wine into the substance of the natural body and blood of Christ and that this conveniently properly and most aptly is call'd Transubstantiation Now if this Authour speaks wholly of a real but spiritual presence of Christ and if he asserts that the substance of bread and wine do remain still you can have no pretence at all left that this Authour asserts your Doctrine of Transubstantiation For the first he expresly saith That these things must not be understood after a carnal sense viz. unless ye eat the flesh and drink the blood of the Son of man ye shall have no life in you for Christ himself hath said His words are spirit and life And nothing can be more evident then that this Authour speaks not of any corporeal but spiritual presence of Christ by the effects which he attributes to it calling it inconsumptibilem cibum that food which cannot be consumed and the reason he gives of it is because it feeds to eternal life and therefore he saith it is immortalitatis alimonia that which nourisheth to immortality which cannot possibly be conceived of the corporal presence of Christ since you confess the body of Christ remains no longer in the body then the accidents of the bread and wine do And after he tells us What the feeding upon the flesh of Christ is viz. our hunger and desire of remaining in Christ by which the sweetness of his Love is so imprinted and melted as it were within us that the savour of it may remain in our palat and bowels penetrating and diffusing it self through all the recesses of soul and body And so just before he saith Christ did Spiritualinos instruere documento instruct us by a spiritual lesson that we might know that our abiding in him is our eating of him and our drinking a kind of incorporation by the humility of our obedience the conjunction of our wills the union of our affections And in another place denyes That there is any corporal union between Christ and us but a spiritual and therefore adds afterwards As often as we do these things we do not sharpen our teeth to bite but break and divide the holy bread by a sincere Faith All which and many other places in that Authour make it plain that he doth not speak of such a corporal presence as you imagine but of a real but spiritual presence of Christ whereby the souls of Believers have an intimate union and conjunction with Christ which he calls Societatem germanissimam in which respect they have communion with the body of Christ. But I need mention but one place more to explain his meaning in which he fully asserts the spiritual presence of Christ and withall that the substance of the elements doth remain That immortal nourishment is given us which differs from common food that it retains the nature of a corporeal substance but proving the presence of a Divine power by its invisible efficiency So that what presence of Divine power there is is shewed in regard of the effects of it not in regard of any substantial change of the bread into the body of Christ for in reference to that efficiency he calls it immortal nourishment and afterwards That as common bread is the life of the body so this supersubstantial bread is the life of the soul and health of the mind But I know you will quarrel with me for rendring corporalis substantiae retinens speciem by retaining the nature of a corporal substance for you would fain have species to signifie only the accidents of a corporeal substance to remain This being therefore the main thing in dispute if I can evince that species signifies not the bare external accidents but the nature of a corporeal substance then this Authour will be so far from asserting that he will appear point-blank against your Doctrine of Transubstantiation Now I shall prove that species was not taken then for the meer external shape and figure but for the solid body it self especially of such things as were designed for nourishment Thence in the Civil Law we read of the species annonariae and of the species publicae largitionales and fiscales and those who had the care of corn are said to be curatores specierum and thence very often in the Codes of Justinian and Theodosius there is mention of the species vini species olei species tritici But lest you should think it is only used in this sense in the Civil Law not only Cassiodore and Vegetius use it in the same sense for the species tritici and species annonariae but that which comes home to our purpose St. Ambrose uses it where it is impossible to be taken for the meer external accidents but must be understood of the substance it self speaking of Christs being desired to change the water into wine he thus expresses it Vt rogatus ad nuptias aquae substantiam in vini speciem commutaret that he would change the substance of water into the species of wine Will you say that Christ turned it only into the external accidents and not the nature of it So when St. Austin sayes that Christ was the same food to the Jews and us significatione nonspecie he opposes species to a meer type and therefore it imports the substance and reality of the thing And so the translator of Origen opposes the regeneratio in specie to the baptismus in aenigmate and the manna in aenigmate to the manna in specie in both which being opposed to the figure it denotes the reality And one of those Authours whom you cite in the very same Book and Chapter which you cite uses species sanguinis for the substance of blood for he opposes it to the similitudo sanguinis for when the person objects and sayes That after the cup is consecrated speciem sanguinis non video I do not see the nature or substance of blood he answers him Sed similitudinem habet But it hath the resemblance of it for as saith he there is the similitude of his death so there is the similitude of his blood These may be sufficient to shew that species corporalis substantiae does not relate to the external shape and figure but to the nature and reality of it So that his meaning is although it remains still the same substance of bread and wine yet there is such an invisible efficiency of Divine power going along with the use of it as makes it to nourish the souls of men to eternal life And now it will be no matter of difficulty at all to Answer the places you bring out of this Authour The first is This common bread chang'd into flesh and blood giveth life But how little this place makes to your purpose is easie to discern because we do not deny a Sacramental change of the bread into the flesh and blood of Christ but only that substantial change which you assert but that Authour sufficiently
