretation ? you urge , st. paul says , ye are the body of christ . i answer ; the apostle declares , verse 13. we are spiritually ; for by one spirit we are baptized into one body . but where christ said , my flesh is meat indeed , i find added many repetitions which increase a confirmation of the true substance . you finish , they drank of the rock which followed them , and that rock was christ . i answer , you are afraid to be just , excluding the word spiritual . for we read , v. 3. our fore-fathers all eat the same spiritual meat , v. 4. and did drink all the same spiritual drink ; for they drank of that spiritual rock , and that rock was christ . what if for a threefold word , spiritual , in the precedent , i find a triple evidence of the true substance of christ in the sacrament , which necessarily requires the strictly literal and divine sense of our blessed saviour's words ? st. luke confirms , which is shed for you . st. mark , shed for many . st. matthew , for the remission of sins . article ii. whether similitudes exclude the sense of transubstantiation . if it be well known , as you write , that in the hebrew language things are commonly said to be that which they do signifie ; it is not less evident , that the four similitudes you heap together , are not prejudicial to the catholic exposition of our saviour's words . these similitudes shall be delivered in single paragraphs . paragraph i. similitude of pharao 's dream . you object , joseph , expounding pharao's dream to him , says , the seven good kine are seven years . i answer : we consider some things as signs , and others as substances . the sign is reasonably called the thing , and yet it is not , what it represents ; so the portrait of a king , is said to be the king , that is , only represents his majesty . but if we consider a thing as a substance , we cannot in common language affirm , it to be , what it is not . so prudence will not give us leave to say , a pen is paper , because a pen is not reckon'd among representative signs . josepth reasonably affirm'd the seven kine are seven years , and so pharao understood him that they were seven in representation , because they both knew the discourse was of signs , as the scripture testifies , ver . 13. and pharaoh said unto joseph , in my dream , behold i stood upon the bank of the river , and behold there came up out of the river seven kine . our saviour's expression , this is my body , is as far distant from this example , as the real institution of the sacrament , from the narrative of a dream ; and therefore ought not to be understood as the like expression . but what connexion between pharao's dream , and the change of bread in the sacrament ? as much as betwixt the same dream and our saviour's being substantially man. if i should then argue thus , as you do , joseph called the seven kine , seven years ( which language is usual among the hebrews ) that is , signified seven years , and so would any man of sense understand the like expression : therefore when st. john says the word was made flesh , that is , was a figure os a man or phantasm , is such a deduction , that no language but hebrew can be able to make it out . paragraph ii. of one who never heard of transubstantiation . this similitude is very pleasant , as if we should go to pagans , to know what is our own religion . however you believe , that he that never heard of transubstantiation , would never imagine any such thing to be meant by our saviour's words . and i believe a great number of these who saw our saviour himself , deny'd he was god. you believe the bread only signifies christ's body , because you will bilieve so ; i distinguish what christ distinguished ; and because he said , this is my body , i believe it was his body ; and because he commanded us to do this hereafter , for a memorial of his death and passion , we obey him . is not this to follow scripture ? you are sure it would never have entred into any man's mind , to have thought , that our saviour did literally hold himself in his hands , and give away himself from himself with his own hand . and i am sure , what cannot enter into man's thought , the divine power and omnipotency can , and has operated . it entred into st. austin's mind , explicating this scriptural passage , as he thought , in the septuagint , — he was carried in his hands . thus to propose your objection . how could this be understood of man ? for who is carried in his own hands ? a man may be supported in others hands , none is the burthen of his own hands . the saint answers : we find not the literal sense fulfilled in david , in christ we acknowledge it , for christ was carried in his hands , when recommending his own very body , he said , this is my body , for he carried that body in his hands . it entred into the thought of our blessed redeemer to make use of the like argument , before he gave us the promise , of giving himself entirely in the sacrament . for did he not in that miraculous multiplication of five loaves , in the sixth chapter of st. john , feeding five thousand persons , give the five loaves in some manner from the loaves themselves ? the fragments , says st. hilarie , succeeded to fragments , and always broken , always deceived the breaker's hand . for the quantity of five loaves was given , and the like quantity still remained . which rabanus thus elegantly expressed , they were multiplied by being diminished . this argument of our blessed saviour ; if it did not convince the obstinate jews , it ought to prevail with christians , or at least silence them from saying , how can he give himself from himself . paragraph iii. similitude of the passover . you compare with our saviour's words , the ancient form of the passover , used by the jews from ezra's time , as st. justin martyr , tells us , this passover is our saviour and our refuge ; not that , say you , they believed the pascal lamb , to be substantially changed into god , who delivered them , out of the land of egypt , or into the messias , whom they expected . strange method ! and dangerous way of allegation ! tending to the depression of christianity . our blessed saviour and the divine apostles verify the sincere and literal truth of the new testament , as figurated , and symbolized in the law , prophets and psalms : and you scrupling this order , judaize with the hebrews , and will have the law of grace figurative , because the written law is full of similitudes and representations . and stranger remark of yours , that the jews did not believe the paschal lamb changed into god or the messias . how could they imagine the lamb changed into god , when they knew , god could not receive the least alteration , i am the lord , and not chang'd ? or into the messias , when change of one thing into another supposes both their existences , and the messias was not yet born ? the israelites only then could believe the passover a bare representation , to put them in mind of that salvation , which god wrought for their fathers in egypt . but if st. justin say , the passover is our saviour , would you desire a more plain exposition , than the very following words , that is , our refuge ? and if this speech of st. justin , were in it self somewhat obscure , this passover is our saviour ; the same ceremonie delivered in exodus by moses varying the phrase of the passover , is a sure rule for understanding any such like expression upon this account . for there we read , it is the lord 's passover . the septuagint translate , it is the passover to the lord. nor was this expression unknown to the hebrews , the passover to the lord. paragraph iv. similitude of a deed. you tell us that a deed or writing under hand and seal , is the conveyance of a real estate , and truly and really to all effects and purposes of law , as if the very material house and lands themselves , could be , and were actually delivered into your hands . if our cause were pleaded at the bar , the law , it seems , you think , would make us the losers . but if scriptures be the sentence , i know not why we should refuse to acknowledge what god is pleased to bestow on us . he tells us what he gives , is his own body ; why will you not believe him ? and to come close to your objection , do you not by the passing of the deed really and truly receive the possession of the substantial house , lands , and revenues in specie ? you would little value the writing , if you did not . so likewise the sacrament conveys to the receivers , the possession of the substantial body and blood of our saviour . article iii. upon the context of st. matthew . you pretend that it was true wine which our saviour drank of , and communicated . i answer , not after consecration . you urge our saviour said ; i will not henceforth drink of this fruit of the vine , this was true wine . i answer , that although we cannot collect from st. matthew clearly , whether these last words of our saviour belonged to the consecrated or not consecrated wine , yet that clearness which st. matthew's shortness feems to want , st. luke abundantly supplies , describing the order of the passover , and delivering the institution of the sacrament . so where we read in st. matthew ? i will not drink of the fruit of the vine : st. luke interprets , and his interpretation is true , the fruit of the vine before consecration , at the supper of the passover . with desire , says our saviour , i have desired to eat this passover with you before i suffer . for i say unto you , i will not any more eat thereof , until it be fulfilled in the kingdom of god. and he took the cup , and gave thanks , and said , take this and divide among your selves , for i say unto you , i will not drink of the fruit of the vine , untill the kingdom of god shall come . is not this a plain repetition of st. matthew's words ? and here ended the passover or paschal supper . the institution of the sacrament immediately followed while they sate at table , and therefore st. luke continues ; and he took bread — likewise also the cup after supper , saying , this cup is the new testament , in my blood , which is shed for you . here is the eucharistic cup , which had nothing to do with the fruit of the vine that was used before consecration at the paschal supper . article iv. the sense of st. paul to the corinthians . thus st. paul speaks of this sacrament . the cup of blessing which we bless , is it not the communion of the blood of christ ? the bread which we break , is it not the communion of the body of christ ? these words , the bread which we break , signifie the sacrament . for instead of them , we read in the acts of the apostles , according to the syriac version , the eucharist . now for the meaning of the word communion . some will have it to be taken for distribution . thus the word communion , is equivalent to doth communicate , and makes this sense ; the distribution of the sacrament , doth it not communicate to us the ( true ) body of christ ? thus if i stould say , that the distribution of bread in usual eating , is the communion of bread , would not any man of sense understand this to be meant of true bread ? others , notwithstanding this natural exposition , in the behalf of the roman catholic assertion , will have the word communion , to signifie the substance of bread. if it must signifie substance , let us deal fairly , and in the place of communion , substitute the word substance ; and so we shall easily see to what this substance belongs . the bread which we break , is it not the * substance of the body of christ ? neither can the church of rome as well argue from the following verse 17. for we being many are one bread , and one body ; that all christians are substantially chang'd , first into bread , and then into the natural body of christ , as you will have it ; because we see no reason in the world for this . and the divine apostle instructs us otherwise , declaring the precise and only reason of this unity ; for we are all partakers of the same body . 't is participation , not any substantial change in our selves makes us one in christ . nor is a pressing example wanting in the apostle , to the same purpose ; are not they ( the pagans ) which eat of the sacrifices , partakers of the altar ? you instance , the same apostle speaking of the consecration of the elements , still calls them the bread , and the cup , in three verses together . this is acute and subtile . but each witty contrivance is not true . it is not true , st. paul calls the consecrated elements , the bread and the wine . we read indeed in three verses together , the bare word of bread attributed to the eucharist , as often as you eat this bread ; and this is all we read ; which may be said without any prejudice to the substantial change. and this for two reasons , both dictated by the holy ghost . first , by reason of the outward appearance of bread. secondly , because it formerly was bread. the first reason st. luke authorises in the acts. behold two men stood by them in white apparel . here the bare name of man is attributed to angels , and angels are only men in appearance . the second reason is deduced from two substantial conversions . we read in exodus , they cast down every man his rod , and they became serpents , but aaron's rod swallowed up the rods of the magicians . and in st. john , when the ruler of the feast had tasted the water that was wine . he tasted water , and the water was wine ; the serpent is called a rod , and was a serpent : because the serpent , and the wine , were formerly a rod and water . it is then true , that the bare name of bread may be attributed to the eucharist without any prejudice of the substantial change of bread into the true body of christ . and if it be not true that st. paul says , the consecrated elements are bread and wine ; it is true that st. paul calls the consecrated bread christ's body . jesus took bread , and when he had given thanks , brake it , and said , take , eat , this is my body , which is broken for you . so does st. chrysostom ; what is the bread ? the body of christ . so does st. ambrose ; this bread is flesh . you resume , this is my body which is broken , cannot be literally understood of his natural body broken , because his body was then whole and unbroken . i answer , how can you contradict our saviour , who says , this is my body which is broken ? and if it be christ's body , 't is his real body : for he had no phantasm or imaginary body . nor did i ever hear that christ had two real bodies . but the same body may have two different existences , a natural , and supernatural existence . for if god can give a natural existence to what is not , can what is , hinder god from adding a supernatural existence ? now these words , which is broken , cannot be understood of the natural existence of our saviour's body hanging on the cross , for there his body was unbroken ; whence that of st. chrysistom , we may see this in the eucharist , and the contrary on the cross , his bones shall not be broken . nor is it hard to conceive , how the body of christ may be said to be broken in the sacrament . for as a substance is said to be visible , by reason of the visible accidents which environ it ; thus we commonly say , i saw a man , and yet nor soul , nor substance of the body , but only the shape and outward appearance of the substance , was the object of the eye . so likewise christ's body in the sacrament , takes the denomination of broken from the species of bread , which is truly divided . article v. the silence of the apostles at the institution . you ought not to be surprised if the disciples ( frequently full of questions and objections ) should make no difficulty of this matter , when our saviour instituted the sacrament : not so much as ask our saviour , how can these things be ? or tell him , we see this to be bread and wine , and thy body distinct from both . my reason is , because when the jews and the disciples were blamed for these inquiries , at the promise of our saviour ; the apostles ( assisted with divine grace ) gave credit to our saviour's words . and if they believed the promise , why should they be disquieted at the institution ? we read after these words in st. john , ( where the promise of christ in the sacrament is given , the bread which i will give is my flesh : ) this passage , the jews therefore strove amongst themselves , saying , how can this man give us his flesh to eat ? this jewish opposition was seconded with the murmur of christ's disciples , many therefore of his disciples when they had heard this , said , this is an hard saying , who can hear it ? this murmur after all our saviour's arguments to settle the jews in the belief of what was promised , ended in a plain desertion or leaving of jesus , from that time many of his disciples went and walked no more with him . here is the reluctancy you sought for , and the objections you demanded in the apostles . but do you think this resistance was laudable in the jews ? do you believe this opposition was commendable in the disciples ? or rather , to be disturbed at our saviour's ordination and assertion , is it not the beginning of incredulity ? and yet for all this , you raise sense , and erect it as an idol to the peoples devotions . bewitching sense ! whose allurements intice the greatest integrity of noblest souls , and would win too their thoughts , if less than a god interposed . hence this speech of st. hilary , that great persecutor of arianism . there is folly in declaring for jesus christ , had we not received from him , this lesson of truth . jesus says the bread is truly flesh , and the wine is truly blood ; after this declaration ther 's left no place to doubt of the verity of his flesh and blood. st. ambrose opposes to the restless importunity of sense , the prerogative of the deity ; lest asking of god what we expect from man , reason of things , we should entrench upon divine prerogatives . and what more unworthy than to believe men in testimonies they give one of another , and to despise god in those he speaks of himself ? st. chrysostom adds , we speak of god , and you ask how this can be ? do you not tremble at the excess of your temerity ? our blessed saviour himself reprehended his disciples , following what sense suggested at the proposal of the sacrament , in these words , doth this offend you ? finally , the pious christian guides his unruly sense in the journey towards heaven , by the steady reyns of true faith. thus the apostles overcoming their own stubborness , became supple and obedient to god's promise and power , infinitely active beyond human imagination , and they all joyned in st. peter's confession , and we believe , and are sure thou art christ the son of the living god. thus divine faith another time prevailed with st. peter ( when sense , reason , and the fury of the sea , contradicted ) to press the waves with his feet ; and hardned the watry element , into a solid passage . the way to heaven is still by faith. from all which it must needs be very evident to any man , who will piously search into truth , how little reason there is to understand our saviour's words otherwise than in the sense of transubstantiation . sect . ii. of the perpetual belief of this doctrin in the christian church . i have already manifested how the roman catholic church , rightly pretends as an evidence , that the fathers of the primitive ages interpreted our saviour's words in the sense of transubstantiation . but what authors have been so fortunate in their writings , that the contrived endeavours of others , have not cull'd out some places , not so dark in themselves , as they are shaded with smothered representations ? these your industry , with no small increase , has compacted together . after this great task , you are pleased to shew , when the doctrin of transubstantiation first came in . and finally , you undertake to give a solution to the pretended demonstration of mr. arnauld a learned man in france . these three subjects shall be the mattter of so many chapters . chap. i. whether any of the fathers are against transubstantiation . reflection is the cause of knowledge : division leads to reflection . i 'll therefore divide your selected testimonies , that they may be the consideration of so many distinct articles . article i. upon st. justin martyr . you begin unfortunately with st. justin , whom you make expresly to say , that our blood and flesh are nourished by the conversion of that food , which we receive in the sacrament . i find no such thing in the holy martyr . 't is true , i read these words , by which food ( chang'd in our bodies , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ) our blood and flesh are nourished . what then ? bread and wine taken out of the sacrament , nourish , according to this passage , flesh and blood , which all the world will allow of . and i shall believe st. justin says no more , till you can prove it from the saint's own testimonie . but why do i say testimonie , when the passage you cite , is nothing but a bare parenthesis ? i could heap up a great many such weaknesses , collected out of your discourse , if the world were not already too much troubled with such trivial reflections . i 'll take liberty to add one more considerable , viz. if natural digestion can change bread and wine into the proper substance of our bodies , how easy will it be to nature's author , to change one thing into another , bread into the body of christ ? nor can any moderate man imagin any thing less , when the devil himself tempted christ to change one substance into another , stones into bread , as a strategem to find out , whether he was god. look likewise into the book of genesis , and you 'll find that the sole word of god , gave , in the beginning of creation , a being to all nature : and how much more difficult is it , to make all things of nothing , than to change one thing into another ? does not this evidence the possibility of transubstantiation ? i thank you for this objection . article ii. upon st. irenaeus . nor are you more fortunate in st. irenaeus , who speaking of the sacrament , says . the bread which is from the earth receiving the divine invocation , is now no longer common bread , but the eucharist , consisting of two things , the one earthly , the other heavenly . for , what is earthly , may not unfitly be called the species of bread ; and what is heavenly , christ himself . or what if i should attribute this earthly thing to christ's humanity , and the heavenly thing to christ's divinity , the sacrament would be rightly said , consisting of two things , the one earthly , the other heavenly ? i am sure the proper substance of bread , is nothing but common bread ; and yet st. irenaeus affirms , this ceases after consecration ; receiving the divine invocation , 't is no longer common bread , it is not what it was before . you instance , and elsewhere he hath this passage ; when therefore the cup that is mixt , and the bread that is broken , receives the word of god , it becomes the eucharist of the body and blood of christ , of which the substance of our flesh is increased , and subsists . st. irenaeus discourses not here of a natural , but of some spiritual increase of flesh and blood. for he says , our flest is increased with the bread , as it becomes the body and blood of christ , in which sense precisely , 't is only supernatural food . bread , as it is supernatural food , or the true body of christ in the sacrament , increases the soul with grace ; and flesh and blood with a legitimacy of immortality . these two great benefits are neatly delivered , as the proper effects of christ's substantial presence in the sacrament , in these words of the nyssene doctor ; as the dire consequence of poyson is by counterpoyson prevented ; so the wholsome remedy , which operates our salvation , entring the bowels of man , thence every-where diffuses its force and vivification . what is this ( wholsome ) remedy ? that body which jesus exhibited stronger than death , and which was the beginning of life . what can more evince christ's substantial presence , to be the productive cause of sacramental grace , than to testifie , this adorable body , which died for us , is in ours , as a wholsome remedy , there communicating virtue , and dispensing heavenly treasures ? so is the same true body of christ present in the sacrament , the cause effective of our future incorruption in glory ; and increases in this sense the substance of flesh and blood , with a beginning of immortality ; as appears from the following lines of the same father . jesus , according to the dispensation of grace , enters by flesh into those who believe , mixing himself with the body of the faithful , that man may become partaker of incorruption , by the union with this immortal body . this second benefit in st. irenaeus's mind increases the substance of flesh and blood , giving a beginning of resurrection to the body : or , to use this saint's example ; as a grain of wheat dissolved in earth , rises by the power of god with much increase ; so flesh and blood receiving in the sacrament from the presence of christ's immortal body , the living seed of incorruption , rise ( when dissolved by death ) increased with immortality . this agrees well with st. irenaeus's design , demonstrating in the place objected , that our bodies are capable of resurrection , because we receive in the sacrament the true body of christ , that body which consists of flesh , blood and bones . how can they deny , says he , the flesh to be capable of the gift of god ? for we are members of his body , of his flesh , and of his bones . this is not spoken of a spiritual or metaphorical man , for a spirit has neither bone nor flesh , but it is delivered according to the disposition of man , which consists of flesh , of nerves , and bones , which is nourished with the chalice , which is his blood , and increased with the bread , which is his body . do not flesh , nerves , bones and blood , belong to a true substantial body ? you add st. irenaeus 's words , preserved by oecumenius , when the greeks had taken some servants of the christian catecumeni ( that is , such as were disposed , but not yet baptized ) and afterwards urged them by violence , to tell them some of the secrets of the christians . these servants having nothing to say , that might gratifie those who offered violence to them , except only that they had heard from their masters , that the divine communion was the blood and body of christ ; they thinking , that it was really blood and flesh , declared as much to those who question'd them . the greeks taking this as it really were done by the christians , discovered it to others of the greeks , who hereupon put sanctus and blandina to the torture , to make them confess it . to whom blandina boldly answered , how would they endure to do this , who by way of exercise ( or abstinence ) do not eat that flesh which may lawfully be eaten ? now if we consider blandina's answer , we shall find therein contained , a pious denyal of what was objected , and a christian reserve of what was received in the sacrament . a pious denial of eating the flesh and blood of a child , as the greeks ( and all pagans ) conceived , after a carnal manner , which shall be more amply discoursed hereafter . and this caused blandina to say , how could they be guilty of such a heinous eating ? who abstain , upon fasting days from flesh which may lawfully be eaten ? a christian reserve , not discovering the mystery to pagans , which was esteemed a betraying of religion . thus tharsilius the acholyt , as venerable beda relates , having the blessed sacrament about him , was seized on by the barbarians , and martyr'd , because he refused to shew it . st. ambrose declares the discovery of the mystery to those who were not baptized , pass'd not for an instruction , but for a sort of treason in religion . st. cyril says , we speak not clearly of the mystery to the catecumeni , and we are often constrained , to make use of such expressions ; which are understood by the faithful instructed , and do not offend other assistants . such was blandina's reply , which neither offended the greeks , nor betrayed the mystery . article iii. upon tertullian . tertullian proves against marcion , as you write , the heretique , that the body of our saviour , was not a meer phantasm and appearance , but a real body , because the sacrament is a figure , and an image of his body . his words are these ; the bread which our saviour took , and gave to his disciples , he made his own body , saying , this is my body , that is , the figure of my body . but it could not have been a figure of his body , if there had not been a true and real body . tertullian , often sententious , and difficult in expression , as lactantius and st. jerom affirm , may easily be misunderstood , and misrepresented . this father's design here , is to confute the marcionites , who defended that the god of the old testament , was opposite to god the father of christ , author of the new law. he makes good this undertaking , proving the perfect agreement of both testaments , completed in jesus , who did not abolish , but fulfil the law , when he changed the shadow into a body , the figure into truth , as tertullian phrases it , in his fisth book against marcion . this accomplishment he shew'd from that of jeremy , where we read how the jews fast'ned to the cross the bread of christ , that is , his body . this he evidenced , because bread in the old law , was a figure of christ's body . these are his words , it is what god has revealed in your own gospel , calling bread his body , making known by this , that christ , whose body the prophet represented in bread , long before he fulfilled this figure , gave from this very time ( of the prophecy ) bread to be the figure of his body . these words , christ gave the bread , even from the time of jeremy , to be the figure of his body , represent christ as master ; and these others , jeremy represented in bread the body of christ , exhibit the prophet as minister . both testifie , that bread was a figure in the written law ; and the subordination of jeremy to jesus , proves the concord of christ with the ancient testament , which was tertullian's peculiar task . the same he pursues in the place by you cited , bread , ( he made his own body , saying , this is my body , ) that is , a figure in the prophet of christ's body . this sense agrees well with the foregoing tenor of this learned father's discourse . 2. these following words are another confirmation , but it would not have been a figure of his body , if there was not a true body . he does not say , it was not a figure , he says , it would not have been a figure in the old law. 3. marcion argues for you , but why did he call bread his body , and not something else ? tertullian answers , that he argued thus , not knowing bread was an ancient figure of the body of christ , as we learn from jeremy . 4. he confirms the same in these words , you may likewise acknowledge the old figure of blood in wine . it follows also from hence , that our saviour's body , was not a phantasm or an appearance , which was another of the marcionits errors , but a real body ; not that the sacrament , as you would have it , but that bread in the old law , as i have demonstrated , was a figure and image of his body in the sacrament ; which must be a true body ; otherwise there is a figure of a figure , which your own party will not allow of nor could it , adds tertullian , have been a figure of his body , if there had not been a true and real body . if for all this you will pretend , that as bread in the prophet was a figure , so likewise is bread still in the eucharist a figure of christ's body ; i may without prejudice to the catholic belief , humour you so far , as to grant the sacramental bread is a figure , but a figure joyned to the reality . for if you will say , what you find not in tertullian , that the bread in the sacrament is a figure of christ's body , you cannot deny but you read in this father , that christ made the bread his body , as we read in st. john , he made water wine . the sacrament may then be a figure , and the true body . thus he proves the same thing to be called a figure , and yet to be the same substance , instancing , the word is god , and an image too . the catholic church only disallows those figures , which exclude the true substance of christ's body present in the sacrament . you urge a second testimony from the same author , using this argument against the sceptics , who rejected the certainty of sense , he might be deceived in the voice from heaven , in the smell of the oyntment , with which he was anointed against his burial , and in the taste of the wine , which he consecrated in the remembrance of his blood. these last words are somewhat changed ; tertullian says , he tasted not another savour of wine which he consecrated in remembrance of his blood. this learned father established two principles . 1. that christ was truly man. and 2. that his operations were real like other mens . the first verity , was not here tertullian's theme . this he vindicated against marcion , where he proved that christ was not a phantasm , or appearance . the second verity tertullian here made good , against the sceptics . for if the sound of the voice from heaven was not imaginary , if the smell of the perfume was not odoriferous , and if there was not another tast of the wine , which was consecrated in remembrance of christ's blood ; then these operations of our saviour were not distinct from vulgar sensation , like those impressions other men naturally receive , sincere , real , and without delusion . all catholics grant as much , and none will deny the same tast of wine after consecration . but the tast is not the substance of wine . the substance of wine is not here spoken of . and the knowledge of substance is the proper endeavour of reason . senses care is to search into the certainty of colour , tast , accidents and appearances , which was tertullian's province against the sceptics . the whole controversie then between us is left by this objection entire and untouched . article iv. upon origen . origen , on his comment on st. matthew , speaking of the sacrament , hath this passage ; that food which is sanctified by the word of god , and prayer , as to that of it which is material , goeth into the belly , and is cast out into the draught , which none surely will say ( as you remark ) of the body of christ . but some have said it of the body of christ , which they thought was conveyed under the shape of material accidents of bread into the draught : which sense , if admitted to be origen's , the learned cardinal peron might say without injury , origen talks like an heretic . the same illustrious cardinal doubts whether this be the work of origen ; because he says , erasmus was the first that produced this old fragment ; where he had it , no body knows ; and this not a fragment , but only a version thereof , and cautioned by himself . sixtus senensis suspects this testimony of origen was depraved by heretics . genebrard is of the same opinion . these critical censures take all assurance from your objection , rendring it either dubious , or depraved , or heretical . moreover , if origen in this passage , should downright prescribe the catholic belief of the change of bread into the body of christ , this ought not to disquiet any sober inquirer . because his chief error was the exclusion of the literal sense in scripture . whereupon lirinensis calls origen the interpreter of scripture after a new manner . st. epiphanious complains he turned all into allegories . theophilus says , he supplants by shades and images the truths of scripture . and the church in the fifth oecumenical council , peculiarly anathematised his works . finally , if i should answer , by what is material is understood only the material accidents of bread and wine which go into the belly , and are cast into the draught , what inconvenience would follow , from your objection ? no more , than what follows from what the same father adds by way of explication , it is not the matter of the bread , but the word which is spoken over it , which profiteth him who worthily eateth the lord ; and this ( he says ) he had spoken , concerning the typical and symbolical body . so that the matter of bread receives the word of god spoken over it , and this word , as it changes the substance of bread , so doth it profit the worthy receiver ; and this word origen calls the typical and symbolical body of christ , because the word is spiritual food . thus the fame father , in his homilies upon leviticus proves christ's flesh to be true meat , because all his speech is true food . and he adds st. peter , st. paul , and all the apostles are food , will you conclude from hence , the apostles were not true men ? at least , if this will not do , you resolve to do the business by drawing out of the same homily , a killing letter of the new testament . for if , says origen , we take according to the letter , that which is said , except ye eat my flesh , and drink my blood , this letter kills . this letter except ye eat my flesh , ( understood of the substantial presence of christ's body after a sacramental manner , invisible to sense , under the species of bread , ) is what gives life in the catholic church , according to that of st. john , who shall eat my flesh , shall live for ever . if roman catholics be out of danger , the blow must fall else where . it falls upon the capharnaits , who following the naked letter , carnally thought our saviour would give his flesh to be served in as common meat , and cut in pieces . it falls upon those who literally adhering to what they see , believe they receive , what it seems to be , bread. upon both these it falls . if we follow , saith origen , the letter , and expound it either according to the jews acceptation ( were not these the capharnaity , ) or according to what it seems commonly to be , ( are you not of this number ) i blush to confess what is writ in the law. thus you strike at catholics with the killing letter of origen , and wound your self together with the capharnaits . for your warlike argument give me leave to propose two peaceable ones , out of the same father . the first is in his homilies upon numbers , where he compares the figure with the figurated , the manna with the body of christ ; the manna was in figure food . now in reality the flesh of the word god is true meat . and what was first in the figure designed , is now compleated in truth and reality . the second is contained in these words , when you receive the holy food and incorruptible banquet , when in the bread and cup of life , you eat and drink the body and blood of our lord , then our lord enters under your roof ; do you therefore humbling your self imitate the centurion , and say , lord , i am not worthy thou shouldst enter under my roof , for where he enters unworthily , there he enters in judgment with the receiver . this holy food cannot be the substance of bread , because origen calls it an incorruptible banquet ; bread is not such . nor can it be a bare typical figure of the lord ; for when the centurion said , o lord , i am not worthy , 't was our own saviour present . and if this humiliation , o lord , i am unworthy , be attributed to any thing but our saviour there present , how can you excuse it from idolatrie ? finally , this lord invocated , enters into the wicked , which cannot be by faith. for your church , teaches unworthy receivers are not partakers of the lord in the sacrament by faith. article v. vpon st. cyprian . you object st. cyprian hath a whole epistle to caecilius against those who gave the communion in water , without wine mingled with it ; and his main argument against them is this , that the blood of christ with which we are redeemed and quickned , cannot seem to be in the cup when wine is wanting to the chalice , by which the blood of christ is represented . very well . it is wine in representation , and the blood of christ is in the cup by propriety or essence ; for it is that blood with which we were redeemed and quickned , according to st. cyprian . you argue afterwards from these other words of the same saint , by the water the people is understood ; by wine the blood of christ is shew'n ; but when in the cup water is mingled with wine , the people are united to christ ; so that you deduce , according to this argument , wine in the sacramental cup , is no otherwise changed into the blood of christ , than the water mixed with it is changed into the people , which are said to be united to christ . i shall not be strictly put to it , for an answer , after i have thus proposed st. cyprian's mind . st. cyprian compares here the jews to wine , the gentiles to water , at the marriage of canaan . the want of wine marked out the jews , who refused to embrace the law of christ ; the plentifulness of water represented the gentiles converted to christianity . hence water comes in the sacrament to design the elected people , wine the blood of christ , and both mixt in the chalice , the union of the people with christ . now to your argument . and that i may the better convince you , give me leave to make use of your logic. water is the people as wine is christ ; then as we receive christ by faith in the sacrament , so do we the people : and consequently the people sanctify the soul as christ doth in the eucharist . are you not ashamed of your sophism ? or rather , how durst you equalize the people with christ , sinners with their saviour , man with god ? again , wine signified the jews , according to st. cyprian , and water the gentiles ; now deduce from hence , the water was not changed into wine at the marriage of canaan , as you have done from the like instance , that the mixed chalice is not changed into christ's body and blood. article vi. upon st. augustin . the variety of testimonies you gather from st. augustin , cannot well without perplexity , be considered altogether . i 'll endeavour to decline this confusion , examining each one of them in so many paragraphs . paragraph i. you pitch first upon this expression of st. austin's in his book against adimantus the manichee , our lord did not doubt to say this is my body , when he gave the sign of his body . adimantus endeavours to demonstrate the god of the old testament prohibited eating of blood , grounding himself upon this principle of duteronomy , blood is the soul of the flesh , thereby to prejudice that soul , which jesus declared in the gospel , was not lyable to corporal harm or punishment . st. augustin replys , the old law speaks of the animal soul , and the words of christ are only understood of the rational . secondly , the holy doctor tells him , that blood is called the soul , only because it is the sign of the soul. this he confirms ( accommodating himself to the language of the manichees , who were of opinion , that bread , corn and grapes , naturally signified christ's body ) with this instance , our saviour did not doubt to say , this is my body , when he gave ( in the manichees opinion ) the sign of his body . the manichees opinion was not st. austin's . and he therefore forewarns us to call in question faith , because he made use of the manichee's principle in their own confutation . paragraph ii. saint austin speaking of judas , whom our lord admitted to his last supper , has these words , in which he recommended and delivered to his disciples , the figure of his body . language , say you with exclamation , which would now be censured for heresie in the church of rome . i 'm confident you are already persuaded to the contrary . and i know not any sect , which holds a figure incompatible with the reality . i shall cite two of your learned patrons ; peter martyr says , a figure , as far forth as 't is a figure , is not repugnant to the presence of the thing . and calvin before him granted , a figure doth not exclude the thing figurated . the lutherans are not of a contrary mind . and if you 'll be pleased to look either into the ancient or modern divines among catholics , you 'll find the same acknowledgment . paschasius formerly gave this answer to frudegardus , instancing st. austin's testimony , these are , replys paschasius , mystical things , in which is the verity of flesh and blood , and none others than christ's , yet in a mysterie , and figure , and the words of this mystery are called a figurative speech ; so christ himself is called , by the apostle , a figure , though christ be the truth . algerus illustrates the same , with this reflection upon st. john baptist , he was called a prophet , and more than a prophet . so the sacrament is a figure , and more than a figure . to these i add of the modern catholic schoolmen . a ruardus , b melderus , d cardinal alen , e suarez , f gordon , g gonet . and i never read any that held the contrary . and i conclude with this of st. austin ; the blessed virgin did not onely conceive christ spiritually by faith , consenting to the angelical salutation , but also conceived him corporally , in her own womb. how then doth the spiritual reception by faith exclude the substantial communion of christ's body in st. austin's opinion ? paragraph iii. in the third place you cite his comment on the 98th psalm , where treating of the scandal which the disciples took at that saying of our saviour , except ye eat the flesh of the son of man , and drink his blood , he brings in our saviour speaking thus to them , ye must understand spiritually , what i have said unto you , ye are not to eat this body which ye see , and to drink this blood which shall be shed by those that shall crucify me , i have commended a certain sacrament to you , which being spiritually understood , will give you life . this is as much as to say , be not scandalized , that i told you , ye shall eat my flesh , and drink my blood , ye shall not eat it as ye imagine , in the shape you see it , bruzing , cutting , digesting my flesh . i speak of a sacrament , when i commend the eating of my body ; 't is this sacrament you shall tast , touch , and see in outward appearance . the spiritual intelligence by faith will ( discovering there my body remaining invisibly ) vivify you . what more conformable to the doctrine of transubstantiation ? this i shall endeavour to manifest in examining the sense of these two propositions , which contain the force of your argument . 1. ye must understand spiritually what i have said . 2. ye are not to eat the body which ye see . the word spiritually , excluding the carnal sense of the capharnaits , establishes a miraculous or a supernatural understanding . so when st. paul says , isaac was born according to the spirit , he did not deny by this , that isaac was born of the flesh ; but declared that the power of god was required to fecundate the barrenness of his mother . in like manner , when st. austin names this word spiritually , or word of spirit , he does not deny that the bread is flesh , but intimates that the power of god is required to quicken bread into the body of christ . and thus the first proposition , ye must understand what i have said spiritually , does not at all diminish the reality of christ's substance in the sacrament . the second proposition , ye are not to eat this body which ye see , properly denotes the quality or divers existence of christ's body . thus st. ambrose said that the change of life is sufficient to verify this speech , i am not i , i justified , am not i a sinner , and yet i am the same man in substance . thus st. lanfrancus answered berengarius , alledging the same passage which you object out of st. austin , 't is not the same , if we consider the manner of christ's existence in the sacrament , 't is the same if we regard the substance . thus the very same passage is cited in gratian with this addition , ye are not to eat this body which ye see , i have recommended a certain sacrament to you , which being spiritually understood will give you life , ye are to eat him , and not to eat him , ye are to eat him visibly ( under the species of bread ) ye are not to eat him visibly in the shape of flesh . and lest we should doubt of the reality of his flesh in the sacrament , st. austin has left us this invincible argument , in the same place of your objection , he will ( says this father ) give us that flesh , which he received from mary , in which he walked on earth , and which is first to be adored , before we receive it . language which the church of england will censure for heresie ! paragraph iv. you instance this testimony , according to that flesh which was born of the virgin mary , ye shall not have me , he is ascended up into heaven and is not here . the forementioned solution satisfies this objection , for we are not to have him in his natural existence , we are to receive him in a sacramental existence . thus the variation of state and change of life caused the great apostle to say , there were two bodys in man , the animal body , and the spiritual body ; the animal body is a poor passenger upon earth , strugling with passions , and restless agitations . the spiritual body , is the glorified corps , when soul and body meet in eternity . it is sown a natural body , says st. paul , it shall rise a spiritual body . which st. austin thus expresses , it is sown a corruptible body , it rises an incorruptible body . the divers existence of christ's flesh , in heaven , and on the cross , was sufficient to st. jerom , to call it a divine body , and a terrene body . these two bodies are but one in substance , the same in heaven , the same on the cross , the same which the virgin brought forth , and the same in the sacrament , who eats , says st. austin , of this flesh let him first adore it . adoration testifies what it is . paragraph v. you alledge this similitude from st. austin , as the sacrament of the body of christ is in some manner or sense christs body , and the sacrament of his blood , is the body of christ , so the sacrament of faith , ( meaning baptism ) is faith , which the gloss , of the canon law , thus expounds . it 's called the body of christ , that is , it signifies the body of christ . boniface inquiring how infants , when they are baptized , are said to believe , and renounce the devil , was thus instructed by st. austin ; a sacrament , or holy sign , is honoured for the most part with the names of the things themselves , by reason of which similitude the sacrament of faith , ( baptism ) may be called faith , which infants receiving are said to believe . this answer exacting a confirmation , obliged the holy prelate , pitching upon the similitude of the sacrament , to cast his eyes precisely on the sole outward appearance of the symbols , which in some manner or sense , are christ's body and blood. not according to the truth of the thing , as the gloss notes ; or as st. anselme exxpresses , the visible appearance of bread is not the body of the lord , except as the canon law expounds it , improperly and after some manner , as it signifies and contains the body of christ . what is signified or contained is the mysterie , which is not prejudiced by the foregoing speech ? for a mysterie properly speaking , is some invisible thing . such is that of st. paul , if i know all mysteries or hidden things . and the roman orator expressed himself after the same manner , when he said , keep this secret , as a mystery . the visible appearance then of bread , though not the true body of christ , may be called improperly christ's body ; and yet the thing signified or contained under this appearance be the true body of christ . or as faith infused by baptismal regeneration , to use st. austin's comparison , is true faith ; so the thing received in the sacrament , is the true body of christ . paragraph vi. you add this remarkable passage of st. austin , cited by gratian ; as we receive the similitude of his death in baptism , so we may also receive the likeness of his flesh and blood ; and so neither may truth be wanting in the sacrament , nor pagans have occasion to make us ridiculous for drinking of the blood of one that was slain . st. austin here delivers the strict practice of the church in his days , hiding from the pagans the mystery of the sacrament ; and adds this reason , in the same place : if the disciples of our lord could not patiently receive what our lord said , how will these incredulous endure us teaching the same doctrine ? but of this more hereafter . nor does this learned father more exclude the reality of flesh , calling it the likness of flesh : than st. paul , saying , christ appeared whilst he lived , and conversed with sinners upon earth , in the likeness of man , deny'd that he was truly man. 't is true , many dissenters from the catholic church , and hereticks , grounding themselves on this scriptural passage , christ appeared in the likeness of man , eagerly taught , that he was a phantasm , or appearance , not a natural man , composed of flesh and bone. and you , their faithful imitator , gloss after the same manner , not upon scripture , but upon a single passage of one father , and this too borrowed from gratian. but with how little reason you gloss after this manner , these following passages of s. austin , taken out of the same gratian , will farther demonstrate . a the first is part of the canon , wherein your objection is contained . these are his words , what exteriorly appears ( in the sacrament ) is a figure ; the truth is the body and blood of christ , made of the substance of bread and wine . b the second passage is , we faithfully confess it is before consecration , bread and wine , which nature made ; but after consecration , the flesh and blood of christ , which benediction consecrated . c the third is the meaning of that passage of our saviour , the bread which i will give , in the 6th of st. john ; which words determine in st. austin's mind , how christ is bread , not only as he is the word , which gives all things life ; but also according to the flesh assumed for the life of the world. is this not real flesh ? paragraph vii . you mention but one more testimony , but so clear a one , as it is impossible any man in his wits , that had believed transubstantiation , could have uttered . it is in his treatise , de doctrina christiana , where laying down several rules , for the right understanding of scripture , he gives this for one . if the speech be a precept forbidding some heinous wickedness , or commanding us to do good , it is not figurative ; if the contrary , it is figurative ; for example , except ye eat the flesh of the son of man , and drink his blood , ye have no life in you : this seems to command a heinous crime , therefore it is a figure , commanding us to communicate of the passion of our lord. if i should deny , that st. austin speaks here of receiving the sacrament , you would be puzled to find out a warrant for your famous assertion . for many learned writers judiciously remark , that these words , except ye eat of my flesh , in saint austin's sense may be thus explicated , except ye eat it by faith , by piety , by good works , which is a spiritual communion ( out of the sacrament ) of the passion of our lord. and if this be true , as it is more than probably so , st. austin says here what all catholics profess ; for we all say we may communicate spiritually of the passion of christ by faith believing in jesus , when we receive not the sacrament ; and yet we believe in the doctrine of transubstantiation . but if you will still keep this holy father , whose learning has always been the admiration of mankind , out of his wits , to use your phrase ; a slight reflection , supposing he speaks here of sacramental communion , will help him to return to himself , and reconcile him to the catholic affirmation . i think one of a mean capacity can distinguish the manner of eating , and the thing eaten . which if true , st. austin may literally understand the thing eaten in the sacrament , to be the true flesh of christ , god and man ; and yet at the same instant hold , that the manner of eating this flesh , ( to which this passage , except ye eat my flesh , has referenee ) is spiritual . for although the true body be taken in the shape of bread , into the mouth , and let down into the stomack , yet it is not ground with the teeth , or separated in pieces . we are taught after a spiritual manner to eat the flesh of the son of man. lissen to the voice of god , and you 'l hear the gospel mention eating a man , take , eat , this is my body . the manner is spiritual , for the body is given in the shape of bread ; and in this sense st. austin calls these words , except ye eat my flesh , a figurative speech . the substance or the thing eaten is not here mentioned by the saint . but it is the true body of christ , as the same saint assures us else-where in these lines ; we believe ( in the sacrament ) with faithful heart and mouth the mediator of god and man , christ jesus , giving us his body to be eaten , and his blood to be drank , although it appear more horrible to eat , than to kill human flesh ; to drink , than to spill human blood. every word almost instances a new argument , for the truth of the flesh . this oral receiving with mouth god and man ; this horror of eating and drinking flesh and blood ; this antithesis between eating and killing , drinking and spilling , terminated to the same substance , leaves not the least scruple to doubt , that the thing eaten is real flesh and blood. and pray what horror would there be , to eat an image of flesh ? or what language speaks of killing the figure of a man ? the same saint , in his exposition on the 33d psalm , hath this passage ; he 's truly our lord , who truly gave us his body to eat , in which he so much suffered . elsewhere he says , the faithful receive into their mouth that blood which redeemed them . and in his 27th treatise on st. john , speaking of st. peter's confession , i find this remarkable sentence ; you are christ the son of the living god , and what you give in your flesh and blood , is nothing else but your own self . now you must acknowledge the way i have prescribed , or find some other expedient , to reconcile st. austin's wit with the doctrine of transubstantiation , or all the world will imagine , you put your own to a desperate adventure . article vii . you mention two testimonies out of theodoretus's dialogues between a catholic under the name of orthodoxus , and a heretic under the name of eranistes , who maintained with the eutichians , that the humanity of christ after the ascension , was changed into the divinity . i 'll examine each apart . paragraph i. the dispute of orthodoxus and eranistes in the first dialogue . orthodoxus undertakes to shew that the humanity of christ alwaies remain'd . this he proves , because the humanity was a vail or garment to the divinity , as we read in genesis , where jacob prophecy'd of the messias , he washed his garment in wine , and his cloaths in the blood of the grape . eranistes replys , this is understood literally of his proper habit , with which he was cloathed upon earth . orthodoxus resumes , that jesus called himself the vine ; and the fruit of the vine , is wine ; and the blood of our saviour is called the blood of the vine . and if our saviour be called the vine , and the fruit of the vine , is wine ; and from the side of our saviour ran fountains of blood , on the rest of his body : the prophet rightly foretold that he washed his robe in wine , and his cloths in the blood of the grape . again speaking to eranistes , he pursues with another simile , jesus called his body bread , and his flesh wheat ; but in the institution of the sacrament he called bread his body , and wine his blood ; though naturally the body is called the body , and blood is called blood ; but our saviour changing the names , gave to his body the name of symbol , and to the symbol or sign , the name of his body . eranistes urges to know the cause of this change of names . orthodoxus answers , nothing more easie to the faithful . for he would have those who partake of the divine mysteries , not to attend to the nature of things , which are seen , but by the change of names , to believe the change which is made by grace ; for he who called that , which by nature is a body , wheat and bread , and again called himself the vine , he honoured the symbol with the name of his body and blood , not changing nature , but adding grace to nature . this is a full view of the matter in debate . we ought to reflect , that as theodoretus compares here scriptural passages , wherein they resemble one another , and consequently acknowledges the similitude of the already mention'd expressions . so also was he not ignorant of their differences . and therefore he said , jesus changed the names , that by their change the faithful might believe , that alteration which grace effected . the change of names is acknowledged to proceed from a change made in the sacrament . for he obliges the faithful to believe a change which is made , not in the nature of things which are seen , for the natural signs or outward appearances remain ; it must be then in some inward thing , not seen , or substance of the symbol effected by grace , or the word of god. this in another place he professes in these words , christ gave his pretious body not only to the eleven apostles , but also to the traytor judas . this cannot be properly grace added to nature , for judas received his own condemnation . it must be then the body of christ made by grace of the substance of bread , and added to the nature or remaining appearance of the signs which was given to the traytor . paragraph ii. upon the continuation of the same discourse in the second dialogue . orthod . what are those symbols , which the priest offers to god ? eranist . they are symbols of the body and blood of our lord. orthod . of the true body ? eranist . of the true body . orthod . very right . eranist . very well . orthod . if these divine mysteries represent the true body , the true body of christ is not changed into the divinity . eranistes perceiving himself caught , cunningly retorts the argument , in the like manner . how do you call these symbols after consecration ? orthod . the body and blood of christ . eranist . do you believe you receive the body and blood of christ ? orthod . i do believe . eranist . therefore as the symbols of our lord's body and blood , are one thing before the invocation of the priest , but after the invocation are changed and become another thing , so the body of our lord after his ascension , is changed into the divine substance . if orthodoxus had not believed that the symbols were truly changed in substance after consecration , how could eranistes have deduced the change of the human nature into the divine substance ? he could not argue this out of his own principle . for admitting no body of christ in heaven , how could he pretend a real body of christ in the sacrament ? whence the protestant centuriators say , theodoretus dangerously affirms , that the symbols of the body and blood of christ after the invocation of the priest are changed , and become another thing . orthodoxus answers , you are caught in your own net , because the mystical symbols after consecration do not pass out of their own nature , for they remain in their former substance , figure and appearance , and may be seen and handled even as before . as bread is properly said to have substance and nature , which are neither seen , nor handled ; so likewise the accidents of bread may be said , though not so commonly , to have their own nature and substance , which may be seen and handled . whence that of st. austin , what is not a substance is nothing at all . 't is in this sense orthodoxus holds , the substance of the symbols remains . and lest we should doubt what this substance is , he tells us 't is figure and appearance . nor is this a constrained interpretation : for what more usual , when we have uttered some word , either harsh in expression , or difficult to be understood , than forthwith to add another , softer in language , and more obvious to the hearer . thus theodoretus saying , they remain in their former substance , adds , that is , they remain in their former figure and appearance , and may be seen and handled , even as before . nor are these latter expressions referable to substance , strictly taken for the inward thing , because this properly , is neither seen nor handled . now if you ask what these symbols are interiorly , theodoretus confesses , they are , what they were made , christ's body . and they are believed and adored as being those very things which they are believed . which words , if the bread be not substantially changed into christ's body , teach plain idolatry . nor could orthodoxus say the interiour substance of the symbols , was not changed , in his own opinion ; for this he had already granted , in these words , they are changed and become after consecration another thing . orthodoxus pretends indeed that he caught his adversary in his own net. but this was not because eranistes believed the substance of the symbols was not changed into christ's body ; for he thought christ's body was no where extant . how then was he caught in his own net ? he was caught in his own net , because these mystical symbols , were not changed in appearance , ( for after consecration they may be seen and handled ) and they were symbols still of christ's true body , which eranistes had formerly granted ; and therefore there was a true body of christ ; and so the body of christ was not changed into the divinity , as orthodoxus had argued . thus eranistes was caught in his own net. nor ought theodoretus to be censured for singularity , in giving the name of nature and substance , to accidental beings . for st. hilary gives the same to proprieties ; saying , that the flames in the babilonian furnace , lost their nature , though the substance of the fire remained . innocent the third , that venerable pope and father of the church , under whom was defined the doctrin of transubstantiation , frankly concedes the natural proprieties of bread remain , ut paneitas . and cardinal pole , another great vindicator of the same tenet , says , though there be only flesh and blood in the sacrament , notwithstanding the nature of the wine may be tasted . i would have you likewise argue , that these authors are against transubstantiation . article viii . upon gelasius the pope . these words of gelasius , the substance of bread and wine , doth not cease to be , are already satisfied by what i have said to theodoretus , that is , the outward shape of bread remains . and if these words immediately following what you objected , had been cited , the difficulty would have been removed . they ( the inward substance of bread and wine ) pass by the operation of the holy ghost into a divine nature , yet remaining in the propriety of their nature . it is only the proprieties of the nature of the bread and wine , the colour , and the tast , that remain . the substance is changed ; for how could the inward substance of bread and wine pass by divine operation into christ's body , and not cease to be ? how can a protestant pass into the roman catholic church , and become a pious member thereof , and not truly cease to be a protestant ? this gelasius is not the learned pope gelasius ; and i need not labour to prove this . your own critics write , that that treatise de duabus naturas , whence you borrowed this objection , belongs to some other of the same name . i shall instance only one reason . this author ranks the works of eusebius caesariensis among those of the orthodox fathers , which cannot be said of the pious and learned pope gelasius , who numbers the same eusebius in his own authentic works , with apocryphal writers . there is then not one of our popes against transubstantiation : and if you cannot alledg one pope from the beginning of christianity , who teaches contrary to what is now professed in the roman church , concerning this contested article of faith , is it not a great argument that it was alwaies taught in the church of god ? article ix . upon facundus . facundus the african bishop , justifying theodorus mopsuestenus , who had said , that christ also received the adoption of sons , reasons thus , christ vouchsafed to receive the sacrament of adoption , both when he was circumcised and baptized ; and the sacrament of adoption may be called adoption , as the sacrament of his body and blood is by us called his body and blood. the intern grace of the holy ghost received in baptism , properly constitutes us the true sons adoptive of god , which could not be conferr'd on our saviour ; for he was enriched with the plenitude of perfection , and was the natural son of god. yet christ may be said , facundus urges , to receive the adoption of sons , because he vouchsafed to receive baptism , the sacrament of adoption . then seeking an example to verify that baptism may be called adoption , though it was not , but only contain'd the grace of adoption , was forced instancing the blessed sacrament , barely to consider the sacrament in the outward species of bread in the eucharist , which may be called the body and blood of christ ; because it contains the body and blood of christ . what is contain'd in baptism , is it not the proper grace of adoption ? and what is contained in the consecrated species , is the true body and blood of christ . can any after this believe , that what you have objected , prejudices in the least the universal and received doctrin of the christian church , of bread and wine substantially chang'd in the sacrament into the proper and true body and blood of christ ? what you repeat by way of appendix , the names of some catholic divines , is inconsiderable . only this i can say , you might have more prudently omitted them in your own behalf , than chang'd their words in detriment to the catholic doctrin . for scotus only says , that the truth of some articles , is more explicit or manifest in the lateran decrees , than it was in the symbols of the apostles , or in the athanasian creed , or that of nice ; and in a word , what ever is here defin'd ( in the council of lateran ) is to be held as a sincere part of our faith. durandus does not say , that he would have been of a contrary opinion , had not the church defin'd for transubstantiation ; but only tacitly insinuates , that he would have made use of the bread and wine , remaining with the body of christ in the sacrament , which was possible to god , though really false , in order to solve some objections , had not the canon of the church interven'd . nor ought we to be surprised at this . for durandus ordinarily walked on the brink of faith in assertions , and therefore merited the title of temerarius doctor in the church of god. these are his words , the substance of bread and wine is changed into the substance of the body and blood of christ ; yet although this be really true , it was possible to god that the body of christ might have been in the sacrament , with the substance of bread , which is not really true , for the church has decreed the contrary , and she is presum'd not to err in her decisions ; therefore holding the bread chang'd into christ's body , i answer to the contrary objections . tunstal bishop of durham says , from the beginning of christianity , no body doubted of the real presence of christ in the sacrament , and that the learned ancient writers look'd upon the manner , how the bread passed into christ's body , as inscrutable and not to be searched into , lest we should seem to tempt christ with the capernaits , doubting how this can be ? but through god-almighty's power , to whom nothing is impossible , the change of bread into christ's body ( by transubstantiation ) seem'd to innocent the third , and those who sat with him in council , to agree most with these words of christ , this is my body . and he censures those who deny this change , with impudent boldness , and opposes them to christ ; saying , if we believe them ( who profess your error ) neither christ nor the holy ghost , can change bread into the substance of christ's body , whose word made all things of nothing . tell me what was erasmus's thought , and i 'le answer what religion he was of . in some places he favours the lutherans , oftentimes he 's a catholic ; i am sure he 's not a protestant in that epistle to conradus ; if you are persuaded there 's nothing besides bread and wine in the sacrament , i had rather be torn in pieces , than profess what you profess . if alphonsus say ther 's seldom mention in ancient writers concerning transubstantiation , these seldom intimations are sufficient to shew , that 't was always taught in the church of god , which ought to convince any unbyased understanding . chap. ii. an account of the coming in of transubstantiation . i have already done this to your hand . 't was instituted by our saviour . i suppose then you mean a particular account of the coming in of the error against transubstantiation , and by what attempts and degrees it was advanced against the romish church . the first opposers of this doctrin , were the capharnaits , who scandaliz'd at our saviour's promise , cry'd out , how can this man give us his flesh to eat ? this was seconded with the complaint of his own disciples ; this is a hard saying , and who can hear it ? both were taxed with incredulity , as st. john writes in his sixth chapter . and st. austin calls them heretics , judas heading them as their prince and leader , in whom , without our envy , you may triumph and glory . how often have you been incredulous with the capharnaits , saying , how can he give us his flesh ? how often with the unfaithfull disciples murmured , who can endure this doctrin ? a second attempt was , as st. paul delivers , made by the corinthians , who not distinguishing the body of our lord in the sacrament , from bread and wine , became incredulous , not believing . not believing what ? st. austin replies , the true body of christ to be contain'd in the eucharist . a third essay must be acknowledged in the simonits , menandrians , gnostics , and marcionists , who placing in christ only a phantasm , indirectly rejected the verity of christ's true body and blood in the sacrament . a fourth opposition was from some of the arians , who thirsting after spiritual grace , were not solicitous for any corporal presence , as we learn from st. cyril , and st. gregory nazianzen . in the year 740. we read of certain heretics meeting together for the taking away of images , who gave this reason ; that our lord having left no image of himself but bread , which is the image of his body , we ought to make no other image of our lord. this conventicle , which then was esteemed heretical in the christian world , you mention , make orthodox , and oppose it to the doctrin of transubstantiation . you are here again mistaken , for there was no sect of men who professed at this time in any place of the world your opinion against transubstantiation . for these heretics taking the word image interiourly , for the substance it self ; said , that as our saviour deified flesh which suffered for man's redemption , so ( constituting the eucharistic bread , not a false image of his natural flesh ) he did ordain it should be made , the priest mediating by the sanctification of the holy ghost , his divine body . these words , as containing the roman belief , were approved in the nicene synod . nor did the writers of the roman church , condemning their heresie which pulled down and destroyed images , charge them with any disbelief of the real presence , or transubstantiation . these iconoclast heretics indiscreetly naming the bread the image of the body of christ , gave probably occasion to the following writers to dispute how it was an image . amongst whom scotus erigena , towards the end of the eight , or beginning of the ninth century , went so far , that he said , 't was only an image of the body . scarce had he broach'd this new doctrin , but he was straight censured by the writers of those times . hincmarus accused him that he called the sacrament a remembrance only of the true body and blood of christ . prudentius bishop of troy , and ebbo prelat of grenoble , confuted the same erigena . nor did this scotus decline the sinister opinion of pope nicholas , in his letter to charles the bald , scotus's great patron and friend . yet we never read that scotus ever reply'd in defence of his error , and so seem'd in some manner to retract what before he had imprudently spoken . his followers were but few , and those too , taught this error underhand , so fearfully , that no body could accuse them of open heresie , or convince them not to be catholics . thus this infant embrio of error covered in the shell of darkness , was at length hatch'd and brought forth by berengarius in the twelfth age. berengarius was born at tours in france . after he had finished the ordinary courses of studies , he taught grammar and philosophy . then he was made treasurer in st. martin's church . about the year 1149 , he went for anger 's , where he was kindly entertained , and constituted by bruno the arch bishop , his archdeacon . here he began to sow several errors ; viz. that children were not to be baptized ; that marriage might be dissolved ; that our saviour could not enter in where his disciples were , the door 's shut ; as we learn from guitmundus , theoduinus , and st. anselm . he added a fourth error , which is to our present purpose , that the consecrated bread was only a figure of christ's body . which , that he might the better maintain , he kept poor boys to school , educating them in all manner of learning , that so by mony and interest , he might have many at his command . but alas all in vain , for this error no sooner was vented , but it was opposed by many learned writers . among these , were st. lanfrancus , st. anselm , a guitmundus , durandus , algerus , b adelmannus , hugo lingonensis , humbertus , c petrus cluniacensis , d euthymius , e hugo victorinus , f petrus lombardus . and the same berengarius more than once abjured his error , which during his life was nine times condemned in nine several councils . the first at rome under leo the ninth . the second at vercells . the third in the convent of brion , according to the desires of henry duke of normandy , to whom he fled for protection . the fourth at paris . the fisth at tours , by order from pope victor . the sixth at rome under nicholas the second . the seventh at poictous in france . the eighth at rome under gregory the seventh . the ninth at bourdeaux , under hugo bien bishop and legat of the see apostolic in france . this we have from the writers of those times cited in baronius . the last abjuration of this heresie made by berengarius , was real . for after ten years penance , he died peaceably in the bosom of the church . this we have from a william of malemsbury , b mathew paris , vincentius bellovacensis ; and what is most convincing , we read in an old manuscript , in st. martin's at tours , these words , obiit magister berengarius , grammaticus fidelis , et vere catholicus . an. dom. 1186. many of those whom he had perverted , imitated his pious return to the church , and his penance . others more unfortunate , propogated this figurative exposition , and exclusion of christ's body in the sacrament , after the best manner , industry could invent , and craft execute . hence you may gather what diligence the enemy of mankind used ; how often he was forced to repeat , almost the same stratagems , before the fearful error durst publickly appear , or was able to stand in any corner of christendom . pray now compare , if you please , the rise of transubstantiation with the beginning of the opposite contradiction ; and acknowledge without prejudice or partiality , which of the two ought to be sincerely embraced . whether will you believe , nine several councils , or berengarius an apostate , who yet afterwards recanted ? whether the holy fathers , who vindicated this catholic doctrin , st. austin , st. hilary , st. ambrose , st. cyril , st. justin , st. ignatius martyr ; or the marcionits , menandrians , simonits , all heretics , who deny the substantial body of christ ? whether lastly , you believe st. paul , or the erring corinthians ; st. john , or the incredulous jews ; our blessed saviour , or the contradicting calvinists ? i leave you to your own choice , whilst i pursue your third principle . chap. iii. examen of your solution given to mr. arnauld 's demonstration . mr. arnauld , a learned man in france , pretended very rightly , that it was impossible , that our doctrin , if it had been new , should ever have come in , in any age , and been received in the church , and consequently it must of necessity have been the perpetual belief of the church in all ages . for if it had not been always the doctrin of the church , when ever it had attempted first to come in , there would have been a great stir and bussle about it , and the whole christian world would have rose up in opposition to it . but you have shewn no such time , when first it came in , and when any such opposition was made to it , and therefore it was always the doctrin of the church . it is true , you would fain have me believe , that rabanus , archbishop of mentz , and heribaldus , bishop of auxerre , and bertram opposed this doctrin with all their might . but what you have alledg'd from their writings , do not convince me . bertram indeed says , the writers of that age talked according to their several opinions , differently about the mystery of christ's body and blood , and were divided by no small schism . but what was this schism ? this schism or difference according to bertram , precisely consisted in two questions . first , whether there was a figure in the mystery . secondly , whether the bread that was chang'd into christ's body , was the natural body of christ , which was born of the virgin mary . bertram in the first part of his treatise undertook to shew , that there was a figure in the mystery , as the conclusion of his discourse in the end evidences in these terms ; from what i have heitherto spoken , 't is clear , that the body of christ , which the faithful receive into their mouths , is a figure , if we regard the visible species . and lest any one should impeach him of error in the sacrament , he straight added , but if we consider the invisible substance the body and blood truly there exist , grounding himself upon this principle , that the substance of bread was changed , and the outward appearance only remained , he could not conceive how his adversaries ( who , though they faithfully believed with bertram and the church , that the bread was changed into the true body of christ , yet they deny'd there was any figure in the sacrament ) could reconcile faith with their opinion . and this was his reason ; for if the bread and wine were another thing than they were before consecration , they were changed . and if the substance was changed , the visible species which remained must be a figure . rabanus speaking of the second proposition , viz. whether the bread , which was changed into the body of christ , was the natural body of christ , declares , that it was not the body of christ received from the virgin mary in its natural existence , but that it was the true body which he received from the virgin after a supernatural and sacramental permanency . the first opinion which he rejects , he charges with novelty , in the passage you cite , saying , some of late not having a right opinion , concerning the sacrament of the body and blood of our lord , have said ; that this is the body and blood of our lord which was born of the virgin mary , and in which our lord suffered upon the cross , and rose from the dead : which error we have opposed with all our might . the other , which was the belief of the church , he thus delivers : god effected whatever he would in heaven and on earth . from hence he deduces , that bread is chang'd into the body of christ ; and therefore adds , it is no other flesh , no other truly than what was born of the virgin mary , and suffered upon the cross , and rose from the sepulcher . and who does not believe this , if he had seen christ upon the cross in the likeness of a servant , how would he have understood he was god , unless faith had prevailed with him to believe ? and in the 42 chapter of the same book , he speaks thus ; it is the same flesh , which was given for thee and for all , and hanged upon the cross , because truth testifies , this is my body which shall be given for you ; and of the chalice , this is my blood , which shall be spilt for you , for remission of sins . from hence it is plain , that what is now the very doctrin of the church of rome concerning the sacrament , the two learned authors you have alledged , bertram and rabanus , never oppos'd . but you tell us , though for a more clear and satisfactory answer to the pretended demonstration of mr. arnauld , you have consented to untie the knot , yet you could without all these pains have cut it . if you strive to cut it with no more skill than you have endeavor'd to untie it , the work must be the labor of some nobler champion . 't is true , you make use of ( in hopes to do the business ) diogenes plain stroke of experience o'recoming zeno's denial of motion , by walking before his eyes . is then the doctrin of transubstantiation not the belief of the primitive church , because diogenes walked before zeno 's eyes ? a wilder proceeding i never heard of from any christian divine ; and the bare relation of this matter of fact , is a full confutation thereof . from the pagan philosophers , you run for assistance to the servants in the parable , who could not give any punctual account when the tares were sown , or by whom : yet it was manifest they were mingled with the good wheat . from hence you hasten to the civil wars of our nation , where at length our king his gracious majesty , charles the second of great brittain , was happily restored to his crown , without a great deal of fighting and bloodshed . from this place you take your journy into turky , and bring down the grand visier ( invading christendom , and besiegeing vienna ) who was not opposed by the most christian king , who had the greatest army in christendom in a readiness . whilst i ruminate these similitudes , i cannot easily conceive , how you can joyn our great monarch's happy restauration , in a simily with tares , where wheat was sown , and with the grand seigneur invading christendom , and not give occasion to the reader to think you either wanted circumspection in the choice of your arguments , or imprudently left a suspicion of your loyalty . and i wonder how a man of your great wit and judgment , could prevail with himself to conclude the nullity of mr. arnauld's solid reasoning from experiences or matters of fact , that have nothing at all to do with the sacrament ? why must mr. arnauld's demonstration be weak and insufficient , because the christian king , not long since reposed in peace , with his great army ; or some time ago our gracious monarch of happy memory , was restored to his crown ; or because st. mathew wrote the parable of the tares ? all the reason in the world is too weak to make good any such way of proceeding . but to answer precisely to what you assimilate them in , ( viz. from these comparisons you would prove , that the controverted doctrin might silently have come in , and without opposition , although the particular time and occasion of its first rise , could not be assigned ; ) did not a considerable part of christendom with all their might oppose the turkish invasion ? and if all had been quiet , would not vienna have been surprised and pilledged ? was all england ignorant of the restauration of our gracious monarch ; and were there none to be found to witness his coming in ? were not the tares , as soon as they sprung up , seen and discovered ? but no body , except heretics , ever opposed transubstantiation ; no body but rebels rofe against the right prerogative of their prince . and what has the parable of the tares to do with the blessed sacrament ? the same confidence is sufficient to extend the same comparison to the rest of our christian mysteries , and proves just as much , that is , nothing at all , except christianity be nothing else but tares . sect . iii. of the infallible authority of the present church for this doctrin . you say , the roman church made and obtruded upon the world this article , merely by vertue of her authority , seeing not any sufficient reason , either from scripture , or tradition , for the belief of it . the roman catholic church never taught any of her children , that she had power from god to make an article of faith. but she teaches us , that two conditions are required for the constitution of an article of faith. first , revelation from god. secondly , the declaration of an oecumenical council . where these two agree , that we are taught , is part of our belief . and i shall desire you will only peruse these words of the council of trent , which intimate the reason , why the church of god declared for transubstantiation ; and i am persuaded you 'l believe she did not define this doctrin , neither warranted with scripture , nor tradition . for the council says ; because christ our saviour truly said , that was his body , which under the species of bread , he offered ; therefore the church of god was always persuaded , and this holy council declares again the same , that by the consecration of bread and wine , the whole substance of bread is changed into the substance of the body of our lord , and the whole substance of the wine into the substance of the blood , which conversion is conveniently and properly called by the council , transubstantiation . sect . iv. of the necessity of such a change for the benefit of the receiver . the spiritual efficacy of the sacrament depends upon receiving the thing , which our lord instituted , and a right preparation and disposition of mind , which makes it effectual to those spiritual ends , for which it was appointed . as god might without any baptismal water , without any visible elements , have washed away the stains of original sin , and given spiritual regeneration : so could he have made the worthy receivers true partakers of the spiritual comfort and benefit design'd to us in the lord's supper , without any substantial change made in the nature of bread and wine . but as we cannot say , the water in baptism , and symbols are unprofitable , as things are instituted by god , and useless for the cleansing of original sin : so likewise ought we not to pretend , that the flesh of christ is useless , and profiteth nothing to the worthy receiver of the sacrament , because christ without this may give us the benefit or fruit of the sacrament . god might have pardon'd the world , if his only begotten son had not undergon so many griefs and anguishes , so much pain , and that ignominious death of the cross . yet who dare say this flesh was not true flesh , or profited nothing , which redeemed all the world ? if it profited on the cross , why does it not profit in the sacrament ? and if it profit not without faith , how can it profit those who believe not ? the very thought of our saviour's substantial presence in the sacrament , strikes much a deeper impression of devotion in my soul , than if i reflected on bare symbols or signs weakly exciting faith in me . and even when a terrene prince visits prisons , or in a solemn pomp enters the capital city , his corporal presence customarily frees many criminals from chains , fetters , and imprisonments , which the law would otherwise not have granted , nor the king consented too : and yet one word of command is sufficient to do greater execution . sect . v. of the power of the priest . we acknowledge a power in the priest , which is not in the people . all were not constituted apostles , all were not doctors . but we do not acknowledge a power in the priest to make god , as you calumniate us : we acknowledge a power in god to change one substance into another , bread into his body . till you prove this impossible , ( which is impossible to be done ; ) you 'll give us leave to believe god is in the right possession of his omnipotency , and loses nothing of his power by your detraction . and if you count this miraculous change no miracle , give it what title you please ; we will not dispute the name , if you contradict not the thing . and thus i have dispatched the first part of my answer , which was to vindicate the real grounds and reasons of the church of rome , for this doctrin . part i my second part was designed to answer your objections , which are of so much the less force , because i have already shewn , this doctrin sufficiently warranted with divine authority ; and this easily weighs down , and overthrows whatever probabilities sense can suggest , or reason invent . these probabilities you reduce to these two heads , first , the infinite scandal of this doctrin , to the christian religion . and secondly , the monstrous and insupportable absurdity of it . chap. i. of the infinite scandal of this doctrin to the christian religion . and this upon four accounts . first , by reason of the stupidity of this doctrin . secondly , the real barbarousness of it . thirdly , the bloody consequences of it . fourthly , the danger of idolatry . article i. of the stupidity of this doctrin . tully the roman orator , says , when we call the fruits of the earth ceres , and wine bacchus , we use but the common language , but do you think any man so mad , as to believe what he eats , to be god ? i am of cicero's opinion . and all reasonable people look upon poetical fancies , as extravagant reveries . but i hope the law of christ , is neither poetical nor fabulous . i remember the poets sing how minerva the goddess of wisdom was born of jupiter's understanding . harken , says tertullian , a fable , but a true one , like to this . the word of god proceeding from the thought of his eternal father . this likeness , or similitude of poetical invention , diminishes not in the least , the truth of the son's divinity . nor ought the stupidity of eating god , in tully's opinion , ridicule our saviour's own words , take , eat , this is my body . averröes the arabian philosopher , acknowledging in his time this doctrin , to be the profession of all christians , ought to make ( not what you say , the church of rome ) the church of england blush , objecting that the whole society of christians then , every where admitted transubstantiation . i have travelled , says he , over the world , and have found divers sects , but so sottish a sect or law i never found , as is the sect of christians , because with their own teeth they devour god , whom they worship . it was great stupidity in the people of israel , to say , come let us make us gods ; but it was civilly said of them , let us make us gods that may go before us , in comparison of the church of england , who calumniously make the catholics say , let us make a god , that we may cat him ; when we only say , god has power to change bread into his body . but the greatest stupidity of all is , that in all probability you think those common jugling words of hocus pocus are nothing else but a corruption , of hoc est corpus , by way of a ridiculous imitation of the priest of the church of rome . i grant this imitation is very ridiculous . and you are the first juggler with this divine mystery , and with our saviour's own words , that ever i read of in my life . but with all the legerdemain , and jugling tricks of falsehood and imposture , you l never make me believe you , sooner than i do the scripture . nay , if averröes , cicero , and a whole progenie of heathen philosophers , were as great jugglers as your self , and altogether design'd to put a trick upon me , you should never juggle me , by the grace of god , out of my faith in christ . and lastly , if i should ask counsil of the philosophers ( as you do in the concern of the sacrament ) to know the true cause of this universe , heraclitus would tell me atoms produced it ; pythagoras would send me to the marriage in numbers ; the valentinians would bring me to the four principles , which made the treatise of peace between verity and silence , light and profoundness . but whilst i let them enquire one of another , what gave being to these atoms ? who thought these numbers ? whence came this verity ? what is the origin of this silence ? the source of this light ? the prop of this profoundness ? i rest contented in mind , and instructed with this passage of moses ; in the beginning god created heaven and earth : god is the cause of all things . cicero may dispute with his false gods : and averröes may deride christians : a jugler may laugh at our saviour's institution . these words , this is my body , silences them all , and excites me to say with st. austin , dispute you , i will believe . article ii. of the barbarousness of this doctrin . the eating man's flesh , in its proper shape , is no doubt very barbarous . but i think the eating our saviour's flesh under the species of bread and wine , appears barbarous neither to sense , nor to reason . theophilact asks ( in john 6. ) why does it not appear flesh to us , but bread ? and answers , lest we should have horror to eat it . and what you call horrible , st. chrysistom calls amiable . for what more kind than to give himself ? but you cannot imagin the ancient christians ever own'd any such doctrin , because then we should have heard of it from the adversaries of our religion in every page of their writings . this cannot be expected . for very few pagans concern'd themselves with the rites of christianity : and of these the most famous complain christians conceal'd the doctrins they professed . hence that murmur of cecilius in minutius felix , why are the christians carefull to hide and steal their worship from mens eyes , since honesty is never asham'd to face light ? and celsus disgusted upon the same account , calls our religion a clandestin or hidden doctrin . to which origen occurs . t is true , there are some points among us not communicated to all the world , nor is this peculiar to christians . the philosophers observ'd two sorts of principles , some were public and common to all ; others were private , and the science of particular disciples . 't is therefore in vain celsus undertakes to discover the secrets of christians , not knowing in what they consist . st. austin , and st. denys the areopagite teach the same . and yet whether the pagans knew them , or knew them not , you will have them revile our mysteries in every page of ther writings . nor are you contented with this , for you add , with what confidence would they have set the cruelty used by christians in their sacrament , against their god saturn's eating his own children , but that no such argument was then objected by the heathens to the christians , is to a wise man instead of a thousand demonstrations , that no such doctrin was believed . now sure i am nonplust . for how can i solve an objection which stands instead of a thousand demonstrations ? what author will happily fall into my hand , or dictate how our adversaries gathered from slaves and captives a rude relation of this mystery , which was matter enough for them to hit us in the teeth , in requital of saturn's eating his children , with the killing and feasting on flesh and blood ? this passage perchance of tertullian may suffice any sober understanding , that the pagans did not omit such a return you seek after ; we are ( says he ) called wicked infanticides , ( child killers ) and nourished with raw flesh . athanagoras comes nearer , and reminds us how the pagans with confidence set the cruelty used by christians , in their sacrament , if not against the god saturn's , at least against thyestes's ( another like history ) eating his own child . we are impeach'd , says he , ( by pagans ) of three horrible crimes , of taking away the gods , of thyestean banquets ( eating of a child , ) and of incests . st. justin martyr fits you with saturn's own fable . 't is reported ( says he to the pagans ) we practice saturn's mystery ; and killing man , exercise , with hands full of goar , all the cruel and bloody rites of your idolatry . now sure i may conclude with you , that because such a thing was then objected by the heathens to the christians , it is to a wise man instead of a thousand demonstrations , that the doctrin of transubstantiation was believed in primitive ages , and then modestly vindicated from these foul aspersions . article iii. of the bloody consequences of this doctrin . if this doctrin had been the occasion of the most barbarous and bloody tragedies , to use your words , that ever were acted in the world , the enemies of christianity would have hit them in the teeth with these cruelties of terrour , fury and rage ; and what endless triumphs would they have made upon this subject ? but that no such thing was objected by the heathens , is to a wise man instead of a thousand demonstrations . and what you want here of authority , you supply and make up in a zealous appearance of devotion , breaking into this exclamation ; o blessed saviour ! who can imagine that ever men should kill one another , for not being able to believe contrary to their senses ; for being unwilling to think that thou shouldst make one of the most barbarous things that can be imagined , a principle of thy religion ; for not flattering the presumption of the priest , who says he can make god. this is certainly to run headlong into hell in heavens road , wheedling the people into blind extasies , with hypocritically crying out , o blessed saviour ! but all who says , o lord , o lord , shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven . examine your own prayer , and reason will find matter enough to discuss , and conscience more to correct . what catholic ever said , first , that men should kill one another ; secondly , that the most barbarous thing in the world is a mystery of religion ; thirdly , that we flatter the priest , who says , he can make god ? these are as true , as your prayer is without calumny or hypocrisie . they are as true , as there were execrable murders committed to drive people into this senseless doctrin , by no body , in no place . but they are not as true as the doctrin of transubstantiation was delivered by christ and his apostles , taught by the consent of the fathers , divinely revealed and propagated to posterity ; and so free from stupidity , quiet from cruelty , and a pious mystery of our religion . article iv. of the danger of idolatry . if we should be mistaken , as you suppose , about this change through the crosness of the priest ( which god forbid it should happen ) not pronouncing the words of blessing or consecration , we should not at all be guilty of idolatry for believing only one true god , we profess there is infinite distance between him and all creatures : and therefore we cannot so honour any creature , as we do the true god. nor is our intention ever determined by the will to adore any thing which is not god ; so that if the hoast were not , through mistake , consecrated by the priest , the peoples adoration would be terminated in christ , where e're he is , because it is directed to god , and not to a creature . the pagans , 't is true , or persians cannot be excused from idolatry , in worshiping the sun , because erring from the knowledge of the true god , they direct their adoration to what is not god , but a creature . mr. thorndyke , one of the great lights of your church , was so convinced in this point , that he professes , should this church ( of england ) declare that the change , which we call reformation , is grounded upon this supposition ( of idolatry in the church of rome , ) i must then acknowledge that we ( protestants ) are the schismatics . chap. ii. of the monstrous absurdity of this doctrin . to shew the absurdity of this doctrin , you are contented to ask these few questions . question 1. whether ever any man have , or ever had greater evidence of the truth of any divine revelation , than every man hath of the falsehood of transubstantiation . answer . if we had no surer evidence of revealed truth , than every man hath of the falsehood of transubstantiation , we should have no true evidence for christian religion ; and thus by your first question christianity would immediatly be dispatched out of the world. quest . 2. supposing the doctrin had been delivered in scripture in the same words , which we read in the council of trent , you ask , by what stronger argument could any man prove to me , that such words were in the bible , than i can prove to him , that bread and 〈…〉 consecration are bread and wine still ? answer . the sense of the council of trent , and that of the scriptures are one and the same . if therefore i can but appeal to 〈◊〉 eyes to prove such words to be in the bible , as you do appeal to your senses to prove that bread and wine remain after consecration ; what the scripture says , is evidently true according to the testimony of sense ; and your testimony from sense of the substance of bread remaining , is evidently false . i have great assurance of this . for st. paul forbids me to believe an angel , if he should come down from heaven , and teach me contrary to what is writ in scripture . as this is the substance of bread , and not my body , is contradictory to , this is my body . and what prerogative enjoy you beyond that of an angel ? and if you draw one way with your evidence of sense , and scriptural evidence from sense draw another way , is it not evident that your evidence is good for nothing ? quest . 3. whether it be reasonable to imagin , that god should make that a part of christian religion , which shakes the main external evidence and confirmation of the whole ? you mean the miracles which were wrought by our saviour and his apostles , the assurance whereof did at first depend upon the certainty of sense ? answer . with great reason and justice you appeal to the senses of those , who say , they saw the miracles which were wrought by our saviour , and his apostles ; because their eyes were the proper witnesses of miracles : so with the same reason and justice i appeal to my senses to prove , that the words which teach the doctrin of transubstantiation are in scripture , because paper , ink , syllables , and words , are the proper objects of seeing , feeling , and hearing . how then does the catholic tenet shake the main external evidence of the christian religion , when this external proof of sense evidences , from scripture , transubstantiation ? quest . whether our saviour's argument were conclusive or not , proving to his disciples after his resurrection , that his body was risen , luke 24. 29. behold my hands and my feet , that it is i my self , for a spirit hath not flesh and bones , as you see me have . and if seeing and handling be an unquestionable evidence that things are what they appear to our senses , then the bread in the sacrament is not chang'd into the body of christ . answer . sense , in its own objects , is frequently certain ; and here we may rely on it . according to this principle , the argument which our saviour used , did certainly prove to the disciples , that what they saw and handled , was his true body . for affirmation of flesh and bones rightly follows from feeling and seeing . these actions belong properly to the experience of sense . besides , we have all this recorded in scripture . and our saviour made use of all other arguments imaginable to confirm the mystery of his resurrection . in some circumstances the senses may deceive us , and then we ought not to rely on them . thus the jews , designing to precipitate our saviour from the top of a mountain ; jesus , as we read in scripture , passed through the crowd , and departed , and the whole multitude , trusting to that information which sense gave them , believ'd he was a ghost , or apparition . in like manner , the same true body of christ is substantially present in the sacrament after a spiritual existence ; and therefore it is not the proper object of sense ; and so we cannot here rely on our senses . we must then trust to something else , viz. to the testimony of scripture , which is the rule of faith , to know surely what substance or body lies under the species , or appearance of bread. now the scripture teaches us , that the bread in the eucharist is the body of christ , this is my body ; and , the bread which i will give is my flesh . if it be the flesh of christ , as we learn from scripture , then the substance of bread remains not ; for the remaining substance , at the same time , cannot be the substance of bread , and the substance of the body of christ . moreover , our saviour left many other testimonies in confirmation of this verity . our belief is grounded on our saviour's words ; and what more secure than to build on this immovable rock of truth . now what shall i say , but that your whole discourse has been levell'd at our saviour jesus christ , and his testimonies , against which the gates of hell shall never prevail . and i finish with these words of st. austin . when the opinion of error has prepossessed man's mind , whatever scripture shall say in opposition to his senses , he supposes a figurative interpretation . oh that this figurative receiving christ in the sacrament , presage not a figurative embracing of the same in the next world ! and so you clipping the shadow for the true body , lose for ever eternal happiness . ecclesiae judicio subjecta sunto . finis . notes, typically marginal, from the original text notes for div a41592-e180 page 25. st. hil. cont . const . aug. die prius , si rectè disputas , nolo adversus nova venena novas medicamentorum comparationes . st. athan. d. cum ario coram probo . nominis ne offenderis novitate , anetiam ret ipsius veritate , quae hoc est sortita vocabulum . vincent . lyr. in commonit . ecclesia plerunque propter intelligentiae lucem , non novum fidei sensum novae appellationis proprietate signat . nic. 1. in sym. con. ephes. anat . 1. conc. later . decret . 1211. an . * aristotle . gen. 8. v. 2. luke 3. 22. ex nihilo nil fit . st. greg. orat. 3. st. clem. alex. 2. stom . 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . st. ambr. super illud psal . omnia opera ejus in fide . non creditur philosophis , creditur piscatoribus . st. cyr. apud st. maxim. tò 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . st. chrys. in joan. 6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . st. aug. tract . 27. in joan. nec cognoscare , nec credere valemus . mark c. 16. john 6. from the greek . vers . 62. vers . 63. st. aug. tract . 27. in joan. accedat spiritus ad carnem , quomodo accedit charitas ad scientiam & prodest plurimum : nam si caro nihil prodesset , verbum caro non fieret . st. paul 1. cor. 8. scientia inflat . st. cyr. 6. in joan. lib. 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . exod. 24. heb. 9. v. 20. luke 22. st. paul , 1 cor. 11. joan. in evang. c. 1. joan. 10. v. 30. ep. 1. joan. cap. 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ( or as others read , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . st. ignat. ep. ad smyrnaeos . 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . st. just . apol. 2. in the end . tertull. de resurr . carnis , c. 8. caro corpore & sanguine christi vescitur , ut anima de deo saginetur . 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . st. cyr. hier. catech. 4. mystag . gauden . epis . bress . tract . 2. in exod. de pane rursus , quia & potest & promisit , efficit proprium corpus ; & quia de aqua vinum fecit , de vino sanguinem facit . lib. 4. de fide , c. 5. in carnem transfigurantur & sanguinem . st. greg. nyss . tom. 3. orat. cat. c. 37. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . syn. aegypt . prov. alex. profess . fid. tom. 3. conc. general . 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . sess . 13. c. 4. ideo persuasum semper in ecclesia dei fuit . st. aug. apud st. fulgen . & de divers . dicuntur sacramenta quia aliud videtur , aliud intelligitur . st. paul , heb. 1. v. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . 1 cor. 11. st. luke 22. matth. 26. mark 14. ad heb. c. 9. v. 18. st. aug. civit. dei , l. 17. c. 10. st. cyp. l. 2. ep. 3. ad caeci . st. greg. or. 3. advers . julian . 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . indubitanter tenendum est à bonis sumi , non modo sacramentaliter , sed & spiritualiter . amalts verò tantùm sacramentaliter , id est , sub sacramento , scilicet , sub visibili specie , christi carnem de virgine sumptam & sanguinem pro nobis fusum sumi : sed non mysticam , quae tantùm bonorum est . scor. l. 4. d. 9. q. 1. b. st. greg. mag. apud . scot. est quidem indignè sumentibus vera christi caro , & verus sanguis , sed essentiâ , non salubri efficaciâ . convertitur in corpus christ . n. 15. non estaliquis articulus arctandus ad intellectum difficilem , nisi ille intellectus sit verus ; sed si verus est , & probatur evidenter esse verum , oportet secundùm illum intellectum tenere articulum — sic autem supponitur de intellectu hujus articuli . ab eo spiritu expositae sunt scripturae , à quo conditae sunt . non enim in potestate ecclesiae fuit , facere illud verum vel non verum , sed dei instituentis , sed illum à deo traditum ecclesia explicavit , directa in hoc , ut creditur spiritu veritatis , l. 4. d. 11. q. 3. n. 15. bellarminus , l. 3. c. 23. tertio addit ( scil . scotus ) quia ecclesia catholica in generali concilio scripturam declaravit , ex scriptura sic declarata , manifeste probari transubstantiationem . etiamsi scriptura , quam nos supra adduximus , videtur nobis tam clara , ut possit urgere hominem non protervum ; tamen an it a sit , meritò dubitari potest , cum homines acutissimi , qualis scotus , contrarium sentiant . lib. 3. c. 23. de euch. l. 3. c. 19. haec verba necessariò inferunt , aut veram mutationem panis , ut volunt catholici , aut mutationem metaphoricam , ut volunt calvinistae . l. 1. c. 9. in universim demonstrabimus , non esse probabile , dominum figura te loqui voluisse . l. 3. c. 19. nullo modo lutheranorum sententiam admittunt . duran . 4 d. 11. q. 3. de corp. & sang. domini . profanae novitatis dogma . in. 4. sent. q. 6. dico quod in altari est vere . transubstantiatio . occham . ibidem . primus medus potest teneri , quia non repugnat rationi , nec alicui authoritati . bibliae , & est rationabilior , & facilior ad tenendum inter omnes modos — — quia tamen determinatio ecclesiae in contrarium existit , sicut patet extra de summ . trin. de fid. et communiter omnes doctores ten nt quod ibi non remanet substantia panis , ideo etiam teneo quod non remanet ibi substantia panis , sed illa species , & quod illi coëxistat corpus christi . biel in canon missae , lect. 40. quamvis expresse tradatur in scriptura quod christi corpus sub speciebus panis continetur , tamen quomodo ibi sit christi corpus , an per conversionem alicujus in ipsum , aut sine conversione incipiat esse corpus christi cum pane , manentibus substantia & accidentia panis , non invenitur expressum in canone bibliae . ibidem . ex his & aliis plurimis authoritatibus sanctorum habetur , quod corpus christi est in sacramento , per transubstantiationem substantiae panis & vini in corpus & sanguinem christi . mel. canus de focis com. l. 12. c. 13. extat apud lucam scriptum apertissimum testimonium ad hujus rei probationem . petrus ab al. 4. sent. q. 6. possibile est corpus christi assumere substantiam panis , nec repugnat rationi , nec authoritati bibliae ; imò est facilior ad-intelligendam , & rationabilior , quàm ille modus , qui ponit quod substantia deserat accidentia . non est impossibile deo , quod substantia panis subitò sit alibi , remanentibus speciebus in ●odem loco , & eis coexistere corpus christi . ille tamen modus non esset ita rationabilis , sicut prius . cajet . in 4. d. 29. a. 2. in coena domini . cont. cap. baby . c. 10. n. 2. non quod res haec jam ambigua sit , sed quod ejus certitudo , non tàm habeatur ex evangelii verbis , quàm patrum interpretatione , simul & usu tanti temporis , quem illi posteris reliquerunt . cap. 4. de cap. babyl . adv. oecolamp . page 11. ins . cal. 4. c. 17. p. 21. st. aug. cont . petilian . 16. ne stabilire posse putent ulla dogmata iis qui solum vel obscure , vel ambiguè vel figuratê dicuntur in scripturis . john 10. john 15. john 6. 1 cor. 12. 1 cor. 10. gen. 41. 26. st. aug. in psal . 33. conc. 1. quomodo intelligitur in ipso david secundùm literam non invenimus , in christo autem invenimus . ferebatur enim christus in manibus , quando commendans ipsum corpus suum , ait , hoc est corpus meum . john. 6. st. hill. fragmentis fragmenta succedunt , & fallunt semper perfracta frangentes . raban . de sang. dom. c. 3. minuendo multiplicabantur . st. justin . dial. cum trypho p. 297. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . malac. 3. ego dominus & non mutor . 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . exod. 12. sept. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ▪ corpus meum . chap. 26. chap. 22. 1 cor. 10. * communion . acts 1. 20. exod. 7. 12. 1 cor. 11. st. chrys . hic 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . st. ambr. l. 2. de fide , c. 4. panis hic caro est . ibidem . os ejus non conteretur . l. 1. st. hil. de trin. c. 8. deveritate carnis & sanguinis ejus non relictus est ambigendi locus , nunc & ipsius domini professione & fide nostra , vere caro est & vere sanguis est . st. amb. de abra. patriarcha , quàm indignum est humanis testimoniis de alio credamus , dei oraculis de se non credamus ? st. chrys . hîc , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . john 6. 62. verse 69. matth. 14. st. justin . apol. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . l. 4. c. 37. l. 5. c. 2. catech 37. oportet autem sicut exitiale , ita etiam salutare medicamentum admitti intra viscera hominis , ut per illa distribuatur in universum corpus , virtus ejus quod fert opem . quid hoc ergo est ? nihil aliud quam illud corpus , quod & morte ostensum fuit esse potentius & nostrae vitae fuit initium . eâ de cautâ per suae gratiae dispensationem , se per carnem inserit , omnibus credentibus , commissus & contemperatus corporibus credentium , quibus substantia est ex pane & vino , ut unione cum eo quod est immortale , sit etiam homo particeps incorruptionis . st. irenaeus . quemadmodum granum tritici decidens in terram , & dissolutam multiplex surgit per spiritum dei , sic & nostra corpora corpore christi nutrita & reposita in terram , & resoluta , resurgent in suo tempore . l. 5. c. 2. de ea dispositione quae est secundum hominem , quae ex carnibus & nervis & ossibus consistit , quae de calice , qui est sanguis ejus nutritur , & de pane , qui est corpus ejus , augetur . apud oecum . in 1 pet. 3. v. bede martyr , 18. octr. st. amb. l. de novis baptis . c. 1. prodidisse potius quàm edidisse existimaremur . st. cyril , hier. cat. 6. adv. marcion . l. 4. p. 57. edit . rigal . lact. de divin . inst . l. 5. c. 1. st. hierom. de inst . mon. ad paul. tom. 1. creber in sententiis difficilis in loquendo . jer. mittamus lignum in panem ejus . tertul. l. 3. c. 19. contra. marc. sic enim deus in evangelio quoque vestro revelavit , panem corpus suum appellans , ut & hinc jam tum intelligas corporis sui figuram pane dedisse , cujus retro corpus in pane propheta figuravit . lib. 4. lib. 4. c. 40. non intelligens veterem fuisse istam figuram corporis christi dicentis per jeremiam . — ut autem & sanguinis veterem figuram in vino recognoscas . l. 5. contra marc. deus est & effigies . l. de cap. 17. non alium postea vini saporem quod consecravit in sanguinis sui memoriam . peron in orig. sixtus sen. bib. s . l. 6. geneb . praef. in origen . lirin . in comm. st. epiph. haer. 64. theoph. l. pasch . 1. con. gen. 5. collat. 8. cap. 11. homil. 7. in levit. cibus est petrus & paulus & omnes apostoli . john 6. levit. 7. hom. si vero adsideamus literae , & secundum hoc : vel quod judaeis ; vel id quod vulgò videtur , accipiamus , quae in lege scripta sunt , erubesco dicere & confiteri , quia tales leges dederit deus . hom. 7. in numb . tunc in aenigmate erat manna cibus , nunc autem in specie caro verbi dei est verus cibus . quae in aenigmate designabantur nunc in specie & veritate complentur . homil. 5. in diversa . quando illud incorruptum accipias epulum , quando vite pane & populo frueris , manduc as & bibis corpus & sanguinem domini . tunc dominus subtectum tuum ingreditur , & tu ergo humilians teipsum , imitare hunc centurionem , & dicito , domine non sum dignus , ubi enim indigne ingreditur , ibi ad judicium ingreditur accipienti . nec potest videri sanguis ejus quo redempti , & vivificati , esse in calice , quando vinum desit calici , quo christi sanguis ostenditur . l. 2. ep. 3. ad caecilium . jesus ostendens gentium populum succedere in locum quem judaei perdiderant de aqua vinum fecit . contra adimant . c. 12. deut. 12. signum animae . lib. 3. de lib. arb. nunquid ideo fides in dubium vocanda vel disserenda est . ennaret . in ps . 3. pet. mart. contra gen. luth. admonit . ult . pasch . epla . ad frudeg . alg. l. 1. c. 3. a art. 13. b sup. auch . d l. 1. de eucha . cap. 32. e 3. p. d. 46. sect. 4. f contro . 3. cap. 9. g sup. auch . st. aug. de s. virg. gal. 4. 29. l. 2. de paenia , c. 20. ego non sum ego . l. avers . bereng . idem quoad substantiam , non idem quoad modum . apud gratian. de consecratioue , d. 11. ipsum & non ipsum , ipsum invisibiliter & non ipsum visibiliter . de carne mariae carnem accepit , in ipsa carne hic ambulavit , & ipsam carnem nobis manducandum dedit , nemo illam carnem manducat nisi prius adoraverit . tract . 5. in john. 1 cor. 15. epl. 146. seminatur corruptibile surget incorruptibile . cap. 1. ad eph. aliam & aliam . ep. 23. ad bonifacium . de consecratione 2. hoc est . st. ansel . tract . de sacram. altaris , c. 1. similitudo illa panis per se inspecta non est corpus domini . st. paul , 1 cor. 17. si noverim mysteria omnia . 3. de oratore . hoc tacitum tanquam mysterium teneas . apud gratian. de cons . d. 2. sect . utramque . si discipuli patienter ferre nequiverunt quod dominus dixit , quomodo ferunt ista increduli ? st. paul , eph. 2. a ibidem . veritas , dum corpus christi & sanguis , virtute spiritus s. ex panis & vini substantiâ efficitur ; figura , quod exterius sentitur . b de cons . d. 11. can . 41. fidelitèr fatemur ante consecrationem esse panem & vinum , quod natura formavit , post consecrationem verò christi sanguinem , quod benedictio consecravit . c can. 57. panis quem ego dabo , determinat quomodo sit panis , non solum secundum verbum , quo vivunt omnia , sed & secundum carnem assumptam pro mundi vita . matth. 26. l. 2. contra advers . leg. & proph. c. 9. hominem christum jesum carnem snam nobis ▪ manducandum bibendumque sanguinem dantem fideli carde , atque ore suscipimus , quamvis horribilius videatur , humanam carnem perimere , quàm manducare , & humanum sanguinem potare , quàm fundere . in psal . 33. in quo tanta perpessus est . contra faustum , l. 2. c. 10. sanguinem quo redempti sunt . tract . 27. in john. tu es christus filius dei vivi , nec das in carne & sanguine tuo , nisi teipsum . gen. 49. per nominum mutationem mutationi quae ex gratia facta est fidem adhibere . comm in epla . ad cor. cent. 5. c. 10. periculose dicit . st. aug. enarr . in psal . 68. quod nulla substantia est , nihil omnino est . intelliguntur ea esse quae facta sunt , & adorantur & creduntur . st. hilary . naturam suam amiserunt . card. pole , p. 8. c. 3. de euch. cum in dominica mensa sit solùm caro & sanguis , nihilominus vini natura percipiatur . gelas . de duab . nat. bib. psal . tom. 4. facund . p. 144. scotus , l. 4. & 11. q. 3. n. 18. ad 3. in concil . lat. ubi-explioicite ponitur veritas , aliquorum credendorum magis explicite quàm habebatur in symbolo apostolorum , vel athanasii , vel nicaeni , & breviter , quidquid ibi dicitur esse credendum , tenendum est esse de substantia fidei . durand . 4. & numb . 9. substantia panis & vini convertitur in substantiam corporis & sanguinis christi . quamvis iste modus sit de facto , non est tamen negandum quin alius modus fit deo possibilis , scil . quod remanente substantia panis & vini , corpus & sanguis christi esset in sacramento . et numb . 18. sed quia hic modus non debet teneri , de facto , cum ecclesia determinavit oppositum , quae non presumitur errare in talibus : ideo tenendo de facto aliam partem , respondendum est ad argumenta quae sunt in contrarium . tunstal de euchar. sed omnipotentia dei cui nihil est impossibile , his qui cum innocentio in eo concilio interfuerunt visum est , quod is modus maxime , cum verbis hisce christi , hoc est corpus meum , congruere illis visus est . si illis credimus , nec christus , nec spiritus sanctus id efficere possit , ut panis in corporis christi substantiam transeat . epistola ad conradum pellicanum do euch. si tibi persuasum est in synaxi nihil esse praeter panem & vinum , ego membratim discerpi malim quam profiteri quod tu profiteris , & omnia perpeti malim , quam tali flagitio contra meam conscientiam admisso ex hac vita migrare . alph. à castro de hers . l. 8. in psal . 24. & tract . in joan. dux & antisignanus . 1 cor. 11. non credentes . s. aug. ep. 118. c. 3. non credentes in euch. contineri verum christum . st. cyril . alex. in john , l. 10. c. 13. st. greg. naz. orat. 2. de paschate . ex pseudo-synodo iconomacorum an. 740. eucharistiae panem , ut non falsam imaginem , naturalis carnis per s. spiritus adventum sanctificandum divinum corpus fieri voluit mediante sacerdote . nic. 2. dimisso mendacio tangunt paucillum quid veritatem divinum corpus dicentes fieri . hincmarus in scot. memoria tantùm veri corporis & sanguinis christi . januis clausis . guit. l. 1. contra bereng . theod. ep. ad henricum galliae in bib. pp. st. anf. de sacram. altaris , c. 3. a in suis libris de corpore & sanguine domini . b in exempl . ad bereng . c in ep. adv . petrum b. d in cap. 26. matth. e l. 2. de sacramento , p. 8. c. 7. f l. 4. sect. d. 11. baron . ad ann. 1055 , &c. a l. 3. de gestis angl. b in henrico 2. imp. bertram de corpore domini . ex his omnibus quae hactenus dicta sunt , monstratum est , corpus & sanguis christi , quae fidelium ore in ecclesia percipiuntur , figurae sunt , securdum speciem visibilem . at vero secundum invisibilem substantiam , corpus & sanguis christi vere existunt . quo credunt destruere comprobantur , corpus etenim , sanguinémque fideliter confitentur , & cum hoc faciunt , non hoc jam esse quod prius fuere procul dubio potestantur , & si aliud sunt quàm fuere mutationem accêpere . ep. ad heribald . c. 33. de sanguine domini , cap. 3. non alia caro est , non alia plane , quam quae nata est de maria , & passa in cruce & resurrexit de sepulchro . et cap. 3. at vero quisquis ista non credit , si vidisset christum in cruce in specie servi , quomodo deum illum intelligeret , nisi per fidem prius credidisset ? cap. 42. neque aliam carnem quam quae pro te , & pro omnibus tradita est , pependit in cruce , quia sic veritas testatur , hoc est corpus meum , quod pro vobis tradetur , & de calice , hic enim sanguis meus est , qui pro vobis effundetur in remissionem peccatorum . concil . trid. sess . 13. cap. 4. quoniam autem christus redemptor noster , corpus suum id quod sub specie panis offerebat , vere esse dixit , ideo persuasum semper in ecclesia deī fuit , idque nunc denuo sancta haec synodus declarat per consecrationem panis & vini conversionem fieri totius substantiae panis in substantiam christi domini nostri , & totius substantiae vini in substantiam sanguinis ejus , quae conversio convenienter & proprie à sancta catholica ecclesia transubstantiatio appellata est . notes for div a41592-e18820 de natura provid . lib. 3. et quem tam amentem esse put as , qui illud quo vescatur , deum credat esse ? dionys . carth. in 4. d. 10. a. 1. st. aug. de v. apli . c. 7. tu disputa , ego credam . theophil . c 6. in john. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . st chrys . hom. 24. in 1. ad cor. quid est hoc horribilius ? quid autem amabilius . apud origen . 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , l. 1. cont . celsum . st. aug. tract . 11. in john. st. dionys . hicr . l. 3. c. 3. tertull. apol. c. 7. dicimur infanticidae & pabulo crudi — anathag . in apol. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . st justin apol. 1. in fine . 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . non omnis qui dicit domine , domine , intrabit in regnum caelorum . thorndyk 's present state of religion , c. 1. p. 7. luke 4. matth. 26. john 6. st. aug. l. 3. de doct. christ . c. 13. si animum praeoccupaverit alicujus erroris opinio , quidquid aliter asseruerit scriptura figuratum homines arbitrantur . transubstantiation defended and prov'd from scripture in answer to the first part of a treatise intitled, a discourse against transubstantiation. gother, john, d. 1704. 1687 approx. 214 kb of xml-encoded text transcribed from 46 1-bit group-iv tiff page images. text creation partnership, ann arbor, mi ; oxford (uk) : 2009-03 (eebo-tcp phase 1). a41629 wing g1350 estc r4229 12269021 ocm 12269021 58171 this keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the early english books online text creation partnership. this phase i text is available for reuse, according to the terms of creative commons 0 1.0 universal . the text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission. early english books online. (eebo-tcp ; phase 1, no. a41629) transcribed from: (early english books online ; image set 58171) images scanned from microfilm: (early english books, 1641-1700 ; 186:4) transubstantiation defended and prov'd from scripture in answer to the first part of a treatise intitled, a discourse against transubstantiation. gother, john, d. 1704. [24], 64, [2] p. printed by henry hills ..., london : 1687. in reply to a pamphlet by john tillotson, archbishop of canterbury. attributed to john gother. cf. bm. errata: p. [23]. reproduction of original in newberry library. marginal notes. created by converting tcp files to tei p5 using tcp2tei.xsl, tei @ oxford. re-processed by university of nebraska-lincoln and northwestern, with changes to facilitate morpho-syntactic tagging. gap elements of known extent have been transformed into placeholder characters or elements to simplify the filling in of gaps by user contributors. eebo-tcp is a partnership between the universities of michigan and oxford and the publisher proquest to create accurately transcribed and encoded texts based on the image sets published by proquest via their early english books online (eebo) database (http://eebo.chadwyck.com). the general aim of eebo-tcp is to encode one copy (usually the first edition) of every monographic english-language title published between 1473 and 1700 available in eebo. eebo-tcp aimed to produce large quantities of textual data within the usual project restraints of time and funding, and therefore chose to create diplomatic transcriptions (as opposed to critical editions) with light-touch, mainly structural encoding based on the text encoding initiative (http://www.tei-c.org). the eebo-tcp project was divided into two phases. the 25,363 texts created during phase 1 of the project have been released into the public domain as of 1 january 2015. anyone can now take and use these texts for their own purposes, but we respectfully request that due credit and attribution is given to their original source. users should be aware of the process of creating the tcp texts, and therefore of any assumptions that can be made about the data. text selection was based on the new cambridge bibliography of english literature (ncbel). if an author (or for an anonymous work, the title) appears in ncbel, then their works are eligible for inclusion. selection was intended to range over a wide variety of subject areas, to reflect the true nature of the print record of the period. in general, first editions of a works in english were prioritized, although there are a number of works in other languages, notably latin and welsh, included and sometimes a second or later edition of a work was chosen if there was a compelling reason to do so. image sets were sent to external keying companies for transcription and basic encoding. quality assurance was then carried out by editorial teams in oxford and michigan. 5% (or 5 pages, whichever is the greater) of each text was proofread for accuracy and those which did not meet qa standards were returned to the keyers to be redone. after proofreading, the encoding was enhanced and/or corrected and characters marked as illegible were corrected where possible up to a limit of 100 instances per text. any remaining illegibles were encoded as <gap>s. understanding these processes should make clear that, while the overall quality of tcp data is very good, some errors will remain and some readable characters will be marked as illegible. users should bear in mind that in all likelihood such instances will never have been looked at by a tcp editor. the texts were encoded and linked to page images in accordance with level 4 of the tei in libraries guidelines. copies of the texts have been issued variously as sgml (tcp schema; ascii text with mnemonic sdata character entities); displayable xml (tcp schema; characters represented either as utf-8 unicode or text strings within braces); or lossless xml (tei p5, characters represented either as utf-8 unicode or tei g elements). keying and markup guidelines are available at the text creation partnership web site . eng tillotson, john, 1630-1694. -discourse against transubstantiation. transubstantiation -early works to 1800. 2007-09 tcp assigned for keying and markup 2007-11 aptara keyed and coded from proquest page images 2008-03 john pas sampled and proofread 2008-03 john pas text and markup reviewed and edited 2008-09 pfs batch review (qc) and xml conversion transubstantiation defended , and prov'd from scripture : in answer to the first part of a treatise , intitled , a discourse against transubstantiation . the first part. s. ignatius ep. ad smyrnaeos . 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they abstain from our communion , because they do not confess the eucharist to be the flesh of our saviour jesus christ , that very flesh which suffer'd for our sins , which the father of his bounty raised again : those therefore which contradict this free gift of god , die scrupulously questioning the matter amongst themselves . publish'd with allowance . london , printed by henry hills , printer to the king 's most excellent maiesty for his houshold and chappel . 1687. the principal contents of the introduction . 1. reasons why the discourse against transubstantiation lay so long unanswer'd . 2. the real or essential presence of christs body in the sacrament , shew'd to be the doctrin of the english church . 3. how the catholic church necessarily inferreth transubstantiation from our saviours words understood in a proper sense . 4. the pretended demonstration to the contrary from the sense of the word this , in those words of our lord , this is my body , so highly boasted of in the expostulatory letter to mr. sclater of putney , shew'd to be a mere illusion . an introduction to the ensuing ansvver . some have wondred , whilst others triumph't , and a late writer particularly hath vainly boasted , in a certain * letter to a friend , that two great doctors of the english church , had baffled their adversaries of rome even to the silencing of that party , and all this was because the discourse against transubstantiation lay so long unanswer'd . the best account , that i can give of the so long silence , is , that the more considerate knew , that the said discourse contained no new matter , but only what had been very often objected against us since the pretended reformation of the english church , and as often fully answered , as also , that there have been a two large volums writen by a learned catholic author , and b cited by the discourser himself , wherein the objections against transubstantiation are put much further than this late discourse urges them , and all clear'd beyond the power of any solid answer ; and we find none for many years last past so much as offer'd at against the said treatises , nor yet to a more compendious one entitled , a rational discourse concerning transubstantiation publish't 1676. in which the chief objections repeated since by the discourser are fully clear'd . moreover , the doctrin of the english church concerning the real presence being no less vigorously attacqu't by the late discourser , than that of the roman catholic , it was thought more proper , that some of them should have first return'd an answer to it , because they had the greater reason to resent the injury done them , since a wound from a pretended friend is more grievous than from a profest adversary . indeed , i would not have the genuin sons of the english church to think , that we differ so much with them in this point , as some by misrepresenting the thing , would make us to do , seeing that they do acknowledge with bishop andrews , praesentiam non minus quam nos veram ; no less true presence of christs body in the sacrament , than we do , and i am sure that is true enough ; our difference with them , ( who deny consubstantiation , as is manifest from their writings , ) being only about the not admitting the word transubstantiation , whereas they have so long freely acknowledged the thing . for if the body of christ be really present in the sacrament , and not with the substance of bread , it must be there without it , under the external species only of bread , and consequently such a change of substance as the catholic church calls transubstantiation , must certainly be made ; and there can be no other sense given of that real presence which hath been received in their church . now , that the real presence of christs body , together with it's vertue and efficacy , is the acknowledged belief of the greatest and most learned persons of the english communion is * certain , notwithstanding the weak endeavor of an imperfect answerer to the animadversions upon the alterations of their rubrick lately publisht , to shew the contrary . which that it may the more plainly appear , i shall add one observation made by a famed doctor of their church , which will be the more authentick , because it was drawn from their records . it was proposed , saith this * doctor , to have the communion book , viz. that put forth in the beginning of queen elizabeths reign , so contriv'd , that it might not exclude the belief of the corporal presence : ( i doubt not , but they meant after a spiritual manner , as catholics do suitably to st. paul who uses the words spiritual body to signifie a real body existing after a spiritual manner ) for the chief design of the queens council was to unite the nation in one faith , and the greater part of the nation continued to believe such a presence ; ( which however seems to have been determin'd against in their former articles and rubrick . ) thereupon , the rubrick that explain'd the reason for kneeling at the sacrament , that thereby no adoration is intended to any corporal presence of christs natural flesh and blood , because that is only in heaven , which had been in king edwards liturgy , is left out — * and in the article about the lords supper the refutation of the corporal presence was by common consent left out . — and in the next convocation the articles were subscribed without them , of which , he tells us , he had seen the original . now , whatsoever this doctor ( whose usual practice it hath been , like the snake in the fable , to bite and betray those that have cherisht him ) pretends to know of a secret concerning this matter , ( for which he doth not bring the least proof or authority , whereas he had seen the original to be an evidence of what he had before said , ) yet for my part i have more deference for the english church , than to believe that the real presence of christs body in the sacrament was , after so much consideration about the matter , ( now behold the secret comes out , ) left as a speculative opinion , as he saith , and not determin'd , but every man left to the freedom of his own mind , because an express definition against the real presence might drive from the church many who were still of that perswasion . for then those studiously alter'd articles and rubrick had only been made as a trap to draw men into idolatry , and keep them in it , if you will believe some of the great modern writers who live in communion , at present , with the english church , and yet deny that real presence , which was both in queen elizabeths time , and ever since believed in that church , and tax those with idolatry who worship christ thus present . therefore we have good reason to allow , what he tells us afterwards , that some ( we are sure that many of the most learned amongst them ) have since truly inferr'd , that the chief pastors of the church did then disapprove of the definition made in king edwards time , and that they were for a real presence . and of this we can make no doubt , when we peruse the writings of those pastors , who succeeding them till this very time , have given so full an account of their faith in this weighty instance , and yet have past uncensur'd , nay , have been of greatest esteem in their church . and how indeed can we imagin , that men of the least sincerity would leave an article of infinite concern to mens immortal souls in so undeterminat a sense , that christians might believe , which they pleas'd , either that christs body was thus really present in the sacrament , which , if it were not , they incurr'd the guilt of gross idolatry , or that it was not so , which if really it was , they were guilty of infidelity , in not believing our lord upon his word ; and a breach of the first commandment , in not worshipping the second person in the trinity , presenting himself to us in this sacrament ; according to that saying , of the great * st. augustin concerning this matter ; peccamus non adorando , we sin in not worshipping ? such an equivocation as this , in an assembly of christian pastors , upon the proposal of so great a point , must needs have been of far more dangerous consequence to christians , than the ambiguous answers of the delphic oracle , were to the heathen world. this far then the business is clear'd , that the real , and not virtual presence only of christs body in the sacrament , was the doctrin of the english church ; for what some men amongst them of great latitude in belief have maintain'd to the contrary , doth not prejudice the truth , which the more sound of that communion have generally asserted . and notwithstanding , that their late clergy in the year , 1661. in compliance to the dissenting party , by the chief management of the late lord shaftsbury's politic spirit , were induced after hard solliciting to receive an additional declaration , ( tho' not printed in their rubrick letter , ) at the end of their communion service , yet , since they would not by any means be brought to receive the former declaration of king edward the sixth's time , without the change of those words [ it is here declared that no adoration is here intended or ought to be done unto any real and essential presence of christs natural flesh and blood ] into these which follow [ it is here declared , that no adoration is here intended or ought to be done , either unto the sacramental bread and wine there bodily received , or unto any corporal presence of christs natural flesh and blood ] the words real and essential , as you see , being changed into , corporal ; this cannot but reasonably be imagin'd to be done out of caution to the present church , her maintaining still a real and essential presence of christs body in the sacrament ; whereas those in the latter time of king edward seem to have denied it . moreover , tho' it be said in this last declaration , that the sacramental bread and wine remain still in their very natural substances , and therefore may not be adored , yet if by natural substances or essences here is no more meant , ( as the words may very well be understood , and are shewn by catholics to be understood in the authorities of theodoret , and gelasius , ) than the external and sensible essences , or properties of bread and wine , and not the internal substance , or essence , this declaration will not be repugnant , either to the real presence or to transubstantiation , and the adoration will be terminated neither on the internal or external essences of bread and wine , but upon christ the only begotten son of god , really present in the blessed sacrament , which the * council of trent it self hath declared to be the sense of the catholic church as to the point of adoration . again , if the last part of this declaration , wherein it is said , that the natural body and blood of christ are in heaven and not here ; it being against the truth of christs natural body to be at one time in more places than one , be yet urg'd , to prove , that the above mention'd real presence of christs body in the eucharist is not at present the doctrin of the english church . i answer , that whereas it is there said , that the natural body and blood of christ are in heaven , and not here , meaning in the sacrament ; if by natural body be there understood christs body , according to the natural manner of a bodies being present , and according to which , tho' in a glorified state , it actually exists in heaven , we do not say , that the body of christ is here in this sacrament in that natural manner , any more than the doctors of the english communion ; but if no more be mean't by the words , natural body , but the very true and ( as we may call it ) essential body of christ , tho' present in a supernatural manner , proper to the sacrament , it is a very bold assertion to say absolutely , that it is against the truth of it to be so , or that this cannot possibly be true , since we know so little to what the omnipotence of god , which could convey this very body into the room , where the disciples were , the doors being fast shut , can extend it self , and yet the body be the very same body in verity of nature which is in heaven ; the presence of which in the sacrament a late eminent * author of the english church a sufficiently intimates , that some ( he might have said very many ) of their divines have maintain'd ; notwithstanding the vain endeavors , which the answerer to the treatise , printed at oxford , to shew the sentiment of the church of england divines in this point , has us'd to wrest them to another sense : for after having told us his own opinion , viz. that all which the doctrin of his church ( meaning the church of england ) implies , is only a real presence of christ's invisible power and grace , so in and with the elements , as by the faithful receiving of them , to convey spiritual and real effects to the souls of men , he subjoyns , if any one yet thinks , that some at least of our divines have gone farther than this , i. e. do seem to speak of the presence of the very same body which is in heaven , let them know , says he , it is the * doctrin of our church i am to defend , and not of every particular divine in it . now altho' by those wary terms , of every particular divine , and seeming to speak , he endeavors what he can both to diminish the number , and their clear acknowledgment of the presence of the same body in the sacrament which is in heaven , yet he could not but know that the asserters of it were very many , and still are , even since the declaration , and such as may be presumed to know the meaning of it , as cunningly worded as it is , as well , if not better than himself ; and for this , besides what i have had by particular converse with divers , i will appeal to the sincerity of those who have heard the determinations which have been made by their learned professors in the publick schools of both their vniversities , ever since this last declaration was receiv'd , whether they are not fully satisfied , that they have been much more positive for a real presence of christs body in the sacrament , in a further sense than the abovementioned author , and others in their late discourses against transubstantiation declare themselves to be . and i have the rather given the sense before expressed of the last clause of their new declaration , which indeed is the only one it can truly bear , because the catholic church authoriseth it in the * council of trent , by declaring there , that these two things are not inconsistent , viz. that our saviour according to his natural way of existing , should sit at the right hand of his father in heaven , and that he should be in the substance present to us sacramentally , by that manner of existence ; which altho' it can scarcely be expressed in words , yet our mind enlightened by faith can be brought to conceive , that it is possible with god. i hope therefore , that christian charity may in time put a happy end to the tedious disputes , which have been so long held about the blessed sacrament ; that so the sacred symbols of peace and vnity may no longer be made the subject of contention . especially when we consider , that tho' , when the * strange opinion , of there being only some certain vertue of christs body in the sacrament , and not that very body it self was first privately held , about eight hundred and eighteen years after our saviours time , by some persons that erred through ignorance , yet they were asham'd publickly to contradict , as some in this last age have done , that real presence which the whole christian world believ'd and confest , and concerning which none had ever before erred in the church , but those who had erred concerning christ himself . likwise , that altho' the fourth great council of lateran , one of the greatest which ever was held in the christian world , that they might put an end to the contentions then arisen , and maintain christian verity , and peace amongst the faithful , did in declaring the faith of the church concerning the blessed sacrament make use of the word * transubstantiated , to express precisely that great and supernatural change therein made , which the catholic church had in all precedent ages even from christs time believed , as being necessarily deduced from our saviours words , and exprest by the primitive fathers in several other terms signifying the same thing ; yet the catholic church thought it not necessary to determin any thing concerning those nicer speculations about the modes of this wonderful change , which have exercised the more subtle wits , even before the time of the lateran council and ever since . and of this excellent moderation used by the catholic church we have a clear evidence from the proceedings of the council of trent in reference to this matter which , as * padre paul himself , notwithstanding he was no great friend to catholics in his historical relations of the proceedings of this council , relates , determin'd to use so very few , and those universal terms in the article of the blessed sacrament , as might satisfie both parties , viz. the scotists and thomists , and be fitly accommodated to the sense of each of them ; but not so as to establish their distinct private speculations . a cardinal pallavicino likewise tells us , speaking concerning the circumspection of the tridentin fathers , that they would have nothing determin'd concerning the modus or manner of the sacramental presence of christ . so far were they from prejudicing either of the theological classes , or from offering to declare those things as articles of faith which were not the revelations of god , but the speculations of men. so that , if we can agree , that this great supernatural change is made in the sacrament , without the admission of which those of the english church can never prove , that presence of christs body in the holy eucharist , which they acknowledge to be b no less true than we do , they will be yet left at liberty , and need not determin rashly concerning the manner of it , nor so much as anxiously to inquire into this point . for indeed transubstantiation is a great mystery of christian religion , so is the doctrin of the trinity , so is the incarnation of our lord , to which the primitive fathers do so often compare the supernatural change made in the sacrament ; so is the resurrection of our bodies ; yet these articles of christian faith are to be believed upon the authority of the revealer , and not too curiously to be pried into . i shall insist only upon the resurrection at present , to shew how little ground they have to believe this , upon the account of natural reason , who reject the belief of transubstantiation , by vertue of which we receive the instrument and pledge of our resurrection christs real body in the sacrament : both these indeed may seem contrary to reason , before enlightned by faith : for how can that convince us , that the same body which dies shall rise again ; since some that eat mans flesh in the extremity of famin , or , as the cannibals , out of luxury , have the substance of the bodies , that they eat , converted into the substance of their own bodies by the way of nourishment : and several other ways there be , by which the reduced parts of our dead bodies are changed into the substance of other human bodies , even so , that the same bodies may be claimed by many at the resurrection ? notwithstanding we believe , that we shall rise with the same bodies we had , whilst living . dim sighted reason will ask , how this can be , since it is against the nature of a body to be in two places at the same time ? yet nature and experience prepare us for the belief of the resurrection , which seems to be against nature , by the example of those things , which are obvious to sense . seed , as the apostle instanceth , is cast into the ground , it corrupts , and yet riseth again , for god giveth it a body , and to every seed it 's own body . so to dispose us to the belief of the supernatural change made in the sacrament , nothing is more familiar than natural transubstantiation , for our life is sustained by a dayly change of the substance of other creatures into that of our bodies ; we should soon die without this : nay we cannot breath , but the substance of our bodies is converted into air ; and he that denies this transubstantiation , confutes himself while he speaks . thus bread also was dayly transubstantiated into our lords body , whilst he fed upon it here on earth . all which may dispose us to believe , that the bread in the sacramental consecration , as * gregory nyssen teacheth us , passeth into the body of christ the word , not indeed as it did by the way of manducation , and nourishment , but being suddainly transform'd into the body of the word , as is said by the word , this is my body . and if our curious inquirers shall further ask ; how this can be , since the accidents or outward species of bread still remain ? i desire them to resolve these questions : how a thousand species can be reflected from the same glass at once , to a thousand eyes at the same time ? how the same glass being whole , transmits one intire species , and yet broken into many small pieces , every piece reflects the same whole and intire species , there being all the while but one subject , and what that subject is wherein these species do subsist ? or let them but give a true account of the nature of any small particle of that matter , which composeth the vniverse , before they pry too far into the secrets of divine and supernatural mysteries , and think that god can do nothing , but in such a manner as they can comprehend . therefore our adversaries had good reason to say , speaking concerning the objections against the trinity , incarnation and the resurrection with identity of bodies , a that if there were as plain revelation of transubstantiation , as of those , then this argument were good ; and that if it were possible to bring a thousand more arguments against transubstantiation , yet that we are to believe the revelation in despite of them all : again , that b those who believe the trinity in all those niceties of explications which are in the schools , and which now a days pass for the doctrin of the church , believe them with as much violence to the principles of natural and supernatural philosophy , as can be imagin'd to be in the point of transubstantiation . and do not therefore insist upon the point c how far reason is to be submitted to divine authority , in case of certainty , that there is a divine revelation for what they are to believe . and , d that there are things , haud pauca , not few in number , which we all believe , that , if human reason be consulted , do not seem less impossible , and less manifestly contradictory than transubstantiation it self . now , that the words of our lord , this is my body , being understood in a proper sense , as in the ensuing answer is prov'd they ought to be , do necessarily infer transubstantiation , is manifest . because , as is allowed by all , that was bread which our lord took into his hands , before he spoke those words ; there must therefore a change be made , otherwise it could not really become christs body , nor that which he gave his disciples , be in a proper sense so called . and the accidents or sensible species still remaining as before , the change must be made in the substance . this is what the * tridentine council infers in these words : because christ our redeemer did affirm , that truly to be his body which he offer'd , under the species of bread , therefore , it was ever believed in the church of god , which also the holy synod now again declares , that by the consecration of the bread and wine , there is a conversion made of the whole substance of bread into the substance of the body of our lord christ , and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood , which conversion is , by the holy catholic church fitly and properly called transubstantiation . the foregoing inference will evidently appear to be true , if we consider the proper and genuin sense of every particular word in that proposition of our lord , this is my body . this , here in its true and * proper sense , signifies some thing , essence , substance , or object in general , under such an appearance as was demonstrated to sense . for if by the word , this , were exprest the whole nature of the predicate in such a proposition , e. g. as this is bread , or this is my body , then the proposition would be purely identical , or tautological ; for it would be no more than if one should say , this bread is bread , or this my body is my body : whereas it is the property of the attribute to extend , and fully to determin the idea of the subject , by adding clearness to it . and we must remember , that the english word , this , is exprest by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the original greek here , as also in most other languages , not by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the masculine gender , so as to agree with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 bread. now tho' there be no distinction as to the gender in the english word , this , yet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 this bread , as our adversaries would have here meant , is false grammar . in like manner the word , is , hath here it's proper sense ; not as it is used sometimes , for signifies . the word my can have relation to no other person but our lord , who spoke it ; nor consequently to any other body , but his own , truly so , as to it's substance , and therefore truly exprest by the word , body ; that , which was before bread , at the beginning of the enunciation , this is my body , being now made to be his body at its conclusion , because in practical propositions as this is , with god to say , and to do , are the same thing ; and thus you see , what is meant by each word in the proposition , this is my body , as explicated by catholics , tho' you do not believe the mystery . let us now observe , what a late * expostulator hath said against this explication . he undertakes to prove , that the words , this is my body , cannot be taken in a literal , ( i conceive he means proper , in opposition to figurative ) sense , which he supposes his enemies themselves of our party will grant , if he proves that the , this , here mentioned is bread ; which he thus undertakes to do . that , saith he , which our saviour took into his hands , ( when he was about the institution ) was bread ; that which he blessed was the same thing that he had taken into his hands ; that which he brake was the same thing that he had blessed ; that which he gave them when he said it was his body , was that which he had broken ; but that which he broke , which he blessed , which he took into his hands was bread : therefore it was bread , which he gave his disciples , and by this , is meant this bread. this * induction , saith the expostulator , is so fair and so clear , that i am sure you cannot evade it . but what , sir , if after all your mighty boasting , this prove to be neither a fair induction , nor any argument at all , but a mere fallacy or illusion proceeding from what logicians call , ignoratio elenchi , ignorance of argument or proof ? and just such a one as this would be , if proposed to you : that which the butcher exposed to sale was raw flesh ; that which you bought was the same thing , that the butcher exposed to sale ; that which you eat was the same thing that you bought ; but that which you bought , which the butcher expos'd to sale was raw flesh , therefore you eat raw flesh . the kitchin-boy will tell you where the fallacy lies , and help you out at a dead lift . but to make the matter yet more plain , i shall give you some other instances in your way of sophistry , which the most ignorant at the first hearing will discover to be fallacies . that which the servants at the marriage of cana in galiee , took from the fountain , was water ; that which they poured into the water-pots was the same , that they took from the fountain ; that which the guests drank was the same , that the servants put into the water-pots ; but that which the servants took from the fountain , which they poured into the pots was water ; therefore it was water which the guests drank . or your argument may in a shorter way be turn'd against you thus : that which christ took into his hands , he gave : but , that which he took into his hands was not sacramental bread , nor virtually christs body , therefore that which he gave was not sacramental bread , nor virtually christs body . and now repeating your argument truly , tho' without all your heap of words , i shall expose it's fallacy plainly . that , you say , which christ took , &c. he gave ; but he took bread ; therefore he gave bread. i distinguish the major . that he took , he gave ; unchanged or in the same manner he took it , i deny : what he took , he gave , changed and made his body i grant , and so agreeing he took bread , i deny your consequence . look into your logic again , observe it well , and you will find , that to make a proposition contradictory to ours , viz. that , that which christ gave was his real body , you must observe the rules of your master aristotle , so as to speak , de eodem modo , & eodem tempore , which you have not here known how to do . yet you for all this , would be esteemed the great champion for the protestant cause , and boast , that this your matter and argument is so demonstrative , that you cannot but stand amazed that men , who pretend to reason , can refuse it . this pretended demonstration might be much more exposed , had i leasure , whilst i am discoursing upon so serious a point , to insist upon trifles . neither would the * remarks , which he afterwards makes , help him in the least ; for tho' our saviour did say , according to st. luke and st. paul , this cup is the new testament in my blood , yet this passage doth not fully determin , that , by this is my body is meant this bread is my body : for the word , this , in the proposition , this cup is the new testament in my blood ; being joyned with the word cup , by a known figure , to signifie in a general way , what is contained in the cup , only makes the proposition to signifie , that , which is contained in the cup is the new testament in my blood ; which in the evangelists st. matthew and st. mark , is exprest by these words , this is my blood of the new testament ; so that the word this still , altho' joyned to cup , hath no other kind of signification than it hath in the words , this is my body , as i have before explained them : also if it had the sense which the author of the expostulatory letter would give it , then the meaning would be , this wine is the new testament in my blood , or as according to st. matthew and st. mark , this wine is my blood of the new testament , which words in the sense that our adversaries put upon them , would in those circumstances , wherein they were spoken , have been contrary to the rules of human discourse , suitably to what is shew'd in the ensuing * answer concerning the words , this is my body , taken in their sense . the adversary indeed , in this expostulatory letter , insolently triumphs , because he hath found out some mistakes in translating , &c. but his answer to the fathers authorities which have been so often truly cited as an undeniable evidence against his party , will easily be shew'd to be unsatisfactory , ( when we come to their proper place ) and he so slightly attacks , as you have seen , our main evidence the * proper sense of our lords words as hardly to bring the face of an argument against it : so we read that a humorsom a emperor , when he came to invade great britain , only gather'd cockles , and yet for this he demanded triumph in a letter to his senators , thinking his shell-spoils worthy offerings for the capitol . we have one request now to make to those who oppose the doctrin of transubstantiation , that because it is necessary for an answerer to know distinctly what the persons mean to whom he is to make an answer , they would deal sincerely with us ; and since we have told them in what sense every word in the proposition this is my body is taken by us , and how the catholic church doth necessarily infer transubstantiation from them , they would now deal as candidly with us , and tell us , as plainly , as we have done , how they understand each of these words . i have reason to intreat this favor of them , because altho' they seem sometimes to maintain only a vertual not real presence of christs body in the sacrament , which opinion of theirs i have chiefly opposed in the ensuing answer ; yet at othertimes they * ( and even the discourser himself ) readily acknowledge a great supernatural change to be made by the divine benediction , and the author of the * expostulatory letter hath a reserv'd distinction , of christs natural and spiritual flesh and blood , seeming to allow that christ hath a spiritual body in the sacrament : we know not but that he intends the same , which the learned author of a brief discourse of the real presence hath lately given us of two bodies of christ , the one natural in which he was crucified , the other spiritual belonging to him , as he is the eternal logos , in whom is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , life or spirit , which goes along with the divine body of this life or spirit of christ , and consequently is rightly call'd his body . for this , he grounds himself upon that earnest lofty and sublime discourse ( as he calls it ) of our saviour in the 6th . chapter of st. john , confessing ingenuously , that it seems to him incredible , that under so lofty , mysterious a style , and earnest asseverations of what he affirms , tho' to the scandal both of the jews , and his own disciples , there should not be couched some most weighty and profound truth concerning some real flesh and blood of his , touching which this vehement and sublime discourse is framed . pa. 40. and than again , pa. 42. and 43. it is plain , says he , that our saviours discourse in that chapter , has for its object or subject , not the manner or way of receiving his body and blood , as if meant of that very body and blood on the cross , to be receiv'd in a spiritual manner , which interpreters several of them ( meaning of the reformers ) drive at , and which he thinks would be a very dilute and frigid sense of such high and fervid asseverations of our saviour ; but the object of his discourse , says he , is his very flesh and blood it self , to be taken ( as the fish and loaves were wherewith he lately fed them ; ) or it is himself in reference to his flesh and blood , which belongs to him as he is the eternal logos . thus evidently did our saviour seem to this learned man , to speak all along to the very end of his discourse , of a really eating his flesh and drinking his blood ; and not of the manner of eating , as if it never came nigh them , but only they thought of flesh and blood , god knows how far distant from them , and so eat the human flesh of christ by meer thinking of it , and drank his blood after the same imaginary manner . thus to avoid the catholic tenent of transubstantiation ( which he could bear no more than the jews ) and yet verifie the words of christs bodies being receiv'd verily and indeed , and such other expressions found in the catechism and homelies of the church of england ( which he thought himself bound to maintain ) he was driven to distinguish a double body of christ , the one human and natural , the other spiritual and divine , but both real , as has been said before . good god , what chimera's will not a mind preoccupated with error , frame to it self rather than submit to the truth ! luther indeed tells us of about ten opinions of the sacramentarians in his time ; and a book was publisht in the year , 1527 , in which were reckon'd no less than 200 several expositions of the sense of these words ; hoc est corpus meum ; this is my body . what we would gladly know of our adversaries with whom we have now to deal , is , which of these ( now two hundred and one ) opinions , it is that they maintain , or whether they have any other yet in store ( for error hath no end ) different from all these . for surely after all , they must be forc'd to allow , that there is but one true sense of our saviours words , viz. either that it is his very true substantial body , which is taken and received , or a figure only , what vertue soever they please to assign to it . if the former , they fall in with the catholics , or * dr. moors tenet ; if the latter , what vertue soever they assign to a figure , it is not the real body , nor the body really present . let them speak plain , that the world may understand them : the faithful are not to be deluded with ambiguities in a point of so great concern to their immortal souls . reader , be pleased to observe concerning the manner and method of the ensuing treatise and answer , that the discourse against transubstantiation is faithfully here reprinted section by section , and a reply made to the sections in their order . also , that because the discourser against transubstantiation would delude unwary christians by making them believe , that catholics have no proof for this doctrin from scripture , this first part which is chiefly concerning scripture authority is publisht by it self , to be consider'd distinctly ; to which in convenient time , the second part is to be added . some errata's to be corrected . pag. 18. in marg. for preface read introduction . p. 27. last line read under the species p. 42. in the hebrew citation , read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 bis p. 60. read relicks . observe that in the marginal notes . p. 43. 