6 €2¢Lb2Z0 ILL €
ALINIWL
TNT
FROM:THE: LIBRARY:OF ITRINITY:COLLEGE- TORONTO
Gift of the Friends of the Library, Trinity College
THE HISTORY
POPISH TRANSUBSTANTIATION,
BY
JOHN COSIN, D.D.
LORD BISHOP OF DURHAM.
A NEW EDITION, REVISED, WITH THE AUTHORITIES PRINTED AT FULL LENGTH ; TO WHICH IS ADDED
A MEMOIR OF THE AUTHOR,
BY THE REV. J. S. BREWER, M.A.
OF QUEEN’S COLLEGE, OXFORD; AND CLASSICAL TUTOR IN KING’S COLLEGE, LONDON.
LONDON:
J. LESLIE, GREAT QUEEN STREET; AND J, H. PARKER, OXFORD.
M.DCCC.XL.
LONDON; PRINTED BY ROBSON, LEVEY,
.
AND FRANKLYN, — 46 St. Martin’s Lane. ;
[Original Title. |
The History of Popish Transubstantiation. To which is premised and opposed the Catholic Doctrine 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 Latin by the Right Reve- rend Father in God, John, late Lord Bishop of Dur- | ham, 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
REV. J. ENDELL TYLER, B.D.
RECTOR OF ST. GILES-IN-THE-FIELDS, LATE FELLOW OF ORIEL COLLEGE, OXFORD,
THIS NEW EDITION OF BISHOP COSIN ON TRANSUBSTANTIATION IS RESPECTFULLY DEDICATED
BY THE EDITOR.
Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2006 with funding from Microsoft Corporation
hehistoryofth
____-https://archive.org/de be eho: 1 SD i é f 4 4 ‘ Pa 2 . ‘ AS sia a
ADVERTISEMENT.
In republishing this tract of Dr. Cosin’s, great care has been taken to verify all the references. And as the value of a work like the present greatly depends on the accuracy of the quotations, they have now, for the first time, been printed at full length. Some few have escaped the Editor’s search; some he has been enabled to correct by means of Dr. Ponet’s admirable essay on the same subject; but the greatest help was derived from Aubertin’s grand work De Eucharistia, to which undoubtedly this treatise is much indebted.
All additions to the original edition are included between brackets.
King’s College, London, April 1840.
«*
“a +. a
A
MEMOIR OF THE AUTHOR.
Joun Costin, D.D. and Bishop of Durham, was born on St. Andrew’s day, Nov. 30, 1595, in the city of Norwich. His father, Giles Cosin, of Fox-hearth, was a respectable citizen, of compe- tent fortune. The maiden name of his mother was Elizabeth Remington, of Remington Castle, who was descended from an ancient and noble family. Both his parents were of the household of faith, both born and bred in the true ancient apostolic and catholic religion of the Church of England. Their eldest son, the subject of this memoir, who deserved so well of the Church and religion in which he was bred, was sent at an early age to be educated in the free grammar- school of his native city. In his fourteenth year he was removed to Cambridge ; and after taking his degree, was elected a fellow of Gonville and Caius College. His early proficiency in all good a2
x MEMOIR OF THE AUTHOR.
learning soon drew upon him the notice of those whose good word and opinion he most desired to possess. In the year 1616 he was invited by the celebrated Dr. Lancelot Andrews, then bishop of Ely, to become his librarian; and at the same time received a similar offer from Dr. John Over- all, bishop of Lichfield ; to whom, upon the ad- vice of his tutor, he gave the preference. With the bishop he became in a short time so great a favourite, as to be appointed his private secre- tary; and this is probably the reason why so many of Dr. Overall’s papers and prelections are found in the handwriting of Dr.Cosin, who to his sound judgment as a divine, and his great learning as a scholar, added this qualification of being a most beautiful penman.*
The friendship of Bishop Overall undoubtedly had great influence in fixing Cosin in those sen- timents which he afterwards so uniformly and consistently professed. Of all the great men of
those great times (for there were giants in those
* “ And so might deserve,” observes Dr. Basire, “the praise of the tribe of Zabulon; so well could he
handle the pen of the writer.’—The Dead Man’s Real Speech, p. 43.
a
MEMOIR OF THE AUTHOR. Xi
days), Bishop Overall may justly be considered as the founder of that eminent school of divines who flourished in the seventeenth century. He was the first to oppose with any success the Cal- vinistic opinions then prevailing at Cambridge, which the celebrated Whitaker had taught and defended with so much zeal and ability. When Peter Baro was driven by that party from his professor’s chair, and the Lambeth articles had been passed by their influence, Overall’s appointment to the vacant professorship gave an entirely new turn to the controversy, and Whitaker’s influence rapidly declined. No man was better versed than Overall in the abstruse ~ discussions of the schools; none more competent to decide those differences which then arose amongst the Dutch divines. And yet, with all his learning, profound as it was, it was not wider or deeper than his charity; he was of a pure, meek, and humble spirit. When he had fixed the truth, he gave copious latitude to his hearers to dissent, keeping the foundations sure, without breach of charity. His desire was for peace and unity; and as far as his position as a clergyman
and professor permitted him, by public and pri-
xii MEMOIR OF THE AUTHOR.
vate admonitions, by his lectures from the chair, by his sermons from the pulpit, he furthered so desirable an object. With this great luminary, whose propitious aspect shone so conspicuously on his early fortunes, Cosin continued until 1619, in which year the bishop died; an event of which Cosin has given a brief notice to Grotius, in a letter printed among the letters of the Remon- strants.*
The great loss which he thus sustained by the death of his first and most eminent patron, was in some degree compensated by the kindness of Dr. Neil, then bishop of Durham. He was re- ceived into the bishop’s family, and appointed his domestic chaplain. At the intercession of this new patron he was promoted, in the year 1624, to the archdeaconry of the East Riding of the
province of York, upon the retirement of Dr.
* Epistole Remonstrantium, p.659.—I am quite sur- prised that this most admirable and delightful collection should have attracted such slight attention; containing some of the best letters of our ablest divines—Overall, Andrews, Laud, Cosin, with such men as Vossius, Grotius, Arminius, Tilenus, and others. There are two editions, one in 8vo, the other in folio. The latter only is complete ; the former containing no letters from Englishmen.
MEMOIR OF THE AUTHOR. xili
Marmaduke Blakestone, whose daughter, Frances, he had married. Shortly afterwards he was ad- vanced to a vacant stall in Durham Cathedral ; and in July 26, 1626, to the wealthy rectory of Bransgeth, in the diocese of Durham; and the same year performed his exercises for the degree of bachelor of divinity in the University of Cam- bridge.
Visiting London about this time, he was engaged in the conferences then held at York House, in which Dr. Laud, bishop of Bath and Wells; Dr. White, dean of Carlisle; Dr. Richard Montague, afterwards bishop of Norwich, took an active and prominent part. To these discus- sions the world is indebted for Laud’s Conference, and White’s Controversy, with Fisher—two of the most able defences of the Church of England against the aggressions of popery; and to a si- milar meeting, not indeed with the papist, but with the puritan party, we owe that conference of which an account is now for the first time printed, and subjoined to this volume.
The chief subject of this dispute arose out of some positions advanced in Montague’s cele- brated tract, The Gagger gagged, at which the
XiV MEMOIR OF THE AUTHOR.
Commons had taken offence, and in the year 1625 were proceeding to call the author to a se- vere and strict account, but were diverted from their object by an action against the Duke of Buckingham.* The notice, however, thus at- tracted towards the work, intended at first only for circulation in the author’s parish, raised a great desire in the minds of several members of both houses to have these points satisfactorily dis- cussed. To this end a conference was procured by the Earl of Warwick, to be held at York House, between Dr. Buckeridge, bishop of Ro- chester, Dr. White, dean of Carlisle, on the one side; and Dr. Morton, bishop of Lichfield, on the other side, who was assisted by a Dr. Preston, a great favourer of the Presbyterians, the natural dulness of whose parts had fermented into a degree of briskness by an admixture of puritan leaven. The first conference was held on February 11th, and a second, at which Montague assisted in person, on the17th. A garbled and very partial ac- count of this meeting will be found in Usher’s Le¢- ters (epist. cxii.) ; in Dr. Clarke's Life of Preston ; and in Fuller’s Church History, xi. 17, § 35.
* Heylyn’s Life of Laud, i. 147.
MEMOIR OF THE AUTHOR. XV
The assistance which he gave at these con- ferences tended greatly to bring Dr. Cosin into’ notice; and his reputation increased still more from the following circumstances :—
King Charles having observed that many of the attendants in the train of his Queen Henrietta- Maria, and especially the ladies about the court, were accustomed to make use of popish service- books, more particularly the Hours of the Blessed Virgin,* partly from devotion, and partly from a desire to employ their leisure hours, was anxious to further so excellent a practice, and yet to re- form it by providing books suitable to their pur- pose. He therefore desired that a little manual ~ of prayers might be collected from the ancient Greek and Roman liturgies, and from the fathers of the Church, adapted to different hours of the day, to be digested in a clear order, and com- posed in a plain and simple style; as thinking that a work of this kind might much conduce to a spirit and habit of true and pure devotion. He had also every reason to expect that it would tend greatly to remove the prejudices of. the Roman Catholics, and furnish the best means to plain
* Hore B. Virginis.
XVi MEMOIR OF THE AUTHOR.
people of answering the objections which that ‘party were accustomed to bring against the Church of England, which they represented as an enemy to antiquity, and a favourer of modern innovations. Accordingly he communicated his design to two or three of the bishops, on whose judgment he most relied; and upon the recom- mendation of Dr. White, then bishop of Norwich and almoner to the king, this task was delegated to Dr. Cosin.
For this employment Cosin was admirably suited both from his learning and piety. His attention had been turned at an early period to the advantages of such a compilation. He, therefore, readily entered on the task, and in 1627 published his book, entitled Private De- votions, &c.; following chiefly a form which he found had been once set forth in Latin, by royal authority, in the time of Queen Elizabeth.* With the exception of some remarks from the notorious
* “ Horarium regia auctoritate editum.’’ Lond. 1560. Afterwards reprinted with this title: ‘“‘ Preces private in studiosorum gratiam collecte et regia auctoritate appro- bate: noviter impresse, et quibusdam in locis etiam aucte. Londini. Excudebat Gulielmus Seres, a.p. 1573. cum privilegio regio.”
MEMOIR OF THE AUTHOR. XvVil
Henry Burton and William Prynne, the work was so well received, that before Dr. Cosin died it had passed through five editions.
In the year 1634, Dr. Matthew Wren, who had attended the king when Prince of Wales, as chaplain, in his journey into Spain, having been raised to the see of Hereford, Dr. Cosin was ap- pointed to the mastership of St. Peter’s College in Cambridge, which had been vacated by Dr. Wren upon his exaltation to the episcopal bench. Six years after, upon the death of Dr. Thomas Jack- son, president of Corpus Christi College, Oxford, he was appointed to the vacant deanery of the cathedral church of Peterborough. From these preferments, however, he reaped no great benefit ; for at this time the parliament at Westminster, having combined with the Scots, the Puritans, re- solving not to omit so excellent an opportunity, used all their influence with the lower house to harass and distress the bishops. Every idle cir- cumstance, every odious instrument was employed to bring the clergy into discredit with the people ; and as Dr. Cosin had given great offence by his _ zeal in defending that Church of which he was so distinguished a member, they gladly laid hold of
XViil MEMOIR OF THE AUTHOR.
a pretext for commencing a prosecution against him, which they did upon the following circum- stances :—
There was a clergyman, named Smart, an old man, of a forward and untractable spirit, who had been a schoolmaster, and afterwards was made a prebendary of Durham. This man had raised himself into a degree of unenviable notoriety by inveighing, in his sermons at the cathedral, against the usages of the Church (where, con- trary to his duty, he had neglected to preach for seven years before). For this he was. first ques- tioned at Durham; then called up to the high commission court at London; and finally, at his own desire, remitted to York: being sentenced to recant, upon his refusal he was degraded from his ecclesiastical functions.* Several years elapsed before he thought fit to take any steps against those who had been concerned in this prosecution: but in 1640, when the turbulence of the people had set justice at defiance, he preferred a bill in parliament against thirty per- sons of the different commission courts of Lon-
* In the year 1628; and particularly for a sermon which he had preached upon Ps. xxxi. 7.