enough to exercise his Faith needed nothing else to try it but your Doctrine of Transubstantiation But you say The term indeed was first authorised by the Council of Lateran as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by that of Nice but for the thing it self signified by this term which is a real conversion of the substance of bread into the body of Christ and of wine into his blood 't is clear enough that it was ever held for a Divine truth If you prove but that I will never quarrel with you about the term call it Transubstantiation or what you will but we do not think it so clear as not to want proofs stronger for the belief of it then all the repugnancies of sense and reason are against it For it is a vain thing for you to attempt to prove so unreasonable a Doctrine as this is by some few lame citations of Fathers unless you can first prove that the Authority of them is so great as to make me believe any thing they say though never so contrary to sense and reason If you could bring some places of the Fathers to prove that we must renounce absolutely the judgement of sense believe things most contradictions to reason yet you must first shew that the evidence they bring is greater then that of sense or reason Or that I am more bound to believe them then I am to believe the greatest evidence of sense or reason When you say In these cases we must submit reason to Faith we acknowledge it when it is no manifest contradiction in things so obvious to sense or reason that the asserting it will destroy the use of our faculties and make us turn absolute Scepticks for then Faith must be destroyed too For may not a man question as well whether his hearing may not deceive him as his sight and by that means he may question all the Tradition of the Church and what becometh of his Faith then and if his sight might deceive him in a proper object of it Why might not the Apostles sight deceive them in the body of Christ being risen from the grave And if a man may be bound to believe that to be false which his sense judges to be true what assurance can be had of any miracles which were wrought to confirm the Christian Doctrine and therefore his Lordship might well say That Transubstantiation is not consistent with the grounds of Christian Religion But of this I have spoken already That which I am now upon is not how far reason is to be submitted to Divine Authority in case of certainty that there is a Divine Revelation for what I am to believe but how far it is to be renounced when all the evidence which is brought is from the Authority of the Fathers So that the Question in short is Whether there be greater evidence that I am bound to believe the Fathers in a matter contrary to sense and reason or else to adhere to the judgement of them though in opposition to the Fathers Authority And since you do not grant their Authority immediately Divine since you pretend not to places as clear out of them as the judgement of sense and reason is in this case since you dare not say that all the Fathers are as much agreed about it as the senses of all mankind are about the matter in dispute I think with men who have not already renounced all that looks like reason this will be no matter of Controversie at all From whence it follows that supposing the Fathers were as clear for you as they are against you in this subject yet that would not be enough to perswade us to believe so many contradictions as Transubstantiation involves in it meerly because the Fathers delivered it to us I speak not this as though I did at all fear the clearness of any Testimony you can produce out of them but to shew you that you take not a competent way to prove such a Doctrine as Transubstantiation is For nothing but a stronger evidence than that of sense and reason can be judged sufficient to oversway the clear dictates of both This being premised I come to consider the clear evidence you produce out of Antiquity for this Doctrine and since you pretend to so much choice in referring us to Bellarmin and Gualtierus for more I must either much distrust your judgement or suppose these the clearest to be had in them and therefore the examination of these will save the labour of searching for the rest And yet it is the great unhappiness of your cause that there is scarce one of all the Testimonies you make use of but either its Authority is slighted by some of your own writers or sufficient reasons given against it by many of ours Your first is of St. Cyprian or at least an Authour of those first ages of the Church who speaking of the Sacrament of the Eucharist saith This common bread chang'd into flesh and blood giveth life And again The bread which our Lord gave to his Disciples being chang'd not in its outward form or semblance but in its inward nature or substance by the omnipotency of the word is made flesh As to this Testimony there are two things to be considered the authority and the meaning of it For its Authority you seem doubtful your self whether S. Cyprian's or no since Bellarmin and others of your own deny it but at least