56 , 58 , 63. the word , infra , hath relation to the second part of the answer , which is not yet published . transubstantiation defended : in answer to a treatise , intitled , a discourse against transubstantiation . discourse . concerning the sacrament of the lord's supper , one of the two great positive institutions of the christian religion , there are two main points of difference between us and the church of rome . one , about the doctrine of transubstantiation ; in which they think , but are not certain , that they have the scripture and the words of our saviour on their side : the other , about the administration of this sacrament to the people , in both kinds ; in which we are sure that we have the scripture and our saviour's institution on our side ; and that so plainly , that our adversaries themselves do not deny it . answer . concerning the sacrament of union , the lord's supper ; which is the chief of those several positive institutions of religion which christ hath ordained in his church , there are many great differences even between protestants themselves ; it is no wonder therefore if there are as many between protestants and catholics : of these the author gives two instances , the one about the doctrine of transubstantiation , the other about the administration of this sacrament to the people in both kinds : as for that of transubstantiation , he would have done well to have told us , in what supposition he means to take the word in his discourse . if he suppose the true , real and substantial presence of christs body in the sacrament , and take the word transubstantiation precisely , as it signifies that presence , not with the bread , but by it's being chang'd into his body , this is a difference indeed , and the only proper one in this supposition , between him and catholics , in this matter : but then if he would have proceeded sincerely , and as one that was really master of so much sense as he talks of in this treatise , he should have held to his point , and not impugned what he supposes ; but if he suppose no such real or substantial presence of christs body , and under the name of transubstantiation fight expresly against the real presence , through his whole discourse , as it is evident he doth , ( and therefore ought to have call'd it a discourse against the real presence , and it's consequence transubstantiation , and not a discourse only , against transubstantiation ; ) then the difference is not only as he would make it with the catholics , but with the lutherans also , and those of his own communion , as king james , bishop andrews , mr. thorndike , and many others who profess'd to believe the body of christ to be present in the sacrament no less truly than catholics do . but however he compose this difference with them , yet the catholics , as for their tenent , do not think only , as he says , but are certain , as i shall shew in the process of this discourse , that they have the words of our saviour , which they do not doubt to be scripture , on their side . and for the other point , viz. the administration of the sacrament in both kinds , they are sure that neither he , nor any of his party have , or ever can prove from the scripture and our saviours institution , that he laid a command upon all the faithful to receive it always in both kinds , and this they constantly affirm . but before i leave this paragraph , i cannot but desire the reader to take notice of two things , first , that how sure soever the author makes himself , that he hath the scripture and our saviours institution on his side , yet his good friend dr. tillotson in his rule of faith , which he makes scripture only to be , speaking in his own name , and that of his party , saith : we are not infallibly certain , that any book ( for example s. matthew or any other of the evangelists , ) is so ancient as it pretends to be , or that it was written by him whose name it bears , or that this is the sense of such and such passages in it , it is possible all this may be otherwise . the second is , how high soever he talk of the catholics not being certain , and his own being sure , of having the scripture for them , yet he doth not vouchsafe to tell us what he means by that word , viz. whether express texts , or deductions only . if express texts : let him produce one , if he can , for that new article of his creed , ( a creed much younger than that of pope pius the fourth ) i do believe that there is not any transubstantiation in the lord's supper , or in the elements of bread and wine , &c. if deductions only , why may not the catholics , who have the express words of scripture , that it is his body , infer as surely from thence , that there is a change in the elements of bread and wine , as the protestants , who have no such express text , that it is not his body , can do to prove , that there is no change ? discourse . of the first of these i shall now treat , and endeavour to shew against the church of rome , that in this sacrament there is no substantial change made of the elements of bread and wine into the natural body and blood of christ ; that body which was born of the virgin mary , and suffered upon the cross ; for so they explain that hard word transubstantiation . answer . of the former of these i shall now treat , and endeavour to vindicate the catholic church , which declares it as an article of faith , that by vertue of consecration in the sacrament , there is a conversion made of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of our lord , and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood , which conversion she conveniently and properly calls transubstantiation , a a hard word indeed to those who will not believe the great mystery expressed by it . discourse . before i engage in this argument , i cannot but observe what an unreasonable task we are put upon , by the bold confidence of our adversaries , to dispute a matter of sense ; which is one of those things about which aristotle hath long since pronounc'd there ought to be no dispute . answer . before i engage in this argument , i cannot but observe what an unreasonable task we are put upon by the bold confidence of our adversary , not to dispute a matter of sense , ( since upon this all parties are agreed , that there ought to be no dispute ; ) but to answer all the absurdities , which the author is engaged in by espousing false principles , and among the rest as the chief , that sense can judge of the internal nature or substance of things : for , all that is the proper object of sense , that is , the species , or outward accidents of bread and wine , are allowed to be present in the sacrament by all catholics as well as separatists : and we strangely admire , that he should not remember that rule of his master aristotle , which every young scholar learns , in the beginning of his logick , that substantia non incurrit in sensus ; substance is not the object of sense . from whence it is apparent to all men that have the use of their reason , that all the authors cracking confidence upon this argument , is founded upon a vulgar error slily insinuated , that catholics believe that which they * see in the sacrament of the eucharist , to be the substance of the body and blood of christ . but lest any should be deceived with this popular argument , and take up a prejudice against us as in good reason they may , since they are made to believe that we would perswade them out of their senses ; i shall be so far from endeavouring to do this , as the author fondly imagins all catholics do ; that rather out of a deep sentiment of gratitude to the great god of nature , who hath so fearfully and wonderfully made these bodies of ours , i shall freely acknowledge that the senses do not deceive us at all . for the deception doth not lie , at any time , in the senses , but in the judgment , and the senses do always give true hints to the mind , when their organs and the medium are rightly disposed , and they are employed about their proper and adequate objects . what we may certainly conclude from the goodness and veracity of god , is , that he will not deceive man , the creature that he loves , and therefore usually those objects which are represented to him by his senses , as having relation to the conservation of his body , are of such and such a determinate substance , as the outward and sensible accidents do hint them to be of . so that he is not mistaken in them , unless he judge rashly , and then too there are means provided by which he may correct his error . thus the substance of fire is generally represented under the species or usual form of fire : of a dove under the usual form or likness of a dove : ( so that we may allow in this manner , that ordinarily the substance doth incur into the mind through the senses , by means of the accidents , but it is certain that the senses cannot judge either of the substance or accidents . ) therefore god who is the author of nature , and can change it , when he pleaseth , that man may not be deceived in this kind , doth usually inform him , when he maketh any substantial change , of this nature , in his creatures , which is above the reason of man to comprehend , from any hints made by his senses , as being truly miraculous . thus , when the holy ghost appeared in the form of a dove , man was informed by god , that it was really the holy ghost in substance of nature , and not a dove . when the same holy spirit descended upon the apostles in the visible appearance of cloven tongues of fire ; they had notice from heaven , that this was truly that holy spirit which came in this visible shape . when angels appeared in the forms of men ; they had it revealed to them , that they were , notwithstanding , angels . when our lord presented himself to his disciples under the species of bread , he told them plainly , that it was his body . to shew which revelation to have been made , from the authority of holy scripture and fathers , will be the subject of the ensuing discourse : this which i have here said , being fully conclusive against the argument of sense's being properly the judge of substance . and now who is it that abuseth the senses , the author , or catholics ? he , by applying them to judge of substance , which is an object that is no way adequate to them , would make them to deceive men. we , employing them about their proper objects , which are here the accidents , or outward species of bread and wine , which , as by them we are convinced , do still remain after consecration , prove the miracle from sense ; because at the same time that these appear , the understanding , being inlightened by faith , discerns the true and real substance of christs body , to be veiled under them , which makes the thing truly miraculous . to employ therefore the senses about their true and adequate objects , and the mind about those which are proper to it , is rational : but to advance sense above reason , and even faith it self ; the beast above the man , and the christian too , as the author doth , is such a piece of stupidity , as is not to be parallel'd . discourse . it might well seem strange if any man should write a book , to prove that an egg is not an elephant , and that a musket-bullet is not a pike : it is every whit as hard a case , to be put to maintain by a long discourse , that what we see and handle and taste to be bread is bread , and not the body of a man ; and what we see and taste to be wine is wine , and not blood : and if this evidence may not pass for sufficient without any farther proof , i do not see why any man , that hath confidence enough to do so , may not deny any thing to be what all the world sees it is ; or affirm any thing to be what all the world sees it is not ; and this without all possibility of being farther confuted . so that the business of transubstantiation is not a controversie of scripture against scripture , or of reason against reason , but of downright impudence against the plain meaning of scripture , and all the sense and reason of mankind . answer here the author , like another lucian renouncing the christian faith , begins to ridicule the most sacred mystery of our religion . i confess i am very unwilling to follow him in such dirty way as he takes . it is not at all suitable to the retiredness , wherein our devout minds should be entertained , when we conceive of a thing so truly divine , to speak slightly . i must intreat therefore the candid reader , to abstract his thoughts wholly from the blessed sacrament , at such time as any of this froth is cast back again upon the author , which i heartily wish he had spared me the pains of doing ; and that he had kept his egg and his elephant to himself : the analogy would have been more easily made out by those , who maintain that grace , and vertue are the body and blood of christ verily and indeed received ( for so an egg is vertually at least an elephant , if according to the principle of the philosopher , omnia animalia generantur ex ovo ; every animal is generated out of an egg ) then by such as hold with the catholic church , that the sacrament is not bread and wine , but what verily and indeed it is , the real body and blood of christ . now , how to change a musket-bullet into a pike , i confess i know not ; the dragoons better understand that piece of martial exercise . howsoever , i must needs acknowledge with the author , that it seems strange , that any man should write a book , to prove that an egg is not an elephant , and that a musket-bullet is not a pike ; therefore it is a thousand pities , that so curious a wit as his , should be concern'd in so absurd an enterprise as he believes his to be . and yet , good god , what will not the confident presumption of some men put them upon ! he undertakes a task fully as impossible to be performed as that ; and of infinitely more dangerous consequence , to prove that not to be , which by the power of god , is really made to be in the sacrament . the author knows , that the catholic church grounds this wonderful change , made in the elements , upon divine revelation , which depends upon the veracity of god : so that it will not be so very hard a case , to maintain by a discourse much shorter than this of the author , even our lords words of institution , that what we see , and handle , and taste as bread , is not bread in substance , but the body of christ ; and what we see and taste as wine , is not wine in substance , but the blood of our saviour . and if this evidence may not pass for sufficient without any further proof , i do not see why any man , that hath confidence enough to do so , may not deny any thing to be what all the world sees it is , or affirm any thing to be what all the world sees it is not , ( since the word of god is more infallible than our senses ) and this without all possibility of being farther confuted ; for , he that denies the veracity of god , can no ways conclude his senses to be veracious . the denial then of the real presence , or transubstantiation , is not a controversy of scripture against scripture , or of reason against reason , but of down-right impudence against the plain meaning of scripture , and all the sense and reason of mankind . discourse . it is a most self-evident falsehood ; and there is no doctrin or proposition in the world that is of it self more evidently true , than transubstantiation is evidently false : and yet if it were possible to be true , it would be the most ill natur'd and pernicious truth in the world , because it would suffer nothing else to be true ; it is like the roman-catholic church , which will needs be the whole christian church , and will allow no other society of christians to be any part of it : so transubstantiation , if it be true at all , it is all truth ; for it cannot be true unless our senses and the senses of all mankind be deceived about their proper objects ; and if this be true and certain , then nothing else can be so ; for if we be not certain of what we see , we can be certain of nothing . answer . the doctrin of the real presence or transubstantiation is a truth that is evident upon the authority of the revealer ; and there is no opinion that the author holds is more evidently false , than this is evidently true : for faith is the evidence of things not seen , heb. 11. 1. and the best natur'd truth in the world it is , which conveys us infinite blessings : which unless it be so , we have no reason to believe any thing else to be true ; a truth like that of the catholic church , which , unless it be that which hath lived in communion with , and just obedience to her chief pastors , especially st. peter and his lawful successors in the see of rome , then there hath been no true church upon the face of the earth : for so the real presence or transubstantiation , unless it be true , we cannot be assured of any truth : it must be so if god be veracious , that is , unless what he reveals be false ; since the very truth of our senses , and all our faculties , depends upon his veracity ; and if we be not certain of what he hath revealed , though it seem to contradict our senses , we are certain of nothing . discourse . and yet notwithstanding all this , there is a company of men in the world so abandon'd and given up by god to the efficacy of delusion , as in good earnest to believe this gross and palpable error , and to impose the belief of it upon the christian world under no less penalties than of temporal death and eternal damnation . and therefore to undeceive , if possible , these deluded souls , it will be necessary to examine the pretended grounds of so false a doctrin , and to lay open the monstrous absurdity of it . answer . and yet notwithstanding all this , there is a sect of men in the world , so abandon'd and given up by god to the efficacy of delusion , as confidently to deny this revealed truth , and to impose this strange negative article of faith of theirs , that in the sacrament of the lords supper there is not any transubstantiation of the elements of bread and wine into the body and blood of christ , at or after consecration by any person whatsoever , under no less penalties , than the temporal loss of their estates and livelihoods , the loss of their lives , the formal renouncing of the catholic faith and religion , which is dearer to them than their lives , and consequently eternal damnation . therefore to undeceive , ( which we hope is possible ) these deluded souls , it will be necessary to shew the real grounds upon which transubstantiation is built , that so the monstrous absurdity of the contrary doctrin may be made to appear . discourse . and in the handling of this argument , i shall proceed in this plain method . i. i shall consider the pretended grounds and reasons of the church of rome for this doctrin . ii. i shall produce our objections against it . and if i can shew that there is no tolerable ground for it , and that there are invincible objections against it , then every man is not only in reason excused from believing this doctrin , but hath great cause to believe the contrary . first , i will consider the pretended grounds and reasons of the church of rome for this doctrin . which must be one or more of these five . either 1st . the authority of scripture . or 2ly . the perpetual belief of this doctrin in the christian church , as an evidence that they always understood and interpreted our saviour's words , this is my body , in this sense . or 3ly . the authority of the present church to make and declare new articles of faith. or 4ly . the absolute necessity of such a change as this in the sacrament , to the comfort and benefit of those who receive this sacrament , or 5ly . to magnifie the power of the priest , in being able to work so great a miracle . 1st . they pretend for this doctrin the authority of scripture in those words of our saviour . this is my body . now to shew the insufficiency of this pretence , i shall endeavour to make good these two things . 1. that there is no necessity of understanding those words of our saviour in the sense of transubstantiation . 2. that there is a great deal of reason to understand them otherwise . answer . in the handling of this argument i shall proceed in this plain method . i. i shall consider the solid grounds and reasons of the catholic church for this doctrin . ii. i shall weigh the objections which the author makes against it . and if i can shew that there is a real ground for it , and that the objections against it are weak , and inconsiderable , then every man is not only in reason obliged to believe it , but hath great cause to reject the contrary . first , i shall consider the solid grounds and reasons of the catholic church for this doctrin . which are at least these five . 1st . the authority of scripture . 2ly . the perpetual belief of this doctrin in the christian church , as an evidence that they always understood and interpreted our saviours words , this is my body , in this sense . or 3ly . the authority of the church in every age to declare , propose , and exhibit , when , by misinterpretation of heretics , they are forc'd to it , a more explicit sense of the ancient articles of our faith. or 4ly . the infinite mercy and condescension of god to operate such a change as this , for the comfort and benefit of those who receive this sacrament . or 5ly . the just dignity of the priest , whom god is pleas'd to make use of as his minister for the working so miraculous a change . 1st . the catholic church hath always grounded the doctrin of the real presence or transubstantiation upon the authority of divine revelation in these words of our saviour , this is my body . now to shew the validity of this proof i shall endeavour to make good these two things . i. that there is a necessity of understanding these words of our saviour in the sense of the real presence , or transubstantiation . from whence it will necessarily follow , ii. that there is no reason at all for the understanding them otherwise . discourse . first , that there is no necessity to understand those words of our saviour in the sense of transubstantiation . if there be any , it must be from one of these two reasons . either because there are no figurative expressions in scripture , which i think no man ever yet said : or else , because a sacrament admits of no figures ; which would be very absurd for any man to say , since it is of the very nature of a sacrament to represent and exhibit some invisible grace and benefit by an outward sign and figure : and especially since it cannot be denied , but that in the institution of this very sacrament our saviour useth figurative expressions and several words which cannot be taken strictly and literally . when he gave the cup , he said , this cup is the new testament in my blood , which is shed for you and for many for the remission of sins . where first , the cup is put for wine contained in the cup ; or else if the words by literally taken , so as to signifie a substantial change , it is not of the wine but of the cup ; and that , not into the blood of christ , but into the new testament , or new covenant in his blood. besides , that his blood is said then to be shed , and his body to be broken , which was not till his passion , which followed the institution and first celebration of this sacrament . answer . first , that there is a necessity of understanding those words of our saviour in the sense of the real presence or transubstantiation , for these two reasons . 1. because although there be many figurative expressions in scripture , which all men allow , yet this , in relation to the case in hand , is not such . 2. although a sacrament admits of figures , which no man is so absurd as to deny , since it is of the very nature of a sacrament , to represent and exhibit some invisible grace and benefit by an outward sign and figure ; yet the figure doth not lie where the author pretends it doth . the rule which men ought to observe in their discourse in relation to figures is this , that a figure should not be used which the auditor doth not easily apprehend to be so . to compare , therefore , a figure , which all the world can easily understand to be so , with an expression which no man can construe to be a figure , according to the rules of human discourse , is very absurd : yet such is the authors instance from scripture . from whence he alledgeth , that when our saviour gave the cup , he said , this cup is the new testament in my blood , which is shed , ( or more properly poured out ) for you , and for many , for the remission of sins . did not our lord plainly read in the minds of his disciples , that , by the cup , they would understand , that which was contained in the cup ? if any one should advise the author , when he is thirsty , to drink off his glass , would he be so inconsiderate as to swallow it together with the wine ? nay further , so unhappy is the author , as to urge this instance of holy scripture in the first place , which alone is enough fully to clear the point against him . neither the apostles , nor any men else could be so ignorant of the manner of human discourse , as not to apprehend , that our saviour , by the cup , meant what was contained in it , which was most certainly christs blood ; for otherwise it could not be said of it , as it is luke 22. 20. that it was then poured out for the apostles , and for many , for the remission of sins : it is said , is poured out , in the present tense ; not , shall be poured out , in the future ; therefore here can be meant , only the blood of christ , as now poured out in the sacrament for them , not as it was afterwards shed from his crucified body upon the ground . the original runs thus , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 : where in construction 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 agrees with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , and not with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . and wine as a figure only of christs blood , or signifying its virtue , could not be poured out for the remission of sins : you might with more congruity of speech , affirm of an image of the blessed virgin , * this is that which conceived the son of god ; because in this there is some plain resemblance to the prototype . beza a great critic , in his way , though an adversary to the catholic doctrin in this point , not being able to deny this proof , would rather have the scripture to be thought false , although that be the whole foundation of their faith , than change his opinion ; and saith , that it is a * solecism , and should be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 : he concludes that the holy spirit , or st. luke , that divinely inspired pen-man , the most eloquent of all the evangelists , could be sooner mistaken , though in a matter of so great moment , than himself ; or else he would have the scripture to be falsified , and corrupt , in this place , and not himself . for he acknowledges that all the ancient manuscripts which he had seen , and even his own , which was of great authority , and of venerable antiquity , venerandae antiquitatis , together with the syriac version , to which he gives this elogy , that it was deservedly accounted to be of greatest authority , maximae meritò authoritatis , did conspire together , to refer the effusion of blood to the cup. the author , therefore , and all that separate from the catholic church in this point , must either , at last , be forced to confess here , as * beza doth concerning those words of our lord , this is my body , that this saying thus exprest cannot be retained , but it must prove transubstantiation , after the manner of the papists ; or else that the holy scripture , the foundation of christian faith , is made invalid : so that it is plain from what hath been said , that the cup is here put for what is contained in the cup , and that the words , so taken , do signifie , and operate a substantial change , not of the cup , but of the wine in the cup ; and that , not into the new testament , or covenant , but into the blood of christ , in which this new covenant , or testament is made , sealed and confirmed . besides , that his blood is said , here , then to be poured out , and his body , then to be broken , and given for us , which they could not be unless they were then really in the sacrament ; because the passion , ( wherein * his body was peirced only , not broken , as in the sacrament , and his blood was shed from his crucified body upon the ground , not only poured forth from one vessel to another , and drunk as in the sacrament , ) followed the institution and first celebration of this sacrament . discourse . but that there is no necessity to understand our saviour's words in the sense of transubstantiation , i will take the plain concession of a great number of the most learned writers of the church of rome in this controversie . a bellarmin , b suarez and c vasques do acknowledg scotus the great schoolman to have said that this doctrin cannot be evidently proved from scripture : and bellarmin grants this not to be improbable ; and suarez and vasques acknowledg d durandus to have said as much . e ocham , another famous schoolman , says expresly , that the doctrin which holds the substance of the bread and wine to remain after consecration is neither repugnant to reason nor to scripture . f petrus ab alliaco , cardinal of cambrey , says plainly , that the doctrin of the substance of bread and wine remaining after consecration is more easie , and free from absurdity , more rational and no ways repugnant to the authority of scripture ; nay more , that for the other doctrin , viz. of transubstantiation , there is no evidence in scripture . g gabriel biel , another great schoolman and divine of their church , freely declares , that as to any thing express'd in the canon of the scriptures , a man may believe that the substance of bread and wine doth remain after consecration : and therefore he resolves the belief of transubstantiation into some other revelation besides scripture , which he supposeth the church had about it . cardinal h cajetan confesseth that the gospel doth no where express that the bread is changed into the body of christ ; that we have this from the authority of the church : nay , he goes farther , that there is nothing in the gospel which enforceth any man to understand these words of christ , this is my body , in a proper and not a metaphorical sense ; but the church having understood them in a proper sense , they are to be so explained : which words in the roman edition of cajetan are expunged by order of pope i pius v. cardinal k contarenus , and l melchior canus one of the best and most judicious writers that church ever had , reckon this doctrin among those which are not so expresly found in scripture . i will add but one more , of great authority in the church , and a reputed martyr , m fisher bishop of rochester , who ingenuously confesseth , that in the words of the institution there is not one word from whence the true presence of the flesh and blood of christ in our mass can be proved : so that we need not much contend , that this doctrin hath no certain foundation in scripture , when this is so fully and frankly acknowledged by our adversaries themselves . answer . the author hath had very little success yet , in that , which he calls , a discourse against transubstantiation ; therefore because he would now do some execution , he is forc't to come down to his adversaries to sharpen his blunt weapons . which , notwithstanding will prove no advantage to his cause . he here , then , tells us in his first period , that he will take the plain concession of a great number of the most learned writers of the church of rome in this controversie , that there is no necessity to understand our saviour's words in the sense of transubstantiation . but what if it manifestly appear from the words of these writers , that he takes this by force , which they never gave him ; since they all thought themselves bound to accept the words in that sense which they acknowledge the church to have given of them , as deducible from scripture by necessary consequence , tho' not so plainly prov'd from the bare words , consider'd by themselves , as you shall see from their authorities hereunder cited ? then he proceeds , like a false mustermaster , to make up the number of his list , by calling men that are not in it , to answer to other names than their own . bellarmin , suarez , and vasquez do acknowledge scotus , &c. again , bellarmin grants this not to be improbable ; and suarez and vasquez acknowledge durandus to have said as much . here they are wheel'd about a second time to make the greater show ; yet there are but two men in effect after all this calling . the author says , bellarmin , and suarez , and vasquez say , such a man said such a thing : why , such a blundering sort of an evidence would be flung out of any inferior court of judicature ; it faulters so manifestly at the very beginning , that we may assure our selves it can never speak clearly . let us see therefore what * scotus saith for himself ; his words are these : if you say that christ , by saying this is my body , doth plainly teach us , that the bread doth not remain , for then the proposition would be false ; this is not cogent : for supposing ( so that 't is but a supposition still ) the substance of bread did still remain , the substance of bread is not demonstrated here , but what is contain'd under the bread , as now the accidents are shew'd , for then the proposition would be false ; but the sense is , that which shall be contain'd under this sensible sign , is my body . mark , how much scotus favors the author's opinion of the senses being judges of what is in the sacrament . again he saith , a the truth of some things that are to be believ'd , is more explicitly set down than in the apostolic , athanasian , or nicene creed ; and in brief , whatsoever is ( by the catholic church ) propos'd to our belief , is to be held of the substance of faith , after a solemn declaration made by the church ; he gives the reason afterwards , because the scriptures are expounded by the same spirit by which they were made : and thus he concludes , telling us in plain terms , that the church therefore chose this sense of transubstantiation , because it is true ; for it was not in the power of the church to make it true or false , but of god instituting it : but the church explain'd the sense which was deliver'd by god. and if it be so , that transubstantiation was the true sense , and that before the declaration of the council , then there was a necessity to understand our saviour's words in the sense of transubstantiation , according to scotus , as well before as after the council , since 't was the sense deliver'd by god. therefore when the author saith he hath the plain concession of a great number of the most learned writers of the church of rome , reckoning scotus in the first place , that there is no necessity to understand our saviour's words in the sense of transubstantiation , he saith that which is not true . bellarmin indeed grants what scotus said of the substance of bread remaining ( notwithstanding its being converted into the substance of christs body , as i shall presently shew ) that it is not altogether improbable , non omnino improbabile , altho' there may be great improbability in the thing notwithstanding , ( mark the * word which the author is pleas'd to leave out ) that there is no place of scripture extant so express , as that , without the declration of the church ( which notwithstanding clears the whole matter ) can evidently compel us to admit of transubstantiation , viz. in the sense of the thomists , whose way of explication of it is somewhat different from scotus's . but that not being of faith , there ought to be no controversie about it , and therefore the * council of trent directly condemn'd neither of these ways . and b durandus himself after he has discours'd problematically upon the point , like a schoolman , at last concludes solidly : that that is not always to be chosen in matters of faith , which hath fewest difficulties consequent to it — that the substance of bread and wine is chang'd into the substance of christs body : that that only is principally effected in this sacrament , which is signified by the form of the words , viz. of consecration . which argument being urg'd by him from scripture for transubstantiation , is a plain evidence that he did not deny the necessity of understanding our saviours words in that sense : for he concludes positively from scripture , that both these things are made to be in this sacrament , viz. the existence of the body of christ and the conversion of the bread into it : and what is this but transubstantiation ? therefore what the authors abovemention'd say concerning scotus and durandus , is to be applied rather to their particular manner of explicating the doctrin of transubstantiation , than to the thing it self , since many c other authors do not think them to be mistaken in the point . d ocham seems to allow , that the substance of bread may remain tho' it forsake its accidents , and the substance of christ's body doth not forsake them ; and this according to him was one way of solving transubstantiation , which he is far from saying to be contrary either to reason or scripture . e petrus ab alliaco cardinal of cambray was of opinion that it was possible , and not repugnant to reason nor the authority of the bible , nay that it was more easie to be understood , and more reasonable that the substance of bread should remain there where the body of christ begins to be , and that so the substance of the bread should be said to pass into the subsance of the body of christ . so that here is transubstantiation still plainly maintain'd in his sense ; and he doth not believe that there was need of any other revelation for it , than scripture . f gabriel biel tells us , that although it be expresly deliver'd in scripture , that the body of christ is truly contain'd under the species of bread , and receiv'd by the faithful , yet it is not found expresly in the canon of the bible , how the body of christ is there , whether by the conversion of something into it : or whether the body of christ begins to be with the bread without conversion , the substance and accidents of the bread remaining ; but he doth not deny the former of these ways to be necessarily deduc'd from scripture ; and therefore this authority makes nothing against us . cardinal cajetan ' s words were censur'd and expunged by authority , and therefore ought not to be brought against us . g cardinal contarenus freely declares , that all divines agree , although it be not plainly deliver'd , viz. not in express words , yet following reason as their guide ( and what is this but necessary rational deduction ? ) that this ( viz. which is done in the sacrament ) cannot be effected by a local motion , but by some change of the substance of bread into the body of christ , which is call'd transubstantiation ? h melchior canus doth acknowledg that the church hath by the spirit of truth explain'd some things which are accounted obscure in the holy writings , and that she doth justly judge the authors of the contrary opinions to be heretics . but things may be necessarily contain'd in scripture , altho' with some obscurity . so that there is not so much as one of these authors , ( unless it be that which is condemn'd by the church , and therefore in that point is none of ours ) who hath told us , that there is no necessity to understand our saviours words in the sense of transubstantiation . lastly , as if that true martyr bishop fisher , had not suffer'd enough already , the author exercises further cruelty against him , by a false and imperfect recital of his words , and corrupting their sense . this holy bishop indeed , speaking of the words of institution , saith : a there is not one word put here , by which it can be prov'd , that in ovr mass the true presence of the body and blood of christ is made to be , which last words , is made to be , the author falsly renders by these words , can be proved . but this good martyr doth not say , that christs words of institution are not to be understood in the sense of the true and real presence of his body , as made to be in that sacrament which our lord himself consecrated ; but that the power of priests , now , to consecrate in our mass after the same manner , is not express'd in the bare words of institution ; and it is evident from the immediately following words of this reverend bishop , that this is his true sense , which words run thus : for altho' christ made of the bread his flesh , and of the wine his blood , it doth not therefore follow by vertue of any word here plac'd , that we shall effect the same as often as we endeavor it : as is also plain from the other words of this reverend authors in the same chapter . without the interpretation of the fathers , and the usage of the church by them deliver'd down unto us , no body will prove out of the bare words of scripture , that any priest can consecrate the true body and blood of christ . — for , although we allow christ to have said ( what scripture saith he did in this kind ) to the apostles out of luke and paul , it doth not therefore follow , that he gave the same power to all that were to succeed them , for a power of casting out devils was given to the apostles . but that this learned and pious bishop asserted the change of the substance of the bread into the body of christ to be the necessary sense of the words of christ , this is my body , is clear from these words of his : b if the substance , saith he , of bread is changed into christ's body , christ ought not to have said otherwise than he hath said : and again , if the substance of bread remain , then christ ought to have spoke otherwise . we must take notice , that this pious bishop was defending tradition as necessary for the interpretation of some places of scripture , and particularly such which relate to the power that those who succeed the apostles have to consecrate , and upon very good grounds , since without tradition , we cannot conclude the scripture it self to be the word of god ; and no church can prove the succession of her pastors to this high function , which is without doubt a fundamental point . since therefore the protestants hold , that there is a lawful succession of pastors in gods church , as necessary to the salvation of mankind , as evidently deduced from scripture , interpreted by tradition , tho' not from the bare words of the institution of the eucharist , no less than catholics ; and that they have as full a right to consecrate as the apostles themselves , they must therefore allow that they do do so : and then there can be no doubt rais'd from the words of this holy bishop , but that christ's body and blood are truly in the sacrament by way of transubstantiation , which doctrin he allows to have a certain foundation in scripture . but the author here would rather pull down the pillars on which the church of christ stands , by interrupting the episcopal succession , and undermine its very foundation , than not set a face upon his argument , that he may thereby delude unwary christians . upon the whole matter , it is plain from what hath been said ; 1. that not any of these catholic authors , which are cited , held that there was no necessity to understand our saviours words in the sense of transubstantiation , but the contrary . 2. that they indeed differed only about some curious speculations concerning the dependences and circumstances of this doctrin of transubstantiation , which they discours'd of in a problematical way ; as for instance ; whether this transubstantiation is a mutation and transubstantiation productive , that is to say , by vertue of which the substance of the body is produc'd from the substance of bread ; or a mutation and transubstantiation adductive , that is to say , by vertue of which the substance of bread ceases to be ; and that of the body be introdu'd in it's place : and whether in this adductive . transubstantiation , the cessation of the substance of bread and wine , is to be call'd annihilation ; or whether it ought to be exempt from this name , for as much as , altho' it cease to be , nevertheless this cessation of it's essence hath not non entity for it's final term , but the substitution of the essence of the body of christ , or the like ; and such kind of disputes which did not at all relate to the essence of the article of transubstantiation , but only to some consequences , and modes of it ; for all the school-men agree , that the bread and wine are chang'd and transubstantiated into the body and blood of christ , by vertue of consecration , the substances of bread and wine ceasing to be , and those of the body and blood being substituted in their place . 3. they evidently deduce the essential part of the doctrin of transubstantiation from scripture ; and altho some few of them do sometimes say , that the bare words of scripture do not compell us to believe the less material consequences of it , yet they do not deny that these also may be rationally deduc'd . 4. the author doth not pretend to prove from these authorities , that these writers did not hold the real presence of christs body here , but only a sign and vertue of it , as protestants do , since it is clear from all their writings , that they did hold it , as proved from scripture . altho i might have saved my self the trouble of clearing this point so largely , had i not thought it convenient rather for the vindication of these writers , whom the author hath so grosly abused , than for the defending the doctrin of the real presence or transubstantiation . for what if seven authors should before the solemn declaration of the church have denied it to be necessarily proved from scripture , tho' really they have not ; are there not seventy times seven of another mind ? were not the arian bishops , the semi-pelagians and other heretics , who at several times oppos'd the articles of the christian faith , vastly more numerous ? and the author knows , that catholic christians are not to rely upon the judgment of any inconsiderable number of private doctors opinions concerning the sense of an article of religion , but upon the judgment of the generality of catholic fathers , which is discerned in their writings , and in the decisions of the most general councils , and in the constant and general tradition of the church . discourse . secondly , if there be no necessity of understanding our saviour's words in the sense of transubstantiation , i am sure there is a great deal of reason to understand them otherwise . whether we consider the like expressions in scripture ; as where our saviour says he is the door , and the true vine ( which the church of rome would mightily have triumph'd in , had it been said , this is my true body . ) and so likewise where the church is said to be christ's body ; ) and the rock which follow'd the israelites to be christ , 1 cor. 10. 4. they drank of that rock which follow'd them , and that rock was christ : all which and innumerable more like expressions in scripture every man understands in a figurative , and not in a strictly literal and absurd sense . and it is very well known , that in the hebrew language things are commonly said to be that which they do signifie and represent ; and there is not in that language a more proper and usual way of expressing a thing to signifie so and so , than to say that it is so and so . thus joseph expounding pharaoh's dream to him , gen. 41. 26. says , the seven good kine are seven years , and the seven good ears of corn are seven years , that is , they signifi'd or represented seven years of plenty ; and so pharaoh understood him , and so would any man of sense understand the like expressions ; nor do i believe that any sensible man , who had never heard of transubstantiation being grounded upon these words of our saviour , this is my body , would upon reading the institution of the sacrament in the gospel ever have imagin'd any such thing to be meant by our saviour in those words ; but would have understood his meaning to have been , this bread signifies my body , this cup signifies my blood ; and this which you see mee now do , do ye hereafter for a memorial of me : but surely it would never have entred into any man's mind to have thought that our saviour did literally hold himself in his hand , and give away himself from himself with his own hands . answer . secondly , since there is a necessity of understanding our saviours words in the sense of the real presence , or transubstantiation , i am sure there can be no reason given to understand them otherwise . for if we consider the expressions which the author produceth out of scripture as resembling these , they are so far from being like them , that from thence we shall prove the quite contrary to what the author alledgeth them for : therefore , to reduce this head of discourse to some method ; i shall first lay down the principles by which it is to be governed , that i may the better afterwards draw my conclusion . 1. christ ever spake reasonably , and in a manner conformable to good sense , nothing escaping him through imprudence or mistake . 2. his power infinitely exceeds the capacity of our minds ; therefore it is against reason , that we should confine it to the narrow bounds of our understanding , or pretend that god cannot do what we cannot conceive . 3. when the sense of the words which christ speaks , if taken properly , is not contradictory to right reason , tho' above it , and the rules of human discourse oblige us to take these words in the proper sense , then we are not to doubt of the truth of them as so taken . that we may the better apply these principles , and the ensuing discourse to the case in hand , i shall endeavor to state it as precisely as may be , and draw it into as narrow a compass as i can . christ in the institution of the blessed sacrament said , this is my body : which words those of the english church , that do not believe the presence of christs real body in the sacrament , yet attribute the efficacy thereof to the due reception of the sacramental elements ( and i will charitably suppose the author to be one of these ) interpret thus : this thing , which you see to be bread in substance , is a sign of my real body , wherein the vertue of my body , tho' it self be absent , is contained ; or whereunto this vertue is conjoyned , or together with which it is exhibited ; which several sorts of expressions i am forc't to use , that i may by some of them reach that sense which they have not yet sufficiently explained . catholics thus : this thing , which by the means of your senses , is represented to the mind under the species or appearance of bread , is my body in substance . in these explications , i say , that by , this , in the proposition , this is my body , is meant , this thing ; because this is a pronoun demonstrative , that doth not express any particularly determinate , and distinct nature or substance : for it may be applied to any thing that is the object of sense , or of pure understanding , when it is but confusedly represented to the mind : as we say pointing to a person before us , this is john , or this is thomas , pointing to an animal , we say , this is a lamb , this is a dove ; after we have discoursed of the nature of the soul , we may say of cogitation , conceiving it in our minds , this is the property of the soul. but because it would be great rashness of judgment , and that which is strictly called prejudice , to conclude fully of the nature of any thing , which another , that is presumed to know it better than we do , should be shewing to us , before he hath fully pronounced his proposition , by which he is to discover it's nature : as for instance , if any one holding up a gilt shilling , or a counterfeit guiny ; should be about to inform us truly , that this was but a shilling , or a counterfeit piece of gold , which notwithstanding appeared to the senses like gold , we should rashly conclude , before he tells us fully , what it is he shews us , that it is a true piece of gold : or on the other hand , if any one should hold up a true piece of gold , which is discoloured so by sulphur , that it looks but like silver , and should be informing us , that this is a piece of true gold , we should , before he hath spoke his words , conclude it was but silver : so it would have been prejudice in our lord's disciples , to have concluded of the determinate nature of that , which he held in his hands , when he was going to tell them , what it really was , viz. his body , before he had fully pronounced the proposition , saying , this is my body : which the sacramentarians and our author do , rashly determining the thing which appears as bread , to be so in substance , upon the exhibiting the species , and saying , this , which notwithstanding , when the proposition is finished , is in the sacrament made and declared to be the body of christ : this therefore being a pronoun demonstrative , it is enough , that it exhibits something unto us , under a certain outward appearance , without signifying distinctly and clearly the whole nature of the thing , for it is the propperty of the attribute or thing , that is affirmed of another , to add clearness to the subject , or thing of which it is affirmed , by explaining the nature of the thing , intended to be demonstrated in the proposition , more fully ; otherwise the proposition would be ridiculous ; as if one should say , this bread is bread , or this my body is my body . this therefore in the proposition , this is my body , only discovers some real thing which appears in such a manner ; as for instance , the species of bread , to the senses , which our saviour , who was truth it self , who did know the truth of all things , and could alter the nature of any created thing , by his word , declares fully unto them to be his body , tho' under such an appearance ; so that , whether the change was made before , or at that very instant of time , when our lord spake the words , the latter of which is the general opinion of catholics ; the proposition is strictly true in a proper sense . i shall only premise one thing more , before i examin the authors pretended proofs from scripture , because i would by no means make the breach betwixt us wider than it is , which is this , that catholics acknowledge a figure in the sacrament , no less than protestants . thus the bread and wine , before consecration being distinct things , and separate one from the other , do resemble christs body and blood separated upon the cross , and his soul separated from his body , altho' they could not do this in their own nature ; and till , after the first institution , they were exposed upon the altar for such a use , as might make us consider them as such resemblances , since there is not so much of natural likeness , as to call the idea of the passion into our mind . we believe also , that after consecration , christs body in the sacrament under the veils of the species of bread and wine , is a figure , similitude , or examplar of the same body of christ , as it suffer'd upon the cross , in like manner as his body when newly born , was a resemblance , and exemplar , and express image of his body at full growth : but this we conclude , not from those words of our lord , this is my body , which must still be understood in a proper sense ; but from the nature of the thing it self , after the institution known to be made . from whence we firmly believe the body of christ to be there ; it being of the nature of a sacrament to represent and exhibit somthing more unto us , than what it outwardly appears to be . i now proceed to consider the expressions which the author produceth out of scripture , by which he would prove a figurative presence of christs body , in opposition to a real one in the catholic sense . and this being the main proof upon which those , who have renounced the authority of the church do pretend to build their faith , since they allow that nothing ought to be admitted as an article of faith which is not clearly deduced from hence ; and consequently nothing ought to be condemned as contrary to the christian faith , but what is manifestly repugnant to this . from hence then it is , that he should bring an evidence , which is able to overthrow the authority of so many councils , and several of them general ones , as have determined this point against him , and to shew plainly that the whole true visible church of christ , which hath for near mdcc years received the doctrin of the real presence of christs body , hath erred in so necessary a point of faith , and been guilty of idolatry , even grosser than that of the heathen world , as the author pretends ; notwithstanding the evidence of the same holy scripture , that the holy spirit shall lead it into all truth , and that the gates of hell shall not be able to prevail against it . let us see therefore how well he acquits himself in this vast enterprise , of so great concern to the christian world. his argument from scripture is this ; there are other expressions in scripture which are taken figuratively , therefore this must be so taken . out of the innumerable like expressions in holy scripture , as he is pleased to term them , he citeth two very different sorts : the first are barely figurative , such as are used in ordinary human discourse as well as scripture , without preparing of the mind of the hearer beforehand , that he may receive them . then he compares the words of our lords institution to a dream or vision of the night , that was to be interpreted , which indeed hath something more of resemblance than the former expressions which he alledgeth ; because it being known that the things which are represented in dreams and visions are not real but imaginary ; yet since they are sometimes considered as representing real things , that are to come to pass , they are of the nature of signs of institution , and so may come nearer to the case in hand . but he seems to be soon weary of these resemblances , which being so different in nature , one from the other , are not like to agree to the same third thing , the sacrament . then he flies from scripture to justin martyr's testimony concerning the ancient form of the passover used by the jews . yet he knows not whether he should stick to this expression , which is sacrifical or sacramental , and so most likely to resemble the sacramental , about which he argues ; or the former , which are not so . for he begins his periods thus : whether we consider the like expressions in scripture , as where our saviour saith , &c. or , whether we compare these words with the ancient form of the passover : and i am sure these are not of a like nature with the other . surely there is no man of common sense that can admit of such a sort of proof as this , from one author that so fluctuates in his judgment , since it hath the visible character of falshood in its very front , and condemns the real presence of christs body , in a proper sense , which was never openly contested in christs church till berengarius's time , ( nor so much as privately , till the time of pascasius , unless by those that denied the incarnation of our lord it self ) as well as the more explicit sense , transubstantiation , against the authority of all the doctors of the catholic church and its constant tradition for so many ages . but lest any one should be deceived with such a pretended evidence from scripture ; i shall shew plainly that never a one of these sorts of expressions , suits with this of our saviours in scripture , and that therefore most certainly all of them do not . the first , that are mentioned , are barely figurative expressions ; as where our saviour saith , i am the door , and the true vine ( and the church of rome may triumph in this , that our lord saith , that his flesh is truly meat 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , joh. 6. 55. ) the church is said to be christs body , and christ is termed a rock in a spiritual sense , 1 cor. 10. 4. they drank of that spiritual rock which followed them , and that which before is called a spiritual rock , without doubt was christ . though the author is pleas'd to leave out the word spiritual , but i would advise him to have a care of that curse which justly falls upon those that diminish from holy scripture , to favour a party . that i may the better demonstrate the dissimilitude of these , and the other figurative expressions , which are by the author alledged out of holy scripture , to that proper one of our lord , this is my body ; i shall lay down these rules to distinguish them by . 1. the desire which men have to make themselves to be understood , and to imprint lively ideas of that which they conceive themselves , in the minds of others , and of retaining them the better , doth naturally incline them to search for comparisons and resemblances , which may render the idea that they would form , the more sensible . the reason of which is , because things of sense do most affect the mind , and make the deepest and most lasting impressions ; and this rule is the ground of most metaphorical expressions , which are of so great use and ornament in human discourse . 2. hence it follows , that the qualities of the thing , which we affirm of another in this figurative way , should be more plain and familiar to us , or at least fully as plain as the thing of which we affirm it , otherwise it will not be fit to work the effect before mentioned . 3. the resemblance lies usually in but one , or but some few , at the most , of those qualities , wherein the thing that is affirmed is like to that thing whereof it is affirmed . 4. the inclination which men naturally have to abridge their discourse , joined with the desire of imprinting things in the mind , by sensible ideas , is the cause they ordinarily include these comparisons in the same words that the things they are compar'd to are exprest by , suppressing all the terms of relation , and expressing them , as if the things of which they speak , were really those things which they use as images to express them the more clearly by : thus we find it said , gen. 49. 9. judah is a lions whelp . v. 22. joseph is a fruitful bough . hos . 10. 1. israel is an empty vine . 5. the thing from which the resemblance is taken is generally more ignoble , and of an inferior order to that of which it is affirmed , as being more sensible ; for the objects of sense are inferior to those of pure understanding ; and heavenly things are of that exalted nature , that they cannot be compared to any thing that is above them . 6. therefore the terms are not convertible ( for altho' we call a man of courage a lion , by reason of the resemblance of the quality of boldness , yet we term not a lion a man. ) and the reason of this is , because in the subject is understood the whole idea of the thing expressed ; but in the predicate but some qualities . 7. altho' for the explaining a barely metaphorical expression , a parable or a dream , that which is properly the predicate be put in the place of the subject , yet it is rarely so used but upon such like occasions as this ; and then too it doth not lose its nature , but is the predicate still ; for we are not to mind the position of the words to find out the predicate , but the sense of the proposition : as in that proposition of our lord , joh. 6. 33. the bread of god is he which cometh down from heaven , he which cometh down from heaven , is the subject , altho' put in the place of the predicate , as is plain : so that , here the thing which is signified or resembled , is always the subject , and the thing signifying or resembling the predicate . 8. in metaphors you cannot punctually design the thing to which another is resembled by pointing to it , or , using a pronoun demonstrative ; as for instance , tho' christ in scripture be called a way , and a shepherd , yet you cannot say , christ is this way , pointing to some particular way , nor christ is this shepherd , demonstrating some particular man that is a shepherd ; nor on the other hand that this way is christ , this shepherd is christ . 9. none ever can pretend , that after a mere metaphorical allusion in way of doctrin , a real vertue should be imparted by receiving that thing to which another is compared : as when christ calls himself a vine in scripture , that the eating of the fruit of the vine should have conveyed christs blessing and vertue . it will be easie to discern the great disparity between the expression of our lord , this is my body , and those metaphorical ones which the author here alledgeth , by comparing them together , and examining them by the foregoing rules . our saviour calleth himself a door , because of the natural resemblance , which the mind , casting about for the meaning of this expression , immediatly , without any difficulty finds , and he himself declares ; for as by a door we enter into the house , so by christ we enter into heaven ; for through him the way is opened : a vine , in like manner , because from him all true believers as branches receive their nourishment and growth in grace , by which they are enabled to bear fruit : a rock , because from him the fountain of living waters doth spring : the church his body , because of the union of the members of his body one with another , and of all with the head , and the mutual assistance which they afford each to other , in which the spiritual body resembles a natural body . a by these sensible and easie comparisons the idea of the thing which our saviour expresses , by them , is more lively imprinted in our minds , and by this means the memory the better retains them : b these do explain the things of which they are affirmed , and render them the more familiar to us ; c and yet the resemblance lies in but one , or , at the most but some few of the qualities ; d the terms of relation are suppressed in the first proposal of these expressions , altho' explained afterwards , and one word includes the comparison . it is otherwise in the expression of our lord , this is my body , supposing that by the term , this , bread is meant in the sacramentarian sense ; ( 1 ) for the body of christ is not a fit thing to resemble bread by , the notion of bread is not the more sensibly imprinted , by comparing christs body with it , neither doth the memory by this means the better retain it ; the applying the idea of christs body ( 2 ) to bread doth not render the nature of bread more familiar , but on the contrary more abstruse and difficult to apprehend , ( 3 ) the resemblance lies in none of the visible qualities , ( 4 ) the terms of relation are not suppressed , for no such relation can be conceived . now to proceed ; e in the former expressions , the things which are expressed , are of an inferior nature to the things of which they are expressed , yet more sensible ; therefore the terms are not convertible : f for altho' it be said christ is the door , yet we cannot say of any particular door , that it is christ ; altho' it is affirmed that christ is the true vine , yet we cannot say of any vine , pointing to it , that it is christ ; altho' he be called a rock , yet we cannot say , designing some particular rock , that this rock is christ : for in that proposition , the rock was christ , we must not regard the order of the words , but the sense of the proposition to find out the subject and the predicate ; so that when it was said , the rock was christ , the meaning is , christ was typified by that rock , or christ was like that rock , unless we understand , as we ought to do from the preceding words of the apostle , by the term rock , a spiritual rock , and so he was really such a rock , and not typically so ; altho' it be said , that the church is the body of christ , yet we cannot affirm of the natural body of christ , that it is his church . it is g otherwise in the expression of our lord : for the predicate is here of the same nature with the subject , if understood in the sense of catholics ; it is of a superior nature , if understood in the sense of our adversaries ; the terms , if taken in the former sense are convertible ; for as it was said by christ , this is my body , meaning the thing that was contained under the visible species , so it might be affirmed of the same body , that it was , this ; which was thus contained : in the latter sense we may as well affirm , that the body of christ was bread , as that bread was the body of christ , for indeed neither of these could be truly affirmed , since these propositions , in this sense , would be false , and absurd , there being no sensible resemblance , nor no identity , for the terms are incompatible : and therefore we need not consider of the sense of them , to find out which is the subject , and which the predicate , for there is no true sense here to be found , nor no such relation , because our lord had not declared the bread to be a sign of institution , before he spoke these words , this is my body , and the bread was not naturally a sign of his body ; as shall be shewed in the ensuing discourse . well , but tho' the proposition seem so very absurd in this sense , where the body of christ is taken for the predicate , or thing by which bread is resembled ; yet if this , that is , the bread shew'd in christs hands , according to our adversaries , be taken for the predicate , meaning by the proposition , this is my body , that this bread is a resemblance of my body , they will say perhaps it is not so : but i shall prove it to be so , for these reasons . 1. because if the words were to be so understood , then if the predicate were restored to its proper place , the sense would be clear and obvious , as in that proposition of our lord ; joh. 6. 33. the bread of god is he which cometh down from heaven ; when we change the position of the words , and say , he which cometh down from heaven is the bread of god ; for now the subject and predicate have their proper places ; but it is otherwise in this proposition , this is my body , meaning by , this , the bread then demonstrated ; for you cannot say , without absurdity , that the body of christ is this bread , meaning some particular bread. 2. in metaphorical expressions the predicate is not put in the place of the subject at the first proposal of the similitude , parable , or the like ; but afterwards when the explanation is made , according to the sixth and seventh rules before mentioned . thus it was said by our lord , matt. 13. 24. the kingdom of heaven , ( that is , christ the son of man setting forth , and obtaining this kingdom for us ) is likened to a man that sowed good seed in his field ; before he would say by way of explication , ver. 37. he that sowed the good seed is the son of man , and when he had proposed the rest of the parable unto them ; then , by way of explication , it also follows ; the field is the world : the good seed are the children of the kingdom , but the tares are the children of the wicked one : which method is also used in the other parables of scripture , that are explained . 3. the predicate or thing resembling in these metaphors , whether it be put in the place of the subject , or in it's own , is never particularised by a pronoun demonstrative : for our lord doth not say , pointing to any husband-man , this is the son of man ; or of a field that he was in , this is the world ; or of any good grains of corn , that he sees sown , these are the children of the kingdom : so likewise it would have been improper to have said , this my body is bread ; or this bread is my body . lastly , those of the english church do pretend from these words of christ , this is my body , that there is some spiritual blessing or vertue of christs body ( tho' the body it self be not there ) annexed to the elements , or their reception , which , if they were but a mere metaphorical expression , like the rest mentioned by the author , it is highly unreasonable to conclude . therefore for this reason , as also for all the disparities before shewed , we may truly affirm , that there is no such resemblance , as the author pretends , between the foregoing expressions alledged out of scripture , where our saviour is call'd a vine , a door , &c. and that of our lord's institution , this is my body . i shall now proceed to examin the next that are cited , which are of a very different nature from the former . as when joseph expounding pharaohs dream to him , gen. 41. 26. says , the seven good kine are seven years , and the seven good ears of corn , are seven years : which expressions , as also that out of justin martyr that follows , the author compares to the words of christs institution . now , that i may shew , that there is no reason that our lords words should be taken in the figurative sense of these expressions , but contrarywise in a proper sense , i shall lay down these distinctions and rules to shew the disparity by . signs are either naturally so , as black clouds are a sign of rain , smoak is a sign of fire ; or else so , only by institution and agreement ; concerning which latter , i again distinguish . that of signs of institution , some have so much of natural resemblance , as that they may fitly be chosen to signifie and represent , altho' not enough to exhibit the idea of the thing upon the bare sight or mentioning , which afterwards by institution they are to signifie unto us ( thus a living creature sacrificed typifies , or signifies christ crucified upon the cross ; ) and some have not ; thus the word moses doth signifie such a man ; where there is no natural resemblance between these letters compounded into a word , and the person represented by them , but this depends upon mere institution and compact amongst men. 2. all rational discourse used amongst men is founded upon the imperfect penetration , at least , into the minds of those with whom we discourse , and the presumed knowledge of them . for we regulate our speech , according to the apprehension that we believe those , with whom we converse , have of it . if we believe mens minds to be prepared to understand our discourse , then we utter it to them ; if they are notable as yet to perceive what we say , then we must either prepare them beforehand , or else give a distinct and formal explication of our words , soon after we have uttered them , otherwise we abuse our auditors . from whence it follows , 3. that that sort of improper discourse , wherein we give the sign the name of the thing signified , or to the thing signified the name of the sign , being very rare , to make it intelligible , it is required , 1. that the sign be plainly instituted . 2. it must be justly presumed , that those to whom we speak , regard the thing as a sign , or else we ought to advertise them , that we intend to use it as so . for there is no example either in scripture or ordinary human discourse of a like expression to this of our lords , by which , at the very first constituting any thing into a sign , it is called the thing signified , without preparing the minds of the auditors to understand it so . to apply these rules to the case in hand , we must observe , that this dream or vision of pharaohs was a sign of institution , it having been appointed by god to signifie something to him : again , indeed this sign had some sort of fitness , in it's own nature , to be made a sign of what it was to represent , even more than bread hath to represent christs body , yet it could not exhibit to pharaohs mind the thing which it was to signifie without some explicit interpretation of good authority , and it was so obscure a sign , that none of all his magicians could give it . therefore pharaoh proposes this to joseph as a dream , gen. 41. v. 22. advertising him of what he saw in a dream ; which joseph undertaking to interpret , pharoah could not but consider his words as an interpretation of this sign of institution ; therefore by the second , and third rules , beforementioned , it was very rational for him to put the predicate in the place of the subject , the sign for the thing signified , by saying , the seven good kine are seven years , and the seven good ears of corn are seven years , that is , they signified or represented seven years of plenty ; since it is very well known that in the hebrew language things are commonly said to be that which they do signifie and represent : but then it must be known beforehand , that they do only signifie and represent ; otherwise it cannot be understood when they only express a resemblance , and when identity . on the contrary , if in the expression of our lord , this is my body , the bread had been a sign of institution , tho' it have some remote resemblance , yet since it could not of it self , before plain positive institution , bring the idea of the thing , supposed to be represented , to the mind , therefore since there was no such foregoing institution , or action to prepare the minds of the apostles to consider it as so , and these words of christ are no explication of a sign of institution , but must be the original institution it self of a sign , if any had been here made , and the apostles were no ways advertised before-hand to consider the bread as a sign ; since the predicate therefore could not rightly here be put in the place of the subject , much less a pronoun demonstrative be used according to a former rule ; therefore these words , this is my body , according to the known rules of human discourse , which it were blasphemy to say our lord would swerve from , so as to speak absurdly , do signifie that , that was his real body which he held in his hands , and not a sign only of his body , as our adversaries falsly pretend . neither do i believe , that any sensible man , who had never heard before of this figurative sense , which the author and sacramentarians have so often inculcated into their followers , as to make them prejudiced in the case , would upon reading the institution of the sacrament in the gospel , or if they had heard christ speak the words , ever have imagined that by these words , this is my body , no more was to be understood , than that , this , which christ held in his hands was only a sign of his body , any more than our saviours apostles and disciples could be made to understand the like words , john 6. 51 , 52. i am the living bread that came down from heaven . and the bread that i will give is my flesh , which i will give for the life of the world ( the jews therefore strove amongst themselves saying , how can this man give us his flesh to eat ? ) in that sense : but would have understood his meaning to have been thus : this which hath the outward appearance of bread is really my body , this which hath the resemblance of wine is my blood. not as the author fallaciously proposeth the meaning , this bread signifies my body , this cup signifies my blood , but that he should enjoyn them to do that which they then saw him do , that is , offer up , hereafter , his real body and blood , under the species of bread and wine , by way of an unbloody sacrifice , for a memorial of that bloody one of his body and blood , which he was soon after to offer up upon the cross . and in this great mystery , a true christian , one that hath an humble soul rightly disposed for the belief of our lords words , as st. augustin had , who speaking of our lord , saith : christ was carried in his own hands , when recommending to them his very body , he saith , this is my body . for he carried that body in his hands ; such a one i say , can readily believe that our saviour did properly , and really hold himself in his hand , and give away himself , but not from himself with his own hands ; by reason of the natural connection and concomitance which his sacred soul and divinity have with his body and blood , under the visible species of bread and wine . discourse . or whether we compare these words of our saviour with the ancient form of the passover used by the jews from ezra's time , as n justin martyr tells us , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , this passover is our saviour and our refuge : not that they believed the paschal lamb to be substantially changed either into god their saviour who delivered them out of the land of egypt , or into the messias the saviour whom they expected and who was signified by it : but this lamb which they did eat , did represent to them and put them in mind of that salvation which god wrought for their fathers in egypt , when by the slaying of a lamb and sprinkling the blood of it upon their doors their first-born were passed over and spared ; and did likewise foreshew the salvation of the messias , the lamb of god that was to take away the sins of the world. answer . the author having tried several very different sorts of expressions in holy scripture , with which he hath offer'd to compare the words of our lord's institution , seeming not at all to be satisfied in his mind , about their analogy to these , yet not able to discover any of a nearer resemblance , being at a great loss , hath recourse to the authority of an ancient father , and now he will either find one or make one , if he can , for his purpose . for considering that our saviour had just before this institution celebrated the passover , it might seem reasonable to conclude , that he should now imitate that manner of speaking which he used so very lately . therefore it is but finding , or coyning a paschal form of institution , suitable to the saying of our lord , this is my body , and he may think his work is done . what pity it is , that he could not discover one in all the scripture or fathers for his purpose , but that he must be forc't to use such pitiful sophistry as he here doth to impose upon his reader in this manner ? whether , saith he , we compare these words of our saviour with the ancient form of the passover used by the jews from ezra's time , as justin martyr tells us ; but where doth he tell us so ? there 's not a word said , by him , that , that which is cited here , was an ancient form of the passover , or that it was used by the jews from ezra's time ; this is a pure invention of the authors , which you will be fully convinced of , by consulting justin martyr himself , about the words , which were by the jews left out of those interpretations of ezra's , or esdras's , wherein he expounds the law of the passover , and which run thus : * esdras said to the people , this passover , sacrifice is our saviour and our refuge , but if you think , and it enter into your heart to conceive , that we render him abject in a sign , and afterwards place our hope in him , let not this place be forsaken for ever , saith the lord of hosts , and if you do not believe his words , nor hearken to his preaching , you will be had in derision by all nations . this is all that the father saith of the matter , where we find not one word said , of what the author cites , as being an ancient form of the passover used by the jews , but only that , in these words , esdras expounded the law of the passover to the people ; neither is here the least mention made of it's being used by the jews from esdras's time , all this is the mere fiction of our author , who did not consider , that , holy scripture , and learned authors amongst his own party , give us an account of the paschal forms that were used , which are quite different from this , which no author gives us as one but himself . for exod. 12. 11. god saith , it is the lord 's passover , or more explicitly , ver. 26. 27. it shall come to pass , when your children shall say unto you , what mean you by this service ? that ye shall say , it is the sacrifice of the lord 's passover . and ver. 13. it is said , the blood shall be to you for a token , or sign , and when i see the blood i will pass over you . and dr. hammond tells us that the lamb drest in the paschal supper , and set upon the table , was called , the body of the passover , or the body of the paschal lamb , ( not the body of christ , of which , notwithstanding , it was a sign and type ) another paschal form he tells us , was : this is the bread of affliction , referring to the unleavened bread : which forms are nothing like this expository phrase of esdras cited by justin martyr . well , but altho' this be not a paschal form , yet it is a certain expression which esdras used concerning the passover , and i shall now shew so great a disparity between it , as so considered , and that of our lords institution , as will plainly discover how falsly it is urged here to prove , that our lords words are metaphorical . for , 1. these words were true in a proper sense , which our adversaries will not allow christs to be : the , passover was a saviour or salvation ( 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a way of speaking used by other authors and explained in the following word ) and a refuge to the jews , in a strict sense , god having appointed it as a means and instrumental cause at least of their deliverance , at it's first institution , and it was a salvation and refuge to those who afterwards used it aright . why then may we not likewise conclude from hence , that , that which christ gave to his disciples , when he said , this is my body , was really his body ? 2. all the jews , who had a right understanding of things , considered the sacrifices , that were offered as types of christ the messias , and this of the passover more signally as so , as appears from this authority of esdras out of justin martyr , in these words , if you think that we render him abject in this sign , and afterwards place our hope in him ; therefore it was not at all unreasonable to attribute the thing signified to that which they regarded in their minds as a sign , by saying , this passover sacrifice is our saviour and our refuge : not that they could have any ground from hence to believe the paschal lamb to be substantially changed , either into god their saviour , who delivered them out of the land of egypt , or into the messias the saviour , whom they expected , and who was signifyed by it : but this lamb which they did eat , being known to be a sign of institution , did represent to them , and put them in mind of that salvation which god wrought for their fathers in egypt , when by the slaying of a lamb , and sprinkling the blood of it upon their doors , their first-born were passed over and spared ; and did likewise foreshew the salvation of the messias , the lamb of god that was to take away the sins of the world. now the bread , and wine , not having been at all discovered to be such signs of our saviours body and blood , to the disciples , nor consequently considered as so , it was against the rules of human discourse , to say they were his body and blood , if no more was meant , than that they were signs of them ; and as absurd , as for moses before the formal institution of the paschal sacrifice , recited at large in exod. 12. to have said to the people upon sacrificing a lamb , this is the lords passover . or this passover is your saviour . for it was to be known and considered as a passover sacrifice , and as a type of the messias , before he could reasonably have affirmed thus of it . 3. the jewish passover was a type of this sacrament , and so it is generally acknowledged by the * fathers to be ; now that there should be a sign of a sign only , a type of that , which it self was but a type , instituted by christ , is very unreasonable to imagin ; especially since we do not now live under a law of shadows and figures , but of verity and substance . since , therefore , the paschal lamb was really , and in a proper sense the sacrifice of the lords passover according to that true paschal form in * holy scripture , because a true paschal sacrifice was offered by the jews as well for a grateful acknowledgment of their past benefit , as of one that was certainly to come ; since this passover sacrifice was really a saviour , or salvation to the jews , as well as a type of the messias ; since the lamb drest in the paschal supper , was not only call'd , but really was , the body of the passover sacrifice , or paschal lamb , according to the foremention'd expressions of esdras , and the rabins , which , notwithstanding we can by no means allow to be paschal forms of constant usage , since they so vary from one another ; much less of divine institution , because no such are used in holy scripture ; since the bread which the jews eat , when they used that phrase , this is the bread of affliction , was real bread ; and all that eat this bread , as they ought to do , were really afflicted , when they seriously consider'd what their * fathers suffer'd in egypt ; because they also , for their own sins , deserv'd to suffer as much , this bread also being the same which their fathers did eat , viz. unleavened bread : surely none can be so hard of belief , as to imagin , after serious consideration , that there was less of truth and reality in our lords words , this is my body , in which , as is not improbable , he might imitate some of these phrases , than there was even in these expressions which were used under the law , of types and shadows . and to shew the analogy the more perfectly , and not to represent it partially , as our * adversaries do , we are further to consider , that as the bread of affliction , which was yearly eaten by the jews at the time of the paschal solemnity , was really bread , and of the same kind with that which their fathers did eat in egypt ; and was also a memorial of the first bread of this kind , which their fathers did eat ; as the paschal lamb that was yearly drest , and really eaten , was the real body of the passover sacrifice thus yearly offer'd , and was also to put the jews in mind of the first deliverance wrought upon the first paschal offering ; so christians , when they renew the sacrifice of eucharist , feed upon christs real body , which is the antitype of the paschal lamb , and at the same time * remember that first oblation which christ made of the same body , altho' in a different manner upon the cross . discourse . and nothing is more common in all languages than to give the name of the thing signified to the sign . as the delivery of a deed or writing under hand and seal is call'd a conveyance or making over of such an estate , and it is really so ; not the delivery of mere wax and parchment , but the conveyance of a real estate ; as truly and really to all effects and purposes of law , as if the very material houses and lands themselves could be and were actually delivered into my hands : in like manner the names of the things themselves made over to us in the new covenant of the gospel between god and man , are given to the signs and seals of that covenant . by baptism christians are said to be made partakers of the holy ghost , heb. 6. 4. and by the sacrament of the lord's supper we are said to communicate or to be made partakers of the body of christ which was broken , and of his blood which was shed for us , that is , of the real benefits of his death and passion . and thus st. paul speaks of this sacrament , 1 cor. 10. 16. the cup of blessing which we bless , is it not the communion of the blood of christ ? the bread which we break , is it not the communion of the body of christ ? but still it is bread , and he still calls it so , v. 17. for we being many are one bread and one body ; for we are partakers of that one bread. the church of rome might , if they pleased , as well argue from hence , that all christians are substantially changed , first into bread , and then into the natural body of christ by their participation of the sacrament , because they are said thereby to be one bread and one body . and the same apostle in the next chapter , after he had spoken of the consecration of the elements , still calls them the bread and the cup , in three verses together , as often as ye eat this bread , and drink this cup , v. 26. whosoever shall eat this bread , and drink this cup of the lord unworthily , v. 27. but let a man examin himself , and so let him eat of this bread and drink of that cup , v. 28. and our saviour himself when he had said , this is my blood of the new testament , immediately adds , * but i say unto you , i will not henceforth drink of this fruit of the vine , until i drink it new with you in my father's kingdom , that is , not till after his resurrection , which was the first step of his exaltation into the kingdom , given him by his father , when the scripture tells us he did eat and drink with his disciples . but that which i observe from our saviour's words is , that after the consecration of the cup and the delivering of it to his disciples to drink of it , he tells them that he would thenceforth drink no more of the fruit of the vine , which he had now drank with them , till after his resurrection . from whence it is plain that it was the fruit of the vine , real wine , which our saviour drank of and communicated to his disciples in the sacrament . answer . here , since neither the authority of the fathers , nor the word of god can afford the authors cause any relief , he at length flies to the laws of men , for it , where we shall see him immediately cast himself , and be non-suited at the very beginning of his trial. he tells us , that the delivery of a deed or writing under hand and seal is called a conveyance or making over of such an estate , ( that is , of a title to such an estate ) and that it really is so ; that we deny , unless there be possession also given , as i shall presently shew . and yet what do we affirm more of christs words in the sacrament , this is my body which is given for you , &c. which we have , taken from his own mouth by the hands of inspired pen-men , sealed by himself with miracles , and delivered to his church , than that they are a conveyance , or making over of his sacred body to us , and that they are so really , not only in sign or figure ? he proceeds to tell us , that this delivery of a deed or writing under hand and seal , is not the delivery of mere wax , and parchment , but the conveyance of a real estate , as truly and really to all effects and purposes of law , as if the material houses and lands themselves could be , and were actually delivered into my hands . well , but we say that a deed of feoffment takes not effect to all purposes of law , without livery and seisin , neither doth it convey an estate without that , nor a deed of release neither , unless the purchaser be put in possession , before hand , by a lease , and then too , not by the common law ; but so necessary is possession deemed for the through conveyance of an estate , that in case of absence from the land or the like , the law-makers have by a particular statute necessarily provided to give possession otherwise , for it is not necessary to the making a man in possession of an estate , that he should hold his land and house in his arms , or stand always upon the premises . but i hope the author will not so far endeavor to invalidate the common assurance of the nation , as to maintain , that because the man hath thus a conveyance of a real estate to all effects , and purposes of law , therefore he must not enter upon it , dwell in the house , reap the fruits of the ground , and nourish himself therewith , i imagin the purchaser will not be put off so . in like manner , the words of christ delivered , as his act and deed , by the priest his substitute , in the consecration of the sacrament for the use of those that are to communicate , is not the bare delivery of so many words only , but the making over of a real title to them , to the thing which is meant by them , that is , the body of our lord , as truly and really to all effects , and purposes of the gospel , as if it actually hung upon the cross before their eyes , in that form , and with the same configuration , and quality of parts as it once did . shall they therefore be hindred from taking immediate possession of what is thus made over to them ? no , this were too great a sacriledge against god , and violation of the property of a christian . they shall receive christs body and blood , that they may dwell in him and he in them . they shall partake of the fruits of the sacrament , as of a goodly heritage of their own , since christ hath given them a just right and title to it , and shall cherish their souls and bodies therewith to immortality . those who are contented only to hear of , or to see this goodly land , and not to go and possess it ; those who will leave their fathers house the catholic church , and go abroad to feed upon husks , and imaginary vertue , are the objects of our pity . so indeed there is a sort of a fiction in law , in the authors way of conveyance , of a tenant by deed or lease of possession , who notwithstanding hath nothing to do to enter upon the estate , or enjoy it ; if the author be contented with such a title only in the sacrament , i am sorry for him . and thus the similitude is reasonably applied , as for our adversaries way , who saith , that as the delivery of a deed or writing under hand and seal is call'd a conveyance or making over of such an estate , ( he should have prov'd that the deed is called the estate it self , and not only the conveyance of an estate , if he would have made this phrase any thing suitable to that of our lord , this is my body ) in like manner the names of the things themselves made over to us in the new covenant of the gospel between god and man , are given to the signs and seals of the covenant ; whereas there is no analogy between these things , nor truth neither in this instance . it is just as if one should say , that tenterden steeple were like the goodwin sands . i confess , i have often admired with my self at this sort of similitude , which protestants are mighty big with , pretending to illustrate their fond opinion about the sacrament clearly hereby , which being examined , proves as you see , but a mere tympany of the brain . the author having before told us , that nothing is more common in all languages than to give the name of the thing signified to the sign , proceeds now to give us examples of this out of holy scripture ; by baptism , saith he , christians are said to be partakers of the holy ghost , heb. 6. 4. and so they really are , and their bodies , are his temples : but since baptism is the sign , and the holy ghost the thing signified , according to him , why doth he not bring us one instance out of scripture of baptisms being called the holy ghost , as they pretend that bread in the words of institution is called christs body ? for this which he hath brought of baptism is no example to his common rule : we may reasonably conclude , that if the sacrament of baptism had been so very like this of the eucharist , as they would have it , it would have been instituted in a like form , but it is quite otherwise : for neither water , nor baptism it self are called in holy scripture the holy ghost , neither is there any form of cousecration of the element , delivered . indeed , by the sacrament of the lords supper we are also said to communicate , or to be made partakers of the body of christ which was broken , and his blood that was shed for us ; but that is his real body and blood together with all the real benefits of his death and passion , which do thereby accrue to us . and thus st. paul speaks of this sacrament , 1 cor. 10. 16. the cup of blessing which we bless , is it not the communion of the blood of christ ? the bread which we break , is it not the communion of the body of christ ? that is , after consecration , it really is so ; altho' the apostle calls it bread by a metaphor ( that being to our souls what the ordinary bread is to our bodies , true nourishment ) so also it is said that aarons rod devour'd the other rods , exod. 7. 12. altho' it was then become a serpent , v. 10. that water which was by our lord converted into wine is still called water , joh. 2. 9. the angels are called men , gen. 19. 8. because they appeared in the shape of men , according to the usual language of sense , very many instances of which are to be found : for our saviour had fully instructed them before , that the bread which he would give them was his flesh , joh. 6. 51. the apostle also saith again , v. 17. for we being many are one bread , and one body ; for we are partakers of that one bread , and that one bread can signifie nothing here but the body of christ , which indeed is but one , altho' appearing in innumerable place of the world at the same , and at several times , because it is still animated by the same one soul and divinity of christ ; which cannot be said of the bread in the sacrament , if but mere bread , for then it would not be one bread or loaf , but many , and of several sorts , being received at very many places at the same time : and the true reason here , why they are called one bread and one body or society of christians , is , because they are all partakers of that one bread , viz. the body of christ , and therefore also all inspired with the same spirit . but , in the authors sense , it would be no reason , but they should rather have been many bodies , because they did eat of so many breads : so that we see he hath still the same success , in bringing those texts of scripture to uphold his cause , which are the most pregnant proofs against him . he then proceeds to teach the catholics how they might argue in his new way , from a sign already instituted and known as so , to an aenigma , or dark saying , taken from things of a disparate and really different nature , and of no acknowledg'd resemblance , that is , from chalk to cheese ; but they beg his pardon for that . well , but the same apostle , in the next chapter , after he had spoken of the consecration of the elements , still calls them the bread and the cup in three verses together , as often as ye eat this bread , and drink this cup , v. 26. whosoever shall eat this bread and drink this cup of the lord unworthily , v. 27. but let a man examin himself , and so let him eat of that bread and drink of that cup , v. 28. it is true it was bread metaphorically , but it was still this bread with an emphasis , not such bread as you ordinarily eat , but the body of christ , which he told us was truly meat , or meat indeed , the true bread from heaven , john 6. 32. it was a cup , but it was this cup , that is , his blood , which was truly drink , or drink indeed , as he also hath taught us , john 6. 55. and after examination , let the true christian eat of that bread and drink of that cup , which will strengthen his body and soul both , much more than the ordinary bread and wine can his body only . our saviour himself , when he had said , this is my blood of the new testament , immediately adds , but i say unto you , i will not henceforth drink of this fruit of the vine ( that is of the true vine , as our lord is pleased to call himself , ) or of that wine , which by the words of benediction becomes my blood , being originally the fruit of the vine ; ( or possibly it may refer to the unconsecrated wine that was left in the vessels ) until i drink it new , that is fresh and newly consecrated again with you in my fathers kingdom , or after my resurrection , as some , with the author , interpret the place ; but as others more generally , till i drink of that new wine of another sort and nature , in the kingdom of my heavenly father , where we shall drink of the river of his pleasures , psal . 36. 8. and therefore the authors following observation is nothing worth . for after the apostles were satisfied that they really drank the blood of our lord in this sacrament , and fed upon his real body , it was an easy and familiar metaphor to call them bread and wine , because the outward species gave a sufficient hint , for the understanding of this figurative speech , suitable to the language of sense in the instances above mentioned , out of scripture ; and because there was true spiritual nourishment conveyed to the faithful by the body and blood of our saviour thus received , as there is corporeal nourishment received by the natural bread and wine , which we take for the refection of our bodies . discourse . besides , if we consider that he celebrated this sacrament before his passion , it is impossible these words should be understood literally of the natural body and blood of christ ; because it was his body broken and his blood shed , which he gave to his disciples , which if we understand literally of his natural body broken and his blood shed , then these words , this is my body which is broken , and this is my blood which is shed , could not be true , because his body was then whole and unbroken , and his blood not then shed ; nor could it be a propitiatory sacrifice ( as they affirm this sacrament to be ) unless they will say that propitiation was made before christ suffered : and it is likewise impossible that the disciples should understand these words literally , because they not only plainly saw that what he gave them was bread and wine , but they saw likewise as plainly that it was not his body which was given , but his body which gave that which was given ; no his body broken and this blood shed , because they saw him alive at that very time and beheld his body whole and unpierc'd ; and therefore they could not understand these words literally : if they did , can we imagine that the disciples , who upon all other occasions were so full of questions and objections , should make no difficulty of this matter ? nor so much as ask our saviour , how can these things be ? that they should not tell him , we see this to be bread and that to be wine , and we see thy body to be distinct from both ; we see thy body not broken , aud thy blood not shed . from all which it must needs be very evident , to any man that will impartially consider things , how little reason there is to understand those words of our saviour , this is my body , and this is my blood , in the sense of transubstantiation ; nay on the contrary , that there is very great reason and an evident necessity to understand them otherwise . i proceed to shew , answer . besides , if we consider that our lord celebrated this sacrament before his passion , it is impossible that these words should be understood otherwise than properly , of the real body and blood of christ ; because it was his body broken , and his blood poured out , which he gave to his disciples , which if we understand as figurative only of his natural body broken , and his blood shed , then these words , this is my body which is broken , and this is my blood which is shed , could not be true , because his natural , organized , and visible body was then whole and unbroken , and its blood not then shed ; yet that very body as broken in the sacrament was said to be * then given for them , that very blood as there poured out was said then to be poured out for the remission of sins : therefore it was a propitiatory sacrifice , although offered before , as well as after christ had suffered , to pay the full price of our redemption , because its whole nature did consist in the relation which it had to the sacrifice that was offered up for us upon the cross , from which it received all its vertue : it was very possible therefore for our lords disciples to understand these words properly , because although they plainly saw that what he gave them had the species of bread and wine , yet they believed him , when he said that it was his body that was given for them , although his body at the same time gave what was given ; his body broken and his blood poured out for them , although they saw him alive at that very time , and beheld his body whole and unpierced , because he had plainly told them so , who had the words of eternal life , and could not deceive them ; and for this reason they could not but understand his words properly : otherwise , can we imagin that the disciples , who upon all other occasions were so full of questions and objections , if they could have conceiv'd that these words were to be understood in a parabolical or improper sense , would not have desired an explication of them of our lord , as they did of other parables , which were more easy to be understood , than these words , in such a sense ? nor so much as ask our saviour , how can these things be ? that they should not tell him , we see this to be bread , and that to be wine , and we see thy body to be distinct from both ; we see thy body not broken , and thy blood not shed ; what therefore should be the meaning of these words ? or that our saviour the true guid , and greatest lover of souls , or any of his apostles after him , should never have given any explanation of them ? i have already shewed , in answer to the author , that the words of our lord , this is my body , could not , according to the rules of human discourse , be taken figuratively , so as to signifie this is a sign of my body , unless the apostles had bin before-hand prepared to understand them as so : there are no words recorded by any of the evangelists to dispose them to believe the words in such a sense , nor any indeed , that relate to the matter , unless it be some sayings of our lord in the sixth chapter of saint johns gospel , that were delivered before the institution of the eucharist , which i shall now , consider , for the further clearing of the point , as also those words of saint luke , this do in remembrance of me , used by our lord , at the time of the institution ; and prove that none of these expressions do at all favor our adversaries figurative sense , but the clean contrary . we read in the sixth chapter of saint john's gospel , that our saviour had prepared the minds of his disciples before-hand , by two great miracles , both which tended towards the strengthning of their faith in the sacred eucharist ; the * former being a figure of this sacrament , since in it he multiplied five loaves , so as to make them feed five thousand persons , altho' the fragments which remained filled twelve baskets , and were more in quantity than the five loaves were at the first ; so that they needed not to doubt , but he could feed as many thousands as he pleas'd with his own precious body , exhibited under the species of bread , in the blessed sacrament , and yet his body be still one and the same : the latter shewing them , that he could convey his body how and whither he pleased , which made them ask him , when they saw him on the other side the sea , without taking ship at the shore , rabbi , when camest thou hither ? then he proceeds to instruct them in three of the greatest mysteries of religion . 1. his incarnation , or coming down from heaven , and taking human flesh upon him ; from verse 27. where he also gives them a hint of the blessed sacrament , that meat that perisheth not , to v. 51. 2. the real presence of his body , and manducation thereof , in the sacrament ( which wonderful presence there , the fathers did ever compare to the incarnation it self ) from v. 51 , to v. 59. 3. the ascension is mentioned , to prove the two former mysteries . v. 62. our saviour , having styled himself the bread of life , towards the beginning of the discourse of the incarnation , v. 33 , and 35. after some explication made of this , repeats it again twice , v. 49 , and 51 , to inculcate it the better into his disciples minds : and then instructs them how they should be partakers of this bread ; not by believing only , that the son of god came down from heaven , and was made man , taking upon him human flesh , but by feeding upon his flesh in the sacrament , which being a deep mystery , that they might not doubt of the truth of it , he explains to them what he meant , when he said . v. 51. i am the living bread which came down from heaven , if any man eat of me , he shall live for ever ; not by telling them , that by this bread is meant the doctrin , which he taught , or that by , eating this bread , is to be understood , the believing of this doctrin , in a metaphorical or parabolical sense , as the socinians , and sacramentarians fondly imagin ; or in like manner as he explained the parable of the sower that sowed good seed , telling them that the field is the world , the good seed are the children of the kingdom ; or as when he had said , i have meat to eat which ye know not of , he explained himself by saying , my meat is to do the will of him that sent me , putting the predicate in the place of the subject in the manner before hinted , and saying , the bread is my word or the doctrin that i teach ; but quite otherwise , he assures them , that the bread , that he will give them , is his flesh , which he promiseth to give for the life of the world , and which , by an elegant metaphor , christ calleth bread , because it was to afford nourishment to the soul and body both , in a spiritual manner in the sacrament , as the ordinary bread , was to nourish the body , in a carnal manner , by way of corporeal digestion , out of the sacrament : and there is no doubt but the jews understood our lord in a proper sense , when they said , v. 52. how can this man give us his flesh to eat ? our saviour did not answer this doubt , by telling them , ( as he easily might have done in the sacramentarian way ) that no more was meant but believing stedfastly in his death , and applying to themselves the merits of it , and which explication he would have certainly given them , then , or afterwards , by himself or by his disciples , if no more had bin meant than so ; as he did in the case of parables , less difficult to understand , than this would have bin , if it had bin by our lord proposed as one ; but proceeds , to deliver this profound mystery to them , in more express words , using a vehement asseveration to confirm the truth of it : verily , verily i say unto you , except ye eat the flesh of the son of man , and drink his blood , ye have no life in you : whoso eateth my flesh , and drinketh my blood , hath eternal life , and i will raise him up at the last day : for my flesh is * truly meat , my blood is truly drink : he that eateth my flesh , and drinketh my blood , dwelleth in me , and i in him : as the living father hath sent me , and i live by the father : so he that eateth me , even he shall live by me : this is that bread which came down from heaven ; not as your fathers did eat manna , and are dead : he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever : all which words , being used by our lord , to clear the doubt , and answer that question of the jews , how can this man give us his flesh to eat ? i cannot imagin , how the real presence of christs body , and its manducation in the sacrament , could have bin more fully asserted , in order to the disposing of his disciples to believe the sense of the reality , when he should institute his blessed sacrament : and so the * fathers interpret this place : and do not say , that the manna , mentioned in the 58 verse , which was miraculously sent from heaven , was a type of ordinary bread , made by the hands of men , and set upon the table , which is of a far more ignoble nature and less significant , than the manna which thus came down from heaven ; but of the real body of christ in the sacrament , which was the true bread from heaven , that nourished to immortality : after our saviour had spoke thus to them , many of the disciples themselves , to whom christ did not think fit as yet to reveal the manner of feeding upon his body in the blessed sacrament , thinking that he meant , that his body was to be eaten in a gross manner , like the capernaites , cried out , this is a hard saying , who can hear it ? to whom , as well as to the jews , who before are said to murmur at him ; because he said , i am the bread which came down from heaven ; and that ask , how this man could give them his flesh to eat ? our lord replies , doth this offend you , and then clears the doctrins to them , as far as he judg'd convenient for the confirmation of such high mysteries , about which they were to exercise a strong and a lively faith , by saying thus , v. 62. what and if ye shall see the son of man ascend up where he was before ? as if he should have said , if you do not yet believe , that the son of man came down from heaven , yet when you see him ascend thither again , you will be more ready to believe , that it was really god who came down , took flesh and dwelt amongst you ; which solution had relation chiefly to the former of the mysteries , viz. his incarnation ; but withal insinuates , that such as believe not his words touching the holy sacrament , and think it impossible for him , to give his body to be eaten in so many places at once , being yet on earth , would be much more scandalized and tempted after they saw or knew him to have ascended into heaven . therefore , to clear the latter mystery , and solve their doubt , who thought , like the capernaites , that christ was to have cut pieces of flesh from his body , and to have given them to be eaten ; or that thought his body to be that of a mere man , he tells them , v. 63. it is the spirit that quickneth , the flesh profiteth nothing , that is , the flesh , which he had told them before that they must eat , altho' not in the gross manner , without the spirit profiteth nothing ; not but that by the spirit quickning it , it profits very much ; suitable to that of st. paul. 1 cor. 8. 1. knowledge puffeth up , but charity edifieth , that is , knowledge without charity puffeth up , altho' when chariy is joyned with it to enliven it , it edifies , and charity it self edifieth by knowledge : for if these words of christ were to be taken in the sense of the sacramentarians , they would derogate no less from his incarnation , manhood and death , than from the real presence of his body in the sacrament , in all which , without doubt , the flesh profiteth very much : wherefore , our lord goes on to tell them here , that , the words , which he spake unto them , were spirit and life , therefore not to be understood in the gross carnal sense , before mentioned , which some of his disciples took them in : for it is the use of the scripture , to call mans natural sense , carnal reasoning , and resisting , or not reaching to the belief of supernatural truths , flesh and blood , as , matth. 16. 17. flesh and blood revealed not this to thee , &c. but , the words , that i speak unto you , they are spirit and life ; therefore , not to be carnally understood : but as by the word of god , the world was created , and nature hath been , since , often chang'd ; so , there is no doubt but christ could , by it , change the bread into his body , as he did daily , by ordinary natural nutrition ; but , * here in a supernatural way . our lord , therefore , said unto them , that their fathers did eat manna , in the wilderness , which was but a type of this heavenly manna in the sacrament , and yet they did spiritually feed upon christ the messias ; for it is said , 1 cor. 10. 3 , 4. that , they did all eat the same spiritual meat , and did all drink the same spiritual drink ; for they drank of that spiritual rock that followed them , and that rock was christ , and yet they are dead , all of them a temporal , some of them an eternal death also ; and those of them which now live the life eternal , received this life from the son of god , who hath now given us the antitype of that manna which the children of israel did eat , viz. his own body in the sacrament , something of a far more excellent nature to feed upon , which will be to our bodies , as well as to our souls the seed of immortality , the instrument , and pledge of our resurrection , ascension , and glorification . yet as our lord said to his disciples , there are some of you which believe not , so we may say still of the sacramentarians , who , notwithstanding all that christ hath said , will admit of nothing but signs , and figures of imaginary vertue ( whom nevertheless our saviour hath no further instructed in any such easie sense , as this , which might certainly have prevented their relapse as well as that of the jews , his disciples , and which if any such sense had been to be admitted , would most certainly have been given ) that they will not believe our lord , and therefore they go away and will walk no more with him in the communion of his church . having , thus , made it to appear , that these words of christs institution , this is my body , according to the rules of human discourse , ought to be taken in a proper sense , not only if considered in themselves , but especially if we regard what christ hath said before touching the sacrament , to dispose his apostles thus to believe them ; it will necessarily follow , that those words also of the institution , this do in remembrance of me ( which relate chiefly to the priests power and duty , as the other did to the body of christ in the sacrament , and which st. paul explains in these words , as often as ye eat this bread and drink this cup ye shew the lords death till he come , ) ought not to be considered as a determination of the former words of the institution in a figurative sense after the sacramentarian way , but as a declaration of one great end of the sacrament , viz. the calling to mind , and setting forth of christs death till he comes , which is so far from being a reason to prove , that christs body is not really there , that on the contrary , this commemoration and annunciation is founded upon the real presence of christs sacrificed body and blood in this sacrament ; since without this , it could not be done so effectually in christs church as now it is . for , as the jews , in eating the peace-offerings , did remember that they were slain for them ; so by offering here the real body of christ , after the manner of an unbloody sacrifice , we commemorate , and set forth , in this lively exemplar , that bloody sacrifice , which christ himself offered in a different manner upon the cross , and receive the benefit thereof ; which we need not to question , since he gives us daily of this victim to feed upon in the blessed sacrament , tho' without the horror of blood. shall christians , then , under a pretence of celebrating the memory of the passion in the eucharist , evacuate christs institution , by taking away , from this pious commemoration , that which , he out of his tender love , hath given us as most efficacious in it , for the good of our bodies ( into which this sacrifice of christs body being received , sanctifies them , and consecrates and prepares them for a glorious resurrection ) as wells as for the good of our souls ? ought we not to consider , that jesus christ doth , not only command us to remember him , but likewise that we should do this by feeding upon his sacramented body and blood , since he doth not say , that bread and wine should be a memorial of his body and blood , but that in doing what he prescribes us to do , which is , that in receiving his body and blood , we should remember him ? and what more precious and lively memorial could he give to his disciples , and to all his beloved children , what better legacy could he bequeath them , at his departure out of the world , than this ? if the the primitive christians were inflamed with zeal and devotion when they approached to the monuments , where the bodies only of holy martyrs , lay intombed ; more especially , if they could but touch any of their precious reliqus , being by this means stirred up to a pious memorial , and imitation of their holy lives and deaths ; and therefore , did religiously preserve the smallest pieces , and even the nails of that cross , upon which christ suffered , commemorating thereby his holy passion ; how much more then should our memory , and love be excited , when we approach to the holy altar , and know , that we receive there , tho' veiled under the sacred symbols , the very body and blood of our lord , who sacrificed himself for us , enlivened and quickened by his grace and spirit ? i could now proceed to shew , for the further confirmation of what i have here alledged , from the authority of holy scripture , that unless the words of st. johns gospel above mentioned , as also the words of our saviours institution , be taken in the sense of the reality or transubstantiation , that there is no promise to be found , in holy writ , of any spiritual vertue to accompany this sacrament ; so that , our adversaries , whilst they are so eager to oppose the reality , do , as much as in them lies , destroy the nature , and end of this blessed institution , and have no argument at all to use against the socinian , who denies the real vertue , as well as the real presence of christs body , in the sacrament : which is the reason , why , i do sometimes term this vertue , ( which the author , without ground conceives to be in this ordinance , tho' separate from christs real body ) imaginary ; because there is no reason to conclude the vertue of the body to be here , from scripture , unless the body be so too ; not that i would derogate at all from the vertue of christs body , which by reason of the hypostatical union is infinite . but this task is already performed by a learned modern * author : and the reader may easily discern the truth of what i have here asserted , by inspecting such places of holy scripture as relate to this sacrament , into the number of which they will not allow the sixth chapter of st. johns gospel to be admitted . having therefore thus explained those places of holy scripture which relate to the blessed sacrament , as also those other forms of speaking , both of divine and human authority , which the author is pleas'd to compare with the words of our lords institution , and shew'd , upon comparing them together , that they will not at all fit his purpose , but prove the quite contrary to what he would have them to do : i shall now sum up such of the reasons and arguments for the understanding the words , in which our saviour instituted this blessed sacrament , in a proper sense ( as the catholic church expounds them ) as are plainly deduced from the nature and end of this holy institution , and the manner of expressing it in holy scripture ( which i intreat the christian reader seriously to consider of ) and so conclude this head of discourse . 1. because christ the great lover of souls never spake to his apostles and disciples in figures and parables which had any obscurity or difficult sense , ( especially , if the discourse related to the practice of a necessary duty ) with an intention to keep them in ignorance ; but * that their humble and well disposed minds might be the more excited and inflamed with a desire of inquiring into and understanding the true meaning of what he said , and that they might the better retain it : and because in all such cases , even of less difficulty than this of the sacrament ( as particularly in the parable of the sower of seed , altho' the mystery , concerning the success of the gospel which was herein prefigured , was not necessary for every one to know , as that of the eucharist was ) christ did fully explain himself to his disciples , who were also to instruct others . therefore since the words of the institution of the blessed sacrament , if understood figuratively , as the protestants , and particularly the author , would have them to be , must need be allow'd to be obscure and difficult , because they differ so much among themselves , as well as from the catholic church , about the meaning of them , and yet none of the evangelists nor st. paul , altho ' varying in expressing the words of institution , have inserted any words which in the least explain the sense to be figurative or parabolical ; hence it follows , that the church hath great reason to understand them properly . 2. because now , just upon our lords passion , it was the time for figures and shadows to vanish , and for truth and reality to appear ; and our lord was instituting the great sacrament of christian religion , he could not therefore speak with too much force and efficacy , especially , since he now spake to his apostles in private , to whom he was used , at such times , to speak very plainly . 3. because christ was making his last will and testament , which was to be expressed in such plain and distinct terms , that there might be no just reason for his children to contend about their legacy : and can we be so unworthy as to imagin , that in this his last and kindest bequest , he left us no more but a morsel of common dry bread to eat , and a little ordinary wine and water to drink , in remembrance of him ; whereas a kind and good natur'd man will leave his most precious jewel to his dear friend to remember him by , when he departs from him to take a long journy and to make any considerable stay ? a good father when he is to dye , thinks all his best goods and possessions too little to leave his children . he was also delivering a commandment to observe , which that it might be rightly executed , ought to be promulged in a manner very intelligible . 4. our lord was near his death , and therefore it was a time to avoid obscurity in speech , since he was not to continue any longer amongst them to interpret it . 5. our saviour in the choice of these words had not only regard to the apostles , but he likewise spake them to all the church in all succeeding ages , and knew certainly , when he pronounced them , how they would always construe them ; and yet , for the confirmation of the sense of the reality , did never suffer it to be call'd in question so much as privately , for almost a thousand years , when also the whole body of his pastors who were endu'd with extraordinary light and assistance of his holy spirit , to enable them to interpret aright the divine misteries , had already just before in a three councils agreed upon this sense , as that which had been constantly receiv'd in the church ever since our saviours time , and which was more explicitly b declared against that one c dissenter who sometime after appear'd against it , but was ashamed of his opinion and recanted . lastly , if we consider , as hath been now fully prov'd , that all the places of holy scripture , as also all other forms of human discourse which are alledged by our adversaries , as like to this of our lords institution , are wholly different from it , shewing them the quite contrary to what they pretend them for , and that our saviour did neither before , at , or after the institution any ways prepare or dispose his disciples to understand these words in a figurative sence , it must needs be very evident to any man that will impartially regard things , that because christ ever spake reasonably , and in a manner conformable to good sense , and his power infinitely exceeds the capacity of our minds ; therefore there is no reason to understand those words of our saviours , this is my body , and this is my blood in a metaphorical sense , as the author and the sacramentarins do , but an evident necessity to believe them in that proper sense , which * necessarily inferreth transubstantiation , as the catholic church doth , since scripture interpreted by the rules of human discourse , as also the tradition and authority of this church oblige us so to do : the latter of which is to be the subject of the second part of the answer to the discourse against transubstantiation . the contents of the first part of the answer to the discourse against transubstantiation . 1. it is shew'd that our adversary doth not rightly state the point . page 1 2. what is meant by transubstantiation . 4 3. the argument from sense shew'd to be senseless . ibid. 4. the catholic faith is ridicul'd by the adversary . 7 5. the real presence and transubstantiation depends on gods veracity . 9 6. no transubstantiation an article of faith with our adversaries , and establish'd with penalties . 10 7. the method of the ensuing discourse . 11 8. the necessity of understanding our lords words in the sense of the real presence or transubstantiation . 13 9. the sense of the schoolmen corrupted , and their problematical discourse mistaken for their conclusion by the adversary . 16 10. the disparity between the figurative expressions in holy scripture , and the words of institution , this is my body , shews that the latter are to be taken properly . 25 , &c. 11. principles upon which the ensuing discourse is grounded . ibid. 12. how catholics interpret the words of institution , and how protestants . 26 13. in what sense catholics allow a figure in the sacrament . 28 14. rules to judg of metaphorical expressions by . 31 , 2. 15. the application of the forgoing rules : by which it appears , that those merely metaphorical expressions of our saviors being a door , a vine , &c. are not at all like to the form of consecration , this is my body . 33 , &c. 16. a metaphor conveys no spiritual vertue . page 36 17. the exposition of pharaoh's dream doth not resemble the sacred words of consecration , this is my body . ibid. 18. distinctions and rules for the following discourse of the nature of signs . ibid. 19. application of the foregoing rules and distinctions . 37 20. the analogy which the words of institution , this is my body , might have to the paschal form in scripture , or to those phrases cited from esdras , or any of the rabins , doth not prove that christs words here , are taken figuratively and not in a proper sense . 40 21. a deeds being call'd a conveyance doth not prove that the words , this is my body , are not to be taken properly . 46 22. texts of scripture examined , and prov'd not at all to favour the sense of the author of the discourse against transsubstantiation . 47 23. christ's body being broken , and his bloud being poured out , for the remission of sins , before he was crucified , proves the sense of the reality , or transubstantiation . 52. 24. the 6th chapter of s. john's gospel interpreted , as relating to the blessed sacrament . 54 , &c. 25. the words , do this in remembrance of me , explain'd . 59. 26. the real vertue of christs body in the sacrament cannot be prov'd from scripture , unless the real presence of his body it self be admitted . 60 27. further reasons from scripture for the proper sense of the words of institution , which necessarily inferreth transubstantiation . 61 28. the conclusion of this head of discourse upon scripture authority for the real presence and transubstantiation ; and of the first part of the answer to the discourse against transubstantiation . 63 finis . notes, typically marginal, from the original text notes for div a41629-e270 * publisht at dublin . a mr. arnauds two last volums concerning the perpetuity of the faith , &c. b pa. 42. of the discourse against transubstantiation . resp . ad apol. bell. c. 7. p. 11. * vid. two discourses concerning the adoration of our blessed saviour in the eucharist , &c. c. 2. of the first discourse . printed at oxford , an 1687. * dr. burnet in his history of the reformation part 2. p. 390. of the reign of qu. elizabeth . see also dr. heylins cyprianus anglicus , p. 22. in the introduction . * part 2. of hist . reform . p. 405. * in psal . 98. * can. 6. de eucharistia in sancto eucharistiae sacramento christum unigenitum dei filium cultu latriae adorandum . * in a treatise intitled several conferences . &c. a pag. 65. * see their 28 art. of religion which confirms the body of christ to be given , taken and eaten in the supper after an heavenly and spiritual manner , and catec . where it is said , the body and blood of christ are verily and in deed taken and received . the forecited author doth not well defend this doctrin . * sess . 13. c. 1. neque enim haec inter se pugnant , juxta modum existendi naturalem salvatorem nostrum in coelis assidere ad dextram patris & nobis substantiâ suā adesse praesentem sacramentaliter , eâ existendi ratione ; quam etsi verbis exprimere vix possumus , possibilem lamen esse deo cogitatione per fidem illustratâ assequi possumus . * paschasius epist . ad frudegard — miror quid volunt quidem nunc dicere , non in re esse veritatem carnis christi , vel sanguinis ; sed in sacramento virtutem quandam carnis & non carnem . — concerning which real presence it is said : vsque ad praesens nemo deerrasse legitur , nisi qui de christo erraverunt , and futher — quamvis ex hoc quidam de ignorantia errent , nemo tamen est adhuc in aperto . qui hoc ita esse contradicat , quod totus orbis credit & confitetur . * de christo loquens concilium , eujus corpus & sanguis in sacramento altaris , sub speciebus panis & vini veraciter continentur , transubstantiatis pane in corpus , & vino in sanguinem , potestate divinâ . concil . lateranense 4. generale , anno christi 1215. vid. in binnio . c. 1. p. 806. * historia concil . triden . francofurti edit . 1521. lib. 4. pa. 367. in congregatione mox generali statutum , in dogmate conficiendo verbis uti quam paucissimis , iisque adeo universalibus , ut uirisque , viz. scoti . & thomae sectatoribus , quaent satisfacere , & ad uiriusque partis sensum commodè aptari . a in parte seconda del istoria del concilio di trento l. 12. cap. primo . speaking of the definitions of the council , hath these words : le quali tutte sono cosi circuspette che tolora paiono in cercar forme di parole lontane da ogni sembianza di pregiudicio à veruna delle classi teologiche . e percio niente si volle determinare , intorno al modo della presenza sacramentale di cristo . b praesentiam credimus nec minus quam vos veram , de modo praesentiae nihil temerè definimus ; addo , nec anxie inquiramus . bishop andrews , resp . ad apoll. bell. c. 1. p. 11. 1 cor. 15. 38. * vt enim illic verbi dei gratia sanctum efficit illud corpus cujus firmamentum ex pane constabat , & ipsum etiam quodammodo panis erat , sic etiam hic panis , ut ait apostolus , per verbum dei & orationem sanctificatur , non quia comeditur eo progrediens ut verbi corpus evadat , sed statim per verbum in corpus mutatur , ( 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ) ut dictum est à verbo , hoc est corpus meum . catecbet . orat. c. 37. a dr. taylor of the real presence . pa. 237. b idem liberty of prophecying . §. 20. n. 16. c dr. stillingfleet rat. account , p. 117. and 565. d bishop forbes p. 395. vid. etiam confessionem theologorum , wirtemberg . in confess . a. 1552. * sess . 13. de euchar. c. 4. quoniam autem christus redemptor noster , corpus suum id , quod subspecie panis offerebat verè esse dixit , ideo persuasum semper in ecclesia dei fuit , idque nunc sancta haec synodus declarat , per consecrationem panis & vini conversionem fieri totius substantiae panis in substantiam corporis christi domini nostri , & totius substantiae vini in substantiam sanguinis ejus , quae conversio convenienter & propriè à sanctae catholica ecclesia transubstantiatio est appellata . * see also p. 26 , 27. of the answer . * see veteres vindicati . in an expostulatory letter to mr. sclater of putney , pa. 57. * observe that this is no induction but rather a sorites , altho' the author knew not how to put the subject and predicate in their right places . see any common logic. * see expostulatory letter , pa. 58. * pag. 33. &c. * ipse panis & vinum transmutantur in corpus & sanguinem dei. nec quicquam nobis amplius perspectum & exploratum est quam quod verbum dei verum est & efficax , atque omnipotens . s. johan . damascen . lib. 3. orthodox . fidei . c. 14. a caligula . * see p. 11. in the discourse against transubstantiation , edit . londini , 1684. * pag. 102. a brief discourse of the real presence , printed 1686. and licenc'd by guil. needham archiep. cant. à sac. domest . * viz. the author of the brief discourse , &c. cited supra . notes for div a41629-e3880 our adversary doth not rightly state the point . see two discourses concerning the adoration of our b. saviour in the sacrament printed at oxford , 1687. pag. 1. 8. what is meant by transubstantiation . a s. augustin . putaverunt quod praecisurus esset dominus particulas quasdam de corpore suo & daturus illis , & dixerunt , durus est hic sermo , ipsi erant duri , non sermo . in psal . 98. adorate scabellum , &c. the argument from sense shew'd to be senseless . * quod vidistis panis est & calix , quod vobis etiam oculi vestri renunciant , quod autem fides vestra postulat instruenda , panis est corpus christi , & calix sanguis ejus . augustinus serm ad infant . the catholic faith ridiculd by the adversary . the real presence depends on gods veracity . no-transubstantiation an article of faith with our adversaries , and establisht with penalties . see the penal laws and tests . the method of the ensuing discourse . the necessity of understanding our lords words in the sense of the real presence . luke 22. 20. * hoc simulachrum est virgo quod filium dei peperit . * solecophanes . * contra westphal : hoc quidem saepe diximus , quod nunc quoque repetam , retineri reipsa non posse , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in his christi verbis , hoc est corpus meum quin transubstantiatio papistica stauatur . compare * joh. 19. 36. a bone of him shall not be broken , with 1 cor. 11. 24. this is my body which is broken for you which gave occasion to st. chrysostome to say of christ , that that which he did not suffer upon the cross for the love of thee , he suffers in the eucharist : this is my body which is broken for you . a de euch. l. 3. c. 23. b in 3 dis . 49. qu. 75. sect. 2. c in 3 part . disp . 180. qu. 75. art . 2. c. 5. d in sent. l. 4. dist . 11. qu. 1. n. 15. e in 4 sent. qu. 5 & quodl . 4. qu 3. f in 4 sent. qu. 6. art . 2. g in canon miss . lect. 40. h in aquin. 3 part . qu. 75. art . 1. i aegid . conink . de sacram. q. 75 art . 1 n. 13. k de sacram. l. 2 c. 3. l loc. theolog. l. 3. c 3. m contra cajtiv . babylon c 10. n. 2. the sense of the schoolmen corrupted and their problematical discourse mistaken for their conclusion by the adversary . see all the citations above in the margent of the author's last section as they are plac'd in order . * si dicas , quod christus , dicendo , hoc est corpus meum , expressè instru it panem non remanere , quia tunc esset propesitio falsa , hoc non cogit , quia dato quod substantia panis maneret , non demonstratur substantia panis , sed contentum sub pane ; sicut modo . monstrantur accidentia , quia tunc esset propositio falsa , sed est sensus , hoc quod erit contentum sub signo sensibili est corpus meum . a scotus ubi supra . ponitur veritas aliquorum credendorum magis explicite quam hibeatur in symbolo apostolorum , vel athanasii , vel nicaeno , & breviter quicquid ibi dicitur esse crederdum tenendum est de substantia fidei , & hoc post illam declarationem solemnem factum ab ecclesia — dico quod eo sensu expesitae sunt scripturae quo conditie . — et ideo hunc intellectum eligit , quia verus est ; non enim in potestate ecclesiae fuit facere istud verum vel non verum , sed dei instituentis ; s●d intellectum a deo traditum ecclesia explicuit , &c. * omnino , altogether . * see the preface 〈◊〉 this discourse . b durandus tria solide ponit . primo , quod substantia panis & vini convertitur in substantiam corporis christi . secundo , quod mediante tali conversione corpus & sanguis christi virtute divina habent talem ordinem seu harbitudinem ad species , sub quibus fuerunt panis & vinum quod sunt eis r●aliter praesentes . tertio , quod quamvis ille modus sit de facto , non est tamen negan lum quin alius modus sit deo possibilis : concluding for the first he gives his reasons for it : 1. in his quae sunt fidei non est semper eligendum illud ad quod sequuntur pauciores difficultates , &c. 2. quod illud solum efficitur in hoc sacramento principaliter , quod significatur per formam verborum . — utrumque efficitur in hoc sacramento , scilicet existentia corporis christi & conversio panis . c so he that writes the scholia upon this author , ib. n. 13. vana sunt ergo quae ex hoc suarez & sotus objiciunt contra scotum , cui falso imponit sotas , quod asserat ecclesiam accepisse transubstantiationem a doctoribus . vid. etiam card. peron . de his auctoritatibus . d ochamus . in altari est vera transubstantiatio corporis christi , sed hoc potest multis modis poni . vno modo ponendo quod remaneat ibi substantia panis , & cum hoc quod corpus christi coexistit substantiae illi , ita quod prima substantia sit deserens accidentia , secunda non , sed tantum coexistens : alio modo quod recedat substantia panis subito de illo loco ad alium locum , & remaneant accidentia , & eis coexistat corpus christi . tertio , quod redigatur in materiam per se stantem , viz. aliam formam recipientem , & hoc sive in eodem sive in alio , & tunc illi materiae & accidentibus coexistat corpus christi . quarto , quod substantia panis redigatur in nihil . quodlibet istorum est possible . e petrus ab alliaco card. tertia , opinio fuit , quod substantia panis remanet ; & hoc potest dupliciter imaginari , uno modo : — quod remaneat ibidem ubi corpus christi incipit esse , & sic diceretur substantia panis transire in substantiam corporis : quoniam ubi est hoc , incipit esse illa , &c — prior quidem ille modus est possil illis , nec repugnant rationi , nec repugnant rationi , nec actoritati bibile , imo est facilior ad intelligendum , & rationaliiror quam aliquis corum . f gabriel biel. quamvis expresse tradatur in scripturae , quod corpus christi veraeiter sub speciebus panis continetur , & a side●ibus sumitur , tamen quomodo ibi sit christi corpus , an per conversionem alicujus in ipsum : an sine conversione incipiat esse corpus christi cum pane ●●a●●ntibus subst●ntia & acci●●tibus panis , non invenitur expressum in canone bibliae . g contarenus cardinal . omnes theologi conveniunt , licet non sit proditum in sacris , rationis tamen ductum sequentes , quod fieri istud non queat motu locali , sed mutatione quadam sub●tantiae panis in corpus christi , quam appellant transubstantiationem . h melchior cenus . nonnulla per spiritum veritatis explicuit ecclesia , quae in sacris literis habentur obscura . — ecclesia haereticos judicat contrariorum dogmatum auctores . a de evangeliis loquens , ait , neque ullum hic verbum positum est quo probetur , in nostra missa veram fieri carnis & sanguinis christi praesentiam . nam etsi christus ex pane carnem suam , & ex vino sanguinem effecerit , non ob id consequitur virtute alicujus verbi hic positi nos quoties id ipsum tentaverimu , idem effecturos . ib. cap. 10. not . 2. edit . wirceburgi a. m. d. xcvii . citra patrum interpretationem , & usum nobis ab eisdem traditum , nemo probabit ex ipsis nudis evangelii verbis sacerdotem quempiam veram christi carnem & sanguinem consecrare . — nam ut largiamur , christum apostolis dixisse , ut ex luca & paulo , non propterea consequitur quod omnibus eorum posteris eandem tradiderit potestatem . nam illis data fuit potestas ejiciendi daemones . b contra captivitat . babil . c. 4. n. 11. de patribus concilii lateranensis quarti loquens . si substantia panis in christi corpus convertatur quemadmodum illi definerunt , non debuit aliter dixisse christus quam dixerit . si maneat substantia panis , quanquam tunc aliter dixisse christus debuerat , tamen per unius adjectionem voculae potuisset totam hanc discordiam sustulisse . nam si dixisset hic panis est corpus meum , hoc vinum est sanguis meus , omnis omnino sublata fuit controversia . the disparity between the figurative expressions in h. scripture and the words of institution , this is my body , shews that the latter are to be taken properly . principles upon which the ensuing discourse is grounded . see m. arnaud tom. 2. 1 , 1. 2 , 3. fusè de hac re . how catholics interpret the words of institution , and how protestants . in what sense catholics allow a figure in the sacrament . rules to judge of metaphorical expressions by . the application of the foregoing rules : by which it appears , that those merely metaphorical expressions of our saviours being a door , a vine , &c. are not at all like to the form of consecration , this is my body . a see rule 1. b see rule 2. c see rule 3. d see rule 4. contrary to r. r. r. 2. r. 3. r. 4. e see rules 5 , 6 : f see rules 7 , 8. g contrary to r. 5 , 6 , 7 , 8. see rule 7. see rule 3. a metaphor conveys no spiritual vertue . see rule 9. pharaohs dream doth not resemble the sacred words of consecration , this is my body . distinctions and rules for the following discourse of the nature of signs . application of the foregoing rules and distinctions . ferebatur christus in manibus suis , quando commendans ipsum corpus suum , ait , hoc est corpus meum . ferebat enim illud corpus in manibus suis . aug. comment . in ps . 33. n dialog . cum tryph. p. 297. edit . paris . 1639. the analogy which the words of institution , this is my body , might have to the paschal form in scripture , or to those phrases cited from esdras , or any of the rabins , do not prove that christs words here , are to be taken figutively and not in a proper sense . * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 * see in their authorities , infra . * exod. 1● . 27. * deut. 16. 3. * vid. a discourse of the holy eucharist . edit . a. 1687. p. 12. * vid. exposition of the words , do this in remembrance of me , infra . * matth. 26. 29. a deed 's being call'd a conveyance doth not prove that the words this is my body , are not to be taken properly . other texts of scripture examin'd , and prov'd , not at all to favor the authors sense . christs body's being broken , and his blood being poured out for the remission of sins , before he was crucified , proves the sense of the reality . * luke 22. 19 , 20. this is my body , which is given for you , in the prensent tense . see also the words of institution as recited by the other two evangelists , all in the present tense . c. 22. 19. the 6. of st. john's gospel interpreted as relating to the blessed sacrament . * from v. 9. to v. 15. v. 22. v. 25. matth. 13. 24. john 4. 32 , 34. john 6. 51. vers . 53 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8. * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . * see the authorities , infra . v. 41. * v. d. gregorium nyssen infra . the words , this do in remembrance of me , explained . the real vertue of christs body in the sacrament , cannot be proved from scripture unless the real presence of the body be admitted . * m. arnaul de la perpetuite de la foy , &c. tom. 2. reasons from scripture for the proper sense of the words of institution . * see dr. hammond in matt. 13. 13. a viz the constantian●p●litan , the second general one at nice , and that of frankford . b in the council of rome under gregory 7. &c. c beren●arius . * see the introduction an historical treatise, written by an author of the communion of the church of rome, touching transubstantiation wherein is made appear, that according to the principles of that church, this doctrine cannot be an article of faith. traitté d'un autheur de la communion romaine touchant la transsubstantiation. english dufour de longuerue, louis, 1652-1733. 1687 approx. 226 kb of xml-encoded text transcribed from 41 1-bit group-iv tiff page images. text creation partnership, ann arbor, mi ; oxford (uk) : 2005-12 (eebo-tcp phase 1). a36765 wing d2457 estc r5606 12704989 ocm 12704989 66013 this keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the early english books online text creation partnership. this phase i text is available for reuse, according to the terms of creative commons 0 1.0 universal . the text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission. early english books online. (eebo-tcp ; phase 1, no. a36765) transcribed from: (early english books online ; image set 66013) images scanned from microfilm: (early english books, 1641-1700 ; 688:20) an historical treatise, written by an author of the communion of the church of rome, touching transubstantiation wherein is made appear, that according to the principles of that church, this doctrine cannot be an article of faith. traitté d'un autheur de la communion romaine touchant la transsubstantiation. english dufour de longuerue, louis, 1652-1733. wake, william, 1657-1737. the second edition. [8], 73 p. printed for richard chiswell ..., london : 1687. translation of traitté d'un autheur de la communion romaine touchant la transsubstantiation. running title: an historical treatise of transubstantiation. addenda: p. 73. includes bibliographical references. translated by william wake. first edition of same year has title: a treatise ... reproduction of original in huntington library. created by converting tcp files to tei p5 using tcp2tei.xsl, tei @ oxford. re-processed by university of nebraska-lincoln and northwestern, with changes to facilitate morpho-syntactic tagging. gap elements of known extent have been transformed into placeholder characters or elements to simplify the filling in of gaps by user contributors. eebo-tcp is a partnership between the universities of michigan and oxford and the publisher proquest to create accurately transcribed and encoded texts based on the image sets published by proquest via their early english books online (eebo) database (http://eebo.chadwyck.com). the general aim of eebo-tcp is to encode one copy (usually the first edition) of every monographic english-language title published between 1473 and 1700 available in eebo. eebo-tcp aimed to produce large quantities of textual data within the usual project restraints of time and funding, and therefore chose to create diplomatic transcriptions (as opposed to critical editions) with light-touch, mainly structural encoding based on the text encoding initiative (http://www.tei-c.org). the eebo-tcp project was divided into two phases. the 25,363 texts created during phase 1 of the project have been released into the public domain as of 1 january 2015. anyone can now take and use these texts for their own purposes, but we respectfully request that due credit and attribution is given to their original source. users should be aware of the process of creating the tcp texts, and therefore of any assumptions that can be made about the data. text selection was based on the new cambridge bibliography of english literature (ncbel). if an author (or for an anonymous work, the title) appears in ncbel, then their works are eligible for inclusion. selection was intended to range over a wide variety of subject areas, to reflect the true nature of the print record of the period. in general, first editions of a works in english were prioritized, although there are a number of works in other languages, notably latin and welsh, included and sometimes a second or later edition of a work was chosen if there was a compelling reason to do so. image sets were sent to external keying companies for transcription and basic encoding. quality assurance was then carried out by editorial teams in oxford and michigan. 5% (or 5 pages, whichever is the greater) of each text was proofread for accuracy and those which did not meet qa standards were returned to the keyers to be redone. after proofreading, the encoding was enhanced and/or corrected and characters marked as illegible were corrected where possible up to a limit of 100 instances per text. any remaining illegibles were encoded as <gap>s. understanding these processes should make clear that, while the overall quality of tcp data is very good, some errors will remain and some readable characters will be marked as illegible. users should bear in mind that in all likelihood such instances will never have been looked at by a tcp editor. the texts were encoded and linked to page images in accordance with level 4 of the tei in libraries guidelines. copies of the texts have been issued variously as sgml (tcp schema; ascii text with mnemonic sdata character entities); displayable xml (tcp schema; characters represented either as utf-8 unicode or text strings within braces); or lossless xml (tei p5, characters represented either as utf-8 unicode or tei g elements). keying and markup guidelines are available at the text creation partnership web site . eng transubstantiation. 2004-11 tcp assigned for keying and markup 2005-02 apex covantage keyed and coded from proquest page images 2005-04 olivia bottum sampled and proofread 2005-04 olivia bottum text and markup reviewed and edited 2005-10 pfs batch review (qc) and xml conversion an historical treatise written by an author of the communion of the church of rome . touching transubstantiation . wherein is made appear , that according to the principles of that church , this doctrine cannot be an article of faith . the second edition . london , printed for richard chiswell , at the rose and crown in s. paul's church-yard . mdclxxxvii . the preface . it is well known that there are in the communion of the church of rome , a great many learned persons , that do not approve of all which it teacheth , and that do earnestly long for a reformation , although they remain within its bosome . but it is no less true that there 's but very few , that have the courage to make their thoughts known , and 't is no hard matter to guess at the reasons of it . in the last age , one picherel , and some others of great note , wrote solid treatises on certain matters of controversie , and explain'd themselves just as protestants do now . and in the present , monsieur de marca did the same , on the doctine of the eucharist , and barnes , an eminent benedictine , on most of the principal questions wherein protestants differ from the church of rome . but as if every one feared such usage as father paolo , and poor barnes found , for the liberty they had taken , the works of these sincere and learned men , have almost always been supprest during their life-time , and not suffer'd to come abroad till after their decease . it is therefore something more than ordinary , to behold the work of a person now living , and of the communion of the church of rome , that dares shew the like affection for the reformation of his church in the doctrine of the eucharist , and that heartily wishes , the bishops and clergy of france , would take it into their serious consideration . this person is considerable for his quality , but much more for his great learning . he was an intimate friend of the late monsieur de launoy's , a noted divine of the faculty of paris , who mightily desired to see a free council , wherein men might speak their thoughts touching the reforming of the romish church ; and it plainly appears he was of the same judgment with this eminent person , touching the doctrine of transubstantiation . the reader may rest assured that the author's manuscript copy has been exactly follow'd in the edition of this work ; which not only his letters , now in our hands , will justifie , but also the original of these papers , which he sent to a friend to be printed . it is to be hoped the world will not take it ill , if the author of this work be not more particularly described , which could not be done without exposing him to the malice of those who use all manner of ways to destroy such of their party , as do own the truth . it nearly behoves the bishops and clergy of france , to make some serious reflections upon what the author thought fit to represent to them concerning transubstantiation . the same might have been said to the other articles of the romish belief , which are rejected by protestants , as so many additions to the ancient faith of the primitive christians ; which are impos'd upon mens consciences by the clergy , by such unheard-of ways , and that are so contrary to the nature of religion . if such remonstrances as these , are not of sufficient force to make them change their proceedings against protestants ; they will at least serve to shew their injustice before men , and will one day aggravate their condemnation before the tribunal of god. the contents . introduction . the method proposed by the assembly of the clergy of france to judge of articles of faith. pag. 1 this method admitted by protestants . 2 transubstantiation to be examined by it . ib. part i. that several of the doctors of the church of rome have confess'd that transubstantiation is no ancient doctrine . 3 so suarez . 3 scotus . ib. d'alliaeo . ib. card. cusa . ib. erasmus . ib. alphonsus à castro . 4 tonstal , bishop of durham . ib. cassander . ib. ch. du . moulin . ib. j. yribarne . ib. mons. de marca . ib. part ii. that the ancients did not believe transubstantiation . proved : in general . first , the papists themselves confess , that transubstantiation is not expresly mentioned not taught in scripture . 5 so , scotus . ib. ockham . ib. alphonsus de castro . ib. gabriel biel. ib. card. cajetane . ib. secondly , that transubstantiation comprehending infinite difficulties , we do not yet find that either the jews or gentiles have objected any thing to the christians in their disputes against it . ib. not trypho . ib. not celsus . ib. not julian . ib. who yet have traduced most of the mysteries of our religion . 7 which plainly shews that transubstantiation was not then known . ib. in particular . transubstantiation was not believed by any of the fathers of the church . this shewn in those of the several ages . cent . ii. justine martyr . 8 irenaeus . 9 clemens alexandr . 10 theodotus . ib. cent iii. tertullian . 11 origen . 13 cyprian . 15 cent . iv. eustathius . 16 eusebius caesariensis . ib. cyrillus hierosol . 17 macharius . ib. s. basil. 18 ephrem edessenus . ib. epiphanius . 19 gregorius naz. ib. gregorius nyssen . 20 s. ambrose . 21 gaudentius . 22 s. chrysostom . ib. cent . v. s. jerome . 26 s. austine . 27 theodoret. 37 arnobius jun. 38 prosper . ib. hesychius . 39 procopius gazeus . ib. p. gelasius . 40 cent . vi. fulgentius . 41 ephrem antioch . ib. facundus . ib. primasius . 42 cent . vii , viii . isidorus hispalensis . 43 beda . 44 sedulius . ib. jo. damascenus . ib. concil . constantinop . 45 alcuinus . 46 carolus m. 47 officium ambrosianum . ib. ordo romanus . ib. cent . ix . theodorus studita . 48 ahyto . ib. theodulphus . 49 rabanus . 51 amalarius . 52 walafridus strabo . 54 herribald . ib. trudegard . 55 ratramne . ib. jo. erigena . 56 prudentius . 58 christian drutmar . ib. florus diacon . 60 cent . x. alferic , a. b. cant. 61 wolphinus . ib. saxon homil. ib. fulcuinus . 62 herriger . ib. monast. cluny . ib. ratherius . 63 cent . xi . auth. life of s. genulphe . 64 leuthericus . ib. fulbertus . ib. berno . 65 bruno . 66 gregory vii . p. ib. theophylact. 67 nicetas pectoratus . ib. chronicon malleac . ib. cent . xii . honorius . 67 rupertus . 68 zonaras . ib. amalaricus . ib. cent . xiii . &c. of the council of lateran . 69 that several after it did not believe transubstantiation . guido le gros. 69 reginald peacock . 70 guido cluv. 71 jo. of paris . ib. albert. m. 72. durand . ib. cornelius bp. of bitonte . ib. dominicus bannes . ib. conclus . to the clergy of france , that they ought not to press upon the protestants the belief of transubstantiation . 72 an historical treatise of transubstantiation . written by one of the church of rome . the bishops of france in their last assembly held at paris in the year 1682. compos'd a pastoral letter addressed to the protestants , to invite them to return to the communion of the church of rome . and because in order to put an end to their differences in matters of religion , some rule must be agreed on to be received by the different parties ; they laid down several principles which they called methods , as fit to be made use of , whereby to judge what should be received as an article of faith. in the fourth method they laid down as a maxim , that the true means to discern what relates to matter of faith , or not ; is to see if the article which is to be admitted , was always believed as matter of faith ; that is to say , that the french bishops admitted in their pastoral letter , the maxim which vincentius lyrinensis left us above 1100. years ago ; that great care must be taken to retain in the catholick church , what hath been believed every where , by all , and at all times , as being the true means whereby to discern what is matter of faith , and what is not . this same is the rule given by pope pius the fourth , who obliges them to swear in the profession of faith , added to the council of trent , that the holy scriptures should not be interpreted , † but by the unanimous consent of the ancient fathers . the protestants have thought this maxim so reasonable , that monsieur larroque a french minister , saith in his preface to the history of the eucharist , that he believes there is no man of sense , but ought to admit of it . and it was received as a rule of faith by the reform'd church of england , by philip melancthon , by peter martyr , gallasius , scultetus , casaubon , grotius , vessius , beza , and by gesselius , ( who recites their authorities , ) in the preface of his history of memorable things from the creation of the world , to the year of christ , 1125. seeing therefore that the bishops of france have propos'd to us so just a method , let us examine if the doctrine of transubstantiation be a doctrine of faith ; and prove it , not because the council of trent has defin'd it so ; or that the council of lateran in the year 1215. suppos'd it to be so , non quia ipsam quam tenemus fidem commendaverit milevitanus optatus , vel mediolanensis ambrosius , aut quia collegarum nostrorum conciliis ipsa praedicta est , saith s. austin against the donatists , de unit . eccles. cap. 16. but because 't is contain'd in the holy scriptures , and understood in that sense by the unanimous consent of the doctors and councils that have gone before us . this is what we now undertake to perform by the assistance of god's holy spirit , and with a disposition of mind free from all malice and prejudice , according to what caesar saith in salust , in the beginning of the book of cataline , omnes homines qui de rebus dubiis consultant , ab ira & odio vacuos esse debere , & haud facile animum pervidere verum , ubi illa officiunt . and st. austin upon the book against the letter of the manichean , by them called the letter of foundation ; ut autem facilius mitescatis , &c. nemo nostrum se jam quaeramus quasi ab utrisque nesciatur , ita enim diligenter & concorditer quaeri poterit , si nulla temeraria prasumptions inventa & cognita esse credatur . but not to over-burthen this small treatise with too great a number of arguments or citations , we will chiefly examine two things ; first , who those catholick doctors are , that believed the doctrine of transubstantiation not to be ancient . secondly , if what those doctors have writ be true : and whether we can indeed produce sufficient authorities to believe that the ancient church did not hold nor believe it . part i. in the first place , that there have been catholick doctors which have taught , that transubstantiation is no ancient doctrine , * suarez formally asserteth it , although indeed he saith , their opinion ought to be corrected . the truth , is , peter lombard master of the sentences , saith expresly , si quaeras qualis sit illa conversio , an formalis , an substantialis , an alterius generis , definire non audeo . secondly , † scotus saith , that there were formerly three opinions touching the changing the bread into the body of christ , the first of which held that the bread remain'd in the eucharist , in the paragraph , quantum ergo ad istum articulum , &c. he saith , that at present the church of rome holds transubstantiation . nunc ⸫ autem ipsa tenet ( sancta rom. ecclesia ) panem transubstantiari . and a little under , he saith , ad tertium ubi stat vis , dicendum quod ecclesia declaravit istum intellectum esse de veritate fidei , in illo symbolo edito sub innocentio tertio in concilio lateraenensi . and since this declaration made by this council held in the year 1215. it . is an article of faith. tenendum est esse de substantia fidei , & hoc post istam declarationem solemnem . * bellarmine doth own that scotus did believe transubstantiation was no article of faith before the council of lateram under innocent the third ; but he adds , that 't was because scotus did not know of the council held under gregory the seventh , and that he had not read the authorities of the fathers which saith bellarmine , i have now recited . thirdly , † peter dayly , cardinal and bishop of cambray saith , it doth not clearly follow from the determination of the church , that the substance of bread ceaseth , therefore he doth not believe this to be the ancient doctrine . fourthly , * cardinal cusa , excit . l. 6. serm. 40. super una oblatione , consummavit , &c. saith , that there were some ancient divines which did not believe transubstantiation . fifthly , † erasmus in his notes on the first to the corinthians , saith , that it was late ere the church established transubstantiation . * sixthly , alphonsus à castro , saith , that the ancient writers very seldom spake of transubstantiation . seventhly , † tonstall bishop of durham about the middle of the last century , speaking of the breads being changed into the body of christ , saith , it were much better to leave it to the liberty of christians to believe as they pleas'd , of the manner in which this change is made , as it was practis'd in the church , before the council of lateran . eighthly , cassander in his consultation with the emperour maximilian the second , touching the differences of religion , confesseth that transubstantiation is a novelty , and that 't were much better to keep to the terms of the ancients ; that the abuses therein , approach near to idolatry . ninthly , charles du moulin , the oracle of the french civilians , upon the edicts and ordinances of france , against the injuries of popes , num. 406. speaks in these terms ; innocent the third , forged , or at least established it as a general article of faith , and as necessary to be believed by all , as that of the holy trinity , the transubstantiation of the bread and wine into the true body and true blood of jesus christ. tenthly , john yribarne a spanish divine , in the 4th . sent. dist. 11. q. 3. disp. 42. s. 1. saith , that in the primitive church is was matter of faith , that the body of jesus christ was contain'd under the species of bread and wine , but that 't was not any matter of faith to hold that the substance of bread was changed into the flesh of jesus christ , and that it subsisted no longer after consecration . eleventhly , monsieur de marca , archbishop of paris in his posthumous dissertations , saith , in his french treatise of the sacrament of the eucharist , that until s. chrysostom's time , it was believed the bread was the body of jesus christ by a marvelous change that comes on the bread ; but that it becomes united to the incarnate word and to his natural body , the bread not changing its nature , and yet not going into the draught ; which is a kind of pious consideration which he added against origen . part ii. as for the second point , which is to see if there is effectively to be found in the writings of the ancients , sufficient authorities to believe that the ancients did not believe transubstantiation . before i alledge their authorities , two reflections may be made . first , that our own authors do observe , that transubstantiation is not expresly mention'd nor taught in the scriptures . * scotus cited by bellarmine , of the eucharist , lib. 3. cap. 23. saith , it doth not plainly follow from the words of jesus christ , this is my body , that the bread is transubstantiated . † ockam saith of transubstantiation , that it cannot be proved by natural reason , nor by authority of the bible , but only by the authority of the ancients . * alfonsus de castro disapproves what ockham says , that it can be proved by the authority of the ancients , for he saith , that it was not to be found , no more than indulgences were , in the writings of the ancients . gabriel † biel speaking of transubstantiation , saith , that it is not expresly taught in the holy scriptures . cardinal * cajetan does not find the words of jesus christ this is my body , clear , neither for the real presence , nor for transubstantiation , without the determination of the church be joyned to them . the second reflection , is that transubstantiation comprehending a great many difficulties quite contrary to natural reason , none of the jews nor pagan philosophers , disputing against the ancient christians , ever dream'd of making any objections against it in their disputations . trypho the jew charges us with things monstrous , incredible , and strangely invented ; as what we teach of jesus christ's being before aaron , and abraham , that he took on him our nature , that he was horn of a virgin , that god should be born , be made man ; that we should adore a man , that we should put our trust in him , and that we should invoke another god besides the creator , all this appears in s. justin martyr , in his dialogue against trypho . the pagans reproach us for saying god has a son , that this son should appear in humane shape , and they stile it the follies of the christian discipline ; that god should be born , and that he should be born of a virgin , and be a god of flesh , crucised and buried ; the last judgment , the pains of eternal fire , the joys of heaven , the resurrection of the dead . all this appears by clement of alexandria stromat . l. 6. by tertullian his apologet. ch . 21. 47. in his treatise of the flesh of christ , ch . 4. and 5. and in his treatise of the testimony of the soul , ch . 4. by s. justin in his second apology , and arnobius in his second book . celsus , in * origen , scoffs at the incarnation , as of a thing unworthy of god. in the sixth book , he laughs that we should believe god should be born of a virgin. in the third and eighth book , he saith of christians , that they honour with a religious worship even above all religion , a man that was a prisoner and that suffered death . he even thereby pleads for the plurality of his gods : as if christians were not satisfi'd in worshipping one god , under colour that they adored jesus christ ; if christians , saith he in the eighth book , worshipped but one god , they might have some colour to despise others . but they pay infinite honours to him that has but very lately appear'd , and yet they don't think they displease god when they serve and honour his minister . julian the apostate oppos'd the mystery of the incarnation , the divinity of jesus christ , the salvation he purchas'd for us by the price of his blood ; he reproaches us with the glorious title of mother of god , which we give to the blessed virgin ; he contests the mystery of the trinity of persons and unity of essence , accusing us of contradicting moses , who said , there is but one god. he reproaches us for baptism ; see , saith he , what paul saith to them , that they are sanctified and cleansed by water , as if water could penetrate to the soul , to wash and purifie it ; baptism can't so much as cleanse a leper , nor a scurf , it cannot heal a cancer nor the gout . he aggravates what we read , that god visits the iniquity of the fathers upon the children , thereby to endeavour to attack the doctrine of original sin. he boldly questions what god saith in the book of numbers touching phineas , that thrust his javelin through the body of an israelite that committed folly with a midianitish woman , which turn'd away god's anger from the children of israel , and hinder'd him from consuming them . let us suppose , saith he , that there had been to the number of one thousand that had attempted to have transgressed the law of god , ought six hundred thousand to have been destroy'd for the sake of one thousand ; it seems to me to have been much juster to have saved one ill man with so many good ones , than to involve so much good men in the ruine of one bad one . there 's scarce any of our mysteries that have not been censur'd by the jews or pagans ; yet 't is very strange that not one should accuse us of admitting in the eucharist , accidents without substance , whiteness without any thing that 's white , roundness without any thing round ; weight without any thing that 's weighty ; a corruption whereunto the species are subject , without any thing that 's capable of being corrupted ; a nourishment in the symbols , without any thing that can nourish ; a power in the wine to be smelt without any thing that may be smelled . no body ever reproach'd us with so strange a thing , that a man with one word should destroy a substance which he holdeth in his hands , and that nevertheless against the testimony of all the senses , i see that which is no more ; i feel that which i do not feel , i taste that which i do not taste , i understand that which i do not understand ; i touch that which i do not touch , that i should be nourished with nothing ; that my taste should be delighted with nothing ; that my eyes and ears should de struck with nothing . the three reflections we have hitherto made , that many of the antient catholick doctors have not believed transubstantiation to be antient ; that they have judged it could not evidently be deduced from the holy scriptures ; and , that the antient pagan philosophers have not reproached us with it , are three very strong suppositions to make us mightily doubt the antiquity of this doctrine . but to shew evidently that 't was but in the last ages that this opinion was made an article of faith , we need only consult the doctors of the primitive church , and see if they have effectively explain'd the eucharist by the systeme of transubstantiation . that the fathers of the second century did not believe transubstantiation . s. iustin martyr saith , that after the common prayers were ended , there was presented to the chief of the brethren , which was god's minister , the bread and the wine , mixt with water , which he receiv'd into his hands , and giving thanks and glory to the father of heaven and earth , through iesus christ his son , and the holy ghost , &c. and the said president or minister having ended his thanksgiving , the people having all said amen , those whom we call deacons and ministers , attending on this holy service , give to every one present at the holy communion , part of this holy bread , so blessed and glorify'd ; and also of the holy liquor mixt of wine and water , upon which prayers had been made . and a little lower , behold , lord , we do not receive this bread nor this wine as common bread and wine , but as iesus christ is become flesh and blood by the word , so also the nourishment which by the word is become a sacrament , and of which by conversion and change , our flesh and blood are nourish'd , is as we have learned , the flesh and blood of iesus christ incarnate . if st. iustin had believed that the substance of the bread , wine , and water had been changed after consecration , so that they had been destroy'd , how could he have said , that after consecration the deacons did distribute to the people the bread , the wine , and the water ? secondly , when he saith , we do not take this bread and wine as common bread and wine : this language amongst the antient doctors intimates , that both the one and the other do still subsist , but that by consecration , they have acquir'd a new use and quality . as when cyril of ierusalem catech. 