MEMOIR OF THE AUTHOR. xix
don and York, the Dean and Chapter of Durham, and several others, singling out Cosin from the rest, and charging him with setting up various superstitious pictures, and making use of popish vestments in the service of the Church. This petition was read in the lower house, Nov. 10, 1640, three days after Dr. Cosin had been in- stalled in the deanery of Peterborough, a prefer- ment bestowed upon him by Charles I., whose chaplain he then was. A violent prosecution was commenced against him, which ended in his being sequestered from his ecclesiastical benefices by a vote of the whole house, Jan. 22, 1642; the first instance of any clergyman having ever been treated with so great a degree of severity. On the 15th March ensuing, the Commons sent twenty-one articles of impeachment against him to the House of Lords; but he disproved them all so satisfac- torily and triumphantly, that not only was he acquitted most honourably by the lords them- selves, but even the advocate retained against him publicly declared that the charge was manifestly false.
But innocence in those days afforded no im-
munity from suffering. Another motion was made
xx MEMOIR OF THE AUTHOR.
against him in the House of Commons, on the charge of enticing a young scholar to popery. He was committed to the custody of the sergeant- at-arms, to attend daily until the house should call him to a hearing. After fifty days’ imprisonment, at his own charge of twenty shillings per diem, dur- ing which time he was daily exposed to the base scorn of the city mob, which beset the doors of the parliament, and hunted down the bishops and clergy, he was at length brought to his hearing. The charge was fully disproved, even upon the evidence of the members themselves; and it was found that, so far had Dr. Cosin been from encou- raging popery, that having found the young man guilty after a strict and impartial examination, he had expelled him at once from the university. Yet no costs, no reparation was allowed him for the injuries which he had suffered: a melancholy instance (not unexampled even in our own days) of the disregard to justice which men are apt to shew whilst acting in a corporate capacity; as if | no individual responsibility was incurred when men join hand in hand in committing injustice.*
* “Though hand join in hand, the wicked shall not be unpunished.”—Prov. xi. 21.
MEMOIR OF THE AUTHOR. Xxi
Not long after these occurrences, Dr. Cosin having been elected vice-chancellor of the Uni- versity of Cambridge, used all his means for be- friending the royal party, and induced the mem- bers of the university to send their plate to the king; giving another handle to the malice of the Commons.
For this instance of fidelity towards their un- fortunate sovereign they were subjected to the vengeance of the parliament. The Earl of Man- chester was appointed to visit the university ; in other words, to eject all the loyal members of that learned body. The earl proved himself an instru- ment worthy of his employers. The heads of the university were plundered and imprisoned; the fel- lows and scholars of the different colleges turned out of their chambers without any provision; and the first person whom these visitors selected for their victim was Dr. Cosin, against whom they issued a warrant, March 13, 1643, deposing him from his mastership; ‘ for opposing,” as they stated, “ the proceedings of parliament, and other scandalous acts in the university.”’
Thus ejected from his preferment, he remained
nearly twenty years under sentence of depriva-
Xxil MEMOIR OF THE AUTHOR.
tion. But this punishment did not satisfy the malice of his enemies; his name appears fre- quently, even after the sentence, upon the jour- nals of the house; and he was continually ha- rassed and perplexed by pursuivants and mes- sengers, until he was compelled to seek safety in exile.
Towards the end, therefore, of the year 1643, at the desire of the king, he passed over into France, and fixing his habitation at Paris, exer- cised his ministerial office among those members of his own communion who had taken refuge in that city during the raging of the civil wars. In the chapel of Sir Richard Brown, at that time the English agent at Paris, he performed divine ser- vice according to the rites and ceremonies of the Church of England. His presence and advice strengthened and comforted many who were per- plexed at the difficulties and distresses of their own Church; some it reduced who had quite gone over to popery; others it confirmed in the truth, | who, by conversing with the Romanists, and par- ticularly the Jesuits, had nearly made shipwreck of the faith.
But unfortunately, while thus engaged in
MEMOIR OF THE AUTHOR. Xxili
strengthening and consoling others, he was sub- jected in his own person to a grievous and severe affliction, which he ever lamented as one of the greatest infelicities of his life. His own son, who, with other Protestants, frequented a school in the neighbourhood, conducted under the super- intendence of the Jesuits, was insidiously imbued with the Romish tenets. No subsequent efforts on the part of his father could shake the youth, or induce him to change his opinions. He lived and died in the Romish faith.
These proceedings of the Romish emissaries, who continued their attempts with unabated vigour to entangle the minds of the English, especially of the noble and wealthy, engaged his vigilance and attention. ‘To ensure success to their cause, they had endeavoured to throw discredit upon the Re- formation; and, denying the apostolical succession of the English bishops, asserted, that as there were no rightly ordained ministers in the Church of England, so the sacrament of the eucharist could never be duly administered by those in its communion. Dr. Cosin was challenged by them, _ and especially by one Robinson, the prior of the English Benedictines at Paris, to disprove their
XXIV MEMOIR OF THE AUTHOR.
statements. The sum of this controversy in de- fence of the validity of the English ordinations he afterwards committed to writing, and sent an account of it to Dr. George Morley (the great friend of Izaak Walton), his companion in suffer- ing, then an exile in Belgium. But unfortunately these papers were never printed; although at the time they excited much attention, and were very serviceable to the cause of the English Church.
After the fatal battle of Worcester in 1651, King Charles II. having returned to France, re- sided at Paris, and regularly attended divine ser- vice both Sundays and holydays in the chapel where Dr. Cosin, and Dr. Earle, afterwards bishop of Gloucester, officiated. In this practice he con- tinued for three years, until, by the intrigues of Cardinal Mazarin, who then ruled the French court, the king was permitted to remain no longer in Paris.
Compelled, therefore, to seek a new place of refuge, he retired into Germany, where Dr. Cosin had resolved to follow him; but the king desired him to remain at Paris, and to continue the exer- cise of his usual functions. While Charles was at
Cologne, the English Jesuits who frequented the
MEMOIR OF THE AUTHOR. XXV
court, used all their efforts to induce him to em- brace the Roman Catholic religion. Among other arguments they urged their great dogma of tran- substantiation, which they boasted had ever been acknowledged as an article of faith in all ages of the Church. To determine the question, an ap- peal was made to Dr.Cosin, who had distinguished himself for his skill in the fathers and ecclesias- tical antiquity ; and accordingly he produced his celebrated History of Transubstantiation, which is now reprinted. This dissertation remained in MS. for some time, until it was published by Dr. Durell, prebendary of Durham, and afterwards dean of Windsor, with the author’s consent, at London, in the year 1675. The following year it was translated into English by Luke de Beaulieu, and printed at London.
These and other theological studies continued to employ such portions of his time as were not occupied by his spiritual cure; and in 1657 he published A Scholastical History of the Canon of the Holy Scripture; or the certain and indu- bitable Books thereof, as they are received in the Church of England. In this history he com- menced with the completion of the canon under
b
XXVl MEMOIR OF THE AUTHOR.
the Jews, and deduced it to the year 1546, when the uncatholic Council of Trent most unwarrant- ably interfered with this and other Catholic tradi- tions. It was dedicated to Dr. Matthew Wren, bishop of Ely, then cruelly confined in the Tower. The index, containing a chronological list of au- thors quoted, was furiously attacked by Philip Labbe, the Jesuit, in the second part of his dis- sertation De Scriptoribus Ecclesiasticis. Paris, 1660, p. 811.
But while thus defending the religion in which he was bred, and approving himself an able cham- pion in offence and defence, one portion of his conduct during his residence abroad seems to have given rise to some suspicion. Fuller had stated in his Church History, that Dr. Cosin “‘ neither joined with the Church of French Pro- testants at Charenton, nigh Paris, nor kept any
> "This error
communion with the papists therein. of the Church-historian, undoubtedly not ori- ‘ginating in any ill-feelings, was corrected by Dr. Cosin, in a letter which is published by Heylyn in the Examen Historicum. Even before this Dr. Cosin had stated his opinion on com-
municating with the foreign Churches, in a letter
MEMOIR OF THE AUTHOR. XXVli
which he addressed to Mr. Watson, then attend- ing at the prince’s court in Jersey.* ‘* They are here,” he says, “* so exceeding uncharitable, and somewhat worse, that I know not how any man (who understands himself, and makes a conscience of what he does) can enter into any communion with them in those doctrines and practices which they hold necessary to salvation ; and wherein they make their essential note of difference, their reli- gion and their Church, to consist. And that I may answer your demand in brief (for they say you are all to come hither), it is far less safe to join with these men (viz. the Romanists) , that alter the cre- denda, the vitals of religion, than with those that meddle only with the agenda and rules of reli- gion, if they meddle no further; and where it is not in our power to help it, there is no doubt but in these things God will accept the will for the deed, if that will (without our assent or approba- tion to the contrary) be preserved entire: though in the meanwhile we suffer a little for it, op- pression must not make us leave our own Church. They of Geneva are to blame in many things, and defective in some; they shall never have my
* Dated from St. Germains, June 19, 1646.
XXVili MEMOIR OF THE AUTHOR.
approbation of their doings, nor let them have yours: yetI do not see that they have set up any new articles of faith, under pain of damnation to all the world that will not receive them for such articles ; and you know whose case that is.” In conformity with the opinion expressed in this ex- tract, it was his custom to communicate with the members of the Charenton. And in the letter printed by Heylyn, and addressed to Mr. Warren from Paris, April 6, 1658, Dr. Cosin states that he never refused to join with Protestants either there or elsewhere, in all things wherein they join with the Church of England. In support of which as- sertion he instances the fact of his having buried several English persons at Charenton, in the ce- metery belonging to the Protestants at Paris. “T have baptised,” he says, “ many of their children at the request of their own ministers, with whom I have good acquaintance. Many of the people
have frequented our public prayers with great
reverence ; and I have delivered the holy commu- |
nion to them according to our own order, which they observed religiously. I have married divers persons of good condition among them; and I
have presented some of their scholars to be or-
MEMOIR OF THE AUTHOR. XxXix
dained deacons and priests here by our own bishops ; and the Church of Charenton approved of it, and I preached here publicly at their ordi- nation. Besides I have been (as often as I had spare time from attending our own congregation) to pray and sing psalms with them, and to hear both the weekly and Sunday sermon at Charen- ton, whither two of my children also (pensioned here in a Protestant family at Paris) have daily repaired for that purpose with the gentlewoman that governed them.”
In this point Dr. Cosin seems chiefly to have been guided by the principles of Bishop Andrews, and other Catholic divines of the Church of Eng- land. For in his second epistle to Peter des Moulins, Bishop Andrews writes :* “ Nec tamen si nostra divini juris sit, inde sequitur, vel quod sine ea salus non sit, vel quod stare non possit ecclesia. Czcus sit, qui non videat stantes sine ea ecclesias; ferreus sit qui salutem eis neget. Nos non sumus illi ferrei; latum inter ista discri- men ponimus. Potest abesse aliquid quod divini juris sit (in exteriore quidem regimine), ut tamen substet salus.—Non est hoc damnare rem, melius
* Opuscula, p. 176.
XXX MEMOIR OF THE AUTHOR.
illi aliquid anteponere.” And again, in his third letter to the same person :* “Queris tum peccent- ne in jus divinum ecclesie vestree? Non dixi. Id tantum dixi, abesse ab ecclesiis vestris aliquid quod de jure divino sit; culpa autem vestra non abesse, sed injuria temporum.” The same opi- nion is expressed by Dr. Bramhall, in his Vindi- cation of Grotius, p.614: “ Episcopal divines do not deny those Churches (viz. the Lutheran and other foreign Protestant Churches) to be true Churches, wherein salvation may be had. We advise them, as it is our duty, to be circumspect for themselves, and not to put it to more ques- tion, whether they have ordination or not, or desert the general practice of the universal Church for nothing, when they may clear it if they please. Their case is not the same with those who labour under invincible necessity. What mine own sense is of it, I have declared many years since to the world in print; and in the same way received thanks, and a public acknowledgment of my . moderation, from a French divine.’+ And to conclude this subject, Archdeacon Basire, his
* Opuscula, p. 195. + Again, in his Replication to the Bishop of Chalcedon,
MEMOIR OF THE AUTHOR. Xxxi
particular friend, who preached the sermon at his funeral, informs us, that “ this his Christian condescension towards the reformed Churches was afterwards requited by a singular respect from the chief doctors of those reformed Churches, whom to condemn rashly is to storm whole Churches against charity.” Who shall blame him for entertaining these feelings of affection for the Church at Charenton, when adorned by men
of such eminence as Aubertin and Daillé ?* Their
p. 144. ‘It doth not follow that because faith is essential, therefore every point of true faith is essential; or because discipline is essential, therefore every point of right disci- pline is essential ; or because the sacraments are essential, therefore every useful rite is essential. Many things may be lawful, many things may be laudable, yet many things may be necessary necessitate precepti, commanded by God, of divine institution, that are not essential, nor necessary, necessitate medii. The want of them may be a great defect, it may be a great sin; and yet if it proceed from invincible necessity, or invincible ignorance, it doth not absolutely exclude from heaven. The essences of things are unalter- able ; and therefore the least degree of saving faith, of ec- clesiastical discipline, of sacramental communion, that ever was in the Catholic Church, is sufficient to preserve the true being of a Church.’”? Compare also p. 164 of the same treatise.