you say an Authour of those first ages of the Church but you bring no evidence at all for it Bellarmin grants that he is younger then St. Augustine and others say that none mention him for 800 years after St. Cyprians time And the abundance of barbarisms which that book is so full fraught with manifest that it is of a much later extraction then the time it pretends to But the matter seems to be now out of question since the Book is extant in the King of France's Library with an Inscription to Pope Adrian and a MSS. of it is in the Library of All-Souls in Oxford with the same Inscription and the name of Arnaldus Bonavillacensis who was St. Bernards co-temporary and lived in the twelfth Century And those who have taken the pains to compare this Book with what is extant of the same Authour in the Bibliotheca Patrum not only observe the very same barbarisms but the same conceptions and expressions about the Sacrament which the other hath Although therefore I might justly reject this testimony as in all respects incompetent yet I shall not take that advantage of you but supposing him an Authour as ancient as you would have him I say he proves not the thing you bring him for For which two things must be enquired into 1. What kind of presence of Christ he asserts in the Sacrament 2. What change he supposes to be made in the Elements For your Doctrine asserts That there is a conversion of the whole substance of bread and
disproves even in that very sentence from whence those words are cited if you had given them us at large For saith he that common bread being chang'd into flesh and blood procures life and increase to our bodies and therefore from the usual effect of things the weakness of our Faith is helped being taught by a sensible argument that the effect of eternal life is in the visible Sacraments and that we are not united to Christ so much by a Corporal as Spiritual union In which words he compares the sign and the thing signified together that as the bread being Sacramentally changed into the flesh and blood of Christ doth yet really give life and nourishment to our bodies which certainly is far enough from that substantial change into the body of Christ which you assert so by that effect of the sign it self upon our bodies our Faith is helped the better to understand the efficacy of the thing signified upon our souls in order to eternal life there being as real though spiritual union between Christ and Believers as there is between the bread and our bodies And that this is the plain and unsophisticated meaning of this Authour in these words I dare appeal to the impartial judgement of any intelligent Reader By which we see Those first words of the change of the bread into the flesh and blood of Christ must be understood of a sacramental and not a substantial change But your other is the great and as Bellarmin thinks unanswerable place which you thus render The bread which our Lord gave to his Disciples being changed not in its outward form and semblance but in its inward nature and substance by the omnipotency of the word is made flesh As to which place I must tell you first that there are very shrewd suspicions of some unhandsome dealings with it for some great Criticks have assured us that the place is corrupted and that the ancient MSS. read it quite otherwise non effigie nec naturâ mutatus which is so far from your purpose that it is directly against it and this seems far more consonant to the following words For saith he as in the person of Christ the humanity was seen but the divinity lay hid so in the visible Sacrament the divine essence doth infuse it self after an unexpressible manner In which it is considerable how he doth parallel these two together for as the humane nature of Christ did substantially remain notwithstanding the presence of the divine nature so to make good the parallel the substance of Bread and Wine must remain too and that because he doth not say That the body of Christ is present which might exclude the substance of the elements but the divine essence which only imports a spiritual and real presence And when he saith That the Bread is neither changed in its form or nature when by the Omnipotency of God it is made flesh i. e. as to the real communion which believers have of the body of Christ which is an act of divine power as well as goodness he saith no more than Theodoret Ephraim and Gelasius do expresly speak For saith Theodoret The mystical symbols after Consecration go not out of their own nature but remain in their former substance figure and shape and are visible and tangible as they were before Which words considering the occasion and importance of them are so express as nothing can be more And in his former Dialogue he gives an account Why the external symbols are called by the names of the body and blood of Christ not by changing their natures but by superadding Grace to nature which is the same with that our Authour saith here Though neither figure nor nature be changed yet by Gods Omnipotency it is made flesh that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Theodoret and this omnipotentia Dei here importing the same thing To the same purpose Ephraim the famous Patriarch of Antioch speaks in Photius For saith he the body of Christ which is received by believers doth not lose its sensible substance and yet is inseparable from spiritual Grace And so Gelasius as plainly as either of the foregoing asserts That the Sacraments of the body and blood of Christ which we receive are a divine thing through and by which we are made partakers of the divine nature which answers to the Omnipotency of God by which it is made flesh in our Authour and yet it doth not cease to be the substance or nature of Bread and Wine which is the same with the former clause That the Bread is not