3. ad illum . saith , approach not to baptism as to common water . or as gregory nyssen saith of baptism , do not despise the holy font , and look not upon it as common water . to conclude , this blessed martyr saith , our body and blood are nourish'd by the change of the eucharistical food , which converts and turns it self into our flesh and blood. these words plainly shew , that 't is the bread and wine which are turn'd into our substance , into our flesh , and into our blood , seeing that 't is certain , that the real flesh and blood of jesus christ , is not converted into our flesh and blood. so when iustin saith , that the sacramental food is the body and blood of jesus christ , that imports , that 't is not common bread and wine , but a bread and wine which is to be consider'd as the flesh and blood of the word incarnate . s. irenaeus proves against valentine and his followers , that our bodies shall not be destroy'd , and by consequence that they shall be raised incorruptible by receiving the sacrament , as the bread of the eucharist becomes supernatural by the invocation of the holy ghost . we establish in the eucharist , saith s. irenaeus , the communion and unity of the flesh and of the spirit ; for as the bread which is of the earth , receiving the invocation of god , is no longer common bread , but is the sacrament compos'd of two things , one terrestrial , and the other celestial : so also our bodies which receive the eucharist , are no longer corruptible , but have the hope of a future resurrection . this passage doth suppose , that the bread remains in the eucharist ; in the first place , because if consecration did destroy the substance of the bread and wine , it must be confess'd the holy doctor had taken wrong measures , to shew that the flesh is not destroy'd by the grace of the holy spirit , by the bread of the eucharist , which it self should be destroy'd by the grace of the spirit which comes upon it . secondly , because a little before , irenaeus saith , how is it they say , the flesh shall be destroy'd and turn to corruption , seeing it is nourish'd with the body and blood of christ ? now the flesh is fed by the conversion of nourishment into the body , which not being to be said of iesus christ , is only to be apply'd to the bread. moreover these words , that the eucharist is compos'd of two things , sufficiently shew , that the bread remains ; for to say irenaeus means by a terrestrial thing , the accidents of bread & wine , besides that s. austin saith in the second book of soliloquies , chap. 12. that 't is a thing monstrous to say that accidents subfist without a subject ; irenaeus also himself saith , book 2. cap. 14. that water cannot be without moisture , fire without heat , a stone without hardness . for these things are so united , that the one cannot be separated from the other , but the one must subsist in the other . so in like manner , by this terrestrial thing must be understood the bread , as s. gregory naz. saith in his fourth oration according to bilius his version , baptism also is compos'd of two things , water and the spirit ; the one is visible and is meant in a corporal manner , but the other is invisible and operates after a spiritual manner ; the one is typical , the other cleanseth that which is inward , and most hidden . clement of alexandria saith the same in different terms . the blood of christ is twofold , the one is carnal , whereby we are deliver'd from corruption , the other is spiritual , whereby we are anointed , and that is to drink the blood of iesus christ , to be partakers of the incorruption of the lord. now the virtue of the word is the holy spirit , as the blood is the vertue of the flesh. by analogy then , the wine , mixt with water , as the spirit with man ; and this mixture makes the wine the pleasanter to drink , but the spirit leadeth to incorruption . now this mixture of the one with the other , to wit , of the wine and the word , is called eucharist , which is highly esteem'd , whereby those who worthily partake of it by faith , are sanctify'd both in their body and soul. when clement of alexandria said that the eucharist is a mixture of wine and the word , it is a composition , a mixture , which could not be , if there was but the word only in the eucharist . for a mixture is at least of two things . so the fathers have called jesus christ , a mixture of god and man. the body of man , saith s. austin , is a mixture of body and soul ; the person of christ is a mixture of god and man. the epitome of theodotus saith , the bread and oyl are sanctified by the virtue of the name , and they remain not what they were before , though to look on them they seem to be the same , but by virtue , they are are changed into a spiritual force . so water sanctified is become baptism , it not only retains what 's less , but also acquires a sanctification . the author saith , the bread is changed , but when he adds that 't is into a spiritual virtue , he quite excludes the change of its substance ; for by virtue , and spiritual , cannot be understood any other change but that of virtue and quality , seeing this author speaks of this change , as being common to the water of baptism , to the oyl of unction , and to the bread of the eucharist . that the fathers of the third century did not believe transubstantiation . tertullian in his first book against marcion , shewing that jesus christ is not contrary to the creator , as this heretick affirm'd , saith in his 14th . chap. hitherto jesus christ has not condemn'd the water wherewith he cleanseth his children , nor the oyl wherewith he anoints them , nor the hony nor the milk whereby he makes them his children , nor the bread by which he represents his body . by this passage , the bread represents the body of jesus christ , therefore the bread remains in the sacrament , and this bread is not really jesus christ , because what doth represent , is another thing than what is represented . two things have been said on this place of tertullian ; first , that the bread signifies the accidents of bread ; the second that the word represent , does signify in this place , to make present : as when in a court of justice a prisoner is made appear as often as he is demanded . against the former , there 's no reason to believe that tertullian speaking of water , of oyl , of hony , and milk , should intend to speak of their accidents , but of their very substance , and that speaking of bread , he should speak only of its accidents . against the second it 's most certain that in matter of sacraments , the term to signify is taken literally , to signify . s. austin saith , ep. 5. the signs , when applyed to holy things , are called sacraments . tertullian explains himself clearly lib. 3. against marcion , so that there 's no cause of doubting , when he saith , that jesus christ has given to the bread the priviledge of being the figure of his body . the same tertullian lib. 4. contra marcion . cap. 40. doth prove that jesus christ had a real body , and not one in shew only , as marcion dream'd , and he proves it by this argument : that which hath a figure ought to be real and true ; now jesus christ hath in the eucharist a figure of his body , therefore the body of jesus christ is real and true , and not a phantome . jesus christ , saith tertullian , having taken the bread which he distributed amongst his disciples , he made it his body , saying , this is the figure of my body : now it had been no figure , if jesus christ had not had a real and true body ; for an empty thing as a phantasm is , is not capable of having any figure . from hence 't is concluded , that the bread being the figure of the body of jesus christ , and that which is a figure , being distinguished from the thing signified , the bread of the eucharist is not properly and truely the body of jesus christ , and so the bread is not destroy'd , but remains to be the figure of the body of jesus christ. if it be said , the bread is destroy'd , and that the accidents of bread are the figure of the body of jesus christ , this gives up the victory to marcion , to prove , that jesus christ had a true body , and not one in shew only , because jesus christ hath in the eucharist the figure of bread , which is bread only in appearance . marcion might have retorted the argument and said , according to you , tertullian , the sacrament is the figure of the body of jesus christ ; now as this figure is bread in appearance , and is called bread only because of the outward accidents and qualities which it retains , so also the body of jesus christ was only a body in appearance , and was called a body because it had the outward accidents and qualities . again , as tertullian saith , that jesus christ distributed to his disciples the bread which he had taken to make it the figure of his body ; it is most certain he took true bread , and by consequence , that he distributed true bread. the same tertullian in his treatise of the soul , disputing against the accademitians that questioned the truth of the testimony of the senses , saith to them , that we must not at all doubt of the testimony of the senses , lest occasion might farther be taken to doubt the actions of the humanity of jesus christ , that it might not be said , that it was untrue that he saw satan fall from heaven ; that it was not true , that he heard the father's voice from heaven bearing witness to his son ; that he was deceived when he touched peter's wifes mother ; that he was deceived when he smelt the sweet odour which he was pleas'd to accept for the preparation to his death ; or , that he tasted the wine that he consecrated in remembrance of his blood. it is evident that to consecrate wine in remembrance of blood , cannot be understood of a substance which is destroy'd all saving the accidents ; this manner of expression in the language of the ancients signifying no more , but that a substance remains always in its first state , only attains to a higher degree , which is , to be the sacrament of a heavenly and supernatural thing . to conclude , if tertullian had believed that the wine had been destroy'd , and that nothing but the appearance was left , against the testimony of all the senses , had it not been an unpardonable fault in tertullian , to prove that the senses could not be deceived by the example of the eucharist , where the senses are quite deceived ? origen did not believe transubstantiation when he said in his commentary on the 13th . chap. of s. matth. expounding these words of the gospel , what enters into the mouth defiles not the man &c. as there 's nothing that 's impure of it self to him that 's polluted and incredulous , but a thing is impure , by reason of his impurity and incredulity ; so also , that which is sanctifyed by the word of god and prayer , doth not sanctify by its proper nature , him that uses it : if it were so , it would also sanctify him that cats unworthily of the lord , and none should have been weak , nor sick , nor should have fallen asleep , by reason of so eating — . if all that enters into the mouth goes into the belly , and there is cast out into the draught , this food which is sanctifyed by the word of god , and by prayer , goes also into the belly and is cast out into the draught , according to its material substance ; but according to the prayer which has been thereunto added , it becomes profitable according to the measure of faith , by causing the mind to become inlightned , having regard to what is profitable ; and 't is not the matter of bread , but the words which have been pronounc'd upon it , that avails him which eateth in such a manner as is not unworthy of the lord , and this may be said of the body typical , or symbolical ; many things might be said also of the word made flesh , and true nourishment , the which whosoever eats shall never dye , and which no wicked person can eat ; for could it be that he which continues wicked should eat of the word incarnate , seeing he is the word and bread of life , it would not have been written , whosoever eateth this bread shall live eternally . when he saith of the bread of the eucharist , that it sanctifieth not of it self , it cannot he understood of the true body of jesus christ , but of the bread which remains . when he saith , this bread sanctified by the invocation of god , and by prayer , remains in its material being , it means plainly , that it remains in its former substance . when he saith , that this bread as to the matter of it goes down into the belly , and is cast into the draught as the other meats : this not being to be understood of jesus christ without blaspheming , is necessarily to be understood of the bread. when he calls this bread the typical body , it shews plainly , that this not being the true body , it is not transubstantiated . when having spoken of the typical body , he after speaks of the word made flesh , which cannot but give life to those which eat and receive him ; he sufficiently distinguisheth the bread of the eucharist from jesus christ ; the former of which may be mortal , but the latter can never be so to those who receive and eat him . this passage is so clear and evident , that sixtus senensis in his bibl. l. 6. annot . 66. found no better expedient than to say , that 't was probable , this passage had been corrupted by the hereticks . gennebrard and du perron suspected erasmus to have ill translated it : but the learned monsieur huet , nominated to be bishop of soissons , saith , it evidently appears by the original greek , that this passage is no way changed . the same origen saith , in tom. 32. of his commentary on s. john , that the morsel of bread christ gave to judas and those he gave the apostles , saying , take , eat , were of the same sort . now if the morsel given to judas was true bread , as it is granted , and if the bread given the other apostles was not true bread , then the one and the other were not of the same kind . the same origen in the seventh homily on leviticus , saith , that jesus christ before his passion , drank wine , but being ready to suffer , he refused to drink it ; ubi vero tempus advenit crucis suae , accipiens , inquit , galicem benedixit , & dedit discipulis suis , dicens , accipite & bibite ex hoc . vos , inquit , bibite quia non accessuri estis and altare , ipse autem tanquam accessurus ad altare dicit , amen , dico vobis quia non bibam de generatione vitis hujus , usque quò bibam illud novum vobiscum in regno patris mei . origen affirms , that our saviour in celebrating the eucharist , did not drink wine , because he was ready to approach the altar ( of his passion ) and that the apostles did drink wine , because they were not yet ready to approach to the altar of martyrdom . and that in this sense , the figure of the old testament was accomplished , where 't was forbidden to aaron and his priests to drink wine when they were about to approach to the altar . all this discourse is false , if jesus christ spake not these words of true wine , i will not drink , &c. and if what the apostles drank was not true wine . let us see now what st. cyprian saith , the sacrifice of the lord recommends to us unity : for when jesus christ called his body , the bread which is made of several grains , he recommended the unity of christian people ; and when he called his blood , the wine , made of several grains and grapes , he represented one flock united by the band of charity . now these words , where jesus christ called the bread his body , and the wine his blood , is as if he had said of the bread , this is my body , and of the wine , this is my blood. and if hereunto we add the words of the jesuite salmeron , who said , if jesus christ had said , this bread is my body , and this wine is my blood , it would have obliged us to have understood these words in a figurative sense , because the bread cannot be a humane body , nor the wine blood , but in a figurative sense . bellarmine saith the same ; if jesus christ had said , this bread is my body , this proposuion must be understood in a figurative sense ; otherwise the expression would be absurd and impossible . now as we see s. cyprian saith , that jesus christ said of the body , that 't is his body , and of the wine , that 't was his blood , it must be concluded therefore that jesus christ said of the bread and wine , that they were his body and blood , that is to say , that the bread and wine were his body and blood in figure , both the one and the other being represented and signified by the bread and wine . and therefore in his epistle to cecilius , where at large he proves the wine must be mingled with water , he saith , if there be no wine in the cup , the blood of jesus christ cannot be represented to us , because 't is the wine that represents to us the blood of jesus christ. and again , vini ubique mentio est , & ideo ponitur ut i omini sanguis vino intelligatur . he saith of the water , that , sola christi sanguinem non potest exprimere . in aqua vidimus populum intelligi , in vino ostendi sanguinem christi . so that seeing st. cyprian saith , that the wine representeth , expresseth , sheweth , and makes us see the blood of jesus christ , as the water representeth , expresseth , and shews us the christian people , it cannot be imagin'd that st. cyprian believed the wine was destroy'd , but on the contrary , he believed that after consecration , the wine remained , and that 't was true wine that he called his blood , according to what he saith in the same letter , quia in parte invenimus calicem mixtum fuisse quem dominus obtulit , & vinum fuisse quod sanguinem suum dixit . that the fathers of the fourth century did not believe transubstantiation . eustathius , patriarch of antioch , upon these words of solomon in the proverbs , eat my bread , and drink the wine which i have prepar'd ; saith , that the wise man by the bread and wine did foreshew the antitypes of the body of jesus christ : now that which is a type , is an image ; what is an image cannot be the thing but in figure : so that the bread is not destroy'd , because it is the type and the image . eusebius of caesarea , interpreting these words of genesis , chap. 49. vers. 12. his eyes shall be red with wine , and his teeth white with milk , saith , that the first words signifie the joy that the mystical wine doth cause in the disciples of jesus christ when he saith to them , take , drink ye all of this , &c. and these words , the teeth white with milk , do signifie the purity and cleanness of the mystical food , which are the symbols which jesus christ left to his disciples , commanding them to celebrate the image of his proper body ; not requiring any more bloody sacrifices , and commanded to make use of bread for the symbol of his body . seeing then that according to this ancient doctor , the wine is the symbol of the blood of christ , and the bread the figure of his body , and both the one and the other an image of the body and blood , the image is not that of which 't is an image ; and by consequence , in the eucharist , besides the body of jesus christ , there is also bread and wine , which do represent and shew him ; it being evident by the text of this author , that he understood the words of jesus christ , this is my body , in this sense , this is the symbol of my body . cyril of jerusalem saith , quemadmodum panis eucharisticus post spiritûs sancti invocationem , non amplius est panis communis , sed est corpus christi , sic & sanctum hoc unguentum non amplius est unguentum illud . macharius , a noted hermite in egypt , who wrote his homilies about the year 368. saith in the 27th homily , that before the birth of jesus christ , the wise men , holy men , kings and prophets , knew that jesus christ was to come to be a redeemer , but they knew not that he was to suffer death , that he was to be crucify'd , and that he should shed his blood on the cross , and that they had not attain'd so far as to know there should be a baptism of fire and of the holy ghost , and that in the church should be offered bread and wine , antitypes of the body and blood of jesus christ , and that those which eat of this visible bread , should spiritually eat the flesh of the lord. this father saying that the antitype of the flesh and blood of jesus christ is bread and wine , doth suppose the bread remains , as not being the real body of jesus christ , but a type of it : now the type is not the verity , sed umbra veritatis , saith st. ambrose , de side l. 3. c. 8. and by consequence , there is in the eucharist something else besides the body it self of jesus christ. and when he saith , that those which take the visible bread , do spiritually eat the flesh of christ , he gives us sufficiently to understand , that in this august sacrament , there is besides the flesh of jesus christ a visible bread , and that the visible bread is eaten corporally , and the flesh of jesus christ spiritually . st. basil , bishop of caesaria , in his epistle to caesarea , saith , that at alexandria , and in aegypt , each lay-person for the most part , kept the eucharist by them , and communicated themselves when they pleased ; and if they receive from the priest a morsel of the consecrated bread , they may receive the holy sacrament daily if they list , taking some of it to day , and the rest to morrow . for , saith he , the priest in the church gives a good piece or morsel of the eucharist , and he that takes it , doth communicate himself at his pleasure . now , saith he , as to the validity and vertue of the sacrament , it is one and the same , whether one receives one morsel , or two , of the priest. in what sense can it be understood that one receives several parts or parcels in the eucharist ? it cannot be meant of jesus christ , whose body cannot be divided into morsels ; it must therefore be understood , that st. basil believed that the bread remained in the eucharist as a typical and symbolical body of jesus christ. ephrem deacon of the church of edessa , contemporary with st. basil , and whose writings st. jerom reports in his catalogue , were read in the church after the holy scriptures ; he saith , in the treatise he wrote , that men should not search too curiously into the nature of god ; consider diligently ( saith this holy deacon ) how jesus christ taking the bread into his hands , blessed and broke it as a figure of his immaculate body ; and taking the cup , he blessed it as a type of his blessed blood , and gave it to his disciples . it is evident that ephrem believed the bread is the figure of the body , and the wine the type of the blood of christ ; figura autem non est veritas , sed imitatio verit atis , saith s. gaudentius upon exodus , tract . 2. the body of jesus christ is the verity , there must then be in the sacrament , besides the real body , a material and typical body , which may be the figure of the true body of jesus christ. s. epiphanius having said , that jesus christ descended into the waters to be baptiz'd , not to receive any virtue from the waters , but to confer it upon them , he adds , that 't is in jesus christ the prophecy of esay is accomplished , who in the third chap. speaks of the vertue of bread and water , he gave strength to the waters , illuminans eas , & roboran● in typo earum que in ipso erant perficienda ; and as for the bread , cibus quidem panis est , sed virtus in eo est ad vivisicationem . s. epiphanius speaks here of the eucharist as he doth of baptism , he saith , that both one and the other receive their virtue from jesus christ , who communicates to them spiritual strength , sufficient to sanctify ; now as the water of baptism is changed only by a change of virtue , and quality , it is apparent s. epiphanius did not mean that the bread of the eucharist should be destroy'd , no more than the water was in baptism ; else he would not have said , that the consecrated bread was a food , for accidents cannot nourish , nothing can be fed by that which is not a body ; nourishment proceeds from a substance or matter , saith aristotle , and boëtius . in praedic . saith , that 't is impossible an accident should pass into the nature of a substance , ut accidens in substantis naturam transeat fieri nullo modo potest . gregory nazianzen , speaking of the miraculous recovery of his sister gorgonia , speaks in these terms , pouring forth a flood of tears after the example of her that washed christ's feet with her tears , she said , she would not depart thence till she had recover'd her health , her tears were the perfume which she spread over all his body , she mingled them with the antitypes , or the symbols of the mody and blood of jesus christ , as much at least as she could hold in her hands , and immediately , o the miracle , she found her self healed . and in his seventeenth oration , this godly prelate interceding to the emperor 's prefect , that he would extend his favour , and not deliver up the city to be plundred , i set before your eyes the table where we joyntly receive the sacrament , and the figure of my salvation , which i consecrate with the same mouth wherewith i make my request to you ; this sacrament , i say , which lifts us up to heaven . it appears by these words , that s. gregory lookt upon the consecrated bread and wine as figures of the body and blood of jesus christ : now if they are figures , then they are not that whereof they be figures , and by consequence , there is in the sacrament something else besides the very body of jesus christ , to wit , the bread and wine , which are the types and figures of it . for to say that s. gregory means only that the accidents of bread and wine are the types and figures , when he saith , his sister mingled her tears with the antitypes of the body and blood of jesus christ , as many as she could keep in her hands , si quid antityporum pretiosi corporis aut sanguinis manus thesaurisasset , these words , as many as she could gather in her hands , signify , as many portions and parts of the eucharist as she could gather up , paululum eucharistiae , as eusebius speaks in the sixth book of his hist. chap. 36. as having gather'd together a little of the sacrament , and having separated it from a greater mass , or from a greater quantity of liquor . now all antiquity agree , that the lines , the superficies , the qualities , are inseparable from their subject , so that this little parcel of antitypes , this parcel of the figures , cannot be a part of accidents , and of appearances . gregory nyssen going to prove that the water of baptism , for being water , ought not to be despised , but that after consecration it hath a marvellous virtue , he proves it by the example of the eucharist , and extream unction . the bread , saith he , before consecration is but common bread , but after consecration it is called , and is the body of christ ; so also the mystical oyl , and wine , before benediction , are common things , and of no virtue , but after benediction , both of them have a great virtue . now these words shew , that the bread and wine remain after consecration ; for it appears that st. gregory's design is to prove , that common and ordinary things have a marvellous force after consecration , and if the bread and wine were destroy'd after consecration , what did operate would not be a vile and mean thing , because it would be the very body of jesus christ , and st. gregory would not well have proved that vile things have any marvellous virtue in them after consecration ; for instance , bread and wine , which not subsisting after consecration , could not have the virtue to sanctify . s. ambrose in his epistle to justus , explaining what gomer is , saith , it is a measure , and that this measure signifies the quantity of wine which rejoyces the heart of man ; and having explain'd the wine , of the drinking wisdom , sobriety , and temperance , he saith , that it is to be understood more fully of the blood of jesus christ , which neither admits increase , nor decrease , as to grace ; but of which if one receive more or less , the measure however of redemption is equal to all . plenius de sanguine intelligitur cujus ad gratiam nihil minuitur , nihil adaugetur , & si parum sumas , & si plurimum haurias , eadem perfecta est omnibus mensura redemptionis . this manner of speaking of taking more or less of the blood of jesus christ , is not to be understood of the proper body of jesus christ , which is indivisible ; there must be therefore in the eucharist , besides the proper blood of jesus christ , a typical and symbolical blood , which is the wine , which is so called , and of which we may say , we receive more or less . the same father saith elsewhere , that as often as we receive the sacraments , which by the virtue of holy prayer are transfigur'd into the flesh and blood of jesus christ , we shew forth the death of christ. it is certain that by these words , s. ambrose lookt upon the bread and wine as figures of the flesh and blood ; now the figure being a thing distinct from what it represents , as being two correlatives , the one of which is not the other , it must be concluded , that s. ambrose believed that there is bread and wine in the eucharist , which are the figures of the bread and heavenly power . the same father speaking of the blessing of aser , explaining these words , ashur his bread is fat , he shall feed princes ; saith , jesus christ who is ashur , that is rich , has nourish'd princes . when he multiply'd the five and seven loaves , and gave them to his apostles to distribute to the multitude , he every day gives us this bread , saith he , when the priest doth consecrate : we may also by this bread understand the lord himself ( continues s. ambrose ) who has given us his flesh to eat . by these words it appears s. ambrose distinguishes three sorts of bread which jesus christ gave to these princes ; the first is that which he gave in multiplying the five and seven loaves , john 6. and matth. 15. the second is the bread which the priest consecrates at mass ; the third is that of which it is said , i am the bread of life , which is jesus christ himself . as then the second is not the first , so neither is the second the third : the consecrated bread is another thing than jesus christ , the bread of life ; and by consequence , there is in the sacrament a bread distinct from jesus christ , the heavenly bread. gaudentius upon exodus saith , with great reason we receive with the bread the figure of the body of christ , because as the bread is compos'd of many grains , which being ground into flower is kneaded with water , and baked by fire , so also the body of christ is made and collected of the whole race of mankind , and is perfected by the fire of the holy ghost . now as this author places the figure of the body of jesus christ in that the bread is made up of sundry grains , reduced into meal , kneaded with water , and baked with fire : it follows , that he believed the bread remained in the sacrament , and so much the rather because this bishop saith elsewhere , figura non est veritas sed imitatio veritatis . s. chrysostom expounding these words , i will no more drink of this fruit of the vine , until i drink it new in the kingdom of my father , saith , because jesus christ had spoke to his disciples of his passion and of his death , now he speaks to them of his resurrection , making mention of his kingdom , calling his resurrection by this name ; now wherefore did jesus christ drink after his resurrection , fearing lest ignorant persons should think his resurrection was only imaginary , because many took the act of drinking as a true sign of the resurrection ; therefore the apostles going to prove his resurrection , say , we that have eat and drank with him , jesus christ. therefore assuring them that they should see him after his resurrection , and that he would stay with them , and that they might bear witness of his resurrection , might see and behold him , tells them , i will no more drink the fruit of the vine , until i drink it with you in a new manner , whereof you shall bear testimony , for you shall see me after my resurrection ; but wherefore , continues s. chrysostom , did he drink wine after his resurrection and not water ? it is because he would thereby destroy a pernicious heresy . for because there would be hereticks that would only make use of water in the mysteries , be would represent the mysteries ; he gave wine , and when , after the resurrection , he eat his common repast , he drank wine , the fruit of the vine ; now the vine doth produce wine and not water . this passage marketh in the first place , that jesus christ drinking the fruit of the vine after his resurrection , and not water , he accomplish'd what he said in celebrating the eucharist , i will no more drink of this fruit of the vine , until i drink it new in my fathers kingdom . this shews that jesus christ drank true wine in the institution of the eucharist , for what is to be done again , must needs be done before . secondly , st. chrysostom doth not only say that jesus christ drank wine , but he saith further , that he distributed wine amongst his disciples , and the fruit of the vine , which doth not produce water but wine . so that these words of st. chrysostom import clearly , that the wine remains in the eucharist . the same father on these words of the first to the corinthians , the bread which we break is it not the communion of the body of christ ? ( speaks thus ) what is the bread ? it is the body of jesus christ. what becomes of them which receive it ? they become the body of jesus christ. now this proposition , the bread is the body of jesus christ , cannot be in a literal sense , for saith vasquez , the bread without a figure , cannot be called the body of jesus christ , nor the body of jesus christ be called bread. the same father in his commentary upon the epistle to the galatians , chap. 5. explaining these words of the apostle , the flesh lusteth against the spirit , and the spirit against the flesh ; the manicheans understood by the flesh , the substance of the body , and by the spirit they understood the soul ; and they said , that the apostle cut man into two , and intimated , that man was compos'd of two contrary substances , one bad , which was the flesh ; and the other good , which was the spirit , which proceeded from the good god , and the body from the bad god — s. chrysostom answers , that the apostle in this place doth not call the flesh the body , apostolum non hic carnem appellare corpus , as the manicheans supposed , and saith , that the apostle do's not always mean by the flesh , the nature of the body , naturam corporis , but that very often by the flesh , he means something else , as evil desires ; and having proved this by sundry passages of the apostle , and other holy writers , he proves it at last by the example of the iucharist , and of the church , which , he saith , is called body in the holy scriptures ; he saith farther , that the scripture is wont to call by the name of flesh , as well the church , as the mysteries , saving , it is his body , rursum carnis vocabulo scriptura solet appellare tum mysteria , tum totam ecclesiam , dicens eam christi corpus esse . it appears by these words of st. chrysostom's , that he did not believe that the consecrated bread and wine were the same with the body of christ , seeing he proves by the eucharist , that the consecraeted bread and wine are called flesh ; and that the word flesh in this place , is taken for something else besides body , and that he puts the term flesh , given to the consecrated bread and wine , which are the mysteries , in the rank of other terms of flesh given to evil desires , and to the church , which are mystical and figurative terms . so st. chrysostom believed the bread and wine remained , and are so called the body of jesus christ mystically , as the church is called the body of jesus christ. the same st. chrysostom wrote a letter to caesarius , which indeed is not inserted in his works , but is sound in manuscript in the library at florence , and it was also found in england in archbishop cranmer's library , it is mention'd in the bibliotheca patrum , printed at collen , 1618. in this bibliotheque , tom. 4. there is found the collections of an ancient nameless author , who wrote against the severian , and acephalian hereticks , wherein is recited a passage taken out of this letter . so also monsieur de marca arch-bishop of paris , acknowledges the truth of this letter in his posthume and french treatise of the eucharist , witness the abbot fagget in his letter to monsieur de marca , president of the parliament at pan , who saith also this letter was found by monsieur bigot in a library at florence . st. chrysostom in this letter writeth against apollinarius , and saith , jesus christ is both god and man , god because of his impassibility , man by his passion , one son , one lord , both natures united making but one , the same power , the same dominion ; although they be two different natures , each conserves its own nature , because they are two , and yet without confusion ; for as the bread before it is sanctified , is called bread , when by the intercession of the priest , divine grace has sanctified it , it loses the name of bread , and becomes worthy to be called the body of jesus christ , although the nature of bread abides in it , so that they are not two bodies , but one sole body of the son ; so the divine nature being united to the humane nature of jesus christ , it did not make two persons , but one only person and one son. st. chrysostom saith plainly , that the nature of bread abideth after consecration ; and this father's argument would be of no validity , if this nature of the bread was nothing but in shew , for apollinarius might have made another opposite argument , and say , that indeed it might be said there were two natures in jesus christ , but that the humane nature was only in appearance , as the bread in the eucharist is but in shew , and hath only outward and visible qualities remaining in it , whereby it is term'd to be bread. the author of the imperfect work upon st. matthew written in the time of the emperour theodosius , did not believe transubstantiation , when he spake in these terms in homily eleventh , if it be dangerous to employ the holy vessels about common uses , wherein the true body of jesus christ is not contain'd , but the mysteries of his body ; how much rather the vessels of our bodies , which god has prepared to dwell in . that the fathers of the fifth century did not believe transubstantiation . s. jerom in his epistle to eustochium speaking of virgins , saith , that when they were reproved for drunkenness , they excus'd themselves by adding sacriledge to drunkenness , saying , god forbid that i should abstain from the blood of the lord. in the second book against jovinian it is said , the lord in the type of his blood , did not offer water , but wine . these words are indeed jovinian's , but st. jerom sinds no fault with them . for he himself saith the same , upon the 31 chapter of jeremy , vers. 12. on these words , they run after god's creatures , the wheat , the wine , and the oyl , the bread , and the wine , saith he , whereof is made the bread of the lord , and wherein is accomplished the type of his blood. now saith st. ambrose * , the type is not the truth , but it is the shadow of the truth . there must then be in the eucharist , bread , and wine , distinct from the body and blood of jesus christ , to be the types and figures of it . the same father in his letter to hedibia , let us hear , that the bread which the lord broke and gave his disciples was the lord's own body , saying , take , eat , this is my body ; and a little after he saith , if the bread that came down from heaven is the body of the lord , and the wine which he distributed among his disciples his blood , &c. st. jerom saith , that jesus christ brake and distributed bread to his disciples , that he gave them bread , and that the bread and wine were his flesh and blood. it cannot then be said , that what jesus christ gave in communicating his disciples was not bread and wine ; and when he saith , both the one and the other was his body and blood , it cannot be understood but only figuratively ; for we see above in st. cyprian , that the jesuites salmeron and bellarmine , do confess , that if jesus christ said of the bread , this is my body , it must be meant , this bread is the figure of my body , the one not being capable of being the other but figuratively : and the reason is given by vasquez , when he saith , if the pronoun , this , in the words of consecration be understood of the bread , undoubtedly by virtue of it , there can be wrought no transubstantiation , because of necessity the bread must needs remain ; si pronomen hoc in illis verbis demonstraret panem , fatemur fore ut nulla conversio virtute illorum fieri posset , quia panis de quo enunciatur manere debeat . the same s. jerom in his commentary upon the 26 chapter of st. matthew , saith , jesus christ having eaten the paschal lamb , took bread which strengthens the heart of man , and proceeded to the accomplishment of the sacrament of the true passover , that as melchisedeck had offered bread and wine in figure , he also himself would represent the truth of his body . according to this father , the bread and wine , represent the body and blood of jesus christ , and therefore are not properly and truly the flesh and blood of jesus christ , but are something else besides them , and by consequence remain in the sacrament . for to say , as the author of the second book of the perpetuity of the faith of the eucharist doth against monsieur claude , that st. jerom means by representing , to make a thing be present , we before refuted this fancy , in tertullian , who speaks just as st. jerom : and the terms sufficiently declare , that st. jerom's meaning is , that jesus christ made use of bread and wine , to signifie and shew forth his body and blood , as melchisedeck had done , that is to say , as he had represented both the one and the other by the oblation of bread and wine . st. austin in his sermon to the newly baptized , which it's true is not found in his other works , but was preserv'd and is cited by st. fulgentius de baptismo aethiop . cap. 7. what you see , saith he , upon the altar of god , you saw also the last night , but you were not yet aware of how great a thing it is a sacrament ; that which you see is bread , and a cup of wine , and it is also what your eyes declare unto you ; but what your faith should instruct you in , is , that the bread is the body of jesus christ , and the cup his blood. if you tell me , jesus christ is born , he was crucified , he was buried , he rose again , and is ascended into heaven , whither he has carry'd his body , and is at present on the right hand of god , from whence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead , how then can the bread be his body , and the cup his blood ? these things , my brethren , are called sacraments , because one thing is seen in them , and another thing is understood by them ? what is seen hath a corporeal substance ; what is understood hath a spiritual fruit. if then you desire to understand what the body of jesus christ is , hearken to the apostle which saith , you are the body of christ and his members : if then you are the body of jesus christ and his members , it is the mystery of what you are , which is upon the holy table , it is the mystery of the lord , which you receive ; in saying amen , you answer and subscribe to what you are . all you that are united in charity , you make but one body of jesus christ , of which you are the members , which is what is signified by the bread compos'd of several grains , and by the wine which is made of sundry grapes . for as bread to be made a visible species of bread , is made of sundry grains collected together in one , and the wine , &c. st. austin saith , that the bread is the body of christ , which cannot be but improperly and figuratively , as hath been shewed above ; for by confession of roman catholick doctors , every proposition that saith of the bread , that it is the body , must needs be typical and figurative . he saith what is seen is bread , as our eyes declare to us ; now what our eyes report to us is true bread , as when one says , what you see is true gold , and silver , or marble , and 't is what your eyes testifie , that is to say , that one sees true gold , and true marble , and that one makes use of their eyes to confirm it . in the same sense he saith ; that jesus christ although in heaven , yet the bread is the body , and the wine the blood , because they are the sacraments of it . he saith , what one sees hath a bodily species ; now in this passage , by bodily species , he means the very substance , and not the accidents . for he saith afterwards , speaking of bread in general , as bread to be a visible species of bread , must be made of several grains reduced into one lump ; now by the species of bread , it is plain , st. austin there means true bread , and a true substance . he saith , what you see , is bread , and a cup ; now by cup , he doth not mean the appearance of a cup , he means a true cup. he saith this bread is the mystery of the lord. which is nothing else , but that 't is the figure of the lord , as when he saith , this bread is the mystery of believers . mysterium vestrum in mensa domini accipitis . that is to say , that the bread and wine are the figure of jesus christ , as they are the mystical body of jesus christ. to conclude , st. austin saith , the faith of the new-baptized was to be strengthened ; it was therefore here the proper place for him to have said , that the bread was no more bread , that the wine was no longer wine , but that there remained only the accidents of the one and the other . the same holy father answering bishop boniface , who desired to know how it might be said of an infant newly baptis'd , he hath faith , he believes , who is incapable of believing , and of whom no assurance can be given what he will be afterwards ; he saith , that as every sunday , and easter day , is called easter , and the resurrection , although the lords easter , and resurrection , are things happened several ages past ; so it may be said , an infant hath faith , because he hath the sacrament of faith. for , saith he , if the sacraments had not some resemblance with the things whereof they are sacraments , they would be no sacraments ; as therefore in some sort the sacrament of the body of jesus christ is the body of jesus christ , and the sacrament of his blood , is the blood of christ , so also the sacrament of faith , is faith ; now to believe , is nothing else but to have faith. he saith , the eucharist is called flesh and blood , because it is both the one and the other in some sort : now according to st. gregory nyssen , what is not truly that by the name by which it is called , is but figuratively or improperly that by the name whereof it is called . now that the bread and wine which are the sacraments of the body and blood of jesus christ , are his body and blood in some sort , secundum quendam modum , it follows , the bread and wine are not properly the flesh and blood , and by consequence , are not transubstantiated . moreover st. austin doth explain the manner according to which the eucharist is the body and blood of christ , and he shews it , by reason that generally the signs are called by the name of the things they signifie , not that they are the things they signifie , but because they are the signs , and that they have some resemblance to them . the same father upon the third psalm , admires the patience of jesus christ that bore the treachery of judas to the end , although he was not ignorant of his thoughts , and admitted him to the banquet , at which , saith st. austin , jesus christ recommended and gave to his disciples , the figure or type of his flesh and blood , cum adhibuit ad convivium , in quo corporis & sanguinis sui figuram discipulis commendavit & tradidit . now the figure is not the truth , but the imitation of the verity , saith gaudentius in exod. tractatu 2. moreover , st. austin cannot find in the scriptures , that jesus christ in instituting the sacrament , gave to his disciples the figure of his body and blood , but in these words , take , eat , this is my body , this is my blood , he must then understand these words of the institution , in a figurative sense . and according to the same doctor , a * sign is that which shews it self to the senses , and besides that shews something else to the mind ; it must then follow , that the sign is a thing which remains , to shew it self . the same father disputing against adimantus the manichean , chap. 12. and against the adversary of the law and the prophets , in the second book , cap. 6. who said , the blood is the soul , as is said , deuteronom . 12. and by consequence , that men killed the soul when they shed blood. s. austin replies , that this precept in deuteronomy , that blood must not be eat , because 't is the soul , is a precept that must he understood as many other things contained in the scriptures , which are to be taken in types , and figures , illud praeceptum posicum esse dicimus sicut alia multa & pene omnia scripturarum illarum sacramenta signis & figuris plena sunt . and concludes towards the end of that chapter , that the blood is the soul , as the rock was christ , sanguis est anima quomodo petra erat christus . and upon leviticus , quest. 54. the thing which signisies , is wont to be called by the name of the thing signified , as 't is written , the rock was christ : for 't is not said , the rock signifi'd christ , but as if it were that which indeed it was not in substance , but only in signification . and as in the beginning of the chapter he saith , that it must be understood in the sign , jesus christ making no difficulty to say , this is my body , when he gave the sign of his body . sanguis est anima , praeceptum illud est in signo positum , non enim dominus dubitavit dicere , hoc est corpus meum , cum daret signum corporis sui . seeing then st. austin doth say , that the blood is the soul , as the rock was christ ; and as the eucharist is the sign of jesus christ , he must of necessity have understood the words of institution of the sacrament , in a figurative sense ; and that so much the rather , because this manner of speech , jesus christ made no difficulty , plainly shews , that jesus christ did not speak in a proper but in a figurative sense , as fulgentius saith , although the apostle saith , that jesus christ is the head of the body of the church , nevertheless he makes no scruple to call jesus christ the church , which is his body . this manner of speech is never used in proper expressions : no body will say , jesus christ made no difficulty to give gold , or water , if it were true gold or water which he gave . the same holy doctor saith in several places after the apostle , that the bread in the sacrament after consecration , is broken , and distributed ; and he doth very well recommend this breaking the bread , as being a great mystery . in his epistle to paulinus , he saith , in that jesus christ was known by the two disciples in breaking the bread , no body ought to question but this breaking was the sacrament whereby jesus christ brings us all to the knowledge of his person . a little before he saith ; by the prayers , we mean those which are said before one begins to bless what is upon the lords table . the prayers are said when that which is on the lords table is blessed , sanctifyed , and distributed . in his epistle to casulanus he saith of s. paul , that in the night time he went to break bread , as it is broken in the sacrament of his body . in his commentary upon the first epistle of s. john , it was very reasonable that jesus christ recommending his flesh , broke bread , and it was very just that the disciples knew him in breaking of bread. in the 140. sermon de temp . and in the hom. of the consent of evangelists , lib. 3. c. 25. and de diversis , serm. 87. he saith , where would jesus christ be known ? in the breaking of bread. we are then secure ; we break bread , and we know the lord. if then after consecration we break bread to distribute , then of necessity the bread must remain : for to say that 't is the accidents which are broken , and distributed , s. austin doth say the contrary , when he affirms , that one breaks and distributes what is on the table , being blessed and sanctify'd . now to bless and sanctify , one shall never find to have signifi'd to destroy , and change the substance . the same doctor in several places does always call the eucharist , the sacrament of bread and wine , he saith , s. paul doth teach the unity of the church in the sacrament of bread , when he saith , we are all one bread , and one body . in the questions upon the evangelists , he saith , jesus christ by the sacrament of wine , recommends his blood. in his books against faustus , we are very far from doing what the heathens did for their gods , ceres and bacchus , although we have a ceremony of celebrating the sacrament of bread and wine . now to what end were it to call the eucharist a sacrament of bread and wine , if there did not remain bread and wine after consecration ? for what means this manner of speech , the sacrament of bread and wine , but the bread and wine which is the sacrament ? as when the apostle saith , rom. 4. v. 11. the sign of circumcision . what else doth this import , but the circumcision which is the sign ? when tertullian de baptismo , calls baptism sacramentum aquae nostrae : what else can that mean , but our water which is a sacrament ? when s. austin upon s. john tract . 11. saith , the figure of the sea , figura maris ; what more can this signify , but the sea which is the figure ? when it is frequently said , the sacrament of the eucharist , what else can that import , but the eucharist which is a sacrament ? the same father in his 52 sermon , de verbis domini , saith , almost all do call the sacrament the body of jesus christ. now if the bread were the real body of jesus christ , wherefore should s. anstin observe that all called it the body of jesus christ ? for one cannot make such a remark , but when one saith of a thing , that 't is that which properly it is not . it would be ridiculous to say , almost all call lewis 14 king ; & the reason is , because 't is not strange that persons should be called by their names : but on the contrary , it is very strange , to call one by a name that doth not at all belong to him . the same father in his 26. treatise upon s. john , going to shew upon these words of the apostle , they did all eat the same spiritual meat , and drink the same spiritual drink : the relation and difference there is betwixt the sacraments of the old and new testament , saith , the fathers did eat the same spiritual food as we do , not the same corporal food as we do ; because they did eat manna , and as for us , we eat something else ; they drank the same spiritual drink we do , the same as to the signification , but different as to visible and outward kind . and upon s. john , treatise 45. if you consider the visible species , it was another drink , if you consider what was signify'd by their drink , and ours , it was one and the same thing . si speciem visibilem intendas aliud est , si intelligibilem significationem , cundem potum spiritualem biberunt . and upon the 77. psalm , their food was the very same with ours , the same as to what it signify'd , but different in kind . idem in mysterio cibus illorum qui noster ; sed significatione idem , non specie . this reasoning does intimate , that the fathers under the old testament did , and we now do eat a corporal food , and that we drink a corporal liquor . now by this corporal meat and drink , we must understand either the accidents of bread and wine , or the body and blood of jesus christ , or the bread and wine it self . it cannot be spoken of the first , because the accidents of bread and wine are only qualities , or dimensions ; now qualities and dimensions are not corporal . the quality is something which is incorporeal , saith nemesius , of the soul ; as concerning dimensions , s. austin de genesi ad literam , saith , we call that a body which taketh up some space by its length , by its breadth , and by its depth . nemesius gives the reason of it , because , saith he , nothing that is immaterial is a body , for all bodies are material . there being nothing material then in the eucharist , as is suppos'd , there being nothing that takes up place , that is large or long , or deep ; there is nothing corporeal in the sacrament , and by consequence , nothing that can be termed corporal meat or drink . moreover , when jesus christ speaks of corporal nourishment and drink in the eucharist , as the fathers under the old testament had done , he speaks of bodily meat and drink , s. austin did not understand the corporal meat and drink spoke of by the fathers of the old testament , to be only the accidents of one and the other , so that s. austin speaking in the same terms of bodily meat and drink , in relation to that of the antients , he did not mean meer accidents or qualities . the body of jesus christ nor his hood , cannot be this corporal nourishment which s. austin compares to that of the fathers under the law : for by bodily meat and drink which he saith we receive in the eucharist , he means a visible subject , aliud illi , aliud nos , sed specie visibili , si speciem visibilem intendas , aliud est . it remains then that in s. austin's sense , we understand by the corporal nature of the eucharist the visible bread , the visible wine , and not their qualities and accidents . the same father in the third book of the trin. cap. 10. speaking of things that are taken to signify , saith , a thing is taken to signify , either after such a manner , as that the thing should subsist and remain some time , as did the brazen serpent , lift up in the wilderness , or as do the letters of the alphabet , or in such a manner as the thing taken to signify is not to subsist any long time , but is to pass away and be destroy'd when the thing 't is to represent is passed away ; as the bread of the sacrament , which being taken to signify passeth away and is consumed in receiving the sacrament . s. austin there saith , that the bread of the sacrament which is taken to signify , passeth and is consumed in receiving the sacrament ; now if the bread be destroyed and transubstantiated by these words , this is my body , then it passeth not away , and is not consumed in the act of receiving . the same doctor in the seventeenth of the city of god saith , to eat bread , is in the new testament the sacrifice of christians ; and against the enemy of the law. l. 7. c. 20. those , saith he , which read know what melchisedeck offered where he blessed abraham , and those which are partakers , see that the like sacrifice is now offer'd through all the world. how is it that the sacrifice of christians , is to eat bread , if the bread do not remain ? how is it that communicating , one is partaker of what melchisedeck offer'd , if in communicating , one do not receive neither bread , nor wine ? the same father in the third book against parmenian , reproving the donatists for forsaking the church , tells them , s. cyprian , and the other bishops , did not separate themselves because they would not communicate with covetous persons , and usurers ; but that on the contrary , they did eat with them the bread of the lord , and drank his cup. this passage sheweth , that when s. austin said to the new baptised , as hath been shewn , that the bread is the body of jesus christ , it could not be understood but figuratively : for here the bread is said to be of the lord ; now saith s. athanasius , that which is another's is not that other himself , to whom it belongs . id quod alicujus est , non idipsum est cujus est . and s. austin elsewhere distinguisheth betwixt the bread which belongs to the lord , and the bread which is the lord. speaking of judas and the other apostles , he saith of the apostles , they are the bread which was the lord ; and of judas , he did eat the bread of the lord against the lord ; they ate life , he death ; for 't is said by s. paul , that he which eateth unworthily , eateth his own judgment and condemnation . seeing then that the eucharist is distinguish'd from the lord , it necessarily follows , that bread remains in the sacrament after consecration . the same father in his 33 sermon of the words of our lord , saith , the lord gave to his disciples the blessed sacrament with his own hands , but we were not at the banquet ; nevertheless by faith we daily eat the same supper ; and do not think that it had been any great advantage to have been present at that supper that he gave with his own hands to his disciples , without faith ; faith afterwards was of greater advantage than treachery was then ; st. paul who believed , was not there present , and judas who betray'd his master , was present . how many be there now that come to the communion , that altho they did not see that table , and tho they never saw with their eyes , nor tasted with their palate , the bread which the lord held in his hands , nevertheless , because the same supper is still prepared , do there eat and drink their own damnation ? it plainly appears , that the bread which st. austin saith our saviour had in his hands during the sacrament , was true bread , because st. austin saith , that those who at present participate of the sacrament , do not tast , nor eat the bread which our saviour held in his hands , and which he distributed , and of which the disciples did formerly eat . the same father teaching that the good might participate of the divine sacraments with the wicked , saith , judas and peter had each of them a part of the same bread , which they received at the same hand of the lord ; and nevertheless what society or likeness was there betwixt peter and judas ? in the 7th chap. the wicked and the good hear the same word of god , do partake of the same sacraments , and eat the same holy nourishment . now what is this holy food ? what is this bread , whereof one receives one portion , and another , another part ? are they accidents ? but accidents are neither bread nor food . it is not the real body of jesus christ , for it cannot be received by parcels ; it must then be true bread which remains after consecration , and which is , as is said before , blessed , sanctified , and broke in pieces on the holy table to be distributed . benedicitur & sanctificatur , & ad distribuendum comminuitur . the same doctor in ep. 120. speaking of the rich in opposition to the poor , of whom it is said , that they shall eat and be satisfied . these rich persons , saith st. austin , have been brought to the lords table , and receive from his hand his body and blood , but they only adore , and are not satisfied . for just as st. ambrose distinguisheth betwixt drinking the wine , vinum bibere ; and drinking of the wine , de vino bibere ; that is to say , to tast of a little wine , de ejus portione libare : so also st. austin his disciple , distinguisheth betwixt receiving the body and blood of the lord , accipere corpus & sanguinum domini , and to receive of the body and blood of the lord , accipere de corpore & sanguine christi . st. austin explains himself more fully , when he saith in his 86th epist. that one receives in the eucharist a portion of the body of the immaculate lamb , de agni immaculati corpore partem sumere : and in the 35th sermon on the words of our lord , he saith , in receiving the sacrament , we know what we should think of , we receive a little , and we are satned in the heart , modulum accipimus & in corde saginamur . now that cannot be understood of the proper body of jesus christ , which cannot be received by parcels ; therefore it must be meant of bread , which is the figure of his body , or the sacrament of it . it is what st. austin intends , when he saith , nec quando manducamus ( when we eat jesus christ ) de illo partes facimus ; equidem in sacramento sic fit . we do not make morsels , but it is done in sacrament , that is to say , that we break and divide the sign and the bread , which is the sacrament . the same father saying that the accidents cannot in any wise subsist without their subject , saith in his 2d book of soliloquies , chap. 12. what can reconcile what you demand ? or who can think it possible to be done , that that which is in a subject should remain , the subject it self ceasing to be ? for 't is a thing monstrous , and very far from the truth , that that which doth not subsist , if it be not in a subject , can be , the subject it self not remaining . also in the 13th chap. 19th book , and in the book of the immortality of the soul , chap. 5. the subject being changed , of necessity all that was in the subject must be changed . in the 8th chap. what is not of it self , if it be abandoned by that by which it is , must undoubtedly cease to be . also in the 10th chap. and in the book of categories , speaking of accidents , a colour cannot be without a subject . and in the epistle to dardanus , take away the bodies from the qualities of bodies , they will have no place to remain in , and by consequence it is necessary that they cannot be . and against julian , chap. 5. it 's true , saith st. austin , that the things that are in a subject as the qualities are , cannot be without the subject wherein they are , as the colour or form , &c. it 's impossible , had st. austin believed that the bread did not remain in the eucharist after consecration , that he should have esteemed that absurd and ridiculous which happened every day . it also seems that st. austin had been too wide , when he doubts in the 146th ep. to consentius ; whether jesus christ has blood , when he saith on the 98th psalm , you shall not eat this body which you see , nor shall drink this blood , which those that shall crucify me shall shed , i have given you a sacrament , &c. and in the 20th book against faustus , the flesh and blood of this sacrifice was promised by sacrifices of resemblance before the coming of jesus christ ; it was given by the verity in the passion of jesus christ ; after the ascension of jesus christ , it is celebrated by the sacrament of commemoration . to conclude , st. austin in his 33d sermon on the words of our lord , having said , as hath been seen before , that of things which are put to signify , there are some that are to remain , others to be destroy'd , when the ministry of their signification is accomplish'd ; as the bread of the sacrament ; he adds , but because these things are obvious to men , as being practic'd by men , they may deserve our veneration , as being holy and religious things ; but they cannot cause any wonder in us , as if they were miraculous . certainly if st. austin had held transubstantiation , as it comprehends many things repugnant to natural reason , which are so many astonishing miracles , st. austin could not have said , that the sacraments , wherein he includes that of the eucharist , have something in them that deserves our respect and veneration ; but have nothing that deserves our astonishment and admiration . these are some of the reasons which made monsieur de marca , archbishop of paris , predecessor to him that with so much reputation now fills the chiefest . see of france , say , that the catholick doctors are to blame , when they pretend that st. austin expounded the text of the institution of the eucharist , as it is done in the schools . and a little before ; that in st. austin's divinity , this is my body , should be expounded in this manner , this bread is the sign and sacrament of my body : for according to st. austin , saith monsieur de marca , the bread , to speak properly , is but the sign and sacrament of the body , to which jesus christ made no scruple to give the name of the thing signified . it is also the judgment of tertullian , when he saith , when jesus christ said , this is my body , that is to say , this is the figure of my body ; and saith monsieur de marca , the reasons that are given to the contrary , are not satisfactory . bullenger writing against casaubon , recites this passage of theodoret , who was a priest at antioch , in the year 411. as the king , saith he , and his image are not two kings ; so also the personal body of jesus christ , which body is in the heavens , and the bread which is his antitype , and is distributed to believers by the priest , are not two bodies . it appears by this comparison , that theodoret did believe the bread of the eucharist is something else besides the body of christ ; and by consequence , he believed that there remained true bread in the sacrament , and not bread in shew and appearance only . theodoret , who in the year 423 was bishop of cyrus , doth so fully explain himself hereupon , that there is no doubt to be made of his opinion , he was pleas'd , saith he , that those who participated of the divine mysteries , should not have any regard to the nature of the things that are seen ; but that they should believe by the change of names , the change that is made by grace : for having called his body , wheat and bread , and having called himself a vine , he honours the visible symbols with the name of his body and blood , not in changing their nature , but in adding grace to their nature . he could not more fully express that he did not hold transubstantiation . arnobius the younger , who wrote in the year 431. upon the 4th psalm saith , speaking of the sacrament , we have received wheat in the body , wine in the blood , and oyl in the chrism . on the 22d psalm , and on the 51st and 54th psalms : let us see what the church keepeth ; she hath a table , from which she gives bread to believers ; she hath oyl , wherewith she refresheth the head , in libertatem conscientiae praesumenti , &c. on psalm 103. we receive bread because it strengthens the body ; we receive wine , because it rejoyces the heart ; and having received double comfort in the heart , our faces are made shine by the oyl of chrism . to conclude , on psalm 104. he saith these words , speaking of the lord , that the lord in the eucharist gives us the species of bread and wine , as he doth the species of oyl in baptism ; which cannot be understood of appearances and accidents , as the terms of species of oyl cannot be taken for the accidents and appearances of oyl . moreover , he observes we receive in the eucharist bread and wine , as we receive oyl in the holy chrism ; now in the holy chrism , it is true oyl that we receive ; arnobius then could not reason so , if he believed transubstantiation . the author of the books of the promises and predictions of god , attributed to st. prosper by cassiodorus , and which were written about the year 450 , under the empire of valentinian the 3d , relates a history of a young unchast girl that was possessed with the devil , who in communicating , had received a little morsel of the lord's body , which the priest had moistned ; it was half an hour before she could swallow it down , till such time as the priest touched her throat with the chalice ; then she cried out instantly that she was healed . after which , prayers being made for her , she received a portion of the sacrifice , and was restor'd to her former health . these terms of some portion of the sacrifice , and of a little part of the moistned body of the lord by the priest , cannot be understood of the true body of jesus christ ; of necessity then the bread by this author must be called by the name of the body of jesus christ ; and by consequence he believed it remained in the sacrament after consecration . hesychius , one of the priests of the church of jerusalem , in the year 480 , saith in the second book on leviticus , ch . 8. this mystery ( speaking of the eucharist ) is at once bread and flesh , illud mysterium simul panis & caro . in this same place he saith , it was the custom of the church of jerusalem in his time , to burn what remained after the communion . procopius of gaza , who in all likelihood wrote in the end of the fifth century , expounding these words of genesis , where jacob saith to juda , his eyes be red with wine , and his teeth white with milk , &c. applying them to our blessed saviour in the mystery of the sacrament , saith , that 't is a metaphor taken from those that having drank , are the merrier for it , &c. and saith that the holy scritures would denote the gladness which the lord left to his disciples in giving them the mystical wine by the words of institution , take , drink ye all of this : these words , saith he , do shew that jesus christ doth with mercy look on all those that believe in him , because 't is the nature of wine to make every one merry . and upon these words , his teeth are white as milk ; milk , saith he , doth denote to us the whiteness and purity of the mystical nourishment ; for jesus christ gave to his disciples the image of his true body ; not desiring any of the bloody sacrifices of the law , he would by the white teeth , signifie to us the purity of the food wherewith we are nourished ; for according to holy david , sacrifice and burnt-offerings thou wouldest not , but a body hast thou prepared me . when procopius speaketh of the mystical wine that rejoyced the disciples , it being the nature of wine to make merry ; this mystical wine is not the blood of jesus christ , for 't is not the nature of blood to rejoyce . it must therefore be meant , that procopius said , by the wine which jesus christ distributed to his disciples , was to be understood true wine : and by the whitness of the mystical food , he meant the whiteness of the bread which is both food and image , which cannot be understood of the true body of jesus christ , which is neither the image of himself , nor bodily food ; nor of the accidents , which cannot nourish the body , because nourishment proceedeth from matter . the same procopius in his commentary on esay , expounding these words of the prophet , chap. 3. the lord of hosts will take away from judah and jerusalem the staff of bread and water ; saith , that in the first place these words of the prophet may be understood of jesus christ , and of his flesh and blood. the bread being to be understood of him of whom david saith , he gave them bread from heaven ; and the waters , of those of which jesus christ said to the samaritan , whosoever drinketh of this water , it shall be a fountain flowing unto everlasting life . then he adds , there is another bread which giveth life to the world , which was taken from the jews ; and another water , which is that of baptism . now by this other bread which was taken from the jews , he means that of the eucharist ; and whereas he distinguishes it from the bread , which is the lord , as he distinguisheth the water of baptism from that which was given to the samaritan ; it follows , that the bread of the eucharist is something that is distinguisht from jesus christ himself , the bread of heaven . gelasius bishop of rome , in the year 492 , wrote a treatise of the two natures against nestorius and eutyches , and he excludes transubstantiation , when he saith , that the substance or nature of bread and vvine doth still remain . this work is assuredly of pope gelasius . as is confessed by cardinal du perron , because first fulgentius cites four passages of this treatise as being writ by pope gelasius . and pope john the second in epist. ad amaenum , also cites some passages of this work , as being writ by gelasius ; and though he doth not give him the title of pope , 't is because his name was well enough known at rome when john the second lived . that the fathers of the sixth century did not believe transubstantiation . saint fulgentius saith , the catholick church doth continually offer to god , the father , son , and holy ghost , a sacrifice of bread and wine throughtout all the world. for in the fleshly sacrifices of the old testament , there is a type of the flesh of jesus christ , which he was to offer without spot for our sins ; but in this sacrifice , there is a thanksgiving and commemoration of the same flesh , which he offer'd for us , and of the blood which he shed for us . he saith , that this sacrifice consists in offering bread and wine ; there must then be true bread and wine in this sacrifice to be offer'd . ephraem first a lieutenant of the eastern part of the empire , then made bishop of antioch , in the year 526. wrote books , which he intituled sacred laws , in the first of which disputing against the eutychians , he saith , when our fathers said , that jesus christ is compos'd of two natures , they meant two substances , as by two substances two natures . no body of any sense , but may say , that the nature of that which is to be felt , and not felt in jesus christ , is the same nature . thus it is , that the body of jesus christ , which is received by believers , doth not quit its sensible nature , and remains without being separated from the intelligible grace . the which he confirms by the example of water , which doth not lose its nature by consecration . this argument is of the same kind of that we see of theodoret , and of gelasius , whereby these three others prove , that in the incarnation , the presence of the word did not destroy the human nature in jesus christ , as the presence of the holy ghost doth not destroy the substance of bread and wine in the eucharist . we may say of this triple and same argument , funiculus triplex difficile rumpitur . mons. de marca , saith in reference to this passage , and of those we have instanced , of theodoret , and st. chrysostom , that these three authors have owned a real change of the bread , which nevertheless leaves the species in their natural substance . facundus bishop of hermiana in africa , in the year 552. whose books , which he wrote in defence of the three chapters of the council of chalcedon , are justly praised by victor of tunes in his chronology , and by st. isidore of sevil , and which father sirmond the jesuit got out of the vatican library ; going about to excuse theodore de mopsuest , who taught that jesus christ had taken the adoption of the children of god ; from whence it might have been concluded , that he believed that jesus christ is only an adoptive son , saith , baptism , which is the sacrament of adoption , may be call'd adoption , as we call the sacrament of his body and blood , which is in the consecrated bread and wine , his body and blood ; not that the bread is properly his body , and the cup his blood ; but , because they contain in them the mystery of his body and blood. therefore , as the faithful servants of jesus christ , receiving the sacrament of his body and blood , are very rightly said to receive his body and blood ; so also jesus christ having received the sacrament of the adoption of children , might very well be said to have received the adoption of children . certainly , if the sacrament of bread and wine is not properly the body of jesus christ , as facundus saith , but barely body and blood , as baptism is adoption ; the bread and wine are not transubstantiated into the eucharist , and are but simple signs , and something that is distinguished from the body and blood of jesus christ. primasius bishop of adruemetum in africa , in his commentary upon the 10th chapter of the 1st to the corinth . saith , as the bread which we break , is the participation of the body of christ , so also the bread of idols , is the participation of devils . now as the participation of the bread of idols , is no transubstantiation , or real change into devils : so also the participation of the bread of the lord , is not a real and substantial change of bread into the body of the lord. the same doctor , on the words of the 11th chap. of the same epistle , where 't is said , that the lord took bread the night in which he was betrayed , relates . that jesus christ thereby gave to us the commemoration of his body . and on the following words , the lord , saith he , hath given us an example , to the end that as often as we do this , we should think in our minds , that christ died for us . it is for this end , that 't is said to us , the body of christ , that so thinking of it , we should not be ungrateful and unthankful for his grace . as if any one at his death , should leave to his friend a pledg of his love , could he , when he saw it , refrain from tears , if he really loved his friend ? there must therefore needs be in the sacrament bread and wine to be pledges of jesus christ , for he cannot be a pledg of himself . that the fathers of the seventh and eighth century 's did not believe transubstantiation . isidore bishop of sevil , anno 600. saith , that by the command of jesus christ himself , we do call body and blood , that which being the fruits of the earth , is sanctified and made a sacrament by the invisible operation of the holy ghost . in the 1st book of ecclesiastical offices , he saith , that the bread is called the body of jesus christ , because it strengthens the body , and that the wine is called his blood , because it increaseth blood in the body ; and that the bread and wine are two visible things , which being sanctified by the holy ghost , do go on to be the sacrament of the divine body . now a sacrament signifies a holy sign . it would therefore be a strange kind of way of isidore , if he had believ'd the bread and wine were transubstantiated , to say , the bread and wine are two things visible , which being sanctified by the holy ghost , do become the sacraments of the divine body . by this language it might as well be said , that the fathers believed that the water of baptism was transubstantiated after their consecration . the same bishop saith , melchisedeck , that offer'd of the fruits of the earth a sacrifice to god , thereby represented the priesthood or reign of jesus christ , which is the true king of peace , of whose body and blood , that is to say , the oblation of bread and wine , is offer'd throughout the vvorld . and in the treatise de vocat . gentium , cap. 26. these are not any longer jewish sacrifices , such as were offer'd by aaron the priest , which are now offer'd by believers , but they are such sacrifices as were presented by melchisedeck king of salem , that is to say , it is bread and wine , the true sacrament of the body and blood of jesus christ. he saith , the sacrament of the body and blood of jesus christ is bread and wine , that both the one and the other are such sacrifices as those offer'd by melchisedeck ; there is therefore no question , but st. isidore did not believe that the bread was destroy'd in the sacrament , because he establishes the sacrament in the bread and wine , such as melchisedeck had offer'd . beda , an english priest , saith , that jesus christ having ended the ceremony of the ancient passover , which was celebrated in commemoration of the bondage in egypt , out of which the jews had been deliver'd , proceeded to the new passover , which the church celebrates in remembrance of his redemption , the figure of his body ; to the end , that instead of the flesh and blood of the lamb , substituting the sacrament of his flesh and blood in the figure of bread and wine , he might shew that it was him to whom god had sworn , and repented not , saying , thou art a priest for ever after the order of melchisedeck . now , continues beda , jesus christ broke the bread which he distributed to his disciples , to shew , that the breaking of his body did not come to pass without his good will. it appears from these words , ( substituting the sacrament of his flesh and blood in the figure of bread and wine ) that the bread and wine remain after consecration , to be the figure of the body and blood of christ. as when the apostle saith , the sign of circumcision , signum circumcisionis ; that is to say , circumcision which is a sign and a figure . so beda maketh the sacrament consist in the bread and wine . therefore in the homily , de sanct is in epiphania , he saith , that jesus christ the heavenly lamb , having been offer'd up , transfer'd into the creatures of bread and wine , the mystery of his passion , and thereby became a priest for ever after the order of melchisedeck . and elsewhere he saith , melchisedeck priest of the most high god , did long before the time of the legal priesthood , offer up bread and wine . therefore our saviour is called priest after the order of melchisedeck , because he abrogated the sacrifices of the law , and instituted a sacrifice of the same kind to be under the new testament , the mystery of his body and blood. certainly , as our mystery is no mystery till after consecration ; and that 't is of the same nature as was that of melchisedeck , it must be concluded , that the bread and wine do remain in the sacrament of the eucharist . sedulius a scotchman , author of the commentaries upon st. paul , and who flourished about the year 735. in his commentary upon the first to the corinthians , chap. 11. saith , jesus christ in the eucharist , hath left us the remembrance of himself , as if one going a far journey should leave with his friend the pledg of his love , to remember their ancient amity . there must then needs be something that is not jesus christ himself , for no one is a pledg of himself . damascen a fryer , who lived about the year 750 , saith in his fourth book of orthodox law , chap. 14. the shew-bread did typifie this bread , and 't is this pure and unbloody sacrifice which our saviour foretold by the prophet , should be offered to him from the rising of the sun to the setting of the same , to wit , the body and blood of jesus christ , which passeth into the substance of our body and soul , without being consumed , without being corrupted , without going into the draft , god forbid , but passing into our substance for our preservation . now every body agrees this cannot be said of the proper body of jesus christ. it must then be concluded , damascen supposed that the bread remained . in the same place he adds , that as in baptism , because men are wont to wash with water , and anoint them with oyl , god has added to the water and oyl , the grace of his holy spirit , and has made it the washing of regeneration ; so also , they being accustom'd to eat bread , and to drink wine and water , he has joined them to his divinity , and has made them his body and blood. in the same place , the prophet esay saw a light coal ; now the coal is not of meer wood , but it is joined to fire ; so also the bread of the eucharist is not common bread , but it is united to the divinity , and the body which is united to the divinity , is not one and the same nature , but the nature of the body is one , and that of the divinity which is united to it , is another . in the same place , how is it that the bread is made the body of jesus christ , and the wine and water his blood ? he answers , the holy ghost comes and disposes these things after such a manner as surpasseth our thoughts and expressions . the bread and wine are taken , panis & vinum assumuntur , in greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , a word used by st. athanasius to express the hypostatical union . now these kinds of expressions of damascen do imply , that the bread and wine do remain in the sacrament . the council of constantinople composed of 338 bishops , held in the viiith century , for regulating the business of image-worship , having condemn'd their use , they would by the way explain the doctrine of the church touching the eucharist , and to draw a proof against those very images , they call it the true image of jesus christ ; they say he gave it to his disciples to be a type of the evident commemoration of his death ; they say that jesus christ chose no other species under heaven , nor no other type that should express his incarnation . behold then , say they , the image of his quickned body , which was made after a precious and honourable manner . they affirm , that as the word did not take a person , that so the addition of a person might not be made to the divinity : so also he appointed , that an image should be offered , which is a chosen matter , to wit , the substance of bread , that has not the figure of man , to avoid giving occasion of idolatry : as then , say they , the body of jesus christ which is according to nature , is holy , as having been deified ; so also 't is apparent , that that body also that is by institution , is holy , and it's image is holy , as having been deified by grace , by a kind of sanctification . they maintain , that as the human nature was deified by its union with the word , so also the bread of the sacrament , as the true image of the natural flesh of jesus christ , is sanctified by the coming of the holy ghost , and becomes the body of jesus christ , because the priest transfers the oblation from the state of a common thing , to something that is holy. to conclude , they clearly distinguish the natural flesh of jesus christ , which is living and intelligent , from his image , which is the heavenly bread , filled with the holy spirit . all these continued expressions are so far from any idea of transubstantiation , that one must needs see , that the destruction of the bread and wine in the sacrament , was not believed by the fathers of the council , nor by the church in their time . alcuin speaking of the consecrating of bread and wine to be the body and blood of christ , saith , that the sanctification of this mystery doth foreshew to us the effect of our salvation : that by the water is signified the christian people ; by the grains of the wheat ground into meal to make bread , is meant the union of the universal church which is made one body by the fire of the holy ghost , which unites the members to the head ; and that by the wine is shewed the blood of the passion of the lord. doubtless alcuin did not believe transubstantiation , seeing he places in the bread and wine , the signification of the body and blood of jesus christ ; and that he saith by the wine is shewed the blood of jesus christ ; for that which is a figure , and that which is figured ; that which sheweth , and that which is shewed , are two different things , the one of which is not the other . therefore the same alcuin doth formally distinguish the eucharist from the body and blood of jesus christ , when he saith after st. austin , whosoever abideth not in jesus christ , and he in whom christ abideth not , doubtless doth not spiritually eat his flesh , altho he visibly and carnally eats with his teeth the sacrament of the body and blood of jesus christ. charles the great , his disciple , writing to the same alcuin , calls the eucharist , the figure of the body and blood of the lord. the lord , saith he , being at supper with his disciples , broke bread , and gave likewise the cup , in figure of his body and blood ; and by this means offered us a very profitable sacrament : now whatever he said of the figure it contain'd , or that it contain'd not the truth , the figure was never the same as the thing is that 's figured . in the ambrosian office which was abolish'd in the year 796 , there was this clause , which is still to be seen in the fourth book of st. ambrose his sacraments , nobis hanc oblationem adscriptam rationabilem , acceptabilem , quod est figura corporis & sanguinis domini nostri jesu christi . the ancient roman order doth frequently call the bread and vvine , the body and blood of the lord ; but it sufficiently shews by these manner of expressions , that it doth not mean that the bread and vvine are the same thing with the body and blood of jesus christ ; for in the first place it saith , that the sub deacons when they see the chalice wherein is the blood of the lord cover'd with a cloth , and when the priest hath said these words at the end of the lords prayer , libera nos a malo , they should go from the altar , and prepare chalices and clean cloths to receive the body of the lord , fearing lest it should fall to the ground , and crumble to dust . now who doth not see that this cannot be spoken but of the bread , figuratively and improperly called the body of jesus christ ? 2ly , it saith , that the bishop breaketh the oblation on the right side , and that he leaveth the part which he brake , on the altar : now who can say that the body of jesus christ can be broke into parts ? 3dly , the fraction being made , the deacon receives from the sub-deacon the cup , and carries it to the chair , that the bishop might communicate , who having communicated , puts part of the holy oblation of which he bit a morsel , into the arch-deacons hands . can it be said that one doth bite the true body of jesus christ , and that one breaks off part of it ? 4thly , it adds , he is to take great heed that no part of the body and blood of the lord doth remain in the chalice , or on the plate . by these words , the roman order gives us to understand , that it speaks of such a body and blood that a part of it may be separated from the whole : now this is what can only be said of the bread and vvine , improperly called the body and blood of jesus christ. the now roman order at present used in the church of rome , doth also furnish us with the like reflections . it expresly marketh , that jesus christ gave in the oblation , bread and wine , to celebrate the mysteries of his body and blood. therein is desired , that this blessed oblation may be accepted of god in such a manner , as that it might be made to us the body and blood of jesus christ ; after all which , is recited the history of the institution , and the sacramental words . the eucharist is called , the sacred bread of eternal life ; and the cup , the cup of everlasting salvation . to conclude , they pray god to behold those gifts , and that he will accept them as he did the offering of abel , and the sacrifice of melchisedeck , which it's very well known , was bread and wine . all which doth plainly shew , that the roman order at this time observed , cannot reasonably be interpreted , but in supposing that the bread and wine remain in the eucharist after consecration . that the fathers of the ninth century did not believe transubstantiation . theodorus studita , as is related by michael studita in baronius , in the year 816. n. 15. seeing himself reduced to the extremity of being starv'd , said to his disciple , if men are so cruel as to make me perish with hunger , the participation of the body and blood of the lord , which is the ordinary food of my body and soul , shall be my only nourishment : now the real body of jesus christ cannot be the nourishment of the body ; therefore of necessity this author must be understood to speak of bread , which is his body figuratively and improperly . it is what is also confirm'd by this michael studita , who saith in the same place , that theodore had always about him , some parcels of the quickning body of the lord ; which cannot be meant of the true body of jesus christ , which is not now subject to be broken , nor divided . ahyto bishop of basil , sent ambassador by charlemaine in the year 814 , to constantinople , to treat a peace with the emperor of the east , as is declared by the annals of france , by eginhart author of the life of charlemaine , the annals of fulda , herman contract , and others . this ahyto died in the year 836 , and left a capitulary for instruction of the priests of his diocess , publisht by dom luke d'achery in the sixth tome of his spicilegium , pag. 692. now amongst many other instructions he gives his priests in his capitularies , this is one : in the fifth place , the priest should know what the sacrament of baptism and confirmation is , and also what the mystery of the body and blood of our lord doth mean. how a visible creature is seen in the same mysteries , and is nevertheless the invisible . salvation is communicated for the souls eternal happiness , which is contained in faith only . by visible creature , he can only mean a creature , not in appearance , but effective ; for otherwise , according to this author , it must be said that in baptism , and confirmation , there should be only an apparent creature , and not the substance of water and chrism . besides , ahyto attributed the same effect to these three sacraments , to wit , the communication of eternal and invisible salvation to them that with faith do receive these holy sacraments . theodulphus in the year 810 , bishop of orleans , saith in his treatise of the order of baptism , there is one saving sacrifice which melchisedeck also offer'd under the old testament , in type of the body and blood of our saviour , the which the mediator of god and man accomplished under the new , before he was crucify'd , when taking the bread and wine he blessed and gave them to his disciples , commanding them to do those things in remembrance of him . it is this mystery which the church doth celebrate , having put an end to the ancient sacrifices , offering bread , because of the bread which came down from heaven ; and wine , because of him which said , i am the true vine ; to the end that by the visible oblation of priests , and by the invisible consecration of the holy ghost , the bread and wine should have the dignity of the body and blood of our lord , with which blood there is mingled some water , either because there came out of the side of our saviour water with the blood ; or because according to the interpretation of our ancestors , as jesus christ is signify'd by the wine , so also the people is signify'd by the water . now this bishop , saying that jesus christ gave bread to his disciples in commemoration that this mystery is an oblation of visible bread which is consecrated by the holy spirit , and which receiveth the dignity of the body ; that he indifferently calls the blood , wine , and the wine , blood ; that with the blood , water is mingled , and that jesus christ is signify'd by the wine ; that 't is said the wine signifies jesus christ , as the water doth the people ; these words cannot suppose any transubstantiation . the opposers of paschasius radbertus frier of the monastry of corby , who wrote a book of the body and blood of jesus christ , did not believe transubstantiation . that the said paschasius had several adversaries , appears by his own writings , for towards the end of his commentary upon st. matthew , he saith himself , i have inlarged upon the lords supper a little more than the brevity of a commentary would permit , because there be several others that are of a different judgment touching these holy mysteries , and that several are blind , and do not perceive that this bread and cup is nothing else but what is seen with the eyes , and tasted with the palate . and in his epistle to frudegard , as well as in his commentary on st. matthew , ch . 12. it appears he had opposers , because in his epist. to frudegard , he saith , you advise with me touching a thing that many do make doubt of . and in his commentary , i am told that many , saith he , do censure me , as if i had attributed to the words of our lord , either more , or something quite contrary to what the genuine sense permits . so that paschasius had adversaries , and they did not believe transubstantiation , because they held that in the eucharist , there was only the virtue of the flesh , and not the very flesh ; the virtue of the blood , and not the very blood of christ. that the eucharist was figure , and not verity ; shadow of the body , and not the body it self . they would , saith paschasius , extenuate the word , body , and perswade , quod non sit vera caro christi , sed quaedam virtus & figura corporis christi . now paschasius rathbertus was the first author that wrote fully and seriously of the truth of the body and blood of jesus christ in the eucharist , as bellarmin saith , de scriptoribus ecclesiasticis in paschasio ratberto . and father sirmond saith , he is the first that hath explain'd the sense of the church touching this mystery ; so that , saith he , he hath opened the way to others , in vitae ratberti praefixa ejus operibus . therefore it is nothing strange that paschasius had enemies , and that he was accused for departing from the common faith , and to have spread abroad visions of a young man. for he saith to frudegard , you have , saith he , at the end of this work , the authorities of catholick fathers succinctly marked , by which you may perceive , that 't was not through rashness , that formerly when i was young i believed these things , but by divine authority . he also endeavours to clear himself from this charge in alledging passages , as of saint austins , the which nevertheless are not to be found in him ; as these words , receive in the bread what hung on the cross , receive in the cup what issued out of the side of jesus christ. which is not to be found in st. austin . rabanus archbishop of mayance in the year 847 , stiled by baronius in the year 843. n. 31. the bright star of germany , fulgens germaniae sidus ; saith in his institution of clerks lib. 1. cap. 31. our saviour liked better that believers should receive with their mouth the sacarments of his body and blood , and that they should be turned into their nourishment , to the end that by the visible work the invisible effect should be shewn . for as the material food , doth materially nourish the body and support it , so also the word of god doth nourish the soul inwardly , and doth strengthen it . and in the same place , the sacrament is one thing , and the virtue of the sacrament is another . the sacrament is turned into the nourishment of the body , but by the virtue of the sacrament one acquires everlasting life . as the sacrament therefore is turn'd into our selves , when we do eat and drink it , so also we are converted into the body of jesus christ , when we live with piety and obedience . the same doctor on st. matthew , chap. 26. saith with venerable beda , that jesus christ hath substituted instead of the flesh and blood of the paschal lamb , the sacrament of his body and blood. that the creator of the world , and the redeemer of mankind , making of the very fruits of the earth , that is to say , of bread and wine , a fit mystery , turn'd it into the sacrament of his body and blood , that unleavened bread and wine mixt with water , must be sanctified to be the sacrament of the body and blood of jesus christ. afterwards he gives the reason wherefore our saviour chose bread and wine to make them sacraments of his flesh and blood , and saith , that 't is because melchisedeck offer'd bread and wine , and that jesus christ being a priest after the order of melchisedeck , he was to imitate his oblation . and shewing the reason why the sacrament takes the name of the body and blood of the lord , he saith with isidore archbishop of sevil , 't is because bread strengthens the body , it is conveniently called the body of jesus christ ; and because wine augments blood in the flesh and veins , for this reason it is compar'd to the blood. now both these things are visible , nevertheless being sanctifi'd by the holy ghost , they pass into the sacrament of the divine body . a sacrament which in the 33. chap. he calls the mystical body of jesus christ , in opposition to his natural body , from which he distinguishes it , and draws a resemblance from the mystical body , to the proper body of jesus christ. the holy vessels , saith he , are set on the altar , viz. the cup and patten , which in some sort are the figure of the grave of jesus christ ; for as at that time the body of jesus christ was laid in the sepulcher , having been embalm'd by godly people ; so also at present , the mystical body of jesus christ , as it were imbalm'd with holy prayers , is kept in the holy vessels to be administred to believers by the hands of the ministers . the same doctor in his penitential , or letter to herribald bishop of auxerre , which monsieur baluze got printed at the end of his regino at paris in 1671 , saith , chap. 33. as to what you demand of me , whether the sacrament after it is eat and consum'd , and cast into the draft after the manner of all other meats , does return to the former nature it had before 't was consecrated at the altar : to such a needless question may be reply'd , the lord himself said in the gospel , that what enters into the body goes into the belly , and is cast into the draft . as for the sacrament of the body and blood , it is made of corporeal and visible things , but it produceth an invisible sanctification , as well to the body as to the soul. what reason is there , that that which is digested in the stomack , and is cast out into the draft , should return to its former state , there being never any that affirmed that such a thing was done ? for of late some persons not having a right judgment of the sacrament of the body and blood of christ , have said , that the same body , and the same blood of the lord which was born of the virgin mary , and in which the lord suffered on the cross , and rose again from the dead , is the same which is taken at the altar ; against which error we have as much as was necessary written to the abbot egilon , explaining what ought truly to be believed of the body of christ in the eucharist . amalarius , esteemed a very learned man , in the manuscripts cited by dom luke d'achery a learned benedictin , in his preface to the seventh tome of his spicilegium , was sent by the emperor charles le debonnair to pope gregory to find out antiphonaries , ( amalar. in prolog . antiphon . ) and who by express command of the same emperor , was chosen in a council held at aix la chappel , auno 816. to make rules for prebends , as is testified by ademar a monk of angoulism , in his chronicle on the year 816 , saith in his treatise of church-offices , lib. 3. cap. 25. that the sacrament is to us instead of jesus christ. the priest , saith he , bows and recommends to god the father , that which was offered in the room of jesus christ. in the 26th chap. he saith , the oblation and the cup , do signifie the body of the lord , when jesus christ said , this is the cup of my blood , he sanctified his blood , which blood was in the body , as the wine is in the chalice . in the third book , chap. 25. he calls the eucharist , the sacrament of bread and wine : and saith , that jesus christ hath in this bread recommended his body , and in the cup , his blood. the same amalarius having been consulted by rangart bishop of noyon , how he understood those words of institution of the eucharist , this is the cup in my blood of the new and eternal testament , with this addition which is in the canon of the mass , the mystery of faith ; answers him by a letter , wherein after having spoken of the cup of the passover , he proceeds to that of the eucharist ; and having alledged what is mention'd by st. luke , he adds , the cup is in type of my body , wherein is the blood that shall run out of my side , to accomplish the ancient law ; and after it is shed , it shall be the new testament . and a little lower he saith , the mystery is faith , as st. austin saith in his letter to the bishop boniface , as the sacrament of the body of jesus christ is in some manner the body of jesus christ , and the sacrament of his blood , his blood ; so the sacrament of faith , is faith. so also we may say , this is the cup of my blood of the new and eternal testament . as if he should say , this is my blood which is given for you . the same doctor in a letter which he wrote to one gontard , whom he calls his son , saith , that it is our saviours good pleasure to shed his blood by the members and veins , for our eternal salvation . that 't is a body of jesus christ that may be cast out in spitting after having receiv'd it , and of which , a part may be flung out of the mouth . to all which he adds , having so received the body of the lord with a good intention ; i don't pretend to dispute , whether he be invisibly lifted up to heaven , or whether he remains in our body , till the day of our death , or whether he evaporates into the air , or whether he issues out of the body with the blood , or whether he goes out at the pores ; our saviour saying , all that enters in at the mouth , goes down into the belly , and from thence into the draft , &c. now when this great man saith , that the sacrament is to us in the stead of jesus christ ; that what is offered in the eucharist is sacrific'd instead of jesus christ ; that the cup is in type of the body ; that the blood is in the body , as the wine is in the cup ; that jesus christ represents his body by the bread , and his blood in the wine ; that the sacrament of the body is in some sort his body , and that 't is so that the cup of the blood is his blood , that the body is poured forth upon our members for our salvation ; that there is a body of jesus christ that may be cast out by spitting , and whereof some part may be flung out of the mouth ; that he will not dispute whether this body evaporates in the air , or whether it departs out of the body with the blood , or whether it goes out at the pores , or into the draft , all this doth sufficiently shew , that this doctor distinguished the bread and wine , as a typical body , from the real body of jesus christ ; and that by consequence , he believed the bread and wine remained after consecration , to be called the body and blood of jesus christ , but improperly . valafridus strabo , abbas augiensis , stiled a very learned man , by herman contracted , in the year 849. jesus christ , said he , gave to his disciples the sacrament of his body and blood in the substance of bread and wine , teaching them to celebrate it in remembrance of his most holy passion , because there could nothing be found fitter than these things to signifie the unity of the head and members ; for as bread is made of sundry grains , and brought into one body by means of water ; and as the wine is squeez'd from several grapes , so also the body of jesus christ is made of the union of a multitude of saints . and a little after , he declares , that jesus christ hath chose for us a very fit sacrifice , for the mystery of his body and blood , in that melchisedeck having offer'd bread and wine , he gave to his children the same kinds of sacraments . and afterwards , cap. 18. that for that great number of legal ordinances , jesus christ gave us the word of his gospel ; so also instead of the great diversity of sacrifices , believers are to rest satisfied with the sole oblation of bread and wine . it is evident strabo makes the holy sacrament to consist in the substance of bread and wine , which according to him , is differenced from the body , because it is but the memorial of it : that 't is the figure , that it consists in being made of sundry grains , and the wine of sundry grapes . that the sacrifice of the new testament , is of the same kind as that of melchisedeck , and that the eucharist is an oblation of bread and wine . all these things intimate , that the bread and wine remain in the eucharist after consecration . herribald was bishop of auxerre , in the time that vallafridus strabo wrote . now he was of the same opinion with rabanus . thomas waldensis assures us so . herribald of auxerre , saith he , and rabanus of mayence say , that the sacrament of the eucharist goes into the draft . the anonimous author , contemporary with herribald , which was published by father cellot the jesuit , saith also the same . nevertheless lupus abbot of ferriers , ep. 19. speaking of him , calls him a most excellent prelate , excellentissimum praesulum . in the 37th ep. he stiles him a man of a lofty and divine understanding , altissimi & divini ingenii . and hincmarus archbishop of reims , calls him the bishop of venerable qualities . so that the very chronicle of auxerre intimates , that there was ingrav'd on his monument this inscription , here lies the body of st. herribald . therefore the author of the 1st treatise of the perpetuity of the eucharist , saith in pag. 843 , that herribald and rhabanus , were adversaries to paschasius : tho in the 2d treatise of the perpetuity , in pag 842. he saith , speaking of the minister claude , who told him , that amalarius and herribald were in any wise adversaries to paschas ? it appears by the letter paschasius wrote to frudegard , that he was not of the same judgment paschasius was of , seeing he opposes to him st. austin's 23d letter to boniface , sic widefort contra wickliff , ad art. 1. * ratramne , priest and frier of corby , experienc'd in the scriptures , equally esteem'd for his learning and manners , whom † hincmar , ‖ lupus abbot of ferriers , his contemporaries ; ⸫ sigebert who liv'd in the xi . century , and father ‡ cellot the jesuits anonimus , do all make mention of , under his true name of ratramne ; wrote a book under the reign of charles the bald , as is reported by the same trythemius , which he intitul'd , of the body and blood of the lord : from a monk of corby , he was made abbot of ovias . the president : ⸫ mauguin speaking of him , saith , he was a learned doctor of the church , eminent in probity , and in doctrine , an undaunted defender and protector of the catholick truth , against innovators . he dedicated his book to the emperor charles the bald. now this author did not believe transubstantiation , because he saith , for as to the substance of those creatures , they are after consecration what they were before ; they were before bread and wine , and it is plainly seen , that after consecration these created substances do remain in the very same species . and a little after he saith , this spiritual flesh which spiritually feeds believers , is made of grains of wheat , by the hands of the baker , such as it appears to our sight ; but it hath neither bones nor sinews , nor no distinction of parts , nor is it enliven'd with a soul , or reasonable substance . to conclude , it is unable to move of it self , and if it gives life , it is the effect of a spiritual virtue , of an invisible , and a divine virtue and efficacy . a little after he saith again , as the water represents the people in the sacrament , if it were true , that the bread consecrated by ministers was corporally changed into the body of jesus christ , it must also necessarily follow , that the water which is mingled with it were changed into the blood of the faithful people ; for where there is but one sanctification , there ought to be but one operation ; and the mystery should be equal where the reason of the mystery is the same . it is evident there is no corporal change in the water , and by consequence , there is no corporal change to be expected in the wine . all that is said of the body of the people represented by water , is understood spiritually ; it is then a necessary consequence , that what is said of the blood of jesus christ represented by the wine , must be understood spiritually . again , the things which differ amongst themselves , are not one and the same thing . the body of jesus christ which was dead and rose again , and become immortal , doth dye no more , death has no more dominion over it , it is eternal , and can no more suffer ; but that which is celebrated in the church is temporal and not eternal , and it is corruptible and not incorruptible . and again ; it must then be said , that the body of jesus christ , such as it is made in the church , was incorruptible and eternal . nevertheless it cannot be denied that what is so cut into morsels to be eat , changed and corrupted , and that being eat with the teeth , it goes into the body . again , now 't is true that the figure and the reallity are things distinct , therefore the body and blood which are celebrated in the church , are different from the flesh and blood of the body of jesus christ , which it is well known , is glorious since his resurrection , therefore the body that we celebrate is a pledg and figure . these words of ratramne or bertram , are so clear , that it is wonder'd the author of the perpetuity should say in the first treatise , p. 3. that bertram is an obscure author , and not evidently favourable to calvinists , but that the catholicks may explain him in a good sense . i cannot tell what to call this confidence . john erigen , a scotch man , whom the emperor charles the bald commanded to write touching the body and blood of the lord , as he had done also to ratramne , which appears by borrenger's letter to richard , publish'd by dom luke d' achery in the 2d tome of his spicileg , was of an opinion contrary to paschasius , as is acknowledged by * lanfrank ; and berenger in his epistle to the same lanfrank ; and hincmar saith of john erigen , that he taught , ‖ that the sacrament of the altar was not the real body and blood of jesus christ , but only the remembrance both of the one and the other : and berenger writing to lanfrank , saith to him , if you hold john for a heretick , whose judgment we have been inform'd of touching the sacrament , you must also hold for hereticks , ambrose , chrysostom , austin , not to mention many more . nevertheless * william of malmsbury , ‖ roger de hoveden , and ‡ matthew of westminster , speak of john scot , as of the greatest man of his time ; and molanus professor in divinity at the university of lovain , in his appendix to the martyrology of ussuart , at the letter j has left these words engraven , john scot , martyr , translated dionysius ' s ecclesiastical hierarchy , after which by authority of the popes , he was put into the number of the martyrs of jesus christ. to conclude , the roman martyrology , which we have in our library , printed at antwerp , anno 1586. by order of gregory the 13th , as is said in the title of the book , martyrologium romanum jussii gregorii 13 , editum , at the 4 of the ides of november , makes mention of john scot : it 's true , the author of the 1st dissertation upon john scot , which the author of the perpetuity chose , having placed the said dissertation at the end of his 2d treatise , to which he often refers his readers , has made in the same dissertation , a chapter which bears the title , that john scot was not put into the catalogue of martyrs by the sacred authority of popes , and that his name is not to be sound in any edition of the roman martyrology . but it is also certain , that the same author , who hath also publish'd the belief of the greek church touching transubstantiation , has inserted in the end of his book , a treatise entituled , a refutation of the answer of a minister of charenton , to the dissertation which is in the end of monsieur arnauds book , concerning the employments , the martyrdom , and the writings of john scot , or erigen ; and the last chapter of this refutation hath this title , a sincere declaration of the author touching some things he had said in his dissertation , the which he since confesses were not true . and in numb . 6. of this chapter , the author saith in these terms , in art. 7. p. 25. ( he speaks of the 7th art. of the first dissertation upon john scot , which is at the end of mr. arnauds perpetuity ; ) it is said that 't is false that there was a martyrology printed at antwerp by command of gregory the 13th in the year 1586. 2dly , that there is not to be found in any roman martyrology , printed at antwerp or any where else , the commemoration of john scot on the 4th of the ides of november . it would be superfluous here to relate the reasons that they have had , so positively to deny these matters of fact. it is sufficient to observe , first , that there is a roman martyrology set forth by order of gregory the 13th , and printed by platin at antwerp in the year 1586. 2dly , that there is seen in this martyrology , the commemoration of john scot on the 4th of the ides of november in these words , eodem die sancti joannis scoti qui grafiis puerorum confessus , martyrii coronam adeptus est . this author is of good reputation , and doubtless was not ignorant of what st. austin saith in some of his works , that to lye in a matter of religion , is meer blasphemy . nevertheless we may observe , before proceeding any farther , that if scot had advanced any new doctrine , he would certainly have been reproved for it by the church of lyons , by prudentius , by florus , by the councils of valence and langres , which condemn'd and censur'd his opinions on the doctrine of predestination . st. prudentius bishop of troys in champaign , who assisted at the councils of paris in the year 846 , of tours in 849 , at soissons in the year 853. to whom leo the 4th wrote an honourable letter , which is to be seen in the 6th tome of the councils , of the which the bishop of toul in the french martyrology on the 7th of april , having said , that at troys his anniversary is solemnized , as of a holy bishop and confessor ; he also makes a magnificent elegy of him . this holy bishop , i say , was of the same judgment with john scot in the subject of the eucharist , for hincmar arch-bishop of rhemes , numbers him with john scot , against whom he observes nevertheless , that he wrote touching predestination , and saith , that they both held , that the sacraments of the altar are not the true body and blood of our lord , but only the commemoration of his body and blood. christianus drutmar priest and frier of corby , famous for his learned works , saith sigebert of illustrious men , as also the abbot trythemius ; wrote a commentary upon st. matthew , about the year 845. it is in the bibliotheca patrum , tom. 16. pag. 301. jesus christ , saith drutmar , took bread , because bread strengthens the heart of man , and doth better fortifie our body than any other food . he therein establishes the sacrament of his love ; but this propriety ought much rather to be attributed to the spiritual bread which perfectly strengthens all men , and all creatures , because 't is by him we live , move , and have our being . he blessed it : he blessed it first , because as in his person he blessed all mankind , then afterwards he shewed that the blessing and power of the divine and immortal nature was truly in that nature which he had taken from the virgin mary . he broke it : he broke the bread which was himself , because exprsing himself willingly to death , he broke and shattered the habitation of his soul , to the end that he might satisfie us , according to what himself saith , i have power to lay down my life , or to save it . and he gave it to his disciples , saying to them , take and eat , this is my body . he gave to his disciples the sacrament of his body for the remission of sins , and for the keeping of charity , to the end that not forgetting this action , they should always perform this in figure , and that they should not be unmindful of what he was about to do for them . this is my body , that is to say , sacramentally ; and having taken the cup , he blessed it , and gave it to his disciples . as amongst all things which are necessary to preserve life , bread and wine are those that do most of all repair and strengthen the weakness of nature : it is with great reason that our saviour was pleas'd in these two things to establish the mystery of his sacrament ; for wine rejoyces the heart , and increases blood , therefore it is very fit to represent the blood of jesus christ , because whatsoever comes from him , rejoyces with true joy , and encreaseth whatsoever there is of good in us . to conclude , as a person that is going a long journey , leaves to those u hom be loves , some particular pledg of his kindness , on condition that they should look daily upon it , to the end that they may retain him always in remembrance ; so in like manner , god by spiritually changing the bread into his body , and the wine into his blood , has commanded us to celebrate this mystery , that these two things should make us never forget what he hath done for us with his body and blood , and keep us from being unthankful and ungrateful for his so tender love. now because water is wont to be mingled with the sacrament of his blood , this water represents the people for whom jesus christ was pleas'd to suffer , and the water is not without the wine , nor the wine without the water , because as he died for us , so also we should be ready to die for him , and for our brethren , that is to say , for the church , therefore there came out of his side water and blood. this passage is taken out of the commentary , where the author expounds these words of the institution , this is my body , by these other words , that is to say , in sacrament , which are words quite contray to those of paschasius ; for paschasius said in his letter to frudegard , fearing it should be thought that jesus spake in sacrament , he said demonstratively , this is my body . ne putares quia in sacramento loquebatur ( deminus ) &c. demonstrative dixit , hoc est corpus meum . so drutman makes a difference 'twixt the body and the sacrament which he establishes in the bread and wine , which he blessed , brake and gave to his disciples ; he ascribes to the wine , only the dignity of representing the blood of christ ; and that , to conclude , the bread and wine are pledges of his love. therefore the same author , chap. 56. on these words , i will drink no more of this fruit of the vine , until i drink it new with you in my father's kingdom ; from that very hour of supper , saith he , he drank no wine , until he became immortal and incorruptible after his resurrection . the deacon florus wrote about the same time , an exposition of the mass , which is mention'd in the bibliotheca patrum , tom. 6. pag. 170. he there saith , this body and this blood is not gather'd in ears of corn , or in clusters of grapes ; nature doth not give it us , but it is consecration that makes it mystical to us : jesus christ is eaten when the creatures of bread and wine do pass to the sacrament of the body and blood , by the ineffable sanctification of the holy ghost . he is eaten by parcels in the sacrament , and remains whole and intire in heaven , and whole and intire in our hearts . again , all that is done in this oblation of the body and blood of our saviour , is a mystery , we there see one thing , and we understand another ; what we see , hath a corporal substance ; what we understand , hath a spiritual fruit. he saith , jesus christ saith to them , take , eat ye all of this ; and speaking of the cup , the wine , saith he , was the mystery of our redemption , and he proves it by these words , i will drink no more of the fruit of the vine . to conclude , explaining these last words of the canon , by which , o lord , thou daily makest these good things for us , which contain a kind of thanksgiving , which in the latin liturgy does follow the consecration ; he sufficiently intimates to us , that he did not believe the bread and wine were changed into the substance of the body and blood of jesus christ , seeing he speaks of them , as things god had created from the beginning of the world , which he creates every year by propagation and reparation , which he sanctifies , which he sills with grace and heavenly benediction , the which himself expounds to be bread and wine . see here nine or ten authors , contemporaries with paschasius , which are formally contrary to his doctrine , besides those which paschasius himself speaks of in general , in his own writings . to conclude the ninth century , there might be added the manner that charles the bald , and the count of barcelona signed the peace , which was done with the blood of the eucharist , as is reported by monsieur baluze in his notes on agabard , out of odo aribert , in the year 844. it was in the same manner that pope theodore in the seventh century signed the condemnation of pirrbus the monotholite , as appears by baronius on the year 648. § 15. that the fathers of the tenth century did not believe transubstantiation . alferick archbishop of canterbury , about the year 940. in one of his sermons to be seen in the fourth book of bedes ecclesiastical history , cap. 24. which we have copied in the library of st. victor , saith , the eucharist is not the body of jesus christ corporally , but spiritually ; not the body in which he suffered , but the body of which he spake , when consecrating the bread and wine he said , this is my body , this is my blood ; he adds , the bread is his body , just as the manna ; and the wine his blood , as the water in the desart was . there is another sermon cited by some under the name of wolfin bishop of salisbury , others say 't is of alfric , wherein the author uses near the same language . this sacrifice , saith he , is not the body of jesus christ wherein he suffered for us , nor his blood which he shed , but it is spiritually made his body and blood , as the manna that fell from heaven , and the water that sprang out of the rock besides these two testimonies , which shew what was believed of the sacrament in england , there is a sermon seen , which was read every year to the people at easter , to keep in their minds the idea of the ancient faith ; it is almost wholly taken out of ratramne ; there is great difference , saith this homily , betwixt the body wherein jesus christ suffered , and the body which is consecrated for the eucharist ; for the body wherein jesus christ suffered , was born of the virgin mary , and was provided with blood , bones , nerves and skin , with bodily members , and a reasonable soul ; but his spiritual body , which we call eucharist , is compos'd of several grains of wheat , without blood , without bones , nerves , and without a soul. the body of christ which suffer'd death , and rose again , shall never dye more , it is eternal and immortal ; but the eucharist is temporal and not eternal , it is corruptible and divided into sundry parcels , ground by the teeth , and goes along with the other excrements . this sacrament is a pledg and figure ; the body of jesus christ is the truth it self ; we have this pledg sacramentally until we attain to the truth , and then the pledg shall be fulfill'd . and a little lower , if we consider the eucharist after a corporal manner , we see 't is a changeable and corruptible creature ; but if we consider the spiritual virtue that is in it , we easily see that life abides in it , and that it gives immortality to those that receive it with faith. there is great difference betwixt the invisible virtue of this holy sacrament , and the visible form of its proper nature . by nature it is corruptible bread , and corruptible wine , but by the virtue of the word of god , it is truly his body and blood , yet not corporally but spiritually . a little below , he explains this change , in saying , jesus christ by an invisible virtue did change the bread and wine into his body and blood ; but 't was after the same manner as he heretofore changed manna , and the water that came out of the rock , into the same body and blood. fulcuin abbot of the monastry of lobes , in the county of liege , who departed this life in the year 990. speaking of the eucharistical table , saith , that 't is the table on which is consumed the sacred body of our lord , which not being to be said of the proper body , cannot be understood but of the bread which is called body , an expression which in all likelihood this abbot had learn'd of st. austin , who faith , the bread made for that use , is consumed in receiving the sacrament . that which is set on the table is consum'd , the holy celebration being ended . herriger , successor to fulcuin , and whom he that continued the history of the abbots of lobes , mentions as a man whose virtue and knowledg was known even to strangers , he collected , saith this author , several passages of catholick fathers against paschasius ratbertus , touching the body and blood of our lord. the ancient customs of the monastry of cluny , reprinted by the care of dom luke d' achery , l. 2. ch . 30. say , the outside of the challice is carefully rub'd , lest there should the least drop of the wine and water remain ; and being consecrated , it should fall to the ground , and perish ; by which it appears they believed the wine and water still remain'd after consecration , for the true body of jesus christ cannot perish . again , the priest divides the host , and puts part of it into the blood ; of one moiety he communicates himself , and with the other , he communicates the deacon . it cannot be so spoke of the body of jesus christ ; then after the priest has broke the host , he puts part of it into the cup , after the usual manner , two parts on the patten , and covers both the one and the other with a clean cloath ; but first of all , he very carefully rubs the challice , and shakes it with the same hand with which he touched it , fearing , lest that breaking the bread , there should rest some part of the body of our lord ( which cannot be said of the true body of jesus christ ; ) and elsewhere is prescrib'd what should be done , if there chance to remain ever so little of the body of our saviour , which is expounded to be a very little crum , as 't were indivisible , and like an atome . to conclude , treating of the communion of sick folks , it is observ'd that the body of our lord is brought from the church , that it is broke , and that the priest holds on the challice the part that he is to bring . it must needs be , that by the sence of these customs , there must be bread and wine in the sacrament , that it may be broken , and improperly called body . ratherius bishop of verona saith , as to the corporal substance which the communicant doth receive , seeing that 't is i that do now ask the question , i must also answer my self , and i thereto yield ; for seeing that to him that receives worthily , it is the true body , altho one sees that the bread is the same it was before ; and true blood , altho the wine is seen to be the same it was : i confess i cannot say nor think , what it is to him that doth receive unworthily , that is to say , that doth not abide in god. now the communicant , can he receive a corporal substance ? can one say , that one sees that the bread is what 't was before , if the communicant receives no substance ? it is known on the contrary , that what is seen , is not bread nor wine . moreover , ratherius condemning drunkenness and excess in some of his priests , saith , that some of them spew'd before the altar of our lord upon the body and blood of the lamb ; this can be understood only of the sacrament , which borrows the name of the thing signified , the abuse whereof reflects on him that instituted it . that the authers of the eleventh century did not believe transubstantiation . the author of the life of st. genulphius , who in all probability lived in the beginning of the eleventh century , and was published by john a bosco a celestin frier , relates of this saint , that from the very day of his ordination , he spent the rest of his life without tasting any wine , except it was that he receiv'd in the celebration of the holy sacrament . one would not speak in this manner , and believe that there was not wine remaining in the cup after consecration . leutherick arch-bishop of sens , who died in the year of our lord 1032. did not believe transubstantiation , because we read of him in the life of pope john the xvii . or according to others the eleventh , that in this popes life , leutherick arch-bishop of sens , laid the foundation and elements of the heresy of berenger . whence it is , that helgald wrote in the life of king robert , that his doctrine grew and increased in the world ; cresebat , saith he , in saeculo , notwithstanding the threatnings which this prince made to depose him from his dignity , if he continued to teach it . fulbert , anno dom. 1007. bishop of chartres , and ordain'd by leutherick , did not believe transubstantiation , when he said in his 1 st epistle to adeodatus , that jesus christ intending to take up his body to heaven , left us the sacrament for to be a pledg of his body and blood. that under the visible form of the creature , there is a secret virtue that operates in the holy solemnities . that the divine majesty is diffus'd and spread abroad in that , which before was but a common thing , but being sanctifi'd by the heavenly word , it inwardly becomes the body of jesus christ. that this is effected by the holy spirit that joyns , unites and binds the sacrament to the body of jesus christ , ( compaginante spiritu sancto ) that the terrestrial matter surpassing the merits of its nature and kind , is changed into the substance of the body of jesus christ ; that this change is not impossible , no more than that is , which arrives to us by baptism , being changed into the body of the church ; not by any priviledge of nature , but by the purchase of faith ; non naturae privilegio , sed fidei precio , being the same outwardly , and changed inwardly : of servants being become children , being vile and abject , and all of a sudden acquiring a new dignity . what wonder is it , that he that produced these natures out of nothing , should convert them into the dignity of a more excellent nature , and make them pass into the substance of his body ? now the terms of pledges of the body and blood of the lord , do sufficiently shew that he made a difference betwixt the sacrament and his body ; therefore we see before , that ratramne drew the same consequence in saying , that which is a pledg and image , is distinct from that whereof it is an image and pledg . these terms of a secret virtue by which it operates , of the sacred majesty which it spreads abroad , of the holy spirit that joins and unites , of the matter which is advanced to a greater dignity ; and in that he confirms the change of the bread , by that which happens to believers in baptism ; and by that which besel the manna in the wilderness ; as also what he farther says to frudegard in his 2d epistle of the communion , as of a thing whereof the priest newly ordained , during 40 days , received a little portion , parvam particulam , which might be taken by morsels , or by bits , minutatim sumere , in that he calls the sanctified bread , eucharist , and that he saith , that the sanctified bread is called the true body of jesus christ ; in that he saith elsewhere with st. austin , that he that abides not in jesus christ , and in whom jesus christ abideth not , doth not eat his flesh , nor drink his blood , though he eats and drinks to his condemnation , the sacrament of so great a thing . all this sheweth , that berenger had all reason to alledg in his defence the authority of fulbert , as appears by berenger's letter to richard , which letter is printed by dom luke d' achery in the 2d tome of his spicileg . if things be so , saith berenger to richard , how is it that this doctrine of the eucharist , contained in the writings of bishop fulbert of glorious memory , should come to my knowledg , which some indeed imagine to be of this bishop , but was indeed taught by st. austin ? bernon abbot of auge , who about the year 1030. wrote a treatise of things concerning the mass , saith in the 1 st chapter , that pope sergius commanded to sing the agnus dei at the breaking of the body of the lord ; now this being not to be understood of the proper body of jesus christ , it must be understood of the sacrament , which is the figure of his body : they do not speak so now , they say the sign is broken , but they do not say the body of jesus christ is broken : and in the 5th chapter he saith , that we are refreshed with the wine which is in the cup , in type of the blood of jesus christ. bruno bishop of argers , was of berengers opinion , as appears by the 3d tome of the bibliotheca patrum , p. 319 , in a letter the bishop of liege writ to k. henry against bruno and berenger , his arch-deacon . sigebert in his chronicle of miroeus his edition at antwerp , 1608 , saith , that many did dispute for and against berenger , by word of mouth , and by writing . the manuscript of this chronicle , which is seen in monsieur d'thous's library saith the same : as also conrart de brunwill , apud surium vita wolphelmi ad ap . matthew of westminster on the year 1080 , saith , that berenger had almost corrupted all france , italy , and england , with his doctrine . matthew paris , and william of malmsbury do affirm , that all france was full of his doctrine . thomas waldensis relates the acts of the council held under gregory the 7th , wherein there was a more moderate confession of faith touching the sacrament prepared , than that under alexander the 2d , predecessor to gregory ; berenger was forced to sign it , after which greg. 7th . gave him letters of recommendation , which dom luke d' achery , has caused to be printed in one of the tomes of his collection . nevertheless it appears by the acts , and by hugh de flavigny , in the chronicle of verdun in the 1st tome of father l' abbes bibliotheque , in an. 1078 , that there were several in that assembly that maintained berengers doctrine against paschasius , that this arch-deacons adversaries knew not how to answer his reasons , as the chronicle of mount cassin test sies , l. 3. c. 33. and sigonius de regno itali , relates lib. 9. on the year 1059. that they were forc'd to send to the monastry of mount cassin , for a learned frier called albert , whom pope stephen , saith sigonius , made cardinal deacon , who being come , and not able to answer berengers arguments , desired a weeks time to consider of them ; neither was pope gregory the 7th himself well satisfied with what was urged against berenger , seeing that cardinal bernon , in the life of hildebrand , and the abbot of ursberg in the year 1080 , do write , that gregory the 7th , wavering in the faith , caus'd a fast to be kept by his cardinals , that it might be discover'd whether the church of rome , or berenger were in the best opinion touching the bidy of jesus christ in the sacrament . one argument that gregory the 7th , was not very contrary to berenger , is , that the abbot of ursberg , and aventin , that has it from otto fraxinensis , relate on the year 1080 , that thirty bishops and lords being assembled apud brixiam nomicam , did depose gregory the 7th , amongst other things , for being a disciple of berengers . before i end my discourse of berenger , it is necessary to observe , that the confession that was extorted from him , is not maintainable , seeing that , as is related by lanfranc and alger , it is therein said , that jesus christ not only in sacrament , but also in reality , is touched and broken by the teeth . theophylact arch-bishop of bulgary said in his time , that god , condescending to our infirmity , doth preserve the species of bread and wine , and changes them into the virtue of the body and blood of christ. also in his time the greeks did not believe transubstantiation . in all probability nicetas pectoratus did not believe it , seeing cardinal humbert whom pope leo the 9th sent to them , upbraids him , perfidious stercoranist , says he to him , you think that the participation of the body and blood of our lord breaks the fasts of lent , and other holy fasts , believing that the heavenly , as well as the terrestrial food , is cast out into the draft , by the sordid and stinking way of the belly . alger de sacram. l. 2. c. 1. tom. 6. of the fathers , lib. and the jesuit cellot , in append. miscel. opusc. 7. p. 564. do frequently impute this error to the greeks . the author of the chronicle malleacensis , on the year 1083 , observes in the monastry ( cormoriacensi ) , that there was a fryar called literius , of such great abstinence , that for ten years time , he drank neither wine nor water , but what he received in the sacrament ; of necessity then , what one drinks in the eucharist , must be true wine , and true water . that the authors of the twelfth century did not believe transubstantiation . honorius priest and theologal of the church of rutan , did not believe transubstantiation , seeing thomas waldensis , tom. 2. c. 90. saith , that this theologal was of the sect of the bread-eaters of rabanus , de secta panitarum rabani ; and honorius saith with raban , that the sacrament which is received with the mouth , is converted into bodily food , but the virtue of the sacrament is that whereby the inward man is fed and satisfied . he saith also , that the host is broken , because the bread of angels was broken for us upon the cross ‡ . * that the bishop bites one piece , that he divides it in parts , that it is not received whole , but broke in three parts , ‖ that when 't is put in the wine , it is shewed that the soul of our lord return'd to his body , and he calls that which is broke , the body of the lord ; then he observes , that the sub-deacon receives from the deacon the body of our saviour , and that he carries it to the priests to divide it to the people ; all this can only be understood of the bread , which is improperly called the body . rupert abbot of duits , near cologne , upon exodus , l. 2. c. 10. saith , that the holy ghost doth not destroy the substance of bread , as he did not destroy the human nature , when he joined it to the word ; and in his 6th book on st. john , of the paris edition , in the year 1638 , he saith , that as the word was made flesh , not being changed into flesh , but in assuming flesh , so also the word made flesh , is made visible bread , not being changed into bread , but taking and transferring the bread into the unity of his person . we will say no more of this author , because bellarmin and several others , do freely confess that rupert did not believe transubstantiation ; also honorius of auter gives him extraordinary commendations , saying , that rupert illuminated with a vision of the holy ghost , explained almost all the holy scriptures in an admirable stile . zonaras in the east did not believe transubstantiation , seeing he saith of the eucharist , that it is a shew-bread which is subject to corruption , and which is eat and ground with the teeth . panis propositionis corruptioni est obnoxius , ut pote caro existens vere christi , & secatur dentibus nostris , & molitur . so that he was of the opinion of damascen and rupert . the abbot francus , in all likelihood , abbot of lobes , did not approve the opinion of transubstantiation , seeing the centuriators of magdebourgh observe , that he had no right judgment of the lords supper , asserting that the true body of christ was not in the holy sacrament . amalaricus bishop of chartres in they ear 1207. a man of great reputation for his knowledg and wisdom , saith gaugwi● in his 6th book of the history of france , in the reign of philip the august , amongst other things , denied transubstantiation . bernard of luxemburg , prateolus and alphonsus alastro , report the same of amaury , as also genebrard in his chronicle , lib. 4. anno 1215. opinions of authors of the thirteenth century , and afterwards , touching transubstantiation . it 's true , pope innocent the 3d , did condemn this amaury at the council of lateran , after his death , in the year 1215. but 't is not said wherefore ; and what was transacted in this council , deserves not to be much regarded , if it be consider'd after what manner things were there transacted . the pope , who then presided , was a man full of vain glory and ambition ; mathew paris and mathew of westminster intimate so much of him , and that the liberty of voting and speaking was denied to the prelates of the assembly , for they were not seen to propose , nor deliberate , nor advise , nor prepare any of the constitutions which were there in great numbers ; but they were presented to the council ready drawn up , it not appearing that the advice of the assembly was taken on each of them , as is usually practis'd in all free and lawful councils . mathew paris , on the year 1215. speaks in these terms , every one being assembled in the place abovesaid , and each having according to the custom of the general councils , taken their place , the pope having first made an exhortatory sermon , there was read in full council sixty articles ; which were liked by some , and disliked by others . godfry a fryer of st. pantalion at cologne , saith , there was nothing worth the remembrance done at this council , only that the eastern church submitted to the western , which before was never known . naucerlus and platina , in the life of innocent the 3d. affirm the same , for they mark , that several things were there propos'd , but that nothing was clearly determin'd . and kings and princes have no reason to allow of this council , because in the 3d chap. of the said council , power is given to the pope to deprive princes and lords of their lands , and to give them to others . guy legros archbishop of narbonne , in the year 1268. did not believe transubstantiation ; for being at rome , and discovering his mind to a certain doctor , being return'd to narbonne , pope clement the iv. wrote him a letter , telling him that a certain doctor inform'd him , that discoursing with him , he held that the body of christ was not essentially in the sacrament , and no otherwise than as the thing signified is in the sign ; and that he said also this opinion was common at paris . this appears by the register'd manuscript of the letters of clement the iv. and to shew that the arch bishop of narbonne said this doctrine was very frequent at paris ; we find that two years after , that is to say , in the year 1270. which was in the year st. lewis died ; stephen bishop of paris , by advice of some doctors in divinity , condemned those which held , that god cannot make an accident to be without a subject , because it is of its essence to be actually in its subject . 2ly , that the accident without a subject , is not evident , unless it be equivocal . 3ly , that to make the accident subsist without its subject , as we think it does in the eucharist , is a thing impossible , and implies a contradiction . 4ly , that god cannot make the accident be without its subject , neither that it should have several dimensions . which maxims being inconsistent with transubstantiation , doth plainly shew , that even at that time , men were divided on the subject of transubstantiation . one william , saith the fryer walsingham , in the life of richard the 2d , king of england , on the year 1381. preached at leicester on palm-sunday , that the sacrament of the altar is real bread after consecration ; and that the bishop of lincoln going to punish him for it , the people appearing concern'd for him , made the bishop not dare do any thing against him , which doth plainly shew , that in that time the doctrine of transubstantiation had not taken any deep root in the minds of the people . reginal peacock bishop of chichester in england , in the year 1457 , did not hold transubstantiation , seeing baleus reports on the credit of thomas gasconius and leland , that he had no sound thoughts touching the eucharist , and that he asserted the doctrine of wickliff . now the doctrine of wickliff , as is related by this frier walsingham and thomas waldensis , was , that after consecration by the priest in the mass , there remains true bread and wine , such as they were before ; nevertheless , saith walsingham , the lords and nobles of the land favour'd wickliff ; which shews plainly , that the belief of transubstantiation was not generally received . guy of cluvigny , doctor in divinity , of the order of carmelites , and reader of the sacred palace , did not hold transubstantiation , but held the opinion of rupert de duits , to wit , the impanation ; and said , that this opinion was so agreeable to him , that if he were pope , he would establish it . thomas waldensis reports the same thing , having receiv'd it from john of paris . it 's certain that john of paris teacheth so in his manuscript treatise in the library of st. victor , having for its title , determinatio fratris joannis de parisiis praedicatoris de modo existendi corpus christi in sacramento altaris alio quam sit ille quem tenet ecclesia . the same john de paris wrote the treatise above mention'd , about the year 1300. he was a jacobin , and doctor of the sorbon ; he held that the eucharist is the body of christ , as rupert de duits , and guy of cluvigny did , to wit , by assumption , jesus christ having taken the bread into the unity of his suppositum , as he took the human nature into the unity of his person . and towards the end of the manuscript it is said , that the faculty thought fit , that the manner of explaining the eucharist , by assumption of the bread , or by conversion , was a probable opinion ; but that neither the one nor the other was decided as a matter of faith ; and that whoever said otherwise , did not say well , and run the risque of excommunication . in praesentia collegii magistrorum in theologia dictum est ; ( says the end of the manuscript ) utrumque modum ponendi corpus christi esse in altare tenet pro opinioni probabili , & approbat utrumque per. — et per dicta sanctorum . dicit tamen quod nullus est determinatus per ecclesiam , & idcirco nullus cadit sub fide , & si aliter dixisset , minus bene dixisset , & qui aliter dicunt minus bene dicunt , & qui determinate assereret alterum praecise cadere sub fide incurreret sententiam , canonis vel anathematis . thomas waldensis attributes this opinion to john de paris . there is commonly found in the library of the franciscan friers , a book called the poor's reckoning , writ by one , called de goris , a doctor of tholouse , and native of arragon ; he dedicated his book to alphonsus of arragon arch-bishop of sarragossa . he chargeth john de paris with the opinion of the impanation , and doth not condemn it . it is on the 4th book of sentences , dist. 11. q. 3. the continuator of william de nangis , his manuscript chronicle in the library of st. german de pres , that john de paris is stiled , doctor of great knowledg and learning . * trythemius and auctuar . ‡ le mire , give him also the same epithets . i observe , that in this manuscript , john de paris to confirm his opinion , makes use of the authority of the master of the sentences , in 4th sent. dist. 21. ( i take it to be dist. 12. ) as if the master of the sentences should there say , that the impanation is a probable opinion . he also cites to the same purpose , dominus hostiensem , &c. super corpus juris extra de summa trinit . & fide cathol . c. firmiter oredimus , & de celebratione missarum , cap. cum marta . albertus magnus expounds the eucharist by transubstantiation , but he saith , salvo meliori judicio , which shews that he did not believe it as of faith. durandus of st. porcien taught , that the substance of bread remain'd , but that the form was chang'd . durand in the 4. sent. dist . 10. q. 13. saith , that in his time there were catholick doctors which taught , the bread remain'd in the eucharist , and did prove it by the confession which berenger was forc'd to make , affirming this opinion was not condemn'd . cornelius bishop of bitonte , declared against transubstantiation in the council of trent ; canus locor . theol. l. 12. c. 13. dominicus bannes taught , that the existence of bread doth remain , that so the accidents of bread and vvine may remain by this existence . at least suarez and mairat attribute this opinion to him . to all which , if we add the doctors that we have mention'd in our first part , that could not speak of transubstantiation but as of a new doctrine , and which could not be proved by the scriptures , without intimating that they were not all satisfied with it ; we shall see it plainly appears , that we cannot apply to the doctrine of transubstantiation , the rule of vinc●●tius lirrinensis , which is offer'd to us by the bishops of france . the conclusion . wherefore the bishops are humbly desired , that they would not continue to exercise so much rigor and severity against the protestants of france , who having yielded farther than they well could with a safe conscience , to obey the kings orders , yet cannot in any wise resolve to make any profession of the doctrine of transubstantiation , it appearing that they oppose it only for conscience sake , and as being contrary to the very rule offered to them by the bishops themselves . if st. austin could say , that those ought not to be esteemed hereticks that with an honest mind maintained the errors of their ancestors , and are ready to relinquish them when they are better inform'd of the truth ; how much greater reason is there to bear with people who do shew by the very confession of romish catholick doctors , that the doctrine of transubstantiation is a new invention , and by consequence , that it ought not to be imposed as an article of faith , by the very rule laid down by the bishops of france . no reasonable person can find any question in matter of religion whereto this rule of st. austin's can be more justly applied . for if it be not observ'd in this controversie of transubstantiation , there will never be any thing found that it may be used in . if then such persons are not hereticks for seeking the truth , and that they think 't is their duty to seek it ; that they are of the judgment of catholick doctors , and that they observe the rule prescribed by the bishops ; it is no way safe to persecute them to that degree of violence , to make them believe that which is contrary to the rule which is laid down ; and therefore , what is said by st. austin on psalm 54. should seriously be consider'd , plerumque cum tibi videris odisse inimicum , fratrum odisti , & nescis . finis . addenda . these words in their place , are also to be added . the heavenly sacrament which truly represents the flesh of jesus christ , is called the body of christ , but improperly ; and nevertheless it is so called after its manner , not according to the truth of the thing , but by a significant mystery ; so that the meaning is , 't is called the body of jesus christ , that is to say that the body is thereby signified . and also the text of the canon taken out of st. austin ; sicut coelestis panis qui christi caro est , suo m●do vocatur corpus christi , cum re vera sit sacramentum corporis christ illius videlicet quod visibile , palpabile , mortale , &c. notes, typically marginal, from the original text notes for div a36765-e3260 the clergy of france's method to judge of articles of faith. † secundum unanimem consensum patrum . admitted by the protestants . transubstantiation to be examined by it . several doctors of the church of rome have believed the doctrine of transubstantiation not to be very ancient . * suarez in 3. tom. ●1 euch. disp. 70. sect. 2. † scotus in 4. d. 11. q. 3. § haec duo videnda . ⸫ lombard l. 4. d. 11. * lib. 3. de euch. cap. 23. † p. dayly on 4th sent. q. 6. art. 4. * card. cusa . † frasmus . * alphonsus à castro lib. 8. contr . haeres . † tonstal lib. 1. of the sacrament . cassander . du moulin . jo. yribarne . de marca . that the ancients indeed did not believe transubstantiation . obs. 1. the papists confess that it is not expresly in scripture . so * scotus . † ockham . lib. 4 q. 34. * alfonsus de castro . vacabulo indulgentiae . † biel. lect. 40. in can. mis. * cajetan in 3. p. 8. th. 9. 75. art. 7. obs. 2. none of the pagans objected to the ancient christans the difficulties of it . not trypho . * l. 1. & 2. contr . cels. nor celsus . nor julian . hence it follows , that transubstantiation was not antient . iust. martyr . iustin martyr . irenaeus adversus heres . l. 4. c. 24. irenaeus clem. alexand. p. edag . l. 2. graece 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies mixture . s. austin f. p. 3. ad volusen . theodotus . tertullian . tertullian . tertullian . origen . du perron saith on this passage , christians , stop your ears . origen . origeniana l. 2. q. 14. pag. 411. edit . huet . g. l. origen . cyprian . tom. 9. tract . 2. & tract . 16. de euch. l. 1. c. 1. eustathius . nicen. syn. 2. act. 6. eusebius lib. 8. de dem. evang. eusebius . cyrillus hierosol . catech. myst. 3. macharius . macharius . st. basil. ep. 289. ephrem . epiphanius . s. ep. in compond . de side eccles. deus ad aquas descendit . incorporea re nihil augetur . arist. de generat . & corruptione . alimentum vel materiam partim . ibid. l. 2. greg. naz. orat. 11. gregory nazianz. greg. nyss. in his oration of the baptis . of j. c. s. ambrose . l. 1. ep. 1. id. tom. 4. de side l. 4. c. 5. idem tom. 1. of the blessing of the patriarchs , c. 9. ambrose . gaudentius . gaud. bishop of bress , tract . 2. chrysostom . s. chrys. hom. 83. on s. matth. chrysost●● . idem in hom. 24. chrysostom . chrysostom . this author goes under s. chrysostom's name . s. jerom. it appears by these words , that they imply the common belief , that there was true wine in the eucharist ; because they say , that should they abstain from wine , they must abstain also from the blood of the lord. * de fide l. 2. c. 5. st. jerom. st. austin . st. austin . st. austin st. austin . ep. 23. ad bonif. de opif. l. 1. c. 15. quod non per omnia est id quod esse dicitur , illud abusive appellationem illam habet . st. austin . * de princip . dialect . l. 5. signum est quod seipsum sensibus , & praeter si aliquid animo ost endit . st. austin . ad monym . l. 2. c. 10. . cum electionis vas dicat quia christus caput est corporis ecclesiae , ipsum tamen corpus christi non dubitat christus veraciter appellare . ad paulin. ep. 59. ep. 86. tract . 2. de consensu evangelist . l. 3. c. 25. st. austin . l. 1. q. 43. l. 20. c. 13. penè quidem sacramentum omnes corpus ejus dicunt . st. austin . st. austin . in joan. tract . 59. st. augustin . lib. con. donat . c. 6. de ipso quippe pane , de ipsa dominica manu , &c. ep. 59. et ipsi quidem adducti sunt ad mensam christi , &c. de noe & arca . c. 29. s. augustine . s. augustine . french posthum . treatise of the euch. theodoret. theodoret. dial. 1. arnobius junior . accipimusfrumentum , &c. quod nunc habeat intra se ecclesia videamus , &c. accipimus panem quod confirmat , &c. exurgens a mortuis , &c. prosper . prosper . hesychius . procopius gazeus . procopius . p. gelasius . resp. 1. ad 2. interrog . ferr. fulgentius . de fide ad pet. diac. c. 19. ephraem . apud pho. bibl. cod . 329. ecclesiast . 4. v. 12. facundus . lib. 9. de viris illustribus , c. 18. facundus . lib. 9. primasius . isidorus hispalensis . orig. l. 6. c 19. in alleg. veter . test. beda . in lucae 22. & in marc. 14. & in hom. quadrages . feria 3a palmarum . rom. 4. 11. hom. aest . & c. 55. in virg. st. joan. bapt. sedulius . j. damascen . damascen . concil . constant . act. 6. conc. const. alcuinus . ep. 69. in joan. c. 13. v. 15. carol. m. de offic. septuag . ad alquin . ambrosian office. ordo roman . ordo romanus . theodorus studita . ahyto . ahyto . theodulphus . opposers of paschasius radbertus . rabanus . rabanus . amalarius . amalarius . amal. ad rangart , tom. 7. spicilegii , pag. 166. amalarius . valafridus strabo lib. de reb. eccles. c. 16. bill . p. 7. to. 12. herribald . tom. 2. ch . 19. 52 , and 61. herribald . de praed ch . 6. frudegardus . * trithem . de script . eccles. † de praedest . ratramnus . ‖ ep. 79. ⸫ de script . eccles. ‡ de euchr. ch . 1. ⸫ maug . disser . hist. & chron. c. 17. tom . 2. pag. 133. & 135. ratramnus in the apology of the fathers , is stiled a learned benedictin defender of grace , a man of great wisdom and reputation ; and in the first treatise of the perpetuity , p. 3. c. 5. he is stiled an obscure kind of a person ; that evaporated himself in obscure reasonings , which he added to those of the church , and explained as he pleased himself , as some are pleased to say . ratramnus . joan. erigena . * de euchar. ‖ de praedest . chap. 41. jo erigena . * de gest. reg. angl. l. 1. c. 5. ‖ annal , per pred . ad 882. ‡ ad. an. 883. j. erigena . prudentius . hincmar de praedest . c. 31. christianus drutmarus . christianus drutmanes . christianus drutmanes . florus diaconus . alferic a. b. cant. the expurgat . index orders these words to be blotted out wolphinus . apud usserium de christianae ecclesi success . & stat. c. 2. p. 54. saxon homily . saxon homily . fulcuinus . tom. 6. spicil . de gestis abb. lob. p. 573. herriger . idem tom . 6. p. 591. monastry of cluny . tom. 4. in spec. p. 146. customs of the monastry of cluny . lib. 3. ch. 28. p. 217. ratherius . de contempt . canon . port . spicileg . tom. 2. the author of the life of st. genulphius . lib. 1. ch. 6. leuthericus . in epistola roberti regis . fulbertus . bib. pat . tom . fulbertus . bernon . bible of the fath. tom. 10. bruno . in willel . 2. in willel . l. 6. 3. tom. 2. spicileg . p. 508. p gregory 7. bruno . 1. 1. c. 19. theophylact. in marcum . c. 14. nicetas pectoratus . humber . tom. 4. bibl. of the patr. edit . ult . 245. honorius . an. 1120. in gemma anim. l. 1. c. 111. ‡ ib. c. 63. honorius . * ib. c. 64. ‖ ibid. c. 65. rupertus . a. 1111. de scriptor . eccles. l. 3. c. 11. & 15. de script . eccles . zonaras . tom. 6. cyr. alex. in notis vulcani ad lib. advers . anthropom . zonar . ep. 2. francus . amalaricus . in catal. in almar . contra haeres . verb. euch. 4. ad ann. 1215. in richard. 2. anno 1282. tom. 2. ch. 19. tho. waldens . in epist. ad mart. 5. in rich. 2. tom. 2. ch 64. * de scrip. ecclesiast . ‡ auctuar . in 4. dist . 11. q. 3. disp. 49. sect. 4. disp. 9. sect. 8. epist. 162. notes for div a36765-e38140 the gloss on the canon hoc est , in the 2. dist . of the consecrat . de consec . 2. c. 48. the history of popish transubstantiation to which is premised and opposed, the catholick doctrin of holy scripture, the ancient fathers and the reformed churches, about the sacred elements, and presence of christ in the blessed sacrament of the eucharist / written nineteen years ago in latine, by the right reverend father in god, john, late lord bishop of durham, and allowed by him to be published a little before his death, at the earnest request of his friends. historia transubstantiationis papalis. english cosin, john, 1594-1672. 1676 approx. 270 kb of xml-encoded text transcribed from 92 1-bit group-iv tiff page images. text creation partnership, ann arbor, mi ; oxford (uk) : 2007-01 (eebo-tcp phase 1). a34612 wing c6359 estc r2241 12690371 ocm 12690371 65834 this keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the early english books online text creation partnership. this phase i text is available for reuse, according to the terms of creative commons 0 1.0 universal . the text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission. early english books online. (eebo-tcp ; phase 1, no. a34612) transcribed from: (early english books online ; image set 65834) images scanned from microfilm: (early english books, 1641-1700 ; 683:15) the history of popish transubstantiation to which is premised and opposed, the catholick doctrin of holy scripture, the ancient fathers and the reformed churches, about the sacred elements, and presence of christ in the blessed sacrament of the eucharist / written nineteen years ago in latine, by the right reverend father in god, john, late lord bishop of durham, and allowed by him to be published a little before his death, at the earnest request of his friends. historia transubstantiationis papalis. english cosin, john, 1594-1672. [14], 160, [8] p., 1 leaf of plates : port. printed by andrew clark for henry brome ..., london : 1676. index: p. [1]-[8] at end. epistle dedicatory signed by translator: luke de beaulieu. translation of historia transubstantiationis papalis. reproduction of original in huntington library. created by converting tcp files to tei p5 using tcp2tei.xsl, tei @ oxford. re-processed by university of nebraska-lincoln and northwestern, with changes to facilitate morpho-syntactic tagging. gap elements of known extent have been transformed into placeholder characters or elements to simplify the filling in of gaps by user contributors. eebo-tcp is a partnership between the universities of michigan and oxford and the publisher proquest to create accurately transcribed and encoded texts based on the image sets published by proquest via their early english books online (eebo) database (http://eebo.chadwyck.com). the general aim of eebo-tcp is to encode one copy (usually the first edition) of every monographic english-language title published between 1473 and 1700 available in eebo. eebo-tcp aimed to produce large quantities of textual data within the usual project restraints of time and funding, and therefore chose to create diplomatic transcriptions (as opposed to critical editions) with light-touch, mainly structural encoding based on the text encoding initiative (http://www.tei-c.org). the eebo-tcp project was divided into two phases. the 25,363 texts created during phase 1 of the project have been released into the public domain as of 1 january 2015. anyone can now take and use these texts for their own purposes, but we respectfully request that due credit and attribution is given to their original source. users should be aware of the process of creating the tcp texts, and therefore of any assumptions that can be made about the data. text selection was based on the new cambridge bibliography of english literature (ncbel). if an author (or for an anonymous work, the title) appears in ncbel, then their works are eligible for inclusion. selection was intended to range over a wide variety of subject areas, to reflect the true nature of the print record of the period. in general, first editions of a works in english were prioritized, although there are a number of works in other languages, notably latin and welsh, included and sometimes a second or later edition of a work was chosen if there was a compelling reason to do so. image sets were sent to external keying companies for transcription and basic encoding. quality assurance was then carried out by editorial teams in oxford and michigan. 5% (or 5 pages, whichever is the greater) of each text was proofread for accuracy and those which did not meet qa standards were returned to the keyers to be redone. after proofreading, the encoding was enhanced and/or corrected and characters marked as illegible were corrected where possible up to a limit of 100 instances per text. any remaining illegibles were encoded as <gap>s. understanding these processes should make clear that, while the overall quality of tcp data is very good, some errors will remain and some readable characters will be marked as illegible. users should bear in mind that in all likelihood such instances will never have been looked at by a tcp editor. the texts were encoded and linked to page images in accordance with level 4 of the tei in libraries guidelines. copies of the texts have been issued variously as sgml (tcp schema; ascii text with mnemonic sdata character entities); displayable xml (tcp schema; characters represented either as utf-8 unicode or text strings within braces); or lossless xml (tei p5, characters represented either as utf-8 unicode or tei g elements). keying and markup guidelines are available at the text creation partnership web site . eng catholic church -controversial literature -protestant authors. transubstantiation. lord's supper -real presence. 