* Daillé writes thus to a friend at Cambridge: “ Tuus
Xxxll MEMOIR OF THE AUTHOR.
friendship also is the best testimony at least of his affection for the reformed religion ; upon his sin- cerity in which respect some have thought fit to cast suspicion. |
Thus passed his life abroad, until such time as monarchy was restored in England. To reward his services, and compensate for the sufferings to which he had been exposed, the king thought fit to promote him to the bishopric of Durham: on the 2d of December in the same year, he was con- secrated, with six other bishops, in the Abbey church of Westminster. Dr. Wm. Sancroft, his chaplain, afterwards archbishop of Canterbury, preached the consecration-sermon.
Retiring to his diocese as soon as he could escape from the congratulations of his friends and the occupations of public business, he set himself zealously to work to restore the primitive disci- pline and order of the Church. All had been
utterly neglected or thrown into confusion during .
Cosin, imo noster (intercedit enim nobis cum illo suavis — amicitia atque familiaritas) mihi admodum_probatur. Bestize sunt, et quidem fanatici, qui eum de papismo sus- pectum habent, e quo vix reperias qui sit magis alienus.”’ —HeEytywn’s Exam. p. 294.
MEMOIR OF THE AUTHOR. XXxXili
the late tumults. He visited his entire diocese, reduced to uniformity the forms and services which had fallen into desuetude, examined diligently the lives and conversation of the clergy, and employed every means which he lawfully possessed of re- storing what had been lost, or amending what had been impaired by carelessness and folly. Among other good practices thus restored, was the public reading of the daily service ;* the form
* “He was punctual in his methods,” says Dr. Basire ; “for, to my knowledge, he loved order in his studies and functions ; and he often repeated and generally observed the apostle’s canon, ‘ Let all things be done decently and in order’ (1 Cor. xiv. 40). He was so exact in putting in practice the discipline of our Church, that he strictly en- joined, according to the rubric, the daily public offices of morning and evening prayer within the churches of his diocese ; which, since the decay of the primitive devotion of daily communions in the old Christianity, is instead of the juge sacrificium of the Jews, the daily sacrifice of a lamb morning and evening (Exod. xxix. 39). And ’tis both our sin and shame, that, since God is graciously pleased (under the gospel) to spare our lambs, we Chris- tians should in requital grudge our good God (except in case of real necessity) the calves of our lips (Hos. xiv. 2), to praise Him daily in the public congregations. Without vanity, I have (through God’s providence) travelled and taken an impartial survey of both the Eastern and Western
b2
XXXiV MEMOIR OF THE AUTHOR.
of bidding prayer to be used before the sermon, an ancient practice authorised by the canons of our Church, generally received in the foreign re- formed Churches, but since the time of Cart- wright superseded by long extempore prayers, which had formed the ready instruments of vent- ing political opinions, or of stating doctrines edi- fying neither to.the speaker nor the hearer.
He found his diocese rich, yet left it richer, employing during his episcopate a great share of his large revenues in repairing or rebuilding the various edifices belonging to the bishopric, which had been ruined or demolished during the civil Churches, and can assert, upon mine own experience, that — in the Eastern Churches the Greeks and Armenians, &c. constantly observe their daily public service of God; and in the Western Churches, I, passing through Germany (to take the like survey), did with comfort behold the same daily public offices, with full congregations, in those they call the Lutherans and Calvinists (I do hate, but, through the iniquity of the times, I cannot avoid those schismatical names, expressed only for distinction’s sake) ; nay, to give Rome her due, they, in their way (though erroneous), ob- serve the same daily practice strictly. And truly, when the laity doth daily plough, sow, work, and provide for the clergy, it is but Christian equity that the clergy
should daily offer public prayers and praises for the labo- rious laity.”.—Dead Man’s Speech, p. 94-6.
MEMOIR OF THE AUTHOR. XXXV
wars. The money which he expended in this way on the castles of Bishop’s Awkland, Durham, and Burlington House, amounted, according to Dr. Smith, to 16,000/.; according to others, to no less than 26,0007. He likewise built and en- dowed two hospitals: one at Durham for eight poor people, with a revenue of 70/.; the other at Awkland for four, with a yearly revenue of 30/. The school-houses at Durham cost him 300/. ; the library near the castle 800/., and the books which he bequeathed to it 2,000/., and he left an annual pension to the librarian of twenty marks for ever. But his generosity was not confined to ~ his diocese. He rebuilt the east-end of the chapel at Peter-house, in Cambridge, at an expense of 320/.; gave to the library books to the value of 1,000/. ; founded five scholarships in the same col- lege, each of 10/. annual value, and three in Caius College of 20 nobles a-piece per annum. These various benefactions, together with an annual be- quest of 8/. per annum to the common chest of the two colleges respectively, amounted to 2,500/. Towards the erecting of two session-houses in Durham he gave 1000/.; for the redemption of Christian captives in Algiers, 500/.; for the relief
| XXXvi MEMOIR OF THE AUTHOR.
of distressed loyalists in England, 800/.; and not to mention his other benefactions, let it be enough to state that this charitable and generous prelate, during the eleven years in which he held the see of Durham, spent yearly above 2,000/. in pious and charitable purposes.
For a long period he had been greatly afflicted with the stone; and disease sapping his little strength, already sinking under the weight of many years, broke down his frame by a kindly
and gentle dissolution : ‘ \ 7 bd 9 f e SJ opuKkoa Tahara owpar evvalet porn.
In the midst of his useful labours, he was attacked by a pectoral dropsy in his seventy-eighth year. Finding his end approaching, he was desirous of receiving his last viaticum. Dr. William Flower, his chaplain, seeing his great pain and infirmity, asked him whether, by reason of his weakness, he would have the bread only dipt: but he answered, “ No;” and said that he desired to receive it in both kinds, according to Christ’s in- — stitution. And that nothing on his part might betoken a want of reverence, he requested, weak as
he was, to be lifted into his chair; and so baring
MEMOIR OF THE AUTHOR. XXXVil
his head, which had been bound up by reason of his violent pains, he received the eucharist about an hour and a half before his death. Being un- able to kneel, he devoutly repeated part of the penitent prayer of Manasses, (“‘ Lord, I bow the knee of my heart”); and so sinking gradually, with these words on his lips, “* Lord Jesus, come quickly,” his last act was the elevation of his
hand, his last ejaculation, “ Lord > where-
with he expired without pain, according to his frequent prayer unto God, that he might not die of a sudden or painful death.
Thus died he ripe in years, full of honour and good fruits. Like his brethren, not exempted, during the earlier part of his life, from painful anticipations of the evil which was coming on his Church and country, nor yet free from his share of sufferings when those evils were realised. Yet truly happy in this, in that he lived to see the Church which he loved restored to its previous in- tegrity ; the Church of Durham, which he served, augmented; the doctrines and discipline which he had defended once more triumphant.
No little happiness it was to have lived in the days of Overall and Andrews, more to have con-
XXXVill MEMOIR OF THE AUTHOR.
versed with them, above all to have been honoured with their friendship. When, therefore, they had been called to their rest, who, like David’s captains of old, were “all mighty men, famous through- out the house of their fathers; that summons was not unwelcome which called him to follow those in their death of whom he had been no un- worthy disciple’in their lives.
In person he was tall and erect. “ God and nature,” says Dr. Basire, “ did frame his earthly tabernacle of a goodly structure; of strong na- tural abilities and sound understanding, which he enjoyed to the last.”
He died at his house in Pall Mall, oe 15, 1672; but, owing to the bad state of the roads, was not removed till the spring to Bishop’s Awk- land; and therefore his obsequies were not per- formed until the 29th of April, Dr. Guy Carleton, bishop of Bristol, reading the service, and Dr. Basire preaching the sermon. He was buried in the middle of the chapel, under a monument of black marble, upon which was engraved the fol-— lowing inscription, prepared by himself :—
In non morituram memoriam Johannis
Cosini, -Episcopi Dunelmensis, qui hoe sa-
MEMOIR OF THE AUTHOR. XXXix
cellum construxit, ornavit, et Deo consecra- vit, anno Domini mpcrxv. in festo S. Petri: obiit xv. die mensis Januarii, anno Domini MDCLXXI. et hic sepultus est, exspectans fe- licem corporis sui resurrectionem, ac vitam in
coeelis eternam.
Requiescat in pace.
On the sides this quotation was engraved—
Beati mortui qui moriuntur in Domino:
Requiescunt enim a laboribus suis.
He appointed as the executors of his will, part of which, containing a profession of his faith, was written in Latin, Sir Thomas Orby, knight and baronet; Dr. John Durell, prebendary of Windsor and Durham (who published his treatise on Tran- substantiation) ; George Davenport, his domestic chaplain ; and Miles Stapleton, his secretary, for whom he entertained great affection and esteem. He left several donations in his will, some of which are enumerated by Mr. Chalmers in his Biogra- phical Dictionary, trom whom the subjoined list
of his writings is, with some alterations and addi-
tions, derived.
1. Collection of Private Devotions. 12mo. Re- printed in 1838. |
xl MEMOIR OF THE AUTHOR.
2. Scholastical History of the Canon of Holy Scripture. Lond. 1657; reprinted in 1672.
3, A Letter to Dr. Collins on the Sabbath, dated from Peterhouse, Jan. 24, 1635. Printed in the Bi- bliotheca Literaria, 1723. 4:to.
4. Two Letters to Lord Chancellor Hyde. The first dated from Paris, Nov. 5, 1655; the other from Paris, Oct. 18, 1658. Printed in the Clarendon State Papers.
5. A Letter to Mr. Cordel, dated Paris, Feb. 7, 1650. Printed at the end of a pamphlet, entitled “The Judgment of the Church of England in the case of Lay Baptism,” &c., of which a second edition was printed in 1712.
6. A Letter addressed to Mr. Watson, dated St. Germains, June 19, 1646.
7. Another to the same person, against the use of unauthorised versions of the Psalms in the public ser- vice of the Church. Both published by Dr. R. Wat- son, in a pamphlet, entitled, “ Dr. Cosin’s Opinion for communicating rather with Geneva than Rome.” Lond. 1684.
8. A Letter addressed to Mr. Warren, dated Paris, April 6, 1658, defending himself from Dr. Fuller’s animadversions. Printed in Heylyn’s Examen Histo- ricum, p. 284. To this letter Lord Chancellor Hyde refers in a letter printed in Dr. Barwick’s Life, p. 328.
MEMOIR OF THE AUTHOR. xli
9. A Letter to Dr. Morton, Bishop of Durham, giving an account of his studies when in exile; and a Memorial of his against the Council of the Lateran in 1215. Both published by Des Maizeaux, in vol. vi. of “The present State of the Republic of Letters,” 1730.
10. Regni Anglize Religio Catholica, 1652. Being a brief scheme of the doctrine and discipline of the Church of England, written at the request of Sir Ed- ward Hyde. Published by Dr. Smith in “ Vite Eru- ditissimorum Virorum.” 4to. 1707.
11. The History of Transubstantiation ; first writ- ten in Latin. Published by Dr. Durell, Lond. 1675. 8vo. Translated into English 1676, and published by Luke de Beaulieu.
A second Part exists in MS., which was presented to the Library of Durham by its late munificent bishop.