changed in figure or nature So that the ancient reading of this place is not only consonant to the other parts of his discourse but asserts no more than is in express terms said by genuine and unquestionable Authours who plainly overthrew your Doctrine of Transubstantiation For these testimonies being so express for the remaining of the substance of Bread and Wine after Consecration are of far greater force against it than the highest expressions concerning the change of the elements can make for it For in these they speak their judgements clearly and punctually against Hereticks and speak that which is absolutely inconsistent with Transubstantiation but in their other they speak mystically and sacramentally and their most lofty expressions must be understood by the nature and design of their discourse which is to represent symbolical things in the most lively and affecting manner But when our Adversaries are urged with the former testimonies they then tell us That substance and nature are not alwaies taken properly but sometimes at large for the accidents or use of things but although this can never be applied to the places of the foregoing Authours in their disputations with the Eutychian Hereticks yet from thence we are furnished by themselves with a further answer to this place So that although we admit of the present reading non effigie sed naturâ mutatus yet since by their own confession nature doth not alwaies import the substance of a thing they cannot in any justice or reason from hence inferr a substantial change Let them then take their choice Whether are the words of substance and nature in the Fathers alwaies to be taken properly or no If they must be taken so we have three unquestionable testimonies of ancient Fathers directly against Transubstantiation and we only lose the testimony of an uncertain Authour built upon an uncertain reading and contrary to other expressions in the same book If they be not then from the change of nature here expressed no such thing as a substantial change can be inferred but only accidental upon consecration in regard of the sacramental use and effect of it Which that it is nothing strange in Antiquity might be easily proved but that our Adversaries confession saves me the labour of it The second Testimony is of Gregory Nyssen out of whose Catechetical Oration you produce these words With good reason do
Is it not sufficiently known to all persons who deal in this Controversie what you mean by the Catholick Church in this Controversie that it shall not be lawful for his Lordship in a Parenthesis to shew where you place this Infallibility but he must be charged with declining the Question This only shews a desire to cavil at little things when you were unable to answer greater Besides in the way you take of proving the Churches Infallibility by the Motives of Credibility there is a necessity even in this Controversie of declaring what that Catholick Church is which must be known by these Motives and therefore you have no cause to look upon this as running away from the Question That A. C. after a long and silent attention did meerly through the heat of his zeal become earnest in this business to do his Adversary good I must believe it because you tell me so though I see no great Motive of Credibility for it And on that account did desire him to consider the Tradition of the Church as of a Company of men infallibly assisted For such assistance you say is necessary as well to have sufficient assurance of the true Canon of Holy Scripture as to come to the true meaning and interpretation thereof But this is as easily denied as said We wait therefore for your proofs That which only seems here intended for that end is That when the Relator had said The Prophets under the Old Testament and the Apostles under the New had such an Infallible Divine Assistance but neither the High Priest with his Clergy in the Old nor any Company of Prelates or Priests in the New since the Apostles ever had it To this you reply That the like assistance with the Prophets and Apostles the High Priest with his Clergy had in the Old Testament as we gather out of Deut. 17.8 c. Where in doubts the people were bound not only to have recourse to the High Priest and his Clergy but to submit and stand to their judgement Much more then ought we to think that there is such an obligation in the New Testament which could not stand without Infallibility Witness the infinite dissentions and divisions in Points of Faith amongst all the different Christians that deny it Two things the force of this argument lyes in 1. That there was Infallibility in the High Priest and his Clergy under the Law 2. That if there were so then there ought to be so now Both these must be considered 1. That there was Infallibility in the High Priest and his Clergy under the Law which you prove from Deut. 17.8 Because there the people were not only to have recourse to them but to submit and stand to their judgement This argument in form is this Where there is to be not only a recourse but an obligation to submission there must be Infallibility but there were both these among the Jews as to the High Priest and his Clergy ergo You may see how forcible this argument is in a like case Where there is to be not only a recourse in matters of difficulty but an obligation to submit and stand to their judgement there must be Infallibility but to the Parliament of England there ought to be not only a recourse in matters of difficulty but a submission to their judgement therefore the Parliament of England is as infallible as the High Priest and Clergy under the Law by the very argument by you produced The same will hold for all Courts of Justice But Can you by no means distinguish between an obligation to submission and an obligation in conscience to