2005-09 tcp assigned for keying and markup 2005-10 apex covantage keyed and coded from proquest page images 2006-06 ali jakobson sampled and proofread 2006-06 ali jakobson text and markup reviewed and edited 2006-09 pfs batch review (qc) and xml conversion effiqies . d. joannis corin episcopi : dunelmensis &c the history of popish transubstantiation . to which is premised and opposed the catholick doctrin of the holy scripture , the ancient fathers and the reformed churches , about the sacred elements , and presence of christ in the blessed sacrament of the eucharist . written nineteen years ago in latine by the right reverend father in god , john , late lord bishop of durham , and allowed by him to be published a little before his death , at the earnest request of his friends . london , printed by andrew clark for henry brome at the gun at the west end of st. paul's , 1676. to the right honourable , heneage lord finch , baron of daventry , lord keeper of the great seal of england . my lord , the excellency of this book answers the greatness of its author , and perhaps the badness of the version is also proportioned to the meanness of the translator . but the english being for those that could not understand the original that they also might be instructed by so instructive a discourse , i hope with them my good intent will excuse my fault ; only my fear is , i shall want a good plea wherewith to sue out my pardon for having intituled a person of the highest honour to so poor a labour as is this of mine . my lord , these were the inducements which set me upon this attempt , it being the subject of the book , to clear and assert an important truth , which is as a criterion whereby to know the sons of the church of england from her adversaries on both hands , those that adore , and those that profane the blessed sacrament ; these that destroy the visible sign , and those that deny the invisible grace : i thought i might justly offer it to so pious and so great a son of this church , who own'd her in her most calamitous condition , and defends her in her happy and most envied restauration . i was also perswaded that the translation , bearing your illustrious name , would be thereby much recommended to many , and so become the more generally useful . and i confided much in your goodness and affability , who being by birth and merits raised to a high eminency , yet doth willingly condescend to things and persons of low estate . my lord , i have only this one thing more to alledge for my self : that besides the attestation of publick fame which i hear of a long time speaking loud for you , i have these many years lived in a family where your vertues being particularly known are particularly admired and honoured ; so that i could not but have an extraordinary respect and veneration for your lordship , and be glad to have any occasion to express it . if these cannot clear me i must remain guilty of having taken this opportunity of declaring my self your lorships most humble and most obedient servant luke de beaulieu . the publisher to the reader . it is now nineteen years since this historical treatise was made by the right reverend father in god john cosin , when ( in the time of the late accursed rebellion ) he was an exile in paris for his loyalty and religion's sake ; for being then commanded to remain in that city by his gracious majesty that now is , ( who was departing into germany by reason of a league newly made by the french king with our wicked rebels ) he was also ordered by him , as he had been before by his blessed father , charles the first , a prince never enough to be commended , to perform divine offices in the royal chappel , and to endeavour to keep and confirm in the protestant religion , professed by the church of englang , his fellow-exiles , both of the royal family and others his country-men who then lived in that place . now the occasion of his writing this piece was this : when his gracious majesty had chosen colen for the place of his residence , being solemnly invited , he visited a neighbouring potent prince of the empire , of the roman perswasion ; where it fell out , as it doth usually where persons of different religions do meet ; some jesuits began to discourse of controversies with those noblemen and worthies , ( who never forsook their prince in his greatest straights , but were his constant attendants , and imitators of his ever constant profession of the reformed religion ) charging the church of england with heresie , especially in what concerns the blessed sacrament of the lords supper . they would have it , that our church holds no real , but only a kind of imaginary presence of the body and bloud of christ ; but that the church of rome retained still the very same faith concerning this sacred mystery , which the catholick church constantly maintained in all ages ; to wit , that the whole substance of the bread and wine is changed into the substance of the body and bloud of christ , and right-well called transubstantiation by the council of trent . this , and much more to the same purpose was pronounced by the jesuits , in presence of his majesty and the german prince , with as much positiveness and confidence , as if it had been a clear and self-evident truth owned by all the learned . his sacred majesty , and his noble attendants knew well enough that the jesuits did shamelesly belie the church of england , and that their brags about roman transubstantiation were equally false and vain : but the german prince having recommended to the perusal of those honourable persons that followed the king a manuscript wherein ( as he said ) was proved by authentick authors all that had been advanced by the jesuits . they thought it fit to acquaint the reverend dr. cosin with the whole business , and intreat him that he would vindicate the church of england from the calumny , and plainly declare what is her avowed doctrine and belief about the true and real presence of christ in the blessed sacrament . hereupon our worthy doctor , who was ever ready and zealous to do good , especially when it might benefit the church of god , fell presently to work , and writ this excellent treatise as an answer to the prince's manuscript , that if those worthy persons pleased they might repay his highness kindness in kind : yet notwithstanding the solicitations of those that occasioned it , and of others that had perused it , he would not yield to have it made publick while a few months before he died ; because having composed it for particular friends , he thought it sufficient , that it had been useful to them . but the controversie about the presence of christ in the eucharist , being of late years resumed with much vigour , and even now famous by the learned and eloquent disputes of monsieur claude , minister of the reformed church in paris , and monsieur arnold doctor of sorbon , and others , who moved by their example , have entred the lists . the reiterated and more earnest importunities of his friends obtained at last his consent for the publication of this work ; and the rather , because he thought that the error constantly maintained by the famous doctor of sorbon was by a lucky anticipation clearly and strongly confuted throughout this book , for whatever the fathers have said about the true and real presence of the body and bloud of christ in the sacrament , that stout roman champion applies to his transubstantiation , and then crows over his adversaries supposing that he hath utterly overthrown the protestants cause ; whereas there is such a wide difference , as may be called a great gulf fixed betwixt the true or real presence of christ in the lords supper , and the transubstantiation of the bread and wine into his body and bloud . this last is such a prodigie as is neither taught by scripture , nor possible to be apprehended by faith ; it is repugnant to right reason , and contrary to sense ; and is no where to be found in ancient writers : but the other is agreeable to scripture , and to the analogy of faith ; it is not against reason , although being spiritual it cannot be perceived by our bodily senses , and it is back'd by the constant and unanimous doctrine of the holy fathers . for it makes nothing against it , that sometimes the same fathers do speak of the bread and wine of the holy eucharist as of the very body and bloud of christ , it being a manner of speech very proper and usual in speaking of sacraments to give to the sign the name of the thing signified : and however they explain themselves in other places , when they frequently enough call the sacramental bread and wine types , symbols , figures , and signs of the body and bloud of christ ; thereby declaring openly for us against the maintainers of transubstantiation . for we may safely , without any prejudice to our tenet use those expressions of the ancients which the papists think to be most favourable to them , taking them in a sacramental sense , as they ought to be ; whereas , the last mentioned , that are against them , none can use , but by so doing he necessarily destroys the whole contrivance of transubstantiation , it being altogether inconsistent to say , the bread is substantially changed into the body of christ , and the bread is a figure , a sign , and a representation of the body of christ . for , what hath lost its being can in no wise signifie , or represent any other thing : neither was ever any thing said to represent and be the figure and sign of it self . but this is more at large treated of in the book it self . now having given an account of the occasion of writing and publishing this discourse , perhaps the reader will expect that i should say something of its excellent author : but should i now undertake to speak but of the most memorable things that concern this great man , my thoughts would be overwhelmed with their multitude , and i must be injurious both to him and my readers , being confined within the narrow limits of a preface . but what cannot be done here may be done somewhere else , god willing . this only i would not have the reader to be ignorant of , that this learned man and ( as appears by this ) constant professor and defendor of the protestant religion was one of those who was most vehemently accused of popery by the presbyterians before the late wars , and for that reason bitterly persecuted by them , and forced to forsake his country ; whereby he secured himself from the violence of their hands , but not of their tongues ; for still the good men kept up the noise of their clamorous accusation even while he was writing this most substantial treatise against transubstantiation . john durel . chap. i. 1. the real , that is , true and not imaginary presence of christ in the sacrament of the lords supper is proved by scripture . 2 and 3. yet this favours not the tenet of transubstantiation , being it is not to be understood grosly and carnally , but spiritually and sacramentally . 4. the nature and use of the sacraments . 5. by means of the elements of bread and wine , christ himself is spiritually eaten by the faithful in the sacrament . 6. the eating and presence being spiritual are not destructive of the truth and substance of the thing . 7. the manner of presence is unsearchable , and ought not to be presumptuously defined . 1. those words which our blessed saviour used in the institution of the blessed sacrament of the eucharist , this is my body which is given for you ; this is my bloud which is shed for you , for the remission of sins , are held and acknowledged by the universal church to be most true and infallible : and if any one dares oppose them , or call in question christs veracity , or the truth of his words , or refuse to yield his sincere assent to them , except he be allowed to make a meer figment or a bare figure of them , * we cannot , and ought not , either excuse or suffer him in our churches : for we must embrace and hold for an undoubted truth whatever is taught by divine scripture . and therefore we can as little doubt of what christ saith , joh. 6. 55 my flesh is meat indeed , and my bloud is drink indeed ; which , according to st. paul , are both given to us by the consecrated elements : for he calls the bread , the communion of christs body , and the cup , the communion of his bloud . 2. hence it is most evident that the bread and wine ( which according to st. paul are the elements of the holy eucharist ) are neither changed as to their substance , nor vanisht , nor reduc'd to nothing ; but are solemnly consecrated by the words of christ , that by them his blessed body and bloud may be communicated to us . 3. and further it appears from the same words , that the expression of christ and the apostle , is to be understood in a sacramental and mystick sense ; and that no gross and carnal presence of body and bloud can be maintained by them . 4. and though the word sacrament be no where used in scripture to signifie the blessed eucharist , yet the christian church , ever since its primitive ages , hath given it that name , and always called the presence of christs body and bloud therein , mystick and sacramental . now a sacramental expression doth , without any inconvenience , give to the sign the name of the thing signified : and such is as well the usual way of speaking , as the nature of sacraments , that not only the names , but even the properties and effects of what they represent and exhibite , are given to the outward elements . hence ( as i said before ) the bread is as clearly as positively called by the apostle , the communion of the body of christ . 5. this also seems very plain , that our blessed saviour's design was not so much to teach , what the elements of bread and wine are by nature and substance , as what is their use and office and signification in this mystery : for the body and bloud of our saviour are not only fitly represented by the elements , but also , by vertue of his institution really offered to all , by them , and so eaten by the faithful mystically and sacramentally ; whence it is , that he truly is and abides in us , and we in him . 6. this is the spiritual ( and yet no less true and undoubted than if it were corporal ) eating of christ's flesh , not indeed simply as it is flesh , without any other respect ( for so it is not given , neither would it profit us ) but as it is crucified and given for the redemption of the world ; neither doth it hinder the truth and substance of the thing , that this eating of christ's body is spiritual , and that by it the souls of the faithful , and not their stomachs , are fed by the operation of the holy ghost : for this none can deny , but they who being strangers to the spirit and the divine vertue , can savour only carnal things , and to whom , what is spiritual and sacramental , is the same as if a meer nothing . 7. as to the manner of the presence of the body and bloud of our lord in the blessed sacrament , we that are protestant and reformed according to the ancient catholick church , do not search into the manner of it with perplexing inquiries ; but , after the example of the primitive and purest church of christ , we leave it to the power and wisdom of our lord , yielding a full and unfeined assent to his words : had the romish maintainers of transubstantiation done the same , they would not have determined and decreed , and then imposed as an article of faith absolutely necessary to salvation , a manner of presence , newly by them invented , under pain of the most direful curse , and there would have been in the church less wrangling , and more peace and unity than now is . chap. ii. 1 , 2 , and 3 , &c. the unanimous consent of all protestants with the church of england , in maintaining a real , that is , true , but not a carnal presence of christ in the blessed sacrament , proved by publick confessions and the best of authorities . 1. so then , none of the protestant churches doubt of the real ( that is , true and not imaginary ) presence of christ's body and bloud in the sacrament ; and there appears no reason why any man should suspect their common confession , of either fraud or error , as though in this particular they had in the least departed from the catholick faith . 2. for it is easie to produce the consent of reformed churches and authors , whereby it will clearly appear ( to them that are not wilfully blind ) that they all zealously maintain and profess this truth , without forsaking in any wise the true catholick faith in this matter . 3. i begin with the church of england ; wherein they that are in holy orders are bound by a law and canon , never to teach any thing to the people to be by them believed in matters of religion , but what agrees with the doctrine of the old and new testament , and what the catholick fathers and ancient prelates have gathered and inferred out of it : vnder pain of excommunication if they transgress , troubling the people with contrary doctrine . it teacheth therefore , that in the blessed sacrament , the body of christ is given , taken and eaten ; so that to the worthy receivers , the consecrated and broken bread is the communication of the body of christ , and likewise the consecrated cup the communication of his bloud : but that the wicked , and they that approach unworthily the sacrament of so sacred a thing , eat and drink their own damnation , in that they become guilty of the body and bloud of christ . and the same church in a solemn prayer , before the consecration prays thus ; grant us , gracious lord , so to eat the flesh of thy dear sonjesus christ , and to drink his bloud , that our sinful bodies may be made clean by his body , and our souls washed through his most precious bloud , and that we may evermore dwell in him , and he in us . the priest also , blessing or consecrating the bread and wine saith thus , hear us o merciful father , we most humbly beseech thee , and grant that we receiving these thy creatures of bread and wine , according to thy son our saviour jesus christ's holy institution , in remembrance of his death and passion , may be partakers of his most blessed body and bloud : who in the same night that he was betrayed took bread , and when he had given thanks , he brake it , and gave it to his disciples , saying , take , eat , this is my body which is given for you , do this in remembrance of me . likewise after supper he took the cup , and when he had given thinks he gave it to them , saying , drink ye all of this , for this is my bloud of the new testament , which is shed for you , and for many for the remission of sins : do this as oft as ye shall drink it in remembrance of me . the same , when he gives the sacrament to the people kneeling , giving the bread , saith ; the body of our lord jesus christ which was given for thee , preserve thy body and soul unto everlasting life . likewise when he gives the cup , he saith , the bloud of our lord jesus christ which was shed for thee , preserve thy body and soul to everlasting life . afterwards , when the communion is done , follows a thanksgiving ; almighty and ever living god , we most heartily thank thee , for that thou dost vouchsafe to feed us , who have duly received these holy mysteries , with the spiritual food of the most precious body and bloud of thy son our saviour jesus christ ; with the hymn , glory be to god on high , &c. also in the publick authorized catechism of our church , appointed to be learned of all , it is answered to the question concerning the inward part of the sacrament , that it is the body and bloud of christ which are verily and indeed taken and received by the faithful in the lords supper . and in the apology for this church , writ by that worthy and reverend prelate jewel bishop of salisbury , it is expresly affirmed , that to the faithful , is truly given in the sacrament , the body and bloud of our lord , the life-giving flesh of the son of god which quickens our souls , the bread that came from heaven , the food of immortality , grace and truth , and life : and that it is the communion of the body and bloud of christ , that we may abide in him , and he in us ; and that we may be ascertained that the flesh and bloud of christ is the food of our souls , as bread and wine is of our bodies . 4. a while before the writing of this apology , came forth the dialectick of the famous dr. poinet bishop of winchester ; concerning the truth , nature , and substance of the body and bloud of christ in the blessed sacrament , writ on purpose to explain and manifest the faith and doctrine of the church of england in that point . in the first place it shews , that the holy eucharist is not only the figure , but also contains in it self the truth , nature , and substance of the body of our blessed saviour ; and that those words , nature and substance ought not to be rejected , because the fathers used them in speaking of that mystery . secondly , he inquires whether those expressions , truth , nature , and substance were used in this mystery by the ancients , in their common acceptation , or in a sense more particular and proper to the sacraments ? because we must not only observe what words they used , but also what they meant to signifie and to teach by them . and though with the fathers he acknowledged a difference , betwixt the body of christ in its natural form of a humane body , and that mystick body present in the sacrament , yet he chose rather to put that difference in the manner of presence and exhibition , than in the subject it self , that is , the real body and bloud of our saviour ; being it is most certain , that no other body is given to the faithful in the sacrament than that which was by christ given to death for their redemption . lastly , he affirms , according to the unanimous consent of the fathers , that this matter must be understood in a spiritual sense , banishing all grosser and more carnal thoughts . 5. to bishop poinet succeeded in the same see the right reverend doctors t. bilson and l. andrews , prelates both of them , throughly learned , and great defenders of the primitive faith , who made it most evident by their printed writings , that the faith and doctrine of the church of england is in all things agreeable to the holy scriptures , and the divinity of the ancient fathers . and as to what regards this mystery , the a first treats of it , in his answer to the apology of cardinal alan , and the b last in his answer to the apology of cardinal bellarmine , where you may find things worthy to be read and noted as follows . christ said , this is my body ; in this , the object , we are agreed with you , the manner only is controverted . we hold by a firm belief that it is the body of christ , of the manner how it comes to be so there is not a word in the gospel ; and because the scripture is silent in this , we justly disown it to be a matter of faith : we may indeed rank it among tenets of the school , but by no means , among the articles of our christian belief . we like well of what durandus is reported to have said , [ we hear the word , and feel the motion , we know not the manner , and yet believe the presence : ] for we believe a real presence no less than you do . we dare not be so bold as presumptuously to define any thing concerning the manner of a true presence , or rather , we do not so much as trouble our selves with being inquisitive about it ; no more than in baptism , how the bloud of christ washeth us ; or in the incarnation of our redeemer , how the divine and humane nature were united together . we put it in the number of sacred things or sacrifices , ( the eucharist it self being a sacred mystery ) whereof the remnants ought to be consumed with fire , that is , ( as the fathers elegantly have it ) ador'd by faith , but not searcht by reason . 6. to the same sense speaks is . causabon , in the epistle he wrote by order from king james to cardinal perron ; so doth also hooker in his ecclesiastical polity , book 5. § . 67. john bishop of rochester in his book , of the power of the pope ; r. mountague bishop of norwich against bullinger ; james primate of armach in his answer to the irish jesuit ; francis bishop of eli , and william laud archbishop of canterbury , in their answer to fisher ; c john overall bishop of norwich , and many others in the church of england , who never departed from the faith and doctrine of the ancient catholick fathers , which is by law established , and with great care and veneration received and preserved in our church . 7. to these also we may justly add that famous prelate antonius de domino archbishop of spalato , a man well versed in the sacred writings , and the records of antiquity ; who having left italy ( when he could no longer remain in it , either with quiet or safety ) by the advice of his intimate friend paulus venetus , took sanctuary under the protection of king james of blessed memory , in the bosome of the church of england , which he did faithfully follow in all points and articles of religion : but being daily vex'd with many affronts and injuries , and wearied by the unjust persecutions of some sour and over-rigid men , who bitterly declaimed every where against his life and actions , he at last resolved to return into italy with a safe conduct . before he departed , he was , by order from the king , questioned by some commissionated bishops what he thought of the religion and church of england , which for so many years he had owned and obeyed , and what he would say of it in the roman court : to this query he gave in writing this memorable answer , i am resolved , even with the danger of my life , to profess before the pope himself , that the church of england is a true and orthodox church of christ . this he not only promised but faithfully performed , for though , soon after his departure , there came a book out of the low countries , falsly bearing his name , by whose title many were deceived even among the english , and thereby moved to tax him with apostacy , and of being another eubolius ; yet when he came to rome ( where he was most kindly entertained in the palace of pope gregory the fifteenth , who formerly had been his fellow-student ) he could never be perswaded by the jesuits and others who daily thronged upon him , neither to subscribe the new-devised-tenets of the council of trent , or to retract those orthodox books which he had printed in england and germany , or to renounce the communion of the church of england , in whose defence he constantly persisted to the very last . but presently after the decease of pope gregory , he was imprisoned by the jesuits and inquisitors in castle st. angelo , where , by being barbarously used , and almost starved , he soon got a mortal sickness , and died in a few days , though not without suspicion of being poysoned . the day following his corps was , by the sentence of the inquisition , tyed to an infamous stake , and there burnt to ashes ; for no other reason , but that he refused to make abjuration of the religion of the church of england , and subscribe some of the lately-made-decrees of trent , which were prest upon him as canons of the catholick faith. i have taken occasion to insert this narration , perhaps not known to many ; to make it appear , that this reverend prelate , who did great service to the church of god , may justly ( as i said before ) be reckoned amongst the writers of the church of england . let us hear therefore what he taught and writ , when he was in england , in his books de rep●b . eccl. lib. 5. cap. 6. num. 20. for a thousand years together ( saith he ) the holy catholick church content with a sober knowledge of divine mysteries , believed soberly , and safely did teach , that in the sacrament duly consecrated , the faithful did own receive , and eat the body and bloud of christ , which by the sacred bread and wine are given to them , but as to the particular manner how that precious body and bloud is offered and given by that mysterious sacrament , the church did humbly and religiously acknowledge her ignorance : the real thing with its effects she joyfully own'd and received , but meekly and devoutly abstained from inquiring into the manner . item ( numb . 73. ) the true and real body of christ is most certainly and undoubtedly given in the holy sacrament , yet not carnally , but spiritually . again ( numb . 169. ) i doubt not , but all they that believe the gospel , will acknowledge that in the holy communion we receive the true nature of the flesh of christ , real and substantial . we all teach that the body of christ is present as to its reality and nature , but a carnal and corporal manner of presence we reject with st. bernard , and all the fathers . and in appen . ad ambrosium , numb . 7. i know and acknowledge that with the bread still remaining bread , the true and real body of christ is given , yet not corporally : i assent in the thing , but not in the manner . therefore though there is a change in the bread , when it brings into the souls of worthy communicants , the true body of christ which is the substance of the sacrament : yet it doth not follow that the bread loseth its own , to become the substance of the body of christ , &c. these , and much more to the same purpose , agreeable to the religion and church of england , and all other protestant churches , you may find in the same chapter , and in a treatise annext to the sixth book , against the famous jesuit , suarez , who had writ against king james , and the errors ( as he calls them ) of the church of england : in the second chapter our prelate proves clearly , according to its title , that those points which the papists maintain against the protestants belong not in any wise to the catholick faith , ( as transubstantiation , &c. ) 8. as for the opinion and belief of the german protestants , it will be known chiefly by the augustan confession , presented to charles the fifth by the princes of the empire and other great persons . for they teach , that not only the bread and wine , but the body and bloud of christ is truly given to the receivers ; or , as it is in another edition , that the body and bloud of christ are truly present , and distributed to the communicants in the lords supper , and refute those that teach otherwise . they also declare , that we must so use the sacraments , as to believe and embrace by faith those things promised which the sacraments offer and convey to us . yet we may observe here , that faith makes not those things present which are promised ; for faith ( as it is well known ) is more properly said to take and apprehend , than to promise or perform : but the word and promise of god , on which our faith is grounded ( and not faith it self ) make that present which is promised ; as it was agreed at a conference at st. german betwixt some protestants and papists : and therefore it is unjustly laid to our charge by some in the church of rome , as if we should believe , that the presence and participation of christ , in the sacrament , is effected meerly by the power of faith. 9. the saxon confession , approved by other churches , seems to be a repetition of the augustan : therein we are taught , that sacraments are actions divinely instituted , and that although the same things or actions in common use have nothing of the nature of sacraments , yet when used according to the divine institution , christ is truly and substantially present in the communion , and his body and bloud truly given to the receivers ; so that he testifies that he is in them ; as st. hillary saith , these things taken and received make us to be in christ , and christ to be in us . 10. the confession of wittemberg , which in the year 1552 was propounded to the council of trent , is like unto this : for it teacheth , that the true body and bloud of christ are given in the holy communion , and refutes those that say , that the bread and wine in the sacrament are only signs of the absent body and bloud of christ . 11. the bohemian confession also , that is of them who by contempt , and out of ignorance , are called by some picards and waldenses , presented to king ferdinand by the barons and nobles of bohemia , and approved by luther , and melancthon , and the famous university of wittemberg , teacheth , that we cought from the heart to believe , and to profess by words , that the bread of the lords supper is the true body of christ which was given for us , and the wine , his true bloud that was shed for us : and that it is not lawful for any person to bring or add any thing of his own to the words of christ , or in the least to take any thing from them . and when this their confession was defamed and abused by some of their adversaries , they answered , that they would ever be ready to refute the calumniators , and to make it appear by strong arguments , and a stronger faith , that they never were , and by gods grace , never would be what their adversaries represented them . 12. in the same manner , the conciliation of the articles of the lords supper , and the mutual agreement betwixt the churches of the greater and lesser polonia in the synod of sendomiris , we hold together ( say they ) the belief of the words of christ , as they have been rightly understood by the fathers ; or to speak more plain , we believe and confess , that the substantial presence of christ is not only signified in the lords supper , but also that the body and bloud of our lord is truly offered and granted to worthy receivers , together with those sacred signs which convey to us the thing signified , according to the nature of sacraments , and lest the different ways of speaking should breed any contention , we mutually consent to subscribe that article concerning the lords supper which is in the confession of the churches of saxony , which they sent to the council of trent ; and we hold and acknowledge it to be sound and pious . then they repeat the whole article , mentioned and set down a little before . 13. luther was once of opinion that the divines of basil and strasbourg did acknowledge nothing in the lords supper besides bread and wine . to him bucerus , in the name of all the rest , did freely answer , that they all unanimously did condemn that error ; that neither they , nor the switzers ever believed or taught any such thing ; that none could expresly be charged with that error , except the anabaptists : and that he also had once been perswaded , that luther in his writings attributed too much to the outward symbols , and maintained a grosser union of christ with the bread than the scriptures did allow ; as though christ had been corporally present with it , united into a natural substance with the bread ; so that the wicked as well as the faithful were made partakers of grace by receiving the element : but that their own doctrine and belief concerning that sacrament was , that the true body and bloud of christ was truly presented , given , and received together with the visible signs of bread and wine , by the operation of our lord , and by vertue of his institution , according to the plain sound and sense of his words ; and that not only zuinglius and oecolampadius had so taught , but they also , in the publick confessions of the churches of the vpper germany , and other writings , confest it ; so that the controversie was rather about the manner of the presence or absence , than about the presence or absence it self ; all which bucer's associates confirm after him . he also adds , that the magistrates in their churches had denounced very severe punishments to any that should deny the presence of the body and bloud of christ in the lords supper . bucerus did also maintain this doctrine of the blessed sacrament in presence of the landgrave of hesse and melancthon , confessing , that together with the sacrament we truly and substantially receive the body of christ . also , that the bread and wine are conferring signs , giving what they represent , so that together with them the body of christ is given and received . and to these he adds , that the body and bread are not united in the mixture of their substance , but in that the sacrament gives what it promiseth , that is , the one is never without the other ; and so they agreeing on both parts , that the bread and wine are not changed , he holds such a sacramental union , luther having heard this , declared also his opinion thus , that he did not locally include the body and bloud of christ with the bread and wine , and unite them together by any natural connexion ; and that he did not make proper to the sacraments that vertue whereby they brought salvation to the receivers ; but that he maintained only a sacramental vnion betwixt the body of christ and the bread , and betwixt his bloud and the wine ; and did teach , that the power of confirming our faith , which he attributed to the sacraments , was not naturally inherent in the outward signs , but proceeded from the operation of christ , and was given by his spirit , by his words , and by the elements . and finally , in this manner he spake to all that were present ; if you believe and teach that in the lords supper the true body and bloud of christ is given and received , and not the bread and wine only ; and that this giving and receiving is real and not imaginary , we are agreed , and we own you for dear brethren in the lord. all this is set down at large in the twentieth tome of luthers works , and in the english works of bucer . 14. the next will be the gallican confession , made at paris in a national synod , and presented to king charles ix . at the conference of poissy . which speaks of the sacrament on this wise : although christ be in heaven , where he is to remain until he come to judge the world , yet we believe that by the secret and incomprehensible virtue of his spirit , he feeds and vivifies us by the substance of his body and bloud received by faith : now we say that this is done in a spiritual manner ; not that we believe it to be a fancy and imagination , instead of a truth and real effect , but rather because that mystery of our vnion with christ is of so sublime a nature , that it is as much above the capacity of our senses , as it is above the order of nature . item , we believe that in the lords supper god gives us really , that is , truly , and efficaciously , whatever is represented by the sacrament , with the signs we joyn the true possession and fruition of the thing by them offered to us : and so , that bread and wine which are given to us , become our spiritual nourishment , in that they make it in some manner visible to us that the flesh of christ is our food , and his bloud our drink . therefore those fanaticks that reject these signs and symbols are by us rejected , our blessed saviour having said , this is my body , and this cup is my bloud . this confession hath been subscribed by the church of geneva . 15. the envoyes from the french churches to worms made a declaration concerning that mystery , much after the same manner : we confess ( say they ) that in the lords supper , besides the benefits of christ , the substance also of the son of man , his true body , with his bloud shed for us , are not only figuratively signified by types and symbols , as memorials of things absent ; but also , truly and certainly presented , given , and offered to be applied , by signs that are not bare and destitute , but ( on gods part , in regard of his offer and promise ) always undoubtedly accompanied with what they signifie , whether they be offered to good or bad christians . 16. now follows the belgick confession , which professeth it to be most certain , that christ doth really effect in us what is figured by the signs , although it be above the capacity of our reason to understand which way ; the operations of the holy ghost being always occult and incomprehensible . 17. the more ancient confession of the switzers , made by common consent at basil , and approved by all the helvetick-protestant churches , hath it , that while the faithful eat the bread , and drink the cup of the lord , they , by the operation of christ working by the holy spirit , receive the body and bloud of our lord , and thereby are fed unto eternal life . but notwithstanding that , they affirm , that this food is spiritual , yet they afterwards conclude ; that by spiritual food they understand not imaginary , but the very body of christ which was given for us . 18. and the latter confession of the switzers , writ and printed in 1566. affirms as expresly the true presence of christs body in the eucharist , thus : outwardly the bread is offered by the minister , and the words of christ heard , take , eat , this is my body , drink ye all of this , this is my bloud . therefore the faithful receive what christs minister gives , and drink of the lords cup : and at the same time , by the power of christ working by the holy ghost , are fed by the flesh and bloud of our lord unto eternal life , &c. again , christ is not absent from his church celebrating his holy supper . the sun in heaven , being distant from us , is nevertheless present by his efficacy ; how much more shall christ the sun of righteousness , who is bodily in heaven , absent from us , be spiritually present to us by his life-giving virtue , and as he declared in his last supper he would be present , joh. 14. 15 , 16. whence it follows that we have no communion without christ . now to this confession , not only the reformed switzers did subscribe , but also the churches of hungary , pannonia , or transilvania , poland , and lithuania , which follow neither the augustan nor bohemian confessions : it was subscribed also by the churches of scotland and geneva . 19. lastly , let us hear the renowned declaration of the reformed churches of poland , made in the assembly of thoran , whereby they profess , that as to what concerns the sacrament of the eucharist , they assent to that opinion which in the augustan confession , in the bohemian , and that of sendom . is confirmed by scripture . then afterwards in another declaration they explain their own mind , thus saying : 1. that the sacrament consisteth of earthly things , as bread and wine ; and things heavenly , as the body and bloud of our lord ; both of which , though in a different manner , yet most truly and really , are given together at the same time ; earthly things , in an earthly , corporal , and natural way ; heavenly things , in a mystick , spiritual , and heavenly manner . 2. hence they in fer , that the bread and wine are , and are said to be , with truth , the very body and bloud of christ ; not substantially indeed , that is , not corporally , but sacramentally and mystically , by vertue of the sacramental union ; which consisteth not in a bare signification or obligation only , but also in a real exhibition and communication of both parts , earthly and heavenly , together at once , though in a different manner . 3. in that sense they affirm with the ancients , that the bread and wine are changed into the body and bloud of christ , not in nature and substance , but in use and efficacy ; in which respect the sacred elements are not called what they are to sense , but what they are believed and received by faith grounded on the promise . 4. they deny to believe the signs to be bare , inefficacious , and empty , but rather such as truly give what they seal and signifie , being efficacious instruments and most certain means whereby the body and bloud of christ , and so , christ himself with all his benefits , is set forth and offered to all communicants , but conferred and given to true believers , and by them received as the saving and vivifying food of their souls . 5. they deny not the true presence of the body and bloud of christ in the lords supper , but only the corporal manner of his presence . they believe a mystical vnion betwixt christ and us , and that , not imaginary , but most true , real , and efficacious . 6. thence they conclude , that not only the vertue , efficacy , operation , or benefits of christ are communicated to us , but more especially the very substance of his body and bloud , so that , he abides in us , and we in him . 20. now because great is the fame of calvin ( who subscribed the augustan confession , and that of the switzers ) let us hear what he writ and believed concerning this sacred mystery : his words in his institutions and elsewhere are such , so conformable to the stile and mind of the ancient fathers , that no catholick protestant would wish to use any other . i understand ( saith he ) what is to be understood by the words of christ ; that he doth not only offer us the benefits of his death and resurrection , but his very body , wherein he died and rose again . i assert that the body of christ is really ( as the usual expression is ) that is , truly given to us in the sacrament , to be the saving food of our souls . also in another place , item , that word cannot lie , neither can it mock us ; and except one presumes to call god a deceiver be will never dare to say , that the symbols are empty , and that christ is not in them . therefore if by the breaking of the bread our saviour doth represent the participation of his body , it is not to be doubted but that he truly gives and confers it . if it be true that the visible sign is given us , to seal the gift of an invisible thing , we must firmly believe , that receiving the signs of the body , we also certainly receive the body it self . setting aside all absurdities , i do willingly admit all those terms that can most strongly express the true and substantial communication of the body and bloud of christ , granted to the faithful with the symbols of the lords supper ; and that , not as if they received only by the force of their imagination , or an act of their minds , but really , so as to be fed thereby unto eternal life . again , we must therefore confess that the inward substance of the sacrament is joyned with the visible sign , so that , as the bread is put into our hand , the body of christ is also given to us . this certainly , if there were nothing else , should abundantly satisfie us , that we understand , that christ , in his holy supper , gives us the true and proper substance of his body and bloud , that it being wholly ours , we may be made partakers of all his benefits and graces . again , the son of god offers daily to us in the holy sacrament , the same body which he once offered in sacrifice to his father , that it may be our spiritual food . in these he asserts , as clearly as any one can , the true , real , and substantial presence and communication of the body of christ , but how , he undertakes not to determine . if any one ( saith he ) ask me concerning the manner , i will not be ashamed to confess that it is a secret too high for my reason to comprehend , or my tongue to express ; or to speak more properly , i rather feel than understand it : therefore without disputing i embrace the truth of god , and confidently repose on it . he declares that his flesh is the food , and his bloud the drink of my soul : and my soul i offer to him to be fed by such nourishment . he bids me take , eat , and drink his body and bloud , which in his holy supper he offers me under the symbols of bread and wine : i make no scruple , but he doth reach them to me , and i receive them . all these are calvins own words . 21. i was the more willing to be long in transcribing these things at large , out of publick confessions of churches , and the best of authors ; that it might the better appear , how injuriously protestant divines are calumniated by others unacquainted with their opinions , as though by these words , spiritually and sacramentally , they did not acknowledge a true and well-understood real presence and communication of the body and bloud of christ in the blessed sacrament ; whereas on the contrary , they do professedly own it , in terms as express as any can be used . chap. iii. 1. what the papists do understand by christ being spiritually present in the sacrament . 2. what st. bernard understood by it . 3. what the protestants . 4. faith doth not cause , but suppose the presence of christ . 5. the union betwixt the body of christ and the bread is sacramental . 1. having now , by what i have said , put it out of doubt , that the protestants believe a spiritual and true presence of christ in the sacrament , which is the reason , that according to the example of the fathers , they use so frequently the term spiritual in this subject ; it may not be amiss to consider in the next place , how the roman church understands that same word . now they make it to signifie , that christ is not present in the sacrament , either after that manner which is natural to corporal things , or that wherein his own body subsists in heaven , but according to the manner of existence proper to spirits , whole and entire in each part of the host : and though by himself he be neither seen , toucht , nor moved , yet in respect of the species or accidents joyned with him , he may be said to be seen , toucht , and moved : and so the accidents being moved , the body of christ is truly moved accidentally , as the soul truly changeth place with the body ; so that we truly and properly say that the body of christ is removed , lifted up , and set down , put on the patent , or on the altar , and carried from hand to mouth , and from the mouth to the stomach ; as berengarius was forced to acknowledge in the roman council under pope nicholas , that the body of christ was sensually toucht by the hands , and broken and chewed by the teeth of the priest . but all this , and much more to the same effect , was never delivered to us , either by holy scripture , or the ancient fathers . and if souls or spirits could be present , as here bellarmine teacheth , yet it would be absurd to say that bodies could be so likewise , it being inconsistent with their nature . 2. indeed bellarmine confesseth with st. bernard , that christ in the sacrament is not given to us carnally , but spiritually ; and would to god he had rested here , and not outgone the holy scriptures , and the doctrine of the fathers . for endeavouring , with pope innocent iii. and the council of trent , to determine the manner of the presence and manducation of christs body , with more nicety than was fitting , he thereby foolishly overthrew all that he had wisely said before , denied what he had affirmed , and opposed his own opinion . his fear was lest his adversaries should apply that word spiritually , not so much to express the manner of presence , as to exclude the very substance of the body and bloud of christ ; therefore ( saith he ) upon that account it is not safe to use too muc● that of st. bernard , the body of christ is not corporally in the sacrament , without adding presently the above-mentioned explanation . how much do we comply with humane pride , and curiosity , which would seem to understand all things ▪ where is the danger ? and what doth he fear , as long as all they that believe the gospel , own the true nature , & the real and substantial presence of the body of christ in the sacrament , using that explication of st. bernard concerning the manner , which he himself , for the too great evidence of truth , durst not but admit ? and why doth he own that the manner is spiritual , not carnal , and then require a carnal presence , as to the manner it self ? as for us , we all openly profess with st. bernard , that the presence of the body of christ in the sacrament , is spiritual , and therefore true and real ; and with the same bernard , and all the ancients , we deny that the body of christ is carnally either present or given . the thing we willingly admit , but humbly and religiously forbear to enquire into the manner . 3. we believe a presence and union of christ with our soul and body , which we know not how to call better than sacramental , that is , effected by eating ; that while we eat and drink the consecrated bread and wine , we eat and drink therewithal the body and bloud of christ , not in a corporal manner , but some other way , incomprehensible , known only to god , which we call spiritual ; for if with st. bernard and the fathers a man goes no further , we do not find fault with a general explication of the manner , but with the presumption and self-conceitedness of those who boldly and curiously inquire what is a spiritual presence , as presuming that they can understand the manner of acting of gods holy spirit . we contrariwise confess with the fathers , that this manner of presence is unaccountable , and past finding out , not to be searcht and pried into by reason , but believed by faith. and if it seems impossible that the flesh of christ should descend , and come to be our food , through so great a distance ; we must remember how much the power of the holy spirit exceeds our sense and our apprehensions , and how absurd it would be to undertake to measure his immensity by our weakness and narrow capacity ; and so make our faith to conceive and believe what our reason cannot comprehend . 4. yet our faith doth not cause or make that presence , but apprehends it as most truly and really effected by the word of christ : and the faith whereby we are said to eat the flesh of christ , is not that only whereby we believe that he died for our sins ( for this faith is required and supposed to precede the sacramental manducation ) but more properly , that whereby we believe those words of christ , this is my body ; which was st. austins meaning when he said , why dost thou prepare thy stomach and thy teeth ? believe and thou hast eaten . for in this mystical eating by the wonderful power of the holy ghost , we do invisibly receive the substance of christs body and bloud , as much as if we should eat and drink both visibly . 5. the result of all this is , that the body and bloud of christ are sacramentally united to the bread and wine , so that christ is truly given to the faithful ; and yet is not to be here considered with sense or worldly reason , but by faith , resting on the words of the gospel . now it is said , that the body and bloud of christ are joyned to the bread and wine , because , that in the celebration of the holy eucharist , the flesh is given together with the bread , and the bloud together with the wine . all that remains is , that we should with faith and humility admire this high and sacred mystery , which our tongue cannot sufficiently explain , nor our heart conceive . chap. iv. 1. of the change of the bread and wine into the body and bloud of christ , which the papists call transubstantiation . 2. of gods omnipotency . 3. of the accidents of the bread. 4. the sacramental union of the thing signified with the sign . 5 and 6. the question is stated negatively and affirmatively . 7. the definition of the council of trent . the bull of pope pius iv. and the form of the oath by him appointed . the decretal of innocent iii. the assertions of the jesuits . 8. transubstantiation a very monstrous thing . 1. it is an article of faith in the church of rome , that in the blessed eucharist the substance of the bread and wine is reduced to nothing , and that in its place succeeds the body and bloud of christ , as we shall see more at large § 6 , and 7. the protestants are much of another mind ; and yet none of them denies altogether but that there is a conversion of the bread into the body ( and consequently of the wine into the bloud ) of christ : for they know and acknowledge that in the sacrament , by vertue of the words and blessing of christ , the condition , use , and office of the bread is wholly changed , that is , of common and ordinary , it becomes our mystical and sacramental food ; whereby , as they affirm and believe , the true body of christ is not only shadowed and figured , but also given indeed , and by worthy communicants truly received . yet they believe not that the bread loseth its own , to become the substance of the body of christ ; for the holy scripture , and the ancient interpreters thereof for many ages , never taught such an essential change and conversion , as that the very substance , the matter and form of the bread should be wholly taken away , but only a mysterious and sacramental one , whereby our ordinary is changed into mystick bread , and thereby designed and appointed to another use , end , and office than before : this change , whereby supernatural effects are wrought by things natural , while their essence is preserved entire , doth best agree with the grace and power of god. 2. there is no reason why we should dispute concerning gods omnipotency , whether it can do this or that , presuming to measure an infinite power by our poor ability which is but weakness . we may grant that he is able to do beyond what we can think or apprehend , and resolve his most wonderful acts into his absolute will and power , but we may not charge him with working contradictions . and though gods almightiness were able in this mystery to destroy the substance of bread and wine , and essentially to change it into the body and bloud of christ , while the accidents of bread and wine subsist of themselves without a subject , yet we desire to have it proved that god will have it so , and that it is so indeed . for , that god doth it because he can , is no argument ; and that he wills it , we have no other proof but the confident assertion of our adversaries . tertullian against praxias declared , that we should not conclude god doth things because he is able , but that we should enquire what he hath done ; for god will never own that praise of his omnipotency , whereby his unchangeableness and his truth are impaired , and those things overthrown and destroy'd , which , in his word , he affirms to be ; for , take away the bread and wine , and there remains no sacrament . 3. they that say , that the matter and form of the bread are wholly abolished , yet will have the accidents to remain : but if the substance of the bread be changed into the substance of christs body , by vertue of his words , what hinders that the accidents of the bread are not also changed into the accidents of christs body ? they that urge the express letter , should shew that christ said , this is the substance of my body without its accidents . but he did not say , that he gave his disciples a phantastick body , such a visionary figment as marcion believed , but that very body which was given for us , without being deprived of that extention and other accidents of humane bodies without which it could not have been crucified , since the maintainers of transubstantiation grant that the body of christ keeps its quantity in heaven , and say it is without the same in the sacrament ; they must either acknowledge their contradiction in the matter , or give over their opinion . 4. protestants dare not be so curious , or presume to know more than is delivered by scripture and antiquity , they firmly believing the words of christ , make the form of this sacrament to consist in the union of the thing signified with the sign , that is , the exhibition of the body of christ with the consecrated bread , still remaining bread ; by divine appointment these two are made one ; and though this union be not natural , substantial , personal , or local by their being one within another , yet it is so straight and so true , that in eating the blessed bread , the true body of christ is given to us , and the names of the sign and thing signified are reciprocally changed , what is proper to the body is attributed to the bread , and what belongs only to the bread , is affirmed of the body , and both are united in time , though not in place . for the presence of christ in this mystery is not opposed to distance but to absence , which only could deprive us of the benefit and fruition of the object . 5. from what hath been said it appears , that this whole controversie may be reduced to four heads ; 1. concerning the signs ; 2. concerning the thing signified ; 3. concerning the union of both ; and 4. concerning their participation ; as for the first , the protestants differ from the papists in this , that according to the nature of sacraments , and the doctrine of holy scripture we make the substance of bread and wine , and they accidents only to be signs . in the second , they not understanding our opinion do misrepresent it , for we do not hold ( as they say we do ) that only the merits of the death of christ are represented by the blessed elements , but also that his very body which was crucified , and his bloud which was shed for us , are truly signified and offered , that our souls may receive and possess christ , as truly and certainly as the material and visible signs are by us seen and received . and so in the third place , because the thing signified is offered and given to us , as truly as the sign it self , in this respect we own the union betwixt the body and bloud of christ , and the elements , whose use and office we hold to be changed from what it was before . but we deny what the papists affirm , that the substance of bread and wine are quite abolished , and changed into the body and bloud of our lord in such sort , that the bare accidents of the elements do alone remain united with christs body and bloud . and we also deny that the elements still retain the nature of sacraments when not used according to divine institution , that is , given by christs ministers , and received by his people ; so that christ in the consecrated bread ought not , cannot be kept and preserved to be carried about , because he is present only to the communicants . as for the fourth and last point , we do not say , that in the lords supper we receive only the benefits of christs death and passion , but we joyn the ground with its fruits , that is , christ with those advantages we receive from him , affirming with st. paul , that the bread which we break is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , the communion of the body of christ , and the cup which we bless , the communion of his bloud ; of that very substance which he took of the blessed virgin , and afterwards carried into heaven ; differing from those of rome only in this , that they will have our union with christ to be corporal , and our eating of him likewise , and we on the contrary maintain it to be , indeed as true , but not carnal or natural . and as he that receives unworthily , ( that is , with the mouth only , but not with a faithful heart ) eats and drinks his own damnation , so he that doth it worthily , receives his absolution and justification ; that is , he that discerns , and then receives the lords body as torn , and his bloud as shed for the redemption of the world . but that christ ( as the papists affirm ) should give his flesh and bloud to be received with the mouth , and ground with the teeth , so that not only the most wicked and infidels , but even rats and mice should swallow him down , this our words and our hearts do utterly deny . 6. so then , ( to sum up this controversie by applying to it all that hath been said ) it is not questioned whether the body of christ be absent from the sacrament duly administred according to his institution , which we protestants neither affirm nor believe : for it being given and received in the communion , it must needs be that it is present , though in some manner veiled under the sacrament , so that of it self it cannot be seen . neither is it doubted or disputed whether the bread and wine , by the power of god and a supernatural vertue , be set apart and fitted for a much nobler use , and raised to a higher dignity than their nature bears ; for we confess the necessity of a supernatural and heavenly change , and that the signs cannot become sacraments but by the infinite power of god , whose proper right it is to institute sacraments in his church , being able alone to endue them with vertue and efficacy . finally , we do not say that our blessed saviour gave only the figure and sign of his body ; neither do we deny a sacramental union of the body and bloud of christ with the sacred bread and wine , so that both are really and substantially received together : but ( that we may avoid all ambiguity ) we deny that after the words and prayer of consecration , the bread should remain bread no longer , but should be changed into the substance of the body of christ , nothing of the bread but only the accidents continuing to be what they were before : and so the whole question is concerning the transubstantiation of the outward elements ; whether the substance of the bread be turned into the substance of christs body , and the substance of the wine into the substance of his bloud ; or as the romish doctors describe their transubstantiation , whether the substance of bread and wine doth utterly perish , and the substance of christs body and bloud succeed in their place , which are both denied by protestants . 7. the church of rome sings on corpus christi-day , this is not bread , but god and man my saviour . and the council of trent doth thus define it , because christ our redeemer said truly , that that was his body , which he gave in the appearance of bread ; therefore it was ever believed by the church of god , and is now declared by this sacred synod , that by the power of consecration the whole substance of the bread is changed into the substance of christs body , and the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his bloud , which change is fitly and properly called transubstantiation by the holy catholick ( roman ) church . therefore if any one shall say , that the substance of bread and wine remains with the body and bloud of our saviour jesus christ , and shall deny that wonderful and singular conversion of the whole substance of the bread and wine into the substance of the body and bloud of christ , the only appearance and outward form of the bread and wine remaining , which conversion the catholick ( roman ) church doth fitly call transubstantiation , let him be accursed . the pope confirming this council , defines it after the same manner , imposeth an oath and declaration to the same purpose , and so makes it one of the new articles of the roman faith , in the form , and under the penalty following : i. n. do profess and firmly believe all and every the singulars contained in the confession of faith allowed by the holy church of rome ; viz. i believe in one god , &c. i also profess that the body and bloud with the soul and godhead of our saviour jesus christ are truly , really , and substantially in the mass , and in the sacrament of the eucharist , and that there is a conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the body , and of the whole substance of the wine into the bloud of christ , which conversion the roman catholick church calls transubstantiation . i fully embrace all things defined , declared , and delivered by the holy council of trent , and withall i do reject , condemn , and accurse all things by it accurs'd , condemned , or rejected . i do confidently believe that this faith , which i now willingly profess , is the true catholick faith without the which it is impossible to be saved ; and i do promise , vow , and swear , that i will constantly keep it whole and undefiled to my very last breath : so help me god and these holy gospels . afterwards he bravely concludes this decree with this commination : let no man therefore dare to attempt the breaking of this our deed and injunction , or be so desperate as to oppose it . and if any one presumes upon such an attempt , let him know that he thereby incurs the wrath of almighty god , and of his blessed apostles peter and paul. given at rome in st. peters church the thirteenth of november in the year of our lord 1564. the fifth of our pontificat . which is as much as to say , that he had received this his roman faith from pope innocent the third , who first decided and imposed this doctrine of the transubstantiation of the bread and wine into the body and bloud of christ , and made it an article of faith , adding this new-devised thirteenth to the ancient twelve articles , for so we find it published in his decretal propounded to the assembly at lateran in 1215. and proclaimed afterwards by his nephew pope gregory the ninth . thus : we firmly believe and simply acknowledge that there is one only true god , &c. and that in the sacrament of the altar the body and bloud of christ are truly contained under the accidents of bread and wine , which are transubstantiated , the bread into the body , and the wine into the bloud . to these definitions of popes i will add only the tenets of three jesuits , which are highly approved by the late followers of the new roman faith. first , of alphonsus salmeron , we must of necessity ( saith he ) hold transubstantiation , that the substance of bread and wine , which luther and some others admit , may be excluded ; that the words of christ ( which yet are most true without that ) may be verified ; that how few of these many are pertinent to their purpose will be seen hereafter ; many testimonies of the fathers , concerning conversion , mutation , consecration , benediction , transformation , sanctification ( for by all these names almost , they have called transubstantiation ) may stand firm , and not be vain and insignificant ; and lastly , that we may maintain a solid presence of the body and bloud of christ . item , as david changed his countenance before abimelech , and then received the shew bread , that was a certain type of the eucharist , so christ in the sacrament seigns himself to be bread , and yet is not bread , though he seems so to be most visibly . secondly , of cardinal francis tolet ; the words of consecration are efficacious instruments whereby to transubstantiate the substance of the bread into the true body of christ ; so that after they are spoken , there remains in the host none of the substance of the bread , but only the accidents of it , which are called the properties of the bread , under which the true body of christ is present . thirdly , and lastly , of cardinal bellarmine , the catholick church ever taught , that by the conversion of the bread and wine into the body and bloud of christ ( which conversion hath been in after times called transubstantiation ) it comes to pass , that the body and bloud of our lord are truly and really present in the sacrament . it would be to no purpose to bring the testimonies of others of the latine or roman church who give to the pope an absolute power of defining what he pleaseth , for they are but the same stuff as these : but if any one hath a mind let him consult gretserus his defence of bellarmine , or his dialogue who first writ against luther , who both reduce the whole matter to the judgment and decree of the pope . 8. now we leave inquiring what god is able to do , for we should first know his will in this matter , before we examine his power : yet thus much we say , that this roman transubstantiation is so strange and monstrous , that it exceeds the nature of all miracles . and though god by his almightiness be able to turn the substance of bread into some other substance , yet none will believe that he doth it , as long as it appears to our senses , that the substance of the bread doth still remain whole and entire . certain it is , that hitherto we read of no such thing done in the old or new testament , and therefore this tenet , being as unknown to the ancients as it is ungrounded in scripture , appears as yet to be very incredible , and there is no reason we should believe such an unauthorised figment , newly invented by men , and now imposed as an article of christian religion . for it is in vain that they bring scripture to defend this their stupendious doctrine ; and it is not true , what they so often and so confidently affirm , that the universal church hath always constantly owned it , being it was not so much as heard of in the church for many ages , and hath been but lately approved by the popes authority in the councils of lateran and trent , as i shall prove in the following chapters . chap. v. that neither the word nor name of transubstantiation , nor the doctrine or the thing it self is taught or contained in holy scripture , or in the writings of the ancient doctors of the church , but rather is contrary to them ; and therefore not of faith. 1. the word transubstantiation is so far from being found either in the sacred records , or in the monuments of the ancient fathers , that the maintainers of it do themselves acknowledge that it was not so much as heard of before the twelfth century . for though one stephanus , bishop of autun , be said to have once used it , yet it is without proof that some modern writers make him one of the tenth century ; nor yet doth he say , that the bread is transubstantiated , but as it were transubstantiated , which * well understood might be admitted . 2. nay , that the thing it self without the word , that the doctrine without the expression cannot be found in scripture , is ingeniously acknowledged by the most learned schoolmen scotus , durandus , biel , cameracensis , cajetan , and many more , who finding it not , brought in by the popes authority , and received in the roman church , till 1200 years after christ , yet endeavoured to defend it by other arguments . 3. scotus confest , that there is not any place in scripture so express as to compel a man to admit of transubstantiation , were it not that the church hath declared for it , ( that is , pope innocent iii , in his lateran council . ) durandus said , that the word is found , but that by it , the manner they contend for cannot be proved . biel affirms , that it is no where found in canonical scriptures . occam declared , that it is easier , more reasonable , less inconvenient , and better agreeing with scripture , to hold that the substance of the bread remains . after him cardinal cameracensis doth also confess , that transubstantiation cannot be proved out of the scriptures . nay , the bishop of rochester saith himself , that there is no expression in scripture whereby that conversion of substance in the mass can be made good . cardinal cajetan likewise , there is not any thing of force enough in the gospel to make us understand in a proper sense these words , this is my body : nay , that presence which the church ( of rome ) believes in the sacrament cannot be proved by the words of christ without the declaration of the ( roman ) church . lastly , bellarmine himself doth say , that though he might bring scripture clear enough , to his thinking , to prove transubstantiation by , to an easie man , yet still it would be doubtful whether he had done it to purpose , because some very acute and learned men , as scotus , hold that it cannot be proved by scripture . now in this , protestants desire no more but to be of the opinion of those learned and acute men . 4. and indeed , the words of institution would plainly make it appear to any man that would prefer truth to wrangling , that it is with the bread , that the lords body is given , ( as his bloud with the wine ) for christ ; having taken , blessed , and broken the bread , said , this is my body ; and st. paul , than whom none could better understand the meaning of christ , explains it thus , the bread which we break is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , communion or communication of the body of christ , that whereby his body is given , and the faithful are made partakers of it . that it was bread which he reacht to them , there was no need of any proof , the receiver's senses sufficiently convinc'd them of it ; but that therewith his body was given , none could have known , had it not been declared by him who is the truth it self . and though , by the divine institution and the explication of the apostle every faithful communicant may be as certainly assured that he receives the lords body , as if he knew that the bread is substantially turned into it , yet it doth not therefore follow , that the bread is so changed , that its substance is quite done away , so that there remains nothing present , but the very natural body of christ , made of bread : for certain it is , that the bread is not the body of christ any otherwise than as the cup is the new testament , and two different consequences cannot be drawn from those two not different expressions . therefore as the cup cannot be the new testament but by a sacramental figure , no more can the bread be the body of christ , but in the same sense . 5. as to what bellarmine and others say , that it is not possible the words of christ can be true , but by that conversion , which the church of rome calls transubstantiation , that is so far from being so , that if it were admitted , it would first deny the divine omnipotency , as though god were not able to make the body of christ present , and truly to give it in the sacrament , whilst the substance of the bread remains . 2. it would be inconsistent with the divine benediction which preserves things in their proper being . 3. it would be contrary to the true nature of a sacrament , which always consisteth of two parts . and lastly , it would in some manner destroy the true substance of the body and bloud of christ , which cannot be said to be made of bread and wine by a priest , without a most high presumption . but the truth of the words of christ remains constant , and can be defended , without overthrowing so many other great truths . suppose a testator puts deeds and titles in the hand of his heir , with these words , take the house which i bequeath thee ; there is no man will think that those writings and parchments are that very house which is made of wood or stones , and yet no man will say that the testator spake falsly or obscurely . likewise our blessed saviour , having sanctified the elements by his words and prayers , gave them to his disciples as seals of the new testament , whereby they were as certainly secured of those rich and precious legacies which he left to them , as children are of their fathers lands and inheritance , by deeds and instruments signed and delivered for that purpose . 6. to the sacred records we may add the judgment of the primitive church . for those orthodox and holy doctors of our holier religion , those great lights of the catholick church , do all clearly , constantly , and unanimously conspire in this , that the presence of the body of christ in the sacrament is only mystick and spiritual . as for the entire annihilation of the substance of the bread and the wine , or that new and strange tenet of transubstantiation , they did not so much as hear or speak any thing of it : nay , the constant stream of their doctrine doth clearly run against it , how great soever are the brags and pretences of the papists to the contrary . and if you will hear them one by one , i shall bring some of their most noted passages only , that our labour may not be endless by rehearsing all that they have said to our purpose on this subject . 7. i shall begin with that holy and ancient doctor , justin martyr , who is one of the first after the apostles times ; whose undoubted writings are come to us . what was believed at rome and elsewhere in his time , concerning this holy mystery , may well be understood out of these his words : after that the bishop hath prayed , and blessed , and the people said amen , those whom we call deacons or ministers give to every one of them that are present a portion of the bread and wine ; and that food we call the eucharist , for we do not receive it as ordinary bread and wine . they received it as bread , yet not as common bread . and a little after , by this food digested , our flesh and bloud are fed , and we are taught that it is the body and bloud of jesus christ . therefore the substance of the bread remains , and remains corruptible food , even after the consecration , which can in no wise be said of the immortal body of christ : for the flesh of christ is not turned into our flesh , neither doth it nourish it , as doth that food which is sacramentally called the flesh of christ . but the flesh of christ feeds our souls unto eternal life . 8. after the same manner , it is written by that holy martyr irenaeus bishop much about the same time . the bread which is from the earth is no more common bread , after the invocation of god upon it , but is become the eucharist consisting of two parts , the one earthly , and the other heavenly . there would be nothing earthly if the substance of the bread were removed . again , as the grain of wheat falling in the ground , and dying , riseth again much increased , and then receiving the word of god becomes the eucharist ( which is the body and bloud of christ ; ) so likewise our bodies nourished by it , laid in the ground and dissolved , shall rise again in their time . again , we are fed by the creature , but it is he himself that gives it , he hath ordained and appointed that cup which is a creature , and his bloud also , and that bread which is a creature , and also his body . and so when the bread and the cup are blessed by gods word , they become the eucharist of the body and bloud of christ , and from them our bodies receive nourishment and increase . now that our flesh is fed and encreased by the natural body of christ cannot be said without great impiety by themselves that hold transubstantiation . for naturally nothing nourisheth our bodies but what is made flesh and bloud by the last digestion , which it would be blasphemous to say of the incorruptible body of christ . yet the sacred elements which in some manner are , and are said to be the body and bloud of christ , yield nourishment and encrease to our bodies by their earthly nature , in such sort , that by vertue also of the heavenly and spiritual food which the faithful receive by means of the material , our bodies are fitted for a blessed resurrection to immortal glory . 9. tertullian , who flourished about the two hundredth year after christ , when as yet he was catholick , and acted by a pious zeal , wrote against marcion the heretick , who amongst his other impious opinions taught that christ had not taken of the virgin mary the very nature and substance of a humane body , but only the outward forms and appearances ; out of which fountain the romish transubstantiators seem to have drawn their doctrine of accidents abstracted from their subject hanging in the air , that is , subsisting on nothing . tertullian , disputing against this wicked heresie , draws an argument from the sacrament of the eucharist to prove that christ had not a phantastick and imaginary , but a true and natural body , thus . the figure of the body of christ proves it to be natural , for there can be no figure of a ghost or a phantasm . but ( saith he ) christ having taken the bread , and given it to his disciples made it his body by saying , this is my body , that is , the figure of my body . now , it could not have been a figure except the body were real , for a meer appearance , an imaginary phantasm is not capable of a figure . each part of this argument is true , and contains a necessary conclusion . for 1. the bread must remain bread , otherwise marcion would have returned the argument against tertullian , saying as the transubstantiators ; it was not bread , but meerly the accidents of bread , which seemed to be bread . 2. the body of christ is proved to be true by the figure of it , which is said to be bread : for the bread is fit to represent that divine body , because of its nourishing vertue , which in the bread is earthly , but in the body is heavenly . lastly , the realty of the body is proved by that of its figure , and so if you deny the substance of the bread ( as the papists do ) you thereby destroy the truth and realty of the body of christ in the sacrament . 10. origen also , about the same time with tertullian , speaks much after the same manner , if christ ( saith he ) as these men ( the marcionites ) falsly hold , had neither flesh nor bloud , of what manner of flesh , of what body , of what bloud did he give the signs and images when he gave the bread and wine ? if they be the signs and representations of the body and bloud of christ , though they prove the truth of his body and bloud , yet they being signs , cannot be what they signifie , and they not being what they represent , the groundless contrivance of transubstantiation is overthrown . also upon leviticus he doth expresly oppose it thus : acknowledge ye that they are figures , and therefore spiritual , not carnal , examine and understand what is said , otherwise if you receive as things carnal , they will hurt , but not nourish you . for in the gospel there is the letter , which kills him that understands not spiritually what is said ; for if you understand this saying according to the letter , except you eat my flesh and drink my bloud , the letter will kill you . therefore as much as these words belong to the eating and drinking of christs body and bloud , they are to be understood mystically and spiritually . again , writing on st. matthew , he doth manifestly put a difference betwixt the true and immortal , and the typick and mystical body of christ : for the sacrament consisteth of both . that food ( saith he ) which is sanctified by the word of god and prayer , as far as it is material , descends into the belly and is cast out into the draught ; this he saith of the typick , which is the figure of the true body . god forbid we should have any such thoughts of the true and heavenly body of christ ; as they must that understand his natural body by what origen calls his material and sacramental body , which no man in his wits can understand of meer accidents . 11. st. cyprian , bishop of carthage , a glorious martyr of christ , wrote a famous epistle to coecilius concerning the sacred chalice in the lords supper , whereof this is the sum : let that cup which is offered to the people in commemoration of christ be mixt with wine ( against the opinion of the aquarii who were for water only ) for it cannot represent the bloud of christ when there is no wine in the cup , because the bloud of christ is exprest by the wine , as the faithful are understood by the water . but the patrons of transubstantiation have neither wine nor water in the chalice they offer ; and yet without them ( especially the wine appointed by our blessed saviour , and whereof cyprian chiefly speaks ) the bloud of christ is not so much as sacramentally present ; so far was the primitive church from any thing of believing a corporal presence of the bloud , the wine being reduced to nothing ( that is to a meer accident without a substance ) for then they must have said , that the water was changed into the people , as well as the wine into the bloud . but there is no need that i should bring many testimonies of that father , when all his writings do plainly declare that the true substance of the bread and wine is given in the eucharist , that , that spiritual and quickning food which the faithful get from the body and bloud of christ , and the mutual union of the whole people joyned into one body may answer their type , the sacrament which represents them . 12. those words of the council of nice are well known , whereby the faithful are called from the consideration of the outward visible elements of bread and wine , to attend the inward and spiritual act of the mind , whereby christ is seen and apprehended . let not our thoughts dwell low , on that bread and that cup which are set before us , but lifting up our minds by faith let us consider , that on this sacred table is laid the lamb of god which taketh away the sins of the world . — and receiving truly his precious body and bloud , let us believe these things to be the pledges and emblems of our resurrection : for we do not take much , but only a little ( of the elements ) that we may be mindful , we do it not for satiety , but for sanctification . now , who is there , even among the maintainers of transubstantiation , that will understand this , not much , but a little , of the body of christ ? or who can believe that the nicene fathers would call his body and bloud symbols in a proper sense ? when nothing can be an image or a sign of it self . and therefore though we are not to rest in the elements , minding nothing else ( for we should consider what is chiefest in the sacrament , that we have our hearts lifted up unto the lord , who is given together with the signs ) yet elements they are , and the earthly part of the sacrament , both the bread and the wine , which destroys transubstantiation . 13. st. athanasius , famous in the time , and present in the assembly of the nicene council , a stout champion of the catholick faith , acknowledgeth none other but a spiritual manducation of the body of christ in the sacrament . our lord ( saith he ) made a difference betwixt the flesh and the spirit , that we might understand that what he said , was not carnal , but spiritual . for how many men could his body have fed , that the whole world should be nourished by it ? but therefore he mentioned his ascension into heaven , that they might not take what he said in a corporal sense , but might understand that his flesh whereof he spake is a spiritual and heavenly food given by himself from on high ; for the words that i spake unto you they are spirit , and they are life , as if he should say , my body which is shown and given for the world , shall be given in food , that it may be distributed spiritually to every one , and preserve them all to the resurrection to eternal life . cardinal perron having nothing to answer to these words of this holy father , in a kind of despair , rejects the whole tractate , and denies it to be athanasius's , which no body ever did before him , there being no reason for it . 14. cyril , bishop of jerusalam , of the same age with st. athanasius , treating of the chrisme , wherewith they then anointed those that were baptized , speaks thus : take heed thou dost not think that this is a meer oyntment only . for as the broad of the eucharist after the invocation of the holy ghost is no longer ordinary bread , but is the body of christ ; so this holy oyntment is no longer a bare common oyntment after it is consecrated , but is the gift or grace of christ , which , by his divine nature , and the coming of the holy ghost , is made ●fficacious ; so that the body is anointed with the oyntment , but the soul is sanctified by the holy and vivifying spirit . can any thing more clear be said ? either the oyntment is transubstantiated by consecration into the spirit and grace of christ , or the bread and wine are not transubstantiated by consecration into the body and bloud of christ . therefore as the oyntment retains still its substance , and yet is not called a meer or common ointment , but the charisme or grace of christ : so the bread and wine remaining so , as to their substance , yet are not said to be only bread and wine common and ordinary , but also the body and bloud of christ . vnder the type of bread ( saith he ) the body is given thee , and the bloud under the type of the wine . this grodecius doth captiously and unfaithfully interpret , under the appearances of bread and wine ; for those meer appearances or accidents subsisting without a subject never so much as entred into the mind of any of the ancients . 15. much to the same purpose we have in the anaphora or liturgy attributed to st. basil , we have set before you the type of the body and bloud of christ , which he calls the bread of the eucharist after the consecration . if it be the type of the body , then certainly it cannot be the body and nothing else : for ( as we said before ) nothing can be the figure of it self , no more than a man can be his own son or father . there be also prayers in that liturgy , that the bread may become the body of christ for the remission of sins , and life eternal to the receivers . now true it is , that to the faithful the element becomes a vivifying body , because they are truly partakers of the heavenly bread , the body of christ : but to others , who either receive not , or are not believers , to them the bread may be the antitype , but is not , neither doth become the body of christ , for without faith christ is never eaten , as is gathered from the same father . 16. st. gregory nyssene , his brother , doth clearly declare what change is wrought in the bread and wine by consecration , saying , as the altar naturally is but common stone , but being consecrated becomes an holy table , a spotless altar ; so the bread of the eucharist is at first ordinary , but being mysteriously sacrificed , it is , and is called the body of christ , and is efficacious to great purposes ; and as the priest ( yesterday a lay-man ) by the blessing of ordination , becomes a doctor of piety , and a steward of mysteries , and though not changed in body or shape , yet is transformed and made better as to his soul , by an invisible power and grace ; so also by the same consequence , water , being nothing but water of it self , yet blest by a heavenly grace , renews the man , working a spiritual regeneration in him . now let the assertors of transubstantiation maintain that a stone is substantially changed into an altar , a man into a priest , the water in baptism into an invisible grace , or else that the bread is not so changed into the body of christ : for according to this father there is the same consequence in them all . 17 likewise st. ambrose explaining what manner of alteration is in the bread , when in the eucharist it becomes the body of christ , saith : thou hadst indeed a being , but wert an old creature , but being now baptized or consecrated , thou art become a new creature . the same change that happens to man in baptism , happens to the bread in the sacrament : if the nature of man is not substantially altered by the new birth , no more is the bread by consecration . man becomes by baptism , not what nature made him , but what grace new-makes him ; and the bread becomes by consecration , not what it was by nature , but what the blessing consecrates it to be . for nature made only a meer man , and made only common bread ; but regeneration , of a meer man , makes a holy man , in whom christ dwells spiritually : and likewise the consecration of common bread makes mystick and sacramental bread . yet this change doth not destroy nature , but to nature adds grace : as is yet more plainly exprest by that holy father in the fore-cited place . perhaps thou wilt say ( saith he ) this my bread is common bread ; it is bread indeed before the blessing of the sacrament , but when it is consecrated it becomes the body of christ . this we are therefore to declare , how can that which is bread be also the body of christ ? by consecration . and consecration is made by the words of our lord , that the venerable sacrament may be perfected . you see how efficacious is the word of christ . if there be then so great a power in the word of christ to make the bread and wine to be what they were not , how much greater is that power , which still preserves them to be what they were , and yet makes them to be what they were not ? therefore , that i may answer thee , it was not the body of christ before the consecration , but now after the consecration , it is the body of christ ; he said the word and it was done ; thou thy self wert befere , but wert an old creature ; after thou hast been consecrated in baptism thou art become a new creature . by these words st. ambrose teacheth how we are to understand that the bread is the body of christ , to wit , by such a change that the bread and wine do not cease to be what they were as to their substance ( for then they should not be what they were ) and yet by the blessing become what before they were not for so they are said to remain ( as indeed they do 〈◊〉 what they were by nature , that yet they are changed by grace , that is , they become assured sacraments of the body and bloud of christ , and by that means certain pledges of our justification and redemption . what is there , can refute more expresly the dream of transubstantiation ? 18. st. chrysostome doth also clearly discard and reject this carnal transubstantiation and eating of christs body , without eating the bread . sacraments ( saith he ) ought not to be contemplated and considered carnally , but with the eyes of our souls , that is spiritually ; for such is the nature of mysteries : where observe the opposition betwixt carnally and spiritually which admits of no plea or reply again . as in baptism the spiritual power of regeneration is given to the material water ; so also the immaterial gift of the body and bloud of christ is not received by any sensible corporal action , but by the spiritual discernment of our faith , and of our hearts and minds . which is no more than this , that sensible things are called by the name of those spiritual things which they seal and signifie . but he speaks more plainly in his epistle to caesarius ; where he teacheth that in this mystery , there is not in the bread a substantial , but a sacramental change , according to the which , the outward elements take the name of what they represent , and are changed in such a sort , that they still retain their former natural substance . the bread ( saith he ) is made worthy to be honoured with the name of the flesh of christ , by the consecration of the priest , yet the flesh retains the proprieties of its incorruptible nature , as the bread doth its natural substance . before the bread be sanctified we call it bread ; but when it is consecrated by the divine grace , it deserves to be called the lords body , though the substance of the bread still remains . when bellarmine could not answer this testimony of that great doctor , he thought it enough to deny , that this epistle is st. chrysostoms a but both he and b possevin do vainly contend that it is not extant among the works of chrysostom . for besides that at florence c and else where it was to be found among them , it is cited in the collections against the severians which are in the version of turrianus the jesuit , in the fourth tome of antiq. lectionum of henry canisius , and in the end of the book of joh. damascenus against the acephali . i bring another testimony out of the imperfect work on st. matthew , written either by st. chrysostome , or some other ancient author ; a book in this at least very orthodox , and not corrupted by the arrians . in these sanctified vessels , ( saith he ) the true body of christ is not contained , but the mystery of his body . 19. which also hath been said by st. austin above a thousand times ; but out of so many almost numberless places i shall chuse only three , which are as the sum of all the rest . you are not to eat this body which you see , nor drink this bloud which my crucifiers shall shed , i have left you a sacrament which , spiritually understood , will vivisie you . thus st. austin rehearsing the words of christ again ; if sacraments had not some resemblance with those things whereof they are sacraments , they could not be sacraments at all . from this resemblance they often take the names of what they represent . therefore as the sacrament of christs body is in some sort his body ; so the sacrament of faith , is faith also . to the same sense is what he writes against maximinus the arrian . we mind in the sacraments , not what they are , but what they shew ; for they are signs , which are one thing , and signifie another . and in another place speaking of the bread and wine . let no man look to what they are , but to what they signifie , for our lord was pleased to say , this is my body , when he gave the sign of his body . this passage of st. austin is so clear , that it admits of no evasion nor no denial . for if the sacraments are one thing , and signifie another , then they are not so changed into what they signifie , as that after that change they should be no more what they were . the water is changed in baptism as the bread and wine in the lords supper , but all that is changed is not presently abolished or transubstantiated . for as the water remains entire in baptism , so do the bread and wine in the eucharist . 20. st. prosper , orthodox in all things , who lived almost in the time of austin , teacheth , that the eucharist consisteth of two things , the visible appearance of the elements , and the invisible flesh and bloud of our saviour christ , ( that is , the sacrament , and the grace of the sacrament ) as the person of christ is both god and man. who but the infamous heretick eutyches would say that christ , as god , was substantially changed into man , or as man , into god ? 21. upon this subject , nothing can be more clear than this of theodor. whence we learn what the primitive church believes in this matter . our saviour , in the institution of the eucharist , changed the names of things , giving to his body the name of its sacrament , and to the sacrament the name of his body . now this was done for this reason , as he saith , that they that are partakers of the divine mysteries , might not mind the nature of what they see , but by the change of names , might believe that change which is wrought by grace . for he that called what by nature is his body , wheat and bread ; he also honoured the elements and signs with the names of his body and bloud , not changing what is natural , but adding grace to it . he therefore teacheth that such an alteration is wrought in the elements , that still their nature and substance continues , as he explains more plainly afterwards . for when the heretick that stands for eutichius , had said , as the sacrament of the lords body and bloud are one thing before the prayer of the priest , and afterwards being changed , become another ; so also the body of our lord after his ascention is changed into the divine substance and nature ( according to the tenet of the transubstantiator this eutychian argument is irrefragable , but ) catholick antiquity answers it thus : thou are entangled in the nets of thine own knitting ; for the elements or mystick signs depart not from their nature after consecration , but remain in their former substance , form , and kind , and can be seen and toucht as much as before : and yet withal we understand also what they become now they are changed . compare therefore the copy with the original , and thou shalt see their likeness . for a figure must answer to the truth . that body hath the same form , and fills the same space as before , and in a word is the same substance ; but after its resurrection , it is become immortal , &c. all this and much more is taught by theodoret , who assisted at the universal councils of ephesus and chalcedon . it is an idle exception which is made by some in the church of rome , as though by the nature and substance of the elements , which are said to remain , theodoret had understood the nature and substance of the accidents , ( as cardinal bellarmine is pleased to speak most absurdly : ) but the whole context doth strongly refute this gloss , for theodoret joyns together nature , substance , form , and figure , and indeed , what answer could they have given to the eutychian argument , if the substance of the bread being annihilated after the consecration , the accidents only remain ? or did christ say concerning the accidents of the bread and wine , these accidents are , or this accident is my body ? but ( though we have not that liberty , yet ) the inventors of transubstantiation may when they please make a creator of a creature , substances of accidents , accidents of substances , and any thing out of any thing . but sure they are too immodest and uncharitable , who , to elude the authority of so famous and so worthy a father as theodoret , alledge that he was accused of some errours in the council of ephesus , though he repented afterwards , as they themselves are forced to confess . fain would they if they could get out at this door , when they cannot deny that he affirmed , that the elements remain in their natural substance , as he wrote in the dialogues which he composed against the eutychian hereticks , with the applause and approbation of the catholick church . and indeed the evidence of this truth hath compelled some of our adversaries to yield that theodoret is of our side . for in the epistle before the dialogues of theodoret in the roman edition , set forth by stephan nicolinus , the popes printer , in the year 1547 , it is plainly set down . that in what concern'd transubstantiation his opinion was not very sound , but that he was to be excused , because the church ( of rome ) had made no decree about it . 22. with theodoret we may joyn gelasius , who ( whether he were bishop of rome or no as bellarmine confesseth , was of the same age and opinion as he , and therefore a witness ancient and credible enough . he wrote against eutyches and nestorius , concerning the two natures in christ , in this manner . doubtless , the sacrament of the body and bloud of christ which we receive , is a very divine thing , whereby , we are made partakers of the divine nature ; and yet it doth not cease to be bread and wine , by substance and nature . and indeed , the image and resemblance of the body and bloud of christ is celebrated in this mysterious action . by this therefore we see manifestly enough , that we must believe that to be in christ , which we believe to be in his sacrament , that , as by the perfecting vertue of the holy ghost , it becomes a divine substance , and yet remains in the propriety of its nature ; so this great mystery the incarnation , of whose power and efficacy this is a lively image doth demonstrate that there is one intire and true christ , consisting of two natures , which yet properly remain unchanged . it doth plainly appear out of these words , that the change wrought in the sacrament is not substantial , for first , the sanctified elements are so made the body and bloud of christ , that still they continue to be , by nature , bread and wine . secondly , the bread and wine retain their natural properties , as also the two natures in christ . lastly , the elements are said to become a divine substance , because while we receive them , we are made partakers of the divine nature , by the body and bloud of christ , which are given to us . these things being so , their blindness is to be deplored who see not that they bring again into the church of rome the same error which antiquity piously and learnedly condemned in the eutychians . and as for their thread-bare objection to this , that by the substance of bread and wine , the true substance it self is not to be understood , but only the nature and essence of the accidents , it is a very strange and very poor shift . there is a great deal more of commendation due to the ingenuity of cardinal contarenus , who yielding to the evidence of truth , answered nothing to this plain testimony of gelasius . 23. now i add cyril of alexandria , who said , that the body and bloud of christ . in the sacrament are received only by a pure faith , as we read in that epistle against nestorius , which six hundred fathers approved and confirmed in the council of chalcedon . i omit to mention the other fathers of this age , though many things in their writings be as contrary to transubstantiation and the independency of accidents as any i have hitherto cited . 24. i come now to the sixth century , about the middle whereof ephrem , patriarch of antioch , wrote a book , which was read and commended by photius , concerning sacred constitutions and ceremonies against the eutychians ; therein , that he might prove the hypostatical union , that in christ there is no confusion of natures , but that each retains its own substance and properties , he brings the comparison of the sacramental union , and denies that there should be any conversion of one substance into another in the sacrament . no man ( saith he ) that hath any reason will say that the nature of the palpable , and impalpable , and the nature of the visible and invisible is the same . for so the body of christ which is received by the faithful , remains in its own substance , and yet withal is united to a spiritual grace ; and so baptism , though it becomes wholly spiritual , yet it loseth not the sensible property of its substance ( that 's water ) neither doth it cease to be what it was made by grace . 25. it is not very long since the works of facundus , an african bishop , were printed at paris , but he lived in the same century . now what his doctrine was against transubstantiation , as also of the church in his time , is plainly to be seen by those words of his , which i here transcribe . the sacrament of adoption may be called adoption , as the sacrament of the body and bloud of christ , consecrated in the bread and wine is said to be his body and bloud ; not that his body be bread , or his bloud wine , but because the bread and wine are the sacrament of his body and bloud , and therefore so called by christ , when he gave them to his disciples . sirmondus the jesuit hath writ annotations on facundus ; but when he came to this place he had nothing to say , but that the bread is no bread , but only the likeness and appearance of bread : an opinion so unlike that of facundus that it should not have been fathered upon him , by a learned and ingenuous man , as sirmondus would be thought to be . for he cannot so much as produce any one of the ancient fathers that ever made mention of accidents subsisting without a subject , ( called by him the appearances of bread. ) and as for his thinking , that some would take the expressions of facundus to be somewhat uncouth and obscure , how unjust and injurious it is to that learned father may easily be observed by any . 26. isidore , bishop of hispal , about the begining of the seventh century , wrote thus concerning the sacrament , because the bread strengthens our body , therefore it is called the body of christ , and because the wine is made bloud , therefore the bloud of christ is expressed by it . now these two are visible , but yet being sanctified by the holy spirit , they become the sacraments of the lords body . for the bread which we break is the body of christ , who said , i am the bread of life ; and the wine is his bloud , as it is written , i am the true vine . behold , saith he , they become a sacrament , not the substance of the lords body ; for the bread and wine which feed our flesh cannot be substantially , nor be said to be the body and bloud of christ , but sacramentally , they are so as certainly , as that they are so called . but this he declares yet more clearly , lib. 6. etymol . cap. 19. for as the visible substance of bread and wine nourish the outward man ; so the word of christ , who is the bread of life , refresheth the souls of the faithful being received by faith. these words were recorded and preserved by bertram the priest , when as in the editions of isidore , they are now left out . 27. and the same kind of expressions as those of isidorus were also used by venerable bede our country-man , who lived in the eighth century , in his sermon upon the epiphany ; of whom we also take these two testimonies following : in the room of the flesh and bloud of the lamb christ substituted the sacrament of his body and bloud , in the figure of bread and wine . also , at supper he gave to his disciples the figure of his holy body and bloud . these utterly destroy transubstantiation . 28. in the same century , charles the great wrote an epistle to our alcuinus , wherein we find these words . christ , at supper broke the bread to his disciples , and likewise gave them the cup , in figure of his body and bloud , and so left to us this great sacrament for our benefit . if it was the figure of his body , it could not be the body it self : indeed , the body of christ is given in the eucharist , but to the faithful only , and that by means of the sacrament of the consecrated bread . 29. but now , about the beginning of the ninth century , started up paschafius , a monk of corbie , who first ( as some say , whose judgment i follow not ) among the latines , taught that christ was consubstantiated , or rather inclosed in the bread & corporally united to it in the sacrament ; for as yet there was no thoughts of the transubstantiation of bread. but these new sorts of expressions not agreeing with the catholick doctrine , and the writings of the ancient fathers , had few or no abettors before the eleventh century . and in the ninth , whereof we now treat , there were not wanting learned men ( as amalarius , archdeacon of triars ; rabanus , at first abbot of fulda , and afterwards archbishop of ments ; john erigena , an english divine ; walafridus strabo , a german abbot ; ratramus or bertramus , first priest of corbie , afterwards abbot of orbec in france ; and many more ) who by their writings opposed this new opinion of pascasius , or of some others rather , and delivered to posterity the doctrine of the ancient church . yet we have something more to say concerning paschasius , whom bellarmine and sirmondus esteemed so highly , that they were not ashamed to say , that he was the first that had writ to the purpose concerning the eucharist , and that he had so explained the meaning of the church , that he had shewn and opened the way to all them who treated of that subject after him . yet in that whole book of paschasius , there is nothing that favours the transubstantiation of the bread , or its destruction or removal . indeed , he asserts the truth of the body and bloud of christs being in the eucharist , which protestants deny not ; he denies that the consecrated bread is a bare figure , a representation void of truth , which protestants assert not . but he hath many things repugnant to transubstantiation , which ( as i have said ) the church of rome it self had not yet quite found out . i shall mention a few of them . christ ( saith he ) left us this sacrament , a visible figure and character of his body and bloud , that by them our spirit might the better embrace spiritual and invisible things , and be more fully fed by faith. again , we must receive our spiritual sacraments with the mouth of the soul , and the taste of faith. item . whilst therein we savour nothing carnal , but we being spiritual , and understanding the whole spiritually , we remain in christ . and a little after , the flesh and bloud of christ are received spiritually . and again , to savour according to the flesh , is death ; and yet to receive spiritually the true flesh of christ , is life eternal . lastly , the flesh and bloud of christ are not received carnally , but spiritually . in these he teacheth , that the mystery of the lords supper is not , and ought not to be understood carnally but spiritually , and that this dream of corporal and oral transubstantiation was unknown to the ancient church . as for what hath been added to this book , by the craft ( without doubt ) of some superstitious forgerer , ( as erasmus complains that it too frequently happens to the writing of the ancients , ) it is fabulous , as the visible appearing of the body of christ in the form of an infant with fingers of raw flesh ; such stuff is unworthy to be fathered on paschasius , who profest that he delivered no other doctrin concerning the sacrament , than that which he had learned out of the ancient fathers , and not from idle and uncertain stories of miracles . 30. now it may be requisite to produce the testimony of those writers before mentioned to have written in this century . in all that i write ( saith amalarius ) i am swayed by the judgment of holy men and pious fathers ; yet i say what i think my self . those things that are done in the celebration of divine service , are done in the sacrament of the passion of our lord as he himself commanded . therefore the priest offering the bread , with the wine and water in the sacrament , doth it in the stead of christ , and the bread , wine , and water in the sacrament represent the flesh and bloud of christ . for sacraments are somewhat to resemble those things whereof they are sacraments . therefore let the priest be like unto christ , as the bread and liquors are like the body and bloud of christ . such is in some manner the immolation of the priest on the altar , as was that of christ on the cross . again , the sacrament of the body of christ , is in some manner the body of christ : for sacraments should not be sacraments , if in some things they had not the likeness of that whereof they are sacraments : now by reason of this mutual likeness , they oftentimes are called by what they represent . lastly , sacraments have the vertue to bring us to those things whereof they are sacraments . these things writ amalarius according to the expressions of st. austin , and the doctrine of the purest church . 31. rabanus maurus , a great doctor of this age , who could hardly be matcht either in italy or in germany , publisht this his open confession : our blessed saviour would have the sacrament of his body and bloud , to be received by the mouth of the faithful , and to become their nourishment , that by the visible body , the effects of the invisible might be known : for as the material food feeds the body outwardly , and makes it to grow , so the word of god doth inwardly nourish and strengthen the soul . also , he would have the sacramental elements to be made of the fruits of the earth , that as he , who is god invisible , appeared visible , in our flesh , and mortal to save us mortals , so he might by a thing visible fitly represent to us a thing invisible . some receive the sacred sign at the lords table to their salvation , and some to their ruine ; but the thing signified is life to every man , and death to none , whoever receives it is united as a member to christ the head in the kingdom of heaven ; for the sacrament is one thing , and the efficacy of it another : for the sacrament is received with the mouth , but the grace thereof feeds the inward man. and as the first is turned into our substance when we eat it and drink it , so are we made the body of christ when we live piously and obediently . — therefore the faithful do well and truly receive the body of christ , if they neglect not to be his members , and they are made the body of christ if they will live of his spirit . all these agree not in the least with the new doctrine of rome , and as little with that opinion they attribute to paschasius , and therefore he is rejected as erroneous by some romish authors , who writ four and six hundred years after him : but they should have considered that they condemned not only rabanus , but together with him all the doctors of the primitive church . 32. johannes erigena our country-man , ( whom king alfred took to be his , and his childrens tutor , and to credit the new founded university of oxford ) while he lived in france , where he was in great esteem with charles the bald , wrote a a book concerning the body and bloud of our lord , to the same purpose as rabanus , and back'd it with clear testimonies of scripture and of the holy fathers . but entring himself into the monastery of malmsbury , as he was interpreting the book of dyonisius about the heavenly hierarchy , ( which he translated into latine ) and withal censuring the newly-hatcht doctrine of the carnal presence of christ in the eucharist , he was stabb'd b with pen knives by some unworthy schollars of his , set on by certain monks ; though not long after , he was by some c others numbred among holy martyrs . 33. walasridus strabo , about the same time wrote on this manner . therefore in that last supper whereat christ was with his disciples before he was betrayed ; after the solemnities of the ancient passeover , he gave to his disciples the sacrament of his body and bloud in the substance of bread and wine , — and instructed us to pass from carnal to spiritual things , from earthly to heavenly things , and from shadows to the substance . 34. as for the opinion of bertram , otherwise called ratramnus , or ratramus , perhaps not rightly , it is known enough by that book which the emperour charles the bald ( who loved and honoured him , as all good men did , for his great learning and piety ) commanded him to write concerning the body and bloud of our lord. for when men began to be disturbed at the book of paschasius , some saying one thing , and some another , the emperour being moved by their disputes propounded himself two questions to bertram . 1. whether , what the faithful eat in the church , be made the body and bloud of christ in figure and in mystery ? 2. or whether that natural body which was born of the virgin mary , which suffered , died , and was buried , and now sitteth on the right hand of god the father , be it self dayly received by the mouth of the faithful in the mystery of the sacrament ? the first of these bertram resolved affirmatively , the second negatively , and said , that there was as great a difference betwixt those two bodies , as betwixt the earnest and that whereof it is the earnest . it is evident ( saith he ) that that bread and wine are figuratively the body and bloud of christ . — according to the substance of the elements , they are after the consecration what they were before . — for the bread is not christ substantially . — if this mystery be not done in a figure , it cannot well be called a mystery . — the wine also which is made the sacrament of the bloud of christ by the consecration of the priest , shews one thing by its outward appearance and contains another inwardly . for what is there visible in its outside but only the substance of the wine ? these things are changed , but not according to the material part , and by this change they are not what they truly appear to be , but are some thing else besides what is their proper being : for they are made spiritually the body and bloud of christ ; not that the elements be two different things , but in one respect they are , as they appear , bread and wine , and in another the body and bloud of christ . — hence , according to the visible creature they feed the body , but according to the vertue of a more excellent substance they nourish and sanctifie the souls of the faithful . then having brought many testimonies of holy scripture and the ancient fathers to confirm this , he at last prevents that calumny which the followers of paschasius did then lay on the orthodox , as though they had taught that bare signs , figures , and shadows , and not the body and bloud of christ were given in the sacrament , let it not be thought ( saith he ) because we say this , that therefore the body and bloud of christ are not received in the mystery of the sacrament , where faith apprehends what it believes , and not what the eyes see ; for this meat and drink are spiritual , feed the soul spiritually , and entertain that life whose fulness is eternal . for the question is not simply about the real truth , or the thing signified being present , without which it could not be a mystery , but about the false reality of things subsisting in imaginary appearances , and about the carnal presence . 35. all this the fathers of trent , and the romish inquisitors could not brook , and therefore they utterly condemned bertram , and put his book in the catalogue of those that are forbidden . but the professors of doway judging this proceeding much too violent , and therefore more like to hurt than to advance the roman cause , went another and more cunning way to work , and had the approbation of the licencers of books , and the authors of the belgick index expurgatorius . that book of bertram ( say they ) having been already printed several times , read by many , and known to all by its being forbidden , may be suffered and used after it is corrected ; for bertram was a catholick priest and a monk in the monastery of corbie , esteemed and beloved by charles the bald. and being we bear with many errors in ancient catholick authors , and lessen , and excuse them , and by some cunning device ( behold the good mens fidelity ! ) often deny them , and give a more commodious sense , when they are objected to us in our disputes with our adversaries ; we do not see why bertram should not also be amended and used with the same equity , lest hereticks cast us in the teeth , that we burn and suppress those records of antiquity that make for them : and , as we also fear , lest , not only hereticks , but also stubborn catholicks read the book with the more greediness , and cite it with the more confidence because it is forbidden , and so it doth more harm by being prohibited than if it was left free . what patch then will they sow to amend this in bertram ? those things that differ are not the same ; that body of christ which died and rose again , and is become immortal , dies no more , being eternal and impassable : but that which is celebrated in the church , is temporal , not eternal ; is corruptible , and not incorruptible . to this last mentioned passage , they give a very commodious sense , namely , that it should be understood of the corruptible species of the sacrament , or of the sacrament it self , and the use of it , which will last no longer than this world . if this will not do , it may not be amiss to leave it all out ; to blot out visibly , and write invisibly . and this , what the creatures were in substance before the consecration , they are still the same after it , must be understood , according to the outward appearance , that is , the accidents of the bread and wine . though they confess that then bertram knew nothing of those accidents subsisting without 〈◊〉 substance , and many other things which thi● latter age hath added out of the scriptures wit● as great truth as subtilty . how much easier had it been at one stroke to blot out the whole book ? and so make short work with it , as the spanish inquisitors did i● their index expurgat . let the whole epistle ( say they ) of udalricus , bishop of ausburg be blotted out , cencerning the single life of the clergy ; and let the whole book of bertram the priest , about the body and bloud of the lord , be supprest . what is this , but , as arnobius said against the heathen , to intercept publick records , and fear the testimoy of the truth ? for , as for that which sixtus senensis , and possevin affirm , that that book of the body and bloud of the lord was writ by oecolampadius under the name of bertram , it is so great an untruth , that a greater cannot be found . 36. we are now come to the tenth century , wherein , besides those many sentences of catholick fathers against innovaters in what concerns the body and bloud of christ , collected by herigerus abbas lobiensis , we have also an ancient easter homily in saxon english , which then used to be read publickly in our churches : out of which we may gather what was then the doctrine received amongst us , touching this point of religion ; but chiefly out of that part wherein are shewn many differences betwixt the natural body of christ and the consecrated host . for thus it teacheth the people , there is a great difference betwixt that body wherein christ suffered and that wherein the host is consecrated . that body , wherein christ suffered was born of the virgin mary , consisting of bloud and bones , skin and nerves , humane members , and a rational soul : but his spiritual body which we call the host , is made of many united grains of corn , and hath neither bloud nor bones , neither members nor soul . afterwards , the body of christ , which once died and rose again , shall die no more , but remains eternal and impassible ; but this host is temporal and corruptible , divided into parts broken with the teeth , and swallowed down into the stomach . lastly , this mystery is a pledge and a figure : the body of christ is that very truth . what is seen is bread , but what is spiritually understood is life . there is also another sermon of bishop wulfinus to the clergy , bearing the title of a synod of priests wherein the same opinion and doctrine is explained in this manner : that host is the body of christ , not corporally , but spiritually ; not that body wherein he suffered , but that body whereof he spake , when he consecrate● the bread and wine into an host . which to this day , in the church of england we hold to be a catholick truth . 37. and so hitherto we have produced the agreeing testimonies of ancient fathers for a thousand years after christ , and have transcribed them more at large , to make it appear to every one that is not blind , that the true apostolick doctrine of this mystery , hath been universally maintained for so long by all men ; some few excepted , who more than eight hundred years after christ presumed to dispute against the ancient orthodox doctrine , of the manner of christs presence , and of his being received in the sacrament , though they durst not positively determine any thing against it . now , what more concerns this point we refer to the next chapter , lest this should be too long . chap. vi. shews more at large that the doctrine and practice of the primitive church is inconsistent with transubstantiation ; and answers the romish objections vainly alleadged out of antiquity . 1. many more proofs out of ancient records might have been added to those we have hitherto brought , for a thousand years , but we , desiring to be brief , have omitted them in each century ; as in the first , after the holy scriptures , the works of a clemens romanus , commended by the papists themselves , and those of b st. ignatius , bishop of antioch and martyr , are much against transubstantiation . in the second likewise , c st. theophilus , fourth bishop of antioch after ignatius ; d athenagoras , and e tatianus , scholars to justin martyr . in the third , f clemens alexandrinus , tutor to origen , and g minutius felix , a christian orator . in the fourth , h eusebius , bishop of cesarea , i juvencus , a spanish priest , k macarius egyptius , l st. hilary , bishop of poictiers , m optatus , bishop of milevis , n eusebius emissenus , o gregorius nazianzenus , p cyrillus alexandrinus , q epiphanius salaminensis , r st. hierom , s theophilus alexandrinus , and t gaudentius , bishop of brixia . in the fifth , u sedulius , a scotch priest , x gennadius massiliensis , and y faustus , bishop of regium . in the sixth , z fulgentius africanus , a victor antiochenus , b primasius bishop , and c procopius gazeus . in the seventh , d hesychius , priest in jerusalem , and e maximus , abbot of constantinople . in the eighth , f johannes damascenus . in the ninth , g nicephorus the patriarch , and h hincmarus archbishop of rhemes . lastly in the tenth , i fulbert bishop of chartres . and to compleat all ; to these single fathers , we may add whole councils of them , as that of k ancyra , of l neocesarea , and besides the first of m nice which i have mentioned , that of n laodicea , of o carthage , of p orleans , the fourth of q toledo , that of r bracara , the sixteenth of s toledo , and that of t constantinople in trullo . out of all these appears most certain , that the infection of the doctrine of transubstantiation was not yet spread over the christian world ; but that the sound doctrine of the body and bloud of christ , and of their true ( yet spiritual not carnal ) presence in the eucharist , with the elements , still the same in substance after consecration , was every where owned and maintained . and though the fathers used both ways of speaking ( that is , that the bread and wine are the true body and bloud of christ , and that their substance still remaining , they are signs , types , resemblances , and pledges of them ; images , figures , similitudes , representations , and samplers of them , ) yet there was no cantrariety or diversity in the sense for they were not so faithless as to believe that these are only naturall elements , or bare signs ; and they were not of so gross and so dull an apprehension , as not to distinguish betwixt the sacramental and mystick , and the carnal and natural presence of christ , as it is now maintained by the patrons of transubstantiation . for in this they understood no other change than that which is common to all sacraments , whereby the outward natural part is said to be changed into the inward and divine , only because it represents it truly and efficaciously , and makes all worthy receivers partakers thereof ; and because by the vertue of the holy spirit , and of christ's holy institution , the elements obtain those divine excellencies and prerogatives , which they cannot have of their own nature . and this is it which was taught and believed , for above a thousand years together , by pious and learned antiquity , concerning this most holy mystery . 2. there are also some other things whereby we may understand that the ancients did not belief transubstantiation , or that the presence of the body and bloud of christ is so inseparably tyed to the accidents of bread and wine , that christ must needs be present as long as those accidents retain any resemblance of bread and wine , even when they are not put to that use appointed by divine institution . for it is certain , that it was the custom of many of the ancients to burn what remained of the bread and wine after the comunion was ended . and who can believe that any christian should dare or be willing to burn his lord and saviour , in body and bloud , though it were never so much in his power ? doubtless it would have been as horrid and detestable an action as was that of the perfidious jews , for christians , if they believed transubstantiation , to burn that very natural body which the jews crucified , and which was born of the virgin mary . therefore those christians who used anciently to burn those fragments of the bread , and remains of the wine , which were not spent in the celebration of the sacrament , were far enough from holding the present faith and doctrine of rome . the same appears further by the penalty threatned by the canon to every clergy-man , by whose neglect a mouse or any other creature should eat the sacrifice , ( that is , the consecrated bread. ) and who but an idiot , a man deprived of his reason , could ever believe that the natural body of christ can be gnawed and even eaten by rats , or any brute creatures ? this sorely perplext the first maintainers of transubstantiation , who would invent any thing , rather than own it possible ; well knowing how abominable it is , and how dishonourable to christian religion . yet this is not inconsistent with the now roman faith ; nay , it necessarily follows from the tenet of transubstantiation that the body of christ may be in the belly of a mouse a under the accidents of bread. and the contrary opinion is not only disowned now by the papists , but under pain of excommunication forbidden by the b pope ever to be owned ; so that they must believe as an article of faith c , what is most abhorrent to faith. 3. but yet at last , let us see what props these new builders pretend to borrow from antiquity to uphold their castle in the air , transubstantiation . they use indeed to scrape together many testimonies of the fathers of the first and middle age , whereby they would fain prove , that those fathers believed and taught the transubstantiation of the bread and wine into the natural body and bloud of christ , just as the roman church , at this day , doth teach and believe . we will therefore briefly examine them , that it may yet more fully appear that antiquity and all fathers did not in the least favour the new tenet of transubstantiation ; but that , that true doctrin which i have set down in the begining of this book , was constantly owned and preserved in the church of christ . 4. now , almost all that they produce out of the fathers will be conveniently reduced to certain heads , that we may not be too tedious in answering each testimony by it self . 5. to the first head belong those d that call the eucharist the body and bloud of christ . but i answer , those fathers explain themselves in many places , and interpret those their expressions in such a manner , that they must be understood in a mystick and spiritual sense , in that sacraments usually take the names of those things they represent , because of that resemblance which they have with them ; e not by the reality of the thing , but by the signification of the mystery , as we have shewn before out of st. austin and others . for no body can deny , but that the things that are seen are signs and figures , and those that are not seen , the body and bloud of christ : and that therefore the nature of this mystery is such , that when we receive the bread and wine , we also together with them receive at the same time the body and bloud of christ , which in the celebration of the holy eucharist , are as truly given as they are represented . hence came into the church this manner of speaking , the consecrated bread is christs body . 6. we put in the second rank those places that say , that the bishops and priests make the body of christ with the sacred words of their mouth , as st. hierom speaks in his epistle to heliodorus , and st. ambrose and others . to this i say , that at the prayer and blessing of the priest , the common bread is made sacramental bread , which , when broken and eaten is the communion of the body of christ , and therefore may well be called so , sacramentally . for the bread ( as i have often said before ) doth not only represent the body of our lord , but also being received , we are truly made partakers of that precious body . for so saith s. hier. the body and bloud of christ is made at the prayer of the priest , that is , the element is so qualified that being received it becomes the communion of the body and bloud of christ , which it could not without the preceding prayers . the greeks call this , to prepare and to consecrate the body of the lord. as s. chrysostam saith well , these are not the works of mans power , but still the operation of him , who made them in the last supper ; as for us , we are only ministers , but be it is that sanctifies and changeth them . 7. in the third place , to what is brought out of the fathers , concerning the conversion , change , transmutation , transfiguration , and transelementation of the bread and wine in the eucharist , ( wherein the papists do greatly glory , boasting of the consent of antiquity with them ; ) i answer that there is no such consequence , transubstantiation being another species of change , the enumeration was not full , for it doth not follow , that because there is a conversion , a transmutation , a transelementation , there should be also a transubstantiation ; which the fathers never so much as mentioned . for because this is a sacrament , the change must be understood to be sacramental also , whereby common bread and wine become the sacrament of the body and bloud of christ , which could not be did not the substance of the bread and wine remain , for a sacrament consisteth of two parts , an earthly and a heavenly . and so because ordinary bread is changed by consecration into a bread which is no more of common use , but appointed by divine institution to be a sacramental sign whereby is represented the body of christ , in whom dwelleth the fulness of the godhead bodily ; and being thereby dignified , having great excellencies superadded , and so made what it was not before , it is therefore said by some of the fathers to be changed , to be made another thing . and truly that change is great and supernatural , but yet not substantial , not of a substance which substantially ceaseth to be , into another substance which substantially beginneth to be , but it is a change of state and condition which alters not the natural properties of the element . this is also confirmed by scripture , which usually describes and represents the conversion of men , and the supernatural change of things , as though it were natural , though it be not so . so those that are renewed by the word , and spirit , and faith of christ , are said to be a regenerated , converted , and transformed , to put off the old man , and put on the new man , and to be new creatures ; but they are not said to become another substance , to be transubstantiated : for men thus converted have still the same humane body , and the same rational soul as before , though in a far better state and condition , as every christian will acknowledge . nay , the fathers themselves use those words , transmutation , transformation , transelementations , upon other occasions , when they speak of things whose substance is neither lost nor changed . for those words be of so large a signification , that though sometimes a substantial change is to be understood by them , yet for the most part they signifie only a moral change , a change of qualities , of condition , of office , of use , and the like . to this sense they are used by the greek fathers , ( a irenaeus , b clemens alexandrinus , c origene , d cyril of jerusalem , e basil , f gregory nazianzen , g gregory nyssene , h cyril of alexandria , i chrysostom , k theodoret , theophylact , and occumenius , ) to express the a resurrection of the body , the efficacy b of divine doctrine , the sanctification of a c regenerated person , the immortality d of the flesh after the resurrection , the e repentance of sinners , the f assumption of the humane nature in the person of christ , the g regeneration of saints , the h vertue of the divine grace , the power of baptism i , and the excellency of charity , and lastly the k alteration for the better , the greatness , usefulness , power and dignity of many things . neither are the latine l fathers without such kind of expressions , for they do not make the conversion of the bread and wine in the eucharist more essential or substantial , than in baptism the conversion of man born again to a new life , or ( as they speak ) whose humane natural condition is changed into a nobler , a heavenly state , which is a moral and mystick change , and not natural or substantial . the ancientest of them , m tertullian said , that god had promised to man the body and substance of angels , and that men should be transformed into angels , as angels have been transformed into men . now , who would infer from hence , that angels have been essentially changed into men ; or that humane bodies should be so transformed into an angelical substance , that they should be no longer men nor humane bodies , but properly and essentially angels ? which tertullian himself is expresly against , and saith , that angels were so changed into men that still they remained angels , without quitting their proper substance . as others have spoken of the bread in the eucharist , that it so becomes the body of christ , that still it is what it was , as st. ambrose ; that it looseth not its nature , as theodoret ; that the substance of the bread remains , as gelasius affirms . and doubtless the same meant all the ancients , who according to their way of speaking said any thing of the change of bread and wine . for all the vouchers brought by the papists speak only of an accidental , mystical , and moral ; nothing at all of a substantial change . transubstantiation is taken by its defenders for a material change of one substance into another ; we indeed allow a transmutation of the elements ; but as for a substantial one we vainly seek for it , it is no where to be found . 8. to the fourth head i refer what the fathers say of our touching and seeing the body of christ , and drinking his bloud in the sacrament , and thereto i answer , that we deny not but that some things emphatical and even hyperbolical have been said of the sacrament by chrysostome , and some others ; and that those things may easily lead unwary men into error . that was the ancient fathers care , as it is ours still , to instruct the people not to look barely on the outward elements , but in them to eye with their minds the body and bloud of christ , and with their hearts lift up to feed on that heavenly meat : for all the benefit of a sacrament is lost , if we look no farther than the elements . hence it is that those holy men , the better to teach this lesson to their hearers , and move their hearts more efficaciously , spake of the signs as if they had been the thing signified , and like orators said many things which will not bear a litteral sense , nor a strict examen . such is this , of an uncertain author under the name of st. cyprian , we are close to the cross , we suck the bloud , and we put our tongues in the very wounds of our redeemer , so that , both outwardly and inwardly we are made red thereby . such is that of a st. chrysostome , in the sacrament the bloud is drawn out of the side of christ , the b tongue is made bloudy with that wonderful bloud . again , c thou seest thy lord saecrificed , and the crouding multitude round about sprinkled with his bloud ; he that sits above with the father is al the same time in our hands . d thou dost see and touch and eat him . e for i do not shew thee either angels or archangels , but the lord of them himself . again , f he incorporates us with himself as if we were but the same thing , he makes us his body indeed , and suffers us not only to see , but even to touch , to eat him , and to put our teeth in his flesh ; so that by that food which he gives us , we become his flesh . such is that of st. austin , let us give thanks , not only that we are made christians , but also made christ . lastly , such is that of b. leo , in that mystical distribution , it is given us to be made his flesh . certainly , if any man would wrangle and take advantage of these , he might thereby maintain , as well that we are transubstantiated into christ , and christs flesh into the bread , as that the bread and wine are transubstantiated into his body and bloud . but protestants who scorn to play the sophisters , interpret these and the like passages of the fathers , with candour and ingenuity , ( as it is most fitting they should . ) for the expressions of preachers , which often have something of a paradox , must not be taken according to that harsher sound wherewith they at first strike the auditors ears ; the fathers spake not of any transubstantiated bread , but of the mystical and consecrated , when they used those sorts of expressions ; and that for these reasons : 1. that they might extoll and amplifie the dignity of this mystery , which all true christians acknowledge to be very great and peerless . 2. that communicants might not rest in the outward elements , but seriously consider the thing represented , whereof they are most certainly made partakers , if they be worthy receivers . 3. and lastly , that they might approach so great a mystery with the more zeal , reverence , and devotion . and that those hyperbolick expressions are thus to be understood , the fathers themselves teach clearly enough , when they come to interpret them . 9. lastly , being the same holy fathers who ( as the manner is to discourse of sacraments ) speak sometimes of the bread and wine in the lords supper , as if they were the very body and bloud of christ , do also very often call them types , elements , signs , the figure of the body and bloud of christ ; from hence it appears most manifestly that they were of the protestants , and not of the papists opinion . for we can without prejudice to what we believe of the sacraments , use those former expressions which the papists believe , do most favour them , if they be understood , as they ought to be , sacramentally . but the latter none can use , but he must thereby overthrow the groundless doctrine of transubstantiation ; these two , the bread is transubstantiated into the body , and the bread also is the type , the sign , the figure of the body of christ being wholly inconsistent . for it is impossible that a thing that loseth its being should yet be the sign and representation of another ; neither can any thing be the type and the sign of it self . 10. but if without admitting of a sacramental sense the words be used too rigorously , nothing but this will follow , that the bread and wine are really and properly the very body and bloud of christ , which they themselves disown , that hold transubstantiation . therefore in this change , it is not a newness of substance , but of use and vertue that is produced ; which yet the fathers acknowledged with us , to be wonderful , supernatural , and proper only to gods omnipotency : for that earthly and corruptible meat cannot become to us a spiritual and heavenly , the communion of the body and bloud of christ , without gods especial power and operation . and whereas it is far above philosophy and humane reason , that christ from heaven ( where alone he is locally ) should reach down to us the divine vertue of his flesh , so that we are made one body with him ; therefore it is as necessary as it is reasonable , that the fathers should tell us , that we ought with singleness of heart to believe the son of god , when he saith , this is my body ; and that we ought not to measure this high and holy mystery by our narrow conceptions , or by the course of nature . for it is more acceptable to god with an humble simplicity of faith to reverence and embrace the words of christ , than to wrest them violently to a strange and improper sense , and with curiosity and presumption to determine what exceeds the capacity of men and angels . thus much in general may suffice to answer those places of the fathers , which are usually brought in the behalf of transubstantiation . he that would have a larger refutation of those objections fetcht from antiquity , may read hospinianus his history of the sacrament , and antonius de dominis in his fifth book of the christian commonwealth , chap. 6. and in his detection of the errors of suarez , chap. 2. 11. that place of ignatius cited by theodoret , out of the epistle to the smyrnenses ( where now it is not to be found ) and objected by some of the romish faith , that the hereticks simoniani and menandriani would have no eucharistical oblations , because they denied the sacrament to be the flesh of our saviour jesus christ , makes nothing for transubstantiation , as bellarmine himself confesseth . for ( saith he ) those hereticks did not oppose the sacrament of the eucharist , so much as the mystery of the incarnation ; and therefore ( as ignatius shews in that place ) they would deny that the eucharist is the flesh of christ , that is , ( as theodoret interprets it ) that the divine mysteries of bread and wine should be the signs of a real body of christ truly existing , because they would not own that christ had taken flesh . and so lest they should be forced to acknowledge the reality of the flesh of christ , they would wholly reject the signs and sacraments of it ; for the signs of the body being given , the true body is given also , because the substance and the type infer one another , and a phantasm or illusion is not capable of a sign or representation . 12. the words out of justin martyr , whereby they would prove transubstantiation , do strongly disprove it . for ( saith he ) as by the word of god , our saviour was incarnate , so by the prayers of gods word , the eucharist is made , whereby our bodies are nourished , the body and bloud of christ . now when christ took humane flesh , none could say without heresie that he was transubstantiated . 13. neither is that against the protestants which is brought out of st. cyprian , ( though it be none of his ) of the bread changed not in appearance , but in nature . for he , whoever it was , took not the word nature in a strict sense , or else he was contrary to theodoret , gelasius , and others above-mentioned , who expresly deny that the bread should be thus changed : but at large , as nature is taken for use , qualities , and condition . for by the infinite power of the word the nature of the bread is so changed , that what was before a bare element , becomes now a divine sacrament , but without any transubstantiation ; as appears by what follows in the same period , of the humane and divine natures of christ , where the manhood is not substantially changed into the godhead , except we will follow eutyches the heretick . 14. the words of cyril , as the roman doctors fay , are so clear for them , that they admit of no evasion : for ( saith he ) he that changed once the water into wine , is he not worthy to be believed that he changed the wine into bloud ? therefore let us with all certainty receive the body and bloud of christ , for his body under the appearance of the bread , and his bloud under the appearance of the wine are given to thee . indeed protestants do freely grant , and firmly believe , that the wine ( as hath often been said ) is changed into the bloud of christ , but every change is not a transubstantiation ; neither doth cyril say that this change is like that of the water , for then it would also appear to our senses ; but that he who changed the water sensibly , can also change the wine sacramentally , will not be doubted by any . as for what he calls the appearances of bread and wine , he doth not thereby exclude , but rather include their substance , and mean the bread and wine it self : for so he intimates by what there follows ; do not look on them as bare bread and wine ; as much as to say , it is bread indeed , but yet not bare bread , but something besides . but that this conversion of the water into wine makes nothing for transubstantiation , may be thus made to appear . that gods omnipotency can change one substance into another , none will deny , and we see it done by christ in the town of cana of galilee , when he changed the water into wine ; and it was a true and proper transubstantiation . but the papists in the lords supper tell us of quite another change , which , if well considered , cannot so much as be understood . for the substance of the bread is not changed into another that had no being , but , as they say , the bread is changed into that body of christ which really existed and had a being these many hundred years , ever since the incarnation : whereas that very wine which christ made of the water , was not in being before the change which he wrought . now it is easie for any to understand , that he who created all things out of nothing , can well make a new wine of water , or any other thing ; but it is more than absurd , that the body of christ , or any other substance already in being , perfect and complete , should be made afresh of another substance , when it really subsisted before . which they well understood who devised an adduction , or bringing of the body of christ into the place of the bread , and that is as much as to deny transubstantiation ; except it can be said that a man is transubstantiated into another , as often as he comes into his place , which no man in his right wits can fancy . 15. st. ambrose said also that the nature is changed , and indeed it is so ; for other is the nature of the element , and other that of the sacrament ; neither do protestants deny that the element is changed by the blessing , so that the bread being made sacred , is no more that which nature formed , but that which the blessing consecrated , and by consecrating changed . mean while st. ambrose in that place doth not make the words or blessing of christ to have any other operation , than to make that which was , still to be , and yet to be changed ; therefore the bread is not made the body of christ by transubstantiation , but by a sacramental change . he adds , that sacrament which thou receivest is made by the word of christ ; and if the word of elias had so much power as to bring down fire from heaven , shall not the words of christ be efficacious enough to change the properties of the elements ? thou hast read of the creation of all things , that he said the word and it was done ; and shall not that word of christ , which made all out of nothing , change that which is already into that which it was not ? thou thy self wert , but wert the old man , but being baptized , thou art now become a new creature ? now it is as much to give a new nature , as to change the nature of a thing . by these words he plainly declares his opinion that , by vertue of this change , the elements of bread and wine cease not to be what they are by essence , and yet by the consecration are made what before they were not . but where did our transubstantiators learn out of st. ambrose , or any of the fathers , that to make the sacrament is the same as to bring the natural body of christ , and put it under the accidents of the bread , or in the place of its substance which is vanisht away ? they say , that the comparison betwixt the things changed by christ and the prophet would be silly , if there be no more than a sacramental change in the eucharist ; as though the sacramental change were a thing of nought . for ( saith cardinal bellarmine ) what power is there required to do nothing ? but protestants answer , that the greatness , majesty , excellency , and dignity of the sacrament is such , that they admire no less the omnipotency of god in sanctifying the creatures to so high an office , and so holy an use , than in creating the world out of nothing , or changing the nature of things by the ministry of his prophets . for it is not by mans power , but by the divine vertue , that things earthly and mean of themselves , are made to us assured pledges of the body and bloud of christ . and if they urge the letter of those words of st. ambrose , by the word of christ the species of the elements are changed , as bellarmine and others do , why then , they must confess , that not only the substance , but also the species , or accidents ( as they call them ) of the bread and wine , are changed into the body and bloud of christ . and so , being st. ambrose and all the ancients said indifferently , as well that the species of the bread and wine , as that the bread and wine themselves are changed , who will not from hence understand that the groundless fabrick of transubstantiation ( whereby they would have the substance of the elements so abolished in the sacrament , that their meer accidents or appearances remain without any subject ) is strongly battered and utterly ruined ? 16. all other testimonies of the fathers , if they say that the bread is made the body of christ , are willingly owned by protestants . for they hold that the element cannot become a sacrament , nor the sacrament have a being without the thing which it represents . for the cardinal himself will not affirm that the body of christ is produced out of the pread . this is therefore what we say with st. austin , and endeavour to prove by all means ; that the sacrifice of the eucharist is made of two things , the visible element , and the invisible flesh and bloud of christ , as the person of christ consisteth of the godhead and manhood , he being true god and true man ; for every compound retains the nature of that whereof it is made : now the sacrament is composed of two things , the sign , and the thing signified , that is the body of christ . 17. let the champions of transubstantiation strut and vapour now , with their two and thirty stout seconds , a who have stood for them , as they say , before the time of pope innocent the third ! for what b innocent the third decreed , and the council of trent c defined , ( that it was ever the perswasion of the catholick church , that the bread is so changed into the body of christ , that the substance of the bread vanishing away , only the flesh of christ should remain under the accidents of the bread , ) is so far from being true , that the doctrine of transubstantiation , not only as to the name , but as to the thing it self , is wholly destitute of the patronage of antiquity , and left to shift for it self . d alphonsus à castro said , that in ancient writers mention was made very seldom of transubstantiation ; had he said never , it had been more true . for so our jesuites e in england confessed , that the business of transubstantiation was not so much as toucht by the ancient fathers ; which is very true , as will appear more at large in the following chapter . chap. vii . of the writers of the eleventh and twelfth century , from whom we may easily deduce and trace the history of papal transubstantiation . 1. what manner of popes they were in those times . 2. the unhappy age , wherein divines were divided about the point of the eucharist . 3. the opinion of fulbertus . 4. followed by his disciple berengarius , who is opposed by others . 5 , 6. the doctrine of berengarius defended . 7. the roaring of leo the ninth against berengarius . 8. the synod of tours under victor the second , which cleared berengarius as free from error . 9. pope nicolas the second , gathers another synod against berengarius , who is forced to make a wondrous kind of recantation . 10. the authors of the ordinary gloss censure the recantation imposed on berengarius . 11. he saith that he was violently compelled to make it for fear of being put to death . lanfrancus and guitmundus write against him . 12. of pope hildebrand , and his roman council , wherein berengarius was again cited and condemned in vain . 13. the doctrine of st. bernard approved . 14. the opinion of rupertus . 15. lombard could define nothing of the transubstantiation of the bread , and reasons poorly upon the independency of the accidents . 16. otho frisingensis and those of his time confest that the bread and wine remain in the eucharist . 17. p. blesensis and st. eduensis were the first that used the word of transubstantiation . 18. of the thirteenth century , wherein pope innocent the third published his decree of the transubstantiation of the bread and wine into the body and bloud of christ . 19 , and 20. the wonderful pride of innocent the third . the lateran council determined nothing concerning that point . 21. the cruelty of the same innocent , who by the rack and the fire sought to establish his new doctrine . 22. what gerson said of the roman church in his time . many more inventions proceed from transubstantiation . inextricable and unheard of questions . 23. new orders of monks and of the school-men . 24. of their fine wrangling and disputing . 25. the sacrament abused most grosly by the patrons of transubstantiation . 26 , and 27. holkot , aquinas , albertus magnus , and other schoolmen , though sometimes they be not for transubstantiation , yet they wholly submit to the judgment of the pope . 28. of the council of constance . which took the cup from the laity . 29. cardinal cameracensis denies that transubstantiation can be proved by holy scripture . 30. of the council of florence , and the instruction of the armenians by pope eugenius the fourth . 31. the papal curse in the council of trent , not to be feared . the conclusion of the book . 1. we have proved it before , that the leprosie of transubstantiation did not begin to spread over the body of the church in a thousand years after christ . but at last the thousand years being expired , and satan loosed out of his prison , to go and deceive the nations , and compass the camp of the saints about , then to the great damage of christian peace and religion , they began here and there to dispute against the clear , constant , and universal consent of the fathers , and to maintain the new-started opinion . it is known to them that understand history , what manner of times were then , and what were those bishops who then governed the church of rome , sylvester ii , john xix , and xx , sergius iv , benedictus viii , john xxi , benedict ix , sylvester iii , gregory vi , damasus ii , leo ix , nicolas ii , gregory vii , or hildebrand ; who tore to pieces the church of rome with grievous schisms , cruel wars , and great slaughters . for the roman pontificat was come to that pass , that good men being put by , they whose life and doctrine was pious being oppressed , none could obtain that dignity , but they that could bribe best , and were most ambitious . 2. in that unhappy age the learned were at odds about the presence of the body of christ in the sacrament ; some defending the ancient doctrine of the church , and some the new-sprung up opinion . 3. fulbert , bishop of chartres , was tutor to berengarius , whom we shall soon have occasion to speak of , and his doctrine was altogether conformable to that of the primitive church , as appears clearly out of his epistle to adeodatus , wherein he teacheth , that the mystery of faith in the eucharist , is not to be lookt on with our bodily eyes , but with the eyes of our mind . for what appears outwardly bread and wine , is made inwardly the body and bloud of christ ; not that which is tasted with the mouth , but that which is relish'd by the hearts affection . therefore ( saith he ) prepare the palate of thy faith , open the throat of thy hope , and inlarge the bowels of thy charity , and take that bread of life which is the food of the inward man. again . the perception of a divine taste proceeds from the faith of the inward man , whilst by receiving the saving sacrament , christ is received into the soul . all this is against those who teach in too gross a manner , that christ in this mystery enters carnally the mouth and stomach of the receivers . 4. fulbert was followed by berengarius his scholar , archdeacon of anger 's in france , a man of great worth , by the holiness both of his life and doctrine , as platina , vincentius bergomensis , and many more . witness this encomium writ soon after his death by hildebert bishop of mans , a most learned man , is thus recorded by our william of malmsbury . that berengarius who was so admired , although his name yet lives , is now expired ; h' out-lives himself , yet a sad fatal day him from the church and state did snatch away . o dreadful day , why didst thou play the thief ? and fill the world with ruine and with grief ? for by his death , the church , the laws , and all the clergies glory do receive a fall : his sacred wisdom was too great for fame , and the whole world 's too little for his name ; which to its proper zenith none can raise , his merits do so far exceed all praise . then surely thou art blest , nor dost thou less heaven with thy soul , earth with thy body bless . when i go hence , o may i dwell with thee , in thine appointed place where e're it be . now this berengarius was not only archdeacon of anger 's , but also the scholasticus , or master of the chair , of the same church ( which dignity is ever enyoyed by the chancellor of the vniversity , for his office is in great churches to teach the clergy , and instruct them in sound doctrine . ) all this i have produced more at large to manifest the base and injurious calumnies , cast upon this worthy and famous man by latter writers , as a john garetius of lovain , b william alan our country-man , and others ; who not only accuse him of being an heretick , but also a worthless and an unlearned man. 5. berengarius stood up valiantly in defence of that doctrine which 170 years before , was delivered out of gods word and the holy fathers , in france by bertram , and john erigena , and by others elsewhere , against those who taught that in the eucharist neither bread nor wine remained after the consecration . yet he did not either believe or teach ( as many falsly and shamelesly have imputed to him ) that nothing more is received in the lords supper , but bare signs only , or meer bread and wine ; but he believed and openly profest , as st. austin and other faithful doctors of the church had taught out of gods word , that in this mystery , the souls of the faithful are truly fed by the true body and bloud of christ to life eternal . nevertheless it was neither his mind nor his doctrine , that the substance of the bread and wine is reduced to nothing , or changed into the substance of the natural body of christ , or ( as some then would have had the church believe ) that christ himself comes down carnally from heaven . intire books he wrote upon this subject , but they have been wholly supprest by his enemies , and now are not to be found . yet what we have of him in his greatest enemy lanfrank i here set down ; by the consecration at the altar the bread and wine are made a sacrament of religion ; not to cease to be what they were , but to be changed into something else , and to become what they were not ; agreeable to what st. ambrose had taught . again , there are two parts in the sacrifice of the church ( this is according to st. irenaeus ) the visible sacrament , and the invisible thing of the sacrament , that is , the body of christ . item , the bread and wine which are consecrated , remain in their substance , having a resemblance with that whereof they are a sacrament , for else they could not be a sacrament . lastly , sacraments are visible signs of divine things , but in them the invisible things are honoured . all this agrees well with st. austin and other fathers above cited . 6. he did not therefore by this his doctrine exclude the body of christ from the sacrament , but in its right administration he joyned together the thing signified with the sacred sign ; and taught that the body of christ was not eaten with the mouth in a carnal way , but with the mind , and soul , and spirit . neither did berengarius alone maintain this orthodox and ancient doctrine ; for a sigibert , b william of malmesbury , c matthew paris , and d matthew of westminster make it certain , that almost all the french , italians , and english of those times were of the same opinion ; and that many things were said , writ , and disputed in its defence by many men ; amongst whom was bruno , then bishop of the same church of anger 's . now this greatly displeaseth the papal faction , who took great care that those mens writings should not be delivered to posterity , and now do write , that the doctrine of berengarius , owned by the fathers , and maintained by many famous nations , sculkt only in some dark corner or other . 7. the first pope who opposed himself to berengarius was leo the e ninth , a plain man indeed , but too much led by humbert and hildebrand . for as soon as he was desired , f he pronounced sentence of excommunication against berengarius absent and unheard ; and not long after he called a council at verceil , wherein john erigena and berengarius g were condemned , upon this account , that they should say , that the bread and wine in the h eucharist are only bare signs ; which was far from their thoughts , and farther yet from their belief . this roaring therefore of the lion frighted not berengarius , nay , the i gallican churches did also oppose the pope , and his synod of verceil , and defend with berengarius the oppressed truth . 8. to leo succeeded pope victor the second , who seeing that berengarius could not be cast down and crusht by the fulminations of his predecessor , sent his legate hildebrand into france , and called another council at tours , where berengarius , being cited , did freely appear , and whence he was freely dismist , after he had given it under his hand , that the bread and wine in the sacrifice of the church , are not shadows and empty figures ; and that he held none other but the common doctrine of the church concerning the sacrament . for he did not alter his judgment ( as modern papists give out ) but he persisted to teach and maintain the same doctrine as before , as lanfrank complains of him . 9. yet his enemies would not rest satisfied with this , but they urged pope nicholas the second , who ( within a few months that stephen the tenth sate ) succeeded victor without the emperours consent , to call a new council at rome against berengarius . for , that sensual manner of presence , by them devised , to the great dishonour of christ , being rejected by berengarius , and he teaching as he did before , that the body of christ was not present in such a sort , as that it might be at pleasure brought in and out , taken into the stomach , cast on the ground , trod under foot , and bit or devoured by any beasts , they falsly charged him as if he had denied that it is present at all . an hundred and thirteen bishops came to the council , to obey the popes mandate , berengarius came also ; and ( as k sigonius and l leo ostiensis say ) when none present could withstand him , they sent for one albericus , a monk of mont cassin , made cardinal by pope stephen , who having asked seven days time , to answer in writing , brought at last his scroll against berengarius . the reasons and arguments used therein to convince his antagonist are not now extant , but whatever they were , berengarius was commanded presently without any delay m to recant , in that form prescribed and appointed by cardinal humbert , which was thus : n i berengarius , &c. assent to the holy roman , and apostolick see , and with my heart and mouth do profess that i hold that faith concerning the sacrament of the lords table which our lord and venerable pope nicholas , and this sacred council , have determined and imposed upon me by their evangelick and apostolick authority ; to wit , that the bread and wine which are set on the altar , are not after the consecration only a saerament , sign , and figure , but also the very body and bloud of our lord jesus christ , ( thus far it is well enough , but what follows is too horrid , and is disowned by the papists themselves ) and that they ( the body and bloud ) are touched and broken with the hands of the priests , and ground with the teeth of the faithful , not sacramentally only , but in truth and sensibly . this is the prescript of the recantation imposed on berengarius , and by him at first rejected , but by imprisonment , and threats , and fear of being put to death , at last extorted from o him . 10. this form of recantation is to be found entire in a lanfrank , b algerus , and c gracian ; yet the glosser on gratian , d john semeca marks it with this note ; except you understand well the words of berengarius ( he should rather have said of pope nicholas , and cardinal humbertus ) you shall fall into a greater heresie than his was , e for he exceeded the truth , and spake hyperbolically . and so f richard de mediavilla ; berengarius being accused , overshot himself in his justification ; but the excess of his words should be ascribed to those who prescribed and forced them upon him . yet in all this we hear nothing of transubstantiation . 11. berengarius at last escaped out of this danger , and conscious to himself of having denied the truth , took heart again , and refuted in writing his own impious and absurd recantation , and said , that by force it was exterted from him by the church of malignants , the council of vanity . lanfrank of caen , at that time head of a monastery in france , afterwards archbishop of canterbury , and guitmundus , aversanus answered him . and though it is not to be doubted but that berengarius , and those of his party , writ and replied again and again , yet so well did their adversaries look to it , that nothing of theirs remains , save some citations in lanfrank . but it were to be wisht that we had now the entire works of berengarius , who was a learned man , and a constant follower of antiquity , for out of them we might know with more certainty how things went , then we can out of what his profest enemies have said . 12. this sacramental debate ceased a while because of the tumults of war raised in apulia and elsewhere by pope nicholas the second ; but it began again as soon as hildebrand , called gregory the seventh , came to the papal chair . for berengarius was cited again to a new council at rome , where some being of one opinion , and some of another , ( as it is in the g acts of that council , writ by those of the popes faction ) his cause could not be so intirely oppressed but that some bishops were still found to uphold it . nay , the ring leader himself , hildebrand , is said to have doubted , h whether what we receive at the lords table be indeed the body of christ by a substantial conversion . but i three months space having been granted to berengarius , and a fast appointed to the cardinals , k that god would shew by some sign from heaven ( which yet he did not ) who was in the right the pope or berengarius concerning the body of the lord ; at last the business was decided without any oracle from above , and a new form of retractation imposed on l berengarius whereby he was henceforth forward to confess , under pain of the popes high displeasure , that the mystick bread ( first made m magical and enchanting by hildebrana ) is substantially turned into n the true and proper flesh of christ , which whether he ever did is not certain . for though o malmesbury tells us , that he died in that roman faith , yet p there are ancienter than he , who q say , that he was never converted from his first opinion . and some relate , that after this last condemnation having given over his studies , and given to the poor all he had , he wrought with his own hands for his r living . other things related of him by some slaves of the roman see , deserve no credit . these things hapned , as we have said , in the year 1079. and soon after berengarius died . 13. berengarius being dead the orthodox and ancient doctrine of the lords supper which he maintained did not die with him ( as the s chronicus cassinensis would have it : ) for it was still constantly retained by st. bernard , abbot of clairvaux , who lived about the beginning of the twelfth century . in his discourse on the lords supper , he joyns together the outward form of the sacrament , and the spiritual efficacy of it , as the shell and the kernel , the sacred sign , and the thing signified ; the one he takes out of the words of the institution , and the other , out of christs sermon in the sixth of st. john. and in the same place explaining , that sacraments are not things absolute in themselves without any relation , but mysteries , wherein by the gift of a visible sign , an invisible and divine grace with the body and bloud of christ is given , he saith , that the visible sign is as a ring , which is given not for it self or absolutely , but to invest and give possession of an estate made over to one . many things ( saith he ) are done for their own sake , and many in reference to something else , and then they are called signs . a ring is given absolutely as a gift , and then it hath no other meaning ; it is also given to make good an investiture or contract , and then it is a sign : so that he that receives it may say , the ring is not worth much , it is what it signifies , the inheritance i value . in this manner when the passion of our lord drew nigh , he took care that his disciples might be invested with his grace , that his invisible grace might be assured and given to them by a visible sign . to this end all sacraments are instituted , and to this the participation of the eucharist is appointed . now , as no man can fancy that the ring is substantially changed into the inheritance , whether lands or houses , none also can say with truth , or without absurdity , that the bread and wine are substantially changed into the body and bloud of christ . but in his sermon on the purification , which none doubts to be his , he speaks yet more plain ; the body of christ in the sacrament is the food of the soul , not of the belly , therefore we eat him not corporally ; but in the manner that christ is meat , in the same manner we understand that he is eaten . also in his sermon on st. martin , which undoubtedly is his also ; to this day ( saith he ) the same flesh is given to us , but spiritually , therefore not corporally . for the truth of things spiritually present is certain also . as to what he saith in another place , that the priest holds god in his hands , it is a flourish of oratory , as is that of st. chrysostom , in comes the priest carrying the holy ghost . 14. about the same time rupertus , abbot of tuitium , famous by his writings , did also teach that the substance of the bread in the eucharist is not converted , but remains . these be his words ; a you must attribute all to the operation of the holy ghost , who never spoils or destroys any substance he useth , but to that natural goodness it had before , adds an invisible excellency which it had not . he hath b indeed an unwarrantable opinion of the union of the bread and body of christ into one person , but it came ( as some others , as absurd in that age ) from too great a curiosity about determining the manner of christs presence , and of the union of his body with the bread , about which that learned man troubled himself too much . however he neither taught nor mentioned transubstantiation . 