12. The Differences in the chief Points of Re- ligion between the Roman Catholics and us of the Church of England. Printed at the end of Bishop Bull’s “ Corruptions of the Church of Rome.”
13. Notes on the Book of Common Prayer. Pub- lished by Dr. Nichols, at the end of his “Comment on the Book of Common Prayer.” The autograph of these annotations is in the British Museum. Harl.
MSS. 7311.
xlii MEMOIR OF THE AUTHOR.
14. Account of a Conference in Paris between Cyril, Archbishop of Trapezond, and Dr. John Cosin.
In the same work.
The following pieces have never been printed :
1. An Answer to a Popish Pamphlet, pretending that St. Cyprian was a Papist.
2. An Answer to Four Queries of a Roman Ca- tholic about the Protestant Religion.
3. An Answer to a Paper delivered by a Popish Bishop to the Lord Inchequin.
4, Annales Ecclesiastici. Imperfect.
5. An Answer to Father Robinson’s Papers con- cerning the Validity of the English Ordinations.
6. Historia Conciliorum.
7. Against the Forsakers of the Church of Eng- land, &c.
8. Of the Abuse of Auricular Confession in the Church of Rome.
9. His Opinion touching the Headship and Supre- macy of the Church. See Harl. MSS. No. 750.
10. Several Letters in the Harleian Collection of MSS., Nos. 3783, 7033; in Dr. Birch’s Collection in the British Museum; and in the Durham Library.
MEMOIR OF THE AUTHOR. xliii
Last Will and Testament.
Adjutorium nostrum in nomine Domini, qui fecit celum
et terram.
In nomine et honore ejusdem Domini Dei nostri, Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti, summe ac individue Trini-
tatis.
Quoniam statutum est omnibus semel mori, et corpus uniuscujusque dissolutum iri, tempus vero dissolutionis meee cum incertum sit, de qua tamen quasi in propinquo esset, assidua animi meditatione sollicitus, et frequenti cor- poris infirmitate pulsatus, subinde cogito; ego Johannes Cosinus, humilis ecclesie Dei administer, et modo permis- sione altissimi episcopus Dunelm. non ponens spem meam in preesenti hac vita, sed ad alteram (que futura est) in ceelis eternam, ex divina tandem misericordia, adipiscen- dam semper anhelans, et humiliter orans pro salute anime mee, ut per merita Jesu Christi, Filii Dei vivi, et Redemp- toris ac Mediatoris nostri unici, omnia mea mihi remittan- tur delicta; hoc testamentum, continens ultimam volunta- tem meam, sana mente et puro corde condo, ordino, et facio, in hac forma que sequitur.
Ante omnia, Domino nostro Deo omnipotenti gratias ago quas possum maximas, quod me ex fidelibus et bonis parentibus in hanc vitam nasci, atque in ecclesia sua, per sanctum baptismi lavacrum ab ipso institutum, ad vitam eeternam renasci voluerit, meque a juventute mea in doc-
trina sana erudiverit et sanctorum suorum participem ef-
xliv MEMOIR OF THE AUTHOR.
fecerit, fidemque non fictam vel mortuam, sed veram et vivam in animo meo impresserit, una cum adjuncta spe firma fore posthac ut perducar ad vitam sempiternam. Que quidem fides in eo consistit, ut adoremus et venere- mur Deum, in eumque credamus, et in quem misit, Filium ejus dilectissimum, Verbum eternum ante secula genitum, Jesum Christum Dominum nostrum, qui propter nos nos- tramque salutem ex beatissima Virgine Maria, superve- niente in eam Spiritu Sancto, carnem in seeculo sumpsit et homo factus est; deinde natus, passus, crucifixus, mortuus ac sepultus, et postquam ad inferos descendisset, ex sepul- chro suo resurrexit, et captivam ducens captivitatem, ad- scendit in ccelos, ubi ad dexteram Dei Patris sedet, et reg- nat in eternum; inde vero, Spiritum Sanctum (in quem pariter nobis credendum est) misit, a Patre Filioque pro- cedentem, per quem largissime dona distribuit hominibus, et ecclesiam suam catholicam in communione sanctorum, in divinis sacramentis, in vera fide, in doctrina sana, ac moribus Christianis instituit; una cum remissione pecca- torum piis omnibus, et dignos in eadem ecclesia poeniten- ti fructus proferentibus, impertienda ; quibus etiam quum in supremo seeculi die de ccelis rediturus ut mortuos resus- citet, et omnes judicet, collaturus est zeternam beatitudi- nem ; reliquis vero infidelibus, aut qui secundum carnem | vixerint, et converti, sive penitentiam agere nolentibus zternum supplicium irrogaturus. In hac fide, que totius sacre Scripture summa est, et absolutissimum compen- dium, sanctis (Jude vers. 3) semel tradita, et ab apostolis
eorumque successoribus propagata, atque ad nos usque de-
MEMOIR OF THE AUTHOR. xlv
rivata vivere me profiteor, et ut in ea ad ultimum vite spi- ritum constanter ac sine hesitatione perseverem et moriar, assiduis quantum possum precibus a Deo contendo; unita- tem interea colens et servans vinculum pacis ac charitatis cum omnibus ubique Christianis, qui inter tanta ecclesize mala, distractiones et calamitates (quibus equidem non possum non illachrymari) hanc fidem integre admittunt, nullamque ejus partem in dubium vocant. Spero etiam, quee est Dei Christique OeavOporov, Servatoris nostri benig- nitas omnes eos, qui hee a Deo revelante tradita simpliciter nobiscum crediderint et pie vixerint, in magno illo die Do- mini salvos fore, etiamsi singulorum rationem reddere, vel modum exponere, vel questiones circa ea exortas solvere, vel dum forte satagunt hallucinationes aliquot effugere, et penitus ab errore immunes esse nequiverint.
Sed quascunque olim hereses et queecunque etiam schis- mata, quibuscunque tandem nominibus appellentur, prisca et universalis sive catholica Christi ecclesia unanimi con- sensu rejecit et condemnavit, ego pariter condemno et rejicio; una cum omnibus earundem heresium fautoribus hodiernis, sectariis et fanaticis, qui spiritu malo acti men- tiuntur sese Spiritu Dei afflari. Horum omnium, inquam, hereses et schismata, ego quoque Ecclesiz nostre Angli- cane, imo Catholice, symbolis, synodis et confessionibus addictissimus pariter improbo constanterque rejicio atque repudio. In quorum numero pono non tantum segreges Anabaptistas et eorum sequaces (proh dolor!) nimium mul- tos, sed etiam novos nostrates Independentes et Presbyte-
rianos, genus hominum malitie, inobedientic et seditionis
xlvi MEMOIR OF THE AUTHOR.
spiritu abreptum, qui inaudita a seeculis audacia et perfidia, tanta nuper perpetrarunt facinora, in contemptum et op- probrium omnis religionis et fidei Christiane, quanta qui- dem non sine horrore dici aut commemorari queant: quin- etiam a corruptelis et ineptis nuperque natis sive papisticis (quas vocant) superstitionibus, doctrinis, et assumentis novis in avitam ac primevam laudatissime olim tam orthodoxe et catholice ecclesiz religionem ac fidem jamdudum con- tra sacram Scripturam, veterumque patrum regulas ac mores introductis, me prorsus jam alienum esse, atque a juventute mea semper fuisse, sancte et animitus adsevero. Ubicunque vero terrarum ecclesie, Christiano nomine cense veram, priscam et catholicam religionem fidemque profitentur, ut Deum Patrem, Filium et Spiritum Sanctum uno ore et mente invocant ac colunt, eis, si me uspiam actu jam nunc jungi prohibet, vel distantia regionum, vel dissidia hominum, vel aliud quodcunque obstaculum, semper tamen animo, mente et affectu conjungor ac coalesco; id quod de Protestantibus preesertim et bene reformatis ecclesiis intel- ligi volo: fundamentis enim salvis, diversitatem, ut opini- onum, ita quoque rituum circa res juxta adnatas, et minus necessarias, nec universali veteris ecclesia praxi repugnan- tes in aliis ecclesiis (quibus nobis preesidendum non est) amice, placide et pacifice ferre possumus, atque adeo per- ferre debemus. Eis vero omnibus qui male consulti quo- quo modo me iniquis calumniis insectati sunt, vel adhuc insectari non desinunt, ego quidem ignosco, et Deum serio precor, ut ipse quoque ignoscere, et meliorem eis mentem
inspirare velit. Operam interim et mihi, et aliis omnibus
MEMOIR OF THE AUTHOR. xlvii
fratribus, preesertim episcopis, et ministris ecclesie Dei, quantum ex illius gratia possumus, dandam et conferen- dam esse existimo, ut tandem sopiantur, vel saltem minu- antur, religionis dissidia, atque ut pacem sectemur cum omnibus, et sanctimoniam. Quod ut fiat quam ocissime, faxit Deus, pacis autor et amator concordie. Cujus im- mensam misericordiam oro et obtestor, ut me in peccatis et iniquitatibus conceptum ab omni humane infirmitatis labe et corruptela repurget, dignumque ex indigno per magnam clementiam suam faciat, mihique passionem et immensa merita dilectissimi sui Filii Domini nostri Jesu Christi, ad delictorum meorum omnium expiationem ap- plicet : ut quum novissima vite hora non improvisa vene- rit, ab angelis suis in sinum Abrahe raptus, et in societate sanctorum et electorum suorum collocatus, eterna felici-
tate perfruar.
Hee preefatus que ad religionem et anime mee statum ac salutem spectant, queeque Latino sermone a me dictata atque exarata sunt, reliqua, que ad sepulturam corporis, et bonorum meorum temporalium dispositionem attinent, ser-
mone patrio perscribi faciam, ac perorabo.
.
TO THE
Ricut Hon. HENEAGE LORD FINCH,
BARON OF DAVENTRY, LORD KEEPER OF THE GREAT SEAL OF ENGLAND.
MY LORD, Tue excellency of this book answers the great- ness 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 dis- course, 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; those that destroy the visible sign, and those that deny the invisible grace; I thought I might justly offer it to so pious and so B
2 THE EPISTLE DEDICATORY.
great a son of this Church, who owned her in her most calamitous condition, and defends her in her happy and most envied restoration. I was also persuaded that the translation, bearing your illustrious name, would be thereby much recom- mended to many, and so become the more gene- rally useful: and I confided much in your good- ness and affability, who being by birth and merits raised to a high eminency, yet do willingly con- descend to things and persons of low estate.
My lord, I have only this one thing more to allege for myself, that besides the attestation of public fame, which I hear of a long time speaking loud for you, I have these many years lived in a family where your virtues 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 myself
Your Lordship’s Most humble and most obedient Servant,
LUKE DE BEAULIEU.
THE
PUBLISHER TO THE READER.
Ir 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 Ger- many 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 chapel, and to endeavour to keep and confirm in the Protestant religion, pro- fessed by the Church of England, his fellow- exiles, both of the royal family and others his countrymen who then lived in that place. Now the occasion of his writing this piece was this :— when his gracious Majesty had chosen Cologne for the place of his residence, being solemnly in- vited, he visited a neighbouring potent prince of
4. TO THE READER.
the empire, of the Roman persuasion, where it fell out, as it doth usually where persons of dif- ferent religions do meet, some Jesuits began to discourse of controversies with those noblemen and worthies (who never forsook their prince in his greatest straits, but were his constant attend- ants, and imitators of his ever-constant profession of the reformed religion), charging the Church of England with heresy, especially in what concerns the blessed sacrament of the Lord’s supper. They would have it that our Church holds no real, but only a kind of imaginary presence of the body and blood of Christ; but that the Church of Rome retained still the very same faith concern- ing this sacred mystery which the Catholic 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 blood 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 Ger- man prince, with as much positiveness and confi- dence 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 shamelessly belie the Church of England, and that their brags about Roman transubstantiation were equally false
TO THE READER. 5
and vain; but the German prince having recom- mended to the perusal of those honourable persons that followed the King, a manuscript, wherein (as he said) was proved by authentic authors all that had been advanced by the Jesuits, they thought it fit to acquaint the Rev. Dr. Cosin with the whole business, and entreat him that he would vindicate the Church of England from the ca- lumny, and plainly declare what is her avowed doctrine and belief about the true and real pre- sence of Christ in the blessed sacrament. Here- upon 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’s kindness in kind. Yet notwithstanding the soli- citations of those that occasioned it, and of others that had perused it, he would not yield to have it made public until 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 controversy 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 M. Claude, minister of the reformed Church in Paris, and M. Arnold, doctor of Sorbonne, and others, who,
6 TO THE READER.
moved by their example, have entered 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 Sorbonne 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 blood of Christ in the sacrament, that stout Roman champion applies to his transub- stantiation, 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 Lord’s supper and the transubstantiation of the bread and wine into his body and blood. This last is such a prodigy 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 backed 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
TO THE READER. 7
bread and wine of the holy eucharist as of the very body and blood 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, moreover, 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 blood 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 signify or represent any other thing; neither was ever any thing said to represent and be the figure and sign of itself. But this is more at large treated of in the book itself.