assent to what is determined as infallibly true Is every person in all judiciary Cases where submission is required bound to believe the Judges sentence infallible If so we need not go over the Alps for Infallibility we may have it much cheaper at home But I suppose you will reply The case is very different because in the Text by you produced 1. Not Civil Matters but Religious are spoken of 2. That not any Civil Magistrates but the High Priest and his Clergy are the Judges mentioned 3. That not every kind of Judgement but an Infallible Judgement is there set down But if every one of these be false you will see what little advantage comes to your cause by this Testimony which I shall in order demonstrate 1. That this place speaks not of Religious Causes as such but of Civil Causes i. e. not of matters of Doctrine to be decided as true or false but matters of Justice to be determined as to right and wrong Not but that some things concerning the Ecclesiastical Polity of the Nation might be there decided for it was impossible in a Nation whose Laws depended on their Religion to separate the one from the other But that the Judgement given there did not determine the truth and falshood of things so as to oblige mens consciences to believe them but did so peremptorily decide them that the persons concerned were bound to acquiesce in that determination For the proof of this one would think the very reading of the place were sufficient If there arise a matter too hard for thee in Judgement between blood and blood between plea and plea and between stroke and stroke being matters of controversies within thy gates then shalt thou arise and get thee up into the place which the Lord thy God shall chuse c. Which words are so generally expressed on purpose to take in all manner of controversies which might rise among them whether civil criminal or ceremonial And herein God makes provision against any rupture which might be among them upon any emergent Controversie by establishing a Court of Appeals to which all such causes should be brought in which the lesser Courts could not agree For that seems to be the main scope of the words by the following expression of Controversies within thy gates by which it seems evident that the Controversies were such as could come to no resolution in those inferiour Courts which sate in the Gates of the Cities by which it appears that these could be no momentous Controversies of Religion which never came under the cognizance of those inferiour and subordinate Courts By these words then God doth erect a Supreme Court of Judicature among them to which they might appeal not only in case of injury but in case of difficulty and those lesser Courts as well as particular persons were to submit to the Decree of the great Sanhedrin sitting in the place which God should chuse which was Shilo first and Hierusalem after And thence Maimonides so often saith That the establishment and coagmentation of all the Israelites did depend upon this place for hereby God set up such a Tribunal to which the last Resort should be made and from whose determinations there should remain no further appeal And according to the Tradition of the Jews these appeals were to be gradual i. e.
their own Opinions to their posterity but to retain the Tradition of their Fore-fathers As though the other side could not say the same things and with as much confidence as they did but all the Question was What that Tradition was which they were to retain The one said one thing and the other another But as Rigaltius well observes Vincentius speaks very truly and prudently if nothing were delivered by our Ancestors but what they had from the Apostles but under the pretence of our Ancestors silly or counterfeit things may by fools or knaves be delivered us for Apostolical Traditions And whether this doth not often come to pass let the world judge Now therefore when these persons on both sides had incomparably greater advantages of knowing what the Vniversal Apostolical Practice was than we can have and yet so irreconcilably differ about it what likelihood or probability is there that we may have greater certainty of Apostolical Tradition than of the Writings of the Apostles Especially in such matters as these are in which it is very questionable Whether the Apostles had any occasion ministred to them to determine any thing in them And therefore when Stephen at Rome and those of his party pleaded custom and consequently as they thought Apostolical Tradition it was not irrationally answered on the other side by Cyprian and Firmilian that that might be Because the Apostles had not occasion given them to declare their minds in it because either the Heresies were not of such a nature as those of Marcion and Cerdon or else there might not be such returnings from those Heresies in the Apostolical times to the Church which being of so black a nature as to carry in them such malignity by corrupting the lives of men by vicious practices there was less probability either of the true Christians Apostatizing into them or the recovery of such who were fallen into them To this purpose Firmilian speaks That the Apostles could not be supposed to prohibit the baptizing of such which came from the Hereticks because no man would be so silly as to suppose the Apostles did prohibit that which came not in question till afterwards And therefore S. Augustine who concerned himself the most in this Controversie when he saw such ill use made of it by the Donatists doth ingenuously confess That the Apostles did determine nothing at all in it but however saith he that custom which is opposed to Cyprian is to be believed to have its rise from the Apostles Tradition as there are many other things observed in the Church and on that account are believed to have been commanded by the