15 not long after that algerus , a monk , and some others had had some disputes about this subject , pet. lombard made up his books of sentences , in the fourth whereof he treats of the eucharist , and thinks that it is taught by some sayings of the ancients ; that the substance of the bread and wine is changed into the body and bloud of christ . but soon after he adds ; if it be demanded what manner of change that is , whether formal , or substantial , or of any other kind , that i cannot resolve . therefore he did not yet hold transubstantiation as a point of faith : nay , he doth not seem constant to himself in making it a probable opinion , but rather to waver , to say and unsay , and to shelter his cause under the fathers name , rather than maintain it himself . of the accidents remaining without a subject , and of the breaking into parts the body of christ , ( as berengarius was bid to say by pope nicholas ) he reasons strangely but very poorly . 16. otho , bishop of frisingen , as great by his piety and learning as by his bloud , ( for he was nephew to henry the fourth , and the emperour henry the fifth married his sister , he was also uncle to frederick , and half brother to king conrade ) lived about the same time . he believed and writ , c that the bread and wine remain in the eucharist , as did many more in that age. 17. as for the new-coyn'd word transubstantiation it is hardly to be found before the middle of this century . for the first that mention it are d petrus blesensis , who lived under pope alexander the third , and stephen eduensis e a bishop , whose age and writings are very doubtful . and those latter authors f who make it as ancient as the tenth century , want sufficient witnesses to prove it by , as i said g before . 18. the thirteenth century now follows ; wherein the world growing both older and worse , a great deal of trouble and confusion there was about religion ; the bishop of rome exalted himself not only into his lofty chair , over the universal church , but even into a majestical throne , over all the empires and kingdoms of the world . new orders of friers sprung up in this age , who disputed and clamoured fiercely against many doctrines of the ancienter and purer church , and amongst the rest against that of the sacrament of the body and bloud of christ : so that now there remained nothing but to confirm the new tenet of transubstantiation , and impose it so peremptorily on the christian world , that none might dare so much as to hiss against it . this pope innocent the third bravely performed . he succeeding celestin the third at thirty years of age , and marching stoutly in the foot-steps of hildebrand , called a council at rome in st. john lateran , and was the first that ever presumed to make the new-devised-doctrine of transubstantiation an article of faith necessary to salvation , and that by his own meer authority . 19. how much he took upon himself , and what was the mans spirit and humour will easily appear to any man by these his words which i here set down . to me it is said in the prophet , i have set thee over nations , and over kingdoms , to root out , and to pull down , and to destroy , and to throw down , and to build , and to plant . to me also it is said in the person of the apostle , to thee will i give the keys of the kingdom of heaven . for i am in a middle state betwixt god and man , below god , but above man ; yea , greater than man , being i judge all men , and can be judged by none : h am not i the bridegroom , and each of you i the bridegrooms friend ? the bridegroom i am , because i have the bride , the noble , rich , lofty , and holy church of rome , who is the mother and mistris of all the faithful , who hath brought me a precious and inestimable k portion , to wit , the fulness of things spiritual , and the vastness of temporal , with the greatness and multitude of both — l god made two great lights in the firmament of heaven ; he hath also made two great lights in the firmament of the vniversal church , that is , he hath instituted two dignities which are the papal authority , and the regal . but that which governs the day , that is , spiritual things , is the greater ; and that which governs carnal things the less ; so that it ought to be acknowledged that there is the same difference between the ( roman ) high priest and kings , as between the sun and moon . thus he , when he was become christs vicar , or rather his rival . these things i rehearse that we may see how things went , and what was the face of the latine church , when pope innocent the third propounded and imposed transubstantiation as an article of faith ; m as is plainly and at large set down by a learned author george calixtus who deserves equally to be praised and imitated . 20. this innocent therefore , who to encrease his power and authority wrought great troubles to the emperour philip , stript otho the fourth of the empire , forced john king of england to yield up into his hand this kingdom , and that of ireland , and make them tributary to the see of rome ; who , under pretence of a spiritual jurisdiction , took to himself both the supreme power over things temporal , and the things themselves ; who was proud and ambicious beyond all men , covetous to the height of greediness ( they are the words of n matthew paris , and ever ready to commit the most wicked villanies so he might be recompenced for it ; this ( i say ) was the man who in his lateran council propounded that transubstantiation should be made an article of faith , and when the council would not o grant it , did it himself by his own arbitrary power , against which none durst open his mouth . for those canons which this day are shewn about under the name of the council , are none of his , but meerly the decrees of pope innocent , first writ by him , and read in the p council , and disliked by many , and afterwards set down in the book of decretals under certain titles , by his nephew gregory the ninth . 21. the same pope , after he had pronounced them hereticks who for the future should deny that the body and bloud of christ are truly contained in the sacrament of the altar , under the outward form of bread and wine , the bread being transubstantiated into the body , and the wine into the bloud ; delivers them all , of what office or dignity soever , to the secular power q to receive condign punishment , that is , to be burnt , commands those that are suspected to be tried and examined ; and declares them infamous , disabled from making a will , and incapable of any office or inheritance that should favour or entertain them , and sets all other christians against them . then he ordains r that the secular powers shall be compelled by ecclesiastick censures publickly to swear that they will defend ( this ) faith , and endeavour utterly to destroy all whom the church ( of rome ) should note for hereticks . but ( saith he ) if the temporal prince doth neglect this , let him be excommunicated : and if he slights to give satisfaction within a year , let the soveraign pontif be certified of it , that he may absolve his subjects from their allegiance , and expose his territories to be taken and enjoyed without any contradiction by any catholicks ( romans ) that destroy the hereticks , &c. ( that is , those who do not believe transubstantiation . ) thus innocent the third by excommunications , and by arms , by rebellions , by tortures , and by burning alive was pleased to establish his new article of faith. 22. and truly had he not used such means , they themselves who did cleave to the church of rome would not have embraced this doctrine . for it did not find such acceptance , but that many notwithstanding did now and then oppose it . nay , not only transubstantiation , but even the church ( or rather the court ) of rome , which , if we believe chancellour s gerson , was at this time wholly brutish and carnal , without almost any sense of the things of god , was rejected by many , as it is well known . for certain it is , that transubstantiation being once established , there was a foundation laid to many superstitions and errors , which could neither be suffered nor approved by those that feared god. and among the subscribers to transubstantiation there grew a thicket of thorny and monstrous questions , wherewith the schoolmen were so busie , that it may with great truth be affirmed , that then came so light a divinity concerning the holy sacrament , and the adoration of it , which was not only very new , but very strange also , and never heard of among the fathers . there grew also out of the same stock illusions , and false miracles , deceitful dreams , feined visions , and such like unchristian devices about the corporal presence of christ , as that some did see a child in the host , some flesh , some bloud , any thing that could come into the idle fancies of idle and superstitious men . t one at the point of death durst not receive the body of christ , because he could keep nothing in ; but as he drew nigh to adore it , his breast bare , and his arms open , the host , leaping out of the priests hand , having made it self a passage , entred of its own accord into the place where the dying mans heart lay bid , and the hole being made up again without any thing of a scar , the man lay down and then expired . another u being ready to die begged , that , his side being washt , and covered with a clean cloath , the body of christ might be set on it : which being done , the cloath by degrees gave place to the body of christ , and soon after when that divine body toucht the mans skin , it penetrated to his very heart in the sight of all the by standers . they also tell the story , or rather the fable , how that the body of christ ( for so they call the consecrated bread ) being set in a bushel upon some oats , an horse , an oxe , and an ass bowed their knees , and adored their lord in the host . these , and such like fictions were dayly invented without number by the patrons of transubstantiation , and the impudence and boldness of coyning such forgeries hath from them past upon their successors . this was observed by king james in the writings of x bellarmine himself , who reports of a certain devont mare that worshipped the host kneeling , ( knowing doubtless that by a due consecration it was transubstantiated . ) cesarius the monk , who lived soon after innocent the third , is full of such miracles ; and yet he hath a history which shews that in his time transubstantiation was utterly unknown to a learned priest , canon of a great church . at colen ( saith he ) there was a canon in full orders , called peter , when on a certain day another of the canons was sick , and about to receive the sacrament in his presence , the officiating priest asked the sick man , dost thou believe that this is the true body of the lord which was born of the virgin ? he made answer , i believe it ; peter hearing and observing their words was amazed at them . afterwards he coming alone to everhardus the professor of divinity , who had been also present at the communion , he asked him , did the priest question the sick man aright ? he answered yes , and whoever believes otherwise is an y heretick . then peter , weeping , and smiting his breast , cried out , woe is me wretched priest ! how have i hitherto said mass ? for to this hour i thought that the bread and wine after the consecration were only a sacrament , that is , the sign and representation of the lords body and bloud . 23. i have already touched it , that , together with the new doctrine of transubstantiation , there sprung up new sects of friers , which indeed in a short time increased beyond belief . for now to the order of dominicans ( whom innocent the third had made his inquisitors to kill and burn z hereticks ) was added the order of begging franciscans ; and the augustine eremits , and the carmelites were set up again . from these came the schoolmen , as we now call them , whose studies ( as studies were in that time ) were all imployed about commencing peter lombard master of the sentences . 24. these men tired their brains ( as we said ) about unheard of questions , touching transubstantiation , such as pious ears would abhor to hear . for they ask , 1. whether that be the body of christ which sometimes appears in the form of flesh , or of a child on the altar , and answer that they know not ; because such apparitions happen often , and are caused either by mens juggling , or by the operation of the devil . 2. whether the mice ( who sometimes feast upon the hosts when they are not well shut up ) eat the body of christ it self ? or if a dog or a hog should swallow down the consecrated host whole , whether the lords body should pass into their belly together with the accidents ? some indeed answer ( other some being otherwise minded ) that , though the body of christ enters not into the brutes mouth as corporal meat , yet it enters together with the appearances by reason that they are inseparable one from the other , ( meer nonsense ) for as long as the accidents of the bread ( i. e. the sha●● , and taste , and colour , &c. ) remain in their proper a being , so long is the body of christ inseparably joyned with them ; wherefore if the accidents in their nature pass into the belly , or are cast out by vomiting , the body of christ it self must of necessity go along with them : and for this cause pious souls ( i repeat their own words ) do frequently eat again with great reverence the parts of the host cast out by vomiting . others answer also ; b that a beast eats not the body of christ sacramentally , but accidentally , as a man that should eat a consecrated host , not knowing that it was consecrated . 3. they inquire about musty and rotten hosts , and because the body of christ is incorruptible , and not subject to putrefaction , therefore they answer ; c that the hosts are never so , and that though they appear as if they were , yet in reallity they are not ; as christ appeared as a gardener though he was no gardener . 4. they demand concerning indigested hosts which passing through the belly are cast into the draught , or concerning those that are cast into the worst of sinks , or into the dirt . whether such hosts cease to be the body of christ ? and answer , d that whether they be cast into the sink or the privy , as long as the appearances remain , the body of christ is inseparable from t●●● . and for the contrary opinion , they say that it is not tenable , and that it is not safe for any to hold it , because the pope e hath forbid it should be maintained under pain of excommunication . therefore the modern schoolmen f add , that if any should hold the contrary after the popes determination , he should be condemned by the church ( of rome that is : ) nay , they hold it to be a point of faith which none may doubt of , because the contrary doctrine hath been condemned by pope gregory the eleventh . 5. they ask concerning the accidents , whether the body of christ be under them when they are abstracted from their subject ? this is against logick . or whether worms be gendred , or mice nourished of accidents ? and this against physick . 6. whether the body of christ can at the very same time move both upwards and downwards , one priest lifting up the host , and another setting it down . and i know not how many more such thorny questions have wearied and non-plust them and all their school , and brought them to such straights and extremities , that they know not what to resolve , nor what shifts to make . and truly it had been very happy for religion if , as the ancients never touched or mentioned transubstantiation , so latter times had never so much as heard of its name . for god made his sacrament upright ( as he did g man ) but about it they have sought out many inventions . 25. likewise , this transubstantiation hath given occasion to some most wicked and impious wretches to abuse and profane most unworthily what they thought to be the body of christ . for instances may be brought of some wicked priests , who for filthy lucre have sold some consecrated hosts to jews and sorcerers , who have stabb'd and burnt them , and used them for witchcraft and inchantments . nay , we read h that st. lewis himself ( very ill advised in that ) gave once to the turks and saracens a consecrated host as a pledge of his promise , and an assurance of peace . now , can any one , who counts these things abominable , perswade himself that our blessed saviour would have appointed , that his most holy body should be present in his church in such a manner , as that it should come into the hands of his greatest enemies , and the worst of infidels , and be eaten by dogs and rats , and be vomited up , burnt , cast into sinks , and used for magical poysons and witchcraft ? i mention these with horror and trembling , and therefore abstain from raking any more in this dunghill . 26. no wonder therefore if this new doctrine of innocent the third , being liable to such foul absurdities and detestable abuses , few men could be perswaded , in the fourteenth century , that the body of christ is really ( or by transubstantiation ) in the sacrament of the altar ; as it is recorded by our country-man i robert holkot , who lived about the middle of that century . as also k thomas aquinas reports of some in his time , who believed that after consecration , not only the accidents of the bread , but its substantial form remained . and albertus magnus himself , who was thomas his his tutor , and writ not long after innocent the third , speaks of transubstantiation as of a doubtful question only . nay , that it was absolutely rejected and opposed by many , is generally known ; for the anathema of trent had not yet backt the lateran decree . 27. as for the rest of the schoolmen ( especially the modern ) who are as it were sworn to pope innocent's determination , they use to express their belief in this matter with great words , but neither pious nor solid , in this manner ; l the common opinion is to be embraced , not because reason requires it , but because it is determined by the bishop of rome . item , m that ought to be of greatest weight that we must hold with the holy church of rome about the sacraments ; now it holds that the bread is transubstantiated into the body , and the wine into the bloud , as it is clearly said , extra . de fide & summa trinitate . cap. firmiter . again , n i prove that of necessity the bread is changed into the body of christ , for we must hold that declaration of faith which the pope declares must be held . thus among the papists , if it be the pleasure of an imperious pope as was innocent the third , doctrines of faith shall now and then increase in bulk and number , though they be such as are most contrary to holy scripture , though they were never heard of in the primitive church ; and though from them such consequences necessarily follow , as are most injurious to christ and his holy religion . for after innocent the third , the roman faith was thus much o increased by the determination of pope gregory the eleventh p , that if it so happens the body of christ in the consecrated host may descend into a rats belly , or into a privy , or any such foul place . 28. in the fifteenth century the council of constance ( which by a sacrilegious attempt took away the sacramental cup from the people , and from the priests when they do not officiate ) did wrongfully condemn wiclif , who was already dead , because amongst other things he had taught with the ancients , that the substance of the bread and wine remains materially in the sacrament of the altar ; and that in the same sacrament , no accidents of bread and wine remain without a substance . which two assertions are most true . 29. cardinal cameracencis , who lived about the time of the council of constance , doth not seem to own the decree of pope innocent as the determination of the church . for that the bread should still remain , he confesseth , a that it is possible : that it is not against reason or the authority of the bible . but concerning the conversion of the bread he says , that clearly it cannot be inferred from scripture , nor yet from the determination of the church , as he judgeth . yet because the common opinion was otherwise , he yielding to the times was fain to follow , though with some reluctancy . 30. the council of florence , which was not long after , did not at all treat with the greeks about transubstantiation , nor the consecration of the sacrament , but left them undetermined , with many other controversies . but that which is called the armenians instruction ( and in this cause , and almost all disputes is cited as the decree of the general council of florence , by b soto , c bellarmine , and the roman d catechism ) is no decree of the council , as we have demonstrated e somewhere else ; but a false and forged decree of pope eugenius the fourth , who doth indeed in that instruction prescribe to the armenians a form of doctrine about the sacrament , saying , that by vertue of the words of christ , the substance of the bread is turned into his body , and the substance of the wine into his bloud : but that he did it with the approbation of the council , as he often says in his decree , is proved to be altogether false , as well by the acts of the council , as by the unanswerable arguments of f c. de capite fontium , archbishop of caesarea , in his book de necessaria theologiae scholasticae correctione , dedicated to pope sixtus the fifth . for how could the council of florence approve that decree which was made more than three months after it was ended ? it being certain , that after the council was g done , the armenians with the greeks , having each of them signed letters of union , ( which yet were not approved by all , nor long in force after they were subscribed ) departed out of florence july 22 , whereas the instruction was not given while november 22. therefore by the mutual consent of both parties was nothing here done or decreed about transubstantiation , or the rest of the articles of the new roman faith. but eugenius , or whoever was the forger of the decree , put a cheat upon his reader . perhaps he had seen the same done by innocent the third , or gregory the ninth , in the pretended decrees of the council of lateran , which were the popes only , but not the council's . and certainly it is more likely eugenius did it rather to please himself , than for any hopes he could have that at his command the armenians would receive and obey his instruction sooner than the greeks . for to this day the h armenians believe that the elements of bread and wine retain their nature in the sacrament of the eucharist . 31. by these any considering person may easily see , that transubstantiation is a meer novelty ; not warranted either by scripture or antiquity ; invented about the middle of the twelfth century , out of some misunderstood sayings of some of the fathers ; confirmed by no ecclesiastick or papal decree before the year 1215. afterwards received only here and there in the roman church ; debated in the schools by many disputes ; linble to many very bad consequences ; rejected ( for there was never those wanting that opposed it ) by many great and pious men , until it was maintained in the sacrilegious council of constance ; and at last in the year 1551. confirmed in the council of i trent , by a few latine bishops , slaves to the roman see ; imposed upon all , under pain of an anathema to be feared by none ; and so spread too too far , by the tyrannical and most unjust command of the k pope . so that we have no reason to embrace it , untill it shall be demonstrated , that except the substance of the bread be changed into the very body of christ , his words cannot possibly be true ; nor his body present . which will never be done . a table of the places of scripture cited in this book . exod xii . 11 , 21. chap. i. art. 4 eccl. vii . 29. chap. vii . 24 st. mat. xxvi . 26. chap. i. 1 st. luk. xxii . 19. ibid.   st. job . iii. 3. chap. vi. 7 st. job . iii. 29. chap. vii . 19 st. job . vi. 55. chap. i. 5 rom. xii . 3. chap. vi. 7 1 cor. iv. 15. ibid.   1 cor. x. 16. chap. i. ● 1 cor. x. 3 , & 4 , ibid.   gal. vi. 5. chap. vii . 7 eph. iv. 22. ibid.   1 pet. i. 3. ibid.   jude v. 3. in the preface .   a table of the ancient fathers . century i. clemens romanus chap. vi. art. 1 st. ignatius ibid. 10 century ii. theoph. antioch . chap. vi. 1 justinus martyr . chap. v. 7   — vi. 11 athenagoras tatianus chap. vi. 1 irenaeus , chap. v. 8   — vi. 5 , & 7 century iii. tertullian . chap. v. 9   — vi. 7 origenes , chap v. 10   ▪ vi. 5 , & 7 cyprian , chap. v. 11   — vi. 7 , 8 & 12 clem. alexand. chap. vi. 1 , & 7 minutius felix , ibid.   arnobius , chap. v. 35 century iv. euseb . caesar . chap. vi. 1 athanasius , chap. v. 13 cyril . hieros . ibid. 14   — vi. 5 , & 7 juvencus , macarius , hilarius , optatus , euseb . emiss . greg. naz. cyril . alex. epiphanius , hieronimus , theoph. alex. gaudentius , chap. vi. 1 6 , & 7 6 st. basil . chap. v. 15   — vi. 7 greg nyss . chap. v. 16   — vi. 7 ambrosius , chap. v. 17   — vi. 6 , 7 , 13 chrysost . chap. v. art. 18   — vi. 6 , 7 , 8 century v. st. austin , chap. v. 19 prosper iii. chap. v. 20 leo iv.     theodoret. chap. v. 21   ▪ vi. 10 gelasius , chap. v. 22 sedulius , gennadius , chap. vi. 1 faustus reg. ibid. 7 century vi. ephrem , chap. v. 24 facundus , ibid. 25 fulgentius . chap. vi. 1 victor antioch . primasius , procop. gaz. chap. vi. 1 century vii . isidorus hispal . chap. v. 26 hesychius , chap. vi. 1 , & 2 maximus , ibid. 1 century viii . vener . beda , chap. v. 27 carol. magnus , ibid. 28 damascenus , chap. vi. 1 century ix . paschasius , chap. v. 29 amalarius , — 30 rabanus maurus , — 31 joh. erigena , — 32 wal. strabo , — 33 bertramus — 34 niceph. patria . hincmarus , chap. vi. art. 1 century x. herigerus , chap. v. 36 fulbertus , chap. vi. 1 century xi . idem fulbertus , chap. vii . 3 berengarius , ibid. 4 , 5 , 6 , &c. hildebertus , chap. vii . 4 theophylact , oecumenius , chap. vi. 7 century xii . bernardus , chap. vii . 13   — iii. 2 rupertus , chap. vii . 14 a table of the schoolmen . century xiii . lombardus , chap. vii . art. 15 alex. alensis , ibid. 24   — vi. 2 albertus magnus , ibid. 26 tho. aquinas , ▪ 2 rich. de mediavilla , chap. vii . 10 century xiv . scotus , durandus , occamus , chap. v. 2 baconus , chap. vii . 27 holcotus , — 26 th. argent . — 27 brulifer , — 24 century xv. card. camer . chap. v. art. 3   — vii . 29 gabriel biel , ibid   century xvi . cajetan , ibid.   dom. soto . chap vii . 24 a table of the councils . nicene i. chap. v art. 12 calced . ibid. 23 ancyran . neocaesarien . laodiceum , carthagin . aurelian . toletánum iv. brac●arense , toletan . vi. constantin . vi. chap. vi. 1 brixiense , chap. vii . 12 anglican . chap v. 36   — vi. 2 arelatense iii. — vi. 2 vercellense , chap. vii . 7 turonense , ibid. 8 rom. sub nicol. ii. ibid. 9 rom. sub greg. vii . ibid. 12 lateran . sub innoc. iii. ibid. 18 constantiense , ibid. 28 florentinum , ibid. 30 tridentinum , ibid. 31 a table of the popes . leo ix . chap. vii . art. 7 victor ii. — 8 nicholas ii. — 9 gregory vii . — 12 innocent iii. — 18 , 19 , &c. gregory ix . chap. vi. 7 gregory xi . chap. vii . 24 , 27   — vi. 2 eugenius iv. ibid. 30 plus iv. 〈◊〉 31   〈…〉 7 a table of the historians . photius , chap. v art. 24 trithem . — 31 malmesbury , — 31 , 32   — vii . 4 , 6 , 12 antonius , ibid. 32 vincentius , — v , & vii . 12 sigebert , ibid. 36   — vii . 6 thevet , chap. vii . 4 pap. mass . chap. vii . 9 mat. paris , — 6 , 20 m. westm . ibid.   baronius , — 9 , 12 sigonius , — 9 chron. cassin . — 13 engilb . trevir . — 12 bertold . const . benno card. abbas usperg . ibid.   otho frising . ibid. 16 platina , — 20 tho. walsing . discip . de temp. caesarius monach. ibid. 2● leunclavius , — 26 lasicius , — 30 a table of the confessions of reformed churches . anglican . chap. ii. art. 3 augustan . ibid. 8 saxon. — 9 wittemberg . — art. 10 bohem. — 11 polon . — 12 & 19 argentin . & basil . — 13 gallica , — 14 & 15 belgica , — 16 helvet . prior & posterior . ibid. 17 & 18 a table of the reformed authors . i uther , chap. ii. art. 13 bucerus , zuinglius , occolamp . ibid.   poinetus , — 4 juellus , — 3 bilson . — 5 andrews , —   jacobus rex , — 6 hooker . joh. episc . roffens . montacut . armachan . franc. episc . eliens . laud. overal . ibid.   anton. de dom. ibid. 7 calvinus , ibid. 20 colloq . ratisb . chap. v. 22 a table of the papists authors . bellarmin . chap. iii. art. 1 , & 2   — iv. 7   — v. 3 , 5 , 18 , 21 , 22   — vi. 10 , 13 , 14 , 16   — vii . 17 , 22 , 30 salmcron , chap. iv. 7 tolet , chap. iv. 7 roffens . chap. v. 3 perron . ibid. 13 possevin . ibid. 18 , 35   — vii . 17 steph. gard. chap. v. 18 greg. de valen. ibid. 21 praefat. in theod. ibid.   sirmond . — 25 tho. walden . — 31   — vii . 12 index lib. prob . chap. v. 35 indices expurg . ibid.   sixt. senens . ibid.   vasquez . chap. vi. 2   — vii . 24 direct . inquis . chap. vi. 12   — vii . 24 alph. à castro , chap. vi. 16 discursus de jesuit . ibid.   watson quodlib . ibid.   garetius , chap. vii . 4 alanus , ibid.   lanfrancus ibid. 5 , 7 , 10 guitmundus ibid. 11 p. blessens . ibid. 17 st. eduens . ibid.   gerson , ibid. 22 catechis . trid. ibid. 30 de capite fontium , ibid.   algerus , ibid. 24 gratiani glossator , ibid. 1● finis . notes, typically marginal, from the original text notes for div a34612-e650 mat. 6. 26. luk. 22. 1● . * as g. cali●tus writes in some place of his learned exercitations ; and before him m. chemnitius , in exam. con. trid. atque in l●●is t●●ol . 1 cor. 10. 16. exod. 12. 21. 1 cor. 10. 3 , 4. joh. 6. 56. mat. 20. 26. notes for div a34612-e970 in the book of canons publish'd by authority , anno 1571. ch . of preach . artic. of relig. 1562. comm. service . ibid. church catech. a bils . resp . ad card. alan . l. 4. b andr. resp . ad apol bel. c. 11. p. 11 caus . ep. to card. perron . ep. ross . praef. ad ●●ct . montac . in antid . art. 13. c in a manuscript shortly to be printed . the augustan confession of ger● churches collat. s. ger● ▪ 1561. the saxon confession . art. 15. hil. trin. l. 8. the confession of wittemb . in the preface . confess . bohem. art. 13. consensus poloni●us . near the begining . confessio theol. argent . & basil . the french confess . art. 36. lezat . eccl gall. conf . 1555 belg. conf. art. 35. helvet . confess . prior . ch. 21. helvet . conf. posterior . conf. thorun . comm. on 1 cor. instit . book 4. ch. 17. treat . of the lords supper . inst . ● . 4. ch. 17. num. 32. notes for div a34612-e3860 bell. de euch l ▪ ● . c ● . §. 3. reg. & s●qu . ibid. part. 1. ibid. § 5. reg. st b●rn . serm de s. martin . aug. super 〈…〉 . tract . 25. notes for div a34612-e4320 1 cor. 10. 16. conc. trident . sess . 13. c. 4. ibid. can. 2. bulla pii papae 4. consir . conc. trident . decret . de sum . trin. & fide cathol . tit. 1. tom. 9. tract . 16. tom. 16. disp . 3. in ep. 9. petri . instr . sacerd . l. ● . c. 2● . lib. 3. ●● euchar. cap. 11. grets . def beliar. l. 2. c ● . syl. prior. sub initio . notes for div a34612-e5160 * see ch . 1. art . 6. c. 3 art . 4. c. 4. art . 5 , and this ch . art . 5. scot. in 4. sent d. 11. q. 3. durand . ut suprae . biel in can. missae sect . 40. occam . cent l. ● . q. 6. & in 4. sent d. 11. q. 6. cam. in 4. d 11. q. 6. l contra luth de capt babil . c. 1. cajetan in tho. p 3. q. 75. art . 1 ibid. q. 45. art . 14. bell. de euch. l. 3. c. 23. just . mart. an. dom. 144. apol. 2. ad anton. 〈…〉 one 〈…〉 . st. iren. a. d. 160. lib. 4. cont. haeres . c. 34. lib 5. c. 12. ibid. tertul. a. d. 200. contra marcion l 4. c. 40. origen . a d. 2●0 . dial. 3. de hom. christo contra marcion . homil. 7. in lev. mat. 15. origen is unjustly numbred by reason of these words among the hereticks called stercoranistae . s. cyprian a. d. 250. l. 2. ep. 3. sive 63. edit . pamel . con. nice . a. d. 325. in actis ibid. a gel. cyciz . conscript . st. athan. a. d. 330. in illud evangelii 3 quicunque dixerit verbum , &c. & in c. 6. st. joh. qui mandus cat caernem means , &c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . de euch. 〈…〉 . ar . ●0 . st. cyril of hier. a d. 550. chatech . myst . 3. chatech . myst . 4. thy bodily palate ( saith he ) tasteth one thing there , and thy faith another . st. basil . a. d. 360. lib. de spir. sanc. lib de bapt. st greg nyss a. d. 370. orat. de s. baptis . st ambr. a d. 380. lib de sacram . 4. cap. 4. ibid. de init . myst . cap. 9. de sacr. l. 4. c. 4. st chrys . a. d. 390. hom. 15. in st. joh. ibid. in ep. ad caesar ▪ contra haeres . apol. a l. de euch. 2. c 22. b in appar chrys . c steph. gard. ep. wi●t cont pet m●rt . lib. ● . de euchar. s. austin . a. d. ●00 . in psal . 93. epist . 23. ad bonif. cont max. l. 3. c. 22. de doctr. christ . cap. 7. st. prosp . a. d. 430. sent. pros . dist . 2. de cors : cap. hoc est . b. theodoret 7. dial. 1. ibid. dial. 2. l 2. de euch. c. 27 praes . in dial. theod . st gelas . a. 470 , or 490. plus minus . de duabus in christo natur , in biblioth . patrum . tom. 4. bell loco citat baron . a. d. 96. nota marg. ad verba gelasii in b. b. patrum . in colloq . ratisb . a. 1541. st cyril of alex. the council of calc . circa . an. ●50 . inter ep. cyr. in con. eph. con. chal. art. 5. ephrem . ant. 540. phot. in bibl. n. 229. ibid. facund . episc . a. d. 550. lib 9. c. 5. isid . hisp . a. d 630. lib 1. de off. eccl. cap. 18. ven bede a. d. 720. serm. de epiph. com. in luk. 22. com. in psal . 3. car. mag. a. d. 778. ep. ad alcu . de ratione sept. pasch . a. d. 818. lib. de corp . & sang christi . fell de scrip eccles . verbo pasch . siem . in vita paesc . praef. editione pa risiensi . amal. an. 320. praef. in libr de eccl. ●ffi● . raban . a. d. 825. trithem . de script . eccl. rabanus maur. de inst . cler. l. 1. c. 31. g. malm. a. 200. and tho. wall. a. 1400. job . erig . a. 860. a that book was afterwards condemned under leo ix . two hundred years after by the maintainers of transubstantiation . b anton. tit c. 2. § 3. vincent . l 24 c 4● . & aln . c maims . de gestis reg. angl . l 2. wal stra. ●●● ▪ de rebus 〈◊〉 ● . ●● . bertram priest and abbot , a. 860. lib. de corp . & sang dom part . 1. ibid. part. 2. index lib. prob . in sine concil trid. author . pape editus in lit. b. index expur . b●lg . jussu & author . phil 2. hisp . reg. atque albani ducis concilio concinn . p. 54. v. bert. index expur . hisp . d. gasp . quirogae , card & inquis . gener . in fine . arnob. l 3. sixt. sen. praef . in bibl. sanc. possev . prol. in appa . sac. herig . ab. a. d. 9●0 . hom. pasc . angl. sax. a. d. 990. impressae lond & ms. in publ . cant. acad. bib. homil. sacerd synod . impr . lond. cum homil. paschali . notes for div a34612-e10420 authors left out in the foregoing chapter . a constit . ap l 6. c. 23. & 29. b epist ad philadel . c ad an●●● . l. 2. d athenag legat . pro christ . e in diaties . f de stro l. 1. & de padag . l. 2. g in octavio h de dem. evan. l 1. c. 10. & l. 8. c. 2. i juv. de hist . evang . l. 4. k mac. hom. 37. l in mat. & de syn. m contra parm l. 3. n hom de corp. chr. o orat. fun . gorg. p in joh. l. 4. c. 1● . q in ancorato r 1 contra jovin . & in jer. 31. & in mat. 26. s epist . pasch . 2 t gaud. in exod 2. u in epist . st paul. x de dogm . eccl. c. 25. y homil. 2. in epith z de fide cap 16. & epist . ad ferrand . a com. in ma●k ● . b in epist . ad cor. c in gen. 9 d in levit. 1. 6. e in hierareh dion . f de fide orthod . g de cherub c. 6. h in vita s. remig. i epist . ad adeodat . k an. 314. can. 2. l a. eodem . can. 13. m in act. l 2. can. 30. n a. 364. can. 25. o a. 397. can. 24. p a 541. can. 4. q a. 633. can. 17. r a. 675. can. 2. s a. 693. can. 6. t a. 691. can. 32. hesych . l 2. in levit. cap. 8. a. d. 600. concil . angl. sp●lm . tredicimus inter eos qui bedaetitulum praeferunt , a d. 7●0 . & sub edgaro rege 38. ibid a. d. 97● . conc. arelat . 3. ci tal . à gratiano de conseor . dist . ● . a. d. 640. a alex. ales . lib. 4. q. 45. m. 1. art . 2. & q. 53. m. 3. thom. in 3. q. 80. art . 3. & in 4. d , 9. q. 2. b greg. xi . in director . inquis . p. 1. n. 15. & p ● . q. 10. c vasq disp . i 95. in 3. c 5. d answer to the allegations out of iren. orig. cyril hier. gre. naz. st. hier. st. austia and others . e de consecr dist 2. c sicut . an answer to the proofs out of st. hier. ep. ad heliod . 2. & ad evag. ●● . & ●● ▪ ambr. de iis qui init c. 9. &c. ep. 85. ad evag. st. chrys-hom . 83. in st. mat. an answer to what is cited out of st. cyp. ambrose , both the cyrills . chrys . gre. nyss . & aliorum . a joh. 3. 3. 1 pet. 1. 3. 1 cor. 4. 15. rom. 12. 3. eph. 4. 22 gal. 6. 15. a iren. l. 5. c. 10. b clem. alex. l. 4. strom. c orig. serm. 2. in diversos . d cyril . hier. catech . 18. e basil . exhort . ad bapt. & s. chrys . hom . 5. de poenit. f greg. naz. orat 40. g greg. nyss . lib 2. contra eunom . hom. 1. de resur . ep ad eustath . latin. & ambros . h cyril . alexand. epist . pas●h 6 , 7. & 14. i ● . chrysost . hom 23. in act. apost . idem hom. 33. in 1 cor. k theod. dial. 2. theoph. in joh 6. & oecum in pet. 1. & alii . a iren. l. 5. c. 10. b clem. alex. l. 4. strom. c orig. serm. 2. in diversos . d cyril . hier. catech . 18. e basil . exhort . ad bapt. & s. chrys . hom . 5. de poenit. f greg. naz. orat 40. g greg. nyss . lib 2. contra eunom . hom. 1. de resur . ep ad eustath . latin. & ambros . h cyril . alexand. epist . pas●h 6 , 7. & 14. i ● . chrysost . hom 23. in act. apost . idem hom. 33. in 1 cor. k theod. dial. 2. theoph. in joh 6. & oecum in pet. 1. & alii . l st. austin . l. 4. contra crescon . cap. 54. st. ambr. de myst . c. 9. & de sacr. l. 4. c. 4. faust . reg. sive eus . emiss . de pas●h 55. facund . l 9. c. ult . m contra marc l. 3. c. 9. 24. & . 26. de carne christi . cap 3. superius citati . answer to the testimonies of s chry. cyril . alex. and others . serm de coen . dom. a hom. in encoen . b hom. 82. in mat. c lib. de sacerd. 3. d hom. 51 & 83. in mat. e hom. 24. 1 cor. f hom. 4. in jo● . & 83. in mat. tract . 21. in joh. epist . 23. lib. 2. & 4. a sect. 1. usque ad 13. answer to single testimony of fathers . dial. 3. ex ep. 5. ignat . de euch. l. 1. c. 1. 8. 3. dial. 2. apol. 2. ad ant imp . serm. de coen . dom. bell l. 2. de euch. c. 13. cyril . hieros catec . mystig 4 sensu jam saepius dicto . lib. ● . de san●c . 4. & de init , myst . c. 9. bell loco ●itato . lib. 2. de euch. c. 9. the rest of the fathers . de consecr . dist . 2 c. hoc est . a card. bellar de euch l. 3 c. 20. 3. v. b extra de trin. & side cathol . c. 1 c sess . 13. ca. 4. d lib. 8. contr . haereses indulg . e discurs . modest . de jesuit . p. 13. & wa●s . quodl . l. 2. art . 4. notes for div a34612-e13570 card. bar. tom. ●o . annal. an . 897. § 4. gilb. genebr . chron. sub init . seculi 10. fulbert bishop of chartres . an. 1010. ep. ad adeod . inter alia ejus opera impressa paris . an. 1608. bereng . archdeacon of anger 's . an. 1030. guliel . malms . de gestis . regum anglorum lib. 3. a. thevet . vit illust . vir. l. 3. ● . 62. pap. mass . annal. franc. l. 3. a garet . de ver â praesent . in epist . nuncup . & clas . 5. a. 1040. b alan . de euch. l. 1. c. 21. extent apud lan. fr●deverit . corp . dom. in euch. a chron. à miraeo editum . b in contin bedae . c in bist . majori ad an 1037. d ad eundum annum . baron . ad an. 35. s. 1. 6. e a. ●050 . conc. ver. sub leone papa 9 f lanfr . in libro citato . g but it was about 200 years after the death of this most innocent man. h adelm . in ep. ad bereng . i these of ren. ang leon , dole & maclo . &c. a. 1055. conc. turon . sub vict. papa ii. an 1058. con. rom. sub nicol. papa ii. an. 1059. k de regn. ital l. 9. an. 1059. l in chro. cassin . l. 3. c. 33. m baron . ad a 1059 § 18. n habetur apud gratian . de conse●r . dist . 2. cap. 42. o pap. mass . annal . franc. l. 3. a sub libri quem cont . bereng . scripsit initium . b lib 2. c 15. c ubi supra . d in c. ego bereng . de consecrat . dist . 2. e in c. utrum sub figura . 72. f in 4. dist . 9. prin . 1. q. 1. concil . rom sub hila. papa ● . 1079. g excus . cum lanfran . libro , & apud binium . h engilb . arch●ep . trevir . apud goldast . imp. tom. 1. i bertold . const . chron an. 1079. k benno card in vita hild. l haebetur ista formula apud tho waldens . tom. c. 42. & in regest . greg 7. m brix . syn. episc . apud abb. usperg in chron. ad an 1080. n addit formula prescripta in proprictate naturae . o de gest . angl. l. 3. c. 58. et post eum ab aliis . vide b●ll . chronol . an. 1079. p pogm . comment . 31. ad 2. part . direct . inquisit . q bertol. const . qui tempore brengar . vixit ad an. 1033. r vincent . in spec. l. 26. c. 40. baron . ad an. 1088. s. 15 , &c. s chron. cassin . l. 3. c. 33. st. bern. an. 1120. se●●● . de coena dom. joh. 6. 56 , 63. serm. de purif . b. maria. serm. de s. mart. lib. 3. de sacerd. rupert . abb. an. 1125. a in exod. l 2 c. 0. b ex quâ consequabatur , panem esse corpus christi , sed corpus non humanum neque carneum , sed panaceum . pet. lombard an. 1140. sens. l. 4. dist . 10. dist . 11. otho frisingensis . an. 1145. c christ . agric. in antipist . p. 13. an. 1180. d ep. 140. e de sacr. altaris in b. b. patrum . f bell. & possev de script . eccl. g chap. 5. art. 50. an. 1215. innocen . 3. papa . the lateran council . innocen 3. serm. 2. h idem serm. 3. i job . 3. 29 k addit , multae filiae congregaverunt divitias , hac autem sola supergressa est universas . l epist . ad imper. constant . extrà de majorit . & obedientia . c. 6. m extr● . de transubst . n in hist . johan . regis angliae . o mat. paris in hist . minori . & platin. in vita innocent . 3. p verba mat. par. in hist . mai. ad an. 1215. extr. de fide & sum . trin. c firmiter credimus . q ibid. r ibid. transubstantiation and the court of rome rejected by many . s gers de concil gener . t thom. walsing . in hypod . neustr . ad an. 1218. u discip . de temp. serm. ●● . x car ecllarm . apol. q 132. y for so it was decreed by innocent 3 z meaning those that deny transubstantiation . alex. alens . l. 4. q. 53. m. 4. ● . 1. idem q. 45. m. 1. a. 2. a ibid 4. 53. m. 3. b tho. aq. sum. p. 3. q. 80. c. 3. c alg●r . l. 2. ● . 1. d thom. in 4. dist . 9. q. 〈…〉 ▪ bruli● in 4. ●ist . 13. q. 5. e g eg . papa xi . f soto in 4 dist . 12. q. ● . ● . 3. vasq in 3. disp . 195. c. 5. direct . inquis p ● . n. ●5 . & p. 2. q. 1● . g eccl. 7. 2● . h leuncl . de rebus turc . n. 116. i in 4. q 3. an. 1350. k 3. q 75. a. 6. l th. argent in 4. d. 11. q. 1. art . 2. m scot. in 4. dist . 11. q. 3. n bacon in 4. dist . 8. q. 1. a. 1. o ut supra art. 24. p a. 1371. the council of constance . an. 1415. card. cameracensis an. 1420. a in 4. q 6. a. 2. the council of florence , an. 1439. instructio ad armen . b in 4. dist . 11. q. 1. art . 2. c de euch. l. 4. c. 13. d part. 2. c. 4. num . 18. e in the history of the canon of scripture , p. 158. f c de cap. font. ac necess . cor . schol. the. p. 51 , 53 , & 56. g ex act. conc. flor. h job . lasic . de relig . armeniorum . i concil . trident. sess . 13. k bulla pii 4. de prosess . fidei . a relation of a conference held about religion at london by edw. stillingfleet ... with some gentlemen of the church of rome. stillingfleet, edward, 1635-1699. 1687 approx. 309 kb of xml-encoded text transcribed from 37 1-bit group-iv tiff page images. text creation partnership, ann arbor, mi ; oxford (uk) : 2004-03 (eebo-tcp phase 1). a30412 wing b5863 estc r4009 13677333 ocm 13677333 101255 this keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the early english books online text creation partnership. this phase i text is available for reuse, according to the terms of creative commons 0 1.0 universal . the text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission. early english books online. (eebo-tcp ; phase 1, no. a30412) transcribed from: (early english books online ; image set 101255) images scanned from microfilm: (early english books, 1641-1700 ; 839:8) a relation of a conference held about religion at london by edw. stillingfleet ... with some gentlemen of the church of rome. stillingfleet, edward, 1635-1699. burnet, gilbert, 1643-1715. [8], 64 p. printed and are to be sold by randal talor ..., london : 1687. written also by gilbert burnet. cf. nuc pre-1956. reproduction of original in huntington library. created by converting tcp files to tei p5 using tcp2tei.xsl, tei @ oxford. re-processed by university of nebraska-lincoln and northwestern, with changes to facilitate morpho-syntactic tagging. gap elements of known extent have been transformed into placeholder characters or elements to simplify the filling in of gaps by user contributors. eebo-tcp is a partnership between the universities of michigan and oxford and the publisher proquest to create accurately transcribed and encoded texts based on the image sets published by proquest via their early english books online (eebo) database (http://eebo.chadwyck.com). the general aim of eebo-tcp is to encode one copy (usually the first edition) of every monographic english-language title published between 1473 and 1700 available in eebo. eebo-tcp aimed to produce large quantities of textual data within the usual project restraints of time and funding, and therefore chose to create diplomatic transcriptions (as opposed to critical editions) with light-touch, mainly structural encoding based on the text encoding initiative (http://www.tei-c.org). the eebo-tcp project was divided into two phases. the 25,363 texts created during phase 1 of the project have been released into the public domain as of 1 january 2015. anyone can now take and use these texts for their own purposes, but we respectfully request that due credit and attribution is given to their original source. users should be aware of the process of creating the tcp texts, and therefore of any assumptions that can be made about the data. text selection was based on the new cambridge bibliography of english literature (ncbel). if an author (or for an anonymous work, the title) appears in ncbel, then their works are eligible for inclusion. selection was intended to range over a wide variety of subject areas, to reflect the true nature of the print record of the period. in general, first editions of a works in english were prioritized, although there are a number of works in other languages, notably latin and welsh, included and sometimes a second or later edition of a work was chosen if there was a compelling reason to do so. image sets were sent to external keying companies for transcription and basic encoding. quality assurance was then carried out by editorial teams in oxford and michigan. 5% (or 5 pages, whichever is the greater) of each text was proofread for accuracy and those which did not meet qa standards were returned to the keyers to be redone. after proofreading, the encoding was enhanced and/or corrected and characters marked as illegible were corrected where possible up to a limit of 100 instances per text. any remaining illegibles were encoded as <gap>s. understanding these processes should make clear that, while the overall quality of tcp data is very good, some errors will remain and some readable characters will be marked as illegible. users should bear in mind that in all likelihood such instances will never have been looked at by a tcp editor. the texts were encoded and linked to page images in accordance with level 4 of the tei in libraries guidelines. copies of the texts have been issued variously as sgml (tcp schema; ascii text with mnemonic sdata character entities); displayable xml (tcp schema; characters represented either as utf-8 unicode or text strings within braces); or lossless xml (tei p5, characters represented either as utf-8 unicode or tei g elements). keying and markup guidelines are available at the text creation partnership web site . eng transubstantiation -early works to 1800. 2003-10 tcp assigned for keying and markup 2003-12 apex covantage keyed and coded from proquest page images 2004-01 john latta sampled and proofread 2004-01 john latta text and markup reviewed and edited 2004-02 pfs batch review (qc) and xml conversion a relation of a conference held about religion , at london , by edw. stillingfleet , d. d. &c. with some gentlemen of the church of rome . london : printed , and are to be sold by randal taylor near stationers-hall . 1687. the preface . there is nothing that is by a more universal agreement decried , than conferences about controversies of religion : and no wonder , for they have been generally managed with so much heat and passion , parties being more concerned for glory and victory , than truth ; and there is such foul dealing in the accounts given of them , that it is not strange to see these prejudices taken up against them . and yet it cannot be denied , but if men of candor and calmness should discourse about matters of religion , without any other interest than to seek and follow truth , there could not be a more effectual and easie way found for satisfying scruples . more can be said in one hour than read in a day : besides that what is said in a discourse discreetly managed , does more appositely meet with the doubtings and difficulties any body is perplexed with , than is possibly to be found in a book : and since almost all books disguise the opinions of those that differ from them , and represent their arguments as weak , and their opinions as odious ; conferences between those of different perswasions do remedy all these evils . but after all the advantages of this way , it must be confessed that for the greater part men are so engaged to their opinions by interest and other ties , that in conferences most persons are resolved before-hand to yield to no conviction , but to defend every thing : being only concerned to say so much as may darken weaker minds that are witnesses , and give them some occasion to triumph ; at least conceal any foil they may have received , by wrapping up some pittiful shift or other , in such words , and pronouncing them with such accents of assurance , and perhaps scorn , that they may seem to come off with victory . and it is no less frequent to see men after they have been so baffled , that all discerning witnesses are ashamed of them , yet being resolved to make up with impudence what is wanting in truth , as a coward is generally known to boast most , where he has least cause ; publish about what feats they have done , and tell every body they see how the cause in their mouth did triumph over their enemies : that so the praise of the defeat given may be divided between the cause and themselves : and though in modesty they may pretend to ascribe all to truth and the faith they contended for , yet in their hearts they desire the greatest part be offered to themselves . all these considerations with a great many more did appear to us , when the lady t. asked us if we would speak with her husband and some others of the church of rome , as well for clearing such scruples as the perpetual converse with those of that religion had raised in the lady ; as for satisfying her husband , of whose being willing to receive instruction she seemed confident . yet being well assured of the ladies great candor and worth , and being willing to stand up for the vindication and honour of our church , whatever might follow on it , we promised to be ready to wait on her at her house upon advertisement : without any nice treating before-hand , what we should confer about . therefore we neither asked who should be there , nor what number , nor in what method , or on what particulars our discourse should run , but went thither carrying only one friend along with us for a witness . if the discourse had been left to our managing , we resolved to have insisted chiefly on the corruptions in the worship of the roman church : to have shewed on several heads that there was good cause to reform these abuses ; and that the bishops and pastors of this church , the civil authority concurring , had sufficient authority for reforming it . these being the material things in controversie , which must satisfie every person if well made out , we intended to have discoursed about them ; but being put to answer , we followed those we had to deal with . but that we may not forestall the reader in any thing that passed in the ladies chamber , which he will find in the following account , we had no sooner left her house , but we resumed among our selves all had passed , that it might be written down , what ever should follow , to be published if need were . so we agreed to meet again three days after , to compare what could be written down , with our memories . and having met , an account was read , which did so exactly contain all that was spoken , as far as we could remember , that after a few additions , we all three signed the narrative then agreed to . few days had passed , when we found we had need of all that care and caution , for the matter had got wind , and was in every bodies mouth . many of our best friends know how far we were from talking of it , for till we were asked about it , we scarce opened our mouths of it to any person . but when it was said that we had been baffled and foiled , it was necessary for us to give some account of it : not that we were much concerned in what might be thought of us , but that the most excellent cause of our church and religion might not suffer by the misrepresentations of this conference . and the truth was , there was so little said by the gentlemen we spoke with , that was of weight , that we had scarce any occasion given us of speaking about things of importance : so that being but faintly assaulted , we had no great cause of boasting , had we been ever so much inclined to it . at length being weary with the questions put to us about it , we shewed some of our friends the written account of it . and that those of the church of rome might have no pretence to complain of any foul dealing on our part , we caused a copy of it to be writ out , and on the 19. of april sent it the lady t. to be shewed to them . and one of us , having the honour to meet with her afterwards , desired her to let her husband and the others with him know , that as we had set down very faithfully all we could remember that they had said ; so if they could except at any part of this narrative , or would add any thing that they either did say which we had forgot , or should have said which themselves had forgot to say , we desired they might add it to the account we sent them . for we looked on it as a most unreasonable thing , that the credit of any cause or party should depend on their extemporary faculty of speaking , the quickness of their invention , or the readiness of their memory who discourse about it : though it will appear that in this conference they had all the advantage , and we all the disadvantage possible : since they knew and were resolved what they would put us to , of which we were utterly ignorant : save that about an hour before we went thither , we had an advertisement sent us by a third person , that it was like they would assault us about the articles of our church , particularly that of the blessed sacrament . having made this offer to the lady of adding what they should desire , craving only leave that if they added any thing that was not said , we might be also allowed to add what we should have answered if such things had been said , we resolved to publish nothing till they had a competent time given them , both to make such additions to the narrative , and to consider the paper whereby we hope we have made out according to our undertaking , that the doctrine of the church for the first seven or eight ages was contrary to transubstantiation : which we sent to the lady on the seventeenth of april to be communicated to them . and therefore , though our conference was generally talked of , and all persons desired an account of it might be published ; yet we did delay it till we should hear from them . and meeting on the twenty ninth of april with him who is marked n. n. in the account of the conference , i told him , the foolish talk was made by their party about this conference , had set so many on us , who all called to us to print the account of it , that we were resolved on it : but i desired he might any time between that and trinity sunday , bring me what exceptions he or the other gentlemen had to the account we sent them , which he confessed he had seen . so i desired , that by that day i might have what additions they would make either of what they had said but was forgot by us , or what they would now add upon second thoughts : but longer i told him i could not delay the publishing it . i desired also to know by that time whether they intended any answer to the account we sent them of the doctrine of the fathers about transubstantiation . he confessed he had seen that paper : but by what he then said , it seemed they did not think of any answer to it . and so i waited still expecting to hear from him . at length , on the twentieth of may , n. n. came to me and told me some of these gentlemen were out of town , and so he would not take on him to give any thing in writing ; yet he desired me to take notice of some particulars he mentioned , which i intreated he would write down , that he might not complain of my misrepresenting what he said . this he declined to do , so i told him i would set it down the best way i could , and desired him to call again that he might see if i had written it down faithfully , which he promised to do that same afternoon , and was as good as his word , and i read to him what is subjoyned to the relation of the conference , which he acknowledged was a faithful account of what he had told me . i have considered it i hope to the full , so that it gave me more occasion of canvassing the whole matter . and thus the reader will find a great deal of reason to give an entire credit to this relation , since we have proceeded in it with so much candor , that it is plain we intended not to abuse the credulity of any , but were willing to offer this account to the censure of the adverse party ; and there being nothing else excepted against it , that must needs satisfie every reasonable man that all is true that he has here offered to his perusal . and if these gentlemen or any of their friends publish different or contrary relations of this conference , without that fair and open way of procedure which we have observed towards them ; we hope the reader will be so just as to consider , that our method in publishing this account has been candid and plain , and looks like men that were doing an honest thing , of which they were neither afraid nor ashamed : which cannot in reason be thought of any surreptitious account that like a work of darkness may be let flye abroad , without the name of any person to answer for it on his conscience or reputation : and that at least he will suspend his belief till a competent time be given to shew what mistakes or errors any such relation may be guilty of . we do not expect the reader shall receive great instructions from the following conference , for the truth is , we met with nothing but shufling . so that he will find when ever we came to discourse closely to any head , they very dexterously went off from it to another , and so did still shift off from following any thing was suggested . but we hope every reader will be so just to us as to acknowledge it was none of our fault , that we did not canvass things more exactly , for we proposed many things of great importance to be discoursed on , but could never bring them to fix on any thing . and this did fully satisfie the lady t. when she saw we were ready to have justified our church in all things , but that they did still decline the entering into any matter of weight : so that it appeared both to her and the rest of the company , that what boastings soever they spread about as if none of us would or durst appear in a conference to vindicate our church , all were without ground ; and the lady was by the blessing of god further confirmed in the truth , in which we hope god shall continue her to her lifes end . but we hope the letter and the two discourses that follow , will give the reader a more profitable entertainment . in the letter we give many short hints , and set down some select passages of the fathers , to shew they did not believe transubstantiation . upon all which we are ready to joyn issue to make good every thing in that paper , from which we believe it is apparent the primitive church was wholly a stranger to transubstantiation . it was also judged necessary by some of our friends that we should to purpose , and once for all , expose and discredit that unreasonable demand of shewing all the articles of our church in the express words of scripture : upon which the first discourse was written . and it being found that no answer was made to what n. n. said , to shew that it was not possible the doctrine of transubstantiation could have crept into any age , if those of that age had not had it from their fathers , and they from theirs up to the apostles days , this being also since our conference laid home to me by the same person , it was thought fit to give a full account how this doctrine could have been brought into the church , that so a change may appear to have been not only possible , but also probable , and therefore the second discourse was written . if these discourses have not that full finishing and life which the reader would desire , he must regrate his misfortune in this , that the person who was best able to have written them , and given them all possible advantages out of that vast stock of learning and iudgment he is master of , was so taken up with other work cut out for him by some of these gentlemens friends , of which we shall see an excellent account very speedily , that it was not possible for him to spare so much time for writing these ; so that it fell to the others share to do it : and therefore the reader is not to expect any thing like those high strains of wit and reason which fill all that authors writings , but must give allowance to one that studies to follow him though at a great distance : therefore all can be said from him is , that what is here performed was done by his direction and approbation , which to some degree will again encourage the reader , and so i leave him to the perusal of what follows . the relation of the conference . d. s. and m. b. went to m. l. t 's , as they had been desired by l. t. to confer with some persons upon the grounds of the church of england separating from rome , and to shew how unreasonable it was to go from our church to theirs . about half an hour after them , came in s. p. t. mr. w. and three more . there were present seven or eight ladies , three other church-men , and one or two more . when we were all set d. s. said to s. p. t. that we were come to wait on them for justifying our church ; that he was glad to see we had gentlemen to deal with , from whom he expected fair dealing , as on the other hand he hoped they should meet with nothing from us , but what became our profession . s. p. said , they had protestants to their wives , and there were other reasons too to make them wish they might turn protestants ; therefore he desired to be satisfied in one thing : and so took out the articles of the church , and read these words of the sixth article of the holy scriptures ; [ so that whatsoever is not read therein , nor may be proved thereby , is not to be required of any man that it should be believed as an article of faith , or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation . ] then he turned to the twenty eighth article of the lord's supper , and read these words , [ and the mean whereby the body of christ is received and eaten in the supper , is faith : ] and added , he desired to know whether that was read in scripture or not , and in what place it was to be found . d. s. said , he must first explain that article of the scripture ; for this method of proceeding was already sufficiently known and exposed ; he clearly saw the snare they thought to bring him in , and the advantages they would draw from it . but it was the cause of the church he was to defend , which he hoped he was ready to seal with his blood , and was not to be given up for a trick . the meaning of the sixth article was , that nothing must be received or imposed , as an article of faith , but what was either expresly contained in scripture , or to be deduced and proved from it by a clear consequence : so that if in any article of our church which they rejected , he should either shew it in the express words of scripture , or prove it by a clear consequence , he performed all required in this article . if they would receive this , and fix upon it as the meaning of the article , which certainly it was ; then he would go on to the proof of that other article he had called in question . m. w. said , they must see the article in express scripture , or at least in some places of scripture which had been so interpreted by the church , the councils or fathers , or any one council or father . and he the rather pitched on this article , because he judged it the only article , in which all protestants , except the lutherans , were agreed . d. s. said , it had been the art of all the hereticks from the marcionites days , to call for express words of scripture . it was well known , the arrians set up their rest on this , that their doctrine was not condemned by express words of scripture ; but that this was still rejected by the catholick church , and that theodoret had written a book , on purpose to prove the unreasonableness of this challenge ; therefore he desired they would not insist on that which every body must see was not fair dealing , and that they would take the sixth article entirely , and so go to see if the other article could not be proved from scripture , though it were not contained in express words . m. b. added , that all the fathers , writing against the arrians , brought their proofs of the consubstantiality of the son , from the scriptures , though it was not contained in the express words of any place . and the arrian council , that rejected the words equisubstantial and consubstantial , gives that for the reason , that they were not in the scripture . and that in the council of ephesus , s. cyril brought in many propositions against the nestorians , with a vast collection of places of scripture to prove them by ; and though the quotations from scripture contained not those propositions in express words ; yet the council was satisfied from them , and condemned the nestorians . therefore it was most unreasonable , and against the practice of the catholick church , to require express words of scripture , and that the article was manifestly a disjunctive , where we were to chuse whether of the two we would chuse , either one or other . s. p. t. said , or was not in the article . m. b. said , nor was a negative in a disjunctive proposition , as or was an affirmative , and both came to the same meaning . m. w. said , that s. austin charged the heretick to read what he said in the scripture . m. b. said , s. austin could not make that a constant rule , otherwise he must reject the consubstantiality which he did so zealously assert ; though he might in disputing urge an heretick with it on some other account . d. s. said , the scripture was to deliver to us the revelation of god , in matters necessary to salvation ; but it was an unreasonable thing to demand proofs for a negative in it ; for if the roman church have set up many doctrines , as articles of faith , without proof from the scriptures , we had cause enough to reject these if there was no clear proofs of them from scripture ; but to require express words of scripture for a negative , was as unjust , as if mahomet had said , the christians had no reason to reject him , because there was no place in scripture that called him an impostor . since then the roman church had set up the doctrine of transubstantiation , and the sacrifice of the mass , without either express scripture or good proofs from it , their church had good cause to reject these . m. w. said , the article they desired to be satisfied in was , if he understood any thing , a positive article , and not a negative . m. b. said , the positive article was , that christ was received in the holy sacrament ; but because they had ( as our church judged ) brought in the doctrine of the corporal presence without all reason , the church made that explanation , to cast out the other ; so that upon the matter it was a negative . he added , that it was also unreasonable to ask any one place to prove a doctrine by ; for the fathers in their proceedings with the arrians brought a great collection of places , which gave light to one another , and all concurred to prove the article of faith that was in controversie : so if we brought such a consent of many places of scripture as proved our doctrine , all being joyned together , we perform all that the fathers thought themselves bound to do in the like case . d. s. then at great length told them , the church of rome and the church of england differed in many great and weighty points ; that we were come thither to see , as these gentlemen professed they desired , if we could offer good reason for them to turn protestants , and as the ladies professed a desire to be further established in the doctrine of the church of england ; in order to which , none could think it a proper method to pick out some words in the obscure corner of an article , and call for express scriptures for them . but the fair and fit way was to examine whether the church of england had not very good reason to separate from the communion of the church of rome ; therefore , since it was for truth , in which our souls are so deeply concerned , that we enquired , he desired they would joyn issue to examine either the grounds on which the church of england did separate from the church of rome , or the authority by which she did it : for if there was both good reason for it , and if those who did it , had a sufficient authority to do it , then was the church of england fully vindicated . he did appeal to all that were present , if in this offer he dealt not candidly and fairly , and if all other ways were not shufling . which he pressed with great earnestness , as that only which could satisfie all peoples consciences . m. w. and s. p. t. said , god forbid they should speak one word for the church of rome ; they understood the danger they should run by speaking to that . d. s. said , he hoped they looked on us as men of more conscience and honesty , than to make an ill use of any thing they might say for their church ; that for himself he would die rather than be guilty of so base a thing , the very thought whereof he abhorred . m. b. said , that though the law condemned the endeavouring to reconcile any to the church of rome , yet their justifying their church when put to it , especially to divines , in order to satisfaction which they professed they desired , could by no colour be made a transgression ; and that as we engaged our faith to make no ill use of what should be said , so if they doubted any of the other company , it was s. p. his house , and he might order it to be more private if he pleased . s. p. said , he was only to speak to the articles of the church of england , and desired express words for that article . upon this followed a long wrangling , the same things were said over and over again . in the end m. w. said , they had not asked where that article was read ; that they doubted of it , for they knew it was in no place of scripture , in which they were the more confirmed , because none was so much as alledged , d. s. said , upon the terms in the sixth article he was ready to undertake the twenty eighth article to prove it clearly by scripture . m. w. said , but there must be no interpretations admitted of . m. b. said , it was certain the scriptures were not given to us , as parrots are taught to speak words ; we were endued with a faculty of understanding , and we must understand somewhat by every place of scripture . now the true meaning of the words , being that which god would teach us in the scriptures , which way soever that were expressed , is the doctrine revealed there ; and it was to be considered , that the scriptures were at first delivered ro plain and simple men , to be made use of by all without distinction : therefore we were to look unto them as they did ; and so s. paul wrote his epistles , which were the hardest pieces of the new testament , to all in the churches to whom he directed them . m. w. said , the epistles were written upon emergent occasions , and so were for the use of the churches to whom they were directed . d. s. said , though they were written upon emergent occasions , yet they were written by divine inspiration , and as a rule of faith , not only for those churches , but for all christians . but as m. w. was a going to speak , m. c. came in , upon which we all rose up till he was set ; so being set , after some civilities , d. s. resumed a little what they were about , and told they were calling for express scriptures to prove the articles of our church by . m. c. said , if we be about scriptures , where is the judge that shall pass the sentence who expounds them aright ; otherwise the contest must be endless . d. s. said , he had proposed a matter that was indeed of weight ; therefore he would first shew , that these of the church of rome were not provided of a sufficient or fit judge of controversies . m. c. said , that was not the thing they were to speak to ; for though we destroyed the church of rome all to nought , yet except we built up our own , we did nothing ; therefore he desired to hear what he had to say for our own church ; he was not to meddle with the church of rome , but to hear and be instructed if he could see reason to be of the church of england , for may be it might be somewhat in his way . d. s. said , he would not examine if it would be in his way to be of the church of england , or not , but did heartily acknowledge with great civility that he was a very fair dealer in what he had proposed , and that now he had indeed set us in the right way , and the truth was we were extream glad to get out of the wrangling we had been in before , and to come to treat of matters that were of importance . so after some civilities had passed on both sides , d. s. said , the bishops and pastors of the church of england , finding a great many abuses crept into the church , particularly in the worship of god , which was chiefly insisted upon in the reformation , such as the images of the blessed trinity , the worship whereof was set up and encouraged ; the turning the devotions we ought to offer only to christ , to the blessed virgin , the angels and saints ; that the worship of god was in an unknown tongue ; that the chalice was taken from the people , against the express words of the institution ; that transubstantiation and the sacrifice of the mass were set up ; that our church had good reason to judge these to be heinous abuses , which did much endanger the salvation of souls ; therefore , being the pastors of the church and being assisted in it by the civil powers , they had both good reason and sufficient authority to reform the church from these abuses , and he left it to m. c. to chuse on which of these particulars they should discourse . m. b. said , the bishops and pastors having the charge of souls were bound to feed the flock with sound doctrine , according to the word of god. so s. paul when he charged the bishops of ephesus to feed the flock , and to guard it against wolves or seducers ; he commends them to the word of gods grace , which is the gospel . and in his epistles to timothy and titus , wherein the rules of the pastoral charge are set down , he commands timothy , and in him all bishops and pastors , to hold fast the doctrine and form of sound words which he had delivered , and tells him , the scriptures were able to make the man of god perfect . if then the bishops and pastors of this church found it corrupted by any unsound doctrine , or idolatrous worship , they were by the law of god and the charge of souls for which they were accountable , obliged to throw out these corruptions , and reform the church ; and this the rather , that the first question proposed in the consecration of a bishop , as it is in the pontifical , is , wilt thou teach these things which thou understandest to be in the scripture , to the people committed to thee , both by thy doctrine and example ? to which he answers : i will. m. c. said , we had now offered as much as would be the subject of many days discourse , and he had but few minutes to spare : therefore he desired to be informed what authority those bishops had to judge in matters which they found not only in this church , but in all churches round about them , should they have presumed to judge in these matters . d. s. said , it had been frequently the practice of many nations and provinces to meet in provincial synods , and reform abuses . for which he offered to prove they had both authority and president . but much more in some instances he was ready to shew of particulars that had been defined by general councils , which they only applied to their circumstances ; and this was never questioned but provincial synods might do . m. c. desired to be first satisfied , by what authority they could cut themselves off from the obedience of the see of rome , in king henry the viii . his days . the pope then was looked on as the monarch of the christian world in spirituals , and all christendom was one church , under one head , and had , been so for many ages ; so that if a province or country would cut themselves from the body of this nation ; for instance , wales , that had once distinct princes , and say we acknowledge no right william the conquerour had , so that we reject the authority of those descended from him ; they might have the same plea which this our church had . for the day before that act of parliament did pass , after the 20. of henry the viii . the pope had the authority in spirituals , and they were his subjects in spirituals : therefore their declaring he had none , could not take his authority from him , no more than the long parliament had right to declare by any act , that the sovereign power was in the peoples hands , in pursuance of which they cut off the kings head. d. s. said , the first general councils , as they established the patriarchal power , so the priviledges of several churches were preserved entire to them , as in the case of cyprus ; that the british churches were not within the patriarchal jurisdiction of rome ; that afterwards the bishops of rome , striking in with the interests of the princes of europe , and watching and improving all advantages , got up by degrees through many ages into that height of authority , which they managed as ill as they unjustly acquired it , and particularly in england ; where , from king william the conqueror's days , as their illegal and oppressive impositions were a constant grievance to the people , so our princes and parliaments were ever put to struggle with them . but to affront their authority , thomas becket , who was a traitour to the law , must be made a saint , and a day kept for him , in which they were to pray to god for mercy through his merits . it continuing thus for several ages , in the end a vigorous prince arises , who was resolved to assert his own authority . and he , looking into the oaths the bishops swore to the pope , they were all found in a praemunire by them . then did the whole nation agree to assert their own freedom , and their kings authority . and 't was considerable , that those very bishops , that in queen maries days did most cruelly persecute those of the church of england , and advance the interests of rome , were the most zealous assertors and defenders of what was done by king henry the viii . therefore the popes power in england , being founded on no just title , and being managed with so much oppression , there was both a full authority and a great deal of reason for rejecting it . and if the maior generals , who had their authority from cromwell , might yet have declared for the king , who had the true title , and against the usurper ; so the bishops , though they had sworn to the pope , yet that being contrary to the allegiance they ow'd the king , ought to have asserted the kings authority , and rejected the pope's . m. b. said , it seemed m. c. founded the popes right to the authority he had in england chiefly upon prescription . but there were two things to be said to that ; first , that no prescription runs against a divine right . in the clearing of titles among men , prescription is in some cases a good title : but if by the laws of god the civil powers have a supream authority over their subjects , then no prescription whatsoever can void this . besides , the bishops having full authority and jurisdiction , this could not be bounded or limited by any obedience the pope claimed from them . further , there can be no prescription in this case , where the usurpation has been all along contested and opposed . we were ready to prove , that in the first ages all bishops were accounted brethren , colleagues , and fellow-bishops with the bishop of rome . that afterwards , as he was declared patriarch of the west , so the other patriarchs were equal in authority to him in their several patriarchates . that britain was no part of his patriarchate , but an exempt , as cyprus was . that his power as patriarch was only for receiving appeals , or calling synods , and did not at all encroach on the jurisdiction of other bishops in their sees ; and that the bishops in his patriarchate did think they might separate from him . a famous instance of this was in the sixth century , when the question was about the tria capitula , for which the western bishops did generally stand , and pope vigilius wrote in defence of them ; but iustinian the emperour having drawn him to constantinople , he consented with the fifth council to the condemning them . upon which at his return many of the western bishops did separate from him . and as victor , bishop of tunes tells us ( who lived at that time ) that pope was synodically excommunicated by the bishops of africk . it is true , in the eighth century the decretal epistles being forged , his pretentions were much advanced : yet his universal jurisdicton was contested in all ages , as might be proved from the known instance of hincmar , bishop of rheims , and many more . therefore , how strong soever the argument from prescription may be in civil things , it is of no force here . m. c. said , now we are got into a contest of 1700 years story , but i know not when we shall get out of it . he confessed there was no prescription against a divine right , and acknowledged all bishops were alike in their order , but not in their jurisdiction ; as the bishop of oxford was a bishop as well as the arch-bishop of canterbury , and yet he was inferiour to him in jurisdiction : but desired to know , what was in the popes authority that was so intolerable . d. s. said , that he should only debate about the popes jurisdiction , and to his question , for one particular , that from the days of pope paschal the ii. all bishops swear obedience to the pope , was intolerable bondage . m. c. said , then will you acknowledge that before that oath was imposed the pope was to be acknowledged ? adding , that let us fix a time wherein we say the pope began to usurp beyond his just authority , and he would prove by protestant writers that he had as great power before that time . m. b. said , whatever his patriarchal power was , he had none over britain : for it was plain , we had not the christian faith from the roman church , as appeared from the very story of austin the monk. s. p. t. said , did not king lucius write to the pope upon his receiving the christian faith ? m. c. said , he would wave all that , and ask , if the church of england could justifie her forsaking the obedience of the bishop of rome , when all the rest of the christian world submitted to it ? d. s. said , he wondered to hear him speak so : were not the greek , the armenian , the nestorian , and the abissen churches separated from the roman ? m. c. said , he wondered as much to hear him reckon the nestorians among the churches that were condemned hereticks . d. s. said , it would be hard for him to prove them nestorians . m. c. asked , why he called them so then ? d. s. answered , because they were generally best known by that name . m. w. said , did not the greek church reconcile it self to the roman church at the council of florence ? d. s. said , some of their bishops were partly trepanned , partly threatned into it ; but their church disowned them and it both , and continues to do so to this day . m. w. said , many of the greek church were daily reconciled to the church of rome , and many of the other eastern bishops had sent their obedience to the pope . d. s. said , they knew there was enough to be said to these things , that these arts were now pretty well discovered : but he insisted to prove , the usurpations of rome were such as were inconsistent with the supreme civil authority , and shewed the oath in the pontificale , by which , for instance , if the pope command a bishop to go to rome , and his king forbid it , he must obey the pope , and disobey the king. m. c. said , these things were very consistent , that the king should be supream in civils , and the pope in spirituals ; so that if the pope commanded a thing that were civil , the king must be obeyed and not he . m. b. said , by the words of the oath , the bishops were to receive and help the pope's legates both in coming and going . now suppose the king declared it treason to receive the legate , yet in this case the bishops are sworn to obey the pope , and this was a case that fell out often . d. s. instanced the case of queen mary . m. c. said , if he comes with false mandates he is not a legate . m. b. said , suppose , as has fallen out an hundred times , he comes with bulls , and well warranted , but the king will not suffer him to enter his dominions , here the bishops must either be traitors , or perjured . m. c. said , all these things must be understood to have tacite conditions in them , though they be not expressed , and gave a simile which i have forgot . d. s. said , it was plain , paschal the second devised that oath on purpose to cut off all those reserves of their duty to their princes . and therefore the words are so full and large , that no oath of allegiance was ever conceived in more express terms . m. b. said , it was yet more plain from the words that preceed that clause about legates , that they shall be an no counsel to do the pope any injury , and shall reveal none of his secrets . by which a provision was clearly made , that if the pope did engage in any quarrel or war with any prince , the bishops were to assist the popes as their sworn subjects , and to be faithful spies and correspondents to give intelligence . as he was saying this , l. t. did whisper d. s. who presently told the company , that the ladies , at whose desire we came thither , entreated we would speak to things that concerned them more , and discourse on the grounds on which the reformation proceeded ; and therefore since he had before named some of the most considerable ; he desired we might discourse about some of these . m. c. said , name any thing in the roman church that is expresly contrary to scriptures ; but bring not your expositions of scripture to prove it by , for we will not admit of these . m. b. asked , if they did not acknowledge that it was only by the mediation of christ that our sins were pardoned , and eternal life given to us . m. c. answered , no question of it at all . m. b. said , then have we not good reason to depart from that church , that in an office of so great and daily use as was the absolution of penitents , after the words of absolution enjoyns the following prayer to be used ( which he read out of their ritual ) [ the passion of our lord jesus christ , the merits of the blessed virgin mary , and of all the saints , and whatever good thou hast done , or evil thou hast suffered , be to thee for the remission of sins , the encrease of grace , and the reward of eternal life ] from whence , it plainly follows , that their church ascribes the pardon of all sins , and the eternal salvation of their penitents , to the merits of the blessed virgin and the saints , as well as the passion of our blessed saviour . m. c. said , here was a very severe charge put in against their church without any reason , for they believed that our sins are pardoned , and our souls are saved , only by the merits of jesus christ ; but that several things may concur in several orders or ways to produce the same effects : so although we are pardoned and saved only through jesus christ , yet , without holiness we shall never see god ; we must also suffer whatever crosses he tries us with . so that these , in another sense , procure the pardon of our sins , and eternal salvation . thus in like manner the prayers of the blessed virgin and the saints are great helps to our obtaining these : therefore though these be all joyned together in the same prayer , yet it was an unjust charge on their church to say they make them equal in their value or efficiency . m. b. said , the thing he had chiefly excepted against in that prayer , was , that these things are ascribed to the merits of the blessed virgin and the saints . now he had only spoken of their prayers , and he appealed to all if the natural meaning of these words was not that he charged on them , and the sense the other had offered was not forced . m. c. said , by merits were understood prayers , which had force and merit with god. m. b. said , that could not be , for in another absolution , in the office of our lady , they pray for remission of sins through the merits and prayers of the blessed virgin : so that by merits must be meant somewhat else than their prayers . m. c. said , that as by our prayers on earth we help one anothers souls , so by our giving alms for one another we might do the same ; so also the saints in heaven might be helpful to us by their prayers and merits . and as soon as he had spoken this he got to his feet , and said he was in great haste , and much business lay on him that day ; but said to d. s. that when he pleased , he would wait on him , and discourse of the other particulars at more length . d. s. assured him , that whenever he pleased to appoint it , he should be ready to give him a meeting . and so he went away . then we all stood and talked to one another , without any great order , near half a hour , the discourse being chiefly about the nags-head fable . d. s. appealed to the publick registers , and challenged the silence of all the popish writers all queen elizabeth's reign , when such a story was fresh and well known : and if there had been any colour for it , is it possible they could keep it up , or conceal it ? s. p. t. said , all the registers were forged , and that it was not possible to satisfie him in it , no more than to prove he had not four fingers on his hand : and being desired to read dr. bramhali's book about it , he said he had read it six times over , and that it did not satisfie him . m. b. asked him , how could any matter of fact that was a hundred years old be proved , if the publick registers , and the instruments of publick notaries were rejected ? and this the more , that this being a matter of fact which could not be done in a corner , nor escape the knowledge of their adversaries , who might have drawn great and just advantages from publishing and proving it ; yet that it was never so much as spoken of while that race was alive , is as ● an evidence as can be , that the forgery was on the other side . d. s. did clear the objection from the commission and act of parliament , that it was only for making the ordination legal in england , since in edw. 6. time the book of ordination was not joyned in the record to the book of common-prayer ; from whence bishop bonner took occasion to deny their ordination , as not according to law ; and added , that saunders , who in queen elizabeth's time denied the validity of our ordination , never alledged any such story . but as we were talking freely of this , m. w. said , once or twice , they were satisfied about the chief design they had in that meeting , to see if there could be alledged any place of scripture to prove that article about the blessed sacrament , and said somewhat that looked like the beginning of a triumph . upon which , d. s. desired all might sit down again , that they might put that matter to an issue : so a bible was brought , and d. s. being spent with much speaking , desired m. b. to speak to it . m. b. turned to the 6th chap. of iohn , vers . 54. and read these words , whose eateth my flesh , and drinketh my blood , hath eternal life , and added , these words were , according to the common interpretation of their church , to be understood of the sacramental manducation . this m. w. granted , only m. b. had said , all the doctors understood these words so , and m. w. said , that all had not done so , which m. b. did acknowledge , but said it was the received exposition in their church , and so framed his argument . eternal life is given to every one that receives christ in the sacrament . but by faith only we get eternal life ; therefore by faith only we receive christ in the sacrament . otherwise , he said , unworthy receivers must be said to have eternal life , which is a contradiction , for as such they are under condemnation ; yet the unworthy receivers have the external manducation : therefore that manducation that gives eternal life with it , must be internal and spiritual , and that is by faith. a person , whose name i know not , but shall henceforth mark him n. n. asked what m. b. meant , by faith only ? m. b. said , by faith he meant such a believing of the gospel , as carried along with it evangelical obedience : by faith only , he meant faith as opposite to sense . d. s. asked him if we received christ's body and blood by our senses ? n. n. said , we did . d. s. asked which of the senses , his taste , or touch , or sight , for that seemed strange to him ? n. n. said , we received christ's body with our senses , as well as we did the substance of bread ; for our senses did not receive the substance of bread : and did offer some things to illustrate this , both from the aristotelian and cartesian hypothesis . d. s. said , he would not engage in that subtlety which was a digression from the main argument , but he could not avoid to think it a strange assertion , to say we received christ by our senses , and yet to say he was so present there , that none of our senses could possibly perceive him . but to the main argument . m. w. denied the minor , that by faith only we have eternal life . m. b. proved it thus , the sons of god have eternal life , but by faith only we become the sons of god : therefore by faith only we had eternal life . m. w. said , except he gave them both major and minor in express words of scripture , he would reject the argument . m. b. said , that if he did demonstrate that both the propositions of his argument were in the strictest construction possible equivalent to clear places of scripture , then his proofs were good ; therefore he desired to know which of the two propositions he should prove , either that the sons of god have eternal life , or that by faith only we are the sons of god. m. w. said , he would admit of no consequences , how clear soever they seemed , unless he brought him the express words of scripture , and asked if his consequences were infallible . d. s. said , if the consequence was certain , it was sufficient ; and he desired all would take notice that they would not yield to clear consequences drawn from scripture , which he thought ( and he believed all impartial people would be of his mind ) was as great an advantage to any cause , as could be desired : so we laid aside that argument , being satisfied that the article of our church , which they had called in question , was clearly proved from scripture . then n. n. insisted to speak of the corporal presence , and desired to know upon what grounds we rejected it . m. b. said , if we have no better reason to believe christ was corporally present in the sacrament , than the jews had to believe that every time they did eat their pascha , the angel was passing by their houses , and smiting the first born of the aegyptians ; then we have no reason at all ; but so it is that we have no more reason . n. n. denied this , and said we had more reason . m. b. said , all the reason we had to believe it was , because christ said , this is my body ; but moses said of the paschal festivity , this is the lords passover ; which was always repeated by the jews in that anniversary . now the lords passover was the lords passing by the israelites when he slew the first born of aegypt . if then we will understand christs words in the strictly literal sense , we must in the same sense understand the words of moses : but if we understand the words of moses in any other sense , as the commemoration of the lords passover , then we ought to understand christs words in the same sense . the reason is clear ; for christ being to substitute this holy sacrament in room of the jewish pascha , and he using in every thing , as much as could agree with his blessed designs , forms as near the jewish customs as could be , there is no reason to think he did use the words , this is my body , in any other sense than the jews did , this is the lords passover . n. n. said , the disparity was great . first , christ had promised before-hand he would give them his body . secondly , it was impossible the lamb could be the lords passover in the literal sense , because an action that had been past some hundreds of years before could not be performed every time they did eat the lamb , but this is not so . thirdly , the jewish church never understood these words literally , but the christian church hath ever understood these words of christ literally . nor is it to be imagined that a change in such a thing was possible , for how could any such opinion have crept in , in any age , if it had not been the doctrine of the former age ? m. b. said , nothing he had alledged was of any force . for the first , christ's promise imported no more than what he performed in the sacramental institution . if then it be proved that by saying , this is my body , he only meant a commemoration , his promise must only relate to his death commemorated in the sacrament . to the second , the literal meaning of christ's words is as impossible as the literal meaning of moses's words ; for besides all the other impossibilities that accompany this corporal presence , it is certain christ gives us his body in the sacrament as it was given for us , and his blood as it was shed for us , which being done only on the cross above 1600 years ago , it is as impossible that should be literally given at every consecration , as it was that the angel should be smiting the aegyptians every paschal festivity . and here was a great mistake they went on securely in ; that the body of christ we receive in the sacrament , is the body of christ , as he is now glorified in heaven ; for by the words of the institution it is clear , that we receive his body as it was given for us when his blood was shed on the cross , which being impossible to be reproduced now , we only can receive christ by faith. for his third difference , that the christian church ever understood christ's words so , we would willingly submit to the decision of the church in the first six ages . could any thing be more express than theodoret , who arguing against the eutychians that the humanity and divinity of christ were not confounded nor did depart from their own substance , illustrates it from the eucharist in which the elements of bread and wine do not depart from their own substance . m. w. said , we must examine the doctrine of the fathers not from some occasional mention they make of the sacrament , but when they treat of it on design and with deliberation . but to theodoret he would oppose s. cyril of ierusalem , who in his fourth mist. catechism says expresly , though thou see it to be bread , yet believe it is the flesh and the blood of the lord jesus ; doubt it not , since he had said , this is my body . and for a proof , instances christ's changing the water into wine . d. s. said , he had proposed a most excellent rule for examining the doctrine of the fathers in this matter , not to canvase what they said in eloquent and pious treaties or homilies to work on peoples devotion , in which case it is natural for all persons to use high expressions ; but we are to seek the real sense of this mystery when they are dogmatically treating of it and the other mysteries of religion where reason and not eloquence takes place . if then it should appear , that at the same time both a bishop of rome and constantinople , and one of the greatest bishops in africk did in asserting the mysteries of religion go downright against transubstantiation , and assert that the substance of the bread and wine did remain ; he hoped all would be satisfied the fathers did not believe as they did . m. w. desired we would then answer the words of cyril . m. b. said , it were a very unreasonable thing to enter into a verbal dispute about the passages of the fathers , especially the books not being before us ; therefore he promised an answer in writing to the testimony of s. cyril . but now the matter was driven to a point , and we willingly undertook to prove , that for eight or nine centuries after christ the fathers did not believe transubstantiation , but taught plainly the contrary : the fathers generally call the elements bread and wine after the consecration , they call them mysteries , types , figures , symbols , commemorations , and signs of the body and blood of christ : they generally deliver , that the wicked do not receive christ in the sacrament , which shews they do not believe transubstantiation . all this we undertook to prove by undeniable evidences within a very few days or weeks . m. w. said , he should be glad to see it . d. s. said , now we left upon that point which by the grace of god we should perform very soon ; but we had offered to satisfie them in the other grounds of the separation from the church of rome : if they desired to be farther informed we should wait on them when they pleased . so we all rose up and took leave , after we had been there about three hours . the discourse was carried on , on both sides , with great civility and calmness , without heat or clamour . this is as far as my memory , after the most fixed attention when present , and careful recollection since , does suggest to me , without any biass or partiality , not having failed in any one material thing as far as my memory can serve me : this i declare as i shall answer to god. signed as follows , gilbert burnet . this narrative was read , and i do hereby attest the truth of it . edw. stillingfleet . being present at the conference , i do , according to my best memory , judge this a just and true narrative thereof . will. nailor . the addition which n. n. desired might be subjoined to the relation of the conference if it were published , but wished rather that nothing at all might be made publick that related to the conference . the substance of what n. n. desired me to take notice of , was , that our eating christ's flesh and drinking his blood doth as really give everlasting life , as almsgiving , or any other good works gives it , where the bare external action , if separated from a good intention and principle , is not acceptable to god. so that we must necessarily understand these words of our saviour with this addition of worthily , that whoso eats his flesh and drinks his blood in the sacrament worthily , hath everlasting life ; for , he said , he did not deny but the believing the death of christ was necessary in communicating , but it is not by faith only we receive his body and blood . for as by faith we are the sons of god , yet it is not only by faith , but also by baptism , that we become the sons of god ; so also christ saith , he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved ; yet this doth not exclude repentance and amendment of life from being necessary to salvation : therefore the universality of the expression , whoso eats , does not exclude the necessity of eating worthily that we may have everlasting life by it . and so did conclude , that since we believe we have all our faith in the holy scriptures , we must prove from some clear scriptures , by arguments that consist of a major and minor , that are either express words of scripture or equivalent to them , that christ was no otherwise present in the sacrament , than spiritually , as he is received by faith. and added , that it was impertinent to bring impossibilities either from sense or reason against this , if we brought no clear scriptures against it . to this he also added , that when d. s. asked him by which of his senses he received christ in the sacrament , he answered , that he might really receive christ's body at his mouth , though none of his senses could perceive him , as a bole or pill is taken in a syrup or any other liquor ; so that i really swallow it over though my senses do not taste it : in like manner , christ is received under the accidents of bread and wine , so that though our senses do not perceive it , yet he is really taken in at our mouth , and goes down into our stomach . answer . having now set down the strength of n. n. his plea upon second thoughts , i shall next examine it . the stress of all lies in this , whether we must necessarily supply the words of christ with the addition of worthily : he affirms it , i deny it , for these reasons . christ in this discourse was to shew how much more excellent his doctrine was than was moses's law , and that moses gave manna from heaven to nourish their bodies , notwithstanding which they died in the wilderness : but christ was to give them food to their souls ; which if they did eat they should never die , for it should give them life : where it is apparent , the bread and nourishment must be such , as the life was , which being internal and spiritual , the other must be such also : and vers . 47. he clearly explains how that food was received , he that believeth on me hath everlasting life . now having said before that this bread gives life , and here saying that believing gives everlasting life , it very reasonably follows , that believing was the receiving this food ; which is yet clearer from verse 34. where the iews having desired him evermore to give them that bread , he answers , verse 35. i am the bread of life , be that comes to me shall never hunger , and he that believeth on me shall never thirst . which no man , that is not strangely prepossessed , can consider , but he must see it is an answer to their question , and so in it he tells them , that their coming to him , and believing , was the mean of receiving that bread. and here it must be considered , that christ calls himself bread , and says , that a man must eat thereof , which must be understood figuratively ; and if figures be admitted in some parts of that discourse , it is unjust to reject the applying the same figures to other parts of it . in fine , christ tells them this bread was his flesh which he was to give for the life of the world , which can be applied to nothing but the offering up himself on the cross. this did , as it was no wonder , startle the jews , so they murmured , and said , how can this man give us his flesh to eat ? to which christs answer is so clear , that it is indeed strange there should remain any doubting about it . he first tells them , except they eat the flesh and drink the blood of the son of man , they had no life in them . where on the way mark , that drinking the blood is as necessary as eating the flesh ; and these words being expounded of the sacrament , cannot but discover them extreamly guilty who do not drink the blood. for suppose the doctrine of the blood 's concomitating the flesh were true ; yet even in that case they only eat the blood , but cannot be said to drink the blood. but from these words it is apparent christ must be speaking chiefly , if not only of the spiritual communicating : for otherwise no man can be saved , that hath not received the sacrament . the words are formal and positive , and christ having made this a necessary condition of life , i see not how we dare promise life to any that hath never received it . and indeed it was no wonder that those fathers who understood these words of the sacrament , appointed it to be given to infants immediately after they were baptized ▪ for that was a necessary consequence that followed this exposition of our saviours words . and yet the church of rome will not deny , but if any die before he is adult , or if a person converted be in such circumstances that it is not possible for him to receive the sacrament , and so dies without it , he may have everlasting life : therefore they must conclude , that christs flesh may be eaten by faith even without the sacrament . again in the next verse he says , whoso eateth my flesh , and drinketh my blood , hath eternal life . these words must be understood in the same sense they had in the former verse , they being indeed the reverse of it . therefore since there is no addition of worthily necessary to the fence of the former verse , neither is it necessary in this . but it must be concluded christ is here speaking of a thing without which none can have life : and by which all have life : therefore when ever christs flesh is eaten , and his blood is drunk , which is most signally done in the sacrament , there eternal life must accompany it ; and so these words must be understood , even in relation to the sacrament , only of the spiritual communicating by faith. as when it is said , a man is a reasonable creature : though this is said of the whole man , body and soul ; yet when we see that upon the dissolution of soul and body no reason or life remains in the body , we from thence positively conclude the reason is seated only in the soul ; though the body has organs that are necessary for its operations : so when it is said we eat christs flesh , and drink his blood in the sacrament , which gives eternal life ; there being two things in it , the bodily eating and the spiritual communicating ; though the eating of christs flesh is said to be done in the worthy receiving , which consists of these two , yet since we may clearly see the bodily receiving may be without any such effects , we must conclude that the eating of christs flesh is only done by the inward communicating ; though the other , that is the bodily part , be a divine organ , and conveyance of it . and as reason is seated only in the soul , so the eating of christs flesh must be only inward and spiritual , and so the mean by which we receive christ in the supper is faith. all this is made much clearer by the words that follow , my flesh is meat indeed , and my blood is drink indeed . now christs flesh is so eaten , as it is meat ; which i suppose none will question , it being a prosecution of the same discourse . now it is not meat as taken by the body , for they cannot be so gross as to say , christs flesh is the meat of our body ; therefore since his flesh is only the meat of the soul and spiritual nourishment , it is only eaten by the soul , and so received by faith. christ also says , he that eateth my flesh and drinks my blood dwells in him and he in him . this is the definition of that eating and drinking he had been speaking of ; so that such as is the dwelling in him , such also must be the eating of him : the one therefore being spiritual , inward , and by faith , the other must be such also . and thus it is as plain as can be , from the words of christ , that he spake not of a carnal or corporal , but of a spiritual eating of his flesh by faith. all this is more confirmed by the key our saviour gives of his whole discourse , when the iews were offended for the hardness of his sayings , it is the spirit that quickneth ( or giveth the life he had been speaking of ) the flesh profiteth nothing , the words i speak unto you are spirit , and they are life . from which it is plain he tells them to understand his words of a spiritual life , and in a spiritual manner . but now i shall examine n. n. his reasons to the contrary . his chief argument is , that when eternal life is promised upon the giving of alms , or other good works , we must necessarily understand it with this proviso , that they were given with a good intention , and from a good principle : therefore we must understand these words of our saviour to have some such proviso in them . all this concludes nothing . it is indeed certain when any promise is past upon an external action , such a reserve must be understood . and so st. paul tells us , if he bestowed all his goods to feed the poor , and had no charity , it profited him nothing . and if it were clear our saviour were here speaking of an external action , i should acknowledge such a proviso must be understood ; but that is the thing in question ; and i hope i have made it appear our saviour is speaking of an internal action , and therefore no such proviso is to be supposed . for he is speaking of that eating of his flesh , which must necessarily and certainly be worthily done , and so that objection is of no force . he must therefore prove , that the eating his flesh is primarily and simply meant of the bodily eating in the sacrament ; and not only by a denomination , from a relation to it : as the whole man is called reasonable , though the reason is seated in the soul only what he says to shew that by faith only we are not the sons of god , since by baptism also we are the sons of god , is not to the purpose : for the design of the argument , was to prove that by faith only we are the sons of god , so as to be the heirs of eternal life . now the baptism of the adult ( for our debate runs upon those of ripe years and understanding ) makes them only externally , and sacramentally the sons of god : for the inward and vital sonship follows only upon faith. and this faith must be understood of such a lively and operative faith , as includes both repentance and amendment of life . so that when our saviour says , he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved , that believing is a complex of all evangelical graces ; from which it appears , that none of his reasons are of force enough to conclude that the universality of these words of christ ought to be so limited and restricted . for what remains of that which he desired might be taken notice of , that we ought to prove that christs body and blood was present in the sacrament only spiritually and not corporally by express scriptures , or by arguments whereof the major and minor were either express words of scripture , or equivalent to them : it has no force at all in it . i have in a full discourse examined all that is in the plea concerning the express words of scripture ; and therefore shall say nothing upon that head , referring the reader to what he will meet with on that subject afterwards . but here i only desire the reader may consider , our contest in this particular is concerning the true meaning of our saviours words , this is my body , in which it is very absurd to ask for express words of scripture , to prove that meaning by . for if that be setled on , as a necessary method of proof , then when other scriptures are brought to prove that to be the meaning of these words ; it may be asked how can we prove the true meaning of that place we bring to prove the meaning of this by ? and so by a progress for ever we must contend about the true meaning of every place . therefore when we enquire into the sense of any controverted place ; we must judge of it by the rules of common sense and reason , of religion and piety , and if a meaning be affixed to any place contrary to these , we have good reason to reject it . for we , knowing all external things only by our senses , by which only the miracles and resurrection of christ could be proved , which are the means god has given us to converse with , and enjoy his whole creation ; and evidence our senses give being such , as naturally determines our perswasions , so that after them we cannot doubt : if then a sense be offered to any place of scripture that does overthrow all this , we have sufficient reason on that very account to reject it . if also any meaning be fastened on a place of scripture that destroys all our conceptions of things , is contrary to the most universally receiv'd maxims , subverts the notions of matter and accidents , and in a word , confounds all our clearest apprehensions ; we must also reject every such gloss , since it contradicts the evidence of that which is god's image in us . if also a sense of any place of scripture be proposed that derogates from the glorious exaltation of the humane nature of our blessed saviour , we have very just reasons to reject it , even though we could bring no confirmation of our meaning from express words of scripture : therefore this dispute being chiefly about the meaning of christ's words , he that shews best reasons to prove that his sense is consonant to truth , does all that is necessary in this case . but after all this , we decline not to shew clear scriptures for the meaning our church puts on these words of christ. it was bread that christ took , blessed , brake , and gave his disciples . now the scripture calling it formally bread , destroys transubstantiation . christ said , this is my body , which are declarative , and not imperative words , such as , let there be light , or , be thou whole . now all declarative words suppose that which they affirm to be already true , as is most clear ; therefore christ pronounces what the bread was become by his former blessing , which did sanctifie the elements : and yet after that blessing it was still bread . again , the reason and end of a thing is that which keeps a proportion with the means toward it ; so that christ's words , do this in remembrance of me , shew us , that his body is here only in a vital and living commemoration and communication of his body and blood. farther , christ telling us , it was his body that was given for us , and his blood shed for us , which we there receive ; it is apparent , he is to be understood present in the sacrament ; not as he is now exalted in glory , but as he was on the cross when his blood was shed for us . and in fine , if we consider that those to whom christ spake were jews , all this will be more easily understood : for it was ordinary for them to call the symbol by the name of the original it represented . so they called the cloud between the cherubims , god and iehovah , according to these words , o thou that dwellest between the cherubims : and all the symbolical apparitions of god to the patriarchs and the prophets , were said to be the lord appearing to them . but that which is more to this purpose , is , that the lamb that was the symbol and memorial of their deliverance out of egypt , was called the lord's passover . now though the passover then was only a type of our deliverance by the death of christ , yet the lamb was in proportion to the passover in egypt , as really a representation of it , as the sacrament is of the death of christ. and it is no more to be wondered that christ called the elements his body and blood , though they were not so corporally , but only mystically , and sacramentally ; than that moses called the lamb the lord 's passover . so that it is apparent it was common among the jews to call the symbol and type by the name of the substance and original . therefore our saviour's words are to be understood in the sense and stile that was usual among these to whom he spake , it being the most certain rule of understanding any doubtful expression , to examine the ordinary stile and forms of speech in that age , people , and place , in which such phrases were used . this is signally confirmed by the account which maimonides gives us of the sense in which eating and drinking is oft taken in the scriptures . first , he says , it stands in its natural signification , for receiving bodily food : then because there are two things done in eating , the first is the destruction of that which is eaten , so that it loseth its first form ; the other is the increase and nourishment of the substance of the person that eats : therefore he observes that eating has two other significations in the language of the scriptures : the one is destruction and desolation ; so the sword is said to eat , or as we render it , to devour ; so a land is said to eat its inhabitants , and so fire is said to eat or consume : the other sense it is taken in does relate to wisdom , learning , and all intellectual apprehensions , by which the form ( or soul ) of man is conserved from the perfection that is in them , as the body is preserved by food . for proof of this , he cites divers places out of the old testament , as isa. 55. 2. come buy and eat , and prov. 25. 27. and prov. 24. 13. he also adds , that their rabbins commonly call wisdom , eating ; and cites some of their sayings , as , come and eat flesh in which there is much fat , and that whenever eating and drinking is in the book of the proverbs , it is nothing else but wisdom or the law. so also wisdom is often called water , isa. 55. 1. and he concludes , that because this sense of eating occurs so often , and is so manifest and evident , as if it were the primary and most proper signification of the word , therefore hunger and thirst do also stand for a privation of wisdom and understanding , as amos. 8. 21. to this he also refers that of thirsting , psal. 42. 3. and isa. 12. 3. and ionathan paraphrasing these words , ye shall draw water out of the wells of salvation , renders it . ye shall receive a new doctrine with joy from the select ones among the iust , which is farther confirmed from the words of our saviour , iohn 7. 37. and from these observations of the learnedest and most judicious among all the rabbins , we see that the iews understood the phrases of eating and eating of flesh in this spiritual and figurative sense of receiving vvisdom and instruction . so that this being an usual form of speech among them , it is no strange thing to imagine how our saviour , being a iew according to the flesh , and conversing with iews , did use these terms and phrases in a sense that was common to that nation . and from all these set together , we are confident we have a great deal of reason , and strong and convincing authorities from the scriptures , to prove christ's words , this is my body , are to be understood spiritually , mystically , and sacramentally . there remains only to be considered what weight there is in what n. n. says . he answered to d. s. that christ might be received by our senses though not perceived by any of them , as a bole is swallowed over , though our taste does not relish or perceive it . that great man is so very well furnished with reason and learning to justifie all he says , that no other body needs interpose on his account . but he being now busie , it was not worth the giving him the trouble , to ask how he would reply upon so weak an answer , since its shallowness appears at the first view : for is there any comparison to be made between an object that all my senses may perceive , if i have a mind to it , that i see with mine eyes , and touch , and feel in my mouth , and if it be too big , and my throat too narrow , i will feel stick there ; but only to guard against its offensive taste , i so wrap or convey it , that i relish nothing ungrateful in it : and the receiving christ with my senses , when yet none of them either do , or can , though applied with all possible care , discern him ? so that it appears d. s. had very good reason to say , it seemed indeed strange to him , to say , that christ was received by our senses , and yet was so present that none of our senses can perceive him : and this answer to it is but mere trifling . here follows the paper we promised , wherein an account is given of the doctrine of the church for the first eight centuries in the point of the sacrament , which is demonstrated to be contrary to transubstantiation ; written in a letter to my lady t. madam , your ladiship may remember , that our meeting at your house on the third instant , ended with a promise we made , of sending you such an account of the sense of the fathers for the first six ages , as might sufficiently satisfie every impartial person , that they did not believe transubstantiation . this promise we branched out in three propositions : first , that the fathers did hold , that after the consecration the elements of bread and wine did remain unchanged in their substance . the second was , that after the consecration they called the elements the types , the antitypes , the mysteries , the symbols , the signs , the figures , and the commemorations of the body and blood of christ ; which certainly will satisfie every unprejudiced person , that they did not think the bread and wine were annihilated , and that in their room , and under their accidents , the substance of the body and blood of christ was there . thirdly , we said , that by the doctrine of the fathers the unworthy receivers got not the body and the blood of christ ; from which it must necessarily follow , that the substance of his body and blood is not under the accidents of bread and wine ; otherwise all these that unworthily receive them eat christ's body and blood . therefore , to discharge our selves of our promise , we shall now give your ladiship such an account of the doctrine of the fathers on these heads , as we hope shall convince those gentlemen , that we had a good warrant for what we said . the first proposition is , the fathers believed that after the consecration the elements were still bread and wine . the proofs whereof we shall divide into three branches : the first shall be , that after the consecration they usually called them bread and wine . secondly , that they expresly assert , that the substance of bread and wine remained . thirdly , that they believed the sacramental bread and wine did nourish our bodies . for proof of the first , we desire the following testimonies be considered : iustin martyr says , these who are called deacons distribute the blessed bread and wine and water to such as are present , and carry it to the absents , and this nourishment is by us called the eucharist . and a little after , we do not receive these as common bread , or common drink ; for as by the word of god iesus christ our saviour being made flesh , had both flesh and blood for our salvation , so we are taught , that that food by which our blood and flesh are nourished , by its change , being blessed by the word of prayer which he gave us , is both the flesh and the blood of the incarnate iesus . thus that martyr , that wrote an hundred and fifty years after christ , calls the elements bread and wine , and the nourishment which being changed into flesh and blood nourishes them . and saying , it is not common bread and vvine , he says , that it was still so in substance ; and his illustrating it with the incarnation , in which the humane nature did not lose nor change its substance in its union with the eternal word , shews , he thought not the bread and wine lost their substance when they became the flesh and blood of christ. the next witness is irenaeus , who writing against the valentinians , that denied the father of our lord jesus to be the creator of the world , and also denied the resurrection of the body , confutes both these heresies by arguments drawn from the eucharist . to the first he says , if there be another creator than the father of our lord , then our offering creatures to him , argues him covetous of that which is not his own , and so we reproach him rather than bless him . and adds , how does it appear to any of them , that that bread over which thanks are given , is the body of his lord , and the cup of his blood , if he be not the son of the creator . and he argues against their saying , our bodies should not rise again that are fed by the body and blood of christ : for , says he , that bread which is of the earth , having had the invocation of god over it , is no more common bread , but the eucharist , consisting of two things , an earthly and an heavenly ; so our bodies that receive the eucharist are no more corruptible , having the hope of the resurrection . tertullian ( lib. 1. adv . marc. c. 14. ) proving against marcion , that christ was not contrary to the creator , among other proofs which he brings to shew , that christ made use of the creatures , and neither rejected water , oil , milk , or hony , he adds , neither did he reject bread , by which he represents his own body . and further says , ( lib. 3. adv . marc. c. 19. ) christ calls bread his body , that from thence you may understand , that he gave the figure of his body to the bread. origen says , ( lib. 8. cont . celsum . ) we eat of the loaves set before us , with thanks giving and prayers over what is given to us , which by the prayer are become a certain holy body , that sanctifies those who use them with a sound purpose . st. cyprian says , ( epist. 76. ) christ calls the bread that was compounded of many grains ioyned together , his body , to shew the union of our people which he bore upon himself ; and calls the wine which is pressed out of many grapes and berries , his blood : he signifies our flock which is joyned together in the mixture of an united multitude . and writing against those who only put water in the chalice , ( epist. 63. ) he says , since christ said , i am the true vine , the blood of christ is not only water but wine , neither can we see his blood by which we are redeemed and quickened in the chalice when wine is not in it , by which the blood of christ is shewed . and that whole epistle is all to the same purpose . epiphanius ( in anchorat ) says , christ in the supper rose and took these things , and having given thanks , said , this is my , &c. now we see it is not equal to it , nor like it , neither to his incarnate likeness , nor his invisible deity , nor the lineaments of his members , for it is round , and without feeling as to its vertue . and this he says , to shew how man may be said to be made after the image of god , though he be not like him . gregory nyssen , ( in orat. de bap. christ. ) shewing how common things may be sanctified , as water in baptism , the stones of an altar and church dedicated to god ; he adds , so also bread in the beginning is common , but after the mystery has consecrated it , is said to be , and is the body of christ ; so the mystical oyl , so the wine before the blessing , are things of little value , but after the sanctification of the spirit , both of them work excellently . he also adds , that the priest by his blessing is separated and sanctified ; from which it appears , he no more believed the change of the substance of the bread and wine , than of the consecrated oil , the altar , or the priest. ambrose ( lib. de bened. patriarc . cap. 9. ) speaking of bread , which was asher's blessing , says , this bread christ gave his apostles , that they might divide it to the people that believed , and gives it to us to day , which the priest consecrates in his words , this bread is made the food of the saints . st. chrysostome ( homil. 24. in epist. ad cor. ) on these words , the bread which we brake , is it not the communion of the body of christ ? says , what is the bread ? the body of christ. what are they made who take it ? the body of christ. from whence it appears , he thought the bread was so the body of christ , as the worthy receivers are ; which is not by the change of their substance , but by the sanctification of their natures . st. ierom ( epist. ad hedib . ) says , let us hear the bread which christ brake and gave his disciples , to be the body of our lord. and he says , ( comment . s. mat. c. 26. ) after the typical pascha was fulfilled , christ took bread that comforts the heart of man , and went to the true sacrament of the pascha , that as melchisedeck in the figure had done offering bread and wine , so he might also represent the truth of his body and blood. where he very plainly calls the elements bread and wine , and a representation of christ's body and blood. st. austin ( as he is cited by fulgentius de baptismo and divers others ) in his exhortation to these that were newly baptized , speaking of this sacrament , says , that which you see is the bread , and the cup which your eyes witness : but that which your faith must be instructed in , is , that the bread is the body of christ , and the cup is his blood. and then he proposes the objection , how that could be ? and answers it thus ; these things are therefore called sacraments , because one thing is seen , and another is understood : what you see has a bodily appearance , but what you understand has a spiritual fruit ; and if you will understand the body of christ , hear what the apostle says to the faithful , ye are the body of christ and his members : if therefore you be the body and members of christ , your mystery is placed on the table of the lord , and you receive the mystery of the lord. and at large prosecutes this , to shew how the faithful are the body of christ , as the bread is made up of many grains ; from whence it appears , that he believed , that the conscrated elements were still bread and wine . and speaking of st. paul's breaking bread at troas , he says , ( epist. 86. ) being to break bread that night , as it is broken in the sacrament of the body of christ. he also says , ( serm. 9. de divers . ) the eucharist is our daily bread ; but let us so receive it , that not only our belly but our mind be refreshed by it . besides , in a great many places st. austin calls the eucharist , the sacrament of bread and wine . and speaking of things , made use of to signify somewhat else , he adds for one , ( lib. 3. de trinit . c. 10. ) the bread that is made for this , is consumed in our receiving the sacrament . he also says , ( lib. 17. de civ . dei. ) to eat bread is in the new testament , the sacrifice of christians . he likewise says , ( lib. cont. donat. c. 6. ) both iudas and peter received a part of the same bread out of the same hand of our lord. and thus from twelve witnesses that are beyond all exception , it does appear , that the fathers believed the elements to be still bread and wine after the consecration . we have not brought any proofs from the fathers that are less known or read , for then we must have swelled up this paper beyond what we intend it . one thing is so considerable , that we cannot forbear to desire it be taken notice of , and that is , that we see those great fathers and doctors of the church call the consecrated elements , without any mincing of the matter , bread & wine ; but when they call it the body and blood of christ , they often use some mollifying and less hardy expression . so st. austin says , ( serm. 53. de verb. dom. ) almost all call the sacrament his body . and again says , ( lib. 3. de trinit . c. 4. ) we call that only the body and blood of christ , which being taken of the fruits of the earth , and consecrated by the mystical prayer , we rightly receive for our spiritual health in the commemoration of the passion of our lord for us . and he says , ( epist. 23. ad bonifac. ) after some sort the sacrament of the body of christ is his body , and the sacrament of his blood is the blood of christ. and also says , ( serm. 2. in psal. 33. ) he carried himself in his own hands in some sort , when he said , this is my body . st. chrysostom says , ( epist. ad caesar. ) the bread is thought worthy to be called the body of our lord. and on these words , the flesh lusteth against the spirit , among the improper acceptions of flesh , says , ( comm. in epist. ad galat. c. 5. ) the scriptures use to call the mysteries by the name of flesh , and sometimes the whole church , saying , she is the body of christ. tertullian says , ( lib. 4. cont . marc. c. 40. ) christ calls the bread his body , and a little after , he names the bread his body . isidore hispal . says , ( orig. lib. 6. c. 9. ) we call this after his command the body and blood of christ , which being made of the fruits of the earth , is sanctified and made a sacrament . theodoret says , ( dialog . 1. ) in the giving of the mysteries , christ called the bread his body , and the mixed cup his blood. and says , ( dialog . 1. ) he who called his natural body corn and bread , and also calls himself a vine , likewise honoured these visible symbols with the names of his body and blood. but we now go to bring our proofs for the next branch of our first proposition ; in which we assert , that the fathers believed that the very substance of the bread and wine did remain after the consecration . by which all the proofs brought in the former branch will receive a further evidence ; since by these it will appear the fathers believed the substance of the elements remained ; and thence we may well conclude , that wherever we find mention made of bread and wine after consecration , they mean of the substance , and not of the accidents of bread and wine . for proof of this , we shall only bring the testimonies of four fathers , that lived almost within one age , and were the greatest men of the age. their authority is as generally received , as their testimonies are formal and decisive : and these are pope gelasius , st. chrysostom , ephrem patriarch of antioch , and theodoret , whom we shall find delivering to us the doctrine of the church in their age , with great consideration upon a very weighty occasion : so that it shall appear that this was for that age the doctrine generally received both in the churches of rome and constantinople , antioch , and asia the less . we shall begin with gelasius , who , though he lived later than some of the others , yet , because of the eminence of his see , and the authority those we deal with must needs acknowledge was in him , ought to be set first : he says , ( in lib. de duab . nat . christ. ) the sacraments of the body and blood of christ are a divine thing ; for which reason we become , by them , partakers of the divine nature ; and yet the substance or nature of bread and wine does not cease to be ; and the image and likeness of the body and blood of christ are indeed celebrated in the action of the mysteries : therefore it appears evidently enough , that we ought to think that of christ our lord , which we profess and celebrate , and receive in his image , that as they ( to wit , the elements ) pass into that divine substance , the holy ghost working it , their nature remaining still in its own property . so that principal mystery , whose efficiency and virtue these ( to wit , the sacraments ) represent to us , remains one entire and true christ ; those things of which he is compounded ( to wit , his two natures ) remaining in their properties . these words seem so express and decisive , that one would think the bare reading them , without any further reflections , should be of force enough . but before we offer any considerations upon them , we shall set down other passages of the other fathers , and upon them altogether make such remarks as , we hope , may satisfy any that will hear reason . st. chrysostom treating of the two natures of christ against the apollinarists , ( epist. ad caesar. monach . ) who did so confound them , as to consubstantiate them , he makes use of the doctrine of the sacrament to illustrate that mystery by , in these words ; as before the bread is sanctified , we call it bread ; but when the divine grace has sanctified it by the mean of the priest , it is freed from the name of bread , and is thought worthy of the name of the lord's body , though the nature of bread remains in it : and yet it is not said there are two bodies , but one body of the son ; so the divine nature being joyned to the body , both these make one son , and one person . next this patriarch of constantinople , let us hear ephrem the patriarch of antioch give his testimony , as it is preserved by photius , ( cod. 229. ) who says thus : in like manner ( having before treated of the two natures united in christ ) the body of christ , which is received by the faithful , does not depart from its sensible substance , and yet remains inseparated from the intellectual grace : so baptism becoming wholly spiritual , and one , it preserves its own sensible substance , and does not lose that which it was before . to these we shall add , what theodoret ( dialog . 1. ) on the same occasion says against those , who from that place , the word was made flesh , believed , that in the incarnation the divinity of the word was changed into the humanity of the flesh. he brings in his heretick arguing about some mystical expressions of the old testament , that related to christ : at length he comes to shew , how christ called himself bread and corn ; so also in the delivering the mysteries , christ called the bread his body , and the mixed cup his blood ; and our saviour changed the names , calling his body by the name of the symbol , and the symbol by the name of his body . and when the heretick asks the reason why the names were so changed , the orthodox answers , that it was manifest to such as were initiated in divine things ; for he would have those who partake of the mysteries , not look to the nature of those things that were seen , but by the change of the names , to believe that change that was made through grace ; for he who called his natural body corn and bread , does likewise honour the visible symbols with the name of his body and blood ; not changing the nature , but adding grace to nature : and so goes on to ask his heretick , whether he thought the holy bread was the symbol and type of his divinity , or of his body and blood ? and the other acknowledging they were the symbols of his body and blood : he concludes , that christ had a true body . the second dialogue is against the eutychians ; who believed , that after christ's assumption , his body was swallowed up by his divinity : and there the eutychian brings an argument to prove that change from the sacrament ; it being granted , that the gifts before the priest's prayer were bread and wine . he asks how it was to be called after the sanctification ? the orthodox answers , the body and blood of christ ; and that he believed he received the body and blood of christ. from thence the heretick , as having got a great advantage , argues ; that as the symbols of the body and blood of our lord were one thing before the priestly invocation , and after that were changed , and are different from what they were : so the body of our lord , after the assumption , was changed into the divine substance . but the orthodox replies , that he was catched in the net he laid for others ; for the mystical symbols , after the sanctification , do not depart from their own nature ; for they continue in their former substance , figure and form , and are both visible and palpable , as they were before ; but they are understood to be that which they are made , and are believed and venerated , as being those things which they are believed to be . and from thence he bids the heretick compare the image with the original , for the type must be like the truth , and shews that christ's body retains its former form and figure , and the substance of his body , though it be now made immortal and incorruptible . thus he . and having now set down very faithfully the words of these fathers , we desire it may be considered , that all these words are used to the same effect , to prove the reality of christ's body , and the distinction of the two natures , the divine and the human , in him . for , though st. chrysostom lived before eutyches his days , yet in this point the eutychians and the apollinarists , against whom he writes , held opinions so like others , that we may well say , all these words of the fathers we have set down are to the same purpose . now , first it is evident , that if transubstantiation had been then believed , there needed no other argument to prove against the eutychians that christ had still a real body , but to have declared that his body was corporally present in the eucharist ; which they must have done , had they believed it , and not spoken so as they did ; since that alone well proved , had put an end to the whole controversy . further , they could never have argued from the visions and apparitions of christ , to prove he had still a real body ; for if it was possible the body of christ could appear under the accidents of bread and wine , it was as possible the divinity should appear under the accidents of an humane body . thirdly , they could never have argued against the eutychians , as they did , from the absurdity that followed upon such a substantial mutation of the humane nature of christ into his divinity , if they had believed this substantial conversion of the elements into christ's body , which is liable unto far greater absurdities . and we can as little doubt , but the eutychians had turned back their arguments on themselves , with these answers , if that doctrine had been then received . it is true , it would seem from the last passage of theodoret , that the eutychians did believe some such change ; but that could not be , for they denied the being of the body of christ , and so could not think any thing was changed into that which they believed was not . therefore we are to suppose him arguing from some commonly received expressions , which the father explains . in fine , the design of those fathers being to prove , that the two natures might be united without the change of either of their substances in the person of christ , it had been inexcusable folly in them , to have argued from the sacramental mysteries being united to the body and blood of christ , if they had not believed they retained their former substance ; for had they believed transubstantiation , what a goodly argument had it been , to have said , because after the consecration the accidents of bread and wine remain , therefore the substance of the humanity remained still , tho united to the divine nature in christ ? did ever man in his wits argue in this fashion ? certainly , these four bishops , whereof three were patriarchs , and one of these a pope , deserved to have been hissed out of the world , as persons that understood not what it was to draw a consequence , if they had argued so as they did , and believed transubstantiation . but if you allow them to believe ( as certainly they did ) that in the sacrament the real substances of bread and wine remained , tho after the sanctification , by the operation of the holy ghost , they were the body and blood of christ , and were to be called so ; then this is a most excellent illustration of the mystery of the incarnation , in which the human nature retains its proper and true substance , tho after the union with the divinity , christ be called god , even as he was man , by virtue of his union with the eternal word . and this shews how unreasonable it is to pretend , that because substance and nature are sometimes used even for accidental qualities , they should be therefore understood so in the cited places ; for if you take them in that sense , you destroy the force of the argument , which from being a very strong one , will by this means become a most ridiculous sophisin . yet we are indeed beholden to those that have taken pains to shew , that substance and nature stand often for accidental qualities ; for tho that cannot be applied to the former places , yet it helps us with an excellent answer to many of those passages with which they triumph not a little . having so far considered these four fathers , we shall only add to them the definition of the seventh general council at constantinople , ann. 754. christ appointed us to offer the image of his body , to wit , the substance of the bread. the council is indeed of no authority with these we deal with : but we do not bring it as a decree of a council , but as a testimony , that so great a number of bishops did in the eighth century believe , that the substance of the bread did remain in the eucharist , and that it was only the image of christ's body : and if in this definition they spake not more consonantly to the doctrine of the former ages , than their enemies at nice did , let what has been set down , and shall be yet adduced , declare . and now we advance to the third branch of our first assertion , that the fathers believed that the consecrated elements did nourish our bodies ; and the proofs of this will also give a further evidence to our former position ; that the substance of the elements does remain : and it is a demonstration that these fathers , who thought the sacrament nourished our bodies , could not believe a transubstantiation of the bread and wine into the body and blood of christ. for the proof of this branch we desire the following testimonies be considered . first , iustin martyr , as was already cited , not only calls the eucharist our nourishment , but formally calls it that food by which our flesh and blood through its transmutation into them are nourished . secondly , irenaeus ( lib. 5. adv . heret . c. 2. ) proving the resurrection of the body by this argument , that our bodies are fed by the body and blood of christ , and that therefore they shall rise again ; he hath these words , he confirmed that cup , which is a creature , to be his blood , by which he encreases our blood ; and the bread , which is a creature , to be his body , by which he encreases our body : and when the mixed cup and the bread , receive the word of god , it becomes the eucharist of the body and blood of christ , by which the substance of our flesh is encreased and subsists . how then do they deny the flesh to be capable of the gift of god , which is eternal life , that is nourished by the body and blood of christ , and is made his member . we hope it will be observed , that as these words are express and formal ; so the design on which he uses them will admit of none of those distinctions they commonly rely on . tertullian says , ( lib. de resur . c. 8. ) the flesh is fed with the body and blood of christ. st. austin ( serm. 9. de divers . ) after he had called the eucharist our daily bread , he exhorts us so to receive it , that not only our bellies , but our minds might be refreshed by it . isidore of sevil says , the substance of the visible bread nourishes the outward man ; or , as bertram cites his words , all that we receive externally in the sacrament of the body and blood of christ , is proper to refresh the body . next , let us see what the 16th council of toledo says in anno 633. condemning those that did not offer in the eucharist entire loaves , but only round crusts ; they did appoint one entire loaf carefully prepared to be set on the altar , that it might be sanctified by the priestly benediction , and order , that what remained after communion , should be either put in some bag , or , if it was needful , to eat it up , that it might not oppress the belly of him that took it with the burden of an heavy surcharge ; and that it might not go to the digestion , but that it might feed his soul with spiritual nourishment . from which words , one of two consequences will necessarily follow ; either that the consecrated elements do really nourish the body , which we intend to prove from them ; or that the body of christ is not in the elements , but as they are sacramentally used , which we acknowledg many of the fathers believed . but the last words we cited of the spiritual nourishment , shew those fathers did not think so ; and if they did , we suppose those we deal with will see , that to believe christ's body is only in the elements when used , will clearly leave the charge of idolatry on that church in their processions , and other adorations of the host. but none is so express as origen , ( comment . in mat. c. 15. ) who on these words , 't is not that which enters within a man which defiles a man , says , if every thing that enters by the mouth , goes into the belly , and is cast into the draught ; then the food that is sanctified by the word of god , and by prayer , goes also to the belly , as to what is material in it , and from thence to the draught ; but by the prayer that was made over it , it is useful in proportion to our faith , and is the mean that the understanding is clear-sighted and attentive to that which is profitable ; and it is not the matter of bread , but the word pronounced over it , which profits him that does not eat in a way unworthy of our lord. this doctrine of the sacraments being so digested that some parts of it turned to excrement , was likewise taught by divers latin writers in the 9th age , as rabanus maurus arch-bishop of mentz , and heribald bishop of auxerre . divers of the greek writers did also hold it , whom for a reproach their adversaries called stercoranists . it is true , other greek fathers were not of origen's opinion , but believed that the eucharist did entirely turn into the substance of our bodies . so cyril of ierusalem says , ( mystic . catech. 5. ) that the bread of the eucharist does not go into the belly , nor is cast into the draught , but is distributed thorough the whole substance of the communicant , for the good of body and soul. the homily of the eucharist , in a dedication that is in st. chrysostom's works , ( tom. 5. ) says , do not think that this is bread , and that this is wine ; for they pass not to the draught , as other victuals do : and comparing it to wax put to the fire , of which no ashes remain ; he adds , so think that the m●teries are consumed with the substance of our bodies . iohn damascene is of the same mind , who says , ( lib. 4. de orthod . fide c. 14. ) that the body and the blood of christ passes into the consistence of our souls and bodies , without being consumed , corrupted , or passing into the draught , god forbid , but passing into our substance for our conservation . thus it will appear , that tho those last-cited fathers did not believe as origen did , that any part of the eucharist went to the draught ; yet they thought it was turned into the substance of our bodies , from which we may well conclude , they thought the substance of bread and wine remained in the eucharist after the consecration , and that it nourished our bodies . and thus we hope we have sufficiently proved our first proposition in all its three branches . so leaving it , we go on to the second proposition , which is ; that the fathers call the consecrated elements the figures , the signs , the symbols , the types , and antitypes , the commemoration , representation , the mysteries , and the sacraments of the body and blood of christ. tertullian proving against marcion , ( lib. 4 cont . marc. c. 40. ) that christ had a real body , he brings some figures that were fulfilled in christ , and says , he made the bread which he took and gave his disciples to be his body , saying , this is my body , that is , the figure of my body ; but it had not been a figure of his body had it not been true , for an empty thing , such as a phantasm , cannot have a figure . now had tertullian , and the church in his time , believed transubstantiation , it had been much more pertinent for him to have argued , here is corporally present christ's body , therefore he had a true body , than to say , here is a figure of his body , therefore he had a true body ; such an escape as this is not incident to a man of common sense , if he had believed transubstantiation . and the same father , in two other places before cited , says , christ gave the figure of his body to the bread , and that he represented his own body by the bread. st. austin says , ( com. in psal. 3 ) he commended and gave to his disciples , the figure of his body and blood. the same expressions are also in bede , alcuine , and druthmar , that lived in the eighth and ninth centuries . but what st. austin says elsewhere ( lib. 3. de doct. chr. c. 16. ) is very full in this matter , where , treating of the rules by which we are to judg what expressions in scripture are figurative , and what not , he gives this for one rule : if any place seem to command a crime or horrid action , it is figurative ; and to instance it , cites these words , except ye eat the flesh and drink the blood of the son of man , you have no life in you ; which ( says he ) seems to command some crime , or horrid action , therefore it is a figure , commanding us to communicate in the passion of our lord , and sweetly and profitably to lay up in our memory , that his flesh was crucified and wounded for us . which words are so express and full , that whatever those we deal with may think of them , we are sure we cannot devise how any one could have delivered our doctrine more formally . parallel to these are origen's words , ( homil. 7. in lev. ) who calls the understanding the words of our saviour , of eating his flesh and drinking his blood according to the letter , a letter that kills . the same st. austin calls the eucharist , a sign of christ's body , in his book against adimantus , ( lib. cont . adimant . manich . c. 12. ) who studied to prove that the author of the old and new testament was not the same god ; and among other arguments , he uses this , that blood in the old testament is called the life or soul , contrary to the new testament : to which st. austin answers , that it was so called , not that it was truly the soul or life , but the sign of it ; and to shew , that the sign does sometimes bear the name of that whereof it is a sign , he says , our lord did not doubt to say , this is my body , when he was giving the sign of his body . where , if he had not believed the eucharist was substantially different from his body , it had been the most impertinent illustration that ever was , and had proved just against him , that the sign must be one and the same with that which is signified by it . for the sacrament being called the type , the antitype , the symbol and mystery of christ's body and blood : the ancient liturgies , and greek fathers use these phrases so frequently , that since it is not so much as denied , we judg we need not laboriously prove it . therefore we pass over this , believing it will be granted ; for if it be denied , we undertake to prove them to have been used not only on some occasions , but to have been the constant style of the church . now that types , antitypes , symbols , and mysteries , are distinct from that which they shadow forth , and mystically hold out , we believe can be as little disputed . in this sense all the figures of the law are called types of christ by the fathers , and both the baptismal water and the chrism are called symbols and mysteries . and tho there was not that occasion for the fathers to discourse on baptism so oft , which every body received but once , and was administred ordinarily but on a few days of the year , as they had to speak of the eucharist , which was daily consecrated ; so that it cannot be imagined , there should be near such a number of places about the one as about the other ; yet we fear not to undertake to prove , there be many places among the ancients , that do as fully express a change of the baptismal water , as of the eucharistical elements . from whence it may appear , that their great zeal to prepare persons to a due value of these holy actions , and that they might not look on them as a vulgar ablution , or an ordinary repast , carried them to many large and high expressions , which cannot bear a literal meaning . and since they with whom we deal are fain to fly to metaphors and allegories for clearing of what the fathers say of baptism , it is a most unreasonable thing to complain of us for using such expositions of what they say about the eucharist . but that we may not leave this without some proof , we shall set down the words of facundus , ( desens . conc. chalced. lib. 9. ) who says , the sacrament of adoption , that is baptism , may be called adoption , as the sacrament of his body and blood , which is in the consecrated bread and cup , is called his body and blood ; not that the bread is properly his body , or the cup properly his blood , but because they contain in them the mystery of his body and blood ; and hence it was that our lord called the bread that was blessed , and the cup which he gave his disciples , his body and blood. therefore as the believers in christ , when they receive the sacrament of his body and blood , are rightly said to have received his body and blood ; so christ , when he received the sacrament of the adoption of sons , may be rightly said to have received the adoption of sons . and we leave every one to gather from these words , if the cited father could believe transubstantiation , and if he did not think that baptism was as truly the adoption of the sons of god , as the eucharist was his body and blood , which these of rome acknowledg is only to be meant in a moral sense . that the fathers called this sacrament the memorial and representation of the death of christ , and of his body that was broken , and his blood that was shed , we suppose will be as little denied , for no man that ever looked into any of their treatises of the eucharist , can doubt of it . st. austin says , ( epist. 23. ad bonifac. ) that sacraments must have some similitude of these things of which they be the sacraments , otherwise they could not be sacraments . so he says , the sacrament of the body of christ is after some manner his blood. so the sacrament of faith ( that is baptism ) is faith. but more expresly , speaking of the eucharist as a sacrifice of praise , he says , ( lib. 20. cont . faust. manich. c. 21. ) the flesh and blood of this sacrifice was promised before the coming of christ by the sacrifices of the types of it : in the passion of christ , it was done in the truth it self : and after his ascent , is celebrated by the sacrament of the remembrance of it . but he explains this more fully on the 98th psalm , where he having read , ver . 5. worship his footstool ; and seeking for its true meaning , expounds it of christ's body , who was flesh of this earth , and gives his flesh to be eaten by us for our salvation , which , since none eats , except he have first adored it ; he makes this the footstool which we worship without any sin , and do sin if we do not worship it . so far the church of rome triumphs with this place . but let us see what follows , where we shall find that which will certainly abate their joy ; he goes on and tells us , not to dwell on the flesh , lest we be not quickened by the spirit ; and shews how they that heard our lord's words were scandalized at them as hard words ; for they understood them , says he , foolishly , and carnally , and thought he was to have cut off some parcels of his body to be given them : but they were hard , not our lord 's saying ; for had they been meek , and not hard , they should have said within themselves , he says not this without a cause , but because there is some sacrament hid there ; for had they come to him with his disciples , and asked him , he had instructed them : for he said it is the spirit that quickens , the flesh profiteth nothing : the words that i have spoken to you are spirit and life . and adds , understand spiritually that which i have said ; for it is not this body which you see , that you are not to eat ; or to drink this blood which they are to shed , who shall crucify me : but i have recommended a sacrament to you , which being spiritually understood , shall quicken you ; and tho it be necessary that it be celebrated visibly , yet it must be understood invisibly . from which it is as plain as can be , that st. austin believed that in the eucharist we do not eat the natural flesh , and drink the natural blood of christ ; but that we do it only in a sacrament , and spiritually , and invisibly . but the force of all this will appear yet clearer , if we consider that they speak of the sacrament as a memorial that exhibited christ to us in his absence : for tho it naturally follows , that whatsoever is commemorated must needs be absent ; yet this will be yet more evident , if we find the fathers made such reflections on it . so gaudentius says , ( tract . in exod. ) this is the hereditary gift of his new testament , which that night he was betrayed to be crucified , he left as the pledg of his presence : this is the provision for our iourney with which we are fed in this way of our life , and nourished till we go to him out of this world ; for he would have his benefits remain with us : he would have our souls to be always sanctified by his precious blood , and by the image of his own passion . primasius ( comm. in 1 epist. ad cor. ) compares the sacrament to a pledg , which one , when he is dying , leaves to any whom he loved . many other places may be brought , to shew how the fathers speak of memorials and representations , as opposite to the truth and presence of that which is represented . and thus we doubt not but we have brought proofs , which , in the judgment of all that are unprejudiced , must demonstrate the truth of this our second proposition , which we leave , and go on to the third , which was ; that by the doctrine of the fathers , the unworthy receivers did not receive christ's body and blood in the sacrament . for this our first proof is taken from origen , ( com. in mat. c. 15. ) who after he had spoken of the sacraments being eaten , and passing to the belly , adds , these things we have said of the typical and symbolical body ; but many things may be said of the word that was made flesh , and the true food , whom whosoever eats , he shall live for ever ; whom no wicked person can eat : for if it were possible that any who continues wicked , should eat the word that was made flesh , since he is the word , and the living bread , it had never been written , whoso eats this bread , shall live for ever . where he makes a manifest difference between the typical and symbolical body received in the sacrament , and the incarnate word , of which no wicked person can partake . and he also says , ( hom. 3. in mat. ) they that are good , eat the living bread that came down from heaven ; and the wicked eat dead bread , which is death . zeno , bishop of verona , that , as is believed , lived near origen's time , ( tom. 2. spir. dach . ) says , ( as he is cited by ratherius bishop of verona ) there is cause to fear , that he in whom the devil dwells , does not eat the flesh of our lord , nor drink his blood , tho he seems to communicate with the faithful ; since our lord hath said , he that eats my flesh , and drinks my blood , dwells in me , and i in him . st. ierom on the 66th of isaiah , says , they that are not holy in body and spirit , do neither eat the flesh of iesus , nor drink his blood ; of which he said , he that eats my flesh , and drinks my blood , hath eternal life . and on the 8th chapter of hosea , he says , they eat not his flesh , whose flesh is the food of them that believe . to the same purpose he writes in his comments on the 22d of ieremy , and on the 10th of zechariah . st. austin says , ( tract . 26. in ioan. ) he that does not abide in christ , and in whom christ does not abide , certainly does not spiritually eat his flesh , nor drink his blood , tho he may visibly and carnally break in his teeth the sacrament of the body and blood of christ : but he rather eats and drinks the sacrament of so great a matter to his iudgment . and speaking of those , who by their uncleanness become the members of an harlot ; he says , ( lib. 21. de civ . dei c. 25. ) neither are they to be said to eat the body of christ , because they are not his members . and besides , he adds , he that says , whoso eats my flesh , and drinks my blood , abides in me , and i in him ; shews what it is , not only in a sacrament , but truly to eat the body of christ , and drink his blood. to this we shall add , that so oft cited passage ; ( tract . 54. in ioan. ) those did eat the bread that was the lord ; the other ( he means iudas ) the bread of the lord against the lord. by which he clearly insinuates , he did believe the unworthy receivers did not receive the lord with the bread : and that this hath been the constant belief of the greek church to this day , shall be proved , if it be thought necessary , for clearing this matter . and thus far we have studied to make good what we undertook to prove : but if we had enlarged on every particular , we must have said a great deal more ; to shew from many undeniable evidences , that the fathers were strangers to this new mystery . it is clear from their writings , that they thought christ was only spiritually present ; that we did eat his flesh , and drink his blood only by faith , and not by our bodily senses ; and that the words of eating his flesh , and drinking his blood , were to be understood spiritually . it is no less clear , that they considered christ present only as he was on the cross , and not as he is now in the glory of the father : and from hence it was , that they came to order their eucharistical forms so , as that the eucharist might represent the whole history of christ from his incarnation to his assumption . besides , they always speak of christ as absent from us , according to his flesh and human nature , and only present in his divinity and by his spirit ; which they could not have said , if they had thought him every day present on their altars in his flesh and human nature ; for then he were more on earth than he is in heaven , since in heaven he is circumscribed within one place . but according to this doctrine he must be always in above a million of places upon earth ; so that it were very strange to say he were absent , if they believed him thus present . but to give yet further evidences of the fathers not believing this doctrine , let us but reflect a little on the consequences that necessarily follow it : which be , 1. that a body may be , by the divine power , in more places at once . 2. that a body may be in a place without extension or quantity ; so a body of such dimensions , as our blessed lord's body , can be in so small a room as a thin wafer ; and not only so , but that the whole body should be entirely in every crumb and point of that wafer . 3. that a body can be made or produced in a place that had a real being before , and yet is not brought thither , but produced there . 4. that the accidents of any substance , such as colour , smell , taste , and figure , can remain without any body or substance in which they subsist . 5. that our senses may deceive us in their clearest and most evident representations . 