Now having given an account of the occasion of writing and publishing this discourse, perhaps the reader will expect that I should say something
8 TO THE READER.
of its excellent author: but should I now under- take 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 some- where 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 defender 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.*
[* Not subscribed to the Latin preface. }
THE HISTORY
OF
TRANSUBSTANTIATION.
CHAPTER I.
1. The real, that is, true and not imaginary presence of Christ in the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper is proved by Scripture. 2. and 8. Yet this favours not the tenet of transubstantiation, being it is not to be understood grossly 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 presumptu- ously 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 blood, which is shed for you, for the remission of sins,”* are held and acknow- ledged by the universal Church to be most true
* Matt. xxvi. 26; Luke xxii. 19. B2
10. HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION.
and infallible: and if any one dares oppose them, or call in question Christ’s veracity, or the truth of his words, or refuse to yield his sincere assent to them, except he be allowed to make a mere 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, ‘* My flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed ;”’ + which, accord- ing to St. Paul, are both given to us by the consecrated elements. For he calls the bread “‘ the communion of Christ’s body,’ and the cup ** the communion of his blood.” ¢
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 vanished, nor reduced to nothing; but are solemnly consecrated by the words of Christ, that by them his blessed body and blood 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
* As G. Calixtus writes in some place of his learned exercitations ; and before him Chemuitius, in Exam, Con. Trid. atque in Locis Theol.
+ John vi. 55. | J 1 Cors-x. 16.
HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 1]
mystic sense; and that no gross and carnal pre- sence of body and blood can be maintained by them.
4. And though the word sacrament be no where used in Scripture to signify the blessed eucharist, yet the Christian Church, ever since its primitive ages, hath given it that name, and always called the presence of Christ’s body and blood therein mystic and sacramental. Now a sacramental expression doth, without any incon- venience, 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 exhibit, 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
* Exod. xii. 21: [‘‘ Take you a lamb according to your families, and kill the passover.”| 1 Cor. x. 3,4: [‘ And 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.” ]
-
12. HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION.
blood of our Saviour are not only fitly repre- sented by the elements, but also by virtue 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.t 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 virtue, can savour only carnal things, and to whom what is spiritual and sacramental is the same as if a mere nothing.
7. As to the manner of the presence of the body and blood of our Lord in the blessed sacra- ment, we that are Protestant and reformed ac- — cording to the ancient Catholic Church, do not search into the manner of it with perplexing inquiries; but, after the example of the primitive
* John vi. 56. + Matt. xxvi. 26.
HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 13
and purest Church of Christ, we leave it to the power and wisdom of our Lord, yielding a full and unfeigned 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.
[* ‘As in the council of Trent.” Lat.]
14 HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION.
CHAPTER II.
1. 2. and 3. sq. 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 public 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 blood in the sacra- ment; 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 Catholic faith.
2. For it is easy 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 Catholic 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 Ca- tholic fathers and ancient prelates have gathered
HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 15
and inferred out of it, under pain of excommuni- cation 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 blood. 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 blood 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 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.”{ 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 insti-
* In the book of Canons published by authority, 1571. Of preaching.
+ Articles of Religion, 1562.
t Communion Service.
16- HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION.
tution, in remembrance of His death and passion, may be partakers of His most blessed body and blood. Who in the same night that He was be- trayed 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 thanks, He gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of this; for this is My blood 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 kneel- ing, 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 blood 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 everliving 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 our Saviour Jesus Christ ;” with the hymn, “ Glory be to God on high,’ &c. Also in the public authorised Catechism of our Church, appointed to
HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 17
be learned of all, it is answered to the question concerning the inward part of the sacrament, that * It is the body and blood of Christ, which are verily and indeed taken and received by the faith- ful in the Lord’s supper.”’* And in the apology for this Church, writ by that worthy and reverend prelate, Jewel, bishop of Salisbury, it is expressly affirmed, “ That to the faithful is truly given in the sacrament the body and blood 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 blood of Christ, that we may abide in Him, and He in us; and that we may be ascertained that the flesh and blood 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 diallactic of the famous Dr. Poinet, bishop of Winchester,{ concerning the truth,
* Church Catechism.
[+ Diserteque pronunciamus in ecena credentibus vere exhiberi corpus et sanguinem Domini, carnem Filii Dei, vivificantem animas nostras, cibum superne venientem, immortalitatis alimoniam, gratiam, veritatem, vitam. Eam- que communionem esse corporis et sanguinis Christi, cujus participatione vivificamur, vegetamur et pascimur ad im- mortalitatem, et per quam conjungimur, unimur et incor- poramur Christo, ut nos in illo maneamus, et ille in nobis. ]
{t Diallacticon viri boni et litterati de veritate, natura,
18 HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION.
nature, and substance of the body and blood 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 itself 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 mys- tery.’* Secondly, he inquires, ‘‘ Whether those expressions, truth, nature, and substance, were used in this mystery by the ancients in their com- mon 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 signify and to teach by them.”+ And though, with the fathers, he acknow-
atque substantia corporis et sanguinis Christi in eucharistia. 1576. Reprinted [by Ed. Pelling] in 1688. ]
[* Primum ostendam veritatem corporis Christi in eu- charistia dari fidelibus, nec has voces naturam atque sub- stantiam fugiendas esse; sed veteres de hoc sacramento disserentes ita loquutos esse. p.3. ed. 1688. |
[+ Utrum voces ill, veritas, natura, substantia, com- muni more in hoe negotio debeant intelligi, an peculiari et sacramentis magis accommodata ratione. Breviter, utrum homonymia vocum istarum aliqua subsit an non. Neque enim observandum est solum quibus verbis olim patres loquuti, sed quid etiam sibi volebant ita loquentes. p. 14. ]
HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 19
ledged a difference betwixt the body of Christ in its natural form of a human body and that mystic body present in the sacrament, yet he chose rather to put that difference in the manner of presence and exhibition than in the subject itself, that is, the real body and blood 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 writ- ings, that the faith and doctrine of the Church of England is in all things agreeable to the holy
[* Satis igitur constat, aliter intelligendum Christi cor- pus in sacramento, aliter quod in aliquo loco cceli esse ne- cessarium est. p. 23; see also pp. 25, 28, 30, 50.—Docui de Christi carne edenda spiritualem ab illis [sc. patribus] intelligentiam requiri, et carnalem omnem cogitationem ab- legari. p. 72.—Veritatem, naturam, et virtutem veri corporis Domini nostri se in illo pane sumere credebant. p. 74.— Ex his et aliis multis locis patet quod eucharistia quantum
ad sacramenti naturam attinet vere corpus et sanguis est Christi, p.77.]
20 HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION.
Scriptures, and the divinity of the ancient fathers. And as to what regards this mystery, the first treats of it in his answer to the apology of Car- dinal Alan,* and the last in his answer to the apology of Cardinal Bellarmine; where you may find things worthy to be read and noted, as fol- lows: “ 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, in- deed, 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 ourselves with being in- quisitive about it; no more than in baptism, how
the blood of Christ washeth us; or in the incar-— nation of our Redeemer, how the divine and human nature were united together: we put it in the number of sacred things or sacrifices (the
[* Bilson’s Christian Subjection, p. 657, sq. |
HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION,. 91
eucharist itself being a sacred mystery), whereof the remnants ought to be consumed with fire, that is (as the fathers elegantly have it), adored by faith, but not searched by reason.”*
6. To the same sense speaks Is. Casaubon, in the epistle he wrote by order from King James to Cardinal Perron.t So doth also Hooker, in his Kcclesiastical Polity ;{ John bishop of Rochester, in his book of the Power of the Pope ;§ R. Mount-
{* Dixit Christus, hoc est corpus meum; non, hoc medo hoe est corpus meum. Nobis autem vobiscum de objecto convenit; de modo lis est omnis. De hoc est, fide firma tenemus quod sit ; de hoc modo est (nempe transubstantiato in corpus pane), de modo quo fiat ut sit; per sive in, sive con, sive sub, sive trans, nullum inibi verbum est. Et quia - verbum nullum, merito a fide ablegamus procul. Inter scita schole fortasse, inter fidei articulos\non ponimus. Quod dixisse olim fertur Durandus neutiquam displicet [Neander, Synop. Chron., p. 203]: Verbum audimus, motum sentimus, modum nescimus, presentiam credimus. Presentiam (inquam) credimus, nec minus quam vos, veram. De modo presentiz nil temere definimus: addo nec anxie inquirimus ; non magis quam in Christi incarna- tione, quomodo nature divine humana in eandem hypo- stasin uniatur. Inter mysteria ducimus (et quidem myste- rium est eucharistia ipsa), cujus, quod reliquum est, debet igne absumi; id est, ut eleganter, imprimis patres, fide adorari, non ratione discuti.|—Andrews, Resp. ad Apolo- giam Card. Bellarmini, ch. i. p. 11.
+ Casaub. Epist. [p. 925. ed. 1656.] { Book v. § 67.
[§ Buckeridge De Potestate Pape, in] preef. ad lect.
22, HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION.
ague, bishop of Norwich, against Bullinger ; * James primate of Armagh, in his. answer to the Irish Jesuit ;+ Francis bishop of Ely, and William Laud archbishop of Canterbury, in their answer to Fisher ;{ John Overall, bishop of Norwich;§ and many others in the Church of England, who never departed from the faith and doctrine of the ancient Catholic fathers, which is by law esta- blished, and with great care and veneration re- ceived and preserved in our Church.
7. To these also we may justly add that famous prelate, Antonio de Dominis, 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 bosom of the Church of England, which he did faithfully follow in all points and articles of religion. But being daily vexed with many affronts and injuries, and wearied
* Montac. in Antidiatrib., Art. 13.
[+ Usher’s Controversy with a Jesuit, ch. iii. |
[t White’s Reply to Fisher, p. 179, 390. Laud against Fisher, p. 246, ed. 1839.]
§ Ina manuscript shortly to be printed. [Never printed, except it be the same, or extracts from it, as printed by Nichols in his edition of the Common Prayer. |
HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 23
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, ques- tioned 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, falsely 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 Ecebolius;* yet when he came to Rome (where
[* One of the persons commissioned to examine him (which was in itself a strange proceeding) was Bishop Neile, Cosin’s patron, who wrote an account of the exa- mination, and published it under the title of Alter Ecebo- lius, or M. Ant. de Dominis’ Shiftings in Religion, 1624. A particular, but unfavourable, account of De Dominis will be found in Fuller’s Church History, to which I have added information from some MS. papers in my edition. |
24 HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION.
he was most kindly entertained in the palace of Pope Gregory XV., who formerly had been his fellow-student), he could never be persuaded 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 or- thodox 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 pre- sently 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 sus- picion of being poisoned. The day following, his corpse was, by the sentence of the Inquisition, tied 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 pressed upon him as canons of the Catholic 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. —
HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 95
Let us hear, therefore, what he taught and writ when he was in England, in his books De Repub. Eccl. v. 6. § xx. “ For a thousand years together,” saith he, “ the holy Catholic 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 blood of Christ, which by the sacred bread and wine are given to them; but as to the particular manner how that precious body and blood 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 owned and received, but meekly and devoutly abstained from inquiring into the manner.” Item (§ lxxiii.): *¢ The true and real body of Christ is most certainly and undoubtedly given in the holy sacrament, yet not carnally, but spiritually.” Again (§ clxix.) : ** 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 (§ vii.): “ I know and acknowledge that with the bread still remaining bread, the true and real body of Christ is given,
c
26 HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION.
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,
[* Per mille profecto annos Ecclesia sancta Catholica, sobria divinorum mysteriorum cognitione contenta, et pie credidit et tuto docuit, in eucharistia legitime consecrata fideles corpus et sanguinem Christi agnoscere et recipere ac manducare; ac in illo sacro pane sacroque vino corpus et sanguinem Christi mirabiliter exhiberi: modum vero particularem, pie, humiliter, et religiose ignorare voluit, quo Christi corpus et sanguis in sacris hisce mysteriis et sacramentis exhibetur. De Repub. Eccl. II. p. 79. Lond. 1620.—Vere enim, imo verissime, in eucharistia exhibetur ipsum verum et reale corpus Christi, sed spiritualiter, non corporaliter. Jb. p. 162.—Ipsam veram naturam Christi carnis realem et substantialem in sacra communione nos recipere, omnes evangelio credentes fatebuntur non dubito. — Dicamus omnes, in eucharistia carnalem et corporalem Christi preesentiam adesse quoad rem et naturam: negamus etiam pariter omnes, cum Bernardo et omnibus patribus, quoad modum carnaliter et corporaliter Christum non adesse, sed spiritualiter. Jb. p. 254.—Scio enim et admitto, cum pane manente pane, nobis verum et reale Christi corpus ex-' hiberi, non tamen corporaliter. In re consentio, in modo dissentio. Itaque etiamsi terminus ultimus mutationis aque in baptismo sit gratia in anima et dona spiritualia ; ultimus vero terminus mutationis panis sit secum adducere in ani- mam digne communicantium, ipsum verum corpus Christi,
HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. Q7
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 annexed 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 be- long not in any wise to the Catholic faith,—as transubstantiation,’’ &c.