Apostles although they are no where found written But what cogent argument doth S. Austin use to perswade them this was an Apostolical Tradition He grants they determined nothing in it yet would needs have it believed that an Vniversal Practice of succeeding ages should imply such a determination though unwritten But 1. The Vniversal Practice we have seen already was far from being evident when not only the African but the Eastern Church did practise otherwise and that on the account of an Apostolical Tradition too 2. Supposing such an Vniversal Practice How doth it thence follow that it must be derived from the Apostles unless it be first proved that the Church could never consent in the use of any thing but what the Apostles commanded them Which is a very unreasonable supposition considering the different emergencies which might be in the Churches of Apostolical and succeeding times and the different reasons of practice attending upon them with that great desire which crept into the Church of representing the things conveyed by the Gospel in an external symbolical manner whence in the second Century came the use of many baptismal Ceremonies the praegustatio mellis lactis as Tertullian calls it and several of a like nature which by degrees came into the Church Must we now derive these and many other customs of the Church necessarily from the Apostles when even in S. Austins time several customs were supposed to be grounded on Apostolical Tradition which yet are otherwise believed now As in that known Instance of Infants Participation of the Eucharist which is otherwise determined by the Council of Trent and for all that I know the arguments used against this Tradition by some men may as well hold against Infant-Baptism for there is an equal incapacity as to the exercise of all acts of reason and understanding in both and as the Scripture seems to suppose such acts of grace in one as have their foundation in the use of reason it doth likewise in the other and I cannot see sufficient evidence to the contrary but if that place Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit he shall not enter into the Kingdom of Heaven taken in the sense of the Fathers doth imply a necessity of Baptism for all and consequently of Children that other place 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 taken likewise in the sense of the Fathers will import the necessity of a participation of the Eucharist by Infants as well as others I speak not this with an intention to plead either for this or for the rebaptizing Hereticks but to shew the great uncertainty of knowing Apostolical Traditions some things having been taken for such which we believe were not so and others which could not be known whether so or no by the ages next succeeding the Apostles And therefore let any reasonable person judge what probability there is in what you drive at that Apostolical Traditions may be more easily known than Apostolical Writings By which it appears 3. How vain and insufficient your reasons are Why Traditions should not be so liable to corruption as the Scriptures 1. You say Vniversal Traditions are recorded in Authours of every succeeding age and it seems more incident to have the Bible corrupted than them because of its bulk and passing through the hands of particular men whereas universal and immemorial Traditions are openly practised and taken notice of by every one in all ages To which I answer 1. That you give no sufficient reason why the Bible should be corrupted 2. And as little why Traditions should be more preserved than that Two Accounts you give why the Bible might be corrupted by errours because of its bulk and passing through the hands of particular men But Do you think it a thing impossible or at least unreasonable to suppose that a Book of no greater bulk than the Bible should by the care and vigilancy of men through the assistance of Divine Providence be preserved from any material corruptions or alterations Surely if you think so you have mean thoughts of the Christians in all ages and meaner of Divine Providence For you must suppose God to take no care at all for the preservation of
we believe that the Bread being sanctified by God's Word is changed into the body of the Word of God and a little after The nature of the things we see being trans-elemented into him I might here tell you What Exceptions are taken against this book as not being genuine not only by Protestants as Fronto Ducaeus would have it because of these expressions but by others too But I will not insist on this because I see no sufficient reason to question the Authority of it yet I know not how you can excuse it from some interpolations since he therein mentions Severus an heretical Acephalist who lived not till after Gregory's time yet for the main of the book I say as Casaubon doth that it is Opus planè eximium si paucos navos excipias An excellent piece in the general and becoming its Authour some few escapes excepted And the design of it being to shew that Christian Religion hath nothing absurd or unreasonable in it it would be very strange that he should assert so absurd and unreasonable a Doctrine as Transubstantiation is But there is nothing tending to that in the places cited but only the use of those two words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for the main force of all you say depends upon them So that if we can give a good account of them without any Transubstantiation there remains no difficulty at all in these words of Gregory Nyssen For we deny not that there is a change in the elements after Consecration but we say It is a sacramental and you That it is a substantial change and this you offer to prove from these two words here used in reference to the Eucharist The argument commonly formed by your Authours from the