6. great doubts there are what becomes of the body of christ after it is received ; or , if it should come to be corrupted , or to be snatched by a mouse , or eat by any vermine . all these are the natural and necessary effects of this doctrine , and are not only to be perceived by a contemplative and searching understanding , but are such as stare every body full in the face : and hence it is , that since this was submitted to in the western church , the whole doctrine of philosophy , has been altered , and new maxims and definitions were found out , to accustom the youth while raw and easy to any impression , to receive these as principles , by which their minds being full of those first prejudices , might find no difficulty to believe this . now it is certain , had the fathers believed this , they who took a great deal of pains to resolve all the other mysteries of our faith , and were so far from being short or defective in it , that they rather over-do it ; and that not only about the mysteries of the trinity and incarnation , but about original sin , the derivation of our souls , the operation of the grace of god in our hearts , and the resurrection of our bodies , should yet have been so constantly silent in those mysteries , tho they ought rather to have been cleared than the other . because in the other heads the difficulties were more speculative and abstracted , and so scruples were only incident to men of more curious and diligent enquiries . but here it is otherwise , where the matter being an object of the senses , every man's senses must have raised in him all or most of those scruples : and yet the fathers neither in their philosophical treatises , nor in their theological writings , ever attempt the unridling those difficulties . but all this is only a negative , and yet we do appeal to any one that has diligently read the fathers , st. austin in particular ; if he can perswade himself , that when all other mysteries , and the consequences from them , were explained with so great care and even curiosity , these only were things of so easy a digestion , that about them there should have been no scruple at all made . but it is yet clearer , when we find the fathers not only silent , but upon other occasions delivering maxims and principles so directly contrary to these consequences , without any reserved exceptions or provisions for the strange mysteries of transubstantiation : they tell us plainly , creatures are limited to one place , and so argued against the heathens believing their inferiour deities were in the several statues consecrated to them : from this they prove the divinity of the holy ghost , that he did work in many places at once , and so could not be a creature , which can only be in one place . nay , they do positively teach us , that christ can be no more on earth , since his body is in heaven , and is but in one place . they also do tell us , that that which hath no bounds nor figure , and cannot be touched nor seen , cannot be a body , and that all bodies are extended in some place , and that bodies cannot exist after the manner of spirits . they also tell us in all their reasonings against the eternity of matter , that nothing could be produced that had a being before it was produced . they also teach us very formally , that none of the qualities of a body could subsist , except the body it self did also subsist . and for the testimonies of our senses , they appeal to them on all occasions as infallible ; and tell us , that it tended to reverse the whole state of our life , the order of nature , and to blind the providence of god ; to say , he has given the knowledg and enjoyment of all his works to liars and deceivers , if our senses be false . then we must doubt of our faith , if the testimony of the eyes , hands and ears were of a nature capable to be deceived . and in their contests with the marcionites and others about the truth of christ's body , they appeal always to the testimony of the senses as infallible : nay , even treating of the sacrament , they say , it was bread as their eyes witnessed , and truly wine , that christ did consecrate for the memory of his blood ; telling , that in this very particular we ought not to doubt the testimony of our senses . but to make this whole matter yet plainer ; it is certain , that had the church in the first ages believed this doctrine , the heathens and jews who charged them with every thing they could possibly invent , had not passed over this , against which all the powers of reason , and the authorities of sense , do rise up . they charge them for believing a god that was born , a god of flesh , that was crucified and buried . they laughed at their belief of a iudgment to come , of endless flames , of an heavenly paradise , and the resurrection of the flesh. the first apologists for christianity , iustin , tertullian , origen , arnobius , and cyril of alexandria , give us a full account of those blasphemies against our most holy faith ; and the last hath given us what iulian objected in his own words , who having apostatized from the faith in which he was initiated , and was a reader in the church , must have been well acquainted with , and instructed in their doctrine and sacraments . he then who laughed at every thing , and in particular at the ablution and sanctification in baptism , as conceiving it a thing impossible that water should cleanse and wash a soul : yet neither he , nor celsus , nor any other ever charged on the christians any absurdities from their belief of transubstantiation . this is , it is true , a negative argument ; yet when we consider the malice of those ingenious enemies of our faith , and their care to expose all the doctrines and customs of christians , and yet find them in no place charge the strange consequences of this doctrine on them ; we must from thence conclude , there was no such doctrine then received : for if it had been , they , at least iulian , must have known it ; and if they knew it , can we think they should not have made great noise about it ? we know some think their charging the christians with the eating of human flesh , and thyestian suppers , related to the sacrament : but that cannot be , for when the fathers answer that charge , they tell them to their teeth it was a plain lie : and do not offer to explain it with any relation to the eucharist , which they must have done if they had known it was founded on their doctrine of receiving christ's body and blood in the sacrament . but the truth is , those horrid calumnies were charged on the christians from the execrable and abominable practices of the gnosticks , who called themselves christians ; and the enemies of the faith , either believing these were the practices of all christians , or being desirous to have others think so , did accuse the whole body of christians as guilty of these abominations . so that it appears , those calumnies were not at all taken up from the eucharist , and there being nothing else that is so much as said to have any relation to the eucharist , charged on the christians , we may well conclude from hence , that this doctrine was not received then in the church . but another negative argument is , that we find heresies rising up in all ages against all the other mysteries of our faith , and some downright denying them , others explaining them very strangely ; and it is indeed very natural to an unmortified and corrupt mind , to reject all divine revelation , more particularly that which either choaks his common notions , or the deductions of appearing reasonings ; but most of all , all men are apt to be startled , when they are told , they must believe against the clearest evidences of sense ; for men were never so meek and tame , as easily to yeild to such things . how comes it then that for the first seven ages there were no heresies nor hereticks about this ? we are ready to prove , that from the eighth and ninth centuries , in which this doctrine began to appear , there has been in every age great opposition made to all the advances for setting it up , and yet these were but dark and unlearned ages , in which implicit obedience , and a blind subjection to what was generally proposed , was much in credit . in those ages , the civil powers being ready to serve the rage of church-men against any who should oppose it , it was not safe for any to appear against it . and yet it cannot be denied , but from the days of the second council of nice , which made a great step towards transubstantiation , till the fourth council of lateran , there was great opposition made to it by the most eminent persons in the latin church ; and how great a part of christendom has departed from the obedience of the church of rome in every age since that time , and upon that account , is well enough known . now , is it to be imagined , that there should have been such an opposition to it these nine hundred years last past , and yet that it should have been received the former eight hundred years with no opposition , and that it should not have cost the church the trouble of one general council to decree it , or of one treatise of a father to establish it , and answer those objections that naturally arise from our reasons and senses against it ? but in the end there are many things which have risen out of this doctrine as its natural consequences , which had it been sooner taught and received , must have been apprehended sooner , and those are so many clear presumptions of the novelty of this doctrine ; the elevation , adoration , processions , the doctrine of concomitants , with a vast superfaetation of rites and rubricks about this sacrament are lately sprung up . the age of them is well known , and they have risen in the latin church out of this doctrine , which had it been sooner received , we may reasonably enough think must have been likewise ancienter . now for all these things , as the primitive church knew them not , so on the other hand , the great simplicity of their forms , as we find them in iustin martyr , and cyril of ierusalem , in the apostolical constitutions , and the pretended denis the areopagite , are far from that pomp which the latter ages that believed this doctrine brought in ; the sacraments being given in both kinds , being put in the hands of the faithful , being given to the children for many ages , being sent by boys or common persons to such as were dying , the eating up what remained , ( which in some places were burnt , in other places were consumed by children , or by the clergy ; ) their making cataplasms of it ; their mixing the consecrated chalice with ink to sign the excommunication of hereticks . these , with a great many more , are such convictions to one , that has carefully compared the ancient forms with the rubricks and rites of the church of rome , since this doctrine was set up , that it is as discernable as any thing can be , that the present belief of the church of rome is different from the primitive doctrine . and thus far we have set down the reasons that perswade us that transubstantiation was not the belief of the first seven or eight centuries of the church . if there be any part of what we have asserted , questioned , we have very formal and full proofs ready to shew for them ; though we thought it not fit to enter into the particular proofs of any thing , but what we undertook to make out when we waited on your ladyship . now there remains but one thing to be done , which we also promised ; and that was to clear the words of st. cyril of ierusalem . we acknowledg they were truly cited ; but for clearing of them , we shall neither alledg any thing to the lessening the authority of that father , though we find but a slender character given of him by epiphanius and others : nor shall we say any thing to lessen the authority of these catechisms , though much might be said . but it is plain , st. cyril's design in these catechisms , was only to possess his neophites with a just and deep sense of these holy symbols . but even in his 4th catechism he tells them , not to consider it as meer bread and wine , for it is the body and blood of christ. by which it appears he thought it was bread still , though not meer bread. and he gives us elsewhere a very formal account in what sense he thought it was christ's body and blood ; which he also insinuates in this 4th catechism : for in his first mist. catechism , when he exhorts his young christians to avoid all that belonged to the heathenish idolatry , he tells , that on the solemnities of their idols they had flesh and bread , which by the invocation of the devils were defiled , as the bread and wine of the eucharist before the holy invocation of the blessed trinity was bare bread and wine ; but the invocation being made , the bread becomes the body of christ. in like manner , says he , those victuals of the pomp of satan , which of their own nature are common or bare victuals , by the invocation of the devils become prophane . from this illustration , which he borrowed from iustin martyr his second apology , it appears , that he thought the consecration of the eucharist was of a like sort or manner with the profanation of the idolatrous feasts ; so that as the substance of the one remained still unchanged , so also according to him must the substance of the other remain . or , if this will not satisfy them , let us see to what else he compares this change of the elements by the consecration : in his third mist. catechism , treating of the consecrated oil , he says ; as the bread of the eucharist after the invocation of the holy ghost , is no more common bread , but the body of christ ; so this holy ointment is no more bare ointment , nor , as some may say , common ; but it is a gift of christ , and the presence of the holy ghost , and becomes energetical of his divinity . and from these places let it be gathered what can be drawn from st. cyril's testimony . and thus we have performed like wise what we promised , and have given a clear account of st. cyril's meaning from himself ; from whose own words , and from these things which he compares with the sanctification of the elements in the eucharist , it appears he could not think of transubstantiation ; otherwise he had neither compared it with the idol-feasts , nor the consecrated oil , in neither of which there can be supposed any transubstantiation . having thus acquitted our selves of our engagement before your ladyship ; we shall conclude this paper with our most earnest and hearty prayers to the father of lights , that he may of his great mercy redeem his whole christian church from all idolatry ; that he may open the eyes of those , who being carnal , look only at carnal things , and do not rightly consider the excellent beauty of this our most holy faith , which is pure , simple , and spiritual : and that he may confirm all those whom he has called to the knowledge of the truth ; so that neither the pleasures of sin , nor the snares of this world , nor the fear of the cross , tempt them to make shipwrack of the faith and a good conscience . and that god may pour out abundance of his grace on your ladyship , to make you still continue in the love and obedience of the truth , is the earnest prayer of , madam , your ladyship 's most humble servants . edward stillingfleet , gilbert burnet . london , apr. 15. 1676. a discourse , to shew how unreasonable it is , to ask for express words of scripture in proving all articles of faith : and that a just and good consequence from scripture is sufficient . it will seem a very needless labour to all considering persons , to go about the exposing and baffling so unreasonable and ill-grounded a pretence , that whatever is not read in scripture , is not to be held an article of faith. for in making good this assertion , they must either fasten their proofs on some other ground , or on the words of our article ; which are these , holy scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation : so that whatsoever is not read therein , nor may be proved thereby , is not to be required of any man that it should be believed as an article of faith , or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation . now it is such an affront to every mans eyes and understanding , to infer from these words , that all our articles must be read in scripture , that we are confident every man will cry shame on any that will pretend to fasten on our church any such obligation from them . if these unlucky words , nor may be proved thereby , could be but dash'd out , it were a won cause . but we desire to know what they think can be meant by these words ? or what else can they signify , but that there may be articles of faith , which though they be not read in scripture , yet are proved by it . there be some propositions so equivalent to others , that they are but the same thing said in several words ; and these , though not read in scripture , yet are contained in it , since wheresoever the one is read , the other must necessarily be understood . other propositions there are , which are a necessary result either from two places of scripture , which joined together yield a third , as a necessary issue ; according to that eternal rule of reason and natural logick , that where-ever two things agree in any third , they must also agree among themselves . there be also other propositions that arise out of one single place of scripture by a natural deduction ; as if jesus christ be proved from any place of scripture the creator of the world , or that he is to be worshipped with the same adoration that is due to the great god , then it necessarily follows , that he is the great god ; because he does the works , and receives the worship of the great god. so it is plain , that our church by these words , nor may be proved thereby , has so declared her self in this point , that it is either very great want of consideration , or shameless impudence , to draw any such thing from our articles . but we being informed , that by this little art , as shuffling and bare so ever as it must appear to a just discerner , many have been disordered , and some prevailed on ; we shall so open and expose it , that we hope it shall appear so poor and trifling that every body must be ashamed of it . it hath already shewed it self in france and germany , and the novelty of it took with many , till it came to be canvassed ; and then it was found so weak , that it was universally cried down and hiss'd off the stage . but now that such decried wares will go off no-where , those that deal in them , try if they can vent them in this nation . it might be imagined , that of all persons in the world they should be the furthest from pressing us to reject all articles of faith that are not read in scripture ; since whenever that is received as a maxim , the infallibility of their church , the authority of tradition , the supremacy of rome , the worship of saints , with a great many more must be cast out . it is unreasonable enough for those who have cursed and excommunicated us , because we reject these doctrines , which are not so much as pretended to be read in scripture , to impose on us the reading all our articles in these holy writings . but it is impudent to hear persons speak thus , who have against the express and formal words of scripture , set up the making and worshipping of images ; and these not only of saints , ( though that be bad enough ) but of the blessed trinity , the praying in an unknown tongue , and the taking the chalice from the people . certainly this plea in such mens mouths is not to be reconciled to the most common rules of decency and discretion . what shall we then conclude of men that would impose rules on us , that neither themselves submit to , nor are we obliged to receive by any doctrine or article of our church ? but to give this their plea its full strength and advantage , that upon a fair hearing all may justly conclude its unreasonableness , we shall first set down all can be said for it . in the principles of protestants the scriptures are the rule by which all controversies must be judged . now they having no certain way to direct them in the exposition of them , neither tradition , nor the definition of the church : either they must pretend they are infallible in their deductions , or we have no reason to make any account of them , as being fallible and uncertain , and so they can never secure us from error , nor be a just ground to found our faith of any proposition so proved upon : therefore no proposition thus proved , can be acknowledged an article of faith. this is the breadth and length of their plea , which we shall now examine . and first ; if there be any strength in this plea , it will conclude against our submitting to the express words of scripture as forcibly : since all words , how formal soever , are capable of several expositions . either they are to be understood literally , or figuratively ; either they are to be understood positively , or interrogatively : with a great many other varieties , of which all expressions are capable . so that if the former argument have any force , since every place is capable of several meanings ; except we be infallibly sure which is the true meaning , we ought by the same parity of reason to make no account of the most express and formal words of scripture ; from which it is apparent , that what noise soever these men make of express words of scripture ; yet if they be true to their own argument , they will as little submit to these , as to deductions from scripture : since they have the same reason to question the true meaning of a place , that they have to reject an inference and deduction from it . and this alone may serve to satisfy every body that this is a trick , under which there lies no fair dealing at all . but to answer the argument to all mens satisfaction , we must consider the nature of the soul , which is a reasonable being ; whose chief faculty is to discern the connexion of things , and to draw out such inferences as flow from that connexion . now , though we are liable to great abuses both in our judgments and inferences ; yet if we apply thefe faculties with due care , we must certainly acquiesce in the result of such reasonings ; otherwise this being god's image in us , and the standard by which we are to try things , god has given us a false standard ; which when we have with all possible care managed , yet we are still exposed to fallacies and errors . this must needs reflect on the veracity of that god , that has made us of such a nature , that we can never be reasonably assured of any thing . therefore it must be acknowledged , that when our reasons are well prepared according to those eternal rules of purity and vertue , by which we are fitted to consider of divine matters ; and when we carefully weigh things , we must have some certain means to be assured of what appears to us . and though we be not infallible , so that it is still possible for us by precipitation , or undue preparation , to be abused into mistakes ; yet we may be well assured that such connexions and inferences as appear to us certain , are infallibly true . if this be not acknowledged , then all our obligation to believe any thing in religion will vanish . for that there is a god ; that he made all things , and is to be acknowledged and obeyed by his creatures ; that our souls shall out-live their union with our bodies , and be capable of rewards and punishments in another state ; that inspiration is a thing possible ; that such or such actions were above the power of nature , and were really performed . in a word , all the maxims on which the belief , either of natural religion , or revealed , is founded , are such as we can have no certainty about them , and by consequence are not obliged to yield to them ; if our faculty of reasoning in its clear deductions is not a sufficient warrant for a sure belief . but to examin a little more home their beloved principle , that their church cannot err : must they not prove this from the divine goodness and veracity , from some passages of scripture , from miracles and other extraordinary things they pretend do accompany their church ? now in yielding assent to this doctrine upon these proofs , the mind must be led by many arguments , through a great many deductions and inferences . therefore we are either certain of these deductions , or we are not . if we are certain , this must either be founded on the authority of the church expounding them , or on the strength of the arguments . now we being to examine this authority , not having yet submitted to it ; this cannot determine our belief till we see good cause for it . but in the discerning this good cause of believing the church infallible , they must say that an uncontroulable evidence of reason is ground enough to fix our faith on , or there can be no certain ground to believe the church infallible . so that it is apparent we must either receive with a firm persuasion what our souls present to us as uncontroulably true ; or else we have no reason to believe there is a god , or to be christians , or to be , as they would have us , romanists . and if it be acknowledged there is cause in some cases for us to be determined by the clear evidence of reason in its judgments and inferences ; then we have this truth gained , that our reasons are capable of making true and certain inferences , and that we have good cause to be determined in our belief by these ; and therefore inferences from scripture ought to direct our belief . nor can any thing be pretended against this , but what must at the same time overthrow all knowledg and faith , and turn us sceptical to every thing . we desire it be in the next place considered , what is the end and use of speech and writing , which is to make known our thoughts to others ; those being artificial signs for conveying them to the understanding of others . now every man that speaks pertinently ; as he designs to be understood , so he chooses such expressions and arguments as are most proper to make himself understood by those he speaks to ; and the clearer he speaks , he speaks so much the better : and every one that wraps up his meaning in obscure words , he either does not distinctly apprehend that about which he discourses , or does not design that those to whom he speaks , should understand him , meaning only to amuse them . if likewise he say any thing from which some absurd inference will easily be apprehended , he gives all that hear him a sufficient ground of prejudice against what he says . for he must expect that as his hearers senses receive his words or characters , so necessarily some figure or notion must be at th● same time imprinted on their imagination , or presented to their reason ; this being the end for which he speaks ; and the more genuinely that his words express his meaning , the more certainly and clearly they to whom he directs them apprehend it . it must also be acknowledged , that all hearers must necessarily pass judgments on what they hear , if they do think it of that importance as to examin it . and this they must do by that natural faculty of making judgments and deductions , the certainty whereof we have proved to be the foundation of all faith and knowledg . now the chief rule of making true judgments , is , to see what consequences certainly follow on what is laid before us : if these be found absurd or impossible , we must reject that from which they follow as such . further ; because no man says every thing that can be thought or said to any point , but only such things as may be the seeds of further enquiry and knowledg in their minds to whom he speaks ; when any thing of great importance is spoken , all men do naturally consider what inferences arise out of what is said by a necessary connexion : and if these deductions be made with due care , they are of the same force , and must be as true as that was from which they are drawn . these being some of the laws of converse , which every man of common sense must know to be true ; can any man think , that when god was revealing by inspired men his counsels to mankind , in matters that concerned their eternal happiness , he would do it in any other way than any honest man speaks to another , that is , plainly and dinstinctly . there were particular reasons why prophetical visions must needs be obscure : but when christ appeared on earth , tho many things were not to be fully opened till he had triumphed over death and the powers of darkness ; yet his design being to bring men to god , what he spoke in order to that , we must think he intended that they to whom he spake it might understand it , otherwise why should he have spoken it to them ? and if he did intend they should understand him , then he must have used such expressions as were most proper for conveying this to their understandings ; and yet they were of the meaner sort , and of very ordinary capacities , to whom he addressed his discourses . if then such as they were , might have understood him ; how should it come about that now there should be such a wondrous mysteriousness in the words of christ and his apostles ? ( for the same reason by which it is proved that christ designed to be understood , and spake sutably to that design , will conclude as strongly that the discourses of the apostles in matters that concern our salvation , are also intelligible . ) we have a perfect understanding of the greek tongue ; and , tho some phrases are not so plain to us which alter every age , and some other passages that relate to some customs , opinions or forms , of which we have no perfect account left us , are hard to be understood : yet what is of general and universal concern , may be as well understood now as it was then ; for sense is sense still . so that it must be acknowledged , that men may still understand all that god will have us believe and do in order to salvation . and therefore if we apply and use our faculties aright , joyning with an unprejudiced desire and search for truth , earnest prayers , that god by his grace may so open our understandings , and present divine truths to them , that we may believe and follow them : then both from the nature of our own souls , and from the design and end of revelation , we may be well assured that it is not only very possible , but also very easy for us to find out truth . we know the pompous objection against this , is , how comes it then that there are so many errors and divisions among christians ? especially those that pretend the greatest acquaintance with scriptures ? to which the answer is so obvious and plain , that we wonder any body should be wrought on by so fallacious an argument . does not the gospel offer grace to all men to lead holy lives , following the commandments of god ? and is not grace able to build them up , and make them perfect in every good word and work ? and yet how does sin and vice abound in the world ? if then the abounding of error proves the gospel does not offer certain ways to preserve us from it , then the abounding of sin will also prove there are no certain ways in the gospel to avoid it . therefore as the sins mankind generally live in , leave no imputation on the gospel ; so neither do the many heresies and schisms conclude that the gospel offers no certain ways of attaining the knowledg of all necessary truth . holiness is every whit as necessary to see the face of god as knowledg is , and of the two is the more necessary ; since low degrees of knowledg , with an high measure of holiness , are infinitely preferable to high degrees of knowledg with a low measure of holiness . if then every man have a sufficient help given him to be holy , why may we not much rather conclude he has a sufficient help to be knowing in such things as are necessary to direct his belief and life , which is a less thing ? and how should it be an imputation on religion , that there should not be an infallible way to end all controversies , when there is no infallible way to subdue the corrupt lusts and passions of men , since the one is more opposite to the design and life of religion than the other ? in sum ; there is nothing more sure than that the scriptures offer us as certain ways of attaining the knowledg of what is necessary to salvation , as of doing the will of god. but as the depravation of our natures makes us neglect the helps towards an holy life ; so this and our other corruptions , lusts and interests , make us either not to discern divine truth , or not embrace it . so that error and sin are the twins of the same parents . but as every man that improves his natural powers , and implores and makes use of the supplies of the divine grace , shall be enabled to serve god acceptably ; so that tho he fail in many things , yet he continuing to the end in an habit and course of well-doing , his sins shall be forgiven , and himself shall be saved : so upon the same grounds we are assured , that every one that applies his rational faculties to the search of divine truth , and also begs the illumination of the divine spirit , shall attain such knowledg as is necessary for his eternal salvation : and if he be involved in any errors , they shall not be laid to his charge . and from these we hope it will appear , that every man may attain all necessary knowledg , if he be not wanting to himself . now when a man attains this knowledg , he acquires it , and must use it as a rational being , and so must make judgments upon it , and draw consequences from it ; in which he has the same reason to be assured , that he has to know the true meaning of scripture ; and therefore as he has very good reason to reject any meaning of a place of scripture , from which by a necessary consequence great absurdities and impossibilities must follow : so also he is to gather such inferences as flow from a necessary connexion with the true meaning of any place of scripture . to instance this in the argument we insisted on , to prove the mean by which christ is received in the sacrament , is faith ; from these words , whoso eats my flesh , and drinks my blood , hath eternal life . if these words have relation to the sacrament , which the roman church declares is the true meaning of them ; there cannot be a clearer demonstration in the world. and indeed they are necessitated to stand to that exposition ; for if they will have the words , this is my body , to be understood literally , much more must they assert the phrases of èating his flesh , and drinking his blood , must be literal : for if we can drive them to allow a figurative and spiritual meaning of these words , it is a shameless thing for them to deny such a meaning of the words , this is my body : they then expounding these words of st. iohn of the sacrament , there cannot be imagined a closer contexture than this which follows . the eating christ's flesh , and drinking his blood , is the receiving him in the sacrament ; therefore every one that receives him in the sacrament , must have eternal life . now all that is done in the sacrament , is either the external receiving the elements , symbols , or , as they phrase it , the accidents of bread and wine , and under these the body of christ ; or the internal and spiritual communicating by faith. if then christ received in the sacrament , gives eternal life , it must be in one of these ways ; either as he is received externally , or as he is received internally , or both ; for there is not a fourth : therefore if it be not the one at all , it must be the other only . now it is undeniable , that it is not the external eating that gives eternal life . for st. paul tells us , of some that eat and drink unworthily , that are guilty of the body and blood of the lord , and eat and drink iudgment against themselves . therefore it is only the internal receiving of christ by faith , that gives eternal life ; from which another necessary inference directs us also to conclude , that since all that eat his flesh , and drink his blood , have eternal life : and since it is only by the internal communicating that we have eternal life , therefore these words of eating his flesh , and drinking his blood , can only be understood of internal communicating ; therefore they must be spiritually understood . but all this while the reader may be justly weary of so much time and pains spent to prove a thing which carries its own evidence so with it , that it seems one of the first principles and foundations of all reasoning ; for no proposition can appear to us to be true , but we must also assent to every other deduction that is drawn out of it by a certain inference . if then we can certainly know the true meaning of any place of scripture , we may and ought to draw all such conclusions as follow it with a clear and just consequence : and if we clearly apprehend the consequence of any proposition , we can no more doubt the truth of the consequence , than of the proposition from which it sprung : for if i see the air full of a clear day-light , i must certainly conclude the sun is risen ; and i have the same assurance about the one that i have about the other . there is more than enough said already for discovering the vanity and groundlesness of this method of arguing . but to set the thing beyond all dispute , let us consider the use which we find our saviour and the apostles making of the old testament , and see how far it favours us , and condemns this appeal to the formal and express words of scriptures . but before we advance further , we must remove a prejudice against any thing may be drawn from such presidents , these being persons so filled with god and divine knowledg , as appeared by their miracles and other wonderful gifts , that gave so full an authority to all they said , and of their being infallible , both in their expositions and reasonings , that we whose understandings are darkened and disordered , ought not to pretend to argue as they did . but for clearing this , it is to be observed , that when any person divinely assisted , having sufficiently proved his inspiration , declares any thing in the name of god , we are bound to submit to it ; or if such a person , by the same authority , offers any exposition of scripture , he is to be believed without farther dispute . but when an inspired person argues with any that does not acknowledg his inspiration , but is enquiring into it , not being yet satisfied about it ; then he speaks no more as an inspired person : in which case the argument offered is to be examined by the force that is in it , and not by the authority of him that uses it . for his authority being the thing questioned , if he offers an argument from any thing already agreed to ; and if the argument be not good , it is so far from being the better by the authority of him that useth it ; that it rather gives just ground to lessen or suspect his authority , that understands a consequence so ill , as to use a bad argument to use it by . this being premised . when our saviour was to prove against the sadducees the truth of the resurrection from the scriptures , he cites out of the law , that god was the god of abraham , isaac , and jacob ; since then god is not the god of the dead , but of the living : therefore abraham , isaac and jacob did live unto god. from which he proved the souls having a being distinct from the body , and living after its separation from the body , which was the principal point in controversy . now if these new maxims be of any force , so that we must only submit to the express words of scripture , without proving any thing by consequence ; then certainly our saviour performed nothing in that argument : for the sadducees might have told him , they appealed to the express words of scripture . but alas ! they understood not these new-found arts , but submitting to the evident force of that consequence , were put to silence , and the multitudes were astonished at his doctrine . now it is unreasonable to imagine that the great authority of our saviour , and his many miracles made them silent ; for they coming to try him , and to take advantage from every thing he said , if it were possible to lessen his esteem and authority , would never have acquiesced in any argument because he used it , if it had not strength in it self ; for an ill argument is an ill argument , use it whoso will. for instance ; if i see a man pretending that he sits in an infallible chair , and proving what he delievers by the most impertinent allegations of scripture possible ; as if he attempt to prove the pope must be the head of all powers civil and spiritual from the first words of genesis ; where it being said , in the beginning , and not in the * beginnings , in the plural , ( from which he concludes there must be but one beginning and head of all power , to wit , the pope . ) i am so far from being put to silence with this , that i am only astonished how any man of common sense , tho he pretended not to infallibility , could fall into such errors : for an ill argument , when its fallacy is so apparent , must needs heap contempt on him that uses it . having found our saviour's way of arguing to be so contrary to this new method these gentlemen would impose on us ; let us see how the apostles drew their proofs for matters in controversy from scriptures : the two great points they had most occasion to argue upon , were , iesus christ being the true messiah , and the freedom of the gentiles from any obligation to the observance of the mosaical law. now let us see how they proceeded in both these . for the first : in the first sermon after the effusion of the holy ghost , s. peter proves the truth of christ's resurrection from these words of david , thou wilt not leave my soul in hell , nor suffer thine holy one to see corruption . now he shews that these words could not be meant of david , who was dead and buried ; therefore being a prophet , he spake of the resurrection of christ. if here were not consequences and deductions , let every one judg . now these being spoken to those who did not then believe in christ , there was either sufficient force in that argument to convince the jews , otherwise these that spake them were very much both to be blamed , and despised , for offering to prove a matter of such importance by a consequence . but this being a degree of blasphemy against the holy ghost , we must acknowledg there was strength in their argument ; and therefore articles of faith , whereof this was the fundamental , may be proved from scripture by a consequence . we might add to this all the other prophecies in the old testament , from which we find the apostles arguing to prove this foundation of their faith , which every one may see do not contain in so many words that which was proved by them . but these being so obvious , we choose only to name this , all the rest being of a like nature with it . the next controversy debated in that time , was the obligation of the mosaichal law. the apostles by the inspiration of the holy ghost made a formal decision in this matter : yet there being great opposition made to that , st. paul sets himself to prove it at full length in his epistle to the galatians , where , besides other arguments , he brings these two from the old testament ; one was , that abraham was justified by faith before the giving the law ; for which he cites these words , abraham believed god , and it was counted to him for righteousness : from which , by a very just consequence , he infers , that as abraham was blessed , so all that believe are blessed with him ; and that the law of moses , that was 430 years after , could not disannul it , or make the promise of none effect ; therefore we might now be justified by faith without the law , as well as he was . another place he cites , is , the iust shall live by faith , and he subsumes , the law was not of faith ; from which the conclusion naturally follows : therefore the just lives not by the law. he must be very blind that sees not a succession of many consequences in that epistle of st. paul's ; all which had been utterly impertinent , if this new method had any ground for its pretension , and they might at one dash have overthrown all that he had said . but men had not then arrived at such devices as must at once overturn all the sense and reason of mankind . we hope what we premised will be remembred , to shew that the apostles being infallibly directed by the holy ghost , will not at all prove , that tho this way of arguing might have passed with them , yet it must not be allowed us : for their being infallibly directed , proves their arguments and way of proceeding was rational and convincing , otherwise they had not pitched on it . and the persons to whom these arguments were offered , not acquiescing in their authority , their reasonings must have been good , otherwise they had exposed themselves and their cause to the just scorn of their enemies . having therefore evinced that both our saviour and his apostles did prove by consequences drawn from scripture , the greatest and most important articles of faith ; we judg that we may with very great assurance follow their example . but this whole matter will receive a further confirmation : if we find it was the method of the church of god in all ages to found her decisions of the most important controversies on consequences from scriptures . there were very few hereticks that had face and brow enough to set up against express words of scripture ; for such as did so , rejected these books that were so directly opposite to their errors ; as the manichees did the gospel of st. matthew . but if we examine the method either of councils in condemning hereticks , or of the fathers writing against them , we shall always find them proceeding upon deductions and consequences from scripture , as a sufficient ground to go upon . let the epistle both of the council of antioch to samosatenus , and denis of alexandria's letter to him , be considered ; and it shall be found how they drew their definitions out of deductions from scripture . so also alexander , patriarch of alexandria , in his epistle , in which he condemned aerius , proceeds upon deductions from scripture ; and when the council of nice came to judg of the whole matter , if we give credit to gelasius , they canvassed many places of scripture , that they might come to a decision ; and that whole dispute , as he represents it , was all about inferences and deductions from scripture . it is true , f. maimbourg in his romantick history of arrianism ( hist. de l. arrian . l. 1. ) would perswade us , that in that council the orthodox , and chiefly the great saints of the council , were for adhering closely to what they had received by tradition , without attempting to give new expositions of scripture , to interpret it any other way than as they had learned from these fathers , that had been taught them by the apostles . but the arrians , who could not find among these that which they intended to establish , maintained on the contrary , that we must not confine our selves to that which hath been held by antiquity , since none could be sure about that . therefore they thought that one must search the truth of the doctrine only in the scriptures , which they could turn to their own meaning by their false subtilties . and to make this formal account pass easily with his reader , he vouches on the margin , sozom. cap. 16. when i first read this , it amazed me to find a thing of so great consequence not so much as observed by the writers of controversies ; but turning to sozomen , i found in him these words , speaking of the dispute about arrius his opinions , the disputation being , as is usual , carried out into different enquiries ; some were of opinion that nothing should be innovated beyond the faith that was originally delivered ; and these were chiefly those whom the simplicity of their manners bad brought to divine faith without nice curiosity . others did strongly , or earnestly contend that it was not fit to follow the ancienter opinions , without a strict trial of them . now in these words we find not a word either of orthodox or arrian ; so of which side either one or other were , we are left to conjecture . that jesuit has been sufficiently exposed by the writers of the port-royal , for his foul dealing on other occasions ; and we shall have great cause to mistrust him in all his accounts , if it be found that he was quite mistaken in this ; and that the party which he calls the orthodox were really some holy , good men ; but simple , ignorant , and easily abused : and that the other party which he calls the arrian , was the orthodox , and more judicious , who readily foreseeing the inconvenience which the simplicity of others would have involved them in , did vehemently oppose it ; and pressed the testimonies of the fathers might not be blindly followed . for proof of this , we need but consider that they anathematized these , who say that the son was the work of the father , as athanasius ( de decret . synod . nicen. ) tells us , which were the very words of denis of alexandria , of whom the arrians ( athan. epist. de sententia dion . alex. ) boasted much , and cited these words from him ; and both athanasius ( de synod . arim. ) and hilary ( hil. lib. de synod . ) acknowledg that those bishops that condemned samosatenus , did also reiect the consubstantial , and st. basil ( epist. 41. ) says , denis sometimes denied , sometimes acknowledged the consubstantial . yet i shall not be so easy as petavius and others of the roman church are in this matter , who acknowledg that most of the fathers before the council of nice said many things that did not agree with the rule of the orthodox faith ; but am fully perswaded , that before that council , the church did believe that the son was truly god , and of the same divine substance with the father : yet on the other hand it cannot be denied , but there are many expressions , in their writings which they had not so well considered ; and thence it is that st. basil ( epist. 14. ) observes how denis in his opposition to sabellius had gone too far on the other hand . therefore there was a necessity to make such a symbol as might cut off all equivocal and ambiguous forms of speech . so we have very good reason to conclude it was the arrian party , that studied under the pretence of not innovating , to engage many of the holy , but simpler bishops , to be against any new words or symbols , that so they might still lurk undiscovered . upon what grounds the council of nice made their decree and symbol , we have no certain account , since their acts are lost . but the best conjecture we can make , is from st. athanasius , who , as he was a great assertor of the faith in that council , so also he gives us a large account of its creed , in a particular treatise ( lib. de decret . concil . nicen. ) in which he justifies their symbol at great length out of the scriptures , and tells us very formally they used the word consubstantial , that the wickedness and craft of the arrians might be discovered , and proves by many consequences from scripture , that the words were well chosen ; and sets up his rest on his arguments from the scriptures , tho all his proofs are but consequences drawn out of them . it is true , when he has done that , he also adds , that the fathers at nice did not begin the use of these words , but had them from those that went before them ; and cites some passages from theognistus , denis of alexandria , denis of rome , and origen . but no body can imagin this was a full proof of the tradition of the faith. these were but a few later writers , nor could he have submitted the decision of the whole controversy to two of these , denis of alexandria and origen , ( for the other two , their works are lost ) in whose writings there were divers passages that favoured the arrians , and in which they boasted much . therefore athanasius only cites these passages , to shew the words of these symbols were not first coined by the council of nice . but neither in that treatise , nor in any other of his works , do i ever find that either the council of nice , or he who was the great champion for their faith , did study to prove the consubstantiality to have been the constant tradition of the church : but in all his treatises he at full length proves it from scripture . so from the definition of the council of nice , and athanasius his writings , it appears the church of that age thought that consequences clearly proved from scripture were a sufficient ground to build an article of faith on . with this i desire it be also considered , that the next great controversy , that was carried on chiefly by s. cyril against the nestorians , was likewise all managed by consequences from scripture , as will appear to any that reads s. cyril's writings , inserted in the acts of the council of ephesus , chiefly his treatise to the queens ; and when he brought testimonies from the fathers against nestorius , which were read in the council , ( act. conc. eph. action 1. ) they are all taken out of fathers that lived after the council of nice , except only s. cyprian , and peter of alexandria . if then we may collect from s. cyril's writings the sense of that council , as we did from s. athanasius that of the council of nice ; we must conclude that their decrees were founded on consequences drawn from scripture ; nor were they so solicitous to prove a continued succession of the tradition . in like manner , when the council of chalcedon condemned eutyches , pope leo's epistle to flavian was read , and all assented to it : so that upon the matter , his epistle became the decree of the council , and that whole epistle from beginning to end , is one entire series of consequences proved from scripture and reason : ( act. conc. chalced. action 1. ) and to the end of that epistle are added in the acts of that council , testimonies from the fathers , that had lived after the days of the council of nice . theodoret ( theod. in dial. ) and gelasius also ( gelas. de diab . naturis . ) who wrote against the eutychians , do through their whole writings pursue them with consequences drawn from scripture and reason , and in the end set down testimonies from fathers : and to instance only one more , when s. austin wrote against the pelagians , how many consequences he draws from scripture , every one that has read him , must needs know . in the end let it be also observed , that all these fathers when they argue from places of scripture , they never attempt to prove that those scriptures had been expounded in that sense they urge them in by the councils or fathers who had gone before them ; but argue from the sense which they prove they ought to be understood in . i do not say all their consequences or expositions were well-grounded ; but all that has been hitherto set down , will prove that they thought arguments drawn from scripture , when the consequences are clear , were of sufficient authority and force to end all controversies . and thus it may appear that it is unreasonable , and contrary to the practice both of the ancient councils and fathers , to reject proofs drawn from places of scripture , though they contain not in so many words that which is intended to be proved by them . but all the answer they can offer to this , is , that those fathers and councils had another authority to draw consequences from scripture , because the extraordinary presence of god was among them , and because of the tradition of the faith they builded their decrees on , than we can pretend to , who do not so much as say we are so immediately directed , or thar we found our faith upon the successive tradition of the several ages of the church . to this i answer ; first , it is visible , that if there be any strength in this , it will conclude as well against our using express words of scripture , since the most express words are capable of several expositions . therefore it is plain , they use no fair dealing in this appeal to the formal words of scripture , since the arguments they press it by , do invalidate the most express testimonies as well as deductions . let it be further considered , that before the councils had made their decrees , when heresies were broached , the fathers wrote against them , confuting them by arguments made up of scripture-consequences ; so that before the church had decreed , they thought private persons might confute heresies by such consequences . nor did these fathers place the strength of their arguments on tradition , as will appear to any that reads but what st. cyril wrote against nestorius , before the council of ephesus ; and pope leo against eutyches , before the council of chalcedon ; where all their reasonings are founded on scripture . it is true , they add some testimonies of fathers to prove they did not innovate any thing in the doctrine of the church : but it is plain , these they brought only as a confirmation of their arguments , and not as the chief strength of their cause ; for as they do not drive up the tradition to the apostles days , setting only down some later testimonies ; so they make no inferences from them , but barely set them down . by which it is evident , all the use they made of these , was only to shew that the faith of the age that preceded them , was conform to the proofs they brought from scripture ; but did not at all found the strength of their arguments from scripture , upon the sense of the fathers that went before them . and if the council of nice had passed the decree of adding the consubstantials to the creed , upon evidence brought from tradition chiefly , can it be imagined that st. athanasius , who knew well on what grounds they went , having born so great a share in their consultations and debates , when he in a formal treatise justifies that addition , should draw his chief arguments from scripture and natural reason ; and that only towards the end , he should tell us of four writers , from whom he brings passages to prove this was no new or unheard-of thing . in the end , when the council had passed their decree , does the method of their dispute alter ? let any read athanasius , hilary , or st. austin writing against the arrians : they continue still to ply them with arguments made up of consequences from scripture ; and their chief argument was clearly a consequence from scripture , that since christ was , by the confession of the arrians , truly god , then he must be of the same substance , otherwise there must be more substances , and so more gods , which was against scripture . now , if this be not a consequence from scripture , let every body judg . it was on this they chiefly insisted , and waved the authority of the council of nice , which they mention very seldom , or when they do speak of it , it is to prove that its decrees were according to scripture . for proof of this , let us hear what st. austin says ( lib. 3. cont. max. 19. ) writing against maximinus an arrian bishop , proving the consubstantiality of the son : this is that consubstantial which was established by the catholick fathers in the council of nice , against the arrians ; by the authority of truth , and the truth of authority , which heretical impiety studied to overthrow , under the heretical emperor constantius , because of the newness of the words , which were not so well understood , as should have been : since the ancient faith had brought them forth ; but many were abused by the fraud of a few . and a little after he adds , but now neither should i bring the cou●il of nice , nor yet the council of arrimini , thereby to prejudg in this matter ; neither am i bound by the authority of the latter , nor you by the authority of the former . let one cause and reason contest and strive with the other from the authorities of the scriptures , which are witnesses common to both , and not proper to either of us . if this be not our plea , as formally as can be , let every reader judg ; from all which we conclude , that our method of proving articles of faith by consequences drawn from scripture , is the same that the catholick church in all the best ages made use of : and therefore it is unreasonable to deny it to us . but all that hath been said will appear yet with fuller and more demonstrative evidence , if we find , that this very pretence of appealing to formal words of scriptures , was on several occasions taken up by divers hereticks , but was always rejected by the fathers as absurd and unreasonable . the first time we find this plea in any bodies mouth , is upon the question , whether it was lawful for christians to go to the theaters , or other publick spectacles ? which the fathers set themselves mightily against , as that which would corrupt the minds of the people , and lead them to heathenish idolatry . but others that loved those diverting sights , pleaded for them upon this ground , as tertullian ( lib. de spect. c. 3. ) tells us in these words ; the faith of some being either simpler or more scrupulous , calls for an authority from scripture , for the discharge of these sights ; and they became uncertain about it , because such abstinence is no-where denounced to the servants of god , neither by a clear signification , nor by name ; as , thou shalt not kill , nor worship an idol : but he proves it from the first verse of the psalms ; for though that seems to belong to the iews , yet ( says he ) the scripture is always to be divided broad , where that discipline is to be guarded according to the sense of whatever is present to us . and this agrees with that maxim he has elsewhere , ( lib. adv . gnost . c. 7. ) that the words of scripture are to be understood , not only by their sound , but by their sense ; and are not only to be heard with our ears , but with our minds . in the next place , the arrians designed to shroud themseles under general expressions ; and had found glosses for all passages of scripture . so that when the council of nice made all these ineffectual , by putting the word consubstantial into the creed ; then did they in all their councils , and in all disputes , set up this plea , that they would submit to every thing that was in scripture , but not to any additions to scripture . a large account of this we have from athanasius , who ( de synod . arim. & seleuc. ) gives us many of their creeds . in that proposed at arimini , these words were added to the symbol , for the word substance , because it was simply set down by the fathers , and is not understood by the people , but breeds scandal , since the scriptures have it not , therefore we have thought fit it be left out , and that there be no more mention made of substance concerning god , since the scriptures no-where speak of the substance of the father and the son. he also tells us , that at sirmium they added words to the same purpose to their symbol , rejecting the words of substance or consubstantial , because nothing is written of them in the scriptures , and they transcend the knowledg and understanding of men. thus we see how exactly the plea of the arrians agrees with what is now offered to be imposed on us . but let us next see what the father says to this : he first turns it back on the arrians , and shews how far they were from following that rule which they imposed on others . and if we have not as good reason to answer those so , who now take up the same plea , let every one judg . but then the father answers , it was no matter though one used forms of speech that were not in scripture , if he had still a sound or pious understanding ; as on the contrary an her●tical person , though be uses forms out of scripture , he will not be the less suspected , if his understanding be corrupted ; and at full length applies that to the question of the consubstantiality . to the same purpose , st. hillary ( de synod . adv . arrian . ) setting down the arguments of the arrians against the consubstantiality , the third objection is , that it was added by the council of nice , but ought not to be received , because it is no-where written . but he answers ; it was a foolish thing to be afraid of a word , when the thing expressed by the word has no difficulty . we find likewise in the conference st. austin had with maximinus the arrian bishop , ( lib. 1. cont . max. arr. epist. ) in the very beginning the arrian tells him , that he must hearken to what he brought out of the scriptures , which were common to them all ; but for words that were not in scripture , they were in no case received by them . and afterwards he says , ( lib. 3. c. 3. ) we receive with a full veneration every thing that is brought out of the holy scriptures , for the scriptures are not in our dominion that they may be mended by us . and a little after adds , truth is not gathered out of arguments , but is proved by sure testimonies , therefore he seeks a testimony of the holy ghost's being god. but to that st. austin makes answer , that from the things that we read , we must understand the things that we read not . and giving an account of another conference ( epist. 72. ) he had with count pascentius that was an arrian , he tells , that the arrian did most earnestly press that the word consubstantial might be shewed in scripture , repeating this frequently , and canvassing about it invidiously . to whom st. austin answers , nothing could be more contentious than to strive about a word , when the thing was certain ; and asks him where the word unbegotten ( which the arrians used ) was in scripture ? and since it was no-where in scripture , he from thence concludes , there might be a very good account given why a word that was not in scripture , might be well used . and by how many consequences he proves the consubstantiality we cannot number , except that whole epistle were set down . and again , in that which is called an epistle , ( epist. 78. ) but is an account of another conference between that same person and st. austin , the arrian desired the consubstantiality might be accursed , because it was no-where to be found written in the scriptures ; and adds , that it was a grievous trampling on the authority of the scripture , to set down that which the scripture had not said ; for if any thing be set down without authority from the divine volumes , it is proved to be void ; against which st. austin argues at great length , to prove that it necessarily follows from other places of scripture . in the conference between photinus , sabellius , arrius , and athanasius , first published by cassander , ( oper. cass. ) as a work of vigilius , but believed to be the work of gelasius an african ; where we have a very full account of the pleas of these several parties . arrius challenges the council of nice for having corrupted the faith with the addition of new words , and complains of the consubstantial , and says , the apostles , their disciples , and all their successors downward , that had lived in the confession of christ to that time , were ignorant of that word : and on this he insists with great vehemency , urging it over and over again , pressing athanasius either to read it properly set down in scripture , or to cast it out of his confession ; against which athanasius replies , and shews him how many things they acknowledged against the other hereticks , which were not written ; shew me these things , ( says he ) not from conjectures or probabilities , or things that do neighbour on reason , not from things that provoke us to understand them so , nor from the piety of faith , persuading such a profession ; but shew it written in the pure and naked property of words , that the father is unbegotten , or impassible . and then he tells arrius , that when he went about to prove this , he should not say , the reason of faith required this , piety teaches it , the consequence from scripture forces me to this profession . i will not allow you , says he , to obtrude these things on me ; because you reject me when i bring you such like things , for the profession of the consubstantial . in the end he says , either permit me to prove the consubstantial by consequences , or if you will not , you must deny all those things which you your self grant . and after athanasius had urged this further , probus , that fate judg in the debate , said , neither one nor other could shew all that they believed properly and specially in scripture : therefore he desired they would trifle no longer in such a childish contest , but prove either the one or rhe other by a just consequence from scripture . in the macedonian controversy against the divinity of the holy ghost , we find this was also their plea ; a hint of it was already mentioned in the conference betwixt maximinus the arrian bishop , and st. austin , which we have more fully in st. greg. nazianz. ( orat. 37. ) who proving the divinity of the holy ghost , meets with that objection of the macedonians , that it was in no place of scripture , to which he answers , some things seemed to be said in scripture that truly are not , as when god is said to sleep ; some things truly are , but are no-where said , as the fathers being unbegotten , which they themselves believed , and concludes , that these things are drawn from those things out of which they are gathered , though they be not mentioned in scripture . therefore he upbraids those for serving the letter , and joyning themselves to the wisdom of the jews , and that leaving things , they followed syllables : and shews how valid a good consequence is ; as if a man , says he , speaks of a living creature that is reasonable , but mortal ; i conclude it must be a man : do i for that seem to rave ? not at all ; for these words are not more truly his that says them , than his that did make the saying of them necessary : so he infers , that he might , without fear , believe such things as he either found or gathered from the scriptures , though they either were not at all , or not clearly in the scriptures . we find also in a dialogue between an orthodox and a macedonian , that is in athanasius's works , but believed to be written by maximus , after he had proved by a great many arguments that the attributes of the divine nature , such as the omniscience and omnipresence were ascribed to the holy ghost . in end the macedonian flies to this known refuge , that it was no-where written , that he was god , and so challenges him for saying , that which was not in scripture . but the orthodox answers , that in the scriptures the divine nature was ascribed to the holy ghost , and since the name follows the nature , he concludes , if the holy ghost did subsist in himself , did sanctifie , and was increated , he must be god whether the other would or not . then he asks , where it was written , that the son was like the father in his essence ? the heretick answers , that the fathers had declared the son consubstantial as to his essence but the orthodox replies , ( which we desire may be well considered ) were they moved to that from the sense of the scripture , or was it of their own authority or arrogance , that they said any thing that was not written . the other confesses it was from the sense of the scripture , that they were moved to it ; from this the orthodox infers , that the sense of the scripture teaches us , that an uncreated spirit that is of god , and quickens and sanctifies , is a divine spirit , and from thence he concludes , he is god. thus we see clearly , how exactly the macedonians and these gentlemen agree , and what arguments the fathers furnish us with against them . the nestorian history followed this tract , and we find nestorius both in his letters ( act. syn. eph. ) to cyril of alexandria , to pope celestin , and in these writings of his that were read in the council of ephesus , ( action 1. ) gives that always for his reason of denying the blessed virgin to have been the mother of god , because the scriptures did no-where mention it , but call her always the mother of christ , and yet that general council condemned him for all that ; and his friend iohn , patriarch of antioch , earnestly pressed him by his letters not to reject but to use that word , since the sense of it was good , and it agreed with the scriptures ; and it was generally used by many of the fathers , and had never been rejected by any one . this was also eutyches his last refuge , ( act. 6. syn. constantin . in act. 2. chalcedon . ) when he was called to appear before the council at constantinople , he pretended sickness , and that he would never stir out of his monastery ; but being often cited , he said to those that were sent to him , in what scripture were the two natures of christ to be found ? to which they replied , in what scripture was the consubstantial to be found : thus turning his plea back on himself , as the orthodox had done before on the arrians . eutyches also when he made his appearance , he ended his defence with this , that he had not found that ( to wit , of the two natures ) plainly in the scripture , and that all the fathers had not said it . but for all that , he was condemned by that council which was afterwards ratified by the universal council of chalcedon . yet after this repeated condemnation the eutychians laid not down this plea , but continued still to appeal to the express words of scripture ; which made theodoret write two discourses to shew the unreasonableness of that pretence , they are published in athanasius his works ( tom. 2. op . athan. ) among these sermons against hereticks : but most of these are theodoret's , as appears clearly from photius ( bibl. cod. 46. ) his account of theodoret's works ; the very titles of them lead us to gather his opinion of this plea : the 12th discourse , which by photius's account , is the 16th , has this title , to those that say we ought to receive the expression , and not look to the things signified by them , as transcending all men . the 19th , or according to photius , the 23d , is , to those who say we ought to believe simply as they say , and not consider what is convenient or inconvenient . if i should set down all that is pertinent to this purpose , i must set down the whole discourses ; but i shall gather out of them such things as are most proper . he first complains of those who studied to subvert all humane things , and would not suffer men to be any longer reasonable , that would receive the words of the sacred writings without consideration , or good direction , not minding the pious scope for which they are written : for if ( as they would have us ) we do not consider what they mark out to us , but simply receive their words , then all that the prophets and apostles have written , will prove of no use to those that hear them , for then they will hear with their ears , but not understand with their hearts ; nor consider the consequence of the things that are said , according to the curse in isaias . — and after he had applied this to those who misunderstood that place , the word was made flesh , he adds , shall i hear a saying , and shall i not enquire into its proper meaning , where then is the proper consequence of what is said , or the profit of the hearer ? would they have men changed into the nature of bruits ? if they must only receive the sound of words with their ears , but no fruit in their soul from the understanding of them . contrariwise did st. paul tell us , they who are perfect have their senses exercised to discern good and evil ; but how can any discern aright , if he do not apprehend the meaning of what is said ? and such he compares to beasts , and makes them worse than the clean beasts , who chew the cud ; and , as a man is to consider what meats are set before him , so he must not snatch words stripp'd of their meaning , but must carefully consider what is suitable to god , and profitable to us , what is the force of truth , what agrees with the law , or answers to nature ; he must consider the genuineness of faith , the firmness of hope , the sincerity of love , what is liable to no reproach , what is beyond envy , and worthy of favour ; all which things concur in pious meditations . and concludes thus , the sum of all is , he that receives any words , and does not consider the meaning of them , how can he understand those that seem to contradict others ? where shall he find a fit answer ? how shall he satisfie those that interrogate him , or defend that which is written ? these passages are out of the first discourse , what follows is out of the second . in the beginning he says , though the devil has invented many grievous doctrines , yet he doubts if any former age brought forth any thing like that then broached . former heresies had their own proper errors ; but this that was now invented renewed all others , and exceeded all others . which , says he , receives simply what is said , but does not enquire what is convenient , or inconvenient : but shall i believe without judgment , and not enquire what is possible , convenient , decent , acceptable to god , answerable to nature , agreeable to truth , or is a consequence from the scope , or suitable to the mystery , or to piety ; or what outward reward , or inward fruit accompanies it ; or must i reckon on none of these things . but the cause of all our adversaries errors , is , that with their ears they hear words , but have no understanding of them in their hearts ; for all of them ( and names divers ) shun a trial , that they be not convinced , and at length shews what absurdities must follow on such a method . instancing those places about which the contest was with the arrians , such as these words of christ , the father is greater than i. and shews what apparent contradictions there are , if we do not consider the true sense of places of scripture that seem contradictory , which must be reconciled by finding their true meaning ; and concludes , so we shall either perswade , or overcome our adversary ; so we shall shew that the holy scripture is consonant to its self ; so we shall justly publish the glory of the mystery , and shall treasure up such a full assurance as we ought to have in our souls ; we shall neither believe without the word , nor speak without faith. now i challenge every reader , to consider if any thing can be devised , that more formally , and more nervously overthrows all the pretences brought for his appeal to the express words of scripture . and here i stop ; for though i could carry it further , and shew that other hereticks shrowded themselves under the same pretext , yet i think all impartial readers will be satisfied , when they find this was an artifice of the first four grand heresies , condemned by the first four general councils , and from all has been said , it is apparent how oft this very pretence has been baffled by universal councils and fathers . yet i cannot leave this with the reader , without desiring him to take notice of a few particulars that deserve to be considered . the first is , that which these gentlemen would impose on us has been the plea of the greatest hereticks have been in the church . those therefore who take up these weapons of hereticks , which have been so oft blunted and broken in their hands , by the most universal councils , and the most learned fathers of the catholick church ; till at length they were laid aside by all men , as unfit for any service , till in this age some jesuits took them up in defence of an often baffled cause , do very unreasonably pretend to the spirit or doctrine of catholicks , since they tread a path so oft beaten by all hereticks , and abhorred by all the orthodox . secondly , we find the fathers always begin their answering this pretence of hereticks , by shewing them how many things they themselves believed , that were no-where written in scripture . and this i believe was all the ground m. w. had for telling us in our conference that st austin bade the heretick read what he said . i am confident that gentleman is a man of candour and honour , and so am assured he would not have been guilty of such a fallacy , as to have cited this for such a purpose , if he had not taken it on trust from second hands . but he who first made use of it , if he have no other authority of st. austin's , which i much doubt , cannot be an honest man ; who , because st. austin , to shew the arrians how unjust it was to ask words for every thing they believed , urges them with this , that they could not read all that they believed themselves , would from that conclude , st. austin thought every article of faith must be read in so many words in scripture . this is such a piece of ingenuity as the jesuits used in the contest about st. austin's doctrine , concerning the efficacy of grace : when they cited as formal passages out of st. austin , some of the objections of the semipelagians , which he sets down , and afterwards answers , which they brought without his answers , as his words , to shew he was of their side . but to return to our purpose ; from this method of the fathers we are taught to turn this appeal to express words , back on those who make use of it against us ; and to ask them where do they read their purgatory , sacrifice of the mass , transubstantiation , the pope's supremacy , with a great many more things in the express words of scripture . thirdly , we see the peremptory answer the fathers agree in , is , that we must understand the scriptures , and draw just consequences from them , and not stand on words or phrases ; but consider things : and from these we are furnished with an excellent answer to every thing of this nature they can bring against us . it is in those great saints , athanasius , hilary , gregory nazianzen , austin , and theodoret , that they will find our answer as fully and formally as need be ; and to them we refer our selves . but , fourthly , to improve this beyond the particular occasion that engaged us to all this enquiry , we desire it be considered that when such an objection was made , which those of the church of rome judge is strong to prove , we must rely on somewhat else than scripture , either on the authority of the church , or on the certainty of tradition . the first councils and fathers had no such apprehension . all considering men , chiefly when they are arguing a nice point , speak upon some hypothesis or opinion with which they are prepossessed , and must certainly discourse consequently to it . to instance it in this particular ; if an objection be made against the drawing consequences from scripture , since all men may be mistaken ; and therefore they ought not to trust their own reasonings . a papist must necessarily upon his hypothesis say , it is true , any man may err , but the whole church , either when assembled in a council with the holy ghost in the midst of them , or when they convey down from the apostles , through age to age , the tradition of the exposition of the scriptures cannot err , for god will be with them to the end of the world. a protestant must on the other hand , according to his principles , argue , that since man has a reasonable soul in him , he must be supposed endued with a faculty of making inferences : and when any consequence is apparent to our understandings , we ought and must believe it as much as we do that from which the consequenee is drawn . therefore we must not only read , but study to understand the true meaning of scripture : and we have so much the more reason to be assured of what appears to us to be the true sense of the scriptures , if we find the church of god in the purest times , and the fathers believing as we believe . if we should hear two persons that were unknown to us , argue either of these two ways , we must conclude , the one is a papist , the other a protestant , as to this particular . now i desire the reader may compare what has been cited from the fathers upon this subject : and see if what they write upon it does not exactly agree with our hypothesis and principles . whence we may very justly draw another conclusion that will go much further than this particular we now examine ; that in seeking out the decision of all controversies , the fathers went by the same rules we go by , to wit , the clear sense of scriptures , as it must appear to every considering mans understanding , backed with the opinion of the fathers that went before them . and thus far have i followed this objection ; and have , as i hope , to every reader 's satisfaction made it out , that there can be nothing more unreasonable , more contrary to the articles and doctrine of our church , to the nature of the soul of man , to the use and end of words and discourse , to the practice of christ and his apostles , to the constant sense of the primitive church , and that upon full and often renewed contest with hereticks upon this very head : then to impose on us an obligation to read all the articles of our church in the express words of scripture . so that i am confident this will appear to every considering person , the most trifling and pitiful objection that can be offered by men of common sense and reason . and therefore it is hoped , that all persons who take any care of their souls , will examine things more narrowly than to suffer such tricks to pass upon them , or to be shaken by such objections . and if all the scruple these gentlemen have , why they do not joyn in communion with the church of england , lies in this ; we expect they shall find it so entirely satisfied , and removed out of the way , that they shall think of returning back to that church where they had their baptism and christian education , and which is still ready to receive them with open arms , and to restore such as have been over-reached into error and heresie , with the spirit of meekness . to which i pray god of his great mercy dispose both them and all others , who upon these or such like scruples have deserted the purest church upon earth ; and have turned over to a most impure and corrupt society . and let all men say , amen . a discourse to shew that it was not only possible to change the belief of the church concerning the manner of christ's presence in the sacrament ; but that it is very reasonable to conclude , both that it might be done , and that it was truly changed . there is only one particular of any importance , that was mentioned in the conference , to which we forgot to make any answer at all , which was spoken by n. n. to this purpose ; how was it possible , or to be imagined that the church of god could ever have received such a doctrine as the belief of transubstantiation , if every age had not received it , and been instructed in it by their fathers , and the age that went before it ? this by a pure forgetfulness was not answered ; and one of these gentlemen took notice of it to me , meeting with me since that time , and desired me to consider what a friend of n. n. has lately printed on this subject , in a letter concerning transubstantiation , directed to a person of honour : in which , a great many pretended impossibilities of any such innovation of the doctrine are reckoned up ; to shew it a thing both inconceivable and unpracticable , to get the faith of the church changed in a thing of this nature . this same plea has been managed with all the advantages possible , both of wit , eloquence , and learning , by mr. arnaud of the sorbon ; but had been so exposed and baffled by mr. claud , who , as he equals the other in learning , eloquence , and wit , so having much the better of him in the cause and truth he vindicates , has so foiled the other in this plea , that he seeing no other way to preserve that high reputation which his other writings , and the whole course of his life had so justly acquired him ; has gone off from the main argument on which they begun , and betaken himself to a long and unprofitable enquiry into the belief of the greek church , since her schism from the latine church . the contest has been oft renewed , and all the ingenious and learned persons of both sides , have looked on with great expectations . every one must confess , mr. arnaud has said all can be said in such a cause ; yet it seems he finds himself often pinched , by the bitter ( i had almost said scurrilous ) reproaches he casts on mr. claud , which is very unbecoming the education and other noble qualities of that great man , whom for his book of frequent communion , i shall ever honour . and it is a thing much to be lamented , that he was taken off from these more useful labours , wherein he was engaged so much to the bettering this age , both in discovering the horrid corruption of the jesuits and other casuists , not only in their speculations about casuistical divinity , but in their hearing confessions , and giving easie absolutions , upon trifling penances , and granting absolutions before the penance was performed , and in representing to us the true spirit of holiness and devotion was in the primitive church . but on the other hand , as mr. claud leaves nothing unsaid in a method fully answerable to the excellence of that truth he defends ; so he answers these reproaches in a way worthy of himself , or rather of christ and the gospel . if those excellent writings were in english , i should need to say nothing to a point that has been so canvassed ; but till some oblige this nation by translating them , i shall say so much on this head , as i hope shall be sufficient to convince every body of the emptiness , weakness and folly of this plea. and first of all , in a matter of fact concerning a change made in the belief of the church , the only certain method of enquiry , is , to consider the doctrine of the church in former ages ; and to compare that with what is now received ; and if we see a difference between these , we are sure there has been a change ; though we are not able to shew by what steps it was made ; nay , though we could not so much as make it appear probable that such a change could be made . to instance this in a plain case , of the change of the english language since the days of william the conqueror ; that there has no such swarm of foreigners broke in upon this island , as might change our language : one may then argue thus ; every one speaks the language he heard his parents , his nurses , and others about him speak , when he was a child ; and this he continues to speak all his life , and his children speak as they heard him speak : upon which , a man of wit and phancy might say a great many things , to shew it impossible any such change should ever have been made , as that we now should speak so as not to understand what was said five or six hundred years ago . yet if i find chaucer , or any much ancienter book , so written , that i can hardly make a shift to understand it , from thence , without any further reasoning how this could be brought about , i naturally must conclude our language is altered . and if any man should be so impertinent , as to argue , that could not be ; for children speak as their nurses and parents taught them , i could hardly answer him in patience ; but must tell him it is altered , without more ado . if a child were amused with such pretended impossibilities , i would tell him , that strangers coming among us , and our travelling to parts beyond the seas , made us acquainted with other languages ; and englishmen finding in other tongues , some words and phrases , which they judged more proper than any they had , being also fond of new words , there was an insensible change made in every age , which , after five or six ages , is more discernible . just so , if i find most of all the fathers either delivering their opinions clearly in this matter , against the doctrine of the roman church , or saying things utterly inconsistent with it , i am sure there has been a change made ; though i could not shew either the whole progress of it , or so much as a probable account how it could be done . if men were as machines or necessary agents , a certain account might be given of all the events in all ages ; but there are such strange labyrinths in the minds of men , that none can trace them by any rational computation of what is likely . there is also such a diversity between men and men , between ages and ages , that he should make very false accounts , that from the tempers and dispositions of men in this age , should conclude what were possible or impossible many years ago . in this age , in which printing gives notice of all things so easily and speedily , and by the laying of stages for the quick and cheap conveying pacquers , and the publishing mercuries , gazets , and iournals , and the education of almost all persons to read and write letters , and the curiosity by which all people are whetted to enquire into every thing ; the state of mankind is quite altered from what it was before , when few could read or write , but clergy-men ; so that they must be the notaries of all courts ; who continue from that , to be called clerks to this day ; and that some crimes , otherwise capital , were not punished with death , if the guilty person could but read . when people were so ignorant of what was doing about them , when neither printing , nor stages for pacquets , were in being , at least in europe , and when men were fast asleep in their business , without amusing themselves what was doing about them in the world ; it is the most unjust and unreasonable thing in nature , to imagine , that such things as are now next to impossible , were not then not only possible , but easie . so that all such calculations of impossibilities from the state and temper of this age , when applied to the ages before ours , is the most fallacious way of reckoning that can be . for instance , how improbable , or next to impossible , is this following story , that the bishops of the imperial city of the roman empire , whose first true worth , together with the greatness of that city , which was the head and metropolis of the roman empire , got them much esteem and credit in the world , should from small and low beginnings , have crept up to such a height of power , that they were looked on as the head of all power , both civil and spiritual ; and that as they overthrew all other ecclesiastical jurisdiction , the bishops of that see engrossing it to themselves : so they were masters of almost all the crowns of europe , and could change governments , raise up , and assist new pretenders , call up , by the preachings of some poor beggarly friars , vast armies , without pay , and send them whither they pleased : that they could draw in all the treasure and riches of europe to themselves ; that they brought princes to lie thus at their feet , to suffer all the clergy , who had a great interest in their dominions , by the vast endowments of churches and abbeys , beside the power they had in all families and consciences , to be the sworn subjects of these bishops , and to be exempted from appearing in secular courts , how criminal soever they were ? that all this should be thus brought about without the expence of any vast treasure , or the prevailing force of a conquering army , meerly by a few tricks , that were artificially managed , of the belief of purgatory , the power of absolving , and granting indulgences , and the opinion of their being st. peter's successors , and christ's vicars on earth . and that all this while when on these false colours of impostures in religion , those designs were carried on , the popes were men of the most lewd and flagitious lives possible ; and those who served them in their designs , were become the scandal and scorn of christendom ; and yet in all these attempts , they prevailed for above seven or eight ages . now if any man will go about to prove this impossible , and that princes were always jealous of their authority and their lives , people always loved their money and quiet , bishops always loved their jurisdiction , and all men when they see designs carried on with colours of religion , by men , who in the most publick and notorious instances , shew they have none at all , do suspect a cheat , and are not to be wheedled . therefore all this must be but a fable and a forgery , to make the popes and their clergy odious . will not all men laugh at such a person , that against the faith of all history , and the authority of all records , will deny a thing that was set up over all europe for many ages ? if then all this change in a matter that was temporal , against which the secular interests of all men did oppose themselves , was yet successful , and prevailed ; how can any man think it unreasonable , that a speculative opinion might have been brought into the church , by such arts , and so many degrees , that the traces of the change should be lost ? we find there have been many other changes in sacred things , which will seem no less strange and incredible ; but that we are assured whatsoever really has been , may be : and if things full as unaccountable have been brought about , it is absurd to deny , that other things might not have run the same fate . it is known , that all people are more uneasie to changes in things that are visible , and known to every body , than in things that are speculative , and abstracted , and known and considered but by a few : they are likewise more unwilling to part with things they are in possession of , and reckon their rights , than to suffer new opinions to be brought in among them ; and let their religion swell by additions . for it is undoubted that it is much more easie to imagine how a new opinion should be introduced , than how an ancient practice and right should be taken away . if then it be apparent , that there have been great changes made in the most visible and sensible parts of religious worship , by taking away some of the most ancient customs and rights of the people , over the whole western church , then it cannot be thought incredible , that a new speculative opinion might have by degrees been brought in . this i shall instance in a few particulars . the receiving the chalice in the sacrament , was an ancient constant custom , to which all the people had been long used ; and one may very reasonably on this hypothesis , argue , that could not be ; for would the people , especially in dark ages , have suffered the cup of the blood of christ to be taken from them , if they had not known that it had been taken from their fathers ? upon which it is easie to conceive how many speculative impossibilities an ingenious man may devise ; and yet we know they were got to part with it by degrees ; first , the bread was given dipt in the cup , for an age or two ; and then the people judged they had both together : this step being made , it was easie afterwards to give them the bread undipt , and so the chalice was taken away quite from the laity , without any great opposition , except what was made in bohemia . next to this , let us consider how naturally all men are apt to be fond of their children , and not to suffer any thing to be denied them , by which they conceive they are advantaged : upon which one may reckon , once we are sure it was the universally received custom , for many ages , over the whole latine church , that all children had the eucharist given them immediately after they were baptized . and the rubrick of the roman missal ordered , they should not be suffered to suck after they were baptized , before they had the eucharist given them , except in in cases of necessity . this order is believed to be a work of the eleventh century ; so lately was this thought necessary in the roman church . all men know how careful most parents , even such as have not much religion themselves , are , that nothing be wanting about their children ; and it was thought simply necessary to salvation , that all persons had the eucharist . how many imaginary difficulties may one imagine might have obstructed the changing this custom ? one would expect to hear of tumults and stirs , and an universal conspiracy of all men to save this right of their children ? yet hugo de sancto victore tells us , how it was wearing out in his time ; and we find not the least opposition made to the taking it away . a third thing , to which it is not easie to apprehend how the vulgar should have consented , was , the denying them that right of nature and nations , that every body should worship god in a known tongue . in this island , the saxons had the liturgy in their vulgar tongue ; and so it was also over all the world : and from this might not one very justly reckon up many high improbabilities , to demonstrate the setting up the worship in an unknown tongue , could never be brought about , and yet we know it was done . in end , i shall name only one other particular , which seems very hard to be got changed , which yet we are sure was changed ; this was , the popular elections of the bishops and clergy , which , as is past dispute , were once in the hands of the people ; and yet they were got to part with them , and that at a time when church-preferments were raised very high in all secular advantages ; so that it may seem strange , they should then have been wrought upon to let go a thing , which all men are naturally inclined to desire an interest in ; and so much the more , if the dignity or riches of the function be very considerable ; and yet though we meet in church-history many accounts of tumults that were in those elections , while they were in the peoples hands ; yet i remember of no tumults made to keep them , when they were taken out of their hands . and now i leave it to every reader 's conscience , if he is not perswaded by all the conjectures he can make of mankind , that it is more hard to conceive , how these things , that have been named , of which the people had clear possession , were struck out , than that a speculative opinion , how absurd soever , was brought in , especially in such ages as these were , in which it was done . this leads me to the next thing , which is , to make some reflections on those ages , in which this doctrine crept into the church . as long as the miraculous effusion of the holy ghost continued in the church , the simplicity of those that preached the gospel , was no small confirmation of that authority that accompanied them ; so that it was more for the honour of the gospel , that there were no great scholars or disputants to promote it : but when that ceased , it was necessary the christian religion should be advanced by such rational means as are suitable to the soul of man : if it had begun only upon such a foundation , men would not have given it a hearing ; but the miracles which were at first wrought , having sufficiently alarm'd the world , so that by them men were inclined to hearken to it : then it was to be tried by those rules of truth and goodness , which lie engraven on all mens souls . and therefore it was necessary , those who defended it , should both understand it well , and likewise know all the secrets of heathenism , and of the greek philosophy . a knowledge in these being thus necessary , god raised up among the philosophers divers great persons , such as iustin , clement , origen , and many others , whose minds being enlightned with the knowledge of the gospel , as well as endued with all other humane learning , they were great supports to the christian religion . afterwards many heresies being broached about the mysteries of the faith , chiefly those that relate to the son of god , and his incarnation , upon which followed long contests : for managing these , a full understanding of scripture was also necessary ; and that set all persons mightily to the study of the scriptures . but it is not to be denied , great corruptions did quickly break in , when the persecutions were over ; and the church abounded in peace and plenty ; not but that the doctrine was preserved pure long after that : there were also many shining lights , and great fathers , in that and in the following age ; yet from the fathers of these two ages , and from the great disorders were in some of their councils , as in the case of athanasius , and the second ephesin council , we may clearly see how much they were degenerating from the primitive purity . many contests were about the precedency of their sees , great ambition and contention appeared in their synods , which made nazianzen hate and shun them , expecting no good from them . these and such like things brought very heavy judgments and plagues on the church , and the whole roman empire , in the fifth century : for vast swarms of armies out of germany and the northern nations brake in upon the western empire , and by a long succession of new invaders all was sackt and ruined . the goths were followed by the vandals , the alains , the gepides , the franks , the sweves , the huns , and , in the end , the lombards . those nations were for the greatest part arrians , but all were barbarous and rude ; and their hatred of the faith , joyned to the barbarity of their tempers , set them with a strange fury on destroying the most sacred things . and to that we owe the loss of most of the primitive writings , and of all the authentical records of the first persecutions ; scarce any thing remaining , but what eusebius had before gathered together out of a former destruction was made of such things under dioclesian . nor did the glory of the eastern empire long survive the western , that fell before these invaders : but in europe , by the impression of the bulgars ; and in asia , by the conquests made , first by the saracens , then by the turks , their greatness was soon broken ; though it lasted longer under that oppressed condition , than the other had done . thus was both the greek and the latin church brought under sad oppression and much misery . and every body knows , that the natural effect that state of life brings over the greatest minds , when there is no hope of getting from under it , is to take them off from study and learning ; and indeed to subdue their spirits as well as their bodies . and so it proved , for after that , an ignorance and dulness did to that degree overspread all europe , that it is scarce to be expressed . i do not deny , but there might be some few instances of considerable men , giving an allowance for the time they lived in . for the laity , they were bred up to think of nothing but to handle their arms , very few could so much as read ; and the clergy were not much better ; read they could , but in many that was all ; a corrupt latin they understood , which continued to be the vulgar tongue in italy a great while after : they had heard of greek and hebrew , but understood them as little as we do the mexican or peruvian tongue . they had scarce any knowledge of the greek fathers ; a few very ill translations of some of them was all they had . the latin fathers were read by some of the more learned , but for any distinct understanding of scriptures , or the natures of things , god knows they had it not . i design a short discourse , and therefore shall not stay to make this out , which every body that has but looked a little on the writings of these ages , knows to be true . another effect of their ignorance was , that they were easily imposed on by suppostitious writings , that went under the names of the fathers , but were none of theirs . gelasius threw out a great many that were breaking out in his time ; but the trade was prosperous , and went on to that height , that it cost the criticks of these two last ages much pains to distinguish true from forged , and the genuine from what was interpolated . and indeed the popes were much beholden to the forgery of the decretal epistles , in which work a great many epistles were published by isidore in the eighth century , as the epistles of the popes of the first four centuries after christ : by which they were represented as giving orders , and making definitions over the whole church in a full form , and with the stile of an absolute authority . these were rejected by many , but mightily supported by all the flatterers of the court of rome : so that they were in the end , after some contest , generally received , and held presidents to the succeeding popes , who wrote very skilfully after that copy . many other forgeries were also much cherished , which i shall instance only in one other particular , that relates to what is now in my eye . a sermon of arnold of bonneval ( which is now proved clearly to be his ) was published in st. cyprian's works as his sermon of the supper of our lord , though this arnold lived about nine hundred years after him . now such a sermon being generally read as st. cyprian's , no wonder it gave that doctrine of transubstantiation great credit . these writings are now discovered to be such forgeries , that all considering men of their own church are ashamed of them , and disown them . so do baronius and bellarmin the decretals ; and sirmondus , launnoy , and many more , reject other forgeries . yet here is a high pitch of impudence that most of all their writers of controversie are guilty of , to cite these very writings ( which are now universally agreed to be spurious ) still under those great names , which forgery gave them . as the author of that letter about transubstantiation , cites a passage from st. cyprian's sermon de coena domini , though it is agreed to by sixtus senensis , possevin , bellarmin , raynaud , and labbe , to be none of his ; and the publishers of the office of the sacrament , in the table at the end of it , acknowledge it was written by arnold of bonneval , a friend of st. bernard's . after these authorities it is indeed strange , that such sophisticated stuff should be over and over again offered to us . and it was no wonder , such forgeries were generally received , when that church gave them such authority , as to take many lessons out of the most spurious legends and put them in their breviary . of all these dark ages , the tenth was certainly the midnight of the church : we have scarce any writer for that whole age , so that it is generally called the iron age , an age of darkness and wickedness ; and therefore a very fit time for superstition and errour to work in . and thence we may well infer , that in ages that were so exceeding ignorant , and in which men scarce thought of religion , it was no hard thing to get any errour received and established . but this is not all . these were also ages of great licentiousness and disorder ; for though the barbarous nations were afterwards converted to the orthodox faith , ( though by the way it were easie to shew these conversions had nothing like the first conversion of the world to christianity in them ) yet their barbarity remained with them , and the church-men became so corrupt and vicious , that they could not have a face to reprove them for those vices of which themselves were scandalously guilty . from the sixth century downward what a race of men have the popes been ? chiefly in the ninth and tenth century . and indeed any religion that remained in the world had so retired into cloysters and monasteries , that very little of it remained . these houses were seminaries of some devotion , while they were poor and busied at work , according to their first foundation ; but when they were well endowed , and became rich , they grew a scandal to all christendom . all the primitive discipline was laid down , children were put into the highest preferments of the church , and simony over-run the church . these are matters of fact , that cannot be so much as questioned , nor should i , if put to prove them , seek authorities for them any where else than in baronius ; who , for all his design to serve the interest of that church , yet could not prevaricate so far , as to conceal things that are so openly and uncontestedly true . now , from the darkness and corruption of these ages , i presume to offer some things to the readers consideration . first , ignorance always inclines people to be very easie to trust those , in whom they have confidence ; for being either unwilling to trouble themselves with painful and sollicitous enquiries , or unable to make them , they take things on trust , without any care to search into them ▪ but this general maxim must needs be much more certain , when subjection to the church , and the belief of every thing established , was made a very substantial part of religion , or rather that alone which might compense all other defects . secondly , ignorance naturally inclines people to superstition , to be soon wrought on , and easily amused , to be full of fears , and easie to submit to any thing that may any way overcome these fears . a right sense of god and divine matters , makes one have such a taste of religion , that he is not at all subject to this distemper , or rather monster , begotten by the unnatural commixture of some fear of god and love of sin , both being disordered by much ignorance ; hence sprang most of the idolatrous rites of heathenism , and all people so tempered are fit for the like humour to work upon . thirdly , the interests of churchmen , led them mightily to study the setting this opinion on foot . this alone set them as high , as mortal men could be , and made them appear a most sacred sort of a creature . all the wonders of the prophets and apostles were but sorry matters to it : what was moses calling fo● manna from heaven and water fromm the rock ? elijah's bringing sometimes fire and sometimes rain from heaven ? what ●●re the apostles raising the dead , giving sight to the blind , and feet to the lanie ? to the annihilating the substance of bread and wine , and bringing in their stead , not some other common matter , but the flesh and blood of the ever-blessed jesus . he who could do this , no wonder he were reverenced , enriched , secure from all danger , exempt from all civil jurisdiction , and cherished with all imaginable respect and kindness . so that it is no strange thing , that churchmen were much inclined to favour an opinion , that favoured their interests so much . fourthly , the churchmen of these ages were very likely to be easily drawn to anything , which might so much advance their designs ; that were grown very high , especially from the days of pope gregory the great . they were struggling with the civil powers for dominion , and pursued that for many years , and spared neither labour nor the lives of men to attain it . and it is not to be thought , but men who did prodigally throw away many thousands in a quarrel , would without very nice disputing , cherish any opinion that might contribute toward that end . and as this was of great use to them , so they very much needed both it , and all such like shifts ; for they had none of that sublime sanctity , nor high learning , or lofty eloquence , which former churchmen had , and by which they had acquired great esteem in the world. now the churchmen in these days , having a great mind to preserve or rather to encrease that esteem ; but wanting those qualities which on a reasonable account might have acquired it , or preserved it , must needs think of somewhat else to do it by ; and so found out many arts for it , such as the belief of purgatory , the priestly absolution upon confession , together with the reserved cases , indulgences , and the pope's power of taking souls out of purgatory . and if it be not full as unreasonable , to think the pope should be believed vested with a power of pardoning sin , and redeeming from purgatory , as that transubstantiation should have been received , let any man judge . fifthly , there was such a vast number of agents and emissaries sent from rome , to all the parts of europe , to carry on their designs , that we can hardly think it possible any thing could have withstood them . in such ages , by giving some terrible name to any thing , it was presently disgraced with the vulgar ; a clear instance of this was the fate of the married clergy . gregory the seventh , who as cardinal benno ( who knew him ) represents him , was one of the worst men that ever was born , and first set on foot the pope's pretensions to the civil authority , and the power of deposing princes , and putting others in their places ; did prosecute the married clergy with great vehemency . this he could not do on any pious or chaste account , being so vile a man as he was : but being resolved to bring all princes to depend on him , there was no way so like to attain that , as to have all the clergy absolutely subject to him : this could not be hoped for , while they were married , and that the princes and several states of europe had such a pawn of their fidelity , as their wives and children ; therefore because the persons of the clergy were accounted sacred , and liable to no punishment , that there might be nothing so nearly related to them , wherein they might be punished , as their wives and children , he drave this furiously on ; and , to give them some ill-favoured name , called them nicolaitans , which are represented in the revelation so vile and odious . this was the most unjust thing in the world : they might have called them pharisees or sadducees as well , for all the ancient writers tell us , that nicolas having a beautiful wife was jealous , and the apostles challenging him of it , he said , he was so far from ▪ it ; that he was willing to make her common , and thence some set up the community of wives , and were from him called the nicolaitans . but because women and marriage were in the case , and it was a hateful word , this was the name by which the married clergy were every where made so odious ; and though it was much the interest of princes to have had the marriage of the clergy to be left free , yet the popes were too hard for them in it . thus were the agents of rome able to prevail in every thing they set then selves to . so the opposers of this doctrine were called by the hateful names of stercoranists and panites . sixthly , when all religion was placed in externals , and splendid rites and ceremonies came to be generally looked on as the whole business of religion , peoples minds were by that much disposed to receive any thing , that might introduce external pomp and grandeur into their churches ; being willing to make up in an outward appearance of worshipping the person of christ , what was wanting in their obedience to his gospel . and now i appeal to any honest man , if upon the suppositions i have laid down , it be at all an unaccountable thing , that a great company of ignorant and debauched clergymen , should set themselves to cherish and advance a belief , which would redeem them from all the infamy their other vices were ready to bring upon them ; and they resolving on it , if it was hard for them , especially in a course of some ages , to get an ignorant , credulous , superstitious , and corrupt multitude , to receive it without much noise or ado . i believe no man will deny , but upon these suppositions the thing was very like to succeed . now that all these suppositions are true ( to wit ) that both clergy and laity in those ages , chiefly in the ninth , tenth , and eleventh centuries , were ignorant , and vicious to the height ; is a thing so generally known , and so universally confessed by all their own historians , that i hardly think any man will have brow enough to deny it . but there are many other things , which will also shew how possible , nay feasible such a change may be . first , this having never been condemned by a formal decision in any former age , it was more easie to get it brought in ; for no council or father could condemn or write against any errour , but that which was maintained or abetted by some man , or company of men , in or before their time . since then this had not been broached in the former ages , the promoters of it had this advantage , that no former decision had been made against them ; for none ever thought of condemning any heresie before it had a being . secondly , this errour did in the outward sound agree with the words of the institution , and the forms used in the former liturgies , in which the elements were said to be changed into the true and undefiled body of christ. a doctrine then that seemed to establish nothing contrary to the ancient liturgies , might easily have been received , in an age , in which the outward sound and appearance was all they looked to . thirdly , the passage from the believing any thing in general , with an indistinct and confused apprehension , to any particular way of explaining it , is not at all hard to be conceived , especially in an age , that likes every thing the better , the more mysterious it seem . in the preceding ages , it was in general received , that christ was in the sacrament , and that by the consecration the elements were changed into his body and blood. and although many of the fathers did very formally explain in what sense christ was present , and the elements were changed ; yet there having been no occasion given to the church , to make any formal decision about the manner of it , every one thought he was left at liberty to explain it as he pleased . and we may very reasonably suppose , that many did not explain it at all , especially in these ages , in which there was scarce any preaching or instructing the people . by this means the people did believe christ was in the sacrament , and that the elements were changed into his body and blood , without troubling themselves to examine how it was , whether spiritually or corporally . things being brought to this , in these ages , by the carelesness of the clergy , the people were by that , sufficiently disposed to believe any particular manner of that presence , or change , their pastors might offer to them . fourthly , there being no visible change made in any part of the worship , when this doctrine was first brought in , it was easie to innovate , in these ages , in which people looked only at things that were visible and sensible : had they brought in the adoration , processions , or other consequences of this doctrine along with it , it was like to have made more noise ; for people are apt to be startled when they see any notable change in their worship : but this belief was first infused in the people , and berengarius was condemned . the council of lateran had also made the decree about it , before ever there were any of those signal alterations attempted . and after that was done , then did honorius decree the adoration ; ( greg. decret . lib. 3. tit . 42. cap. 10. ) and urban the fourth , upon some pretended visions of eve , iulian , and isabella , did appoint the feast of the body of christ , called now generally , the feast of god , or corpus christi feast , which was confirmed by pope clement the fifth , ( lib. 3. tit . 16. ) in the council of vienna ; and ever since that time they have been endeavouring by all the devices possible , to encrease the devotion of the people to the host. so that mr. arnaud in many places acknowledges they are most gross idolaters if their doctrine be not true ; which i desire may be well considered , since it is the opinion of one of the most considering and wisest , and most learned persons of that communion , who has his whole life set his thoughts chiefly to the examining of this sacrament , and knows as well as any man alive , what is the real sense of the worshippers in that church . but to return to that i am about , it is very unreasonable to think that the people in those dark ages , did concern themselves in the speculative opinions were among divines , so that the vulgar could not busie themselves about it , but when this opinion was decreed , and generally received and infused in the laity , for almost one age together , then we need not wonder to see notable alterations following upon it , in their worship , without any opposition or contest ; for it was very reasonable such consequences should have followed such a doctrine . but that before that time there was no adoration of the elements , is a thing so clear , that it is impudence to deny it ; there was no prostration of the body , or kneeling to be made , either on lords days , or all the time between easter and pentecost , by the twentieth canon of the council of nice . none of the ancient liturgies do so much as mention it ; but the contrary is plainly insinuated by s. cyril of ierusalem . none of that great number of writers about divine offices , that lived in the seventh , eighth , ninth , and tenth centuries , published by hittorpius , so much as mention it : though they be very particular in giving us an account of the most inconsiderable parts of the divine offices , and of all the circumstances of them . honorius when he first decreed it , does not alledge presidents for it ; but commands the priests to tell the people to do it ; whereas , if it had been appointed before , he must rather have commanded the priests to have told the people of their sacrilegious contempt of the body of christ , notwithstanding the former laws and practice of the church : but it is apparent his way of enjoyning it , is in the style of one that commands a new thing , and not that sets on the execution of what was sormerly used : yet this was more warily appointed by honorius , who enjoyned only an inclination of the head to the sacrament ; but it was set up bare-faced by his successor gregory the ninth , who appointed ( as the historians tell us , ( naucler . ad an . 1240. krantz . sex . lib. 8. cap. 10. ) though it be not among his decretals ) a bell to be rung , to give notice at the consecration and elevation , that all who heard it , might kneel , and join their hands in adoring the host. so that any passages of the fathers that speak of adoration or veneration to the sacrament , must either be understood of the inward adoration the communicant offers up to god the father , and his blessed son , in the commemoration of so great a mystery of love , as appeared in his death , then represented and remembred . or these words are to be taken in a large sense , and so we find , they usually called the gospels , their bishops , baptism , the pascha , and almost all other sacred things , venerable . and thus from many particulars it is apparent , that the bringing in the doctrine of transubstantiation is no unaccountable thing . but i shall pursue this yet further , for the reader 's full satisfaction , and shew the steps by which this doctrine was introduced . we find in the church of corinth the receiving the sacrament was looked on , but as a common entertainment , and was gone about without great care or devotion , which s. paul charges severely on them ; and tells them what heavy judgments had already fallen on them , for such abuses , and that heavier ones might be yet looked for , since they were guilty of the body and blood of the lord , by their unworthy receiving . upon this the whole christian church was set to consider , in very good earnest , how to prepare themselves aright for so holy an action ; and the receiving the sacrament , as it was the greatest symbol of the love of christians , so it was the end of all penitence , that was enjoyned for publick or private sins , but chiefly for apostacy , or the denying the faith , and complying with idolatry in the times of persecution . therefore the fathers considering both the words of the institution , and s. paul's epistle to the corinthians , did study mightily to awaken all to great preparation and devotion , when they received the sacrament . for all the primitive devotion about the sacrament , was only in order to the receiving it ; and that modern worship of the church of rome , of going to hear mass without receiving , was a thing so little understood by them , that as none were suffered to be present in the action of the mysteries , but those who were qualified to receive ; so if any such had gone out of the church without participating , ( 9 apost . cnn. and 2 can. antioch ) they were to be separated from the communion of the church , as the authors of disorder in it . upon this subject the fathers employed all their eloquence ; and no wonder , if we consider that it is such a commemoration of the death of christ as does really communicate to the worthy receiver his crucified body , and his blood that was shed , ( mark , not his glorified body , as it is now in heaven ) which is the fountain and channel of all other blessings , but is only given to such , as being prepared according to the rules of the gospel , sincerely believe all the mysteries of faith , and live suitably to their belief , both the advantages of worthy receiving , and the danger of unworthy receiving being so great , it was necessary for them to make use of all the faeulties they had , either for awakening reverence and fear , that the contemptible elements of bread and wine , might not bring a cheapness and disesteem upon these holy mysteries , or for perswading their communicants to all serious and due preparation , upon so great an occasion . this being then allowed , it were no strange thing , though in their sermons , or other devout treatises , they should run out to meditations that need to be mollified with that allowance that must be given to all panegyricks or perswasives : where many things are always said , that if right understood , have nothing in them to startle any body ; but if every phrase be examined grammatically , there would be many things found in all such discourses , that would look very hideously . is it not ordinary in all the festivities of the church , as s. austin observed on this very occasion , to say , this day christ was born , or died , or rose again in ? and yet that must not be taken literally . beside , when we hear or read any expressions that sound high or big , we are to consider the ordinary stile of him that uses these expressions ; for if upon all other occasions he be apt to rise high in his figures , we may the less wonder at some excesles of his stile . if then such an orator as s. chrysostome was , who expatiates on all subjects , in all the delighting varieties of a fertile phancy , should on so great a subject , display all the beauties of that ravishing art in which he was so great a master , what wonder is it ? therefore great allowances must be made in such a case . further , we must also consider the tempers of those to whom any discourse is addressed . many things must be said in another manner to work on novices , or weak persons , than were fit or needful for men of riper and stronger understandings . he would take very ill measures , that would judge of the future state , by these discourses in which the sense of that is infused in younger or weaker capacities ; therefore though in some catechisms that were calculated for the understandings of children and novices , such as s. cyril's , there be some high expressions used , it is no strange thing ; for naturally all men on such occasions , use the highest and biggest words they can invent . but we ought also to consider , what persons have chiefly in their eye , when they speak to any point . for all men , especially when their fancies are inflamed with much servor , are apt to look only to one thing at once ; and if a visible danger appear of one side , and none at all on the other , then it is natural for every one to exceed on that side , where there is no danger . so that the hazard of a contempt of the sacrament being much and justly in their eye , and they having no cause to apprehend any danger on the otherside , of excessive adoring or magnifying it : no wonder , if in some of their discourses , an immoderate use of the counterpoise , had inclined them to say many things of the sacrament , that require a fair and can did interpretation . yet after all this , they say no more , but that in the sacrament they did truly and really communicate on the body and blood of christ ; which we also receive and believe . and in many other treatises , when they are in colder blood , examining things , they use such expressions and expositions of this , as no way favour the belief of transubstantiation ; of which we have given some account in a former paper . but though that were not so formally done , and their writings were full of passages that needed great allowances , it were no more than what the fathers that wrote against the arrians , confess the fathers before the council of nice , were guilty of ; who writing against sabellius , with too much veliemence , did run to the opposite extream . so many of s. ciril's passages against nestorius , were thought to favour eutychianism . so also theodoret , and two others , writing against the entychians , did run to such excesses , as drew upon them the condemnation of the fifth general council . the first time we find any contestor canvassing about the sacrament , was in the controversie about images , in the eighth century , that the council of constantinople , in the condenming of images , declared , there was no other image of christ to be received , but the blessed sacrament ; in which , the substance of bread and wine was the image of the body and blood of christ ; making a difference between that which is christs body by nature , and the sacrament , which is his body by institution . now it is to be considered , that whatever may be pretended of the violence of the greek emperors over-ruling that council in the matter of condemning images ; yet there having been no contest at all about the sacrament , we cannot in reason think they would have brought it into the dispute , if they had not known these two things were the received doctrine of the church : the one , that in the sacrament , the substance of bread and wine did remain ; the other , that the sacrament was the image or figure of christ ; and from thence they acknowledged , all images were not to be rejected , but denied any other images besides that in the sacrament . now the second council of nice , being resolved to quarrel with them as much as was possible , do not at all condemn them for that which is the chief testimony for us ( to wit ) that the sacrament was still the substance of bread and wine ; and damascene , the zealous defender of images , clearly insinuates his believing the substance of bread and wine remained , and did nourish our bodies . let it be therefore considered , that when that council of nice was in all the bitterness imaginable canvassing every word of the council of constantinople , they never once blame them for saying , the substance of bread and wine was in the sacrament . it is true , they condemned them for saying the sacrament was the image of christ , denying that any of the fathers had called it so ; alledging that the symboles were called antit pes by the fathers , only before the consecration , and not after ; in which they followed damascene , ( de fid. orth . lib. 4. cap. 14. ) who had fallen in the same errour before them . but this is so manifest a mistake in matter of fact , that it gives a just reason for rejecting the authority of that council , were there no more to be said against it : for this was either very gross ignorance , or effronted impudence , since in above twenty fathers that were before them , the sacrament is called the figure and antitype of christ's body ; and at the same time , that damascene , who was then looked on as the great light of the east , did condemn the calling the sacrament , the figure of christ's body . the venerable bede , ( bed. in psal. 3. & mark 14. ) that was looked on as the great light of the west , did according to the stile of the primitive church , and in s. austin's words , call it , the figure of christ's body . i shall not trace the other forgeries and follies of that pretended general council , because i know a full account of them is expected from a better pen ; only in this particular i must desire the reader to take notice , that the council of constantinople did not innovate any thing in the doctrine about the sacrament , and did use it as an argument in the other controversie concerning images , without any design at all about the eucharist . but on the other hand , the second council of nice did innovate and reject a form of speech , which had been universally received in the church , before their time ; and being engaged with all possible spight against the council of constantinople , resolved to contradict every thing they had said , as much as could be : so that in this we ought to look on the council of constantinople , as delivering what was truly the tradition of the church , and on the second council of nice , as corrupting it . about thirty years after that council , paschase radbert abbot of corbie , wrote about the sacrament , and did formally assert the corporal presence , in the ninth century . the greatest patrons of this doctrine , such as bellarmin and sirmondus , both jesuites , confess , he was the first that did fully and to purpose explain the verity of christ's body and blood in the eucharist . and paschase himself , in his letter to his friend frudegard , regrates that he was so flow in believing and assenting to his doctrine ; and does also acknowledge , that by his book he had moved many to the understanding of that mystery ; and it is apparent by that letter , that not only frudegard , but others were scandalized at his book , for he writes , i have spoken of these things more fully , and more expresly , because i understand that some challenge me , that in the book i have published of the sacraments of christ , i have ascribed either more or some other thing than is consonant to truth to the words of our lord. of all the writers of that age , or near it , only one ( and his name we know not , the book being anonymous ) was of paschase's opinion . but we find all the great men of that age were of another mind , and did clearly assert , that in the sacrament , the substance of bread and wine remained , and did nourish our bodies as other meats do . these were rabanus maurus , archbishop of mentz , amalarius , archbishop of treves , or as others say , metz , heribald , bishop of auxerre , bertram , iohn scot erigena , walafridus strabo , florus and christian druthmar . and three of these set themselves on purpose to refute paschase . the anonymous writer that defends him , says , that raban did dispute at length against him in an epistle to abbot egilon , for saying it was that body that was born of the virgin , and was crucified , and raised again , that was daily offered for the life of the world. that is also condemned by raban in his penitential , cap. 33. who refers his reader to that epistle to abbor egilon . and for bertram , he was commanded by charles the bald , then emperor , to write upon that matter , which in the beginning of his book he promises to do , not trusting to his own wit , but following the steps of the holy fathers . it is also apparent by his book , that there were at that time different perswasions about the body of christ in the sacrament ; some believing it was there without any figure ; others saying , it was there in a figure and mystery . upon which he apprehended , there must needs follow a great schism . and let any read paschase's book , and after that bertram's , and if he have either honesty , or at least , shame remaining in him , he must see it was in all points the very same controversie that was canvassed then between them , and is now debated between the church of rome and us. now that raban and bertram were two of the greatest and most learned men of that age , cannot be denied : raban passes without contest amongst the first men of the age ; and for bertram , we need neither cite what trithemius says of him , nor what the disciples of s. austin , in the port-royal , have said to magnifie him , when they make use of him to establish the doctrine of the efficacy of grace . it is a sufficient evidence of the esteem he was in , that he was made choice of by the bishop of france , to defend the latin church against the greeks ; and upon two very important controversies that were moved in that age ; the one being about predestination and grace , the other , that which we have now before us , he , though a private monk , raised to no dignity , was commanded by the emperor to write of both these ; which no man can imagine had been done , if he had not been a man much 〈◊〉 and esteemed ; and way in which he writes , is solid and worthy of the reputation he ha 〈…〉 quired : he proves both from the words of institution , and from st. paul , that the sacrame●● was still bread and wine . he proves from s. austin , that these were mysteries and figures of christ's body and blood. and indeed considering that age , he was an extraordinary writer . the third that did write against paschase , was iohn scot , otherwise called erigena , who was likewise commanded to write about the sacrament , by that same emperor . he was undoubtedly the most learned and ingenious man of that age , as all our english historians tell us , chiefly william of malmsbury : he was in great esteem both with the emperor , and our great king alfred . ( lib. 2. de gest. reg. ) he was accounted a saint and a martyr ; his memory was celebrated by an anniversary on the tenth of november . he was also very learned in the greek , and other oriental tongues , which was a rare thing in that age. this erigena did formally refute paschase's opinion , and assert ours . it is true , his book is now lost , being 200 years after burned by the c. of vercel ; but though the church of lyons does treat him very severely in their book against him , and fastens many strange opinions upon him , in which there are good grounds to think they did him wrong ; yet they no where challenge him for what he wrote about the sacrament ; which shews they did not condemn him for that ; though they speak of him with great animosity , because he had written against predestination and grace efficacious of it self , which they defended . it seems most probable that it was from his writings , that the homily read at easter by the saxons here in england , does so formally contradict the doctrine of transubstantiation . and now let the reader judge , if it be not clear that paschase did innovate the the doctrine of the church in this point , but was vigorously opposed by all the great men of that age. for the following age , all historians agree , it was an age of most prodigious ignorance and debauchery , and that amongst all sorts of people , none being more signally vicious than the clergy ; and of all the clergy , none so much as the popes , who were such a succession of monsters , that baronius cannot forbear making the saddest exclamations possible concerning their cruelties , debaucheries , and other vices : so that , then , if at any time , we may conclude all were asleep , and no wonder if the tares paschase had sown , did grow up ; and yet of the very few writings of the age that remain , the far greater number seem to favour the doctrine of bertram . but till berengarius his time , we hear nothing of any contest about the eucharist . so here were 200 years spent in an absolute ignorance and forgetfulness of all divine things . about the middle of the 11th cent. bruno bishop of angiers , and berengarius , who was born in tours , but was arch-deacon and treasurer of the church of angiers , did openly teach , that christ was in the sacrament only in a figure . we hear little more of bruno ; but berengarius is spoken of by many historians , ( sigebert , platma , antonin . sabellicus , chron. mont. cassin . sigonius , vignier , guitmond , and chiefly william of malmsbury ) as a man of great learning and piety , and that when he was cited to the council at rome , before nicolaus the second , none could resist him ; that he had an excellent faculty of speaking , and was a man of great gravity ; that he was held a saint by many : he did abound in charity , humility , and good works , and was so chaste , that he would not look at a beutiful woman . and hildebert bishop of mans , whom s. bernard commends highly , made such an epitaph on him , that notwithstanding all the abatements we must make for poetry , yet no man could write so of an ordinary person . this berengarius wrote against the corporal presence , calling it a stupidity of paschase's and lanfrank's , who denied that the substance of bread and wine remained after consecration . he had many followers , as sigebert tells us , ( edit . antwerp . 1608. ) and william of malmsbury , and matthew paris , tell us his doctrine had overspred all france . it were too long to shew with what impudent corrupting of antiquity those who wrote against him , did stuff up their books . divers councils were held against him , and he through fear , did frequently waver ; for when other arguments proved too weak to convince him , then the faggot , which is the sure and beloved argument of that church , prevailed on his fears ; so that he burnt his own book , and signed the condemnation of his own opinion at rome ; this he did , as lanfrank upbraids him , not for love of the truth , but for fear of death : which shews he had not that love of the truth , and constancy of mind he ought to have had . but it is no prejudice against the doctrine he taught , that he was a man not only subject to , but overcome by so great a temptation ; for the fear of death is natural to all men . and thus we see , that in the 9th century our doctrine was taught by the greatest writers of that time , so that it was then generally received , and not at all condemned either by pope or council . but in the 11th century , upon its being defended , it was condemned . can there be therefore any thing more plain , than that there was a change made , and that what in the one age was taught by a great number of writers , without any censure upon it , was in another age anathematized ? is there not then here a clear change ? and what has been done , was certainly possible , from whence we conclude with all the justice and reason in the world , that a change was not only possible , but was indeed made . and yet the many repeated condemnations of berengarius , shew , his doctrine was too deeply rooted in the minds of that age , to be very easily suppressed ; for to the end of the 11th century , the popes continued to condemn his opinions , even after his death . in the beginning of the 12th century , honorius of autun , who was a considerable man in that age , did clearly assert the doctrine of the sacraments nourishing our bodies , and is acknowledge by thomas waldensis , to have been a follower of berengarius his heresie . and about the 18th year of that age , that doctrine was embraced by great numbers in the south of france , who were from ther several teachers called petrobrusrans , henricians , waldenses , and from the countrey , where their number were greatest , albigenses ; whose confession , dated the year 1120 , bears , that the eating of the sacramental bread , was the eating of iesus christ in a figure ; iesus christ having said , as oft as ye do this , do it in remembrance of me . it were needless to engage in any long account of these people ; the writers of those times have studied to represent them in as hateful and odious characters , as it was possible for them to devise ; and we have very little remaining that they wrote . yet as the false witnesses that were suborned to lay heavy things to our blessed saviour . charge , could not agree among themselves ; so for all the spite with which these writers prosecute those poor innocents , there are such noble characters given , even by these enemies , of their piety , their simplicity , their patience , constancy , and other virtues ; that as the apologists for christianity , do justly glory in the testimonies pliny , lucian , tacitus , iosephus , and other declared enemies give ; so any that would study to redeem the memory of those multitudes , from the black aspersions of their foul-mouthed enemies , would find many passages among them to glory much in , on their behalf , which are much more to be considered than those virulent calumnies with which they labour to blot their memories : but neither the death of peter de bruis , who was burnt , nor all the following cruelties , that were as terrible as could be invented by all the fury of the court of rome , managed by the inquisitions of the dominicans , whose souls were then as black as their garments , could bear down or extinguish that light of the truth , in which what was wanting in learning , wit , or order , was fully made up in the simplicity of their manners , and the constancy of their sufferings . and it were easie to shew , that the two great things they were most persecuted for , were their refusing subjection to the see of rome , and their not believing the doctrine of the corporal presence ; nor were they confined to one corner of france only , but spred almost all europe over . in that age steven bishop in eduen is the first i ever find cited to have used the word transubstantiation , who expresly says , ( de sacram. altar . c. 13. ) that the oblation of bread and wine is transubstantiated into the body and blood of christ : some place him in the beginning , some in the middle of that age ; for there were two bishops of that see , both of the same name ; the one , anno 1112. the other 1160. and which of the two it was , is not certain ; but the master of the sentences was not so positive , and would not determine , ( lib. 4. dist . 11. ) whether christ was present formally , substantially , or some other way . but in the beginning of the 13th century , one amalric , or almaric , who was in great esteem for learning , did deny transubstantiation , saying , that the body of christ was no more in the consecrated bread , than in any other bread , or any other thing ; ( anno 1215. c. 1. ) for which he was condemned in the 4th council of lateran , and his body , which was buried in paris , was taken up and burnt ; and then was it decreed , that the body and blood of christ were truly contained under the kinds ( or species ) of bread and wine , the bread being transubstantiated into the body , and the wine into the blood. all the while this doctrine was carried on , it was managed with all the ways possible , that might justly create a prejudice against them who set it forward ; for besides many ridiculous lying wonders , that were forged to make it more easily believed by a credulous and superstitious multitude , the church of rome did discover a cruelty and blood-thirstiness which no pen is able to set out to the full . what burnings and tortures , and what croissades as against infidels and mabumetans , did they set on against those poor innocent companies , whom they with an enraged , wolvish and barbarous bloodiness studied to destroy ? this was clearly contrary to the laws of humanity , the rules of the gospel , and the gentleness of christ : how then could such companies of wolves pretend to be the followers of the lamb ? in the primitive church , the bishops that had prosecuted the priscillanists before the emperor maximus , to the taking away their lives , were cast out of the communion of the church ; but now did these that still pretended to be christ's vicars , shew themselves in antichrist's colours , dipt in blood . if then any of that church that live among us , plead for pity , and the not executing the laws , and if they blame the severity of the statutes against themselves , let them do as becomes honest men , and without disguise , disown and condemn those barbarities , and them that were the promoters and pursuers of them ; for those practices have justly filled the world with fears and jealousies of them , that how meekly soever they may now whine under the pretended oppression of the laws , they would no sooner get into power , but that old leaven not being yet purged out of their hearts , they would again betake themselves to fire and faggot , as the unanswerable arguments of their church : and so they are only against persecution , because they are not able to persecute ; but were they the men that had the power , it would be again a catholick doctrine and practice : but when they frankly and candidly condemn those practices and principles , they will have somewhat to plead , which will in reason prevail more than all their little arts can do to procure them favour . it was this same council of lateran , that established both cruelty , persecution and rebellion into a law , appointing , that all princes should exterminate all hereticks , ( this is the mercy of that church which all may look for , if ever their power be equal to their malice ) and did decree , ( cap. 3. ) that if any temporal lord , being admonished by the church , did neglect to purge his lands , he should be first excommunicated , and if he continued a year in his contempt and contumacy , notice was to be given of it to the pope , who from that time forth should declare his vassals absolved from the fidelity they owed him , and expose his lands to be ivaded by catholicks , who might possess them without any contradiction , having exterminated the hereticks out of them , and so preserve them in the purity of the faith. this decree was made on the account of raimond count of tholouse , who favoured the albigenses , that were his subjects ; and being a peer of france according to the first constitution under hugo capet king of france , was such a prince in his own dominions , as the princes of germany now are . he was indeed the king of france his vassal ; but it is clear from the history of that time , that the king of france would not interpose in that business . yet the popes in this same council of lateran , did , by the advice of the council , give to simon montfort ( who was general of the croissade , that the pope sent against that prince ) all the lands that were taken from the count of tholouse . so that there was an invasion both of the count of tholouse , and of the king of france his rights . for if that prince had done any thing amiss , he was only accountable to the king , and the other peers of france . this decree of the council is published by dom. luc. dachery ; ( tom. 7. spic . and tom. 11. of the council , print . anno 1672. p. 233. ) so that it is plain , that the pope got here a council to set up rebellion by authority , against the express rules of the gospel . this almost their whole church accounts a general council , a few only among us excepted , who know not how io approve themselves good subjects , if they own that a general council , which does so formally establish treasonable and seditious principles . for if it be true , that a general council making a definition in an article of faith , is to be followed and submitted to by all men , the same arguments will prove that in any controverted practical opinion , we ought not to trust our own reasons , but submit to the definition of the church ; for if in this question a private person shall rest on his own understanding of the scriptures , and reject this decree , why may he not as well in other things assume the same freedom ? it is true , the words of the decree seem only to relate to temporal lords that were under soveraign princes , such as the count of tholouse ; and therefore crowned heads need fear nothing from it : but though the decree runs chiefly against such , yet there are two clauses in it that go further ; one is in these words , saving always the right of the principal lord , provided he make no obstacle about it , nor cast in any impediment . whence it plainly follows , that if the soveraign , such as the king of france , in the case of tholouse , did make any obstacle , he forfeited his right . the other clause is in these words , the same law being nevertheless observed about those who have no principal lords . in which are clearly included all those soveraigns , who depend and hold their crowns immediately from god. now it is apparent , the design of these words so couched , was once to bring all soveraigns under that lash , before they were aware of it ; for had they named emperors and kings , they might reasonably have expected great opposition from them ; but insinuating it so covertly , it would pass the more easily : yet it is plain , nothing else can be meant , or was intended by it ; so that it is clear , that the 4th council of lateran , as it established transubstantiation , so did also decree both persecution and rebellion : therefore the reader may easily judge , what account is to be made of that council , and what security any state can have of those who adhere to it . our saviour when he states the opposition between the children of god , and the children of the devil , he gives this for the character of the latter , that they did the works of their father ; and these he mentions are lying and murdering : we have seen sufficient evidence of the murdering spirit which acted in that church , when this doctrine was set up . but to compleat that black character , let us look over to the council of constance , which decreed that bold violation of the command of christ , drink ye all of it ; by taking the chalice from the laity : and there we find perfidy , which is the basest and worst kind of lying , also established by law : for it was decreed by them , ( sess. 19. ) that all safe conducts notwithstanding , or by what bonds soever any prince had engaged himself , the council was no way prejudiced , and that the iudge competent might enquire into their errors ; and proceed otherwise duly against them , and punish them according to iustice , if they stubbornly refuse to retract their errours , although trusting to their safe conduct , they had come to the place of iudgment , and had not come without it ; and declare , that whoever had promised any such thing to them , having done what in him lay , was under no further obligation . upon which , sigismund broke his faith to iohn hus and ierome of prague , and they were burnt . so that their church , having in general councils decreed both perfidy and cruelty , it is casie to infer by what spirit they are acted , and whose works they did . if then they did the works of the devil , who was a liar and murderer from the beginning , they cannot be looked on as the children of god , but as the children of the devil . if this seem too severe , it is nothing but what the force of truth draws from me , being the furthest in the world from that uncharitable temper of aggravating things beyong what is just ; but the truth must be heard , and the lamb of god could call the scribes and pharisees , a generation of vipers and children of the devil . therefore if a church be so notoriously guilty of the most infamous violation of all the laws of humanity , and the security which a publick faith must needs give , none is to be blamed for laying open and exposing such a society to the just censure of all impartial persons , that so every one may see what a hazard his soul runs by engaging in the communion of a church that is so foully guilty : for these were not personal failings , but were the decrees of an authority which must be acknowledged by them infallible , if they be true to their own principles . so that if they receive these as general councils , i know not how they can clear all that communion from being involved in the guilt of what they decreed . thus far we hope it hath been made evident enough , that there are no impossibilities in such a change of the doctrine of the church about this sacrament , as they imagine . and that all these are but the effects of wit and fancy , and vanish into nothing when closely canvassed . i have not dwelt so long on every step of the history i have vouched , as was necessary , designing to be as short as was possible , and because these things have been at full length set down by others , and particularly in that great and learned work of albertin a french minister concerning this sacrament ; in which the doctrines of the primitive church , and the steps of the change that was made , are so laid open , that no man has yet so much as attempted the answering him : and those matters of fact are so uncontestedly true , that there can be little debate about them , but what may be very soon cleared , and i am ready to make all good to a tittle when any shall put me to it . it being apparent then , that the church of rome has usurped an undue and unjust authority over the other states and nations of christendom , and has made use of this dominion to introduce many great corruptions both in the faith , the worship , and government of the church ; nothing remains but to say a little to justify this churches reforming these abuses . and , first , i suppose it will be granted , that a national church may judge a doctrine to be heretical , when its opposition to the scripture , reason , and the primitive doctrine is apparent : for in that case the bishops and pastors being to feed and instruct the church , they must do it according to their consciences , otherwise how can they discharge the trust , god and the church commit to their charge ? and thus all the ancient hereticks , such as samosatenus , arrius , pelagius , and a great many more were first condemned in provincial councils . secondly , if such heresies be spread in places round about , the bishops of every church ought to do what they can to get others concur with them in the condemning them ; but if they cannot prevail , they ought nevertheless to purge themselves and their own church , for none can be bound to be damned for company . the pastors of every church owe a charity to their neighbour churches , but a debt to their own , which the stubborness of others cannot excuse them from . and so those bishops in the primitiue church , that were invironed with arrians , did reform their own churches when they were placed in any sees that had been corrupted by arrianism . thirdly , no time can give prescription against truth , and therefore had any errour been ever so antiently received in any church , yet the pastors of that church finding it contrary to truth ought to reform it : the more antient or inveterate any errour is , it needs the more to be looked to . so those nations that were long bred up in arrianism , had good reason to reform from that erronr . so the church of rome will acknowledge that the greek church , or our church ought to forsake their present doctrines , though they have been long received . fourthly , no later definitions of councils or fathers ought to derogate from the ancienter decrees of councils , or opinions of the fathers ; otherwise the arrians had reason to have justified their submitting to the councils of sirmium , arimini , and millan , and rejecting that of nice : therefore we ought in the first place to consider the decrees and opinions of the most primitive antiquity . fifthly , no succession of bishops how clear soever in its descent from the apostles , can secure a church from errour . which the church of rome must acknowledge , since they can neither deny the succession of the greek church , nor of the church of england . sixthly , if any church continues so hardned in their errours that they break communion with another church for reforming ; the guilt of this breach must lie at their door who are both in the errour , and first reject the other , and refuse to reform or communicate with other churches . upon every one of these particulars ( and they all set together , compleat the plea for the church of england ) i am willing to joyn issue , and shew they are not only true in themselves , but must be also acknowledged by the principles of the church of rome : so that if the grounds of controversie , on which our reformation did proceed , were good and justifiable , it is most unreasonable to say our church had not good right and authority to make it . it can be made appear that for above two hundred years before the reformation , there were general complaints among all sorts of persons , both the subtle school-men , and devout contemplatives , both ecclesiasticks and laicks did complain of the corruptions of the church , and called aloud for a reformation both of faith and manners : even the council of pisa a little before luther's days , did decree , there should be a reformation both of faith and manners , and that both of the head and members . but all these complaints turned to nothing , abuses grew daily , the interests of the nephews and other corrupt intrigues of the court of rome was always obstructing good motions and cherishing ill customs , for they brought the more grist to their mill. when a reformation was first called for in germany , instead of complying with so just a desire , all that the court of rome thought on , was how to suppress these complaints , and destroy those who made them . in end , when great commotions were like to follow , by the vast multitudes of those who concurred in this desire of reforming , a council was called , after the popes had frequently prejudged in the matter , and pope leo had with great frankness condemned most of luther's opinions . from that council no good could reasonably be expected , for the popes had already engaged so deep in the quarrel , that there was no retreating , and they ordered the matter so , that nothing could be done but what they had a mind to : all the bishops were at their consecration their sworn vassals : nothing could be brought into the council without the legates had proposed it . and when any good motions were made by the bishops of spain or germany , they had so many poor italian bishops kept there on the pope's charges , that they were always masters of the vote : for before they would hold a session about any thing , they had so canvassed it in the congregations , that nothing was so much as put to the hazard . all these things appear even from cardinal pallavicini's history of that council . while this council was sitting , and some years before , many of this church were convinced of these corruptions , and that they could not with a good conscience joyn any longer in a worship so corrupted ; yet they were satisfied to know the truth themselves and to instruct others privately in it , but formed no separated church ; waiting for what issue god in his providence might bring about . but with what violence and cruelty their enemies , who were generally those of the clergy , pursued them , is well enough known : nor shall i repeat any thing of it , lest it might be thought an invidious aggravating of things that are past . but at length , by the death of king henry the eight , the government fell in the hands of persons well affected to the reformation . it is not material what their true motives were , for iehu did a good work when he destroyed the idolatry of baal , though neither his motives nor method of doing it are justifiable : nor is it to the purpose to examine , how those bishops that reformed could have complied before with the corruptions of the roman church and received orders from them . meletius , and felix , were placed by the arrians , the one at antioch in the room of eustatbius , the other at rome , in liberius his room , who were both banished for the faith : and yet both these were afterwards great defenders of the truth ; and felix was a martyr for it , against these very hereticks with whom they complied in the beginning . so whatever mixture of carnal ends might be in any of the secular men , or what allay of humane infirmity and fear might have been in any of the ecclesiasticks ; that can be no prejudice to the cause : for men are always men , and the power of god does often appear most eminently , when there is least cause to admire the instruments he makes use of . but in that juncture of affairs the bishops and clergy of this church seeing great and manifest corruptions in it , and it being apparent that the church of rome would consent to no reformation to any good purpose , were obliged to reform , and having the authority of king and parliament concurring , they had betrayed their consciences and the charge of souls for which they stood engaged , and were to answer at the great day , if they had dallied longer , and not warned the people of their danger , and made use of the inclinations of the civil powers for carrying on so good at work . and it is the lasting glory of the reformation , that when they saw the heir of the crown was inflexibly united to the church of rome , they proceeded not to extream courses against her ; for what a few wrought on by the ambition of the duke of northumberland were got to do , was neither the deed of the nation , nor of the church , since the representatives of neither concurred in it . but the nation did receive the righteous heir : and then was our church crowned with the highest glory it could have desired , many of the bishops who had been most active in the reformation , sealing it with their blood , and in death giving such evident proofs of holy and christian constancy , that they may be justly matched with the most glorious martyrs of the primitive church . then did both these churches appear in their true colours , that of rome weltring in the blood of the saints and insatiately drinking it up : and our church bearing the cross of christ and following his example . but when we were for some years thus tried in the fire , then did god again bless us with the protection of the rightful and lawful magistrate . then did our church do as the primitive church had done under theodosius , when she got out from a long and cruel persecution of the arrians under those enraged emperours constantius and valens . they reformed the church from the arrian doctrine , but would not imitate them in their persecuting spirit . and when others had too deep resentments of the ill usage they had met with under the arrian tyranny , nazianzen and the other holy bishops of that time did mitigate their animosities : so that the churches were only taken from the arrians , but no storms were raised against them . so in the beginning of queen elizabeth's reign , it cannot be denied that those of that church were long suffered to live at quiet among us with little or no disturbance , save that the churches were taken out of their hands . nor were even those who had bathed themselves in so much blood made examples , so entirely did they retain the meekness and lenity of the christian spirit . and if after many years quiet , those of that religion when they met with no trouble from the government , did notwithstanding enter into so many plots and conspiracies against the queen's person and the established government , was it any wonder that severe laws were made against them , and those emissaries who under a pretence of coming in a mission , were sent as spies and agents among us to fill all with blood and confusion ? whom had they blame for all this but themselves ? or was this any thing but what would have been certainly done in the gentlest and mildest government upon earth ? for the law of self-preservation is engraven on all mens natures , and so no wonder every state and government sees to its own security against those who seek its ruine and destruction : and it had been no wonder if upon such provocations there had been some severities used which in themselves were uniustifiable : for few take reparation in an exact equality to the damage and injury they have received . but since that time they have had very little cause to complain of any hard treatment ; and if they have met with any , they may still thank the officious insolent deportment of some of their own church , that have given just cause of jealousie and fear . but i shall pursue this discourse no further , hoping enough is already said upon the head that engaged me to it , to make it appear , that it was possible the doctrine of the church should be changed in this matter , and that it was truly changed . from which i may be well allowed to subsume , that our church discovering that this change was made , had very good reason and a sufficient authority to reform this corruption , and restore the primitive doctrine again . and now being to leave my reader , i shall only desire him to consider a little of how great importance his eternal concerns are , and that he has no reason to look for endless happiness , if he does not serve god in a way suitable to his will. for what hopes soever there may be for one who lives and dies in some unknown error , yet there are no hopes for those that either neglect or despise the truth , and that out of humour or any other carnal account give themselves up to errours , and willingly embrace them , certainly god sent not his son in the world , nor gave him to so cruel a death , for nothing . if he hath revealed his counsels with so much solemnity , his designs in that must be great and worthy of god : the true ends of religion must be the purifying our souls , the conforming us to the divine nature , the uniting us to one another in the most tender bonds of love , truth , justice and goodness , the raising our minds to a heavenly and contemplative temper , and our living ●s pilgrims and strangers on this earth , ever waiting and longing for our change . now we dare appeal all men to shew any thing in our religion or worship , that obstructs any of these ends ; on the contrary , the sum and total of our doctrine is , the conforming our selves to christ and his apostles , both in faith and life , so that it can scarce be devised what should make any body that hath any sense of religion , or regard to his soul , forsake our communion , where he finds nothing that is not highly suitable to the nature and ends of religion , and turn over to a church that is founded on and cemented in carnal interests : the grand design of all their attempts being to subject all to the papal tyranny , which must needs appear visibly to every one whose eyes are opened . for attaining which end they have set up such a vast company of additions to the simplicity of the faith and the purity of the christian worship , that it is a great work even to know them . is it not then a strange choice ? to leave a church that worships god so as all understand what they do and can say , amen ; to go to a church where the worship is not understood , so that he who officiates is a barbarian to them : a church which worships god in a spiritual and unexceptionable manner ; to go to a church that is scandalously ( to raise this charge no higher ) full of images and pictures , and that of the blessed trinity , before which prostrations and adorations are daily made . : a church that directs her devotions to god , and his son jesus christ ; to go to a church that without any good warrant not only invocates saints and angels , but also in the very same form of words , which they offer up to god and jesus christ , which is a thing at least full of scandal , since these words must be strangely wrested from their natural meaning , otherwise they are high blasphemies : a church that commemorates christ's death in the sacrament , and truly communicates in his body and blood , with all holy reverence and due preparation ; to go to a church that spends all her devotion in an outward adoring the sacrament , without communicating with any due care , but resting in the priestly absolution allows it upon a single attrition : a church that administers all the sacraments christ appointed , and as he appointed them ; to go to a church that hath added many to those he appointed , and hath maimed that he gave for a pledge of his presence when he left this earth . in a word , that leaves a church that submits to all that christ and his apostles taught , and in a secondary order to all delivered to us by the primitive church ; to go to a church that hath set up an authority that pretends to be equal to these sacred oracles , and has manifestly cancelled most of the primitive constitutions . but it is not enough to remain in the communion of our church ; for if we do not walk conform to that holy faith taught in it , we disgrace it . let all therefore : that have zeal for our church , express it chiefly in studying to purify their hearts and lives , so as becomes christians , and reformed christians , and then others that behold us , will be ashamed when they see such real confutations of the calumnies of out adversaries , which would soon be turned back on them with a just scorn , if there were not too many advantages given by our divisions , and other . but nothing that is personal ought to be charged on our church : and whoever object any such things , of all persons in the world , they are the most inexcusable , who being so highly guilty themselves , have yet such undaunted brows , as to charge those things on us which if they be practised by any among us , yet are disallowed ; but among them have had all encouragement and authority possible from the corruptions both of their popes , and casuists . but here i break off , praying god he may at length open the eyes of all christendom that they may see and love the truth , and walk according to it . amen . finis . notes, typically marginal, from the original text notes for div a30412-e4340 more nevochim par. 1. c. 30. notes for div a30412-e5720 apolog. 2. lib. 4. adv . her. c. 34. notes for div a30412-e9840 * boniface the 8th , extrav . lib. 1. c. 1. de majoritate & obedientia . after he had studied to prove that the temporal and material sword , as well as the spiritual , was in the power of st. peter , from these words , behold two swords , and our saviour's answer , it is enough . in the end he concludes whosoever therefore resists this power thus ordained of god , resists the ordinance of god : except with manichee he make two beginnings , which we define to be false and heretical : for moses testifies , that not in the beginnings , but in the beginning god created the heaven and the earth . therefore we declare , say , define and pronounce , that it is of necessity to salvation to every human creature , to be subject to the pope of rome : and it is plain this subjection must be , that he had been pleading thorough that whole decretal , which is the subjection of the temporal sword to the spiritual . notes for div a30412-e13990 ord. rom. in pascha . greg. nazian . orat. 1. apol. & 20. orat. chrisost. l. 2. de sacr . c. 10. the council of trent examin'd and disprov'd by catholick tradition in the main points in controversie between us and the church of rome with a particular account of the times and occasions of introducing them : part 1 : to which a preface is prefixed concerning the true sense of the council of trent and the notion of transubstantiation. stillingfleet, edward, 1635-1699. 1688 approx. 