8. As for the opinion and belief of the German Protestants, it will be known chiefly by the Au- gustan Confession, presented to Charles V. by the princes of the empire, and other great per- sons.. For they teach, “ that not only the bread and wine, but the body and blood of Christ is truly given to the receivers:”* or, as it is in another edition, “‘ that the body and blood of Christ are truly present, and distributed to the
quod est substantia [sacramenti], non tamen sequitur ipsum panem omittere suam substantiam, et induere substantiam corporis Christi. Jb.,p. 172.|
* The Augustan Confession of the German Churches. [a.D. 1530. De coena Domini docent, quod cum pane et vino vere exhibeantur corpus et sanguis Christi vescentibus
in cena Domini. Confess. Augustana MDXL., p. 172, ed. Oxford. |
28 HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION.
communicants in the Lord’s 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.” tT 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 per- form: but the word and promise of God, on which our faith is grounded (and not faith itself) make that present which is promised; as it was agreed at a conference at St. Germains{ 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 sacra- ment is effected merely by the power of faith.
9. The Saxon Confession, approved by other churches, seems to be a repetition of the Augus- tan. Therein we are taught, that “ sacraments
[* De ccoena Domini docent, quod corpus et sanguis Christi vere adsint et distribuantur vescentibus in coena Domini; et improbant secus docentes. Confess. Augus- tana MDXXI. p. 126, ed. Oxford. |
[+ Itaque utendum est sacramentis ita ut accedat fides que credat promissionibus, quee per sacramenta exhibentur et ostenduntur. Confess. August. MDXL. p. 174. |
t Collat. S. Germ. 1561.
HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 29
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 blood truly given to the re- ceivers; so that He testifies that He is in them: as St. Hilary 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 blood 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 blood of Christ.” + |
* The Saxon Confession, art. xv. [p. 282. ed. Oxf. Docentur etiam homines sacramenta esse actiones divi- nitus institutas, et extra usum institutum res ipsas non habere rationem sacramenti, sed in usu instituto in hac communione vere et substantialiter adesse Christum, et vere exhiberi sumentibus corpus et sanguinem Christi: Christum testari quod sit in eis, et faciat eos sibi membra, et quod abluerit eos sanguine suo: sicut et Hilarius inquit (De Trin. viii.), Hee aecepta et hausta efficiunt ut et nos in Christo, et Christus in nobis sit.|
+ The Confession of Wittemberg, in the Preface. [Sentimus et docemus quod verum corpus Christi et verus
30 HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION.
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 Melanc- thon, and the famous university of Wittemberg, teacheth, that “ we ought from the heart to be- lieve and to profess by words, that the bread of the Lord’s supper is the true body of Christ which was given for us; and the wine, his true blood 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
sanguis ejus in eucharistia distribuatur; et refutamus eos qui dicunt, panem et vinum eucharistie esse tantum absentis corporis et sanguinis Christi signa. Art. de Eu- charist. in init. |
* Confessio Bohemica [put forth a.p. 1535], art. xiii. [p. 304, 5. ed. Augusti, 1827. Corde credendum ac ore confitendum docent, panem ccenzee Dominic verum corpus Christi esse, quod pro nobis traditum est, calicemque verum sanguinem ejus, qui pro nobis in remissionem peccatorum fusus est; ut Christus Dominus aperte dicit: Hoc est cor- pus meum: hie est sanguis meus, &c. Docuit etiam, quod his Christi verbis, quibus ipse panem corpus suum, et vinum speciatim sanguinem suum esse pronuntiat, nemo de suo quidquam affingat, admisceat, aut detrahat, sed simpli- citer his Christi verbis, neque ad dexteram neque ad sinistram declinando, credat. | .
HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 31
of their adversaries, they answered, that “ they would ever be ready to confute the calumniators, and to make it appear, by strong arguments and a stronger faith, that they never were, and, by God’s grace, never would be, what their adversaries re- presented them.”*
12. In the same manner, the conciliation of the articles of the Lord’s 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 be- lieve and confess, that the substantial presence of Christ is not only signified in the Lord’s supper, but also that the body and blood of our Lord is’ truly offered and granted to worthy receivers, to- gether with those sacred signs which convey to us the thing signified, according to the nature of sacraments. And lest the different ways of speak- ing should breed any contention, we mutually consent to subscribe that article concerning the Lord’s supper which is in the confession of the
{* Hane [calumniam|] nostri jampridem refellerunt, ac nunquam non refellere parati sunt, et multorum indubita- bili fide ac firmis argumentis ostenderunt, se nunquam quales eos adversarii faciunt fuisse, esse, nec, Deo volente, futuros. Ib.|
{+ Held a.p. 1570. ]
32 HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION.
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 Lord’s supper besides bread and wine.t To him Bucer, 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 expressly be charged with that error except the Anabaptists; and that he also had once been persuaded, that Luther in his.
* Consensus Polonicus, near the beginning. [Quan- tum ad infelix illud dissidium de ccena attinet, convenimus in sententia verborum, ut illa orthodoxe intellecta est a patribus.— Denique, ut expressius clariusque loquamur, convenimus ut credamus et confiteamur substantialem pre- sentiam Christi, non significari duntaxat, sed vere in coena vescentibus representari, distribui et exhiberi, symbolis adjectis ipsi rei minime nudis, secundum sacramentorum naturam. Ne vero diversitas formularum loquendi con- tentionem aliquam pariat, placuit, preter articulum qui est insertus confessioni nostree, mutuo consensu adscribere ar- ticulum Confessionis Saxonicarum ecclesiarum de coena Do- mini missee ad Tridentinum Concilium anno 1551, quem etiam pium agnoscimus et recipimus. Consensus Sendo- miriensis, p. 256, ed. Augusti, 1827. ]
+ Confessio Theol. Argent. et Basil.
HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 33
writings attributed too much to the outward sym- bols, 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 blood 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 virtue of His institution, according to the plain sound and sense of His words; and that not only Zuinglius and (Ecolampadius had so taught, but they also, in the public confessions of the Churches of the — upper Germany, and other writings, confessed it : so that the controversy was rather about the manner of the presence or absence, than about the presence or absence itself: all which Bu- cer’s associates confirm after him. He also adds, “that the magistrates in their churches had de- nounced very severe punishments to any that should deny the presence of the body and blood of Christ in the Lord’s supper.” Bucerus did also maintain this doctrine of the blessed sacra- ment in presence of the Landgrave of Hesse and Melancthon, confessing, “ that together with the sacrament we truly and substantially receive the c2
34 HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION.
body of Christ.”” Also, “ that the bread and wine are conferring signs, giving what they repre- sent, 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 blood 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 virtue whereby they brought salvation to the receivers: but that he maintained only a sacramental union betwixt the body of Christ and the bread, and betwixt His blood and the wine; and did teach, that the power of con- firming 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 Lord’s supper the true body and blood of Christ is given and received, and not the bread and wine only,
HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 35
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
[* Hoe vero se omnes fassos esse—scripta D. Lutheri et suorum nimium sacramentis tribuere, crassioremque unionem Christi cum pane statuere quam qualem S. Scrip- tura admittat.— Et quod scripserint intellectum verborum Christi hune esse: Hoc est corpus meum substantialiter et corporaliter, vel in pane adest corporaliter. Item, quod sine ulla declaratione sacramenta tradantur esse canales gratie divine. Talibus sermonibus de sacramentis papis- ticum errorem in ecclesiam rursum introduci et confirmari ; quo fascinati homines salutem sine ulla fide in externo opere sacramenti collocant. p. 151.—Suam [sc. Buceri et aliorum] fidem. et doctrinam de sacramento hance esse, quod sentiant in eo, ex institutione et opere Domini, vere (prout verba Domini sonant) verum suum corpus et verum sanguinem cum visibilibus signis pane et vino exhiberi, dari et sumi; prout hee antehac quoque in publicis ecclesiarum superioris Germanie confessionibus et in aliis scriptis ex- presse professi sumus. p. 652.— Universi et singuli suo nomine confessi sumus, nos prorsus idem in omnibus sentire et docere prout hee a Bucero recitata et declarata sint, nec cuiquam apud nos concessum iri, ut docent vel dicunt, tan- tum panem et vinum in s. coena adesse. Immo hance senten- tiam in quibusdam civitatibus inter blasphemias relatam, poenasque gravissimas in eos qui hee proponant constitutas esse. p. 654.
| Zuinglius]| non vellet simpliciter abesse a ccena Domi- num, aut inania corporis et sanguinis Domini omnino hic symbola dispensari: ut ipse apud me [ Bucerum]| confessus est.— Alibi diserte scribit, sacramenta auxilium opemque adferre fidei.—His [sacramentis| remissionem peccatorum,
36 HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION.
at large in the second tome of Luther’s 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
communionem sui, et vitam eternam adfert et exhibet [Christus]. p. 644. |
Sic enim scribit | colampadius] in novissimo dialogo suo: Dissidium, inquit, magis est de modo presenti vel absentiz, quam desipsa presentia vel absentia.—Bucer, S. A., p. 644.
Adesse, exhiberi et sumi corpus Christi et sanguinem cum pane et vino, idque vere et substantialiter. p. 665.
Credimus omnes et confitemur in sacra coena non solum panem et vinum adesse et exhiberi, sed cum his signis ex- hibitivis etiam corpus et sanguinem Domini. p. 659 et p. 692.
Concedunt sacramentali unione panem esse corpus Christi; hoe est, sentiunt porrecto pane, simul adesse et vere exhiberi corpus Christi. p. 665.—Lutherum nunquam aliud contendisse quam adesse et exhiberi corpus et san- guinem Domini in eucharistia, modum autem presentize non definivisse. Audivimus [inquit Lutherus]— quod vi- delicet credatis et doceatis in s. coena verum corpus et verum sanguinem Domini exhiberi et sumi, et non panem et vinum tantum ; et quod exhibitio et perceptio hee vere fiat et non imaginarie.—Cum itaque ita se res habeat, probe inter nos convenit, vosque agnoscimus et recipimus —ut fratres nostros in Domino. Jd. 655.
The whole subject is discussed at considerable length in Bucer’s Scripta Anglicana, p. 611-704; but all the ori- ginal passages cannot very easily be brought within the compass of these notes. |
HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 37
to King Charles [X.* 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 blood received by faith. Now we say that this is done in a spiritual man- ner; not that we belieye it to be a-fancy and imagination, instead of a truth and real effect, but rather because that mystery of our union with Christ is of so sublime a nature, that itis as much above the capacity of our senses as it is above the order of nature.” Item: “ We believe that inthe Lord’s supper God gives us really, that is, truly and efficaciously, whatever is represented by the — sacrament; with the signs we join the true pos- session 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 blood our drink. Therefore those fanatics that reject these signs and symbols are by us rejected; our blessed Saviour having said, ‘ This is my body,’ and ‘This cup is my blood.’”+ This confession hath been subscribed by the Church of Geneva.