first words is Whatsoever is changed is not what it was before which we readily grant so far as the change is but still it remains to be proved that the substance is changed in it self But it were easie to shew that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in multitudes of places of the Fathers is used for an accidental and relative change and Gregory Nyssen himself very frequently uses the word where it is capable of no other sense as when he saith Of the shining of Moses his face that it was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a change to that which was more glorious and when he affirms the souls of men by the Doctrine of Christ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be changed into that which is more divine And in this same Catechetical Oration he uses it several times to the same purpose about the change which shall be in glorified bodies and the change of mens souls by Regeneration But I need not insist more on this since I produced before the confession of Suarez that such expressions are more accommodated to an accidental mutation Neither is there any more strength in the other word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 though Suarez thinks this comes nearer the matter and you confidently say What can here be signified by trans-elementation of the nature of the outward element but that which the Church now stiles Transubstantiation I will therefore shew you what else is signified by that word which Gregory used which cannot be properly rendred trans-elementation for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth not come from the Noune 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but from the Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the Greeks expound 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as you may see in Suidas and others So that it imports not a substantial but an accidental change too and in that sense Gregory Nyssen uses it to express Regeneration by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 those who are trans-elemented by Regeneration Would you say those who are transubstantiated by it So that neither of these Testimonies import any more than that there is a sacramental change in the elements after Consecration by which believers are made partakers of the body and blood of Christ which is no more than we assert and falls far short of your Doctrine of Transubstantiation Your third Testimony is of S. Cyril of Hierusalem which you would make us believe is so full and clear that no Catholick could express his own or the Churches belief of this mystery in more full plain and effectual terms Neither shall I here stand to dispute the reasons on which those Mystagogical discourses under his name are questioned but proceed to the consideration of the Testimony it self Which lyes in these words He that changed water into wine by his sole will at Cana in Galilee doth he not deserve our belief that he hath also changed wine into blood Wherefore let us receive with all assurance of Faith the body and blood of Jesus Christ. Seeing under the species of bread the body is given and under the species of wine his blood is given c. knowing and holding for certain that the bread which we see is not bread though it seem to the tast to be bread but the body of Jesus Christ likewise that the wine which we see though to the sense it seem to be wine is not wine for all that but the blood of Jesus Christ. This testimony you have patched together out of several places in that Oration very warily leaving out that which would sufficiently clear the meaning of S. Cyril in the words you cite out of him For it is evident that his design is to perswade the Catechumens from whom the mysterious presence of Christs body in the Sacrament was wont to be concealed that the bread and wine were not meer common elements but that they were designed for a greater and higher use to exhibit the body and blood of Christ to believers And therefore he saith expresly Do not consider them as meer bread and wine for they are the body and blood of Christ according to his own words By which it is plain he speaks of the body and blood of Christ as sacramentally and not corporeally present for he doth not oppose the body and blood of Christ to the substance of bread and wine but to meer bread and wine i. e. that they should not look on the bread and wine as naked signs but as signa efficacia and that there is a real presence of Christ in and with them to the souls of believers And this is it which he saith That they ought not to make a question of since Christ said This is my body and this is my blood For if he could by his will turn the water into wine Shall we not believe him that he can change his wine into his blood And after adds That under the symbols of bread and wine the body and blood of Christ is given that thou mayest be a partaker both of his body and blood You render this under the species or form of bread and wine in Cyril it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