415 kb of xml-encoded text transcribed from 100 1-bit group-iv tiff page images. text creation partnership, ann arbor, mi ; oxford (uk) : 2004-08 (eebo-tcp phase 1). a61532 wing s5569 estc r4970 12898747 ocm 12898747 95209 this keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the early english books online text creation partnership. this phase i text is available for reuse, according to the terms of creative commons 0 1.0 universal . the text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission. early english books online. (eebo-tcp ; phase 1, no. a61532) transcribed from: (early english books online ; image set 95209) images scanned from microfilm: (early english books, 1641-1700 ; 728:24) the council of trent examin'd and disprov'd by catholick tradition in the main points in controversie between us and the church of rome with a particular account of the times and occasions of introducing them : part 1 : to which a preface is prefixed concerning the true sense of the council of trent and the notion of transubstantiation. stillingfleet, edward, 1635-1699. the second edition corrected; with an appendix in answer to some late passages of j.w. of the society of jesus, concerning the prohibiting of scripture in vulgar languages. [2], xxiii, [5], 163 p. printed for h. mortlock ..., london : 1688. includes bibliographical references. advertisement: p. [148]. reproduction of original in duke university library. created by converting tcp files to tei p5 using tcp2tei.xsl, tei @ oxford. re-processed by university of nebraska-lincoln and northwestern, with changes to facilitate morpho-syntactic tagging. gap elements of known extent have been transformed into placeholder characters or elements to simplify the filling in of gaps by user contributors. eebo-tcp is a partnership between the universities of michigan and oxford and the publisher proquest to create accurately transcribed and encoded texts based on the image sets published by proquest via their early english books online (eebo) database (http://eebo.chadwyck.com). the general aim of eebo-tcp is to encode one copy (usually the first edition) of every monographic english-language title published between 1473 and 1700 available in eebo. eebo-tcp aimed to produce large quantities of textual data within the usual project restraints of time and funding, and therefore chose to create diplomatic transcriptions (as opposed to critical editions) with light-touch, mainly structural encoding based on the text encoding initiative (http://www.tei-c.org). the eebo-tcp project was divided into two phases. the 25,363 texts created during phase 1 of the project have been released into the public domain as of 1 january 2015. anyone can now take and use these texts for their own purposes, but we respectfully request that due credit and attribution is given to their original source. users should be aware of the process of creating the tcp texts, and therefore of any assumptions that can be made about the data. text selection was based on the new cambridge bibliography of english literature (ncbel). if an author (or for an anonymous work, the title) appears in ncbel, then their works are eligible for inclusion. selection was intended to range over a wide variety of subject areas, to reflect the true nature of the print record of the period. in general, first editions of a works in english were prioritized, although there are a number of works in other languages, notably latin and welsh, included and sometimes a second or later edition of a work was chosen if there was a compelling reason to do so. image sets were sent to external keying companies for transcription and basic encoding. quality assurance was then carried out by editorial teams in oxford and michigan. 5% (or 5 pages, whichever is the greater) of each text was proofread for accuracy and those which did not meet qa standards were returned to the keyers to be redone. after proofreading, the encoding was enhanced and/or corrected and characters marked as illegible were corrected where possible up to a limit of 100 instances per text. any remaining illegibles were encoded as <gap>s. understanding these processes should make clear that, while the overall quality of tcp data is very good, some errors will remain and some readable characters will be marked as illegible. users should bear in mind that in all likelihood such instances will never have been looked at by a tcp editor. the texts were encoded and linked to page images in accordance with level 4 of the tei in libraries guidelines. copies of the texts have been issued variously as sgml (tcp schema; ascii text with mnemonic sdata character entities); displayable xml (tcp schema; characters represented either as utf-8 unicode or text strings within braces); or lossless xml (tei p5, characters represented either as utf-8 unicode or tei g elements). keying and markup guidelines are available at the text creation partnership web site . eng catholic church -controversial literature. council of trent (1545-1563) transubstantiation. 2004-02 tcp assigned for keying and markup 2004-03 apex covantage keyed and coded from proquest page images 2004-04 emma (leeson) huber sampled and proofread 2004-04 emma (leeson) huber text and markup reviewed and edited 2004-07 pfs batch review (qc) and xml conversion the council of trent examin'd and disprov'd by catholick tradition . in the main points in controversie between us and the church of rome ; with a particular account of the times and occasions of introducing them ; part i. to which a preface is prefixed concerning the true sense of the council of trent and the notion of transubstantiation . the second edition corrected . with an appendix in answer to some late passages of j. w. of the society of jesus , concerning the prohibiting of scripture in vulgar languages . london , printed for h. mortlock at the phoenix in s. pauls church-yard , 1688. the preface . there is it seems a train in controversies , as well as in thoughts ; one thing still giving a start to another ; conferences produce letters ; letters , books ; and one discourse gives occasion for another . for this follows the former as a necessary pursuit of the same argument against tradition . i. s. in his last letter , had vouched the authority of the council of trent proceeding upon tradition , and he instanced in three points , transubstantiation , sacramental confession and extreme unction . the examination of this i thought fit to reserve for a discourse by it self ; wherein , instead of confining my self to those three particulars , i intend to go through the most material points there established , and to prove from the most authentick testimonies , that there was no true catholick tradition for any of them . and if i can make good what i have undertaken , i shall make the council of trent it self the great instance against the infallibility of tradition . this is a new undertaking ; which the impetuousness of our adversaries setting up tradition for the ground of their faith , hath brought me to . but besides the shewing that really they have not tradition on their side ; i have endeavoured to trace the several steps and to set down the times and occasions of introducing those points which have caused that unhappy breach in the christian world , whose sad effects we daily see and lament , but have little hopes to see remied , till these new points be discarded and scripture interpreted by truely catholick tradition , be made the standard of christian communion . i do not pretend , that all these points came in at one time or in the same manner ; for some errours and corruptions came in far more early ; some had the favour of the church of rome in a higher degree ; some were more generally received in the practice of the church in later times , than others ; and some were merely school points before the council of trent , but as far as the thomists and scotists could be made to agree there against the reformers , these passed for articles of faith. for , this was one of the great arts of that council to draw up their decrees in such terms , as should leave room enough for eternal wranglings among themselves , provided they agreed in doing the business effectually against the hereticks , as they are pleased to call them . i therefore forbear to urge these as points of faith , which have been freely debated among themselves since the council of trent , without any censure . we have enough in the plain decrees and canons of that council , without medling with any school-points . and so i cannot be charged with misrepresenting . the great debate of late hath been about the true exposition of the points there defined ; and for my part , i am content to yield to any just and reasonable methods of giving the true sense of them . and such i conceive these to be , i. where the council of trent makes use of words in a strict and limited sense , there it is unreasonable to understand them in a large and improper sense . as for instance , sess. 6. c. 26. it decrees that justified persons do verè promerere ; truely merit eternal life ; and can. 32. there is an anathema against him who denies true merit in the good works of justified persons , both as to increase of grace and eternal life . there is no one conversant in ancient writers , but knows that there was a large and improper sense of the word merit ; but how is it impossible to apply that sense , where such care is taken , that it may be understood in a strict and limited sense ? if the council had left the word in its general sense , there might have been reason to have given the fairest interpretation to it ; but when it is certainly known , that there had been a difference of opinions in the church of rome about true and proper merit , and that which was not ( however it were called , ) and the council declares for the former , no man of understanding can believe that onely the improper sense was meant by it . as in the point of the eucharist when the council declares that the words of christ , this is my body , are truely and properly to be understood ; would it not be thought strange for any one to say , that the council notwithstanding might mean that christ's words may be figuratively understood ? and we must take the true notion of merit not from any large expressions of the ancients , but from the conditions of true and proper merit among themselves . but of this at large afterwards . so as to the notion of sacraments ; every one knows how largely that word was taken in ancient writers ; but it would be absurd to understand the council of trent in that sense , when sess. 6. can. 1. de sacramentis , it denounces an anathema not merely against him that denies seven sacraments ; but against him that doth not hold every one of them to be truely and properly a sacrament . and in the creed of pius iv. one article is , that there are seven true and proper sacraments how vain a thing then were it for any to expound the sacraments in a large and improper sense ? ii. where the council of trent hath not declared it self , but it is fully done in the catechism made by its appointment , we ought to look on that , as the true sense of the council . as in the case of the sacraments ; the council never declares what it means by true and proper sacraments ; but the catechism makes large and full amends for this defect . for after it hath mention'd the use of the word in profane and sacred writers , it sets down the sense of it according to their divines for a sensible sign which conveys the grace which it signifies . and after a large explication of the nature of signs , it gives this description of a true and proper sacrament , that it is a sensible thing , which by divine institution not only hath the force of signifying but of causing grace . and to shew the authority of this catechism for explicating the doctrine of the sacraments we need only to look into sess. 24. c. 7. de reform . where it is required that the people be instructed in the sacraments according to ●it . it is supposed that the catechism was appointed to be made in the 18th ses●ion at the instigation of carolus borromaeus , ( since canonized ) but it was not finished while the council sate , and therefore sess. 25. it was refer'd to the judgment and authority of the pope . i confess therefore it hath not a conciliar authority stamped upon it , but it hath a sort of transfused infallibility , as far as they could convey it ; and as much as a council hath , when it borrows it from the popes confirmation . it was near two tears hammering at trent , viz. from 26. of feb. 1562. to decemb. 1563. when the council rose ; afterwards , it was preparing at rome three years longer , and then presented to the pope to be approved , and published by his authority , after it had been carefully review'd by cardinal sirlet , borromeo , and others ; and hath since been universally received in the roman church ; so that we can have no more authentick exposition of the sense of the council of trent , than what is contained in that cat●chism . iii. where the council of trent declares a thing in general to be lawfull and due , but doth not express the manner of it , that is to be understood from the generally receiv'd and allowed practices at that time . for , otherwise the council must be charged with great unfaithfulness in not setting down and correcting publick and notorious abuses , when it mention'd the things themselves and some abuses about them . as in the 25th session , concerning purgatory , invocation of saints , worship of images and relicks , it goes no farther than that the sound doctrine be taught , that saints are to be invocated , images and relicks to be worship'd ; but never defines what that sound doctrine is , what bounds are to be set in the worship of saints , images and relicks , which it is unlawfull to exceed . so that in this case , we have no other way to judge of the meaning of the council , but by comparing the publick and allow'd practices of the church with the general decrees of the council . and we have this farther reason for it , that we are told by the latest expositors of it , that the sense of the church in speculative points , is to be taken from publick practices . for , thus one of them expresses himself , moreover , even her speculative doctrines are so mixed with practical ceremonies , which represent them to the vulgar , and instruct even the meanest capacities in the abstrusest doctrines , that it seems ever impossible to make an alteration in her doctrine without abrogating her ceremonies , or changing her constant practices . iv. where the decrees of the council , are not sufficiently clear , there we must take in the canons to make the sense more plain . this rule i take from the council it self , which in the 6th session , just before the canons saith , that those are added , that all may know not only what they are to hold and follow , but what they are to shun and avoid . as in the famous instance of transubstantiation ; suppose , that the words of the decree do not determine expresly the modus ; yet it is impossible for any one to doubt of it who looks into the canon , which denounces an anathema against him , not only that denies transubstantiation , but that asserts the substance of bread and wine to remain after consecration . therefore he that asserts transubstantiation according to the council of trent , must hold it in such a manner , as thereby to understand that the substance of bread and wine doth not remain . otherwise he is under an anathema by the express canon of the council . therefore it is so far from being a fatal oversight , ( as a late author expresses it , ) to say that the council of trent hath determin'd the modus of the real presence , that no man who is not resolved to oversee it can be of another opinion . and herein the divines of the church of rome do agree with us , viz. that the particular modus is not only determin'd by the council , but that it is a matter of faith to all persons of the communion of that church . as not only appears from the 2d canon , but from the very decree it self , sess. 13. ch . 4. the holy synod declares , that by consecration of the bread and wine , there is a conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of christ , and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood , which conversion is fitly and properly by the holy catholick church called transubstantiation . in which words the council doth plainly express the modus of the real presence to be , not by a presence of christ's body together with the substance of the bread , as the lutherans held , but by a conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body , &c. and since there were different manners of understanding this real presence , if the council did not espouse one so , as to reject the other as heretical ; then it is impossible to make the lutheran doctrine to be declared to be heretical , i. e , unless the council did determine the modus of the real presence . for , if it did not , then notwithstanding the decrees and canons of the council of trent , persons are at liberty to believe either transubstantiation or consubstantiation , which i think no roman catholick will allow . but. it is said , that the meaning of the decree is , that the real presence is not to be understood after a natural , but a sacramental manner ; but doth it not plainly tell us , how that sacramental manner is to be understood , viz. by a conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the whole substance of the body , &c. and if other ways be possible , and all others be rejected , then this particular modus must be determin'd . i grant , that the council doth not say , there is an annihilation of the elements ; and i know no necessity of using that term , for that which is supposed to be turned into another thing cannot properly be said to be annihilated ( which is the reducing it to nothing ) but the council doth assert a total conversion of one substance into another , and where that is , that substance must wholly cease to be what it was ; and so , there can be no substance of the elements remaining after consecration . for , as aquinas observes , quod convertitur in aliquid factâ conversione non manet . if then the substance of the elements doth not remain after consecration , by virtue of this total conversion , then the council of trent by its decree hath plainly determin'd the modus of the real presence , so as to exclude any such manner , as doth suppose , the substance to remain , whether it be by impanation or consubstantiation , or any other way . what if rupertus thought the bread might become the real body of christ by an union of the word to it ? all that can be infer'd is , that the modus was not then so determin'd , as to oblige all persons to hold it . but what is this to the council of trent ? can any one hold the substance to remain , and not to remain at the same time ? for , he that holds with rupertus must allow the substance to remain ; he that believes a total conversion must deny it . and he that can believe both these at once , may believe what he pleases . but the council only declares the sacramental presence to be after an ineffable manner . i say , it determines it to be by a total conversion of one substance into another ; which may well be said to be ineffable , since what cannot be understood can never be expressed . our dispute is not about the use of the word , transubstantiation , for i think it proper enough to express the sense of the council of trent ; but as the word consubstantial did exclude all other modes how christ might be the son of god , and determin'd the faith of the church to that manne● ; so doth the sense of transubstantiation , as determin'd by the council of trent , limit the manner of the real presence , to such a conversion of the substance of the elements into the substance of christ's body and blood , as doth imply no substance to remain after consecration . it is to no purpose to tell us , the council uses only the word species and not accidents ; for whatever they are called , the council denounces its anathema against those who hold the substance to remain after consecration ; and denies the total conversion of the substance of the bread and wine into the substance of the body and bloud of christ. if the substance be not there , the modus is to purpose determin'd . and whatever remains , call it what you will , it is not the substance ; and that is sufficient to shew , that the council of trent hath clearly determin'd the modus of the real presence . v. we must distinguish the school points left undetermin'd by the council of trent , from those which are made articles of faith. we never pretend , that it left no school-disputes about the points there determin'd ; but we say it went too far in making some school-points to be points of faith , when it had been more for the peace of christendom to have left them to the schools still . thus in the point of transubstantiation , the elder school-men tell us , there were different ways of explaining the real presence ; and that those , which supposed the substance to remain , were more agreeable to reason and scripture than the other ; and some were of opinion , that the modus was no matter of faith then . but after the point of the real presence came to be warmly contested in the time of berengarius , it rose by degrees higher and higher , till at last the particular modus came to be determin'd with an anathema by the council of trent . when berengarius , a. d. 1059. was forced to recant by nicolaus 2d , with the assistance of 113. bishops ; no more was required of him , than to hold that the bread and wine after consecration ; are not only the sacrament , but the true body and bloud of christ , and that it is sensibly handled and broke by the priests hands , and eaten by the communicants . here is no denying the substance of bread to remain ; and joh. parisiensis observes , that the words cannot be defended but by an assumption of the bread ; for , saith he , if the body of christ be truely and sensibly handled and eaten , this cannot be understood of christ's glorious body in heaven , but it must be of the bread really made the body of christ after consecration . the sense which the canonists put upon the words of this recantation is absurd , viz. that they are to be understood of the species ; for berengarius his opinion related to the substance of christ's body which he denied to be in the sacrament . and what would it have signified for him to have said that christ was sensibly broken and eaten under the species of bread and wine ? i. e. that his body was not sensibly broken and eaten but the species were . it had signified something , if he had said , there was no substance of bread and wine left but only the species . but all the design of this recantation was to make him assert the sacrament to be made the true and real body of christ in as strong a manner , as the pope and his brethren could think of . and although the canonists think , if strictly taken , it implies greater heresie than that of berengarius ; yet by their favour , this form was only thought fit to be put into the canon-law , as the standard of the faith of the roman church then ; and the following abjuration of berengarius was only kept in the register of gregory the seventh's epistles . for about twenty years after by order of gregory vii . berengarius was brought to another abjuration , but by no means after the same form with the former . for by this he was required to declare , that the bread and wine are substantially converted into the true and proper flesh and bloud of christ , and after censecration are the true body of christ born of the virgin and sacrificed upon the cross , and that sits at the right hand of the father ; and the true bloud of christ which was shed out of his side , not only as a sacramental sign , but in propriety of nature and reality of substance . this was indeed a pretty bold assertion of the substantial presence . and so much the bolder , if the commentary on s. matthew be hildebrand's . for there he saith , the manner of the conversion is uncertain . but as far as i can judge , by substantial conversion he did not then mean , as the council of trent doth , a total conversion of one substance into another , so as that nothing of the former substance remains ; but that there was a change by consecration not by making the body of christ of the substance of the bread , but by its passing into that body of christ which was born of the virgin. for , upon comparing the two forms , there we shall find lies the main difference . pope nicolaus went no farther than to the true body of christ ; which it might be as well by assumption , as conversion ; gregory vii . went farther and thought it necessary to add that the change was into the substance of that body which was born of the virgin , &c. and so this second form excludes a true body merely by assumption , and asserts the change to be into the substance of christ's body in heaven ; but it doth not determine , that nothing of the substance of the elements doth remain . for when he puts that kind of substantial conversion which leaves nothing but the accidents , and the body of christ to be under them , which belonged to the substance of the elements ; he declares this matter to be uncertain . which shews , that however a change was owned into the substance of christ's body , yet such a total conversion , as is determined by the council of trent , was not then made an article of faith. but from this supposition made by hildebrand it appears , that the dectrine of substance and accidents was then well known ; and therefore the introducing aristotle's philosophy from the arabians afterwards could make no alteration in this matter . for the words of hildebrand are as plain as to the difference of substance and accidents , as of any of the school-men ; and that the accidents of the bread and wine might be separated from the substance of them ; but this was not then made a matter of faith ; as it was afterwards . but the case was remarkably alter'd , after the lateran council under innocent iii. for transubstantiation being admitted there among the articles of faith ; and so entred in the canon-law in the very beginning of the decretals ; this did not merely become a school-term , but by the inquisitors of that time , it was accounted heresie to deny it . it may be sufficiently proved by the school-men and canonists , that a difference of opinions , as to the modus did still continue , ( but that belongs to a more proper place ) and joh. parisiensis declares ( p. 103 ) that the lateran council in his opinion did not make transubstantiation a point of faith ; or at least that substance was not to be taken for the matter , but the suppositum ; but the inquisitors went more briskly to work and made it downright ●●●●esie to assert , that the substance of the elements did remain after consecration . of this , we have full evidence in the register of courtney arch-bishop of canterbury , ( which is no invisible manuscript . ) for there we read f. 25. that he called a select convecation of bishops , divines and canonists , may 17. a. d. 1382. to declare some propositions to be heretical , and s●me to be erroneous and contrary to the determination of the church . among the first , these two are set down in the first place , 1. that the material substance of the bread and wine doth remain in the sacrament of the altar after consecration . 2. that the accidents do not remain without their subject in that sacrament after consecration . after this the arch-bishop sent forth his mandate to all his suffragans not only to prohibit the preaching of that doctrine , but to inquire after those who did it . and june 12. robert rygge chancellour of oxford and thomas brightwall appeared before him and were examined upon these propositions ; which they declared to be heretical : who thereupon required the publication of them as such in the university ; and the proceeding against those who were suspected to favour them . the ground the arch-bishop went upon , was , that these had been already condemned by the church , and therefore ex abundanti , they declared them to be so condemned ; as appears by the monition given to robert rygge himself as too much suspected to favour the contrary doctrine ; as well as nicholas hereford , philip reppyndon d. d. and john ashton b. d. against these the arch-bishop proceeded as inquisitor haereticae pravitatis per totam suam provinciam , as it is in the record ; who appearing desired a copy of the several propositions , and then they were required to give in their judgment upon them . ashton refused , but the other promised , which they performed soon after ; and to these two propositions , their answers were , to the first that as far as it was contrary to the decretal , firmiter credimus , it was heresie . to the second that as far as it was contrary to the decretal , cum marthoe , it was heresie . these answers were judged insufficient , because they did not declare what that sense was and the arch-bishop put this question to them , whether the same numerical material bread which before consecration was set upon the altar , did remain in its proper substance and nature after consecration , but they would give no other answer at that time . but afterwards reppyndon abjured , and was made bishop of lincoln . from hence it appears , that it was then thought that the modus was so far determin'd by the lateran council , that the contrary doctrine was declared not merely erroneous in faith , but heretical . in the first convocation held by th. arundel arch-bishop of canterbury a. d. 1396 , a complaint was brought , that several divines and others of the university of oxford held some heretical and erroneous opinions ; the first whereof was , that the substance of bread doth remain after confecration ; and doth not cease to be bread ; which is there affirmed to be heresie , speaking of material bread. the second , that the court of rome in the can. ego berengarius , had determined that the sacrament of the eucharist is naturally true bread. it is very hard to say , how this came to be then accounted heretical doctrine , when no less a man than durandus in the same age affirms , that the canonists grant that the opinion of the ceasing of the substance was grounded on the can. firmiter credimus , i. e. on the lateran council ; but that of the remaining of the substance on that , ego , berengarius . but however it passed for heretical , or at least very erroneous doctrine here ; but the main heresie was to hold , that the substance remained . for a. d. 1400. ( as appears by the register p. 2. f. 179. ) william sawtre alias chatris a parochial priest in london , was summoned before the same arch-bishop in convocation upon an information of heresie ; and one of the main articles against him was that he held the substance of the bread to remain in the sacrament of the altar after consecration ; and that it doth not cease to be bread. sawtre answered , that he believed , that after consecration the bread did remain with the body of christ ; but it doth not cease to be simply bread , but it remains holy and true the bread of life and body of christ. the arch bishop examined him chiefly upon this article ; and because he did not answer home to the point , he was condemned for a heretick , and was the first who was burned for heresie in england . and yet his answer was , that he could not understand the matter ; then the arch-bishop asked him , if he would stand to the churches determination ; he said , he would so far as it was not contrary to the will of god. upon which he was declared an heretick and delivered over to the secular power . in the same convocation john purvey made an abjuration of heresie , and the first he renounced was that after consecration in the sacrament of the altar , there neither is , nor can be an accident without a subject , and that the same substance and nature of bread remained which was before . in the examination of william thorp by thomas arundel , arch-bishop of canterbury a. d. 1407. ( which is not in the register being defective , but the account is preserved from his own copy ) the arch-bishop declared , that the church had now determined , that there abideth no substance of bread after consecration in the sacrament of the altar . and that if he believed otherwise he did not believe as the church believed . thorp quoted s. augustin and fulgentius to prove that the substance remained ; and the very mass on christmas day . the arch-bishop still pressed him with the churches determination . thorp said this was a school-nicety whether accidents could be without a subject ; no , said the arch-bishop , it is the faith of the church i go upon . thorp replyed , it was not so for a thousand years after christ. in the examination of the lord cobham a. d. 1412. by the same arch-bishop we find that he owned the real presence of christ's body as firmly as his accusers ; but he was condemned for heresie , because he held the substance of bread to remain . for the arch-bishop declared this to be the sense of the church ; that after consecration , remaineth no material bread or wine which were before , they being turned into christ's very body and bloud . the original words of the arch-bishop as they are in the register , are these . the faith and the determination of holy church touching the blestfull sacrament of the auter is this , that after the sacramental words ben said by a prest in his masse , the material bred that was before is turned into christ's veray body . and the material wyn that was before is turned into christ veray blode , and so there leweth in the auter , no material brede ne material wyn the wich wer ther byfore the saying of the sacramental words . and the bishops afterwards stood up and said ; it is manifest heresie to say that it is bread after the sacramental words be spoken ; because it was against the determination of holy church . but to make all sure , not many years after , may 4th . a. d. 1415. the council of constance session 8. declared the two propositions before mentioned to be heretical ; viz. to hold that the substance doth remain after consecration , and that the accidents do not remain without a subject . let any impartial reader now judge , whether it be any fatal oversight to assert , that the modus of the real presence was determin'd by the council of trent , when there were so many leading determinations to it , which were generally owned and received in the church of rome . but there were other disputes remaining in the schools relating to this matter ; which we do not pretend were ever determin'd by the council of trent . as , ( 1. ) whether the words of consecration are to be understood in a speculative or practical sense ? for , the scotists say , in the former sense , they do by no means prove transubstantiation ; since it may be truly said this is my body , though the substance of bread do remain ; and that they are to be understood in a practical sense , i. e. for converting the bread into the body , is not to be deduced ex vi verborum , from the mere force of the words , but from the sense of the church which hath so understood them . which in plain terms is to say , it cannot be proved from scripture , but from the sense of the church ; and so scotus doth acknowledge , but then he adds , that we are to judge this to be the sense of scripture , because the church hath declared it . which he doth not think was done before the council of lateran . so that , this council must be believed to have had as infallible a spirit in giving this sense of scripture as there was in the writing of it ; since it is not drawn from the words , but added to them . on the other side , the thomists insist on the force of the words themselves ; for , if , say they , from the words be infer'd that there is a real presence of the substance of christ's body , then it follows thence , that there is no substance of the bread remaining ; for a substance cannot be where it was not before , but it must either change its place , or another must be turned into it ; as fire in a house must either be brought thither , or some other thing must be turned into fire ; but , say they , the body of christ cannot be brought from heaven thither , for then it must leave the place it had there ; and must pass through all the bodies between ; and it is impossible for the same body to be locally present in several places ; and therefore the body of christ cannot otherwise be really and substantially present , but by the conversion of the substance of the bread into it . ( 2. ) in what manner the body of christ is made to be present in the sacrament ? the scotists say , it is impossible to conceive it otherwise than by bringing it from the place where it already is ; the thomists say that is impossible , since that body must be divided from it self by so many other bodies interposing . the former is said to be an adductive conversion , the latter a productive ; but then here lies another difficulty , how there can be a productive conversion of a thing already in being . but my business is not to give an account of these school-disputes ; but to shew how different they were from the point of tranfubslantiation ; and that both these disputing parties did agree that the modus of the real presence was defined to be by changing the substance of the elements into the body and blood of christ ; but they still warmly disputed about the modus of that modus ; viz. how a body already in being could be present in so many places without leaving that place where it was already . and no man who hath ever look'd into these school disputes can ever imagine that they disputed about the truth of the doctrine of transubstantiation , but only about the manner of explaining it . wherein they do effectually overthrow each others notions without being able to establish their own ; as the elector of cologn truly observed of their debates about this matter in the council of trent . vi. where the sense of words hath been changed by the introducing new doctrine , there the words ought to be understood according to the doctrine at that time received . of this we have two remarkable instances in the council of trent ; the first is about indulgences , which that council in its last session never went about to define ; but made use of the old word , and so declares both scripture and antiquity for the use of them . but there had been a mighty change in the doctrine about them , since the word was used in the christian church . no doubt there was a power in the church to relax canonical penances in extraordinary cases ; but what could that signifie when the canonical discipline was laid aside , and a new method of dealing with penitents was taken up , and another trade driven with respect to purgatory pains ? for here was a new thing carried on under an old name . and that hath been the great artifice of the roman church ; where it hath evidently gone off from the old doctrines , yet to retain the old names , that the unwary might still think , the things were the same , because the names were . as in the present case , we deny not the use of indulgences in the primitive church ; as the word was used for relaxations of the canonical discipline ; but we utterly deny it as to the pains of purgatory . and that this was the sense then receiv'd in the church of rome , appears from the papal constitutions of bon face the 8th , clemens the 6th , and leo the 10th . but of these more hereafter . the other instance is in the word species used by the council of trent , sess. 13. can. 2. where an anathema is denounced against him that denies the conversion of the whole substance of the elements into the body and blood of christ , the species of bread and wine only remaining . now a controversie hath been started in the church of rome , what is to be understood by species , whether real accidents or only appearances . some of the church of rome who have had a tast of the new philosophy , reject any real accidents , and yet declare transubstantiation to be a matter of faith , and go about to explain the notion of it in another manner . among these one emanuel maignan , a professor of divinity at tholouse , hath at large undertaken this matter . the method he takes is this . ( 1. ) he grants , that nothing remains of the bread after consecration , but that whereby it was an object of sense ; because that which is really the being of one thing cannot be the being of another . and he confesses that the modus as to the not being of the substance after consecration , is determin'd by the councils of constance and trent . ( 2. ) he asserts , that real accidents , supposing them separable from the substance , are not that whereby the elements are made the objects of sense ; because they do not make the conjunction between the object and the faculty . ( 3. ) since he denies , that accidents have any real being distinct from the substance they are in , he grants , that it is as much a matter of faith , that there are no real accidents after consecration , as that there is no real substance ; and he brings the authorities of the councils of lateran , florence and trent to prove it . ( 4. ) as the substance did by divine concourse so act upon the senses before , as to make it be an object of sense ; so after consecration , god by his immediate act makes the same appearances , although the substance be gone . and this , he saith , is the effect of this miraculous conversion , which is concealed from our senses , by god's immediate causing the very same appearances , which came before from the substance . which appearances , he saith , are the species mention'd by the council of trent ; and other elder councils and fathers . against this new hypothesis , a famous jesuit , theophilus raynaudus , opposed himself with great vehemency ; and urged these arguments against it . ( 1. ) that it overthrows the very nature of a sacrament , leaving no external visible sign ; but a perpetual illusion of the senses , in such a manner , that the error of one cannot be corrected by another . ( 2. ) that it overthrows the design of the sacrament , which is to be true and proper food . my flesh is meat indeed , &c. john 6. which , he saith , is to be understood of the sacrament , as well as of the body of christ , and therefore cannot agree with an imaginary appearance . ( 3. ) it is not consistent with the accidents which befall the sacramental species , as to be trod under foot , to be cast into indecent places , to be devoured by brutes , to be putrified , &c. if the body of christ withdraws , there must be something beyond mere appearances . ( 4. ) he makes this doctrine to be heretical , because the council of constance condemned it as an heretical proposition , to affirm , that in the eucharist accidents do not remain without their subject ; and because the council of trent uses the word species in the sense then generally received , and so it signified the same with accidents . which , saith he , farther appears , because the council speaks of the species remaining ; but if there be no real accidents , the species doth not remain in the object ; but a new appearance is produced . and it seems most reasonable to interpret the language of the council according to the general sense wherein the words were understood at that time . vii . what things were disputed and opposed by some in the council , without being censured for it , although they were afterwards decreed by a major party , yet cannot be said to have been there received by a catholick tradition . because matters of faith which have been universally received in the church , can never be supposed to be contested in a council without censure ; but if it appears that there were heats and warm debates among the parties in the council it self , and both think they speak the sense of the catholick church ; then we must either allow that there was then no known catholick tradition about those matters , or that the divines of the church of rome assembled in council did not understand what it was . and what happens to be decreed by a majority , can never be concluded from thence to have been the tradition before , because there was a different sense of others concerning it . and since in a division , a single person may make a majority , it will be very hard to believe , that he carries infallibility and catholick tradition along with him . but i think it reasonable in the enquiry after catholick tradition to take notice of the different opinions in the council ; and among the school-men before it ; and not only to observe , what was the sense of the roman church , but of the eastern churches too ; and where the matter requires it , to go through the several ages of the church up to the apostolical times ; that i may effectually prove , that in the main points in controversie between us , which are established by the council of trent , there cannot be produced any catholick and apostolical tradition for them . the contents . some postulata about catholick tradition , page 1. i. point examined about traditions being a rule of faith equal with scriptures , 2. the sense of the council of trent concerning it , 3. no. catholick tradition for it shew'd from the differences about it in the council , 4. from the divines of the roman church for some ages before the council , 5. the testimonies of the canon law against it , 17. of the ancient offices of the roman church , 20. of the fathers , 21. the first step of traditions being set up as a rule by the second council of nice , 26. not receiv'd as a rule of faith till after the council of lateran under innocent iii. 27. the occasion of it set down from new points of faith there determin'd , 28. never established for a rule till the council of trent , 29. ii. about the canon of scripture defined by the council of trent , 30. the sense of the council , ibid. the difference there about it , 31. a constant tradition against it in the eastern church . 33. no catholick tradition for it in the western church , 35. the several steps as to the alteration of the canon set down , 38. the different meaning of apocryphal writings , 40. iii. about the free use of the scripture in the vulgar language prohibited by the council of trent , 43. the sense of the council , ibid. no catholick tradition about this proved from the writers of the roman church , 44. the general consent of the catholick church against it proved from the ancient translations into valgar languages , 46. the first occasion of the scriptures being in an unknown language , 52. the first prohibition by gregory vii . 56. continued by the inquisition after innocent iii. 58. iv. about the merit of good works , 59. the sense of true merit cleared from the divines of the church of rome , ibid. no catholick tradition for it proved from ancient offices , 61. from provincial councils and eminent divines in several ages before the council of trent , 63. the several steps how the doctrine of merit came in , 68. v. of the number of sacraments , 74. an appeal to tradition for 500. years for seven sacraments examin'd and disprov'd , 75. as to chrism , 77. as to drders , 80. as to penance , 85. as to extreme-unction , 92. as to patrimony , 97. the sense of the greek church about the seven sacraments , 102. the sense of other eastern churches , 110. when the number of seven sacraments came first in , 112. the particular occasions of them , 116. vi. of auricular confession , 117. no catholick tradition confessed by their own writers , 118. > the several steps and occasions of introducing it , at large set down , 127. the difference between the ancient discipline and modern confession , 128. of voluntary confession , 133. of the penitentiaries office , 135. publick discipline not taken away at constantinople when the penitentiary was removed , 136. proved from s. chrysostom , 140. publick penance for publick sins , 142. private confession came in upon the decay of the ancient discipline , 144. the council of trent examined and disproved , &c. there are two things designed by me in this treatise , 1. to shew that there is no such thing as universal tradition for the main points in controversie between us and the church of rome , as they are determined by the council of trent . 2. to give an account by what steps and degrees , and on what occasion those doctrines and practices came into the church . but before i come to particulars , i shall lay down some reasonable postulata . 1. that a catholick tradition must be universally received among the sound members of the catholick church . 2. that the force of tradition lies in the certainty of conveyance of matters of faith from the apostolical times . for no new doctrines being pretended to , there can be no matter of faith in any age of the church , but what was so in the precedent and so up to the apostles times . 3. that it is impossible to suppose the divines of the catholick church to be ignorant , what was in their own time received for catholick tradition . for , if it be so hard for others to mistake it , it will be much more so for those whose business is to enquire into , and to deliver matters of faith. these things premised , i now enter upon the points themselves ; and i begin with , i. traditions being a rule of faith equal with scriptures . this is declared by the council of trent , as the groundwork of their proceedings . the words are sess. 4. that the council receives traditions both as to faith and manners , either delivered by christ himself with his own mouth , or dictated by the holy ghost , and preserved in the catholick church by a continual succession with equal piety of affection and reverence as the proofs of holy scripture . where the council first supposes there are such traditions from christ and the holy ghost distinct from scripture which relate to faith ; and then it declares equal respect and veneration due to them . no one questions but the word of christ and dictates of the holy ghost deserve equal respect , howsoever conveyed to us ; but the point is , whether there was a catholick tradition before this time for an unwritten word , as a foundation of faith , together with the written word . 1. it is therefore impertinent here to talk of a tradition before the written word ; for our debate is concerning both being joined together to make a perfect rule of faith : and yet this is one of the common pleas on behalf of tradition . 2. it is likewise impertinent to talk of that tradition whereby we do receive the written word . for the council first supposes the written word to be received and embraced as the word of god , before it mentions the unwritten word ; and therefore , it cannot be understood concerning that tradition whereby we receive the scriptures . and the council affirms , that the truth of the gospel is contained partly in books that are written , and partly in unwritten traditions . by the truth of the gospel they cannot mean the scriptures being the word of god , but that the word was contained partly in scripture and partly in tradition ; and it is therefore impertinent to urge the tradition for scripture to prove tradition to be part of the rule of faith , as it is here owned by the council of trent . 3. the council doth not here speak of a traditionary sense of scripture , but of a distinct rule of faith from the scripture . for of that it speaks afterwards in the decree about the use of the scripture ; where it saith , no man ought to interpret scripture against the sense of the church to whom it belongs to judge of the true sense and meaning of scripture , nor against the unanimous consent of the fathers . whereby it is evident , the council is not to be understood of any consequences drawn out of scripture concerning things not expresly contained in it ; but it clearly means an unwritten word distinct from the written , and not contained in it , which , together with that , makes up a complete rule of faith. this being the true sense of the council , i now shew that there was no catholick tradition for it . which i shall prove by these steps : 1. from the proceedings of the council it self . 2. from the testimony of the divines of that church before the council for several centuries . 3. from the canon law received and allowed in the church of rome . 4. from the ancient offices used in that church . 5. from the testimony of the fathers . 1. from the proceedings of the council about this matter . by the postulata it appears , that the catholick tradition is such as must be known by the sound members of the church , and especially of the divines in it . but it appears by the most allowed histories of that council , this rule of faith was not so received there . for cardinal pallavicini tells us that it was warmly debated and canvassed even by the bishops themselves . the bishop of fano ( bertanus ) urged against it , that god had not given equal firmness to tradition as he had done to scripture , since several traditions had failed . but the bishop of bitonto ( mussus ) opposed him and said , though all truths were not to be equally regarded , yet every word of god ought , and traditions as well as scripture were the word of god , and the first principles of faith ; and the greater part of the council followed him . it seems then there was a division in the council about it ; but how could that be if there were a catholick tradition about this rule of faith ? could the bishops of the catholick church , when assembled in council to determine matters of faith , be no better agreed about the rule of faith ; and yet must we believe there was at that time a known catholick tradition about it , and that it was impossible they should err about such a tradition ? nay farther , the same authour tells us , that although this bishop had gained the greatest part of the council to him , yet his own heart misgave him , and in the next congregation himself proposed , that instead of equal it might be put a like veneration ; and yet we must believe there was a catholick tradition for an equal veneration to scripture and tradition . but the bishop of chioza , ( naclantus ) he saith , inveighed more bitterly against this equality , and in the face of the council charged the doctrine with impiety ; and he would not allow any divine inspiration to tradition , but that they were to be considered onely as laws of the church . it 's true , he saith he professed to consent to the decree afterwards , but withall he tells us , that he was brought under the inquisition not long after , upon suspicion of heresie ; which shews they were not well satisfied with his submission . we are extremely beholden to cardinal pallavicini for his information in these matters , which are past over too jejunely by f. paul. 2. i proceed to the testimony of the divines of the roman church before the council of trent . it is observed by some of them , that when the fathers appealed to the tradition of the church in any controverted point of faith , they made their appeal to those who wrote before the controversie was started ; as s. augustin did against the pelagians , &c. this is a reasonable method of proceeding , in case tradition be a rule of faith : and therefore must be so even in this point , whether tradition be such a rule or not . for the divines who wrote before could not be ignorant of the rule of faith they received among themselves . gabriel biel lived in the latter end of the 15th century , and he affirms , that the scripture alone teaches all things necessary to salvation ; and he instances in the things to be done and to be avoided , to be loved and to be despised , to be believed and to be hoped for . and again , that the will of god is to be understood by the scriptures , and by them alone we know the whole will of god. if the whole will of god were to be known by the scripture , how could part of it be preserved in an unwritten tradition ? and if this were then part of the rule of faith , how could such a man , who was professour of divinity at tubing be ignorant of it ? i know he saith he took the main of his book from the lectures of eggelingus , in the cathedral church at mentz ; but this adds greater strength to the argument , since it appears hereby that this doctrine was not confined to the schools , but openly delivered in one of the most famous churches of germany . cajetan died not above 12 years before the council , who agrees with this doctrine of biel or eggelingus ( and he was accounted the oracle of his time for divinity ) for he affirms that the scripture gives such a perfection to a man of god ( or one that devoutly serves him ) that thereby he is accomplished for every good work ; how can this be , if there be another rule of faith quite distinct from the written word ? bellarmin indeed grants , that all things which are simply necessary to the salvation of all , are plainly contained in scripture , by which he yields , that the scripture alone is the rule of faith as to necessary points ; and he calls the scripture the certain and stable rule of faith , yea the most certain and most secure rule . if there be then any other , it must be less certain and about points not necessary to salvation ; i. e. it must be a rule where there is no need of a rule . for if mens salvation be sufficiently provided for , by the written rule ; and the divine revelation , be in order to mens salvation , what need any other revelation to the church , besides what is written ? he asserts farther , that nothing is de fide , but what god hath revealed to the prophets and apostles , or is deduced from thence . this he brings to prove that whatsoever was received as a matter of faith in the church , which is not found in scripture must have come from an apostolical tradition . but if it be necessary to salvation , according to his own concession it must be written ; and if it be not , how comes it to be received as a matter of faith ? unless it be first proved , that it is necessary to salvation to receive an unwritten rule of faith , as well as a written ? for , either it must be necessary on its own account , and then he saith it must be written ; and if not , then it can be no otherwise necessary than because it is to be believed on the account of a rule , which makes it necessary . and consequently that rule must be first proved to be a necessary article of faith : which bellarmin hath no where done ; but onely sets down rules about knowing true apostolical traditions from others in matters of faith , wherein he wisely supposes that which he was to prove . and the true occasion of setting up this new rule of faith is intimated by bellarmin himself in his first rule of judging true apostolical traditions . which is , when the church believes any thing as a doctrine of faith which is not in scripture , then saith he , we must judge it to be an apostolical tradition . why so ? otherwise the church must have erred in taking that for a matter of faith which was not . and this is the great secret about this new rule of faith ; they saw plainly several things were imposed on the faith of christians , which could not be proved from scripture ; and they must not yield they had once mistaken , and therefore this new , additional less certain rule for unnecessary points must be advanced , although they wanted tradition among themselves to prove tradition a rule of faith , which i shall now farther make appear from their own school divines before the council of trent . we are to observe among them what those are which they strictly call theological truths , and by them we shall judge , what they made the rule of faith. for , they do not make a bare revelation to any person a sufficient ground for faith ; but they say * the revelation must be publick , and designed for the general benefit of the church ; and so aquinas determines † that our faith rests onely upon the revelations made to the prophets and apostles ; and theological truths are such as are immediately deduced from the principles of faith , i. e. from publick divine revelations owned and received by the church . the modern school men , ‖ who follow the council of trent make theological truths to be deduced from the unwritten as well as the written word ; or else they would not speak consonantly to their own doctrine . and therefore if those before them deduce theological truths onely from the written word , then it will follow that they did not hold the unwritten word to be a rule of faith. marsilius ab inghen was first professor of divinity of heidelberg ( at the latter end of the 15th century saith bellarmin , but trithemius saith the 14th ) and he determines , that a theological proposition is that which is positively asserted in scripture or deduced from thence by good consequence ; and that a theological truth strictly taken is the truth of an article of faith , or something expressed in the bible , or deduced from thence . he mentions apostolical traditions afterwards , and joins them with ecclesiastical histories and martyrologies . so far was he from supposing them to be part of the rule of faith. in the beginning of the 15th century lived petrus de alliaco , one as famous for his skill in divinity , as for his dignity in the church , he saith , that theological discourse is founded on scripture , and a theological proof must be drawn from thence ; that theological principles are the truths contained in the canon of scripture ; and conclusions are such as are drawn out of what is contained in scripture . so that he not onely makes the scripture the foundation of faith , but of all sorts of true reasoning about it . he knew nothing of cardinal palavicini's two first principles of faith. to the same purpose speaks gregorius ariminensis , about the middle of the 14th century he saith , all theological discourse is grounded on scripture and the consequences from it ; which he not onely proves from testimony , but ex communi omnium conceptione , from the general consent of christians . for , saith he , all are agreed that then a thing is proved theologically , when it is proved from the words of scripture . so that here we have plain tradition , against traditions being a distinct rule of faith , and this delivered by the general of an order in the church of rome . he affirms that the principles of theology , are no other than the truths contained in the canon of scripture ; and that the resolution of all theological discourse is into them ; and that there can be no theological conclusion , but what is drawn from scripture . in the former part of that century lived darandus , he gives a threesold sense of theology . 1. for a habit whereby we assent to those things which are contained in scripture , as they are there delivered . 2. for a habit whereby those things are ●efended and declared which are delivered in scripture . 3. for a habit of those things which are deduced out of articles of faith ; and so it is all one with the holy scripture . and in another place he affirms , that all truth is contained in the holy scripture at large ; but for the people's conveniency the necessary points are summed up in the apostles creed . in his preface before his book on the sentences he highly commends the scriptures for their dignity , their usefulness , their certainty , their depth ; and after all concludes , that in matters of faith men ought to speak agreeably to the scriptures ; and whosoever doth not , breaks the rule of the scriptures , which he calls the measure of our faith. what tradition did appear then for another rule of faith in the 14th century ? but before i proceed higher i shall shew the consent of others with these school divines in the three last centuries before the council of trent . in the middle of the 15th lived nicholaus panormitanus , one of mighty reputation for his skill in the canon law. in the ch. significâsti prima . 1. de electione , debating the authority of pope and council , he saith , if the pope hath better reason his authority is greater than the councils ; and if any private person in matters of faith hath better reason out of scripture than the pope , his saying is to be preferred above the pope's . which words do plainly shew , that the scripture was then looked on as the onely rule of faith ; or else no man's grounding himself on scripture could make his doctrine to be preferred before the pope's ; who might alledge tradition against him , and if that were an equal rule of faith , the doctrine of one rule could not be preferred before the other . at the same time lived tostatus the famous bishop of avila , one of infinite industry and great judgment , and therefore could not be mistaken in the rule of faith. in his preface on genesis he saith , that there must be a rule for our understandings to be regulated by , and that rule must be most certain ; that divine faith is the most certain ; and that is contained in scripture , and therefore we must regulate our understandings thereby . and this he makes to be the measure of truth and falshood . if he knew any other rule of faith besides the scriptures , he would have mentioned it in this place ; and not have directed men onely to them , as the exact measure of truth and falshood . in the beginning of this century thomas walden ( confessor to our henry 5th , saith trithemius , ) disputed sharply against wickliff ; but he durst not set up the churches authority or tradition equal with the scriptures . for when he mentions tradition after scriptures , he utterly disclaims any such thought as that of equality between them ; but he desires a due distance may be kept between canonical scripture and ecclesiastical authority or tradition . in the first place he saith , we ought to believe the holy scriptures ; then the definitions and customs of the catholick church ; but he more fully explains himself in another place , where he plainly asserts , that nothing else is to be received by such faith as the scripture and christ's symbolical church ; but for all other authorities , the lowest degree is that of catholick tradition , the next of the bishops , especially of the apostolical churches , and the roman in the first place ; and above all these he places that of a general council ; but when he hath so done , he saith , all these authorities are to be regarded but as the instructions of elders , and admonitions of fathers . so that the chief opposers of wickliff had not yet found out this new rule of faith. much about the same time lived joh. gerson , whom cardinal zabarella declared , in the council of constance , to be the greatest divine of his time , and therefore could not be ignorant of the true rule of faith. he agrees with panormitan in this , that if a man be well skilled in scriptures , his doctrine deserves more to be regarded than the pope's declaration ; for , saith he , the gospel is more to be believed than the pope , and if such a one teaches a doctrine to be contained in scripture , which the pope either knows not or mistakes , it is plain whose judgment is to be preferred . nay , he goes farther , that if in a general council he finds the majority incline to that part which is contrary to scripture , he is bound to oppose it , and he instances in hilary . and he shews , that since the canon of scripture received by the church , no authority of the church is to be equalled to it . he allows a judgment of discretion in private persons , and a certainty of the literal sense of scripture attainable thereby . he makes the scripture the onely standing infallible rule of faith for the whole church to the end of the world . and whatever doctrine is not agreeable thereto , is to be rejected either as heretical , suspicious , or impertinent to religion . if the council of trent had gone by this rule , we had never heard of the creed of pius iv. in the beginning of the 14th century lived nicolaus de lyra , who parallels the scriptures in matters of faith with first-principles in sciences ; for as other truths are tried in them by their reduction to first-principles , so in matters of faith by their reduction to canonical scriptures , which are of divine revelation , which is impossible to be false . if he had known any other principles which would have made faith impossible to be false , he would never have spoken thus of scripture alone . but to return to the school divines . about the same time lived joh. duns scotus , the head of a school , famous for subtilty ; he affirms , that the holy scripture doth sufficiently contain all matters necessary to salvation ; because by it we know what we are to believe , hope for , and practise . and after he hath enlarged upon them , he concludes in these words , patet quod scriptura sacra sufficienter continet doctrinam necessariam viatori . if this be understood onely of points simply necessary , then however it proves , that all such things necessary to salvation are therein contained ; and no man is bound to enquire after unnecessary points . how then can it be necessary to embrace another rule of faith , when all things necessary to salvation are sufficiently contained in scripture ? but thomas aquinas is more express in this matter ; for he saith , that those things which depend on the will of god , and are above any desert of ours , can be known no otherways by us , than as they are delivered in scriptures by the will of god , which is made known to us . this is so remarkable a passage , that suarez could not let it escape without corrupting it ; for instead of scripture he makes him to speak of divine revelation in general , viz. under scripture he comprehends all ; that is , under the written word he means the unwritten . if he had meant so , he was able to have expressed his own mind more plainly ; and cajetan apprehended no such meaning in his words , but this is a matter of so great consequence , that i shall prove from other passages in him , that he asserted the same doctrine , viz. that the scripture was the onely rule of faith. 1. he makes no proofs of matters of faith to be sufficient but such as are deduced from scripture ; and all other arguments from authority to be onely probable ; nay although such persons had particular revelations . how can this be consistent with another rule of faith distinct from scripture ? for if he had owned any such , he must have deduced necessary arguments from thence , as well as from canonical scriptures . but if all other authorities be onely probable , then they cannot make any thing necessary to be believed . 2. he affirms , that to those who receive the scriptures we are to prove nothing but by the scriptures , as matter of faith. for by authorities he means nothing but the scriptures ; as appears by the former place , and by what follows , where he mentions the canon of scripture expresly . 3. he asserts that the articles of the creed are all contained in scripture , and are drawn out of scripture , and put together by the church onely for the ease of the people . from hence it nenessarily follows that the reason of believing the articles of the creed , is to be taken from the written word and not from any unwritten tradition . for else he needed not to have been so carefull to shew , that they were all taken out of scripture . 4. he distinguisheth the matters of faith in scripture , some to be believed for themselves , which he calls prima credibilia ; these he saith every one is bound explicitly to believe ; but for other things he is bound onely implicitly , or in a preparation of mind , to believe whatever is contained in scripture ; and then onely is he bound to believe explicitly when it is made clear to him to be contained in the doctrine of faith. which words must imply the scripture to be the onely rule of faith ; for otherwise implicit faith , must relate to whatever is proved to be an unwritten word . from all this it appears that aquinas knew nothing of a traditional rule of faith ; although he lived after the lateran council a. d. 1215. being born about nine years after it . and bonaventure , who died the same year with him , affirms , that nothing was to besaid , ( about matters of faith ) but what is made clear out of the holy scriptures . not long after them lived henricus gandavensis ; and he delivers these things which are very material to our purpose . 1. that the reason why we believe the guides of the church since the apostles , who work no miracles , is , because they preach nothing but what they have left in their most certain writings , which are delivered down to us pure and uncorrupt by an universal consent of all that succeeded to our times . where we see he makes the scriptures to be the onely certain rule , and that we are to judge of all other doctrines by them . 2. that truth is more certainly preserved in scripture than in the church ; because that is fixed and immutable , and men are variable , so that multitudes of them may depart from the faith , either through errour or malice ; but the true church will always remain in some righteous persons . how then can tradition be a rule of faith equal with scriptures , which depends upon the testimony of persons who are so very fallible ? i might carry this way of testimony on higher still , as when richardus de s. victore saith , in the thirteenth century , that every truth is suspected by him , which is not confirmed by holy scripture ; but in stead of that i shall now proceed to the canon law , as having more authority than particular testimonies . 3. as to the canon law collected by gratian , i do not insist upon its confirmation by eugenius , but upon its universal reception in the church of rome . and from thence i shall evidently prove that tradition was not allowed to be a rule of faith equal with the scriptures . dist. 9. c. 3 , 4 , 5 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10. the authority and infallibility of the holy scripture is asserted above all other writings whatsoever ; for all other writings are to be examined , and men are to judge of them as they see cause . now bellarmin tells us , that the unwritten word is so called , not that it always continues unwritten , but that it was so by the first authour of it . so that the unwritten word doth not depend on mere oral tradition , according to him , but it may be found in the writers of the church ; but the canon law expresly excludes all other writings , let them contain what they will , from being admitted to any competition with canonical scripture ; and therefore according to that , no part of the rule of faith was contained in any other than canonical scriptures . dist. 37. c. relatum , a man is supposed to have an entire and firm rule of faith in the scriptures . caus. 8. q. 1. c. nec sufficere , the scriptures are said to be the onely rule both of faith and life . and the gloss on the canon law there owns the scripture to be the rule for matters of faith ; but very pleasantly applies it to the clergy , and thinks images enough for the laity . caus. 24. q. 1. c. non afferentes . the scriptures are acknowledged to be the true balance ; and that we are not so much to weigh what we find there , as to own what we find there already weighed . which must imply the scripture alone to be that measure we are to trust to . dist. 8. c. 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9. it is there said , that custome must yield to truth and reason , when that is discovered , and that for this reason , because christ said , i am truth and not custome . now , if tradition be an infallible rule of faith , custome ought always to be presumed to have truth and reason of its side . for , if we can once suppose a custome to prevail in the church against truth and reason , it is impossible that tradition should be infallible ; for what is that but ancient custome ? caus. 11. q. 3. c. 101. si is qui proeest . if any one commands what god hath forbidden , or forbids what god hath commanded , he is to be accursed of all that love god. and if he requires any thing besides the will of god , or what god hath evidently required in scripture , he is to be looked on as a false witness of god , and a sacrilegious person . how can this be , if there be another infallible way of conveying the will of god besides the scriptures ? caus. 24. q. 3. c. 30. c. quid autem . in matters of doubt it is said that men are to fly to the written word for satisfaction , and that it is folly not to doe it . it is true , mens own fancies are opposed to scripture , but against mens fancies no other rule is mentioned but that of the written word . joh. 22. extravag . c. quia quorundam . tit. 14. makes his appeal to scripture in the controversie then on foot about use and property ; dicunt nobis ubi legunt , &c. and he shews that if it were a matter of faith , it must be contained in scripture , either expresly or by reduction ; otherwise the scripture would be no certain rule ; and by consequence , the articles of faith which are proved by scripture , would be rendred doubtfull and uncertain . the glosser there saith , whence comes this consequence ? and refers to another place ; where he makes it out thus ; that faith can onely be proved by the scripture , and therefore if the authority of that be destroy'd , faith would be taken away . the roman editors for an antidote refer to cardinal turrecremata , who doth indeed speak of catholick truths , which are not to be found in the canon of scripture ; and he quotes a passage in the canon law for it under the name of alex. 3. c. cum marthoe extrav . de celebr . missae . but in truth it is innoc. 3. decretal . l. 3. tit. 41. and yet this will not prove what he aims at ; for the question was about the authour of the words added in the eucharist to those of christ's institution ; and he pleads that many of christ's words and actions are omitted by the evangelists , which the apostles afterwards set down ; and he instances in saint paul , as to those words of christ , it is more blessed to give than to receive ; and elsewhere . but what is all this to catholick truths not being contained in scripture either in words or by consequence ? the cardinal was here very much to seek , when he had nothing but such a testimony as this to produce in so weighty and so new a doctrine . the best argument he produces is , a horrible blunder of gratian's , where s. augustin seems to reckon the decretal epistles equal with the scriptures , dist. 19. c. in canonicis ; which the roman correctors were ashamed of , and consess that s. augustin speaks onely of canonical epistles in scripture . so hard must they strain , who among christians would set up any other rule equal with the written word . 4. i proceed to prove this from the ancient offices of the roman church . in the office produced by morinus out of the vatican ms. which he saith was very ancient ; the bishop before his consecration was asked , if he would accommodate all his prudence , to the best of his skill , to the sense of holy scripture ? resp. yes , i will with all my heart consent , and obey it in all things . inter. wilt thou teach the people by word and example , the things which thou learnest out of holy scriptures ? resp. i will. and then immediately follows the examen about manners . in another old office of s. victor's , there are the same questions in the same manner . and so in another of the church of rouen lately produced by mabillon , which he saith was about william the conquerour's time , there is not a word about traditions ; which crept into the ordo romanus , and from thence hath been continued in the roman pontificals . but it is observable , that the ordo romanus owns that the examen was originally taken out of the gallican offices , ( although it does not appear in those imperfect ones lately published at rome by th●masius ) and therefore we may justly suspect that the additional questions about traditions were the roman interpolations , after it came to be used in that pontifical . and the first office in morinus was the true ancient gallican office. but if tradition had been then owned as a rule of faith , it ought no more to have been omitted in the ancient offices than in the modern . and the ancient writers about ecclesiastical offices speak very agreeably to the most ancient offices about this matter . amalarius saith the gospel is the fountain of wisedom ; and that the preachers ought to prove the evangelical truth out of the sacred books . isidore , that we ought to think nothing ( as to matters of faith ) but what is contained in the two testaments . rabanus maurus , that the knowledge of the scriptures is the foundation and perfection of prudence , that truth and wisedom are to be tried by them ; and the perfect instruction of life is contained in them . our venerable bede agrees with them , when he saith , that the true teachers take out of the scriptures of the old and new testament that which they preach : and therefore have their minds imploy'd in finding out the true meaning of them . 5. i now come to the fathers ; wherein i am in great measure prevented by a late discourse , wherein it is at large shewed that the fathers made use of no other rule but the scriptures for deciding controversies ; therefore i shall take another method , which is to shew that those who do speak most advantageously of tradition , did not intend to set up another rule of faith distinct from scripture . and here i shall pass over all those testimonies of fathers which speak either of tradition before the canon of scripture , or to those who did not receive it , or of the tradition of scripture it self , or of some rites and customs of the church , as wholly impertinent . and when these are cut off , there remain scarce any to be considered , besides that of vincentius lerinensis , and one testimony of s. basil. i begin with vincentius lerinensis , who by some is thought so great a favourer of tradition ; but he saith not a word of it as a rule of faith distinct from scripture ; for he asserts the canon of scripture to be sufficient of it self for all things . how can that be , if tradition be a rule of faith distinct from it ? he makes indeed catholick tradition the best interpreter of scripture ; and we have no reason to decline it in the points in dispute between us , if vincentius his rules be follow'd . 1. if antiquity , universality and consent be joyned . 2. if the difference be observed between old errours and new ones . for , saith he , when they had length of time , truth is more easily concealed , by those who are concerned to suppress it . and in those cases we have no other way to deal with them , but by scripture and ancient councils . and this is the rule we profess to hold to . but to suppose any one part of the church to assume to it self the title of catholick , and then to determine what is to be held for catholick tradition by all members of the catholick church , is a thing in it self unreasonable , and leaves that part under an impossibility of being reclaimed . for in case the corrupt part be judge , we may be sure no corruptions will be ever owned . vincentius grants that arianism had once extremely the advantage in point of universality , and had many councils of its side ; if now the prevailing party be to judge of catholick tradition , and all are bound to submit to its decrees without farther examination , as the authour of the guide in controversies saith upon these rules of vincentius ; then i say all men were then bound to declare themselves arians . for if the guides of the present church are to be trusted and relied upon for the doctrine of the apostolical church downwards ; how was it possible for any members of the church then to oppose arianism , and to reform the church after its prevalency ? to say it was condemned by a former council , doth by no means clear the difficulty ; for the present guides must be trusted , whether they were rightly condemned or not ; and nothing can be more certain , than that they would be sure to condemn those who condemned them . but vincentius saith , every true lover of christ preferred the ancient faith before the novel betraying of it ; but then he must chuse this ancient faith against the judgment of the present guides of the church . and therefore that , according to vincentius , can be no infallible rule of faith. but whether the present universality dissents from antiquity , whose judgment should be sooner taken than its own ? saith the same authour , this had been an excellent argument in the mouth of ursacius or valens at the council of ariminum ; and i do not see what answer the guide in controversies could have made . but both are parties , and is not the councils judgment to be taken rather than a few opposers ? so that , for all that i can find by these principles , arianism having the greater number , had hard luck not to be established as the catholick faith. but if in that case , particular persons were to judge between the new and the old faith , then the same reason will still hold , unless the guides of the church have obtained a new patent of infallibility since that time . the great question among us , is , where the true ancient faith is ; and how we may come to find it out ? we are willing to follow the ancient rules in this matter . the scripture is allowed to be an infallible rule on all hands ; and i am proving that tradition was not allowed in the ancient church as distinct from it . but the present question is , how far tradition is to be allowed in giving the sense of scripture between us . vincentius saith , we ought to follow it when there is antiquity , universality and consent : this we are willing to be tryed by . but here comes another question , who is to be judge of these ? the present guides of the catholick church ? to what purpose then are all those rules ? will they condemn themselves ? or , as the guide admirably saith , if the present universality be its own judge , when can we think it will witness its departure from the true faith ? and if it will not , what a case is the church in , under such a pretended universality ? the utmost use i can suppose then , vincentius his rules can be of to us now , is in that case which he puts when corruptions and errours have had time to take root and fasten themselves ; and that is , by an appeal to scripture and ancient councils . but because of the charge of innovation upon us , we are content to be tried by his second rule . by the consent of the fathers of greatest reputation , who are agreed on all hands to have lived and died in the communion of the catholick church : and what they delivered freely , constantly and unanimously , let that be taken for the undoubted and certain rule in judging between us . but if the present guides must come in to be judges here again , then all our labour is lost , and vincentius his rules signifie just nothing , the testimony of s. basil is by mr. white magnified above the rest , and that out of his book de spiritu sancto above all others , to prove that the certainty of faith depends on tradition ; and not merely on scripture . the force of it is said to lye in this , that the practice of the church , in saying , with the holy spirit , though not found in scripture is to determine the sense of the article of faith about the divinity of the holy ghost . but to clear this place , we are to observe , 1. that s. basil doth not insist on tradition for the proof of the article of faith , for he expresly disowns it in that book ; it is not enough , saith he , that we have it by tradition from our fathers ; for our fathers had it from the will of god in scripture , as appears by those testimonies i have set down already , which they took for their foundations . nothing can be plainer than that s. basil made scripture alone the foundation of faith as to this point . and no one upon all occasions speaks more expresly than he doth as to the sufficiency of scripture for a rule of faith ; and he was too great , and too wise a man to contradict himself . 2. that there were different forms of speech used in the church concerning the holy ghost , some taken out of scripture , and others received by tradition from the fathers . when he proves the divinity of the holy ghost he appeals to scripture , and declares , that he would neither think nor speak otherwise than he found there . but it was objected that the form s. basil used was not found in scripture ; he answers , that the equivalent is there found ; and that there were some things received by tradition , which had the same force towards piety . and if we take away all unwritten customs , we shall doe wrong to the gospel , and leave a bare name to the publick preaching . and from thence he insists on some traditionary rites , as the sign of the cross , praying towards the east , &c. his business is to shew that to the greater solemnity of christian worship several customs were observed in the church , which are not to be found in scripture . and if other ancient customs were received which are not commanded in scripture , he sees no reason that they should find such fault with this . and this is the whole force of s. basil's reasoning , which can never be stretched to the setting up tradition as a rule of faith distinct from scripture . having thus shewed that there was no catholick tradition for this new rule of faith , i am now to give an account how it came into the church . the first step that was made towards it , was by the second council of nice . for , although the emperour in the synodical epistle proposed to them the true ancient mehod of judging in councils , by the books of scripture placed on a throne in the middle of the council ; yet they found , they could by no means doe their business that way , and therefore as bellarmin observes , they set up tradition in the 6th and 7th sessions , and pronounced anathema's against those who rejected unwritten traditions . but although there were then almost as little pretence for tradition as scripture in the matter of images ; yet there having been a practice among them , to set up and to worship images , ( which richerius thinks came first into the church from the reverence shewed to the emperours statues ) they thought this the securest way to advance that , which they could never defend by scripture . but this prevailed very little in the western church , as is well known by the rejection of that synod ; however pope hadrian joined with them , and produced a wretched tradition about sylvester and constantine to justifie their proceedings ; as appears by the acts of that council . and from the time that images were received at rome , the force of tradition was magnified ; and by degrees it came to be made use of to justifie other practices , for which they had nothing else to plead . hitherto tradition was made use of for matters of practice , and the scripture was generally received as the rule of faith ; but some of the schoolmen found it impossible to defend some doctrines held in the church of rome by mere scripture , and therefore they were forced to call in the help of tradition . the most remarkable of these was scotus , who although in his prologue he asserted , as is said already , that the scripture did sufficiently contain all things necessary to salvation ; yet when he came to particular points , he found scripture alone would never doe their business . and especially as to the sacraments of the church , about which he saw the church of rome then held many things which could never be proved from thence . and this was the true occasion of traditions being taken in for a partial rule . for after the council of lateran had declared several things to be of faith , which were in no former creeds , as scotus confesses , and they were bound to defend them as points of faith , the men of wit and subtilty , such as scotus was , were very hard put to it , to find out ways to prove those to have been old points of faith , which they knew to be very new . then they betook themselves to two things , which would serve for a colour to blind the common people ; and those were , 1. that it was true , these things were not in scripture ; but christ said to his disciples , i have many things to say unto you , &c. and among those many things they were to believe these new doctrines to be some . 2. when this would not serve , then they told them , though these doctrines were not explicitly in scripture , yet they were implicitly there ; and the church had authority to fetch them out of those dark places , and to set them in a better light . and thus scotus helped himself out in that dark point of transubstantiation . first he attempts to make it out by tradition , but finding that would not doe the business effectually , he runs to the authority of the church , especially in the business of sacraments , and we are to suppose , saith he , that the church doth expound the scripture with the same spirit which indited them . this was a brave supposition indeed , but he offers no proof of it . if we allow scotus to have been the introducer of tradition , as to some points of faith , yet i have made it appear , that his doctrine was not received in the schools . but after the council of constance had declared several propositions to be heretical , which could not be condemned by scripture , there was found a necessity of holding , that there were catholick truths not contained in scripture . the first proposition there condemned was , that the substance of bread and wine remain in the sacrament of the altar : the second , that the accidents do not remain without their subject : now how could such as these be condemned by scripture ? but although onely some were said to be heretical , yet all were said to be against catholick truth . but where is this catholick truth to be found ? cardinal cusanus thought of a current sense of scripture , according to the churches occasions ; so that though the churches practice should be directly contrary , yet the scripture was to be understood as the church practised . this was a very plain and effectual way , if it had not been too gross ; and therefore it was thought much better by cardinal turrecremata , to found catholick verities on unwritten tradition , as well as on scripture . after this , leo x. in his famous bull against luther , exurge domine , made a farther step ; for 22 proposition condemned therein , is that it is certain that it is not in the power of the church or pope to appoint new articles of faith. it seems then the pope or church have a power to constitute new articles of faith ; and then neither scripture nor tradition can be the certain rule of faith , but the present church or pope . this had put an end to the business , if it would have taken ; but the world being wiser , and the errours and corruptions complained of not being to be defended 〈◊〉 scripture , tradition was pitched upon as a secure way ; and accordingly several attempts were made towards the setting of it up , by some provincial councils before that of trent . so in the council of sens , 1527. can. 53. it is declared to be a pernicious errour to receive nothing but what is deduced from scripture , because christ delivered many things to his apostles which were never written . but not one thing is alledged as a matter of faith so conveyed ; but onely some rites about sacraments and prayer ; and yet he is declared a heretick as well as schismatick , who rejects them . indeed the apostles creed is mentioned , but not as to the articles contained in it , but as to the authours of it . but what is there in all this that makes a man guilty of heresie ? jod . clicthoveus , a doctor of paris , the next year wrote an explication and defence of this council , but he mistakes the point ; for he runs upon it as if it were , whether all things to be believed and observed in the church , were to be expresly set down in scripture ? whereas a just consequence out of it is sufficient . and the greatest strength of what he saith to the purpose , is , that the other opinion was condemned in the council of constance . and from no better a tradition than this did the council of trent declare the unwritten word to be a rule of faith equal with the scriptures . ii. about the canon of scripture , defined by the council of trent . this is declared by the council of trent , sess. 4. and therein the books of tobias , judith , wisedom of solomon , ecclesiasticus , maccabees and baruch are received for canonical , with the twenty two books in the hebrew canon , and an anathema is denounced against those who do not . and presently it adds , that hereby the world might see what authorities the council proceeded on for con●●rming matters of faith as well as reforming manners . now to shew that there was no catholick tradition for the ground of this decree , we are to observe , 1. that these canonical books are not so called in a large sense for such as have been used or read in the church ; but in the strict sense for such as are a good foundation to build matters of faith upon . 2. that these books were not so received by all even in the council of trent . for what is received by virtue of a catholick tradition , must be universally received by the members of it . but that so it was not appears by the account given by both the historians . f. paul saith , that in the congregation there were two different opinions of those who were for a particular catalogue ; one was to distinguish the books into three parts , the other to make all the books of equal authority ; and that this latter was carried by the greater number . now if this were a catholick tradition , how was it possible for the fathers of the council to divide about it ? and cardinal pallavicini himself saith , that bertanus and seripandus propounded the putting the books into several classes , some to be read for piety , and others to confirm doctrines of faith ; and that cardinal seripando wrote a most learned book to that purpose . what! against a catholick tradition ? it seems , he was far from believing it to be so . and he confesses , that when they came to the anathema , the legats and twenty fathers were for it ; madrucci and fourteen were against it , because some catholicks were of another opinion . then certainly , they knew no catholick tradition for it . among these cardinal cajetan is mention'd , who was , saith pallavicini , severely rebuked for it by melchior canus ; but what is that to the tradition of the church ? canus doth indeed appeal to the council of carthage , innocentius i. and the council of florence ; but this doth not make up a catholick tradition against cajetan ; who declares that he follows s. jerom , who cast those books out of the canon with respect to faith. and he answers the arguments brought on the other side , by this distinction , that they are canonical for edification , but not for faith. if therefore canus would have confuted cajetan he ought to have proved that they were owned for canonical in the latter sense . cajetan in his epistle to clemens vii . before the historical books , owns the great obligation of the church to s. jerom for distinguishing canonical and apocryphal books ; and saith , that he hath freed it from the reproach of the jews , who said the christians made canonical books of the old testament which they knew nothing of . and this was an argument of great consequence ; but canus takes no notice of it , and it fully answers his objection , that men could not know what books were truly canonical , viz. such as were of divine inspiration , and so received by the jews . catharinus saith , in answer to cajetan , that the jews had one canon , and the church another . but how comes the canon to be received as of divine inspiration which was not so received among the jews ? this were to resolve all into the churches inspiration and not into tradition . bellarmin grants , that the church can by no means make a book canonical which is not so , but onely declare what is canonical , and that , not at pleasure ; but from ancient testimonies , from similitude of style with books uncontroverted , and the general sense and taste of christian people . now the case here relates to books not first written to christians , but among the jews , from whom we receive the oracles of god committed to them . and if the jews never believed these books to contain the oracles of god in them , how can the christian church embrace them for such , unless it assumes a power to make , and not merely to declare canonical books ? for he grants we have no testimony of the jews for them . but catharinus himself cannot deny that s. jerom saith , that although the church reads those books , yet it doth not receive them for canonical scriptures . and he makes a pitisull answer to it . for he confesses , that the church taken for the body of the faithfull did not receive them ; but as taken for the governours it did . but others grant that they did receive them no more than the people ; and as to the other , the cause of tradition is plainly given us . and in truth he resolves all at last into the opinion of the popes innocentius , gelasius and eugenius 4. but we are obliged to him for letting us know the secret of so much zeal for these apocryphal books , viz. that they are of great force against the hereticks , for purgatory is no where so expresly mention'd as in the maccabees . if it had not been for this , s. jerom and cajetan might have escaped censure , and the jewish canon had been sufficient . but to shew , that there hath been no catholick tradition about the tridentine canon , i shall prove these two things : 1. that there hath been a constant tradition against it in the eastern church . 2. that there never was a constant tradition for it in the western church . 1. that there hath been a constant tradition against it in the eastern church , which received the jewish canon , without the books declared canonical by the council of trent . we have very early evidence of this in the testimony of melito , bishop of sardis , who lived not long after the middle of the 2d . century , and made it his business to enquire into this matter , and he delivers but 22 books of the old testament . the same is done by origen in the next , who took infinite pains , as eusebius saith , in searching after the copies of the old testament . and these testimonies are preserved by eusebius in the following century : and himself declares , that there was no sacred book among the jews from the time of zorobabel ; which cuts off the books canonized by the council of trent . in the same age we have the testimonies of athanasius , st. cyril of jerusalem , epiphanius , s. basil , s. gregory nazianzene , amphilochius and s. chrysostom : it is not to be imagined that a tradition should be better attested in one age than this was , by so considerable men in different churches , who give in the testimony of all those churches they belonged to . and yet besides these we have in that age a concurrent testimony of a council of bishops at laodicea , from several provinces of asia ; and which is yet more , this canon of theirs was received into the code of the catholick church ; and so owned by the council of chalcedon , which by its first canon gives authority to it . and justinian allows the force of laws to the canons which were either made or confirmed by the four general councils . but it is the point of tradition i am upon ; and there●ore justinian's novel may at least be a s●rong evidence of that in the 6th century : in the 7th , leontius gives his own testimony , and that of theodorus . in the 8th , damascen expresly owns the hebrew canon of 22 books , and excludes by name some of the books made canonical at trent . in the 9th we have the test●mony of nicephorus , patriarch of constantinople , if he be the authour of the laterculus , at the end of his chr●nography ; but if he be not , he must be an authour of that age , being translated by anastasius bibliothecarius . in the 12th . balsamon and zonaras refer to the council of laodicea , and the greek fathers . in the 14th . nicephorus calisthus reckons but 22 books of the old testament . and in this age , we have the clear testimony of metrophanes , ( afterwards patriarch of alexandria ) who saith , there are but 22 canonical books of the old testament ; but the rest , i. e. tobit , judith , wisedom , ecclesiasticus , baruch and machabees are usefull , and therefore not wholly to be rejected , but the church never received them for canonical and authentical , as appears by many testimonies , as , among others , of gregory the divine , amphilochius and damascen : and therefore we never prove matters of faith out of them . 2. let us now compare this tradition with that of the western church for the new canon of trent . it cannot be denied , that innocentius i. and gelasius did enlarge the canon , and took in the apocryphal books ( unless we call in question the writings under their names ; ) but granting them genuine , i shall shew that there is no comparison between this tradition and that of the eastern church , and therefore there could be no possible reason for the council of trent to make a decree for this tradition , and to anathematize all who did not submit to it . for , 1. this tradition was not universally received at that time . innocentius his epistle is supposed to be written a. d. 405. was the western church agreed before or after about this matter ? this epistle was written to eruperius , a gallican bishop , ( to whom st. jerom dedicated his commentaries on zechariah , ) but now it unluckily falls out , that the tradition of the gallican church was contrary to this ; as appears by s. hilary , ( who could not be ignorant of it , being a famous bishop of that church ) and he tells us , there were but 22 canonical books of the old testament . i confess he saith , some were for adding tobit and judith , but it is very observable that he saith , that the other account is most agreeable to ancient tradition , which is a mighty argument against innocentius , who brings no tradition to justifie his canon . when st. augustin produced a place out of the book of wisedom , the divines of marseilles rejected it ; because the book was not canonical : therefore in that time innocent's canon was by no means received in the gallican church ; for by it this book was made canonical . but s. jerom , who had as much learning as pope innocent , vehemently opposed this new canon more than once or ten times ; and not onely speaks of the jewish canon , but of the canon of the church . the church , saith he , reads the books of tobit , judith and machabees , but the church doth not receive them among canonical scriptures . what church doth he mean ? not the synagogue certainly . pope innocent saith , those books are to be received into the canon ; s. jerom saith , the church doth not receive them , but that they are to be cast out ; where is the certainty of tradition to be found ? if innocent were in the right , s. jerom was foully mistaken , and in plain terms belied the church . but how is this consistent with the saintship of st. jerom ? or with common discretion if the church did receive those books for canonical ? for every one could have disproved him . and it required no great judgment or deep learning to know what books were received , and what not . if s. jerom were so mistaken ( which it is very hard to believe ) how came ruffinus not to observe his errours and opposition to the church ? nay , how came ruffinus himself to fall into the very same prodigious mistake ? for he not onely rejects the controverted books out of the canon , but saith , he follow'd the ancient tradition therein . what account can be given of this matter ? if innocent's tradition were right , these men were under a gross delusion ; and yet they were learned and knowing persons , and more than ordinarily conversant in the doctrines and traditions of the church . 2. this opinion was not received as a tradition of the church afterwards . for , if it had been , how could gregory i. reject the book of machabees out of the canon , when two of his predecessours took it in ? it is somewhat hard , to suppose one pope to contradict two of his predecessours about the canon of scripture ; yet i see not how to avoid it ; nor how it is consistent with the constancy of tradition , much less with the pretence to infallibility . he did not merely doubt , as canus would have it thought , but he plainly excludes them out of the canon . catharinus thinks he follow'd s. jerom. what then ? doth this exclude his contradicting his predecessours ? or was s. jerom's judgment above the pope's ? but it was not s. gregory alone who contradicted the former popes canon ; for it was not received either in italy , spain , france , germany or england ; and yet no doubt it was a very catholick tradition . not in italy ; for there cassiodore , a learned and devout man in the next century to them , gives an account of the canon of scripture , and he takes not any notice either of innocent or gelasius . he first sets down the order of scripture according to s. jerom ; and then according to s. augustin ; and in the last place , according to the old translation and the lxx . and where himself speaks of the apocryphal books before , he follows s. jerom 's opinion , that they were written rather for manners than dactrine . he confesses there was a difference about the canon ; but he goes about to excuse it . but what need that if there were a catholick tradition then in the church concerning it , and that inforced by two popes ? but it may yet seem stranger , that even in italy , one canonized for a saint by clemens vii . should follow s. jerom's opinion in this matter , viz. s. antoninus , bishop of florence . who speaking of ecclestasticus received into the canon of the two popes , he saith , it is onely received by the church to be read , and is not authentick to prove any thing in matters of faith. he that writes notes upon him , saith , that he follows s. jerom , and must be understood of the eastern church ; for the western church always receiv'd these books into the canon . but he speaks not one word of the eastern church ; and by the church he could understand nothing but what he accounted the catholick church . canus allows antoninus to have rejected these books ; but he thinks the matter not so clear , but then they might doubt concerning it . then there was no such evidence of tradition to convince men . but antoninus hath preserved the judgment of a greater man concerning these books even thomas aquinas , who in 2. 2 dae . he saith , denied these books to have such authority as to prove any matter of faith by them : which is directly contrary to the council of trent . if this passage be not now to be found in him , we know whom to blame for it . if antoninus saw it there , we hope his word may be taken for it . in spain , we have for the hebrew canon the testimonies of paulus burgensis , tostatus , and cardinal ximines . in france , of victorinus , agobardus , radulphus flaviacensis , petrus cluniacensis , hugo de s. victore , and richard de s. victore , lyra and others . in germany , of rabanus maurus , strabus , rupertus , hermannus contractus and others . in england , of bede , alcvin , sarisburiensis , ockam , waldensis and others . whom i barely mention , because their testimonies are at large in bishop cosins his scholastical history of the canon of scripture , and no man hath yet had the hardiness to undertake that book . these i think are sufficient to shew there was no catholick tradition for the decree of the council of trent about the canon of scripture . i now proceed to shew on what pretences and colours it came in , and by what degrees and steps it advanced . 1. the first step was , the esteem which some of the fathers expressed of these books in quoting of passages out of them . we do not deny that the fathers did frequently cite them : even those who expresly rejected them from being canonical , and not as ordinary books , but as such as were usefull to the church , wherein many wise sayings and good actions are recorded . but the many quotations the fathers do make out of them is the onely plausible pretence which those of the church of rome have to defend the putting them into the canon , as appears by bellarmin and others . the book of tobit , they tell us , is mentioned by s. cyprian , s. ambrose , st. basil , and st. augustin . of judith by st. jerom who mentions a tradition that it was allowed in the council of nice ; but certainly s. jerom never believed it , when he declares it to be apocryphal , and not sufficient to prove any matter of faith. the book of wisedom by s. cyprian , s. cyril and s. augustin . ecclesiasticus by clemens alexandrinus , s. cyprian , epiphanius , s. ambrose and s. augustin . the machabees by tertullian , cyprian , clemens alexandrinus , origen , eusebius , s. ambrose , s. augustin . but all these testimonies onely prove that they thought something in those books worth alledging , but not that they judged the books themselves canonical . and better arguments from their citations might be brought for the books of the sibylls than for any of these . we are not then to judge of their opinion of canonical books by bare citations , but by their declared judgments about them . 2. the next step was , when they came to be read in churches ; but about this there was no certain rule . for the councils of laodicea and carthage differed chiefly upon this point . the former decreed , that none but canonical scripture should be read under the name of holy writings ; and sets down the names of the canonical books then to be read , ( and so leaves out the apocalypse . ) the latter from their being read , inferr'd their being canonical ; for it agrees with the other , that none but canonical should be read , and because these were read , it reckons them up with the canonical books ; for so the canon concludes , we have received from our fathers that these books are to be read in churches . but the council of carthage was not peremptory in this matter ; but desired it might be referred to boniface and other bishops beyond the seas : which shews that here was no decree absolutely made , nor any certainty of tradition ; for then to what purpose should they send to other churches to advise about it ? 3. when they came to be distinguished from apocryphal writings . whence those who do not consider the reason of it , conclude them to have been canonical . but sometimes apocryphal signified such books as were not in the canon of faith , as in the authours before mentioned ; sometimes such books which were not allowed to be used among christians . this distinction we have in ruffinus , who saith there are three sorts of books ; canonical , as the 22 of the old testament ; ecclesiastical , of which sort he reckons wisedom , ecclesiasticus , tobit , judith and machabees , and these he saith were permitted to be read in churches , but no argument could be brought out of them for matter of faith , apocryphal are such which by no means were permitted to be read . and thus innocentius his words may well be understood : for he concludes with saying , that other writings were not onely to be rejected , but to be condemned . and so his meaning is to distinguish them from such counterfeit divine writings as were then abroad . for these were not to be wholly rejected , and in that large sense he admits them into the canon , taking ecclesiastical writings which were read in churches into that number . and in this sense s. augustin used the word apocryphal , when the book of enoch is so called by him , and such other counterfeit writings under the names of the prophets and apostles ; but elsewhere he distinguishes between the canonical books of salomon , and those which bear his name ; which he saith the more learned know not to be his , but the western church had of old owned their authority . but in the case of the book of enoch , he appeals to the canon , which was kept in the jewish temple ; and so falls in with s. jerom ; and he confesses it is hard to justifie the authority of those which are not in the hebrew canon . of the machabees he saith , it is distinguished from the writings called canonical ; but it is received by the church as such . what! to confirm matters of faith ? no. but for the glorious sufferings therein recorded ; and elsewhere he saith , it is usefull , if it be soberly read . s. augustin knew very well that all books were not received alike ; and that many were received in some parts of the western church from the old translation out of the lxx , which were not received in the eastern ; and therefore in his books of christian doctrine he gives rules in judging of canonical books ; to follow the authority of the greatest number of catholick churches , especially the apostolical ; and that those which were received by all , should be preferred before those which were onely received by some . but he very well knew , that the hebrew canon was universally received , and that the controverted books were not ; and therefore , according to his rule , these could never be of equal authority with the other . 4. when the roman church declared that it received the controverted books into the canon . this is said to have been done by gelasius , with his synod of lxx bishops , ( and yet it is hard to understand how gregory so soon after should contradict it . ) the title of it in the old ms. produced by chiffletius , and by him attributed to hormisdas , is , the order of the old testament which the holy catholick roman church receives and honours is this . but whether by gelasius , or hormisdas , i cannot understand , why such a decree as this should not be put into the old roman code of canons , if it had been then made . that there was such a one appears by the copies of it in the vatican , mentioned by the roman correctors of gratian , and by mention of it by the canon si romanorum , dist. 19. and de libellis , dist. 20. and by the latter we understand what canons of councils and decrees of popes are in it , among whom are both gelasius and hormisdas . this they agree to be the same with that published by wendelstin at mentz , 1525. the epistle of innocentius to exuperius with the canon is there published ; but not the other ; and so is the canon of the council of carthage ; but that of laodicea is cut off ; and so they are in that published by dionysius exiguus and quesnell , ( justellus his ancient copy was imperfect there , ) but both these canons being in the roman code , are an argument to me , that the controverted books were received by the roman church at that time ; but in such a manner , that s. jerom's prologues still stood in the vulgar latin bible , with the commentaries of lyra , and additions of burgensis , which were stiff for the hebrew canon ; and s. jerom's authority prevailed more than the pope's , as appears fully by what hath been already produced . 5. to advance the authority of these books one step higher , eugenius iv. declared them to be part of the canon in the instruction given to the armenians . which the roman writers pretend to have been done in the council of florence : but naclantus bishop of chioza , in the council of trent , as pallavicini saith , denied that any such decree was made by the council of florence ; because the last session of it ended 1439. and that decree was signed feb. 4. 1441. to this the legat replied , that this was a mistake occasioned by abraham cretensis , who published the latin version of it , onely till the greeks departure ; but the council continued three years longer , as appeared by the extracts of augustinus patricius , since published in the tomes of the councils . but he never mentions the canon of scripture ; however , because cervinus affirms that he saw the original signed by the pope and cardinals , we have no reason to dispute it . but then it appears how very little it signified , when antoninus the bishop of florence opposed it , and cardinal ximenes and cardinal cajetan slighted it , and all who embraced the council of basil looked on eugenius his decree as void ; and after all , that very decree onely joins the apocryphal books in the same canon , as the council of carthage had done ; but it was reserved as the peculiar honour of the council of trent to declare that matters of faith might be proved out of them , as well as out of any canonical scriptures . iii. about the free use of the scripture in the vulgar language , prohibited by the council of trent . to understand the sense of the council of trent in this matter , we must consider ; 1. that it declares the vulgar latin to be authentick ; i. e. that no man under any pretence shall dare to presume to reject it . suppose the pretence be that it differs from the original ; no matter for that , he must not reject that which the council hath declared authentick , i. e. among the latin editions . but suppose a man finds other latin translations truer in some parts , because they agree more with the original text , may he therein reject the vulgar latin ? by no means , if he thinks himself bound to adhere to the council of trent . but the council supposes it to agree with the original . and we must believe the council therein . this is indeed the meaning of the council as far as i can judge . but what catholick tradition was there for this ? tes for a thousand years after gregory 's time . but this is not antiquity enough to found a catholick tradition upon . if there were no more than a thousand from gregory , there were six hundred past before him ; so that there must be a more ancient tradition in the church , wherein this version was not authentick ; and how came it then to be authentick by virtue of tradition ? here then tradition must be given up ; and the council of trent must have some other ground to go upon . for i think the traditionary men will not maintain the vulgar latin to have been always authentick . 2. that it referred the making the index of prohibited books to the pope ; and in the 4th rule of that index , all persons are forbidden the use of the scripture in the vulgar tongue , without a particular licence , and whosoever presumes to doe it without a faculty , unless he first gives up his bible , he is not to receive absolution . my business is now to enquire what catholick tradition the pope and council went upon in this prohibition . but as to the testimony of fathers , i am prevented by some late discourses on this subject . in stead thereof therefore i shall , 1. shew from their own writers , that there could be no catholick tradition for such a prohibition . 2. prove the general consent of the catholick church from publick acts , as to the free use of the scripture . thomas aquinas grants that the scripture was proposed to all , and in such a manner that the most rude might understand it . therefore there was no prohibition of such persons reading it . cajetan there uses two arguments for the scriptures using metaphors and similitudes . 1. because god provides for all . 2. because the scripture is tendred to all . and the common people are not capable of understanding spiritual things without such helps . if the scripture were intended for all , how comes a prohibition of the use of it ? sixtus senensis grants , that in former times the scripture was translated into the vulgar languages , and the people did commonly reade it , to their great benefit . then a prohibition of it must alter the churches practical tradition . alphonsus à castro yields to erasmus , that the scriptures were of old translated into the vulgar tongues , and that the fathers , such as s. chrysostom , and s. jerom , persuaded people to the reading them . but the case is altered now , when such mischief comes by the reading the scriptures . and yet the tradition of the church continues the same , and is impossible to be changed . azorius puts the case fairly ; he grants that the scriptures were at first written and published in the common language ; that s. chrysostom admits all to reade the scriptures ; and that the people did so then ; but they do not now . but he saith , the people then understood greek and latin , and now they do not . if it were their own language they might well understand it ; but why should not the scripture now be in a language they may understand ? for greek and latin did not make the common people one jot wiser or better ; and yet this man calls it a heresie now to say , the scriptures ought to be translated into vulgar languages . how much is the faith of the church changed ? 2. i am now to prove the general consent of the catholick church in this matter from publick acts , i. e. that all parts of it have agreed in translations of scripture into vulgar languages without any such prohibition . if there had been any such thing in the primitive church , it would have held against the latin translation it self . for i hope none will say it was the original , however authentick it be made by the council of trent . how then came the originals to be turned into the common language ? ( as i suppose latin will be allow'd to have been the common language of the roman empire . ) there is no objection can now be made against any modern translations , but would have held against the first latin version . who the authour of it was is utterly unknown ; and both s. augustin and s. jerom say , there was a great variety among the old translations , and every one translated as he thought fit . so that there was no restraint laid upon translating into the common language . and unless latin were an infallible guide to those that understood it , the people were as liable to be deceived in it , as either in english or french. but it was not onely thus in the roman empire , but whereever a people were converted to christianity in all thè elder times , the scripture was turned into their language . the ecclesiastical historians mention the conversion of the goths , and upon that , the translation of the bible into their language by ulphilas their bishop . walafridus strabo adds to this , that besides the bible , they had all publick offices of religion performed in their own language . how soon the churches in persia were planted , it is impossible for us now to know ; but in the ms. ecclesiastical history of abulpharagius ( in the hands of dr. loftus ) it is said , that a disciple of thaddaeus preached the gospel in persia , assyria and the parts thereabouts ; and that by another disciple of his 360 churches were settled there in his time ; and that he came to seleucia , the metropolis of the persians , and there established a church , where he continued fifteen years . and from him there was a succession of the patriarchs of seleucia , which continues still in the east ; for upon destruction thereof by almansor , they removed first to bagdad , and after that to mozal over against ninive , where their residence hath been since ; and this patriarch had universal jurisdiction over the eastern churches as far as the east indies , as appears by morinus his books of ordinations in the east , and the proceedings with the christians of st. thomas in the very end of the last century . but we are certain from the greek historians , that in constantine's time the christians in persia were so numerous that he wrote to the king of persia on their behalf . eusebius saith that constantine was informed , that the churches were much increased there , and great multitudes were brought into christ's flock ; and constantine himself in his letter to sapores saith , the christians flourished in the best parts of persia ; and he hoped they might continue so to doe . but after constantine's death a terrible persecution befell them , wherein sozomen saith , the names of 16000 martyrs were preserved , besides an innumerable multitude of unknown persons . the sharpest part of the persecution fell upon the bishops and presbyters ; especially in adiabene , which was almost wholly christian , which ammianus marcellinus saith was the same with assyria , wherein were ninive , ecbatane , arbela , gaugamela , babylon ( or seleucia ) and ctesiphon , of which sozomen saith , symeon was then archbishop . and he names above twenty bishops who suffered besides , and one mareabdes a chorepiscopus , with 250 of his clergy . after the time of sapores several sharp persecutions fell upon those churches in the times of vararanes and isdigerdes , of which the greek historians take notice , and one of them , saith theodoret , lasted thirty years . this i mention to shew what mean thoughts those have of the catholick church who consine it to the roman communion . theodoret and s. chrysostom both affirm that the persians had the scriptures then in their own language ; and sozomen saith , that symeon archbishop of seleucia , and ctesiphon before his own martyrdom , incouraged the rest to suffer out of the holy scriptures . which supposes them well acquainted with the language of it , and it is not very likely they should be either with the hebrew , greek or latin ; but the other testimonies make it clear that it was in their own tongue . the anonymous writer of s. chrysostom's life affirms , that while he staid in armenia , he caused the new testament to be translated into the armenian tongue for the benefit of those churches . and this tradition is allow'd by several learned men in the church of rome . but the armenians themselves say , the whole bible was translated into the armenian language by moses grammaticus , david and mampraeus , three learned men of their own , in the time of their patriarch isaac , about s. chrysostom 's time . theodoret , in the place already cited , mentions the armenian translation , as a thing well known ; and he was near enough to understand the truth of it . jacobus de vitriaco , a roman cardinal , saith , that the armenians in his time had the scriptures read to them in their own language . the syriack version for the use of those in the eastern parts who understood not hebrew or greek , is allowed by all learned men to have been very ancient . i mean the old simple version out of the originals , and not that out of the lxx . of the old testament . as to the new , the tradition of the eastern people is , that it was done either in the apostles times or very near them . abraham ecchellensis shews , from the syriack writers , that the compleat translation of the bible was made in the time of abgarus , king of edessa , by the means of thaddaeus and the other apostles ; and as to the time of thaddaeus , gregorius malatiensis confirms it . postellus quotes an ancient tradition ( which my adversaries ought to regard ) that s. mark himself translated not only his own gospel , but all the books of the ne● testament into the vulgar syriack . it is sufficient to my purpose , to shew that there was such an ancient translation ; which is owned by s. chrysostom , s. ambrose , s. augustin , diodorus and theodoret : which makes me wonder at cardinal bellarmin's affirming with so much confidence , that none of the fathers speak of the syriack version , when theodoret alone mentions it so often in his commentaries . although the greeks in egypt might very well understand the greek of the old and new testament , ( especially if that which is called the lxx . were done by the alexandrian jews , as some imagine ) yet those who knew no other than the old egyptian language could not make use of it . and therefore a coptick translation was made for them ; which kircher thinks to have been 1300 years old . and he withal observes , that their ancient liturgies were in the coptick language . that it might not be susp●cted that kircher imposed upon the world , he gives a particular account of the books he had seen in the vatican library and elsewhere in the coptick tongue . the pentateuch in three tomes , distinguished into paragraphs by lines . the four gospels by themselves . s. paul's epistles and three canonical epistles with the acts in another volume . the apocalypse by it self ; and the psalter . the liturgy of s. mark with other daily prayers . the liturgy of s. gregory , with the prayers of s. cyril in the coptick language ; and a liturgy of s. basil , with gregory and cyril , with several other rituals , missals and prayers , all in the same tongue . all these , he saith , are in the vatican library . and in that of the maronites college , he saith , is an old coptick martyrology about 1300 years standing , by which he finds , that the chief imployment of the old egyptian monks was to translate the bible out of hebrew , chaldee and greek into the coptick tongue . morinus saith , that in the oratorian lbrary at paris , they had the coptick gospels brought from constantinople by monsr . de sancy . petrus à valle , a nobleman of rome , and a great traveller , saith he had several parts of scripture in the coptick language ; which were turned into arabick , when the old coptick grew into disuse . petraeus had in the eastern parts a coptick psalter , with an arabick version , which he designed to publish . the congregation de propaganda fide at rome had several coptick mss. sent to them out of egypt , among the rest the coptick book of ordination transloatd and printed by kircher ; and since reprinted by morinus . seguier the late chancellour of france had in his library , the consecration of a patriarch in coptick and arabick , and several translations of the bible , and prayers in both languages . the aethiopick translation bears date with the conversion of the nation , according to their own tradition , which some make to be in the apostolical times , and others in the time of constantine ; and their publick offices are performed in their own tongue . the chancellour seguier had not only many parts of the bible , but prayers and offices in the aethiopick tongue . i shall add but one thing more to this purpose , which is taken from the want of antiquity in the arabick versions ; which is confessed by the learned criticks on all sides . and even this tends to prove my design . for when the saracen empire prevailed , the people grew more acquainted with the arabick than with the ancient syriack or coptick ; and therefore the scripture was then translated into arabick ; ( as vasaeus saith it was done in spain after the moors came thither by a bishop of sevil ) and this was the true reason why the arabick versions have no greater antiquity . for gabriel sionita observes that the arabick is become the most vulgar language in the eastern parts . and because it was so in syria as well as egypt , therefore there are different arabick versions ; the one called codex antiochenus , and the other alexandrinus . thus i have proved that there was a catholick tradition directly contrary to that established by order of the council of trent . and now i proceed to give an account of the methods and steps by which this decree came to its ripeness . 1. the first step was the declension and corruption of the latin tongue in the western church . it is observed by polybius , that from the time of the first league between the romans and carthaginians , the latin tongue was so much changed even in rome it self that very few could understand the words of it . and festus in latine loqui saith , that the language was so alter'd , that scarce any part of it remained entire . scaliger thinks these words were added to festus by paulus diaconus ; which seems much more probable , since he lived in the time of charlemagn . at which time we may easily suppose the latin tongue to have been very much corrupted by the writers , and not so easie to be understood any where by the common people in sudden discourse , as it had been before . which appears evident by the latin sermons made to the people in the several provinces in the roman empire ; as in africa by s. augustin and fulgentius ; in italy by petrus chrysologus , laurentius novariensis , gaudentius brixiensis , ennodius ticinensis : in spain by isidore , ildephonsus and others : in gaul by caesarius , eucherius , eligius , and several others , whose latin sermons to the people are still extant . in the council of tours , in the time of charlemagn , particular care is taken that the homilies should be translated by their bishops either into the rustick roman or the german , that the people might the easier understand them . these homilies were either those which charlemagn caused to be taken out of the fathers , and applied to the several lessons through the year , as sigebert observes , or of their own composing ; however they were to be turned by the bishops either into rustick roman , or german , as served best to the capacities of the people . for the franks then either retained the original german , or used the rustick roman ; but this latter so much prevailed over the other , that in the solemn oaths between lewis and charles upon parting the dominions of france and germany , set down in nithardus , the rustick roman was become the vulgar language of france , and these were but the grandchildren of charlemagn . marquardus freherus thinks that onely the princes and great men retained the german , but the generality then spake the rustick roman ; as appears by the oath of the people ; which begins thus . si lod●igs sacrament que son fradre carlo jurat conservat , & carlus meo serdra de suo part non los tanit , si jo returnar non licit pois , ne io , ne neuls cui eo returnar nil pois , in nulla adjudha contra lodwig nun li iver . by which we may see what a mixture of latin there was in the vulgar language then used by the franks , and how easie it was for the people then to understand the publick offices being constant ; but the sermons not being so , there was greater necessity to turn them into that corruptor rustick roman , which was thoroughly understood by them . in spain the latin was less corrupted before the gothick and arabick or moorish words were taken into it . lucius mariness saith , that had it not been for the mixture of those words , the spaniards had spoken as good latin as the romans did in the time of tully : and he saith , that to his time he had seen epistles written in spanish , wherein all the nouns and verbs were good latin. in italy the affinity of the vulgar prevailing language and the latin continued so great , that the difference seemed for some hundred years , no more than of the learned and common greek , or of the english and scotch ; and so no necessity was then apprehended of translating the correct tongue into a corrupt dialect of it . but where there was a plain difference of language there was some care even then taken , that the people might understand what they heard , as appears by these things : 1. alcuinus gives an account why one day was called sabbatum in 12 lectionibus , when there were but six lessons , and he saith , it was because they were read both in greek and latin , they not understanding each others languages . not because the greek was a holy tongue , but quia aderant graeci , quibus ignota er at lingua latina ; which shews that the church then thought it a reasonable cause to have the scripture in such a language , which might be understood by the people . the same reason is given by amalarius . 2. in the german churches there were ancient translations of scripture into their own language . b. rhenanus attributes a translation of the gospels to waldo bishop of freising , assoon as the franks received christianity , and he saith , it was the immortal honours of the franks , to have the scripture so soon translated into their own language ; which , saith he , is of late opposed by some divines : so little did he know of an universal tradition against it . goldastus mentions the translation in rhime by ottfridus wissenburgensis , published by achilles gassarus , the psalter of notkerus , rudolphus ab eems his paraphrase of the old testament . andreas du chesn hath published a preface before an old saxon book , wherein it is said , that ludovicus pius did take care that all the people should read the scripture in their own tongue , and gave it in charge to a saxon to translate both old and new testament into the german language ; which , saith he , was performed very elegantly . 3. in the saxon churches here , it was not to be expected that the scripture should be translated , till there were persons learned both in the saxon and the other languages . bede , in his epistle to egbert , puts him upon instructing the common people in their own language , especially in the creed and lord's prayer ; and to further so good a work , bede himself translated the gospel of st. john into the saxon tongue , as cuthbert saith in the epistle about his death , in the life of bede , before his saxon history . it appears by the old canons of churches , and the epistles of aelfric , saith mr. lisle , that there was an old saxon canon for the priest to say unto the people the sense of the gospel in english ; and aelfric saith of himself , that he had translated the pentateuch , and some of the historical books . the new testament was translated by several hands ; and an ancient saxon translation hath been lately published with the gothick gospels . and there were old saxon glosses upon the gospels ; of aldred , farmen and owen . the last work of k. alfred was the translating the psalter ; and if the ms. history of ely deserves credit , he translated both the old and new testament . 4. it is not denied either by bellarmin or baronius , that the slavonians in the 9th century had a permission upon their conversion to christianity , to enjoy the bible , and to have publick offices performed in their own language . but they tell us , it was because they were then children in the faith , and to be indulged ; ( but methinks children were the most in danger to be seduced ; ) or there were not priests enough to officiate in latin at first : but this was no reason then given , as appears by the pope's own letter published by baronius , wherein he gives god thanks for the invention of letters among them by constantine a philosopher ; and he expresly saith , that god had not confined his honour to three languages , but all people and languages were to praise him ; and he saith , god himself in scripture had so commanded ; and he quotes st. paul's words for it . one would wonder those great men should no better consider the popes own reasons ; but give others for him , which he never thought of . it is true , he adds , that he would have the gospel read first in latin , and then in salvonian , and if they pleased he would have the mass said in latin ; but the slavonians continued their custom , and the pope was willing enough to let them enjoy it , for his own convenience as well as theirs . for there was a secret in this matter , which is not fully understood . aventinus , saith , that methodius invented their i etters , and translated the scriptures into the slavonian tongue , and persuaded the people to reject the latin service ; but this i see no ground for . but the truth of the matter was , the slavonians were converted by the means of methodius and cyril , ( otherwise called constantine ) two greek bishops , and the christian religion was settled among them by their means , and they translated the scriptures and offices of worship into their own language . the pope had not forgotten the business of the bulgarians , and he could not tell but this might end in subjection to another patriarchal see ; and therefore he en●eavours to get methodius and cyril to rome , and having gained them , he sends a sweetning letter to the prince , and makes the concession before mentioned . for he could not but remember how very lately the greeks had gained the bulgarians from him ; and lest the slavonians should follow them , he was content to let them have what they desired , and had already established among themselves , without his permission . all this appears from the account of this matter given by constantinus porphyrogenetus , compared with diocleas his regnum slavorum , and lucius his dalmatian history . it is sufficient for my purpose , that diocleas owns that constantine ( to whom andreas dandalus , d. of venice , in his m s history cited by lucius , saith , the pope gave the name of cyril ) did translate the bible into the slavonian tongue , for the benefit of the people , and the publick offices out of greek , according to their custom . and the chancellour seguier had in his library both the new testament and l●turgies in the slavonian language , and in cyril's character ; and many of the greek fathers commentaries on scripture in that tongue , but not one of the latin. 2. the next step was , when gregory 7. prohibited the translation of the latin offices in the slavonian tongue . and this he did to the king of bohemia himself , after a peremptory manner ; but he saith , it was the request of the nobility , that they might have divine offices in the slavonian tongue , which he could by no means yield to . what was the matter ? how comes the case to be so much altered from what it was in his predecessor's time ? the true reason was , the bohemian churches were then brought into greater subjection to the roman see , after the consecration of dithmarus saxo to be their archbishop ; and now they must own their subjection , as the roman provinces were wont to do , by receiving the language . but as his predecessour had found scripture for it , for gregory pretends he had found reason against it , viz. the scripture was obscure , and apt to be misunderstood and despised . what! more than in the time of methodius and cyril ? if they pleaded primitive practice , he plainly answers , that the church is grown wiser , and hath corrected many things that were then allowed . this is indeed to the purpose ; and therefore by the authority of s. peter , he forbids him to suffer any such thing , and charges him to oppose it with all his might . but after all , it is entred in the canon law de officio jud. ord. l. 1. tit. 31. c. quoniam . as a decree of innocent 3. in the lateran council , that where there were people of different languages , the bishop was to provide persons fit to officiate in those several languages . why so ? if there were a prohibition of using any but the latin tongue . but this was for the greeks , and theirs was an holy tongue . that is not said ; nor if it were would it signifie any thing ; for doth any imaginary holiness of the tongue sanctifie ignorant devotion ? but the canon supposes them to have the same faith. then the meaning is , that no man must examin his religion by the scripture , but if he rseolves beforehand to believe as the church believes , then he may have the scriptures or prayers in what language he pleases . but even this is not permitted in the roman church . for , 3. after the inquisition was set up by the authority of innocent 3. in the lateran council , no lay persons were permitted to have the books of the old and new testament , but the psalter , or breviary , or hours , they might have ; but by no means in the vulgar language . this is called by d'achery and labbe the council of tholouse , but in truth it was nothing else but an order of the inquisition , as will appear to any one that reads it . and the inquisition ought to have the honour of it , both in france and spain . which prohibition hath been so gratefull to some divines of the church of rome , that cochlaeus calls it pious , just , reasonable , wholsom and necessary ; andradius thinks the taking of it away would be destructive to faith ; ledesma saith , the true catholicks do not desire it , and bad ought not to be gratified with it . petrus sutor , a carthusian doctour , calls the translating scripture into the vulgar languages , a rash , useless and dangerous thing ; and he gives the true reason of it , viz. that the people will be apt to murmur when they see things required as from the apostles , which they cannot find a word of in scripture . and when all is said on this subject that can be , by men of more art , this is the plainest and honestest reason for such a prohibition ; but i hope i have made it appear it is not built on any catholick tradition . iv. of the merit of good works . the council of trent sess. 6. c. 16. declares , that the good works of justified persons do truly deserve eternal life ; and can. 3● . an anathema is denounced against him that denies them to be meritorious , or that a justified person by them doth not truly merit increase of grace , and happiness , and eternal life . the council hath not thought fit to declare what it means by truly meriting ; but certainly it must be opposed to an improper kind of meriting , and what that is we must learn from the divines of the church of rome . 1. some say , that some of the fathers speak of an improper kind of merit , which is no more than the due means for the attaining of happiness as the end. so vega confesses they often use the word merit , where there is no reason for merit , either by way of congruity or condignity . therefore , where there is true merit there must be a proper reason for it . and the council of trent being designed to condemn some prevailing opinions at that time , among those they called hereticks , this assertion of true merit must be levelled against some doctrine of theirs ; but they held good works to be necessary as means to an end , and therefore this could not be the meaning of the council . suarez saith , the words of the council ought to be specially observed , which are , that there is nothing wanting in the good works of justified persons , ut vere promeruisse censeantur ; and therefore no metaphorical or improper , but that which by the sense of the church of rome was accounted true merit in opposition to what was said by those accounted hereticks must be understood thereby . 2. others say , that a meer congruity arising from the promise and favour of god in rewarding the acts of his grace in justified persons cannot be the proper merit intended by the council . and that for these reasons . 1. suarez observes that although the council avoids the terms ex condigno , yet because it still uses the words vere mereri , it implies something more than mere congruity ; and because it speaks of meriting the increase of grace , and not the first grace ; now a congruity is allowed for the first grace , which it excludes by mentioning the increase . and withal , it brings places to prove that the giving the reward must be a retribution of justice , and if so , the merit must be more than that of congruity . 2. because god's promise doth not give any intrinsick value to the nature of the act ; no more than his threatning doth increase the nature of guilt . if the king of persia had promised a province to him that gave him a draught of water , the act it self had been no more meritorious ; but it only shewed the munificence of the prince ; no more do god's promises of eternal life add any merit to the acts of grace , but onely set forth the infinite bounty of the promiser . 3. in the conference at ratisbon ( the year this decree passed ) by the emperour's order the protestant party did yield , that by virtue of god's promise the reward of eternal life was due to justified persons ; as a father promising a great reward to his son for his pains in studying , makes it become due to him , although there be no proportion between them . and if no more were meant by merit of congruity , than that it was very agreeable to the divine nature to reward the acts of his own grace with an infinite reward , they would yield this too . 4. cardinal pallavicini gives us the plain and true meaning of the council , viz. that a merit de congruo was allowed for works before justification ; but for works after , they all agreed , he saith , that there was a merit de condigno in them both for increase of grace and eternal glory . by merit de condigno is meant such an intrinsick value in the nature of the act as makes the reward in justice to be due to it . some call one of these , meritum secundum quid ; which is the same with de congruo ; which really deserves no reward , but receives it onely from the liberality of the giver ; and this hath not truly , say they , the notion of merit ; but that which makes the reward due is simple and true merit , when it doth not come merely from the kindness of the giver , but from respect to the worthiness of the action and the doer , and this is de condigno . let us now see what catholick tradition there was for this doctrine , and whether this were taught them by their fathers in a continued succession down from the apostles times . but that there was a change as to the sense of the church in this matter , i shall prove in the first place from an office which was allow'd in the church before , and forbidden after . it was an office with respect to dying persons , wherein are these questions . q. dost thou believe that thou shalt come to heaven , not by thy own merits , but by the virtue and merit of christ 's passion ? a. i do believe it . q. dost thou believe that christ died for our salvation , and that none can be saved by their own merits , or any other way but by the merits of his passion ? a. i do believe it . now when the indices expurgatorii were made in pursuance to the order of the council of trent , this passage was no longer endured . for , in the roman index the ordo baptizandi , wherein this question was , is forbidden till it were corrected . but the spanish indices explain the mystery ; that of cardinal quiroga saith expresly , those questions and answers must be blotted out ; and the like we find in the index of soto major and san●oval . what now is the reason , that such questions and answers were no longer permitted , if the churches tradition continued still the same ? was not this a way to know the tradition of the church by the offices used in it ? this was no private office then first used , but although the prohibition mentions one impression at venice ( as though there had been no more ) i have one before me , printed by gryphius at venice two years before that ; and long before with the praeceptorium of lyra , a. d. 1495. where the question to the dying person is in these words , si credit se merito passionis christi & non propriis ad gloriam pervenire ? et respondeat , credo . and the same questions and answers i have in a sacerdotale romanum printed by nicolinus at venice 1585. cardinal hosius says that he had seen these questions and answers in the sacerdotale romanum and in the hortulus animae ; and that they were believed to be first prescribed by anselm , archbishop of canterbury . on what account now , come these things to be prohibited and expunged , if the churches doctrine and tradition about this matter , be still the very same ? no doubt it was believed that the council of trent had now so far declared the sense of the church another way , that such questions and a●s●●rs were no longer to be endured . but before the council of trent the canons of colen against hermannus their bishop , when he published his reformation , declare , that god's giving eternal life up on good works is ex gratuita dignatione suae clementiae , from the favour which god vouchsafes to them . which to my apprehension is inconsistent with the notion of true merit in the works themselves ; for if there be any condignity in them , it cannot be mere grace and favour in god to reward them . the same canons in their enchiridion some years before , when they joyned with their bishop , call it stupidity to think that good works are rewarded with eternal life for any dignity in the works themselves . and if there be no dignity in them , there can be no true merit ; as the council of trent determines with an anathema . pope adrian vi. gives such an account of the merit of our works , that he could never imagine any condignity in them to eternal life . for , saith he , our merits are a broken reed , which pierce the hand of him that leans upon them ; they are a menstruous cloth , and our best actions mixt with impurities ; and when we have done all that we can , we are unprofitable servants . petrus de alliaco cardinal of cambray attributes no other effect to good works than of causa sine qua non ; and saith that the reward is not to be attributed to any virtue in them , but to the will of the giver . which i think overthrows any true merit . gabriel biel attributes the merit of good works not to any intrinsecal goodness in them , but to god's acceptation . which is in words to assert merit , and in truth to deny it ; for , how can there be true merit in the works , if all their value depends upon divine acceptance ? thomas walden charges wickliff with asserting the doctrine of merit and incouraging men to trust in their own righteousness , and he quotes scripture and fathers against it ; and he blames the use of the term of merit either ex congruo or ex condigno : which he saith was an invention of some late schoolmen , and was contrary to the ancient doctrine of the church . as he proves , not only from scripture and fathers , but from the ancient offices too : as in the canon of the mass , non aestimator meriti , seá veni● quaesumus largitor , &c. fer. 4. pass . ut qui de meritorum qualitate diffidimus , non judicium tuum sed miseric●rdiam cons●quamur . dom. 2. adv. ubi nulla suppetunt sufsragia meritorum , tuae nobis indulgentiae succurre praesidtis . how comes the doctrine condemned in wickliff to be established in the council of trent ? for he was blamed for asserting true merit , and the council asserts it with an anathema to those that deny it . and yet we must believe the very same tradition to have been in the church all this while . vega saith , that walden speaks against merits without grace ; but any one that reads him will find it otherwise , for he produces those passages out of the fathers against merits which do suppose divine grace , as it were easie to shew ; but friar walden thought the notion of merit inconsistent with the power and influence of divine grace necessary to our best actions . god , saith he , doth not regard merit either as to congruity or condignity , but his own grace , and will , and mercy . marsilius de ingen who lived before walden reckons up three opinions about merit ; the first of those who denied it , and of this , saith he , durandus seems to be , and one job . de everbaco . the second of those who said that our works have no merit of themselves , but as informed by d●●ine grace , and from the assistance of the holy ghost , so they do t●uly merit eternal life , and of this opinion he saith was thomas de argentina . the third was , of those who granted that true merit doth imply an equality , but then they distinguish equality , as to quantity and as to proportion , and in this latter sense they asserted an equality . and of this opinion he saith was petrus de tarantasia . but he delivers his own judgment in these conclusions . 1. that our works either considered in themselves or with divine grace are not meritorious of eternal life ex condigno , which he proves both from scripture and reason , viz. because 1. no man can make god a debtor to him ; for the more grace he hath the more he is a debtor to god. ana 2. he cannot merit of another by what he receives from him . and 3. no man can pay what he owes to god , and therefore can never merit at his hands . 4. no man can merit here so much grace as to keep him from falling away from grace ; much less then eternal life . 2. these works may be said to be meritorious of eternal life ex condigno by divine acceptation originally proceeding from the merit of christ's passion , because that makes them worthy . but this is christ's merit and not the true merit of our works . 3. works done by grace do merit eternal life de congruo from god's liberal disposition , whereby he hath appointed so to reward them . it beeing agreeable to him to give glory to them that love him . but this is an improper kind of merit , and can by no means support the tradition of true merit . durandus utterly denies any true merit of man towards god ; he doth not deny it in a large improper sense for such a condignity in our actions as god hath appointed in order to a reward ; which is by the grace of god in us ; but as it is taken for a free action to which a reward is in justice due ; because whatever we doe is more owing to the grace of god than to our selves ; but to make a debtor to us , we must not only pay an equivalent to what we owe , but we must go beyond it ; but to god and our parents we can never pay an equivalent , much less exceed it . and we can never merit by what god gives us , because the gift lays a greater obligation upon us . and he saith , the holding the contrary is temerarious and blasphemous . the two grounds of holding merit were , the supposing a proportion between grace and glory , and an equality between divine grace and glory in vertue , grace being as the seed of glory ; and to both these he answers . to the first , that the giving a reward upon merit is no part of distributive , but commutative justice , because it respects the relation of one thing to another , and not the mere quality of the person . to the second , that the value of an act is not considered with respect to the first mover , but to the immediate agent : and as to grace being the seed of glory , it is but a metaphorical expression , and nothing can be drawn from it . so that durandus concludes true merit with respect to god to be temerarious , blasphemous and impossible . ockam declares , that after all our good works god may without injustice deny eternal life to them who do them ; because god can be debtor to none ; and therefore whatever he doth to us , it is out of mere grace . and that there can be nothing meritorious in any act of ours , but from the grace of god freely accepting it . and therefore he must deny any true merit . gregorius ariminensis saith , that no act of ours though coming from grace to never so great a degree , is meritorious with god ex condigno of any reward either temporal or eternal ; because every such act is a gift of god ; and if it were at all meritorious , yet not as to eternal life , because there is no equivalency between them , and therefore it cannot in justice be due to it ; and consequently if god gives it , he must do it freely . but , saith he , god is said to be just , when he gives bona pro bonis , and merciful , when he gives bona pro malis ; not but that he is merciful in both , but because his mercy appears more in the latter ; and in the other , it seems like justice in a general sense from the conformity of the merit and the reward ; but in this particular retribution it is mere mercy . scotus affirms , that all the meritoriousness of our acts depends on divine acceptation in order to a reward ; and if it did depend on the intrinsick worth of the acts , god could not in justice deny the reward ; which is false ; and therefore it wholly depends on the good will and favour of god. bellarmin is aware of this , and he confesses this to be the opinion of scotus and of other old schoolmen . but how then do they hold the doctrine and tradition of true merit ? he holds that good works are properly and truly good . so do we , and yet deny merit . but he grants , that he denies that they bear any proportion to eternal life , and therefore they cannot be truly meritorious of it . bellarmin himself asserts that without the divine promise good works have a proportion to eternal life , and this he saw was necessary to defend the doctrine of the council of trent ; but then he adds , that there is no obligation on god's part to reward in such a manner without a promise . now here are two hard points , 1. to make it appear that there is such a meritoriousness in good works without a divine promise . 2. that if there were so , there is no obligation on god to reward such acts in point of justice . the former is so much harder to do from what he had proved before , c. 14. viz. that they are not meritorious without a promise ; and here he proves that they have no proportion to the reward , from scripture , fathers and reason ; because there is no obligation on god to do it , either from commutative or distributive justice ; and because we are god's servants . these are good arguments against himself for how can such acts then become meritorious without a promise ? if there be no proportion or equality on man's part , no justice on god's part to reward , how can they possibly be meritorious ? but this is too deep for me to comprehend . my business is tradition , and i have evidently proved that there was no tradition even in the church of rome for the true merit defined by the council of trent . it were easie to carry this point higher , by she wing that the fathers knew nothing of this doctrine , but that hath been done by many already , and it is needless in so plain a case . but i am now to give an account by what steps and occasions this doctrine came to be established . 1. from the common use of the word merit with the fathers and others , in another sense than it signified at first . the original signification of it is wages paid in consideration of service ; and from thence souldiers were said merere ( as budaeus observes , and thence came the word merces ) who truly deserved their pay by their labour and hazard ; but by degrees it came to signifie no more than merely to attain a thing ; which is sometimes used by good authors ; but in the declension of the latin tongue no sense of this word was more common than this , especially among ecclesiastical writers . who frequently used it in a sense wherein it was impossible to understand it in its original signification ; and it cannot imply so much as digne consequi , as in the instance brought by cassander ; when st. cyprian renders those words of st. paul , misericordiam merui , which we render , i obtained mercy ; but the council of trent allows there could be no true merit here . and st. augustin saith of those who murdered the son of god , illi veniam meruerunt qui christum occiderunt . and so the vulgar latin often uses it , gen. 4. 13. major est iniquitas mea quam ut veniam merear . jos. 11. 20. & non mererentur ullam clementiam . and in that sense it hath been used in the hymns and other offices of the church , as in that expression , o felix culpa quae talem ac tantum meruit habere redemptorem ! where it cannot be denied that the word is used in an improper sense . 2. when the school divines set themselves to explain the mysteries of theology , this plain and easie , but improper sense of merit , would not go down with som of them ; but they endeavoured to make out the notion of merit with respect to god , in its proper and original sense . the last considerable writer before the scholastick age , was st. bernard , and he pretended not to find out any such proportion between the best works and eternal life , that god should be bound in justice to bestow it as a recompence for them ; and the reason he gives is plain and strong , because those things men pretend to merit by , are themselves the gifts of god's grace , and so by them they are more bound to god , than god to them ; but besides , what are all mens merits to eternal glory ? st. bernard doth not speak of merits without grace , but with the supposition of it ; and bellarmin wisely left out the latter part , that he might seem to answer the former . hugo de sancto victore lived in the same age , who first shewed the way to school divinity , and upon the same place which st. bernard speaks of , non sunt condig nae , &c. he puts the question , how any temporal acts can merit that which is eternal ? and he denies any condignity , because there is more in the reward than there was in the merit ; but then he adds , that there may be a threefold comparison of things ; either as to themselves , as a horse for a horse , money for money ; or according to equity , either in punishments or rewards ; or by pact or agreement , as when a good summ is promised for a little work ; and this , saith he , god hath made known to mankind as to future rewards and punishments . which plainly shews , he understood nothing of the proportion between acts of grace , and an eternal happiness ; but resolved all into the favour and mercy of god. peter lombard , called the master of the sentences , saith , nothing of any condignity or proportion in our works to the reward ; but , he saith , they are themselves god 's gifts , and that the reward it self is from the grace of god , and quotes the noted saying of st. augustin , cum coronat deus merita nostra , nihil aliud coronat quam dona sua . but still this is nothing but grace and favour in god , first in enabling us to do good works , and then in rewarding them . bandinus wrote a book of the sentences much about the time p. lombard did , with so much agreement of method and expressions , that it is not known which took from the other . genebrard hath produced this passage out of him , debet , inciviliter de deo dicitur , quia nihil omnino nobis debet , nisi ex promisso . if it be so rude to say god owes any thing to his creatures but by promise , he could not imagine any condignity in good works , to which a reward is due in justice . and genebrard thinks he had reason to deny , that god can be made a debtor to us by any of our works . robertus pullus , who wrote another book of the sentences about the same time , mentioning that place , non sunt condignae , &c. he saith , because our works are not sufficient , being small and temporal , god by his mercy makes it up ; which not onely shews that god doth reward beyond our merit , but that there is no proportion between the best works and eternal glory . but by the time of gulielmus antissiodorensis , there were two parties in the church about this point ; some , he saith , denied any merit of eternal life , ex condigno , and others asserted it ; and after laying down the arguments on both sides , he concludes for the affirmative ; but in answer to the place , non sunt condignae , &c. he saith they are not ad proportionaliter merendum , but they are ad simpliciter merendum ; so that still he denied any proportion , though he held simple merit . but thomas aquinas coming after him , denies that there can be any simple merit with respect to god , because that cannot be where there is so great inequality ; and so there can be no equal justice between them , but ac●ording to a proportion ; which he afterwards explains , viz. as to the substance and freedom of our good works there is onely a congruity ; but as they proceed from divine grace , so they are meritorious of eternal life , ex condigno . this doctrine had some followers in the schools , but not many in comparison of those who opposed it , as appears by what is said already . richardus de mediavilla , though a franciscan , follows herein the doctrine of aquinas , and asserts , that by acts of free will , informed by grace , a man may merit eternal life , ex condigno , and he adds somewhat more , potest certissime ; and he uses the same answers to the objections which the other did . and nich. de orbellis follows richardus , so that aquinas his doctrine had prevailed beyond his own school . but it was as vehemently opposed by others of that fraternity , among whom cardinal hosius mentions stephanus brulifer , who maintained , that no act of grace , how good soever , was worthy of eternal life . paulus burgensis , though he is said to have been converted from being a jew , by reading aquinas , yet utterly dissented from him in this matter : for he saith , that no man can by the ordinary assistance of grace merit eternal life ex condigno , and therefore the mercy of god is most seen in heaven . however the reputation of aquinas might gain upon some , yet this was very far then from being a catholick tradition . but no council ever interposed its authority in this matter , till the council of trent , which resolved to carry the points in difference to the height , and to establish every thing that was questioned . nothing had been more easie than to have given satisfaction in this matter , considering what pighius and contarenus , and even genebrard , had yielded in it ; but there the rule was , that every thing that was disputed , must be determined first , and then defended . and so it hath happened with this decree , which , lest we should think the matter capable of softening , hath been since asserted in the highest manner . bellarmin asserts good works of themselves , and not merely by compact , to be meritorious of eternal life , so that in them there is a certain proportion and equality to eternal life . costerus saith , that in works of grace , there is an equality between the work and the reward . suarez , that they have an intrinsecal dignity , whereby they become worthy of eternal life . vasquez , that there is an equality of dignity between good works and eternal life , without which a promise could not make true merit . the rhemists say , that good works are truly and properly meritorious , and justly worthy of everlasting life ; and that thereupon heaven is the just due , and just stipend , crown or recompence , which god by his justice oweth to the persons so doing by his grace . and again , that good works are meritorious , and the very cause of salvation . so far that god should be unjust , if he rendred not heaven for the same . phil. gamachaeus , a late professour of divinity in the sorbon , speaks it roundly , that the council of trent did plainly mean to establish merit ex condigno , and that all catholicks are agreed in it . the last defender of the council of trent within these few years , saith , that there is an intrinsecal condignity in good works , whereby they bear a proportion commensurate with the glory of heaven . and without such doctrine as this , he doth not think the council of trent can be defended in this matter . if after all it be said , that this is a mere subtilty concerning the proportion an act of grace bears to the state of glory ; i answer , the more to blame they , who have made and imposed it as a matter of faith , as the council of trent hath done with an anathema , and that without any pretence from catholick tradition . but what made the council of trent so much concerned for a scholastick subtilty ? there was a deep mystery lay in this , they were wise enough to frame the decree so , as to avoid offence , and to make it appear plausible , but it was enough to the people to understand that the merit of good works was allowed , and they were to believe the priests , both as to the good works they were to do , and as to the putting them into a state of grace , to make them capable of meriting . and this was the true reason of the anathema , against those who should deny the true merit of good works . v. of the number of sacraments . the council of trent pronounces an anathema in these words , if any one saith that the sacraments of the new law were not all appointed by jesus christ our lord , or that they were more or fewer than seven , viz. baptism , confirmation , eucharist , penance , extreme unction , orders and matrimony , or that any one of these is not truly and properly a sacrament , let him be anathema . but what is it to be truly and properly a sacrament ? it had been very reasonable to have defined a sacrament first truly and properly , before such an anathema passed . but that defect may be said to be supplied by the roman catechism , published by authority of the council ; and there we are told , that a sacrament is a sensible thing , which by divine institution hath a power of causing as well as signifying holiness and righteousness . so that to a true and proper sacrament two things are necessary : 1. that it be of divine institution . 