[* a.p. 1561. ] + Art. xxxvi. [p. 221, ed. Augusti. Quamvis enim
38 HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION.
. 15. The envoys from the French Churches to Worms made a declaration concerning that mystery, much after the same manner: “ We confess,”’ say they, “ that in the Lord’s supper, besides the benefits of Christ, the substance also of the Son of Man, His true body, with His blood 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
nunc sit | Christus] in ccelis, ibidem etiam mansurus donec veniat mundum judicaturus; credimus tamen eum arcana et incomprehensibili Spiritus sui virtute nos nutrire et vivificare, sui corporis et sanguinis substantia per fidem apprehensa. Dicimus autem hoe spiritualiter fieri, non ut efficacie et veritatis loco, imaginationem aut cogitationem supponamus ; sed potius quoniam hoc mysterium nostre cum Christo coalitionis tam sublime est, ut omnes nostras sensus totumque adeo ordinem nature superet.— Credi- mus sicut antea dictum est; tam in ccena, quam in bap- tismo, Deum nobis reipsa, id est, vere et efficaciter donare quicquid ibi sacramentaliter figurat, ac proinde cum signis conjungimus veram possessionem ac fruitionem ejus rel, que ibi nobis affertur.—Dicimus itaque—panem illum et vinum illud quod nobis in cena datur, vere nobis fieri spirituale alimentum, quatenus videlicet, velut oculis nos- . tris spectandum prebent carnem Christi nostrum cibum esse, et ejusdem sanguinem nobis esse potum. Itaque fanaticos illos omnes rejicimus, qui hee signa et symbola repudiant, cum Christus Dominus noster pronuntiarit, Hoc est corpus meum ; et Hoe poculum est sanguis meus. |
HISTORY OF PR RET AT TEA TION. 39
and destitute, but (on God’s part, in regard of His offer and promise) always undoubtedly accom- panied with what they signify, whether they be offered to good or bad Christians.’’*
16. Now follows the Belgic Confession,f 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 incom- prehensible.” t
* Legat. Eccl. Gall. conf, 1557. [Fatemur in ccena Domini non omnia modo Christi beneficia, sed ipsam etiam - Filii Hominis substantiam, ipsam, inquam, veram carnem, quam Verbum in perpetuam unitatem persone assumsit, in- qua natus et passus, resurrexit et ascendit in ceelos, et verum illum sanguinem quem fudit pro nobis, non signifi- cari dumtaxat, aut symbolice, typice, vel figurate tanquam absentis memoriam proponi, sed vere ac certe repreesentari, exhiberi, et applicanda offerri adjunctis symbolis minime nudis, sed quee, quod ad Deum ipsum attinet, promitten- tem et offerentem semper rem ipsam vere ac certo conjunc- tam habeant, sive fidelibus, sive infidelibus proponuntur. Hospiniani Hist. Sacr. ii. p. 251, b. ed. 1602. ]
[+ First set forth by some Dutch pastors in 1561, and subsequently confirmed in various synods, 1571-1581. |
[t Art. xxxv. p. 351. ed. Oxf., or p. 194. ed. Aug. Omne id in nobis efficit [Christus] quodcumque sacris suis signis nobis repreesentat; quamvis modus ipse mentis nos- tre captum superet, nobisque sit incomprehensibilis, sicut operatio Spiritus Dei occulta et incomprehensibilis est. |
40 HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION.
17. The more ancient Confession of the Swit- zers, made by common consent at Basil,* and approved by all the Helvetic 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 blood of our Lord, and thereby are fed unto eternal life.” But, notwith- standing that, they affirm that this food is spi- ritual; yet they afterwards conclude, “ that by spiritual food they understand not imaginary, but the very body of Christ which was given for us. 7
|* There are three Helvetic confessions ; but the history of all of them is involved in considerable obscurity.
The 1st, sometimes called the Confession of Basil, some- times the Mulhausian Confession, because it was com- posed at Basil, by the Mulhausians, who were the earliest of the Swiss people to embrace the Reformation, was writ- ten by Oswald Myconius, the friend of Zuinglius, in 1532.
The 2d, drawn up at Basil 1536, and reprinted in 1581.
The 8d, which is far more comprehensive than the other two, and was subscribed by all the Helvetic Churches except those of Basil and Neufchatel, was published in 1566, and was chiefly drawn up by Bullinger, Myconius, and Gryneus, in the first instance, afterwards remodelled by Beza and Gualterus. |
[+ Conf. Helvet. prior. ch. xxii. p. 99. ed August. Asserimus quod panis et vinum ex institutione Do- mini symbola sint, quibus ab ipso Domino, per ecclesiz ministerium, vera corporis et sanguinis ejus communicatio,
HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 4]
18. And the later Confession of the Switzers, writ and printed in 1566,* affirms as expressly _ the true presence of Christ’s body in the eucha- rist; 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 blood.’ Therefore the faithful receive what Christ’s minister gives, and drink of the Lord’s cup; and at the same time, by the power of Christ working by the Holy Ghost, are fed by
non in periturum ventris cibum, sed in weterne vite ali- moniam exhibeatur.—And so also in the Mulhausian Con- fession, Art. vii.: In coena Domini—verum corpus et verus sanguis Christi per ministrum ecclesie preefiguratur et offertur. |
* Helvet. Conf. posterior. [p. 83. ed. Oxf., or 74. ed. Aug. Foris offertur a ministro panis, et audiuntur voces Domini: Accipite, edite, hoc est corpus meum ;—bibite e2: hoc omnes, hic est sanguis meus. Ergo accipiunt fideles quod datur a ministro Domini, et edunt panem Domini, ac bibunt de poculo Domini. Intus interim, opera Christi per Spiritum S., percipiunt etiam carnem et sanguinem Domini, et pascuntur his in vitam eternam.—p. 86, 77. Et tamen non est absens ecclesize sue celebranti coenam Dominus. Sol absens a nobis in ceelo, nihilominus effica- citer preesens est nobis ; quanto magis Sol justitize Christus, corpore in ccelis absens nobis, preesens est nobis, non cor- poraliter quidem, sed spiritualiter, per vivificam operati- onem; et ut ipse se nobis praesentem futurum exposuit in ultima ccena (Joan. xiv. xv. xvi.). Unde consequens est, nos non habere ccenam sine Christo. |
42 HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION.
the flesh and blood 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 pre- sent by his efficacy ; how much more shall Christ, the Sun of Righteousness, who is bodily in hea- ven, 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 (John xiv. xv. xvi.); whence it follows that we have no com- munion without Christ.” Now to this Confes- sion not only the reformed Switzers did subscribe, but also the Churches of Hungary, Pannonia or Transylvania, Poland, and Lithuania, which follow neither the Augustan nor Bohemian Confessions. It was subscribed also by the Churches of Scot- land and Geneva.
19. Lastly; let us hear the renowned decla- ration of the reformed Churches of Poland, made in the assembly of Thorun, 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 Sendomire, is confirmed by Scripture.* — Then afterwards, in another declaration, they ex- plain their own mind thus, saying: “1. That the sacrament consisteth of earthly things, as bread
[* P. 413. ed. Augusti. |
HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 43
and wine; and things heavenly, as the body and blood 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 ;_hea- venly things in a mystic, spiritual, and heavenly manner.’ 2. Hence they infer, “ that the bread and wine are, and are said to be with truth, the very body and blood of Christ, not substantially indeed, that is not corporally, but sacramentally and mystically, by virtue of the sacramental union, which consisteth not in a bare significa- tion or obligation only, but also in a real exhibi- tion and communication of both parts, earthly and heavenly, together at once, though in a dif- ferent manner.” 3. In that sense they affirm with the ancients, “ that the bread and wine are changed into the body and blood 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 signify, being efficacious instruments and most certain means whereby the body and blood of Christ, and so Christ himself | with all His benefits, is set forth and offered to all communicants, but conferred and given to true
44 HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION.
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 blood of Christ in the Lord’s supper, but only the corporal manner of His presence.” They believe “ a mys- tical union betwixt Christ and us, and that not imaginary, but most true, real, and efficacious.” 6. Thence they conclude, “ that not only the virtue, efficacy, operation, or benefits of Christ are communicated to us, but more especially the very substance of His body and blood, so that He abides in us and we in Him.’’*
* Declaratio Thoruniensis, [held at Thorun in 1645, with the hope of uniting the Roman Catholic, Reformed, and Lutheran Churches. The attempt, however, unhappily did not succeed. Art. De Sacra Cena, p. 430.—§ 2. Constat hoc sacramentum rebus terrenis, pane et vino; et cclestibus, corpore et sanguine Domini; que diverso quidem modo, utreeque tamen verissime, realissime ac preesentissime nobis exhibentur; nempe terrene modo naturali, corporali et terreno: ccelestes vero modo spirituali, mystico et ccelesti. —4 3. Hinc etiam res terrene, panis et vinum, vere sunt et dicuntur ipsum corpus et sanguis Christi, non quidem sub- stantialiter aut corporaliter, sed sacramentaliter et mystice, seu per et propter unionem sacramentalem; que non con- sistit in nuda significatione, neque tantum in obsignatione, sed etiam in conjuncta illa et simultanea rei terrenz et coelestis, quamvis diversemoda, exhibitione et communi- catione.
§ 4. Eodem sensu dixerunt veteres, et nos cum ipsis, panem et vinum in corpus et sanguinem mutari, non quidem
HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 45
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 style and mind of the ancient fathers, that no Catholic 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
ipsa substantia et natura, sed usu et officio, in quo sacra - heee symbola non tam id esse dicuntur, quod sensu percipi- tur; quam id quod vi promissionis in iis intuetur et acceptat fides.—§. 10. Nequaquam statuimus nuda, vacua, inania signa, sed potius id quod significant, simul exhibentia, tanquam certissima media et efficacia instrumenta per que corpus et sanguis Christi, adeoque Christus ipse, cum om- nibus suis beneficiis, singulis vescentibus exhibetur seu offertur, credentibus vero confertur, donatur, et ab ipsis in cibum anime salutarem et vivificarem acceptatur.
§. 11. Nequaquam etiam negamus veram corporis et sanguinis Christi in coena preesentiam, sed tantum localem et corporalem presentiz modum, et unionem cum elementis substantialem: ipsam vero nobiscum presentiam sancte credimus, et quidem non imaginariam, sed verissimam, realissimam et efficacissimam. ;
§. 12. Unde et patet, non solum virtutem, efficaciam,
46 HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION.
be the saving food of our souls.”* Also, in ano- ther place; item, ‘‘ that word cannot lie, neither can it mock us; and except one presumes to call God a deceiver, he 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 itself. Setting aside all absurdities, I do willingly admit all those terms that can most strongly express the true and substantial com- munication of the body and blood of Christ granted to the faithful with the symbols of the
operationem aut beneficia Christi nobis preesentari et com- municari, sed imprimis ipsam substantiam corporis et san- guinis Christi, seu ipsam illam victimam, que pro mundi vita data est, et in cruce mactata, ut per fidelem hujus vic- time communionem et cum Christo ipso unionem, conse~ quenter etiam meritorum et beneficiorum sacrificio ejus partorum participes simus, et sicut ipse in nobis, ita nos in ipso maneamus. |
* Comm. on 1 Cor. xi. 24. [Neque enim mortis tan- tum ac resurrectionis sue beneficium nobis offert Christus, sed corpus ipsum in quo passus est ac resurrexit. Concludo realiter (ut vulgo loquuntur), hoc est vere, nobis in ccena dari Christi corpus, ut sit animis nostris in cibum salutare. |
HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 47
Lord’s 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 sacra- ment is joined with the visible signs; 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 satisfy us that we understand that Christ in His holy supper gives us the true and proper substance of His body and blood; that, it being wholly ours, we may be made partakers of all His benefits and graces.”+ Again; “ the Son of God offers daily
* Instit. book iv. ch. 17. [§ 10. Nisi enim quis fal- lacem vocare Deum volet, inane ab ipso symbolum proponi nunquam dicere audeat. Itaque si per fractionem panis Dominus corporis sui participationem vere representat, minime dubium esse debet quin vere prestet atque exhi- beat.—Quod si verum est preberi nobis signum visibile, ad obsignandam invisibilis rei donationem, accepto corporis symbolo, non minus corpus etiam ipsum nobis dari certo confidamur.—§ 19. Ceterum his absurditatibus sublatis, quicquid ad exprimendam veram substantialemque corporis ac sanguinis Domini communicationem, que sub sacris coenee symbolis fidelibus exhibetur, facere potest, libenter recipio, atque ita ut non imaginatione dumtaxat aut mentis intelligentia percipere, sed ut re ipsa frui in alimentum vite eterne intelliguntur. |
+ Treatise of the Lord’s Supper. [Itaque fatendum est, si vera sit repreesentatio quam adhibet Deus in ccena, sub-