〈◊〉 in that which is the figure or representation of the body and blood of Christ for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not taken in your sense for the external accidents which you call the species but for that which doth figure or represent for in his next Catechetical discourse he calls the bread and wine 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the figure of the body and blood of Christ and this Theophylact and those who assert Transubstantiation deny that the bread and wine are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For where there are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 there must be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which must answer to them if Cyril therefore makes the bread and wine to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he must make the body and blood of Christ to be the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and consequently they cannot be the very body and blood of Christ in your sense This 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here have the same signification and are the same with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and so when he saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 his meaning cannot be under the accidents of bread and wine the body and blood of Christ is present in your sense for he speaks of such a presence as hath relation to the receiver and not to the elements for he saith Vnder the type of bread and wine the body and blood of Christ is given to thee For otherwise it had been far more to his purpose to have said absolutely that under the species of bread and wine the body and blood of Christ is substantially present but when he saith only that it is given to the receiver it doth not belong to such a corporeal presence as you dream of but to such a real and spiritual presence whereby believers are make partakers of the body and blood of Christ. And therefore Cyril is in this well explained by that of Tertullian Hoc est corpus meum id est figura corpus mei This is my body i. e. the figure of my body which is the same with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and by that of S. Austin Non dubitavit Dominus dicere Hoc est corpus meum cum daret signum corporis sui Christ did not scruple to say This is my body when he gave the figure of his body And elsewhere speaking of Judas his being present ad convivium in quo corporis sanguinis sui figuram discipulis commendavit tradidit at that Supper in which Christ commended and delivered to his Disciples the figure of his body and blood So that hitherto there is nothing in the testimony of Cyril importing Transubstantiation But it may be you think there is more force in it where he saith That we must not believe our senses that that which we see is not bread though it seem to the tast to be so c. As to which I answer That this place of Cyril must be explained by that which went before it wherein he said That we must not judge it to be meer bread and meer wine For although sense be a sufficient judge of that which it sees and tasts yet it cannot be a judge of that which is exhibited by that which is seen and tasted therefore though to the tast it seems to be nothing but common bread and wine yet they ought to believe that it is the communion of the body and blood of Christ. So that this is not to be understood of the elements themselves but of the mystical and sacramental nature of them And as Cardinal Perron hath observed It is an usual thing for the greater Emphasis sake to deny that to be which is meant only respectively or to express the affirmation and denyal of some qualities by the affirmation or denyal of the substances themselves as in that of Tully Memmius semper est Memmius for one that in S. Ambrose Ego non sum ego for the other and in many other instances to the same purposes in which he saith Though the substance seem to be denied yet only some quality is understood by it So when Cyril here saith That bread is not bread c. he means not by it any alteration of the substance of it but that it is not that common bread which it was before and as our sight and tast judge it still to be And what he saith here of the bread in the Eucharist he said the same before of the Chrism where he compares them both together For saith he do not think that to be meer oyntment for as the bread of the Eucharist after the invocation of the Holy Spirit is no longer bread but the body of Christ so this holy oyntment is no longer meer or common oyntment after it is consecrated but a gift of Christ and the Holy Spirit being effectual through the presence of his divine nature May not you then as well prove a Transubstantiation here as in the Eucharist since he parallels these two so exactly together And so elsewhere he speaks concerning Baptism That they ought not to look on it as meer water but as spiritual grace so that he means not a substantial change in the Eucharist any more than in the other but only relative and sacramental Neither can any thing more be inferred from your testimonies out of your last Authour S. Ambrose there being nothing at all in the words you produce which implies any substantial change in the elements for although it be only sacramental yet it may be truly said It is no longer that which nature hath framed it viz. meer bread and wine but that which the benediction of consecration hath made it to be which I grant to be the body and blood of Christ but not in your gross and corporeal sense So S. Chrysostome saith of Baptism That its virtue is so great it doth not suffer men to be men Will you therefore say it transubstantiates them But you add further out of him that he saith The force of benediction is greater than that of nature seeing by that nature it self is often changed And so we assert too that the force of benediction far exceeds that of nature which can so alter common elements as by the use of them to make us partakers of the body and blood of Christ. Your last words are out of the counterfeit S. Ambrose which are only general viz. this bread is bread before the words of the Sacrament but when consecration comes of bread it is made the flesh of Christ. This we deny not but the dispute is about the sense in which it is made so whether by a substantial change of the bread into the body of Christ and that this cannot be this Authour's meaning appears by those known words which are used by him speaking of the efficacy of Christs power in the Sacrament whereby he can make ut sint quae erant in aliud commutentur that they might be what