2. that it confer grace on those who partake of it . and by these we must examin the catholick tradition about the number of sacraments . bellarmin saith , that all their divines , and the whole church for 500 years , viz. from the time of the master of the sentences , have agreed in the number of the seven sacraments . here we see is a bold appeal to tradition for 500 years ; but although , if it were proved , it cannot be sufficient to prove an apostolical tradition ; for the fathers might for a thousand years have held the contrary ; and i do not think one clear testimony can be produced out of antiquity for that number of sacraments , truly so called ; yet i shall at present wholly wave the debate of the former times , and confine my self to bellarmin's 500 years ; and i hope to make it appear there was no universal tradition for it within his own time . for alexander hales ( who wrote , saith possevin , his summ of divinity by order of innocent iv. and it was approved by alexander iv. with seventy divines , ) affirms , there were but four proper sacraments ; now if this were the catholick tradition then , that there were seven proper sacraments , how could this doctrine pass , and be so highly approved ? he saith farther , that christ himself only appointed two , viz. baptism and the lord's supper ; and for the rest , he saith , it may be presumed the apostles did appoint them by christ's direction , or by divine i●spiration . but how can that be , when he saith , the form even of those he calls proper sacraments , was either appointed by our lord or by the church ? how can such sacraments be of divine institution , whose very form is appointed by the church ? he puts the question himself , why christ appointed the form only of two sacraments , when all the grace of the sacraments comes from him ? he answers , because these are the principal sacraments which unite the whole man in the body of the church by faith and charity . but yet this doth not clear the difficulty , how those can be proper sacraments , whose form is not of divine institution ; as he grants in the sacrament of penance and orders , the form is of the churches appointment . and this will not only reach to this gre●t school divine , but to as many others as hold it in the churches power to appoint or alter the matter and form of some of those they call sacraments . for , however they may use the name , they can never agree with the council of trent in the nature of the seven sacraments , which supposes them to be of divine institution , as to matter and form. and so the divines of the church of rome have agreed since the council of trent . bellarmin hath a chapter on purpose to shew , that the matter and form of sacraments are so certain and determinate , that nothing can be changed in them ; and this determination must be by god himself . which , he saith , is most certain among them ; and he proves it by a substantial reason , viz. because the sacraments are the causes of grace ; and no one can give grace but god , and therefore none else can appoint the essentials of sacraments but he , and therefore he calls it sacrilege to change even the matter of sacraments . suarez asserts , that both the matter and form of sacraments are determined by christ's institution , and as they are determined by him , they are necessary to the making of sacraments . and this ( he saith ) absolutely speaking , is de pide , or an article of faith. and he proves it from the manner of christ's instituting baptism and the eucharist , and he urges the same reason , because christ only can conf●r grace by the sacraments , and therefore he must appoint the matter and form of them . cardinal lugo affirms , that christ hath appointed both matter and form of the sacraments , which he proves from the council of trent . he thinks christ might have grant●d a commission to his church to appoint sacraments , which he would make efficacious , but he reither believes that he hath done it , or that it was fitting to be done . petr●s à sancto joseph saith , that although the council of trent doth not expresly affirm the sacraments to be immediately instituted by christ ; yet it is to be so understood . and although the church may appoint sacramentalia , i. e. rites about the sacraments ; yet christ himself must appoint the sacraments themselves ; and he concludes , that no creature can have authority to make sacraments conferring grace ; and therefore he declares that christ did appoint the forms of all the sacraments himself , although we do not read them in scripture . if now it appears that some even of the church of rome before the council of trent , did think it in the churches power to appoint or alter the matter and form of some of those they called sacraments , then it will evidently follow they had not the same tradition about the seven sacraments which is there deliver'd . of chrism . the council of trent declares the matter of confirmation to be chrism , viz. a composition made of o●l of olive and balsam ; the one to signifie the clearness of conscience , the other the odour of a good fame , saith the council of florence . but where was this chrism appointed by christ ? marsilius saith from petrus aureolus , that there was a controversie between the divines and ca●●●ists about this matter ; and the latter affirmed that chris●● was not appointed by christ , but ast●●wards by th● church ; and that the pope could dispense with it ; which he could not do if it were of christ's insti●●●ion . petrus aureolus was himself a great man in the church of rome ; and after he had mentioned this difference , and named one brocardus ( or bernardus ) with other canonists for it ; he doth not affirm the contrary to be a catholick tradition ; but himself asserts the chrism not to be necessary to the sacrament of confirmation ; which he must have done if he had believed it of divine institution . gregory de valentia on the occasion of this opinion of the canonists , that confirmation might be without chrism , saith two notable things . 1. that they were guilty of heresie therein : for which he quotes dominicus soto . 2. that he thinks there were no canonists left of that mind . if not , the change was greater ; since it is certain they were of that opinion before . for guido brianson attests , that there was a difference between the divines and canonists about this matter ; for bernard the glosser and others held , that chrism was not necessary to it , because it was neither appointed by christ nor his apostles , but in some ancient councils . guil. antissiodorensis long before mentions the opinion of those who said that chrism was appointed by the church after the apostles times ; and that they confirmed only by imposition of hands ; but he doth not condemn it ; only he thinks it better to hold that the apostles used chrism , although we never read that they did it . but he doth not lay that opinion only on the canonists ; for there were divines of great note of the same . for , bonaventure saith , that the apostles made use neither of their matter nor form in their confirmation ; and his resolution is , that they were appointed by the governors of the church afterwards ; as his master alexander of hale had said besore him , who attributes the institution of both to a council of meaux . cardinal de vitriaco saith , that confirmation by imposition of hands was srom the apostles ; but by chrism from the church ; for we do not read that the apostles used it . thomas aquinas confesses there were different opinions about the institution of this sacrament ; some held that it was not instituted by christ nor his apostles , but afterwards in a certain council . but he never blames these for contradicting catholick tradition although he dislikes their opinion . cajetan on aquinas saith , that chrism with balsam was appointed by the church after the primitive times ; and yet now , this must be believed to be essential to this sacrament ; and by conink it seems to be heretical to deny it . for he affirms , that it seems to be an article of faith that confirmation must be with chrism , and no catholick , he saith , now denies it . which shews , that he believed the sense of the church not to have been always the same about it . but others speak out , as gregory de valentia , suarez , filliucius and tanner , who say absolutely , it is now a matter of faith to hold chrism to be essential to confirmation ; and that it is now not onely erroneous but heretical to deny it . their testimonies are at large produced by petrus aurelius , or the famous abbat of s. cyran . and even he grants it to be heresie since the council of trent ; but he yields that alensis , bonaventure and de vitri●co all held that opinion , which was made heresie by it . from whence it follows , that there hath been a change in the doctrine of the roman church about confirmation by chrism . for if it be heresie now to assert that which was denied without any reproach before , the tradition cannot be said to continue the same . thus we have seen there was no certain tradition for the matter of this sacrament , and as little is there for the form of it . which is , consigno te signo crucis , & confirmo te chrismate salutis in nomine patris , &c. but sirmondus produces another form out of s. ambrose , deus pater omnipotens , qui te regeneravit ex aqua & spirit● sancto , concessitque tibi peccata tua , ipse te ungat in vitam aeternam . and from thence concludes the present form not to be ancient ; and he confesses that both matter and form of this sacrament are changed . which was an ingenuous confession ; but his adversary takes this advantage from it ; that then the sacrament it self must ●e changed , if both matter and form were ; and then the church must be a very unfaithful keeper of tradition ; which i think is unanswerable . suarez proposes the objection fairly both as to the matter and form of this sacrament , that we read nothing of them in scripture , and tradition is very various about them ; but his answer is very insufficient , viz. that though it be not in scripture , yet they have them by tradition from the apostles ; now that is the very thing which sirmondus disproves , and shew that the church of rome is clearly gone off from tradition here both as to matter and form. of orders . i proceed to the sacrament of orders . it it impossible for those of the church of rome to prove this a true and proper sacrament , on their own grounds . for , they assert that such a one must have matter and form appointed by christ ; but that which they account the matter and form of orders were neither of them of christ's institution . the council of florence , they say , hath declared both ; the matter is that , by the delivery whereof the order is confer'd , as that of priesthood by the delivery of the chalice with the wine , and the paten with the bread ; and the form is , accipe potestatem offerendi sacrificium in ecclesia pro vivis & mortuis . now if neither of these be owned by themselves to have been appointed by christ , then it necessarily follows , that they cannot hold this to be a true and proper sacrament . imposition of hands they grant was used by the apostles , and still continued in the christian church ; and bellarmin confesses that nothing else can be proved by scripture to be the external symbol in this sacrament . and others are forced to say , that christ hath not determined the matter and form of this sacrament particularly , but hath left a latitude in it for the church to determin it . which in my opinion is clear giving up the cause , as to this sacrament . it is observed by arcudius , that the council of trent doth not declare the particular matter and form of this sacrament , but only in general , that it is performed by words and external signs , sess. 23. c. 3. from whence he infers , that the outward sign was left to the churches determination ; and he saith , that christ did particularly appoint the matter and form of some sacraments , as of baptism , and the lord's supper , and extreme unction , but not of others ; and therefore in the sacrament of orders , he saith , christ determined no more but that it should be conveyed by some visible sign ; and so it may be either by the delivering the vessels , or by the imposition of hands , or both . but we are to consider that the council of florence was received by the council of trent ; and that it is impossible to reconcile this doctrin with the general definition of a sacrament by the roman catechism , viz. that it is a sensible thing which by the institution of christ hath a power of causing as well as signifying grace ; which implies that the external sign which conveys grace must be appointed by the authour of the sacrament it self ; or else the church must have power to annex divine grace to its own appointments . but here lies the main difficulty , the church of rome hath altered both matter and form of this sacrament from the primitive institution ; and yet it dares not disallow the ordinations made without them , as is notorious in the case of the greek church ; and therefore they have been forced to allow this latitude as to the matter and form of this sacrament ; although such an allowance doth really overthrow its being a true and proper sacrament on their own grounds . yet this doctrine hath very much prevailed of late among their chief writers . cardinal lugo confesses , that of old priesthood was conferred by imposition of hands with suitable words ; and he saw it himself so done at rome , without delivering the vessels by catholick greek bishops . he saith farther , that the fathers and councils are so plain for the conferring priesthood by imposition of hands , that no one can deny it ; but yet he must justifie the roman church in assuming new matter and form , which he doth by asserting that christ left the church at liberty as to them . nicol. ysambertus debates the point at large , and his resolution of it is , that christ determined only the general matter , but the particular sign was left to the church ; and he proves by induction that the church hath appointed the external sign in this sacrament , and as to the order of priesthood he proves that imposition of hands was of old an essential part of it , but now it is only accidental . franciscus hallier confesses the matter of this sacrament to have been different in different times . in the apostles times and many ages after , hardly any other can be found but imposition of hands , as he proves from scripture and fathers . he carries his proofs down as low as the synod of aken in the time of ludovicus pius , and the council of m●aux , a. d. 845. but afterwards he saith , that by the council of florence and the common opinion of their divines , the delivery of the vessels is the essential matter of this sacrament . here we find a plain change in the matter of a sacrament owned after the continuance of above 800 years ; and yet we must believe the tradition of this church to have been always the same . which is impossible by the confession of their own writer . he cannot tell just the time when the change was made , but he concludes it was before the time of the vetus ordo romanus , which mentions the vessels . petrus a sancto joseph saith , that by christ's institution there is a latitude allowed in the matter of orders ; but he shews not where ; but he thinks , of it self it consists in the delivery of the vessels , but by the pope's permission imposition of hands may be sufficient . which is a doctrin which hath neither scripture , reason nor tradition for it . joh. morinus shews that there are five opinions in the church of rome about the matter of this sacrament . the first and most common is that it consists in the delivery of the vessels . the second , that imposition of hands together with that makes up the matter . the third , that they convey two different powers . the fourth , that unction with imposition of hands is the matter . the fifth , that imposition of hands alone is it ; and this , saith he , the whole church , greek and latin , ever owned ; but he saith , he can bring two demonstrations against the first , i. e. against the general sense of the now roman church . 1. from the practice of the greek church , which never used it . 2. from the old rituals of the latin church , which do not mention them ; and he names some above 800 years old ; and in none of them he finds either the matter or form of this sacrament , as it is now practised in the church of rome ; nor in isidore , alcuinus , amalarius , rabanus maurus , valafridus strabo , although they wrote purposely about these things . he thinks it was first received into the publick offices in the tenth age. afterwards he saith , he wonders how it came about that any should place the essential matter of ordination only in delivery of the vessels , and exclude the imposition of hands , which alone is mentioned by scripture and fathers . and again he saith , it strikes him with astonishment that there should be such an alteration , both as to matter and form. and at last he saith , christ hath determined no particular matter and form in this sacrament . but still the difficulty returns , how this can be a true and proper sacrament , whose matter and form depend on divine institution , when they confess there was no divine institution for the matter and form in orders ? bellarmin ( as is proved before ) hath a chapter on purpose to prove that the matter and form of sacraments are so determin'd , that it is not lawful to add , diminish or alter them ; and he charges it on luther as a part of his heresie , that no certain form of words was required to sacraments : and he makes it no less than sacrilege to change the matter of them . so that all such who hold the matter and form in orders to be mutable , must either charge the church of rome with sacrilege , or deny orders to be a true and proper sacrament . of the sacrament of penance . the next new sacrament is that of penance . they are agreed , that matter and form are both necessary to a true and proper sacrament . the matter is the external or sensible sign ; and what is that in this new sacrament ? there are two things necessary to the matter of a sacrament : 1. that it be an external and sensible sign ; which s. augustin calls an element in that known expression , accedat verbum ad elementum , & fit sacramentum ; which bellarmin would have understood only of baptism there spoken of ; but s. augustin's meaning goes farther , as appears by his following discourse , and immediately he calls a sacrament verbum visibile ; and therefore cannot be applied to words as they are heard , for so they have nothing of a sacramental sign in them . how then can contrition make up any part of the matter of a sacrament , when it is not external ? how can confession , when it is no visible sign , nor any permanent thing as an element must be ? how can satisfaction be any part of the sacrament , which may be done when the effect of the sacrament is over in absolution ? 2. there must be a resemblance between the sign and the thing signified . which st. augustin is so peremptory in , that he denies there can be any sacrament where there is no resemblance . and from hence , he saith , the signs take the name of the thing signified ; as after a certain manner the sacrament of the body of christ is the body of christ. and this was looked on as so necessary , that hugo de sancto victore and peter lombard both put it into the definition of a sacrament , as suarez confesses , viz. that it is the visible appearance of invisible grace , which bears the similitude , and is the cause of it . but this is left out of the definition in the roman catechism , and suarez thinks it not necessary , for the same reason ; because it is very hard to understand the similitude between words spoken in confession , and the grace supposed to be given by absolution , any more than in the words of abrenunciation , and the grace of baptism . how can the act of the penitent signifie the grace conveyed in absolution ? for there is no effect of the sacrament till absolution , by their own confession ; and therefore the acts of the penitent being antecedent to it , and of a different nature from it , can have no such resemblance with it , as to signifie or represent it . however the councils of florence and trent have declared , that the acts of the penitent , viz. contrition , confession and satisfaction , are as the matter in the sacrament . quasi materia : what is this quasi materia ? why not , are the matter ? is not true matter necessary to a true sacrament ? if there be none true here , then this can be but quasi sacramentum , as it were a sacrament , and not truly and properly so . but if it be true matter , why is it not so declared ? but common sense hindred them , and not the difference between the matter here and in other sacraments . for in the definition of sacraments they were to regard the truth , and not the kind of matter . they are not solid and permanent matter , saith bellarmin ; not matter externally applied , saith soto ; not any substance but humane acts , saith vasquez ; but none of these clear the point . for still if it be true matter of a sacrament , why was it not so declared ? why such a term of diminution added , as all men must understand it , who compare it with the expressions about the other sacraments ? but they knew very well there was a considerable party in the church of rome , who denied the acts of the penitent to be the matter or parts of this sacrament . the council of colen ( but little before the council of trent ) excludes the acts of the penitent from any share in this sacrament : which bellarmin denies not , but blames gropperus , the supposed author of the enchiridion . but gropperus was thought fit to be a cardinal as well as bellarmin ; and certainly knew the tradition of the church if there had been any such in this matter . the council of florence , it is plain , he thought not to be a sufficient declarer of it . no more did joh. major , who after it denied this sacrament to consist of matter and form , or that the acts of the penitent were the parts of it . so did gabriel biel , who refutes the contrary opinion , and saith contrition can be no part , because it is no sensible sign ; and satisfaction may be done after it . so that he cuts off two parts in three of the matter of this pretended sacrament . guido brianson , who lived after the council of florence supposes no certain tradition in the church about this matter ; but he sets down both opinions with their reasons , and prefers that which excludes the acts of the penitent from being parts of the sacrament ; although the florentine council had declared the contrary . durandus rejects two parts in three of those declared by the two councils , and for the same reasons mentioned by biel. ockam absolutely denies all three to be parts of the sacrament . and so did scotus before him ; whose words are remarkable , de poenitentiae sacramento dico , quod illa tria nullo modo sunt partes ejus , viz. these three are by no means any part of the sacrament of penance ; and yet the council of trent not only declares that they are so , but denounces an anathema against him that denies them to be required , as the matter of the sacrament of penance . and let any one by this judge what catholick tradition it proceeded upon ; when some of the greatest divines in the church of rome were of another opinion . as to the form of this sacrament the council of trent denounces an anathema against thesewho affirm absolution to be only declarative of the remission of sins : and yet i shall prove that this was the more current doctrin , even in the church of rome , up to the master of the sentences . gabriel biel saith , the ancient doctors did commonly follow it ; but it was supposed by scotus , because it seemed to take off from the efficacy of absolution , and consequently make it no sacrament , which is a cause of grace . but after he hath set down scotus his arguments , he saith , that opinion were very desirable , if it had any foundation in scripture or fathers . and to his arguments he answers , that true contrition obtains pardon with god , before sacerdotal absolution , but not with the church ; and that contrition supposes a desire of absolution ; which will never hold to make absolution to confer the grace of remission , if the sin be really forgiven before . for what is the desire of the penitent to the force of the sacrament administred by the priest ? and he saith , they all grant , that by true and sufficient contrition the sin is forgiven without the sacrament in act , i. e. the actual receiving absolution . so that here was an universal tradition as to the power of contrition , but in the other they had different opinions . marsilius saith , that god forgives sin upon contrition authoritatively ; the priests absolution is ministerial in the court of conscience , and before the church . and those sins which god ●irst absolves from principally and authentically , the priest afterwards absolves from in right of the church , as its minister . tostatus saith , that the priests absolution follows god's . ockam , that the priests then bind and loose , when they shew men to be bound or loosed ; and for this he relies on the master of the sentences . thomas de argentina , that the power of the keys doth extend to the remission of the fault which was done before by contrition ; but it tends to the increase of grace in the person . gulielmus antissiodore , that contrition takes away the guilt and punishment of sin , as to god and conscience , but not as to the church , for a man is still bound to undergo the penance which the church enjoyns him . bonaventure , that absolution presupposes grace ; for no priest would absolve any one whom he did not presume god had absolved before . alexander hales , that where god doth not begin in absolution , the priest cannot make it up . but the master of the sentences himself most fully handles this point ; and shews from the fathers , that god alone can remit sin both as to the fault and the punishment due to it . and the power of the keys , he saith , is like the priests judgment about leprosie in the levitical law , god healed the person , and the priest declared him healed . or as our saviour first raised lazarus , then gave him to his disciples to be loosed . he is loosed before god , but not in the face of the church but by the priests judgment . another way , he saith , priests bind by enjoyning penance , and they loose by remitting it , or readmitting persons to communion upon performing it . this doctrin of peter lombard's is none of those in quibus magister nontenetur ; for we see he had followers of great name , almost to the council of trent . but it happened , that both th. aquinas and scotus agreed in opposing this doctrin ; and the franciscans and dominicans bearing greatest sway in the debates of the council of trent , what they agreed in , passed for catholick tradition . and vasquez is in the right when he saith , this doctrin was condemned by the council of trent ; and so was scotus , when he said , that it did derogate from the sacrament of penance ; for in truth it makes it but a nominal sacrament , since it hath no power of conferring grace ; which the council of trent makes necessary to a true and proper sacrament . the main point in this debate is , whether true contrition be required to absolution or not ? which scotus saw well enough and argues accordingly . for none of them deny , that where there is true contrition , there is immediately an absolution before god ; and if this be required before the priests absolution , he can have no more to do , but to pronounce or declare him absolved . but if something less than contrition do qualifie a man for absolution , and by that grace be conveyed , then the power of absolution hath a great and real effect ; for it puts a man into a state of grace which he had not been in without it . and from hence came the opinion , that attrition with absolution was sufficient ; and they do not understand the council of trent's doctrin of the sacrament of penance , who deny it , as will appear to any one that reads the 4th chapter of the sacrament of penance , and compares it with the 7 , and 8 canons about sacraments in general . it is true that contrition is there said to have the first place in the acts of the penitent ; but observe what follows : true contrition reconciles a man to god , before he receives this sacrament . what hath the priest then to do , but to declare him reconciled ? but it saith not without the desire of it . suppose not , yet the thing is done upon the desire , & therefore the priests power can be no more than declarative . and that such a desire is so necessary as without contrition avails not , is more than the council hath proved , and it is barely supposed , to maintain the necessity of going to the priest for absolution ; and so it will be no more than a precept of the church , and not a condition of remission in the sacrament of penance . but afterwards , it declares that imperfect contrition or attrition doth dispose a man for the grace of god in this sacrament ; and by the general canons , the sacraments do confer grace where men are disposed . so that the council of trent did rightly comprehend the force of the power of absolution , which it gave to the priest in the sacrament of penance . but what catholick tradition could there be for the doctrin of the council of trent in thismatter , when hadrian 6. so little before it declares , it was a great difficulty among the doctors , whether the keys of priesthood did extend to the remission of the fault ? and for the negative he produces pet. lombard , alex. alens . and bonaventure ; and saith , that opinion is probable , because the priests power of binding and loosing is equal ; and as they cannot bind where god doth not , for they cannot retain the sins of a true penitent ; so neither can they loose where god doth not , i. e. where there is not true contrition . but because he saith others held the contrary opinion , and had probability on their side too , therefore he would determine nothing . notwithstanding this , in a few years after , the council of trent finds no difficulty , no probability in the other opinion ; but determines as boldly , as if there had been an universal tradition their way ; whereas the contrary cannot be denied by any that are conversant in the doctrin of their schools . but it was the mighty privilege of the council of trent , to make the doctrins of thomas and scotus , when they agreed , to be articles of faith ; and to denounce anathema's against opposers , although they reached to some of the greatest divines of their own church , within bellarmin's compass of 500 years . of extreme unction . we are now to examin another pretended sacrament , viz. of extreme unction . the council of trent declares this to be a true and proper sacrament , and denounces an anathema against him that denies it to be instituted by christ , and published by st. james ; or that it confers grace and remission of sins ; or that affirms it was appointed for bodily cures . it farther declares from the place of st. james interpreted by tradition , that the matter is oil consecrated by the bishop ; the form , that which is now used , per istam unctionem , &c. the effect , the grace of the holy ghost in purging away the remainder of sin , and strengthening the soul ; and sometimes bodily cures , when it is expedient for the health of the soul. so that the primary intention of this sacrament must respect the soul , otherwise it is granted , it could not be a true and proper sacrament . so suarez saith in this case , if the external sign be not immediately appointed for a spiritual effect , it cannot prove a true sacrament of the new law ; no not although the bodily cure were designed for the strengthning of faith. and from hence he proves , that when the apostles are said to anoint the sick , and heal them , mark 6. 13. this cannot relate to the sacrament of unction , because their cures had not of themselves an immediate respect to the soul. the same reason is used by bellarmin , sacramenta per se ad animam pertinent , ad corpus per accidens aut certe secundario . the same is affirmed by maldonat , although he differs from bellarmin about the apostles anointing with oil , which bellarmin denies to have been sacramental for this reason , but maldonat affirms it ; and answers other arguments of bellarmin , but not this . gregory de valentia carries it farther , and saith , that if the anointing with oil were only a symbol of a miraculous cure , it could be no sacrament ; for that is a medium to convey supernatural grace , and then it would last no longer than the gift of miracles . so that we have no more to do , but only to prove that by the tradition of the church st. james his anointing was to be understood with respect to bodily cures in the first place . we cannot pass over so great a man as cajetan , who wrote on that place of st. james , not long before the council of trent , and a good while after the council of florence , which relies on this place for this sacrament of unction . but cajetan saith , it doth not relate to it , because the immediate effect is the cure of the party in saint james ; but in this sacrament the direct and proper effect is remission of sins . all that catharinus hath to say against this , is , that the bodily cure is not repugnant to it ; but what is this to the purpose , when the question is , what is primarily designed in this place ? the school divines , from peter lombard , had generally received this for a sacrament ; but the canonists denied it , as appears by the gloss on c. vir autem de secund . nuptiis decret . gregor . tit. 21. where it is said , that this unction might be repeated , being no sacrament but only prayer over a person . the roman correctors cry out it is heresie by the council of trent ; but the glosser knew no such thing ; and if it were so only by the council of trent , then not by any catholick tradition before . for , i suppose matter of heresie must reach to the canonists , as well as the divines . but the plainest determination of this matter will be by the ancient offices of the church ; for if they respected bodily cures in the first place , then it is owned there could be no tradition for any sacrament in this unction . in the ancient ordo romanus it is called benedictio olei ad omnem languorem quocunque tempore . i desire to know whether the oil so consecrated be chiefly designed for the body or the soul. and in the office it self , this place of st. james is mentioned : and then follows , te domine peritissimum medicum imploramus , ut virtutis tuae medicinam in hoc oleum propitius infundas . and a little after ; prosit pater misericordiarum , febribus & dysenteria laborantibus , prosit paralyticis , caecis & claudis simulque vexatitiis , with abundance more ; which manifestly shews that this consecrated oil was intended primarily for the cure of diseases . in the ambrosian form , the prayer is , infunde sanctificationem tuam huic oleo , ut ab his quae unxerit membra , fugatis insidiis adversariae potestatis , susceptione praesentis olei , sancti spiritus gratia salutaris debilitatem expellat & plenam conferat sospitatem , where the effect relates to the soundness of the members anointed , and not to the sins committed by them . in the gregorian sacramentary , published by menardus , there is a prayer wherein this place of st. james is mentioned ; and presently it follows , cura quaesumus redemptor noster gratia spiritus sancti languores istius infirmi , &c. and immediately before the anointing , sana domine infirmum istum , cujus ossa turbata sunt , &c. and while he was anointing , the patient was to say , sana me domine ; and where the pain was greatest , he was to be so much more anointed , ubi plus dolor imminet amplius perungatur . while the rest were anointing , one of the priests was to pray , pristinam & immelioratam recipere merearis sanitatem ; what was this but bodily health ? and yet this was per hanc sacramenti olei unctionem : after which follows a long prayer for recovery from pains and diseases . and such there are in the several offices published by menardus , in his notes ; although the general strain of them shews that they were of latter times , when the unction was supposed to expiate the sins of the several senses . cassander produces many instances to shew , that the prayers and hymns , and the form of anointing did respect bodily health . in one he finds this form , in nomine patris , & filii , & spiritus sancti accipe sanitatem . not the health of the mind , but the body . maldonat takes notice of cassander's offices , and the expressions used in them ; but he gives no answer to the main design of them . but three things he owns the church of rome to have varied from the ancient tradition in , with respect to this sacrament . 1. as to the form ; the council of trent owns no other but that now used , per istam unctionem , &c. but maldonat confesses it was indicative , ego te ungo , &c. or ungo te oleo sancto , &c. and he runs to that shift , that christ did not not determin any certain form ; whereas the council of trent saith , the church understood by tradition the other to have been the form. here the council of trent makes an appeal to tradition , and is deserted in it , by one of its most zealous defenders ; and gamachaeus affirms this to be an essential change ; and he thinks the sacrament not to be valid in another form. s●arez thinks the other form not sufficient . but maldonat affirms the other form was used ; and so at that time , there was no s●crament of extreme unction , because not administred in a valid or sufficient form. and yet in the gregorian office the form is indicative , inungo te de oleo sancto , &c. so in that of ratoldus , ungo te oleo sanctificato in nomine patris , &c. in the tilian codex , inungo te in nomine patris , & filii , & spiritus sancti , oleo sancto atque sacrato , &c. in the codex remigii the general forms are indicative , ungo te oleo sancto , &c. but there being a variety of forms set down , among the rest there is one , per istam unctionem dei , &c. which afterwards came to be the standing form ; and yet the council of trent confidently appeals to tradition in this matter . which shewed how very little the divines there met were skilled in the antiquities of their own church . suarez shews his skill when he saith , the tradition of the roman church is infallible in the substance of this sacrament , and that it always used a deprecative form ; but maldonat knew better , and therefore on their own grounds their tradition was more than fallible ; since the roman church hath actually changed the form of this sacrament . 2. maldonat observes another change , and that is as to the season of administring it . for the council of trent saith it ought to be in exitu vitae , and therefore it is called sacramentum exeuntium , the sacrament of dying persons ; but maldonat saith , it is an abuse to give it only to such ; for , in the ancient church , they did not wait till the party were near death ; but , he saith , it was given before the eucharist , and that not once , but for seven days together , as is plain , he saith , in the ancient ms. offices ; and he quotes albertus magnus for it . so that here is another great change in the roman tradition observed and owned by him . 3. in not giving it now to children ; for in the ancient writers he saith , there is no exception , but it was used to all that were sick ; and he quotes cusanus for saying expresly that it was anciently administred to infants . but the reason of the change was the doctrin of the schoolmen ; for with their admirable congruities they had fitted sacraments for all sorts of sins ; as bellarmin informs us ; baptism against original sin , confirmation against infirmity , penance against actual mortal sin , eucharist against malice , orders against ignorance , matrimony against concupiscence ; and what is now left for extreme unction ? bellarmin saith , they are the remainders of sin ; and so saith the council of trent . but what remainders are there in children , who have not actually sinned , and original sin is done away already ? therefore the church of rome did wisely take away extreme unction from children ; but therein maldonat confesses it is gone off from tradition . i know alegambe would have maldonat not believed to be the author of the books of the sacraments ; but the preface before his works hath cleared this beyond contradiction from the mss. taken from his mouth with the day and year compared with the copy printed under his name . but if maldonat may be believed , the church of rome hath notoriously gone off from its own tradition as to this sacrament of extreme unction . of matrimony . the last new sacrament is that of matrimony ; which having its institution in paradise , one would wonder how it came into mens heads to call it a sacrament of the new law , instituted by christ ; especially when the grace given by it supposes mankind in a fallen condition . hower the council of trent denounces an anathema against him that saith that matrimony is not truly and properly a sacrament , one of the seven of the evangelical law , instituted by christ. that which is truly and properly a sacrament must be a cause of grace , according to the general decrees about the nature of sacraments . so that those who do not hold the latter , must deny the former . now that there was no tradition even in the roman church for this , i prove from the confession of their own most learned divines since the council of trent . vasquez confesses that durandus denies that it confers grace , and consequently that it is truly a sacrament , ( but he yields it in a large improper sense ) and that the canonists were of his opinion ; and that the master of the sentences himself asserted no more than durandus . and which adds more to this , he confesses that soto durst not condemn this opinion as heretical , because thomas , bonaventure , scotus and other schoolmen did only look on their own as the more probable opinion . but , saith he , after the decree of eugenius and the council of trent it is heretical . gregory de valentia saith the same thing , only he adds that the master of the sentences contradicts himself . so certain a deliverer was he of the churches tradition ; and wonders that soto should not find it plainly enough in the councils of florence and trent , that a true sacrament must confer grace . maldonat yields , that durandus and the canonists denied matrimony to be a proper sacrament , but he calls them catholicks imprudently erring . bella●min denies it not ; but uses a disingenuous shift about durandus , and would bring it to a logical nicity , whereas 〈◊〉 very arguments he pretends to answer , sh●w pl●●●●y that he denied this to be a true and proper sacrament . but he offers something considerable about the canonists if it will hold . 1. that they were but a few , and for this he quotes navarr , that the common opinion was against them ; for which he mentions the rubrick de spons . but i can find nothing like it through the whole title ; and it is not at all probable that such men as hostiensis and the glosser should be ignorant of , or oppose the common opinion . hostiensis saith plainly , that grace is not conferr'd by matrimony , and never once mentions any opinion among them against it ; and the glosser upon gratian affirms it several times , caus. 32. q. 2 c. honorantur , in hoc sacramento non confertur gratia spiritus sancti sicut in aliis . the roman correctors could not bear this ; and say in the margin , immo confert ; this is plain contradicting ; but how is it proved from the canon law ? they refer to dist. 23. c. his igitur , v. pro beneficiis . thither upon their authority i go ; and there i find the very same thing said , and in the same words ; and it is given as a reason why symony cannot be committed in matrimony as in other sacraments , and in both places we are referr'd to 32 q. 2. c. connubia , and to 1. q. 1. c. quicquid invisibilis , the former is not very favourable to the grace of matrimony ; and in the latter the gloss is yet more plain , if it be possible , nota conjugium non esse de his sacramentis quae consotationem coelestis grati● tribuunt . there the correctors fairly refer us to the council of trent , which hath decreed the contrary . but that is not to our business , but whether the canonists owned this or not . and there it follows , that other sacraments do so signifie as to convey , this barely signifies . so that i think bellarmin had as good have given up the canonists , as to make so lame a defence of them . 2. he saith we are not to rely on the canonists for these things , but on the divines . but durand● saith , the canonists could not be ignorant of the doctrin of the roman church ; for some of them were cardinals ; and he gives a better reason , viz. that the sense of the roman church was to be seen in the decretals . for therefore marriage was owned to be a sacrament in the large sense , because of the decret . of lucius iii. extra de haeret . c. ad abolendam ; but the schoolmen argued from probabilities and niceties in this matter , which could not satisfie a man's understanding ; as appears by durandus his arguments , and bellarmin's answers to them . 1. where sacraments confer grace , there must be a divine institution of something above natural reason , but there is nothing of that kind in matrimony , besides the signifying the union between christ and his church ; and therefore it is only a sacrament in a large , and not in a proper sense . in answer to this bellarmin saith , that it both signifies and causes such a love between man and wife , as there is between christ and his church . but vasquez saith , that the resemblance as to christ and his church in matrimony , doth not at all prove a promise of grace made to it . and basilius pontius approves of what vasquez saith , and confesses , that it cannot be infer'd from hence that it is a true and proper sacrament . 2. here is nothing external added , besides the mere contract of the persons ; but the nature of a sacrament impli●s some external and visible sign . bellarmin answers , that it is not necessary there should be in this sacrament any such extrinsecal sign ; because it lies in a mere contract . and that i think holds on the other side , that a mere contract cannot be a sacrament , from their own definition of a sacrament . 3. the marriage of infidels was good and valid , and their baptism adds nothing to it ; but it was no sacrament before , and therefore not after . bellarmin answers , that it becomes a sacrament after . and so there is a sacrament without either matter or form ; for there is no new marriage . 4. marriage was instituted in the time of innocency , and is a natural dictate of reason , and therefore no sacrament . bellarmin answers , that it was no sacrament then , because there was no need of sacramental grace . and although the marriage of adam and eve did represent the union between christ and his church ; yet it was no proper sacrament . but how doth it prove that it is a sacrament upon any other account , under the gospel ? and if that doth not imply a promise of grace , then how can it now ? so that durandus his reasons appear much stronger than bellarmin's answers . but durandus urges one thing more , which bellarmin takes no notice of , viz. that this opinion of the canonists was very well known at that time , and was never condemned as contrary to any determination of the church . now , if there had been any constant tradition even of the church of rome against it , it is impossible these canonists should have avoided censure ; their opinion being so much taken notice of by the schoolmen afterwards . jacobus almain saith , it was a controversie between the canonists and divines , whether matrimony was a sacram●nt ; not all the divines neither ; for the confesses durandus and others seemed to agree with them . what universal tradition then had the council of trent to rely upon in this matter ? when all the cano●ists , according to almain , and some of the divines , opposed it ? he sets down their different reasons ; but never alledges matter of faith , or tradition against them , but only saith , the divines hold the other opinion , because matrimony is one of the seven sacraments . but on what was the opinion of the necessity of seven sacraments grounded ? what scripture , what fathers , what tradition was there , before peter lombard , for just that number ? the sense of the greek church about seven sacraments . but before i come to that , it is fit to take notice of what bellarmin lays great weight upon , both as to the number of the sacraments in general , and this in particular ; which is , the consent of both the greek and latin church for at least 500 years . but i have shewed there was no such consent , as is boasted of even in the latin church . as to the greek church , he saith , it is an argument of universal tradition , when they had the same tradition even in their schism . to this i answer . 1. we do not deny that the latter greeks , after the taking constantinople by the latins , did hold seven mysteries ; which the latins render sacraments . for after there were latin patriarchs at constantinople , and abundance of latin priests in the eastern parts , they had perpetual disputes about religion ; and the latins by degrees did gain upon them in some points ; and particularly in this of seven sacraments , for the latins thought it an advantage to their church to boast of such a number of sacraments ; and the greeks that they might not seem to come behind them , were willing to embrace the same number . the first person among them who is said to have written about them , was simeon bishop of thessalonica , whom possevin sets at a greater distance , that the tradition might seem so much elder among them ; ( for he makes him to have lived 600 years before his time ; ) but leo allatius hath evidently proved , that he lived not two hundred years before him , ( which is a considerable difference , ) for simeon dyed but six months before the taking of thessalonica , a. d. 1430 , as he proves from joh. anagnosta , who was present at the taking it . from hence it appers how very late this tradition came into the greek church . after him gabriel severus , bishop of philadelphia , wrote about the seven sacraments , and he lived at venice in arcudius his time , who wrote since possevin ; and crusius wrote to this gabriel a. d. 1580 , and he was consecrated by jeremias a. d. 1577. so that neither his authority , or that of je●emias , can signifie any thing as to the antiquity of this tradition among the greeks . leo allatius talks of the old as well as modern greeks , who held seven sacraments , but he produces the testimony only of those who lived since the taking of constantinople ; as job the monk , simeon , johannes palaeologus , jeremias , gabriel , cyrillus berrhoensis , parthenius , and such like : but he very craftily saith , he produces these to let us see they have not gone off from the faith of their ancestors , whereas that is the thing we would have seen , viz. the testimony of the greeks before , and not afterwards . as to the ancient greeks , he confesses they say nothing of the number . de numero apud eos altum silentium est . and how could therebe a tradition in so much silence ? but some speak of some , and others of others , but all speak of all . this is a very odd way to prove a tradition of a certain number . for then , some might believe three , others four , others five , but how can this prove that all believed just seven ? however let us see the proof . but instead of that he presently starts an objection from the pretended dionysius areopagita , viz. that where he designs to treat of all the sacraments , he never mentions penance , extreme unction , and matrimony ; and after a great deal of rambling discourse , he concludes that he did ill to leave them o●t ; and that others answers are insufficient . he shews from tertullian , ambrose and cyril that the necessary sacraments are mentioned ; but where are the rest ? and we are now enquiring after them in the ancient greek church ; but they are not to be foun● . as one may confidently affirm , when one who professed so much skill in the greek church , as leo allatius , hath no more to say for the proof of it . 2. those greeks who held seven sacraments , did not hold them in the sense of the council o● trent . and that for two reasons . 1. they do not hold them all to be of divine institution . which appears by the patriarch jeremias his answer to the tubing divines , who at first seems to write agreeably to the church of rome in this matter , ( except about extreme unction ; ) but being pressed hard by them in their reply ; he holds to the divine institution of baptism , and the eucharist , but gives up the rest , as instituted by the churches authority . which is plain giving up the cause . how then comes bellarmin to insist so much on the answer of jeremias ? the reason was , that socolovius had procured from constantinople the patriarch's first answer , and translated and printed it ; upon which great triumphs were made of the patriarch's consent with the church of rome ; but when these divines were hereby provoked to publish the whole proceedings , those of the church of rome were unwilling to be undeceived ; and so take no notice of any farther answer . since the time of jeremias , the patriarch of alexandria , ( as he was afterwards , ) metrophanes critopulus published an account of the faith of the greek church ; and he saith expresly of four of the seven , that they are mystical rites , and equivocally called sacraments . and from hence it appears how little reason leo allatius had to be angry with caucus , a latinized greek , like himself , for affirming that the modern greeks did not look on these sacraments as of divine institution ; but after he hath given him some hard words , he offers to prove his assertion for him . to which end he not only quotes that passage of the patriarch jeremias , but others of job and gregorius ; from whence he infers , that five of the sacraments were of ecclesiastical institution , and he saith nothing to take it off . so admirably hath he proved the consent of the eastern and western churches ! 2. they do not agree in the matter , or form , or some essential part of them , with the council of trent , and therefore can make up no tradition for the doctrin of that council about the seven sacraments . this will be made appear by going through them . 1. of chrism . 1. as to the form , arcudius shews , that gabriel of philadelphia , cabasilas and marcus ephesius , all place the form in the consecration of it ; but the church of rome makes the form to lie in the words spoken in the use of it . 2. as to the minister of it . among the greeks it is commonly performed by the presbyter , though the bishop be present ; but the council of tr●nt denounces an anathema against him that saith , the bishop alone is not the ordinary minister of it . 3. as to the character . the council of trent declares that whosoever affirms that confirmation doth not imprint an indelible character , so as it cannot be repeated is anathematized ; but arcudius shews at large , that the modern greeks make no scruple of reiterating confirmation . but catumsyritus , another latinized greek , opposes arcudius herein ; and saith , that the use of chrism among the geeeks , doth not relate to the sacrament of confirmation , but was a symbolical ceremony relating to baptism ; and for this he quotes one corydaleus a man of great note in the patriarchal church at constantinople . therefore caucus had reason to deny that the greeks receive that which the latins call the sacrament of confirmation . and if this hold , then the tradition of the seven sacraments must fail in the greek church . for they deny that they have any such thing as a sacrament of confirmation distinct from baptism . 2. of the sacrament of penance . 1. the council of trent declares absolution of the penitent to be a judicial act , and denounces an anathema against him that denies it ; but the greek church uses a deprecative form , ( as they call it , ) not pronouncing absolution by way of sentence , but by way of prayer to god. which as aquinas observes , rather shews a person to be absolved by god than by the priest , and are rather a prayer that it may be done , than a signification that it is done ; and therefore he looks on such forms as insufficient . and if it be a judicial sentence , as the council of trent determines , it can hardly be reconciled to such a form , wherein no kind of judicial sentence was ever pronounced ; as arcudius grants ; and in extreme unction , where such a form is allowed , there is , as he observes , no judicial act. but he hopes at last to bring the greeks off by a phrase used in some of their forms , i have you absolved ; but he confesses it is not in their publick offices ; and their priests for the most part use it not . which shews it to be an innovation among the latinizing greeks , if it be so observed , which catumsyritus denies , and saith , he proves it only from some forms granted by patents , which are not sacramental ; and supposing it otherwise , he saith , it is foolish , false and erroneous to suppose such a form to be valid ; because it is no judicial act. 2. the council of trent makes confession of all mortal sins , how secret soever , to be necessary in order to the benefit of priestly absolution in this sacrament , and denounces an anathema against those that deny it ; but the greek church grants absolution upon supposition that they have not confessed all mortal sins : as appears by the form of the patriarch of antioch , produced by arcudius , and another form of the patriarch of constantinople , in jeremias his answer . arcudius is hard put to it , when to excuse this he saith , they only pray to god to forgive them ; for this is to own that a deprecative form is insufficient , and so that there is no sacrament of penance in the greek church . 3. of orders . the greek and latin churches differ , both as to matter and form. the council of trent anathematiseth those who deny a visible and exeternal priesthood in the new testament ; or a power of consecrating and offering the true body and bloud of christ , and of remitting and retaining of sins . and this two-fold power the church of rome expresses by a double form , one of delivering the vessels with accipe potestatem , &c. the other of imposition of hands , with accipe spiritum sanctum . but the greek church wholly omits the former , on which the greatest weight is laid in the latin church , and many think the essential form lies in it . when the office of ordination is over , the book of the liturgy , called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is delivered to the presbyter , but without any words ; and there is no mention of it in their rituals , either printed or mss. so likewise a parcel of consecrated bread is delivered by the bishop to him afterwards . and all the form is , the divine grace advances such an one to the office of a presbyter . if we compare this with the form in the council of florence , we shall find no agreement either as to matter or form , in this sacrament , between the greek and latin churches . for there the matter is said to be that by which the order is conferred , viz. the delivery of the chalice with wine , and the paten with the bread ; and the form , receive the power of offering sacrifice for the living and the dead . and it is hardly possible to suppose these two churches should go upon the same tradition . i know what pains arcudius hath taken to reconcile them ; but as long as the decree of eugenius stands , and is received in the church of rome , it is impossible . and catumsyritus labours hard to prove , that he hath endeavoured thereby to overthrow the whole order of priesthood in the roman church . 4. of extreme unction . bellarmin particularly appeals to the greek church for its consent as to this sacrament ; but if he means in the modern sense as it is deliver'd by the councils of florence and trent , he is extremely mistaken . 1. for the former saith , it is not to be given but to such of whose death they are afraid ; and the council of trent calls it the sacrament of dying persons . but the greeks administer their sacrament of unction to persons in health as well as sickness , and once a year to all the people that will ; which arcudius saith , is not only done by the illiterate priests , but by their patriarchs and metropolitans , &c. and they look on then as a supplement to the ancient penance of the church ; for they think the partaking of the holy oil makes amends for that : but this arcudius condemns as an abuse and innovation among them . but the original intention and design of it was for the cure and recovery of sick persons ; as arcudius confesses the whole scope of the office shews ; and in the next chapter he produces the prayers to that end . and the greeks charge the latins with innovation in giving this sacrament to those persons of whose recovery they have no hope . 2. the council of trent requires that the oil of extreme unction be consecrated by a bishop ; and this the doctors of the roman church , saith catumsyritus , make essential to the sacrament . but in the greek church the presbyters commonly do it , as arcudius shews at large . 5. of matrimony . the council of trent from making this a sacrament , denounces an anathema against those who do not hold the bond indissoluble , even in the case of adultery . and bellarmin urges this as his first reason , because it is a sign of the conjunction of christ with his church . but the greek church held the contrary ; and continues so to do , as both bellarmin and arcudius confess . so that though there be allow'd a consent in the number of sacraments among the modern greeks , yet they have not an entire consent with the roman church in any one of them . the sense of other eastern churches about the seven sacraments . but to shew how late this tradition of seven sacraments came into the greek church , and how far it is from being an universal tradition , i shall now make it appear that this number of sacraments was never received in the other christian churches , although some of them were originally descended from the ancient greek church . i begin with the most eastern churches , called the christians of st. thomas in the east-indies . and we have a clear proof that there was no tradition among them about the seven sacraments . for when alexius meneses , archbishop of goa , undertook to reform them according to the roman church , ( if that may be called a reformation ) and held a council at diamper to that purpose , a. d. 1599. he found that they had no sacrament of chrism , or penance , or extreme unction , of which they were utterly ignorant , saith jarricus from antonius goveanus , who was prior of goa , and published the whole proceedings . which book was translated out of portugese by joh. baptista a glano into french , and printed at brussels , 1609. from whence the author of the critical history of the faith and customs of the eastern nations hath given an account of these things ; and he saith , they owned but three sacraments , baptism , eucharist and orders ; that they knew nothing of the sacrament of chrism or extreme unction , and abhorred auricular confession . but in excuse of them he saith , that they joyned confirmation with baptism , as other eastern churches did ; that the sacrament of extreme unction as it is practised in the church of rome is known only to the latin church ; but the eastern church had the unction of s. james for the cure of diseases , as the greek church had . cotovicus affirms the same of the other eastern churches called chaldean , ( who are under the same patriarch with the christians of s. thomas ) that they knew nothing of the sacraments of confirmation and extreme unction . this patriarch is the same which is commonly called the patriarch of babylon ; whose residence is at mozal ; but called of babylon , because sele●cia , after the desolation of the true babylon had the name given to it ( as it were ●asie to prove , if it were pertinent to this design ) and upon the destruction of sele●cia the patriarch removed first to bagdat and then to mozal ; whose jurisciction extends over all those eastern christians , which are called nestorian . in the abyssine churches , godignus saith positively from those who had been conversant among them , that they knew nothing of the sacraments of chrism and extreme unction ; and that all the confession they have is g●neral and rare ; and that they have no bishops under the abuna , and believe the bond of matrimony easily dissolved . so that the tradition of seven sacraments is wholly unknown to them , but as it was imposed by the roman m●ssionaries ; which imposition was so ill received there and brought such confusion and disorders among them , that they are for ever banished . in the armenian churches , joh. chernacensis a latinized armenian saith , that the armenians owned not the seven sacraments , that they knew nothing of chrism and extre●● unction . here we see a general consent as to the total ignorance of two of the seven sacraments in these churches . but clemens galanus , who had been many years a missionary among the armenians endeavours to prove that they had the tradition of the seven sacraments ; but very unsuccessfully . for he produces none of their ancient authors for it : but he names vartanus whom he sets himself to confute afterwards ; and he confesses , that he took away the sacrament of penance , and made burial of the dead to be one of his seven . but more than that , he saith , the armenian churches have forbidden extreme unction as the nestorians had done auricular confession . so that nothing like a truly catholick tradition can be produced for the number of seven sacraments either in the church of rome or elsewhere , within bellarmin's own term of 500 years . i am now to give an account when this number of seven sacraments , came into the church , and on what occasions it was advanced to be a point of faith. the first i can find who expresly set down the number of seven sacraments , was hugo de s. victore , who lived in the twelfth century , not long before peter lombard . but that there was an innovation made by him in this matter , i shall make appear by comparing what he saith with what others had delivered who were short of the primitive fathers . rupertus tuitiensis lived much about the same time in germany that hugo did at paris , and he gives a different resolution of the question about the principal sacraments : for he names no more than baptism , the eucharist and the double gift of the holy ghost ; and , saith he , these three sacraments are necessary instruments of our salvation . but hugo saith , there are seven principal sacraments ; ( which sufficiently shews , that he thought there were other sacraments besides these ; and so he expresses his mind in another place , where he makes all symbolical signs to be sacraments , ) but the principal sacram●nts he saith , are those which convey grace . fulbertus carnotensis lived in france in the beginning of the tenth century ; and where he discourses of the sacraments he names no more than baptism and the eucharist . he calls the body and blood two sacraments , and so did rabanus maurus before him . who lived in the ninth age , and was a person of great reputation ; and he names no more sacraments than baptism , and chrism , and the eucharist ; where he proposes to treat of them ; and had as just an occasion to have mention'd the rest , as hugo had . but bellarmin saith , he handled all wherein the clergy were concerned , and therefore omitted none but matrimony . but were not they concerned to know whether it were a sacrament or not ? the question is not whether he mention'd the things , but whether he called them sacraments ; but i do not find extreme unction so much as mention'd by him in the place he refers us to . in the same ●ge , walafridus strabo , where he purposely discourseth of the sacraments names no more than rabanus maurus ; and this had been an inexcusable omission in such who treat of ecclesiastical offices ; and were to inform persons of their duties about them . and therefore i lay much more weight on such an omission in them than in any other writers . i know paschasius radbertus mentions no more than three sacraments , baptism , chrism and the eucharist ; but bellarmin and sirmondus say he mention'd them for example sake , because it was not his business to handle the number of sacraments ; but this answer will by no means serve for those who purposely treated of these matters ; and therefore an omission in them is an argument that they knew nothing of them . and this argument will go yet higher ; for in the beginning of the seventh century , isidore of sevil treated of these matters , and he names no more than baptism , chrism and the eucharist ; and he tells us , they are therefore called sacraments , because under the covering of corporeal things a secret and invisible virtue is convey'd to the pa●takers of them . and this very passage is entred into the canon law c. 1. q. 1 c. multi secularium , &c. and there it passes under the name of gregory i. but the roman correctors restore it to isidore . but it may be objected , that ivo carnotensis made a collection of canons before gratian ; who handles the sacraments in his first and second part ; and he seems to make the annual chrism to be a sacrament ; for which he quotes an epistle of fabianus , who saith it ought to be consecrated every year , quia novum sacramentum est ; and this , he saith , he had by tradition from the apostles . which testimony the modern schoolmen rely upon for a sufficient proof of this apostolical tradition . but this epistle is a notorious counterfeit , and rejected by all men of any tolerable ingenuity in the church of rome . thus we trace the original of some pretended apostolical traditions into that mass of forgeries , the decretal epistles , which was sent abroad under the name of isidore . ivo produces another testimony from innocentius i. to prove that extreme unction was then owned for a kind of sacrament , and therefore ought not to be given to penitents . if this rule holds , then either matrimony was no sacrament , or penitents might not marry ; but the canonists say even excommunicated persons may marry , but one of them saith , it is a strange sacrament excommunicated persons are allow'd to partake of . but this genus est sacramenti signifies very little to those who know how largely the word sacrament was used in elder times , from iertullian downwards . but our question is not about a kind of a sacrament , but strict and proper sacraments ; and if it had been then thought so , he would not have permitted any to administer it ; unless they will say it is as necessary to salvation as baptism , which none do . it appears from hence , that there was then a custome among some in regard to s. james his words , if persons were sick , to take some of the chrism to anoint them , and to pray over them in hopes of their recovery ; but this was no sacrament of dying persons , as it is now in the church of rome . if it had been then so esteemed , s. ambrose ( or who-ever was the author of the book of sacraments ) would not have omitted it , and the other supernumeraries , when he purposely treats of sacraments ; the same holds as to s. cyril of jerusalem . and it is a poor evasion to say , that they spake only to catechumens ; for they were to be instructed in the means and instruments of salvation as they make all sacraments to be . and it is to as little purpose to say , that they do not declare there are but tw● ; for our business is to enquire for a catholick tradition for s●ven true and proper sacraments , , as the council of trent determines under an anathema . but if we compare the traditions for two and for seven together , the other will be found to have far greater advantage ; not only because the two are mention'd in the eldest writers , where the seven are not ; but because so many of the fathers agree in the tradition , that the sacraments were designed by the water and blood which came out of our saviour's side . so s. chrysostom , s. cyril of alexandria , leo magnus , but above all s. augustin who several times insists upon this ; which shews that they thought those two to be the true and proper sacraments of christianity ; however there might be other mystical rites which in a large sense might be called sacraments . as to the occasions of setting up this number of seven sacraments , they were these . 1. some pretty congruities which they had found out for them . the number seven they observe was in request in the levitical law , as to sacrifices and purifications . naaman was bid to wash seven times . and bellarmin in good earnest concludes that the whole scripture seemed to foretell the seven sacraments by those things . but besides , he tells us of the seven things relating to natural life which these have an analogy with ; the seven sorts of sins these are a remedy against , and the seven sorts of vertues which answer to the seven sacraments . but none of all these prove any catholick tradition . 2. making no difference between mystical rites continued in imitation of apostolical practices , and true and real sacraments . imposition of hands for confirmation and ordination is allowed to be a very just and reasonable imitation of them ; and as long as the miraculous power of healing diseases continued , there was a fair ground for continuing the practice mentioned by s. james ; but there was no reason afterwards to change this into quite another thing , by making it a sacrament , chiefly intended for doing away the remainders of sin. 3. advancing the honour of the priesthood ; by making them so necessary for the actual expiation of all sorts of sins , and in all conditions . for no sacrament is rightly administred by the council of trent without the priest ; and therefore clandestine marriages are declared void by it . and it pronounces an anathema against those who say any others than priests can administer extreme unction ; however it appears that in the time of innocentius 1. any might make use of the chrism when it was consecrated by a bishop ; but they are grown wiser in the church of rome since that time ; and as they have altered a ceremony of curing into a sacrament of dying , so they have taken care that none but priests shall perform that last office , that the people may believe they can neither live nor dye without them . vi. of auricular confession . the council of trent declares , that the universal church always understood that christ did institute an entire confession of sins ; and that it is received by divine right to all who sin after baptism , because our lord jesus christ before his ascension into heaven , did leave priests as his vicars , to be presidents and judges , to whom all mortal sins were to be made known , and of which they were by the power of the keys to give sentence , so as either to remit or retain them . it farther saith , that the most holy and ancient fathers by a great and unanimous consent did use this secret sacramental confession from the beginning . and it denounces anathema's , 1. against him that denies the sacrament of penance to be of christ's institution . 2. against him that denies that our saviour's words , receive ye the holy ghost , whose sins ye remit they are remitted , &c. are to be understood of the power of remitting and retaining in the sacrament of penance , as the calick church always understood them . 3. against him that denies confession to be a part of it , or to have divine institution , and to be necessary to salvation ; as it relates to all mortal though secret sins . thus we see the sense of the council of trent in this matter ; and i shall now make it evident there was no such catholick tradition , as is here pretended for it , by the confession of their own writers . 1. as to the general sense of the church . 2. as to the founding it on john 22. those sins ye remit , &c. 1. as to the general sense of the church . maldonat reckons up seven several opinions among themselves about confession . 1. of those who denied it to be of divine right , but held it to be useful in the church ; and for this he quotes rhenanus and erasmus . 2. of those who make it to be onely of ecclesiastical institution ; and this , saith he , is the opinion of all the canonists . 3. of those who thought it came in by apostolical tradition ; of which he reckons theodore archbishop of canterbury , 4. of some divines who held it to be instituted only by st. james . 5. of others who held it to be of divine right , and not instituted by the apostles , but insinuated by christ ; and for this he quotes alexander hales , and bonaventure . 6. of some who thought it instituted in the old testament . 7 , of those who held it instituted by christ , but not as a precept , but by way of council ; and for this he mentions scotus and his followers . vasquez reckons up among those whose opinions are not condemned , the canonists , erasmus , bonaventure , alexander hales , and scotus , who all differed from the council of trent . suarez mentions three opinions among them 1. of those who said it was instituted in the law of nature . 2. of those who attributed it to the law of moses . 3 of those who d●nyed any institution of it by way of precept from christ in the law of grace ; and for this he quotes hugo de sancto victore , alexandèr hales , and bonaventure , and they went upon this ground , that no such institution could be proved either by scripture or tradition . gregory de valentia confesses , some catholick authors denied the divine institution of confession ; for which he produces the canonists , and erasmus and rhenanus . but he thinks they were not guilty of heresie , because they were not obstinate ; but that is not our business , which is to shew , that by their own confession there was not a constant catholick tradition in the church about it . natalis alexander , who hath lately pretended to answer daillè , confesses , that from the ninth to the thirteenth age , many catholicks did hold , that confession to god alone was sufficient to obtain remission of sins ; and he proves it from lombard , gratian and the canonists . but he saith it was no heresie in them , the point not being yet settled by a general council . boileau in his answer to daillè cannot deny that in the time of lombard and gratian men held several ways about this matter ; but he answers with thomas upon the sentences ; that it was an opinion then , but since the council of lateran it is become a heresie . but if it were no heretical opinion then , what becomes of infallible tradition ? if the church defines by tradition , that tradition must be proved before the definition , otherwise it hath no ground to proceed upon . the council of lateran under innocent iii. ( it seems ) made it a heresie to deny this sacramental confession . within much less than a century before it , lived peter lombard and gratian. peter lombard made it his business to collect a body of divinity out of the sentences of the fathers ; and his work hath been universally esteemed in the roman church . when he comes to state this point of confession out of the fathers , i. e. to give an account of the tradition of the church about it ; he tells us in the beginning , that learned men were of different opinions ; and for what reason ? because the doctors of the church seemed to deliver not only divers but contrary things , i. e. they had no certain and constant tradition about them . and when he comes to the point of confession to god only , he quotes for it , besides scripture , s. ambrose , and s. chrysostem , and prosper , and against it s. augustine and leo , and concludes himself for the latter ; but saith not a word more to shew that the constant tradition of the church had been for this opinion . gratian puts the same question , and for confession to god alone he quotes s. ambrose , s. augustine , and prosper , besides scripture , and argues largely for it after c. convertimini , &c. then he sets down the arguments on the other side from c. 38. and after c. 60. he sums up the force of them , and again after c. 87. and when he hath said all on one side and on the other , he concludes after c. 89. that he left all to the readers judgment ; for both opinions had wise and pious defenders ; and produces that saying as out of theodore's penitential ; that some think that we ought to confess only to god , as the greeks others that we ought to do it to the priest too , as almost all the church besides ; but then he adds , that confession to god purges away sin , but that to the priest shews how they are purged , i. e. by contrition . so the gloss interprets it . bellarmin thinks that , ut groeci , was foisted into the canon , and i shall not dispute against it , provided that which answers to it , ut tota ferè sancta ecclesta , be allowed to be so too , as the roman correctors do confess . boileau hath taken another course , for he saith , this whole distinction is without ground attributed to gratian ; but how doth he prove it ? from ant. augustinus his dialogue , where a ms. is cited that this was not gratian's , but an elder author 's . and what is gotten by this ? but the other answers , it must be gratian 's , because of the citation out of the digests , and other books of civil law then lately found . if this will not do , he saith , gratian hath many errours , as the roman correctors observe . yes truly do they ; and about this point several times ; for the councils of lateran and trent have otherwise determined . but what is all this to the tradition of the church in gratian's time ? innocent iii. in the council of lateran , enjoyns strictly the practice of confession once a year , under the penalty of excommunication , and of being deprived of christian burial ; but there is not a word of the churches tradition before , for the ground of it . but finding several opinions about it , and the waldenses then opposing it , he resolves by his authority to bind all persons to it . but after this the canonists allowed no more than ecclesiastical institution for it ; as is plain by the gloss on the canon law , dist. 5. de poenit. tit. in poenitentia ; but the roman correctours quote against it council . trident. sess. 14. c. 5. i. e. a council some 100 years after , must tell what the tradition then was ; but the gloss saith , the greeks had no such tradition , and therefore were not bound to confession . so that we have no evidence for any catholick tradition in this matter , before the lateran council . 2. but the council of trent hath gone beyond the council of lateran , and hath fixed the divine right of confession on john 20. whose sins ye remit , &c. and therefore i am now to shew , by the confession of their own writers , that this hath not been the traditionary sense of this place . cajetan , not long before the council first sate , in his notes on this place confesses , that no precept of sacramental confession is contained in it . but how should it be of divine right in the sense of the council of trent , if there be no command for it ? tes , by cons quence , if they will obtain remission of sins ; but this can by no means be inferred from hence , because the remission of sins by baptism is implied in it ; but none of them plead for particular confession before baptism , in order to remission ; and therefore not after , unless some command of christ made it more necessary after baptism than before , vasquez saith , that cajetan means no more , than that it cannot be proved out of this place ; but catharinus saith , that neither there nor in any other place doth cajetan allow , that auricular confession can be proved out of scripture . gabriel biel confesses , he cannot find sufficient force to conclude the necessity of confession from the power of absolution here granted ; because it may be valid upon voluntary confession of the party ; and therefore he resolves it into an unwritten tradition . guide brianson takes great pains to prove it out of this place , but at last yields , that christ's instituting such a power , doth not bind persons to confess their faults to them that have it . for the power of retaining doth not imply that no sins are retained which are not retained by the priest upon confession ; neither then doth the power of absolution imply that no sins are remitted but such as are confessed to a priest. and therefore he betakes himself as biel doth , to unwritten tradition ; and so doth nicol. de orbellis . jac. de almain debates the matter at large ; and he says only that it is a probable opinion , that this confession is of divine appointment ; but he yields , that christ's granting a power of absolution , d●th not make it a duty to confess to a priest ; and he saith , it is a false proposition , that where a power of judging is given , others are bound to submit to it ; for all that follows is , that their sentence is valid if they do submit . but the force of what the council of trent deduces from this place , lies wholly in this , as vasquez observes , that because christ hath given authority to absolve , and they cannot exercise that authority without confession , therefore confession is hereby made necessary . and he confesses , that scarce any have deduced the argumert effectually from this place . but he saith one thing very observable , that if this place be extended to remission of sins in baptism , then it can never prove the necessity of sacramental confession . and greg. de valentia as plainly owns , that the fathers did understand it of baptism ; he names s. cyprian , and s. ambrose ; but natalis alexander allows s. cyril of alexandria to have so understood it ; and that jansenius and ferus followed him ; but besides these s. augustin interprets this place as s. cyprian had done . for as s. cyprian from hence infers the power of baptizing and granting remission of sins in the guides of the church ; so s. augustin saith , the churches charity by the h●ly ghost looses the sins of those who are her members , and retains the sins of those who are not . and it may be observed , that whereas st. matthew speaks of the power of baptizing granted to the apostles ; s. john instead of that mentions this p●wer of remitting or retaining sins , and s. mark and s. luke speak of baptism ; to which the one joins s●lvation ; and the other remission of sins . and the●efore this seems to be meant by our saviour in the words of s. john ; and thus s. peter exercised this power of loosing on the converted jews , act. 2. 38. and his power of binding on simon magus , act. 8. 21. peter lombard carries s. augustin's meaning farther , to the power of priests over the sins of the members of the church ; but then he limits this power , and makes it no more than declarative ; as i have observed already ; and for this he quotes a notable passage of s. jerom , who saith , that men are apt to assume too much to themselves under pretence of this power of the keys , whereas god regards not the sentence of the priests but the life of the penitents . but natalis alexander thinks there is no binding power with respect to baptism ; was there not as to simon magus ? and as long as every year the church judged of the competency of persons for it ? when christ spake these words the church was wholly to be formed , and it was a great power lodged with the apostles and their successors to admit into the church , or to exclude from it , not as private persons , but by authority from christ himself . but then this power is vain and idle in a constituted church . by no means ; they have still a power of casting out and taking in again ; and of imposing such acts on offenders , as may give satisfaction to the church , whose honour suffers , and whose discipline is broken . but the question is , whether by christ's appointment under the gospel no known mortal sin can be pardon'd to baptized persons without confession of it to a priest ? and whether these words of our saviour do imply it ? scotus is by no means satisfied with mens reasoning out of this place , that because christ hath given such a power , therefore it is mens duty to confess their sins ; for , saith he , this only implies the usefulness and efficacy of this power if it be made use of ; as in confirmation , none think themselves damned if they do not use it though it be very useful ; and therefore he goes another way to work , viz. by joyning this precept and that of loving god and our selves together with it . but how doth this prove that a man ought to take this particular way ? truly , scotus here shews his sub●ilty . suppose there be another way that is harder , and this be found more easie , he thinks a man is bound to take the shortest and easiest way , viz. by confession and absolution . but for all this his heart did misgive him , and he could not but see , that this proved nothing , unless this way of confession were first proved to be a secure way . and therefore he puts the case , that if it be not proved by these words , it may be by s. james , confess your faults one to ano●her . no , saith he , this will not do ; for which he gives this reason , that it holds no more for confession to a priest than to any other ; therefore , after all , he is willing to resolve it into some unwritten tradition , since there was no convincing evidence for it either in this or any other place of scripture . which shew'd they ran to tradition , when they had nothing else to say . bonaventure denies that christ himself app●inted t●e confession of sins ; for which he gives this reason , lest it should prove an occasion of sinning ; ne ex verbis domini daretur aliquibus recidivandi occasio ; but afterwards he thinks the apostles appointed it , and s. james published it ; which scotus utterly denies . but to the place of s john , bonaventure saith it was not enough to have it implied in the priest's power , because it being a harder duty than absolution , it requir'd a more particular command . which was but reasonably said ; especially when bellarmin after others , urges , that it is one of the most grievous and burthensome precepts ; but his inference from it is very mean , that therefore it must have a divine command to inforce it on the people ; but bonaventure's argument is much stronger , that it ought then to have been clearly expressed . but as to the peoples yielding to it , other accounts are to be given of that afterwards . alexander hales observes , that if christ had intended a command of confession , john 20. it would have been expressed to those who are to confess , and not to those who are to absolve ; as he did to those who were to be baptized , john 3. except a man be born of water , &c. so christ would have said , except a man confess his sins , &c. and he gave the same reasons why christ did not himself institute it , which bonaventure doth , who used his very words . and now who could have imagined that the council of trent would have attempted to have made men believe that-it was the sense of the universal church that christ instituted confession in john 20 ? when so many great divines even of the church of rome so expresly denied it ; as i have made appear from themselves . but now to give an account by what steps and degrees and on what occasions this auricular confession came into the church , these things are to be considered . 1. in the first ages , pu●lick , scandalous offenders after baptism , were by the discipline of the church brought to publick penance ; which was called exomologesis ; which originally signifies confession . and by this , bellarmin saith the ancients u●derstood either confession alone , or joyned with the other parts of penance ; but albaspineus shews , that it was either taken for the whole course of publick penance , or for the last and solemn act of it , when the bishop led the penitents from the entrance of the church up to the b●dy of the congregation , where they expressed their abhorrence of their faults in the most penitent manner , by their actions as well as by words . so that this was a real and publick declaration of their sorrow for their sins , and not a verbal or auricular confession of them . the same is owned by la cerda . but boileau pretends that it had not this sense till after the novatian heresie and the death of irenaeus ; and that before that time it signified confession according to the sense of the word in scripture . this seems very strange , when baronius himself confesses , that tertullian us●s it for that part of penance which is called satisfaction ; and bellarmin grants it is so used both by tertullian and irenoeus ; when he saith the woman seduced by marcus , afterwards spent her days in exmologesi . what! in continual confession of her sin ? no , but in penitential acts for it ; and so petavius understands it , both in irenoeus and tertullian , and he saith , it did not consist onely or principally in words but in actions , i. e. it was nothing of kin to auricular confession , which is a part of penance distinct from satisfaction . and to make these the same , were to confound the different parts of the sacrament of penance , as the ●ouncil of trent doth distinguish them . but besides this , there were several other circumstances . which do make an apparent difference between these penitential acts and the modern notion of confession . 1. the reason of them was different . for , as rigaltius observes , the penitential rigour was taken up after great numbers were admitted into the church ; and a great dishonour was brought upon christianity by the looseness or inconstancy of those who professed it . there were such in s. paul's time in the churches of corinth , and elsewhere ; but although he gives rules about such , yet he mentions no other than avoiding or excommunicating the guilty persons , and upon due sorrow and repentance receiving them in again ; but he imposes no necessity of publick or private confession in order to remission ; much less of every kind of mortal sin , though it be but the breach of the tenth commandment , as the council of trent doth ; yet this had been necessary in case he had thought , as that declares , that god will not forgive upon other terms . and so much the rather , because the evangelists had said nothing of it ; and now churches began to fill , it was absolutely necessary for him to have declared it , if it were a necessary condition of pardon for sins after baptism . but although the apostles had given no rules about it , yet the christian churches suffering so extremely by the reproaches cast upon them , they resolved , as far as it was possible , to take care to prevent any scandalous offences among them . to this end , the actions of all persons who professed themselves christians were narrowly watched ; and their faults , especially such as were scandalous , complained of ; and then if they confessed them , or they were convicted of them , a severe and rigorous discipline was to be undergone by them before they were restored to communion ; that their enemies might see how far the christians were from incouraging such enormities as they were accused of . they were charged with thyestean suppers and promiscuous mixtures ; whereas , any persons among them who were guilty of homicide or adultery were discharged their society , and for a great while not admitted upon any terms ; and afterwards , upon very rigorous and severe terms . and besides these , to preserve the purity of their religion in times of persecution , they allowed no compliance with the gentile idolatry ; and any tendency to this , was looked upon as a degree of apostasie , and censured accordingly . and about these three sorts of sins the severity of the primitive discipline was chiefly exercised ; which shews , that it proceeded upon quite different grounds from those of the council of trent about auricular confession . 2. the method of proceeding was very different ; for here was no toties quoties allow'd ; that men may sin , and confess , and be absolved ; and then sin the same sin again , and confess again , and receive absolution in the same manner . the primitive church knew nothing of this way of dealing with sinners upon confession . if they were admitted once to it that was all . so pamelius himself grants , and produces several testimonies of fathers for it ; and so doth albaspineus and petavius . dare any say this is the sense of the church of rome about confession , that a man cannot be received a second time to confess and be absolved from the same sin ? how then can they pretend any similitude between their confession and the ancient exomologesis ? besides , none ever received absolution from the ancient church till full satisfaction performed . but in the church of rome , absolution is given before satisfaction ; and although some have complained of this , as a great abuse ; yet they have been sharply answer'd , that it is to call in question the conduct of the church for five hundred years ; and they may as well question many other things , which depend upon the authority of the present church . 3. the obligation to confession is very different from what it was in the ancient exomologesis . now by the doctrine of the church of rome , a person looks on himself as bound in conscience to confess every mortal sin ; but in the ancient church none can imagine that persons were bound to undergo the exomologesis for every mortal sin , there being no penitential canons which did ever require it ; but they had respect to some particular sins , and the penance was proportion'd to them . we ought to take notice of two things with respect to the discipline of the ancient church , which will shew the different notion it had of these things from what is now current in the church of rome . 1. that it did not exclude those from all hopes of salvation whom it excluded from penance ; as may be seen in the illiberitan council , where many are wholly shut out from the church , whom we cannot think they thought uncapable of salvation . from whence it follows , that they did not look on confession and absolution as a necessary condition of salvation ; but now in the church of rome they allow confession to all , because they think they cannot otherwise be in a state of salvation in an ordinary way . but in the ancient church they could not look on the desire of confession as necessary , for to what purpose should they make that necessary when they denyed the thing ? but in the church of rome , they make the desire necessary , because they hold the thing it self to be so , if there be means to have it . 2. that the penitential canons never extended in the primitive church to all those sins which the church of rome now accounts mortal , and therefore necessary to be confessed . the council of trent saith expresly , they must confess omnia & singula peccata mortalia — etiam occulta — and an anathema is denounced against him that denies it to be necessary to remission of them . now if we consider their notion of mortal sins , we shall easily discern the vast difference between the obligation to confession by the council of trent , and by the old penitential canons . for mortal sins are not only all voluntary acts committed against the known laws of god , but against the laws of the church ; and even venial sins may become mortal by the disposition of the person , and by other circumstances , which the casuists set down at large ; now the council of trent doth expresly oblige men , not only to relate the acts themselves , but all circumstances which change the kind of sin. and this is a racking the consciences of men far beyond whatever we find in the old penitential canons ; for , petavius confesses that many sins now accounted mortal , had no penance appointed for them by the old canons ; and therefore i need not take any pains to prove it : if any one hath a mind to be satisfied , he may see it in gregory nyssen's canonical epistle , where he owns that several of those sins , for which the scripture excludes from the kingdom of heaven , have no canonical penance prescribed them by the ancient canons of the church . which shews a mighty difference from the rule of the council of trent . the most plausible place in antiquity brought for all mortal sin , is that of s. cyprian , where he saith , that some confessed their very thoughts , though they had not proceeded to actual sin . it is true , that he doth speak of some such ; but was it for sins of thought against the tenth command ? no ; but it is very plain , that he speaks of that sin which was thought to imply a renouncing christianity , and s cyprian elsewhere calls summum delictum , and the sin ag●inst the holy ghost ; viz. consenting to any act of gentile idolatry ; and yet saint cyprian had much ado to perswade those who were actually guilty to submit to due penance for it ; but they obtained tickets from the confessors , and were admitted to communion without undergoing the discipline of the church , the consequence whereof would be , that the discipline would be lost , and the church over-run with apostates ; this makes s. cyprian plead hard against such practices , and among other arguments he uses this of the great tenderness of some , who because they had entertained such thoughts of doing as others did , for their own safety , they offered to unburthen their consciences before them , and desired remedy for small wounds ; how much more ought they to confess their faults whose wounds are greater ? this is the whole force of his reasoning ; where the thought and act relate to the same sin ; and that said to be no less than denying christ , and sinning against the holy ghost . but there is no parity in the case of other sins ; which even s. cyprian calls minora delicta , being against men immediately ; and there is no intimation in him that ever the thoughts of those sins were discovered , or that persons were under any obligation by the rules of the church to do it . 2. private offenders were sometimes advised in those first ages for the ease of their consciences to make confession of their sins ; of which we see an instance as to the practice in one case in s. cyprian's time . and tertullian compares such persons who avoid it , to those who have such secret ulcers that they chuse rather to perish than to discover them . now in cases of this nature he advises to confession and publick penitential acts , that so they may in the judgment of the church have the secret wounds of their consciences healed . and this is that which origen doth advise to in such cases , to seek out a wise spiritual physician , and to make known his inward distemper to him , and to follow his advice and direction , as to the method of cure. now this we never oppose ; but the only question is , whether it be necessary for all persons , and for every mortal sin , to make confession of it to the priest , that it may be forgiven ; and origen never once supposes this ; for he mentions several other ways for the remission of sins after baptism , by martyrdom , by alms , by forgiving and converting others , by great love to god , and in the last place he brings in this of a laborious penance and confession . either the former ways are sufficient without this , or not ; if they are , then this is not necessary to the remission of all mortal sins ; if not , to what purpose doth he mention so many ways , when this one is sufficient without them and all those are insufficient without this ? for boileau confesses , that no mortal sins according to them can be remitted , where there is not at least the desire of this . but origen shews the different ways of obtaining remission , or else he doth not answer the difficulty ; which was that the jews had several sorts of sacrifices for the expiation of sins , to which we have none answerable under the gospel , yes , saith origen , baptism answers to one sort , martyrdom to another , alms to a third , &c. and last of all , penance to the offering baked in the frying pan. from whence it is plain , that he looked on this as one particular way proper to some cases , and not as a general method for the remission of all mortal sins . but he urges that origen quctes scripture for the confession of sins , as necessary , hom. 2. in psal. 37. but what scripture ? even the words of the psalmist , i will confess my iniquity . and was confession to a priest necessary under the law ? how then can those words prove it necessary under the gospel ? although therefore origen might think it very convenient in some cases for penitents to unload their consciences by confession to a spiritual physician , yet we find no proof of any necessity of it , as to all mortal sins . it is confessed , that publick faults , either confessed or proved , had publick penance appointed for them by the penitential canons ; but boileau , after arnauld , pleads , that even secret sins being mortal , were not thought remissible by the keys of the church , without publick penance . but this can never be proved to have been the doctrine of the ancient church , and it is unreasonable to suppose ; for then , all persons must have undergone publick penance who had any mortal sin , and it must have been frequently born by the same persons , both which are inconsistent with the ancient discipline . but they saw there was no other way to maintain the necessity of confession , but by this . for they could find none but publick penance , and that by the penitential canons was prescribed only for some particular scandalous sins ; and therefore they fansied , that persons who committed other faults , were bound to confess them privately , and to undergo publick penance for them . i do not deny , but some great penitents , for secret faults , would of their own accord submit to the publick discipline ; but this was a voluntary act in them , that by this means they might assure themselves the more of the sincerity of their own repentance ; and it being looked on as an act of humility and piety , it made it go down the better with voluntary penitents . 3. for the sake of such voluntary penitents in great churches , whose cases required particular and private examination and direction , there was a penitentiary appointed , whose office it was to receive their confessions , and to direct and order the method of their penance . of this we have a famous instance in the church of constantinople , in the time of nectarius , about which so much pains hath been taken for different purposes . that which seems most probable to me , is , that the penitentiary was appointed to examine and judge of such penitential causes which were brought before him , ( not being notorious , ) and to give sentence according to the canons ; but especially of voluntary confessions of persons , whose consciences were oppressed with the guilt of secret sins ; and to those he was to appoint penance without revealing their faults . where the facts were notorious and scandalous , i suppose the ancient discipline of the church ( part whereof is to be seen in the canonical epistles ) to have still continued at constantinople , as well as in other churches . but there were many private miscarriages , wherein great prudence and judgment was required , both to determine the penance , and to manage it so , that it did not break out into an open scandal . and for cases of this nature the penitentiary was appointed ; to whom all persons might resort in private cases , and open their consciences to him , and take his directions how to perform their penitential acts. so it was with that person of quality at constantinople , who gave occasion to the abolishing the office of penitentiary , both there , and in all the eastern churches . she first went to the penitentiary , as a voluntary penitent , and confessed her faults to him , and took his directions ; and while she was performing her penance in the church , the fact was committed with the deacon , which she afterwards confessed to the penitentiary . who being enraged at the deacon , in probability through his desire to have him punished , the fact came to be discovered , and the people to be highly offended : and it is not reasonable to suppose that the penitentiary put her upon a publick confession of her secret fault ; but that it came out by his means ; and therefore nectarius thought fit no longer to put such a trust into any man's hand , which through his discovery might redound to the dishonour of the church , as that did . what the effect was of abolishing this office , is the great question , whether the taking away publick or private confession . if the historians may be believed , it was the necessity of making any confession at all in secret ; for the right of receiving such confessions , was devolved upon the penitentiary ; therefore when his office was put down , where the case was not notorious , every one must be left to his own conscience ; and that both socrates and sozomen affirm was the consequence of it . if only publick confession was taken away , as some imagine , a secret confession was still continued , how was it possible for the historians to mistake the matter so grosly , by making that the consequence of it ? for , is every man left to his own conscience , where he is bound to go to confession before he partakes of the eucharist ? and why should publick penance be taken away on this occasion , where there seems to have been none ; for that person underwent to publick penance upon her former confession , for then her penance would not have been done in the church , but out of it , among the penitents . but as the former was voluntary , so was the latter too ; for here was no accuser but her self ; and for what reason should publick and solemn penance for notorious cri●●es , be taken away for the sake of the discovery of a secret confession ? whether the punishment of the deacon were the occasion of its coming out , or whatever it was , it seems evident to me , that she was not obliged to any publick consession ; because sozomen saith , the penitentiary was chosen for his gravity , silence and wisdom ; but what silence was there , if the confessions were to be made publick . and on the other side , it is impossible to conceive , that if all persons were then obliged to confess all mortal sins after baptism , that one penitentiary should be sufficient in so vast a city as that of constantinople was . therefore i think it most probable , that the case of notorious and scandalous offenders stood as it did , and so continued in s. chrysostom's time ; but this office of penitentiary relating to voluntary and secret offenders was taken away ; because a greater scandal came to the church by the discovery , when such a publick disgrace made the fact become notorious . and so this act of nectarius in taking away the penitentiary's office , and the approbation of it by other churches following the example , evidently proves , that they did not look on confession of s●●cret sins , as necessary to the remission of them . 4. as the taking away the penitentiary's office shewed the sense of the church at that time against the necessity of confession in order to pardon , so it did likewise in order to the partaking of the eucharist . for socrates saith , that eudaemon gave that counsel to nectarius , that he should remove the penitentiary , and give every one leave to pass j●dgment on himself in his own conscience , and so to partake of the mysteries . the same is affirmed by sozomen . which respects not the publick discipline about notorious offenders , but the private applications made by scrupulous persons and secret offenders to the penitentiary in order to a right preparation for the eucharist . and it is very probable , that it was then believed by many , that they could not be duly fitted for that sacrament , unless they had first unburthened their consciences by a voluntary confession to the penitentiary , and followed his directions . but this office being taken away , the question now is , whether it were thought necessary to confess privately to any other ? the council of trent declares , that sacramental confession is necessary to a worthy partaking of the eucharist , to every one that is conscious to himself of any mortal sin ; and whosoever holds the contrary is declared excommunicate ipso facto . but these historians plainly deny it , and they are justified by s. chrysostom , who speaks to the very case ; not about c●techumens , but such as would fit themselves for the holy eucharist . and he several times declares , that a man needs not reveal his sins to any but to god alone , in order to it . nothing can be more emphatical than what he saith to that purpose . for this cause s. paul saith , let a man examin himself , and so let him eat of that bread , and drink of that cup ; he doth not lay open the secret ulcer ; he doth not bring the accusation into a theatre ; he appoints no witnesses of thy transgressions ; pass judgment within thine own conscience , there examin thy faults , and call thy self to an account for the ●ins of thy life , where ●o●e but god is present , who sees all things ; amend thy faults , and so with a pure conscience draw near to the holy table , and partake of the sacrifice there offered . but left this should be thought one of those sudden eloquent heats which petavius saith , are hardly capable of good sense , if too strictly examined ; we find him very cooly delivering the same doctrine in his exposition of those words of s. paul. than which nothing can be more inconsistent with the doctrine and practice of the church of rome , which makes confession of our sins to a priest a necessary preparation for the eucharist . catharinus saith , that if the church had not limited the time , yet every person would be bound to confess to a priest , as often as he communicated . and although he knew no mortal sin by himself , yet he would deserve the severest censure for not confessing , because he took upon himself to be his own judge . can any thing be more contrary to s. c●rysostom than this ? boileau confesses , that s. chrysostom doth not here refer at all to confession to a priest ; then it follows , that he thought it not necessary to right participation of the holy eucharist . here he speaks not of daily examination of conscience by the faithful ; but of the solemn judgment of conscience by way of due preparation ; and so justifies the fact of nectarius in taking away the penitentiaries office . but we are not to suppose so great and so zealous a man would have done it against his conscience , as he must , if he still thought confession to a priest necessary ; and he doth not say , they need not go now to the penitentiary , but that they need not diselose their sins to any . not to a multitude , or in a theatrical manner , as some expound it ; but to none but god , which excludes the knowledge of a sin●le priest , as well as of a great number . i n●ed not insist on the other places in s. chrysostom to that purpose , since these are sufficient for my design . cassian was a disciple of s. chrysostom , and he supposes confession to god alone to be sufficient for remission of sin , where mere modesty hinders men from consessing to men . boileau answers , that he doth not speak of sacramental confession made to priests ; but of an ascetick confession among the m●nks . but he speaks of a confession to god as sufficient for remission of sins , and therefore must exclude the necessity of any other . 5. after the taking away the penitentiary's office , the publick discipline of the church , as to open and scandalous offenders continued for some time in the eastern as well as the western churches . no one speaks more fully to this than s. chrysostom ; which makes me wonder at those who say the publick penance was taken away by nectarius , for in his 82. homily on s. matthew , towards the conclusion he insists very much upon it ; and not only charges the people not to come with their sins upon them ; but he speaks to those who ministred , to deny the eucharist to open offenders . and he saith , it would be charged as a great fault upon them , if they knew such and permitted them to communicate . but how shall we knew them ? i speak not , saith he , of those who are not , but of those who are known ; and if any such did thrust themselves in , he bid them not be afraid to deny them ; and if they durst not , he tells them , they should bring them to him , and he would rather lose his life than give that sacrament to such unworthy receivers . but still he saith he speaks of open and notorious offen●ers . which shews plainly , that even s. chrysostom never thought the publick discipline was changed ; since he declares so much resolution to maintain it . and this could not be spoken by him while he was a presbyter at antioch , but after he came to the see of constantinople . there was no doubt some alteration as to the penitents , after the taking away the penitentiary ; but it was no more than his office was concerned in . the old penitential canons remained still in force and were executed , as occasion served ; as appears by the canons in trullo so long after s. chrysostom's time which refer to them . if all the publick discipline had been laid aside so long before , to what purpose do those bishops speak of them , as if they were still in force ? see canon 44 , 46 , 53 , 54 , 87. in the last canon indeed they leave it to those who had the power of binding and loosing to temper the severity of the canons as they should judge convenient ; but doth it hence follow , that the ancient discipline as to publick offenders was destroy'd ? s. chrysostom himself several times mentions those who were in the state of penitents and the prayer that was made for them ; to what purpose , in case the whole order of penitents was taken away ? he likewise speaks of the charge for the penitents to go out . what a mockery , were this , if there were no publick discipline then left ? and lest it should be said , that these things were said by him at antioch , before the fact of nectarius , i have shew'd already that the latter homilies on s. matthew were made by him at constantinople ; and in his liturgy there used the dismission of the penitents was continued . 6. while the publick discipline was kept in the several churches none were injoyned to undergo it , but open and publick offenders . the evidence being so clear in antiquity for the publick penance of those who were bound to give the church satisfaction before they receiv'd absolution from it ; there was a necessity found by some learned men of the roman communion to set up a new hypothesis , viz. that by the ancient rules of the church all persons conscious to themselves of secret si●s were bound to undergo publick penance for the remission of their sins . the occasion of the debate was this . some in the church of rome held no more necessary in case of mortal sin to prepare men for communion than confession to a priest and absolution ; others saw the fatal consequence of this , and therefore insisted on the necessity of penance ; both parties made their appeal to the ancient church ; and both were mistaken . for , on the one side , there was no such doctrine then held that confession and absolution did sufficiently prepare persons for the eucharist ; and on the other , there was no good evidence that any were enjoyned publick penance for secret faults . but in the case of such sins , the confession was left to god in secret ; and a true and hearty contrition for them was thought the best as well as most necessary preparation for the eucharist . monsr . arnauld saw well enough that without his hypothesis , it was impossible to prove the necessity of confession in the ancient church ; for he yields that the church did not use the power of the keys but in publick . on the the other hand , petavius urges , that on the same ground that they would reduce , as they pretended , the ancient discipline they must make many other alterations in the church , and so justifie the reformers . but monsr . arnauld was defective in his proofs , as petavius at large shews ; not when he proves that the penance was publick ; but that all persons under mortal sins were bound to undergo it . for petavius makes it appear , that all such as are accounted mortal si●s in the modern sense , were not then thought necessary to be expiated by publick penance ; but only such as were notorious and scandalous , and he at large answers all monsr . arnauld's arguments . notwithstanding which morinus took up monsr . arnauld's opinion , and without any colour charges it on theodore archbishop of ca●terbury , that ●e first in his penitential appointed publick penance to be onely for publick offences . but the learned editor of the abstract of theodore's penitential , hath fully vindicated him in this matter . but after these , boileau resumes the opinion of monsr . arnauld , and lays it for the foundation of his history of auricular confession . but he grants , that all the solemn and ceremonial penance imposed by the penitential canons did not extend to all kind of mortal sins , but chiefly to idolatry , adultery and homicide ; but this he insists upon , that some part of this publick penance , viz. exclusion from the communion was inflicted on persons guilty of secret mortal sins . but this will by no means do his business ; for he is to prove that no secret mortal sin could be forgiven without confession to a priest ; and that all persons were required by the ancient church in case they were conscious to themselves of any such sins , to make them known , and to undergo publick penance for them , before they could obtain remission of them . we do not deny that persons under trouble of conscience for secret sins , were from time to time advised to resort to their guides , to make known their cases to them , and to take their directions ; we do not deny that such persons might be required by such guides to withdraw themselves from joyning in the most solemn acts of publick communion till they had manifested the sincerity of their repentance , by fastin● , and prayers , and other penitential acts ; we do not deny , that some of these persons might either by advice or of their own accord joyn themselves with the publick penitents , as is well known in the case of fabiola at rome so much magnified by s. jerom ; but this is the thing we desire to see proved , that no sin whatsoever of a mortal nature ( as it is defined in the church of rome ) was then thought capable of remission by the penitential acts of the party , ( especially by true contrition ) without confession to a priest and absolution from him . and this is the true state of the case ; and i can find nothing produced by him to this purpose which deserves to be considered . 7. as the publick discipline declined , persons were exhorted to make private confession of their sins ; if they could not be brought to publick penance . thence in the greek church came the penitentials of johannes jejunator ( who first took upon himself the title of oecumenical patriarch in the time of mauritius to the great offence of the bishops of rome ) and of some others after him . morinus grants that there was a great alteration in the greek church about this matter ; he thinks it began with the business of the penitentiary , but after the publick discipline was disused , instead of that , he saith , came up a secret confession and penance ; which was left to the honesty , and piety of the penitent , and not required by any canonical authority among them ; and so he saith it continued from the time of nectarius to this day , as to the people . so that we have a plain confession from him , that there is no rule in the greek church requiring this secret confession of sins in order to the forgiveness of them . but it is observable concerning the modern greeks , that if persons do make confession among them , they think themselves obliged to keep to the old penitential canons , and blame joh. jejunator for receding from them ; for simeon of thessalonica saith , they had them from the fathers , and the fathers by tradition down from the apostles . but although they are therein mistaken , yet they shew how different their tradition is from that of the roman church , which thinks it self under no such obligation , but allows absolution to be granted upon confession , and a right of communion without penance performed , for which there is no colour , as to any ancient tradition either of the eastern or western church . in the western church we find the publick discipline fallen to decay in the beginning of the ninth age , and charles the great summoning several councils for putting things into as good an order as they would then bear . in the second council of cavaillon , a. d. 813. we find a complaint , can. 25. that the old canonical penance was generally disused ; and neither the ancient order of excommunicating or absolving was observed . which is a plain and ingenuous acknowledgment that they had gone off from the ancient tradition of the church ; and therefore they pray the emperor's assistance , that the publick discipline might be restored for publick offenders , and the ancient canons be brought into use again . from whence it follows , that at that time notorious offenders escaped with private confession and penance ; and even that was done by halves , can . 32. and some thought it not necessary to do it at all , can . 33. and upon this occasion , they do not declare it necessary for the remission of sins to confess even the most secret mortal sins to a priest ; but very fairly say , that both are useful ; for confession to god purgeth the sin ; and to the priest , teaches men how their sins may be purged . for god who is the author and giver of health , giveth it often by the inv●sible operation of his power , and often by the means of physicians . boileau yields , that there were some then in the roman church , who denied confession to men to be necessary , but he saith , they were adversaries and rebels . this had been a good answer , if the council had called them so ; which it doth not , but on the contrary declares , that god doth often forgive sin immediately without the priests interposition , or else the latter clause signifies nothing . and the most it saith before , is , that confession to a priest is useful in the church ; which is not the the thing disputed by us , but the necessity of it ; and his critical observations of utrumque signifie just nothing , unless he had proved that the council had before said that both were necessary , which it doth not . he doth not deny , that the opinion of the sufficiency of confession to god alone did continue in the church to the time of the council of lateran , and that it gave occasion to the canon , which enforced the necessity of confession to a priest ; but he adds , that learned and pious men may have false opinions before the judgment of the church . so that at last we find universal tradition is given up , and the necessity of auricular confession is resolved into the authority of the roman churches definition , or rather , the pope's declaration of it , either with or without the consent of the lateran council . but he saith , the fathers did not speak so exactly of the trinity before the council of nice ; nor the greek fathers of grace and predestination before s. augustin . if this be true , it is impossible to prove either of those great points merely by tradition ; for those fathers either delivered the sense of the church , or they did not ; if they delivered the sense of the church , then either the sense of the church was doubtful , or they did not understand it ; if the sense of the church were doubtful , then it is plain those doctrines could not be proved by tradition ; if the sense of the church were not doubtful , but the fathers did not understand it , then how is it possible that the churches tradition should be an infallible guide , when even the fathers of the church were mistaken about it ? but i have sufficiently proved , that not only before , but even after the council of lateran there was no universal tradition for the necessity of auricular confession . finis . a catalogue of some books printed for henry mortlock , at the phoenix in s. paul 's church-yard . a bational account of the grounds of protestant religion , being a vindication of the lord archbishop of canterbury's relation of a conference , &c. from the pretended answer by t. c. wherein the true grounds of faith are cleared , and the false discovered ; the church of england vindicated from the impu●ation of scism ; and the most important particular controversie bêtween us and those of the church of rome throughly examined : by edward stillingfleet , d. d. and dean of s. paul's , folio . the second edition . origines britiannicae : or the antiquity of the british churches ; with a preface concerning some pretended antiquities relating to britain , in vindication of the bishop of s. asaph . by edward stillingfleet d. d. dean of s. paul's , folio . the rule of faith : or an answer to the treatise of mr. j. s. entituled , sure footing , &c. by john tillorson d. d. to which is adjoyned , a reply to mr. j. s.'s third appendix . &c. by edward stillingfleet . d. d. a letter to mr. g. giving a true account of a late conference at the d. of p's . a second letter to mr. g. in answer to two letters lately published concerning the conference at the d. of p's . veteres vindicati : in an expostulary letter to mr. sclater of putney , upon his consensus veterum , &c. wherein the absurdity of his method , and the weakness of his reasons are shewn ; his false aspersions upon the church of england are wiped off , and her faith concerning the euch●rist proved to be that of the primi●ive church : together with animadversions on dean boileau's french translation of , and remarks upon bertram . an answer to the compiler of nubes testium : wherein is shewn , that antiquity ( in relation to the points in controversie set down by him ) did not for the first five hundred years believe , teach and practice as the church of rome doth at present believe , teach and practice ; together with a vindication of veteres vindicati from the late weak and disingenuous attempts of the author of transubstantiation defended by the author of the answer to mr. sclater of putney . a letter to father lewis sabran jesuit , in answer to his letter to a peer of the church of england ; wherein the postscript to the answer to the nubes testium , is vindicated , and father sabran's mistakes farther discovered . a second letter to father lewis sabran jesuit , in answer to his reply . a vindication of the principles of the author of the answer to the compiler of nubes testium in answer to a late pretended letter from a dissenter to the divines of the church of england . scripture and tradition compared , in a sermon preached at guild-hall-chapel nov. 27. 1687. by edward stillingfleet d. d. dean of s. paul's , the second edition . a discourse concerning the nature and grounds of the certainty of faith , in answer to j. s. his catholick letters . by edward stillingfleet , d. d. dean of st. paul's . an historical examination of the authority of general councils , shewing the false dealing that hath been used in the publishing of them , and the difference amongst the papists themselves about their number . the second edition with corrections and alterations . an appendix , in answer to some late passages of j. w. of the society of jesus , concerning the prohibition of scripture in vulgar languages by the council of trent . since the publication of the foregoing book , i have met with a reflexion upon it made by j. w. in the preface to a treatise lately reprinted by him . wherein , he observes that a great part of the objections made against them are either grounded on mistakes , or touch points of discipline not of faith , which alone they are bound to defend . this last clause i could not but wonder at , since the new title of his book is , a defence of the doctrine and holy rites of the roman catholick church , &c. why should i w. take such needless pains to defend the rites of the church , if they are bound to defend nothing but points of faith ? i had thought the honour and authority of the church had been concerned in its commands and prohibitions , as well as in its definitions and decrees . and although it be not pretended , that the church is infallible in matters of discipline ; yet it is a strong prejudice against any pretence to infallibility in a church , if it be found to err notoriously in any thing of general concernment to the catholick church . but how comes my late book to be made an example ? as for instance , ( saith he ) i find in a book newly published , with this title , the council of trent examin'd and disprov'd by catholick tradition , that for 15 pages together dr. st. labours to prove that there is no catholick tradition against translating scripture into vulgar languages . whereas i expresly say , that the prohibition of reading the scripture so translated without a particular license , was that which i undertook to shew could not be justified by any catholick tradition ; and that there was a general consent of the catholick church , not merely for the translations of scripture into vulgar languages , but for the free use of them by the people . which i made out by these particulars , 1. that where-ever the christian religion prevailed , the scripture was translated into the vulgar language for the peoples benefit . which i proved from the ancient italick versions before st. jerom's time , the gothick , persian , armenian , syriack , coptick and aethiopick translations ; without the least prohibition of the common use of them . 2. that where a language grew into disuse among the people there the scripture was translated into the tongue which was better understood . and for this i instanced in the arabick versions after the prevalency of the saracens in the eastern and southern parts , and after the moors coming into spain . 3. that even after the primitive times , christian princes and bishops did take care that the people should read the scriptures in their own language . for princes , i instanced in ludovicus pius and alfred ; for bishops , in waldo bishop of fressing , methodius and cyrill , &c. 4. that the pope himself in the 9th century did approve of it ; and for a reason common to all times and churches , viz. that all people and languages were to praise god , and that god himself had so commanded . 5. that gregory vii . was the first person who forbad the use of scripture and divine offices in the vulgar tongue , and was not ashamed to own that the church saw cause to alter several things from what they were in the primitive church . 6. that upon the setting up the inquisition by innocent iii. this prohibition took place in france and spain , and other places . 7. that some noted divines of the church of rome have highly commended it ; and said that the taking of it away would be pernicious and destructive to faith and devotion . 8. that the prohibition in the church of rome is built on the authority of the council of trent , which appointed the index to be made , in which the fourth rule forbids all persons the use of the scripture in the vulgar tongue without a particular license , and whosoever presumes to doe it is to be denied absolution . 9. from hence it follows , that the council of trent is evidently disproved , as to catholick tradition , for any foundation of such a prohibition . and what now saith j. w. against all this ? he would gladly know against whom i dispute . against j. s. and all such who would make the world believe the council of trent did proceed upon catholick tradition . to prove i am mistaken , he tells me in his 6th chap. i may find an account of several new translations of scripture into vulgar tongues , made by catholicks and approved in the roman church . then he mentions an english translation made by the rhemish and doway colleges ; and in french by the doctours of lovain ; and some others . what now follows from hence ? is it any mistake in me to say , there was such a prohibition of reading the scripture in the church of rome , and inforced by the rule made by appointment of the council of trent ? this had been indeed to the purpose if it could have been proved . i do not deny , that there have been such translations made , where it was found impossible to hinder all translations ; and the use of them have been connived at or allow'd to some particular persons , whom they were otherwise secure of . but such translations are like the galenists allowing some chymical medicines to their patients ; they declare against their use as dangerous ; but if the patient will have them , then pray take them of my apothecary , who is a very honest man and prepares mischievous medicines better than another . this is just the case of the church of rome , as to translations of scripture ; if we ask their opinion in general , whether translations be allowable or not , their answer hath been formerly very free and open , by no means ; for they are very dangerous and mischievous things . and here besides those i have already mentioned , i could produce many more to the same purpose . but alas ! these men lived before the age of mis-representing and expounding . now all is mistake on our side , and infallibility on theirs . we cannot for our hearts understand their doctrines or practices aright , although we take never so much pains and care to doe it . one would think by the present way of dealing with us , that the church of rome were like the new name on the white stone , which no man knows but he that hath it ; and so it were impossible for any else to understand it , but such as are in it . i thought my self pretty secure from mistaking , when i pitched on the council of trent for my guide . but it seems , i am mistaken here too : how so ? did not the council of trent appoint the congregation of the index at first , sess. 18 ? did it not own that the matters of it were prepared before its dissolution ? and if there were a prohibition of the free use of the scripture in vulgar languages by the rules of the index , is not the council of trent justly chargeable with that prohibition ? especially when the title in the roman edition is regulae indicis sacrosanctoe synodi tridentinoe jussu editoe . jacob. ledesma was one of the same society with j. w. and he frankly owns the prohibition of reading the scripture , made by the rule of the index , to have been done by the authority of the council of trent . the faculty at paris in the articles sent to gregory xiii . against the translation of rene benoit ; several times own the rules of the index as done by the council of trent . quacunque authoritate transferantur in vulgarem linguam biblia & edantur , vetat idem sacrosanctum concilium ea passim sine discrimine permitti . the same ledesma goes farther , and vouches the authority of the council of trent in this matter , from the decree sess. 23. c. 8. where it forbids all the parts of the mass to be in the vulgar tongue . which could not be reasonable , if the scripture were allowed to be translated . alphonsus à castro , thinks the case so alike , that a prohibition of one amounts to a prohibition of the other too , because the greater part of the office is taken out of the scriptures , and if the scripture may be translated , he saith , it must follow that divine offices ought to be in the vulgar tongue . but to return to the index . the congregation of the index was ( as is said ) established by the council in the 18. session as the council it self owns in the last session ; and withall , that the rules of it were then formed , but because of the multiplicity and variety of the books , the matter of the index was referred to the pope , and to be published by his authority , as likewise the catechism , missal and breviary . so that the rules of the index have the same authority in the church of rome with the roman catechism , missal and breviary . pius iv. in his bull , when he first set forth the index a. d. 1564. owns that it was finished by the fathers appointed by the council of trent , but it was remitted to him by the council , that it might be approved by him and published by his authority . and he strictly commands the rules of it to be observed under pain of mortal sin ; and excommunication , ipso jure . after him clement viii . in his a instructions about the rules of the index owns them to be made by the fathers of the council of trent , and the same pope is so far from renewing the power of granting licenses to read the scripture in the vulgar languages , that he declares against them . for by the 4th rule of the index , the ordinary and inquisitor by the advice of the parish priest or consessor might permit persons to read the bible in the vulgar language , so the translation were made by catholick authours ; and it was apprehended by some , that the new printing the rule might be giving new authority to bishops and inquisitors to grant licenses , therefore the pope declares against it ; and saith it was contrary to the command and use of the roman church and inquisition , which ought to be inviolably observed . in pursuance of this we find in the roman index of prohibited books , these words , bidlia vulgari quocunque idiomate conscripta ; i. e. all bibles in vulgar languages are prohibited . therefore i cannot understand how the giving license to persons since the declaration of clemens viii . is consistent with the duty which persons of that communion owe to the authority of the roman see , unless they can produce a revocation of the bull of clemens viii . and some latter explications of the fourth rule which take away the force of his . but instead of that , alexander vii . who published the index again , after clement viii . owns that the first index was made by authority of the council of trent : and it is observable that in his bull a. d. 1664. he not onely prefixes the rules of the index , but the observations and instruction of clement viii . and confirms all by his apostolical authority ; and injoyns the punctual observation of the orders contained therein inviolably ; under the same pains which were expressed in the bull of pius iv. therefore as far as i can understand , the faculty of granting licenses to reade the translations of the bible is taken away as far as the pope's authority can doe it . to what purpose then are we told of some modern translations , as long as the use of them is forbidden by the pope's authority ? and no ordinaries can have authority to grant licenses against the popes solemn declaration to the contrary ; nor can any of that communion with good conscience make use of them . but i am told there are translations approved in the roman church . by whom have they been approved ? by the pope , or the congregation of the index ? i do not sind any such approbation given to any of them . but on the contrary even in france , such translations have been vehemently opposed by the bishops and divines there , as being repugnant to the sense of the roman church . and this is apparent by a book published by order of the gallican clergy , a. d. 1661. where-in it is said that it was the common and unanimous sense and practice of all orthodox persons , that neither the scriptures nor divine offices ought to be put into vulgar languages , it being injurious to the christian church , and giving occasion of offence to the weak and unlearned . how then can we imagine that such translations should not onely be allowed but approved among them ? and besides the entire treatises there collected against them , of card. hosius , lizetius , spiritus roterus , ledesma , &c. and the fragments and testimonies of several others ; we have a particular account of the proceedings of the sorbon as to this matter . in the censure of erasmus , dec. 17. 1527. the sorbon declared vulgar translations of scripture to be dangerous and pernicious . the like declaration had been made before a. d. 1525. and that all translations of the bible , or of the parts thereof ought rather to be suppressed than tolerated . a. d. 1607. the faculty again declared , that it did not approve any translations of scripture into the vulgar language . but j. w. instances p. 26. in some translations that have been approved ; as a french translation by the doctours of lovain . but in the french collection before mention'd , i find , that a. d. 1620. dec. 1. a debate arose in the faculty at lovain about it ; and the faculty declared that it by no means approved of it . another is of rene benoit ; which was so far from being approved , that it was first condemned by the faculty at paris , and then sent to rome to be condemned by the pope ; which was effectually done ; and gregory xiii . directed his bull to the faculty of divinity in paris , nov. 3. a. d. 1575. wherein he doth expresly forbid this translation , and reject it with an anathema . and yet this very translation of rene benoit is one of those made by catholicks and approved in the roman church ; which j. w. refers me to . one of us two must needs be under a great mistake , but to whom it belongs i leave the reader to determin . the sense of the gallican clergy in this matter doth fully appear by the representation which they sent to alexander vii . about the translation of the missal into french. which was done by voisin a doctour of the faculty , and was published at paris by the permission of cardinal de retz archbishop there , and had the approbation of some doctours of the sorbon . the rest of the bishops and clergy highly resented this matter , and assembled together to consult about it , nov. 29. 1660. where they proposed two things to be considered . 1. the matter of right , whether such a translation were to be permitted or not . 2. the matter of fact , whether this were a good translation or not . the debate was adjourned to dec. 3. and from thence to the 7th on which they came to a resolution to suppress it . and a circular letter was sent to all the bishops to forbid the use of it under pain of excommunication ; and the king desired to interpose his authority in it . dec. 9. they agreed to send an account of the whole matter to the pope in the name of the gallican clergy ; wherein they declare their great dislike of it , as contrary to the custom of the church , and as pernicious to the souls of men. and in the body of it , they say that they look on the translations of scripture into vulgar languages as the great occasion of the northern heresies ; and quote vincentius lerinensis , saying that the scripture is the book of hereticks . and after add , that they bad sent to the pope their condemnation of all translations of scripture and divine offices into the vulgar languages . this was subscribed by the general assembly of the clergy , jan. 7. 1661. the pope sent a brief in answer , which was received feb. 25. wherein he very tragically complains that some sons of perdition in france had to the ruine of souls , and in contempt of the churches laws and practice , arrived to that degree of madness as to translate the roman missal into french. and he charges the doing of it not onely with novelty , but disobedience , sedition , schism , &c. and declares that he abhorred and detested it ; and for ever damned , reprobated and forbad it , under pain of excommunication ; and requires all persons to deliver up their books to the several ordinaries that they might be burnt . i now desire j. w. to inform me whether we are bound to believe that in france translations of scripture into the vulgar language are allowed and approved ? i am really so unwilling to mistake , that i take the best care i can to be rightly informed . i have no design either to deceive others , or to be deceived my self ; and therefore have not trusted to second-hand evidence ; but searched and considered the authours themselves , whose testimonies i rely upon . i am certain i have fallen into no wilfull mistake , but have truly and impartially stated things according to the clearest evidence i could find ; and therefore i think it some what hard to be told , that our objections are grounded on mistakes , and especially as to this matter about the prohibition of reading scripture in the vulgar language ; for i hope i have made it appear not onely that there is such a prohibition but that it is founded on the authority of the council of trent . and if it be so , then it serves my main design , viz. to prove that it went off from catholick tradition , for if there were so many translations of old without the least prohibition , and there be since the council of trent , so severe a one , backed with the pope's authority , here must be a very great change in tradition . for that is accounted pernicious and mischievous to the souls of men , which before was accounted usefull and beneficial to them . if the physicians in one age should condemn the common reading of hippocrates and gale● as destructive to the health of mens bodies , which those of former ages extremely commended , would not any one say , there was a great change in the opinions of physicians , and that they did by no means hold to the judgment of those before them ? if the common lawyers ●hould now say littleton's tenures is a book very unfit to be read by young lawyers , that it fills their heads with seditious and dangerous principles , and therefore ought to be taken out of their hands ; would not any one say , here is a wonderfull change , for no such thing was ever apprehended before , but the book was thought very usefull and proper to instruct students in some fundamental points of the law ? when manna was rained from heaven in the wilderness for 40. years , and for 30. of them every man gathered his own share and proportion , and ate of it as he saw cause ; would it not have been thought a strange alteration among them , if after 30. years a sett of physicians should have risen up and told the people it was true , manna was angels food , but if they had not great care in the taking it , and used it promiscuously , it would turn them to devils ; or at least it would fill them with such distempers , as they would never be able to reach to canaan ? this might be pretended to be great care and tenderness of them , in these new physicians ; but on the other side , they would tell them , they had done very well with their eating manna for 30. years together ; and there had been no such distempers among them , but such as humane nature is always subject to ; that such an alteration might be of worse consequence than their common use of manna ; for so it was at first appointed and so it had continued , and they could not tell but their new physicians might be worse to them than their old distempers ; and they could never believe that could be so hurtfull which god himself had appointed for their food . the former discourse makes the application needless . but after all , it is said : this is but a point of discipline and not of faith ; and in such the church may change her measures . to that i answer , 1. it is more than a point of discipline , for it is changing the rule of faith with respect to the people . while the scriptures were in the hands of the people , they resolved their faith into the word of god , as it was delivered to them and understood by them . but when that is taken out of their hands and they are bid to trust to the churches testimony for matters of faith ; they have a different resolution of their faith and a different ground and reason of believing . for they cannot ground their faith upon a written rule who are uncapable of understanding it . 2. it is no matter of discipline to overthrow the design of publishing the scripture for the universal benefit of the church of god. and this the jansenists have well proved in defence of their translation of the new testament against the prohibitions of it . for , say they , the prohibition of reading the scripture under pain of excommunication , is it self contrary to the gospel and ought not to be obey'd . for bread and nourishment is not more necessary to preserve the life of the body , than the word of god is to uphold the life of the soul. that for men to speak of so much danger in reading the scripture is to reflect very dishonourably on the providence and groodness of god ; for it was by means of trans●ations in vulgar languages that god's word came to be kno● to the world , and the gospel was at first published in those tongues , which were most generally understood . and therefore those do manifestly oppose the design and method of providence for advancing the gospel , who decry translations of scripture , as pernicious to the souls of men. and farther , that such a prohibition , is a contempt of our lord jesus christ and a design to suppress the gospel ; and a contradiction to the will and command of god ; a contempt of the scripture , which was intended to be understood by all , a contempt both of councils and fathers , which looked on the scripture as the best judge of controversies , and who advised all believers to a continual reading of the word of god. if after all this , the council of trent could so notoriously err not onely against scripture and reason , but tradition too in such a matter of concernment to the souls of men , as this is , it will be hardly possible to persuade men , it could not as well err in any point of faith. and it renders the whole proceeding suspicious as to particular points , when the rule of faith is so industriously kept out of the hands of the people . for those who follow their instructions , are never ashamed to produce their credentials . as to what j. w. saith in his book concerning jupiter , &c. i had answered it so fully many years since , that i have reason to expect a reply to what i had there said in my own vindication , before i can think it fit to trouble the world with needless repetitions . and it were hard for me to be put to answer again to the same things , when a person will not take the pains to see whether he were not answer'd already . the end . notes, typically marginal, from the original text notes for div a61532-e150 third letter p. 64. catechism rom. part 2. reply to the defence of the expo●●tion , &c. p. 134. sess. 13. can. 2. 3 q. 75. a. 2. regist. f. 47. registr . arundel p. 2. f. 143. maignan philosophia sa●ra . part 2. append. 5. notes for div a61532-e9010 necnon traditiones ipsas tum ad ●idem tum ad mores pertinentes , tanquam vel ore tenns â christo vel à spiritu sancto dictatas & continuâ successione in ecclesia catholica conservatas , pari pietatis affectu ac re●erentià suscipit & veneratur . hist. concil . trident. l. 6. c. 14. n. 3. n. 4. aug. l. 2. c. julian . et caetera nostrae saluti necessaria , quae omnia sola docet sacra scriptura . lection . in canon . missae 71. haec autem in sacris scripturis discuntur , per quas solas plenam intelligere possumus dei voluntatem . ib. e●●e quo tendit utilitas divinae scripturae ad perfectionem hominis dei ( hoc est qui totum seipsum deo dat ) perfectionem inquam ta●em ut sit perfectus ad omne bonum exercendum . in 2. ad tim. 3. 16. dico i●●a omnia scripta esse ab apostolis quae sunt ●mnibus necessaria , & quae ipsi palam omnibus vulgò praedicaverunt . bellarm. de verbo dei. l. 4. c. 11. illud imprimis statuendum erit propheticos & apostolicos libros juxta mentem ecclesiae catholicae verum esse verbum dei & certam ac stabilem regulam fidei . id. l. 1. c. 1. at sacris scripturis quae propheticis & apostolicis literis continentur , nihil est notius , nihil certius . id. c. 2. quare cum sacra scriptura regula credendi certissima tutissimáque sit . ibid. l. 4. c. 9. * et quantum ad ea quae pro●onantur omnibus credenda quae per●inent ad fiaem . 2. 2. q. 171. prol . † 1. q. 1. a. 5. ‖ melch. can. l. 12. c. 3. marsil . in 4. lib. sentent . l. 1. prooem . q. 2. art . 2. pet. de alli●co in sent. l. 1. q. 1. a. 3. greg. arimin . q. 1. a. 2. durand . prol. q. 5. n. 9. a. 13. n. 21. l. 3. dist. 25. q. 2. nam in concernentibus fidem etiam dictum unius privati esset pra●erendum dicto papae si ille movere●ur melioribus rationibus novi & veteris testamenti quam papae . cùm ergo in omni veritate veritas divina sit certior & immutabilior , ergo omnes aliae debent regulari per illam , & in quantum conformantur illi sunt verae ; in quantum autem deviant ab illa , deviant à natura veritatis . sacra autem scriptura veritas divina est , ideo judicium nostrum debemus regulare per illam applicando ad eam , &c. tostatin ep. hieron . c. 6. p. 28. d. non quod in auctoritate aequantur , absit ; sed sequantur . non quidem in subsidium auctoritatis canonicae sed in admonitionem posterorum , l. 2. art. 2. c. 22. c. 28. c. 27. joh. gerson . exam. doctr. p. 540. part. 1. cons. 5. cons. 6. nihil audendum dicere de divinis nisi quae nobis à sacra scriptura tradita sunt . cujus ratio est , quoniam scriptura nobis tradita est tanquam regula sufficiens & infallibi●i● , pro regi●●ine totius ecclesiastici corporis & membrorum usque in finem seculi . est igitur talis ars , talis regula , vel exemplar , cui se non conformans alia doctrina , vel abjicienda est ut haereticalis , aut suspecta , aut impertinens ad religionem prorsus est habenda . exam. doctr. part. 2. consid. 1. lyra , praesat . ad lib. tobiae . scot. in sentent . prolog . q. 2. n. 14. ea enim quae ex sola dei voluntate supra omne debitum creatur● , nobis innotescere non possunt , nisi quatenus in sacra scriptura traduntur , per quam divina voluntas nobis innotescit . 3. q. 1. a. 3. in c. suarez , in 3. p. 117. authoritatibus autem canonicae scripturae utitur propriè ex necessitate argumentando ; autoritatibus autem aliorum doctorum ecclesiae quasi arguendo ex propriis sed probabilitér . inni●itur enim fides nostra revelationi apostolis & prophet is factae , qui canonicos libros scripserunt , non autem revelationi si qua fuit aliis doctoribus facta . 1. q. 1. a. 8. ad 2. quae igitur fidei sunt non sunt tentanda probari nisi per autoritates his qui autoritates suscipiunt . 1. q. 32. a. 1. c. si autem ad veritatem eloquiorum sc. sacrorum respicit , hoc & nos canone utimur . ib. dicendum quod veritas fidei in sacra scriptura diffusè continetur — ideó fuit necessarium ut ex sententiis sacrae scripturae aliquid manifestum summariè colligeretur , quod proponeretur omnibus ad credendum ; quod quidem non est additum sacrae scripturae , sed potius ex sacra scriptura sumptum . 2. 2. q. 1. a. 9. ad primum . quantum ad prima credibilia , quae sunt articuli fidei , tenetur homo explicitè credere , sicut & tenetur habere fidem . quantum autem ad alia credibilia non tenetur homo explicitè credere , sed solùm implicitè , vel in praeparatione animi in quantum paratus est credere quicquid scriptura continet ; sed tunc solùm hujusmodi tenetur explicitè credere , quando hoc ei constiterit in doctrina fidei contineri . 2. 2. q. 2. a 5. c. et nihil nobis dicendum est , praeter ea quae nobis ex sacris eloqui● claret . bonav . in 3 sent. dist. 1. art. 2. q. 2. quod autem credimus posterioribus circa quos non apparent virtutes divinae , hoc est , quia non praedicant alia quàm quae illi in scriptis certissimis reliquêrunt , quae constat per medios in nullo fuisse vitiata ex consensicne concordi in eis omnium succedentium usque ad tempora nostra . hen. gandav . sum. a●t . 9. q. 3 n. 13. 2. quia veritas ipsa in scriptura immobiliter & impermutabiliter semper cuf●●ditur . — in personis autem excclesiae mutabilis est & variabil●s ut dissentire fidei possit multitudo illorum , & vel per errorem , vel per malitiam à side discedere licet ; semper ecclesia in aliquibus just●s stabit . art. 8. q. 1. n. 5. suspecta est mihi omnis veritas , quam non confirmat scriptu●arum auctoritas . rich. de s. victore , de praepar . animi ad contempl. part. 1. c. 81. de verbo dei l. 4. c. 2. c. 12. cùm enim ex divinis scripturis integram quis & firmam regulam veritatis susceperit . quibus sacris literis unica est credendi pariter & vivendi regul● praescripta . sed in han● insipientiam cadunt , qui cùm ad cognoscendam veritatem aliquo impediuntur obscuro , non ad propheticas voces , non ad apostolicas liter as , nec ad evangelicas auc●oritates , sed ad seipsos recurrunt . nec quasi hoc sacra scriptura contineat , quo negato tota scriptura sacra redditur dubia ; & per consequens articuli fidei , qui habeat per scripturam sacram probari redd●●tur dubii & incerti . extrav . joh. 22. cum inter gloss. per consequens . turrecrem . de ecclesia , l. 4. part . 2. c. 9. turrecre● . l. 2. c. 18. morin . de ordinat . sacris , p. 275. morin p. 333. mabillon a. nalect . to. 2. p. 468. amalarius de offi●i●s , l. 3. c. 5. isidor . de offic . l. 2. c. 23. rab. maur. de inst. cler. l. 3. c. 2. l. 2. c. 53. bed. in cant. l. 5. de tabernaculo l. 1. c. 6. vindic. of the answ. to some late papers . commonit . 1. c. 2. cùm sit perfectus scripturarum canon sibique ad omnia satis supérque sufficiat . c. 39. c. 6. of the necessity of church-guides p. 201. p. 199. p. 199. tabulae suf●ragial . p. 54. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ▪ de sp. sancto c. 7. de vera fide , p. 386. a. c. p. 391. c. ascet. reg. 26. reg 80. c. 22. de sp. san●t . c. 9. c. 10. c. 21. c. 29. richer . hist. conc. general . l. 1. c. 11. n. 13. scot. in l. 1. sent. dist. 11. l. 4. dist. 11. n. 15. n. 13. scripturas esse and tempus adaptatas & variè intellectas , ità ut uno tempore secundùm eurrentem universalem ritum exponerentur , mutato ritu iterum sente●tia mutaretur cusan . ad bohem. epist. 2. hist. of the council of tr. l. 2. p. 154. ibid. l. 6. c. 11. p. 4. p. 8. can. loc. theol. l. 2. c. 11. cajet . in eccles . fine . ad ester c. 10. ad fin . annot. in cajet . l. 1. p. 37. de verb. dei , l. 1. c. 11. jul. ruger . de libris canonicis , p. 80. p. 41. euseb. l. 4. c. 25. l. 6. c. 25. philocal . c. 3. euseb. demonstr . l. 8. p. 368. chronic. gr. p. 172. athanas. ep. 39. cyril . cabech . 4. epiph. de mensuris & ponder . basil. in origen . philocal . greg. nazianzen . in carm. amph. in canon . ep. apud balsam . s. chrysost. in gen. hom . 4. conc. laodicea , c. 59. no●el . 131. leont . de sect●s , act. 2. d●mascen . de ●ide , lib. 4. c. 18. niceph chro●●gr . p. 419. anastas . hist. p. 189. not. in can. 27. carthag . niceph. in epigram . metroph . confess . c. 7. p. 82. phil. cyprii chronic. eccles . graec. p. 459. hilar. prolog . in psalm . de praedest . sanctor . c. 14. prolog . gal. prolog . in lib. salom. ad paul. & eust. ad chromat . ruffin . in symbol . pag. 188 , 189. greg. moral . in job . l. 19. c. 17. can. loc. theol . l. 2. c. 11. ad 4. cath. de ca●o●icis scrip. in opuscul . p. 302. cassiodor . de instit. divin . liter . cap. 12 , 13 , 14. c. 6. s. antonin . sum. hist. p. 1. tit. 3. c. 4. can. loc. theol . l. 2. c. 11. part. 3. tit. 18. c. 6. sect. 2 , & 3. eur in adait . ad lyram ad c. 1. ester . & 7. tostat. in matt. pr●f . q. 1. 2. xim. praef. ad bib. comp. aug. de civ . dei , lib. 15. c. 23. l. 17. c. 20. aug. de civ . dei , l. 18. c. 36. c. gaudent . c. 29. de doctr. l. 3. c. 8. not. in vigil . taps . p. 150. hist. concil . trident. l. 6. c. 11. ● . 12. sum. 1. q. 1. a. 9. sixt. senens . biblioth . l. 6. n. 152. alphons . à castro , l. 1. c. 13. azor. instit. moral . l. 8. c. 26. aug. de doct. christian. l 2. c. 11. hier. praes . in josuam . socr. l. 4. c. 33. soz. l. 6. c. 37. nicep . l. 11. c. 48. isid. in chron. gothorum . walas . strab. de reb. ec●l . c. 7. euseb. de vit. const. l. 4. c. 8. c. 13. soz. l. 2. c. 14. c. 12. ammianus marcell . l. 23. soz. l. 2. c. 9. theod. l. 5. ● . 39. theod. de cur. graec. affect . serm. 5. p. 555. serm. 9. p. 615. chrys in joh. hom 2 p. 561. vit. chrys. c. 113. conc. eccl. armen . cum rom. c. 7. p. 63. hist. orient . c. 79. abr. ecchell . not . in ebe● . jesu . greg. hist. dynast . 6. s. chry●ost . bom . 2. in joh. ambros. hex . 1. c. 8. aug. de civit. dei , l. 15. c. 13. diod. ad gen. 27. 27. theod in psal. 3. 4. in ps. 103. 26. in ps. 112. 1. in ps. 115. de verb. dei , l. 2. c. 4. prodr . copt . c. 8. p. 1●6 . dissert . epist. 13. epist. 14. hottinger . methurgem . p. 189. de ordinat . sacris , p. 504. catal. m s s. p. 31. ludolph . hist. aethiop . l. 3. c. 4. gabr. sionita de arab. c. 12. polyb. l. 3. conc. turon . 3. c. 17. sigeb . ad an. 807. nithard . l. 3. freher , in exposit. foederis inter lud. & car. v. capitul . caroli calvi . tit. 8. marineus sicul . de rebus hisp. l. 5. ● . 4. alchuin . de divin . offic. c. 29. amalar. de offic. l. 2. c. 1 , . ●●en●● . rer. german . p. 112. rer. alem. to. 1. p. 120. to. 2. p. 119. hist. franc. to. 2. p. 326. bed. epist. ad egbert , p. 65. saxon treatise of the old and new testament . bell. de verbo dci , l. 2. bar. ad an 880. n. 16. ave●●in . annal . l. 4. p. 434. ●ar . a. 869. n. 80. luci. de regno dalmatiae , l. 2. c. 3. catal. m s s. p. 33 , 34. greg. regist. l. 7. ep. 11. cum primitiva ecclesia multa dissimulaverit quae à sanctis patribus postmodum sirmatachristianitate , & religione crescente , subti●● examinatione correcta sunt . labb . concil . to. 11. p. 427. cochl . c. alex. alesium , a. d. 1533. andrad . defens . concil . trident. l. 4. ledesma de div. script . quavis ●ingua non leg . p. 155. pet. sutor de tralatione bibliae , p. 99. p. 96. vega de justif . l. 8. c. 8. suarez de grat. l. 12. c. 1 n. 8. suarez de g●●t . l. 12. c. 1. ● . 12. disputat . ratisbonae an. 1546. p. 568. hist. conc. trid. l. 8. c. 4. n. 4. rich. de media . vill. in l. 2. sent . dist . 17. art . 2. q. 1. nich. de orbellis in 3. sent . dist . 27. credis non pr●priis meritis , sed pass●●●● domini nostri jesu christi virtute & merito ad gloriam pervenire ? credo . credis quod dominus no●●er jes●s christus pro salute nost●● m●r●●us sit ; & quo●●x propriis meri●is , vel al●o in ●●●ull●s 〈◊〉 salvari nis● in merito p●ss●●nis ejus ? credo . h●● . conf●ss . petricovi , c. 73. p. 144. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . 16. 2. enchirid colon . f. 176. 2. adrian . de sacr. eucbar . f. 61. pet de alliaco , in 4. l. sent. q. 1. art . 1. f. 225. ● . bicl in l. 2. sent . dis● . 27. art . 1. ●o● . 3. walden . de sacram. ti● . ● . c 7. vega i●opu●c . qu. 4. marfil . in l. 2. 〈◊〉 . ● . 1● . durand . in sent . l. 2. di●● . 27. q. 2. n. 14. ockam in 4. s●nt . q. 3. ad secundum . in. l. 1. dist . 17. q. 1. in l. 1. dist . 17. q. 2. greg. arim. in l. 1. sent . dist . 17. art . 2. scot. in l. 1. sent . dist . 17. q 3. n 24. bell. de just. l. 5. c. 17. jos. scalig. in varr. de l. l. p. 172. bud . in pandect . pag. 362. plir● . ep . l. 1. 8. cassand . in hymn . eccl. p. 179. aug. in joh. tr. 31. n. 9. neque enim talia sunt hominion merita , ut propter ea vita aeterna deberetur ex jure , aut deus injuriam aliquam faceret , nisi eam donaret . nam ut taceam quod merita ●mnia dona dei sunt , & ita bomo m●gis propter ipsa deo debitor est , qu●m deus bomini , quid sunt merita omnia ad tantam gloriam ? bernard se●m . 1. de aunur . bellarm. de justis . l. 5. c. 6. hugo de s. ●ict . annot. elucidator in rom. lomb. sent. l. 2. dist . 27. genebrard . de trinit . l. 3. p. 312. pull . sentent . part. 1. c. 13. guliel . antis . l. 3. tr . 12. q. 2. de m●rito virt . 1. 2. q. 114. art . 1. art . 3. richard. in sent. l. 2. dist . 27. art . 2. q. 3. nich. deorb . in sent. l. 2. dist . 27. hos. confess . petrico c. 73. p. 141. p. burg. addit . ad lyram in ps. 35. bell. de justif . l. 5. c. 17. coster . en●●rid . p. 294. suarez . de grat. l. 12. c. 1. n. 18. vasquez in 1. 2. disp. 213. c. 5. bhemists on 2 tim. 4. 8. on heb. 6. 8. gamach . in 1. 2. th. q. 114. c. 2. concil . 2. omnes catholici fatentur justos suis bonis operibus mereri gloriam de condigno . aug. reding defens . conc. trident. tr. 4. se●t . 2. ad sess . 6. c. 1. sess. 7. can. 1. c●tech . trident . part. 2. n. 10. bell. de sa●●am . l. 2. ● . 25. in quatuor quae sunt propriè dict● sacramenta novae legis est forma instituta à domino vel ab ecclesia . alex. halens . part. 4. q. 5. m. 3. 4. 2. memb. 2. a. 1. memb. 3. a. 2. sect . 3. ●ell . de sacr. l. 1. ● . 21. suarez . in 3. p. tb. tom. 3. disp. 2. sect . 3. lugo de 〈◊〉 . d●p . ● . 〈◊〉 . 5. p●t . à sanct. joseph . idea theol. sacr. l. 1. c. 3. conc. tri● . de confirm . can 2. conc. florent . decret . u●isnis . ma●●il . in s●●● . l. 4 q. 5. 4. 1. aureol in 4. d. 7. q. 1. greg de val. tom. 4. q. 5. pun● . 2. gui●o brianson in 4. sent . q. 5. con● . 1. guil. antis . in l. 4. tract . 9. bonav . in 4. d. 7. a. 1. q. 2. alex. p. 4. q. 9. m●mb . 1. j●● . de vitr . hi●● . occid . c. ●7 . aq. p. 3. q. 72. a 1. resp. ad 1. conink de sacram. q. 72. a. 3. dab . 1. petr. aurel. oper. p 546 , 547. p. 567. sirmo● , ant. 2. p. 64. p. 6● . petr. a●rel . op. p. 5●7 . suarez . to. 3. q. 3. p. th. ● . 72. disp. 33. sect . 5. d●●ret . uni●nis . bell. de sacr. ordinis , l. 1. c. 9. arcud . de sacram . l. 6. c. 4. l●go de sac. disp. 2. sect . 5. n. 85. n. 92. ysambert . de sacram. ordinis , disp. 3. art. 6. hallier de sacris elect. & ordinat . sect . 2. c. 2. art . 1. p. 439. petr. à sanct. joseph , idea theod. sacr. l. 4. c. 1. p. 396. morin . de sacris ordin . part. 3. ex. ercit . 7. c. 1. c. 3. n. 1. n. 6. c. 6. n. 2. bell. de sacram . l. 1. c. 24. aug. in joh. tr. 80. st. aug. ●● . ad bonifac. suarez . t●m . 3. in 3. c. q. 60. disp. 1. a. 3. sect . 4. concil flor. decr. union . concil . trid. sess. 14. c. 3. bell. de poenit . l. 1. c. 16. soto in l. 4. sent . d. 14. q. i. vasq. in 3. p. ● . 34 art. 1. n. 9. enchirid. colon . f. 180. bell. de poenit . l. 1. c. 16. major . in 4. sent . dist . 14. q. 2. biel in 4. dist . 14. q. 2. brianson in 4. sent . q. 8. concl. 3. durand . in l. 4. dist . 16. q. 1. ockam in 4. sen. q. 8. scot. in l. 4. sent . dist . 16. q. 1. cancil . trid. sess. 14. de poenit. sacr. can. 4. can. 9. b●●l in 4. dist . 14. 1. 2. ●ot . 2. 〈◊〉 . 〈◊〉 . 4. 〈◊〉 . ● . 12. 〈◊〉 . tostat. defens . part . 1. c. 6. ockam in l. 4. q. 9. a. 4. ad 1. thom. de argent . l. 4. dist. 18. a 3. gul. antis . l. 4. f. 254. bonavent . l. 4. dist . 18. q. 1. alex. halens . part 4. q. 21. memb . 3. art . 1. pet. lomb. l. 4. dist . 18. part . 1. vasquez in 3. q. 84. a. 3. dub . 2. 17. hadrian quodlib . q. 5. 3. princip . concil . trid. sess. 14. can. 1 , 2. cap. 1 , 2 , 3. suarez in 3. part . disp . 39. sect . 1. n. 5. bell. de extr. unct. c. 2. makl . de sacram . extr. unct. q. 2. greg. de val. to. 4. disp. 8. q. 1 punct . 1. cath. ●●not . in comment . cajet . l. 5. p. 464. s●●r . greg. p. 252. cassand . not . in hymn . p. 288. maldonat . de sacramen ex●r . unct. q. 1. gamach . de extr. u●●t . c. 3. suar●z in 3. p●r● . disp. 4● . 〈◊〉 . 3. ●reg . sacr. p. 252. menard . not. p. 337. p. 342. p. 353. p. 352. suarez ibid. ● . 3. mald. ib. q. 3 bell. de sacr. l. 2. c. 26. c. 2. conc. trid. sess. 24. c. 1. vasq. de sacr. matri● . disp. ● . c. 1. ● . 3. greg. de val. to. 4. disp. 10. punct . 5. mald. de sac. matrim . q. 1. bell. de matr. sa●r . l. 1. 0. 5. navar. max. c. 22. n. 20. hostiens . sum. de sacr. non iter . n. 7. durand . in sent . l. 4. dist. 26. q. 3. eell . de sacr. matr. l. 1. c. 5. vasq. da sacr. matr. disp. 2. ● . 6. basil. pont. de matr. l. 1. ● . 5. n. 10. almain in 4. dist. 26. q. 1. bell. de sacr. l. 2. c. 25. de matrim . sacr. l. 1. c. 4. possev . in appar . leo allat . de concord . l. 2. c. 13. n. 13. de simeon . script . p. 185. &c. crusii turc● groec . leo allat . de concord . l. 3. c. 16. n. 4. n. 9. n. 10. n. 15. n. 17. act. theolog. wirtemberg . p. 240. metroph . confess . eccl. orient . p. 74. leo allat . de concord . e●●l . occident . & orient . l. 3. c. 17. arcud . d● concord . l. 2. c. 6. c●●●il . trid. de 〈◊〉 . c●● . ● . de sa●ra● . 〈◊〉 . 9. 〈…〉 . 〈…〉 . concil . trid. de paenit . c. 6. ●an . 9. 〈◊〉 . 〈◊〉 . p. q. 84. 〈◊〉 . a● . 1. arcud de concord . 4. l. c. 3. p. 36● . p. 370. catumsyritus de vera conc. proleg . p. 153. concil . trid. de poenit. c. 5. can. 7. arcud . p. 373. s●● . 2● . de 〈◊〉 . or●i● . c●● . 1. bell. de extr. unit. l. 1. c. 4. arcud . de concord . l. 5. c. 4. p. 389. c. 5. c. 7. p. 403. con● . tri● . de extr. 〈◊〉 , c. 1. catumsyr . vera co●cord . tr. 1. p. 156. arcu● . l. 5. ● c. 2. conc. trid. s●ss . 24. can. 7. ●ell . de matr. l. 1. c. 16. pet. jarric . rer j●dic . to. 3. p. 2. c. 12. histoire critique , ch . 8. p. 104. p. 105. p. 112. p. 113. p. 13. cotov . itin. hierosol . & syr. p. 206. godign . de 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . l. 1. ● . 〈◊〉 . ● . 〈◊〉 . clem. ga●an . conc. eccles. arm. cum rom. c. 30. p. 516. clem. galan . to. 3. p. 439. p. 636. p. 605. hugo de s. vict. de offi●● l. 1. c. 12. rup . tuit . de vict. verbi . l. 12. c. 11. hugo do sac. l. 1. part . 9. c. 6 , 7. fulb. carnot . epist. 1. de inst. cler. l. 1. c. 31. rab. maur. de inst. cler. l. 1. c. 24. bell. de sacr. l. 2. c. 27. walaf . strab. de reb. e●cl . c. 16 , 17 , 25. pasch. radb . de c●rp . & sang . dom. c. 3. isid. orig. 1. 6. de officiis . iro decret 2. p. c. 73. ysamb. ad . q. 72. disp. 1. ● . 3. ivo ib. c. 75 : alex. consil. s. chrys. in joh. hom . 87. s. cyril . in joh. l. 12. leo in epist. ad flavian . s. aug. in joh. tr. 9. 15. in ps. 40 de ci●●it . dei , l. 15. c. 26. de symbol . c. 6. bell. de sacr. l. 2. c. 26. concil . trid. sess. 14. de poenit. c. 5. ib. can. 1. 3. 4 , 6 , 7. maldonat de sacr. poenit. de confess . c. 2. vasquez in 3. th. to. 4. q. 90. art . 1. n. 4. suarez in 3. p. th. to. 4. disp. 35. § 1. greg. de valent . to. 4. disp. 7. q. 9. punct . 2. nat. alex. de sacr. confess . p. 229. hist. confes. auric . c. 29. lom . sent . l. 4. dist . 17. grat. de paenit . dist. 1. bell. de poenit . l. 3. c. 5. hist. confess . auric . p. 388. vasquez ubi supr . catharin . in cajet . p. 446. biel in 4. sent . dist. 17. q. 1. a. 1. brianson q. 8. doc. 1. f. 138. de orbellis ad l. 4. dist. 17. almain in 4. dist. 17. vasquez ib. dub . 2. greg. de valent . de necessit . confess . c. 3. nat. alex. de sacr. confess . p. 22. cyprian ad jub . ep. 73. aug. in joh. tr. 121. s. mark. 16. 16. s. luke 24. 47. pet. lomb. l. 4. dist. 18. hieron . in matth. c. 16. scot. in l. 4. dist. 17. q. unica . bonav . in 4. dist. 17. q. 3. bell. de poen . l. 2. c. 12. alex. sum. 3. p. q. 18. num . 3. art . 2. bell. de poen . l. 3. c. 6. albasp . obs. l. 2. c. 26. la cerda . advers . sacr. c. 142. p. 2. hist. confess . auric . c. 4. p. 72. baron . ad a. d. 56. iren. l. 1. c. 9. petav. not. ad epiphan . p. 71. de la penit. publique , l. 2. c● . 13. n. 9. rigalt . not . in . tert. de p●n . pamel . not . 1. in tert. de . poenit. albasp . obs. l. 2. c. 5. petav. ad epiph . p. 236. append. ad epiph. c. 3. p. 91. 〈◊〉 . illiber . c. 1 , 2 , 3 , &c. de poenit. can . 7. petav. not . ad epiph. p. 238. greg. nyss. epist. ad let. c. 4 , 5. cypr. de lap-●is , ● . 23. cypr. ep. 10. cypr. ep. 12. orig. in levit . hom. 2. in psal. 37. hom. 2. in luc. hom. 17. hist. confess . auric . c. 5. n. 8. pandect . canon . vol. 2. socr. l. 5. c. 19. soz. l. 7. c. 16. socr. l. 5. c. 19. soz. l. 7. c. 16. concil . trid. sess. 13. c. 7. can. 11. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . s. chrys. to. 6. p. 837. hom. 8. d● poenit. h●m . 28. in 1 ad corin●● . petav. not. ad epiphan . p. 244. cathar . c. cajetan . p. 453. 451. hist. confess . auric . p. 201. cassian . collat . 20. c. 8. hist. confess . auric . c. 18. p. 286. s. chrys. in matth. hom. 71. in 2 ep. ad . cor. hom. 18. hom. 3 in ep. ad ephes. petav. de la penitence publique , l. 5. ch . 10. p. 64. arn. de freq . communione , part. 2. c. 3. p. 205. petav. l. 2 , c. 5. n. 3. l. 6. c. 2 , &c. morin . com. de poenit. l. 10. c. 17. theod. vind. p. 61 , &c. hist. confess● . auric . c. 2. joh. morin . com de poen . l. 6. c. 22 , 23. c. 23. n. 1 , 2. hist. confess . auric . c. 25. n. 3. c. 29. p. 387. notes for div a61532-e69970 apoc. 2. 17. accedit ad hoc , locupletissimum testimonium , atque decretum ex indice librorum prohibitorum per patres à tridentina synodo delectos conscripto & authoritate sanctiss . d. nostri pii 4. p. m. comprobato regula . 4. jac. ledesma . de divin . script . quavis lingua non legend . c. 51. alphons . à castro de heret . punit . l. 3. c. 6. concil . trid. sess. 25. c. 15. a quod indice & regulis confectisper patres à generali synode t●identina dele●●os sanci●um est — praeter ea quae t●dentinorum patrum regul●s supradictis decreta sunt . qui sacrosancti concilii tridentini auctoritate prodierat . e quibus pateat fuisse semper communem & unanimem orthodoxorum omnium sensum ac usum ; divinos libros ac officia ecclesiastica , vernaculo idiomate neutiquam reddendi ; utpote christianae reipubl . damnosum , ac rudibus & imperit is scandali occasionem praebens . collectio auctorum version . vulg . damnant . monit . ad lector . biblia supradicta omnine prohibemus , & ab ecclesia catholicae sub anathemate rejicimus . illam omnim i●p●ob●m●● tanquan ab eccl siae consuctudine alienam , nec niji cum ingenti animarum perni●ie conjunction . dialogue 1. p. 26. 29. p. 63. dialogues in answer to t. g. part. 4.