48 HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION.
_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 sub- stantial presence and communication of the body of Christ; but how, he undertakes not to deter- mine. “ If any one,’’* saith he, “ ask me con- cerning 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
stantiam interiorem sacramenti visibilibus signis conjunc- tam esse; et quemadmodum panis in manu distribuitur, ita corpus Christi, ut ejus participes simus, nobis communicari. Hoe certe etiamsi nihil aliud esset, nobis abunde satisfacere deberet, quum intelligimus Christum nobis in cena veram propriamque corporis et sanguinis sui substantiam [nobis | donare, ut pleno jure ipsum possideamus, et possidendo in omnem bonorum suorum societatem vocemur. Calvini Tract. Theol. p. 3. ed. 1667. |
* Instit. book iv. ch. 17. § 32. [Porro de modo si quis me interroget, fateri non pudebit, sublimius esse arcanum quam ut vel meo ingenio comprehendi, vel enar- rari verbis queat ; atque, ut apertius dicam, experior magis quam intelligam. Itaque veritatem Dei, in qua acquiescere tuto licet, hic sine controversia amplector. Pronuntiat ille carnem suam esse anime mee cibum, sanguinem esse potum, . Talibus alimentis animam illi meam pascendam offero. In sacra sua ccena jubet me, sub symbolis panis ac vini, corpus ac sanguinem suum sumere, manducare ac bibere: nihil dubito quin et ipse vere porrigat, et ego recipiam. | :
HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 49
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 blood 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 blood, 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 Calvin’s own words.*
21. I was the more willing to be long in tran- scribing these things at large, out of public con- fessions of Churches and the best of authors, that - it might the better appear how injuriously Pro- testant divines are calumniated by others unac- quainted with their opinions, as though by these words, spiritually and sacramentally, they did not acknowledge a true and well-understood real pre- sence and communication of the body and blood of Christ in the blessed sacrament; whereas, on the contrary, they do professedly own it in terms as express as any can be used.
[* See a still more remarkable confession of the real presence by Farellus, Calvin, and Viretus, subscribed by Bucer and Capito, in Calvin’s Epistole, p. 575, 588, ed. 1576.]
50 HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION.
CHAPTER III.
1. What the Papists do understand by Christ being spi- ritually 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. Havre 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 under- stands that same word. Now they make it to signify “ that Christ is not present in the sacra- ment 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, touched, nor moved, yet in respect of the species or accidents joined with Him, He may be said to be seen, touched, and moved; and so the accidents being moved, the body of Christ is truly moved accidentally, as the
HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 51
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 paten 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 touched 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
* Bellarminus de Eucharistia, i. 2. § 2.sq. [Non di- ‘eemus, corpus Christi in eucharistia esse sensibile, visibile, tangibile, extensum, licet tale sit in coelo. Non habet Christus in eucharistia modum existendi corporum, sed potius spirituum, cum sit totus in qualibet parte [ hostize ].— Quamvis corpus Christi in eucharistia per se non videatur, nec tangatur, nec moveatur ; tamen ratione specierum, sive accidentium, quibus conjunctum est, potest dici, videri, tangeri, moveri, &c.—Verba que significant motum loca- lem vere et proprie dicuntur de corpore Christi in eucha- ristia existente, ratione specierum, licet per accidens, non per se.—Ut motis speciebus, vere moveatur corpus Christi, quamvis per accidens ; quomodo anima nostra vere mutat locum, cum corpus mutat locum. Itaque vere et proprie di- cemus, Christi corpus in eucharistia attolli, deponi, deferri, collocari in altari vel in pixide, transferri a manu ad 0s, et ab ore ad stomachum.— Denique, in concilio Romano sub Nicolao II. compulsus est Berengarius confiteri, corpus sensualiter sacerdotum manibus tangi et frangi. |
52 HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION.
- souls or spirits could be present, as here Bellar- mine 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. Ber- nard,* ‘ 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 Christ’s body with more nicety than was fitting, he thereby foolishly overthrew all that he had wisely said before, de- nied 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 blood of Christ; therefore,” saith he, “ upon that account it is not safe to use too much that of St. Bernard, the body of Christ is not corporally in the sacra- ment, without adding presently the above-men- tioned explanation.”’*} How much do we comply
* St. Bern. Serm. in Festum 8. Martini. [p. 151. Eadem caro nobis, sed spiritualiter, utique non carnaliter exhibeatur. Ed. Col. Ag. 1641.]
[+ Itaque dicemus, Christum esse in eucharistia vere, realiter, substantialiter, ut concilium recte loquitur; sed
HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 53
with human 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 and 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 itself? As for us, we all openly profess with St. Bernard, that the presence of the body of Christ in the sacra- ment 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 inquire into the manner.
3. We believe a presence and union of Christ with our soul and body, which we know not how non dicemus corporaliter, id est, eo modo quo suapte natura existunt corpora, nec sensibiliter, mobiliter, &c. Immo contra dici posset esse spiritualiter, ut Bernardus dicit in Sermone de 8. Martino.—Tamen non videtur hee vox multum frequentanda, quia periculum esset, ne trahe- retur ab adversariis, non tam ad modum, quam ad ipsam naturam significandam: propter quod item periculum non
videtur valde usurpandum illud, non esse corporaliter, nisi addatur continuo explicatio. De Euch, i. 2.]
54 HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION,
. to call better than sacramental, that is, effected by eating; that while we eat and drink the conse- crated bread and wine, we eat and drink there- withal the body and blood of Christ, not in a corporal manner, but some other way, incompre- hensible, known only to God, which we call spi- ritual; 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 God’s Holy Spirit. We contrariwise confess, with the fathers, that this manner of presence is unaccountable and past finding out, not to be searched 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 dis- tance, 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 weak- ness 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
HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 55
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 sup- posed to precede the sacramental manducation), but more properly that whereby we believe those words of Christ, “ This is My body ;”’ which was St. Austin’s meaning when he said, “ Why dost thou prepare thy stomach and thy teeth? Believe, and thou hast eaten.”* For in this mystical eat- ing, by the wonderful power of the Holy Ghost, we do invisibly receive the substance of Christ’s body and blood, as much as if we should eat and drink’ both visibly.
5. The result of all this is, that the body and blood 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 blood of Christ are joined to the bread and wine, because that in the celebration of the holy eucharist the flesh is given together with the bread, and the blood 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.
* Aug. super Joh. tract. 25 [§ 12. Ut quid paras dentes et ventrem? Crede, et manducasti. |
56 HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION.
CHAPTER: Ly.
1. Of the change of the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ, which the Papists call transubstantia- tion. 2. Of God’s 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 Jorm of the oath by him appointed. The decretal of Innocent III. The assertions of the Jesuits. 8. Tran- substantiation a very monstrous thing.
1. Iris 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 blood 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 conse- quently of the wine into the blood) of Christ; for they know and acknowledge that in the sacra- ment, by virtue of the words and blessing of’ Christ, the condition, use, and office of the bread is wholly changed; that is, of common and ordi- nary, it becomes our mystical and sacramental food; whereby, as they affirm and believe, the
HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 57
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 sacra- mental one, whereby our ordinary is changed into mystic bread, and thereby designed and ap- pointed 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 God’s 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 con- tradictions. And though God’s almightiness were able in this mystery to destroy the substance of bread and wine, and essentially to change it into the body and blood of Christ, while the accidents
p2
58 HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION.
_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 inquire what He hath done.’’* For God will never own that praise of His omni- potency whereby His unchangeableness and His truth are impaired, and those things overthrown and destroyed 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 Christ’s body by virtue of His words, what hinders that the accidents of the bread are not also changed into the accidents of Christ’s 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
[* Non autem quia [ Deus] omnia potest facere, ideoque credendum est, illum [hoe vel illud] fecisse, etiam quod non fecerit; sed an fecerit requirendum. p. 319. ed. De la Barre, 1582.]
HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 59
His disciples a fantastic body, —such a visionary figment as Marcion believed,—but that very body which was given for us, without being deprived of that extension and other accidents of human bodies without which it could not have been crucified. Since the maintainers of transubstantia- tion grant that the body of Christ keeps its quan- tity 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 pre- sume 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
60 HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION.
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 controversy may be reduced to four heads :—1l. 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 repre- sented by the blessed elements, but also that His very body which was crucified, and His blood 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 itself, in this respect we own the union betwixt the body and blood 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
HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 61
quite abolished, and changed into the body and blood of our Lord, in such sort that the bare accidents of the elements do alone remain united with Christ’s body and blood. And we also deny that the elements still retain the nature of sacra- ments when not used according to divine institu- tion, that is, given by Christ’s 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 pre- sent only to the communicants. As for the fourth and last point, we do not say that in the Lord’s supper we receive only the benefits of Christ’s death and passion; but we join 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 xowwvia, the communion of the body of Christ; and the cup which we bless, the communion of His blood ;”* 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 cor- poral, 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 re- ceives unworthily (that is, with the mouth only,
* 1 Cor. x. 16.
62 HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION,
but not with a faithful heart) eats and drinks his ‘own damnation; so he that doth it worthily re- ceives his absolution and justification, that is, he that discerns, and then receives the Lord’s body as torn, and His blood as shed, for the redemption of the world. But that Christ (as the Papists affirm) should give His flesh and blood to be received with the mouth and ground with the teeth, so that not only the most wicked and infi- dels, 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 controversy, by applying to it all that hath been said,) it is not questioned whether the body of Christ be absent from the sacrament duly administered 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 itself it cannot be seen. Neither is it doubted or disputed whether the bread and wine, by the power of God and a supernatural virtue, 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
HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 63
institute sacraments in His Church, being able alone to endue them with virtue 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 blood 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 con- cerning the transubstantiation of the outward elements ; whether the substance of the bread be turned into the substance of Christ’s body, and the substance of the wine into the substance of His blood; or, as the Romish doctors describe their transubstantiation, whether the substance of bread and wine doth utterly perish, and the sub- stance of Christ’s body and blood 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 Re- deemer said truly, that that was His body which He gave in the appearance of bread; therefore it
64 HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION.
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 Christ’s body, and the whole substance of the wine into the substance of His blood; which change is fitly and properly called ¢ransubstan- tiation by the holy Catholic (Roman) Church.* Therefore, if any one shall say, that the substance of bread and wine remains with the body and blood 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 blood of. Christ, the only appearance and outward form of the bread and wine remaining, which conversion the Catho- lic (Roman) Church doth fitly call transubstantia- tion, let him be accursed.” t The pope, confirm-
* Cone, Trident. Sess. xiii.c. 4. [Quoniam autem Chris- tus Redemptor noster corpus suum, id quod sub specie panis offerebat, vere esse dixit; ideo persuasum semper in ecclesia Dei fuit, idque nune denuo sancta hee synodus de- clarat, per consecrationem panis et vini, conversionem fieri totius substantie panis in substantiam corporis Christi Domini nostri, et totius substantize vini in substantiam - sanguinis ejus; que conversio convenienter et proprie a sancta Catholica Ecclesia transubstantiatio est appellata. |
+ Ibid. can. ii. [Si quis dixerit in sacrosancto eucha- ristiz sacramento remanere substantiam panis et vini una cum corpore et’sanguine Domini nostri Jesu Christi, nega-
HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 65
ing 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 blood, 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 blood of Christ ; which conversion
the (Roman) Catholic Church calls transubstan- — tiation.—I fully embrace all things defined, de- clared, and delivered by the holy Council of Trent ; and withal I do reject, condemn, and ac- curse all things by it accursed, condemned, or rejected. I do confidently believe that this faith, which I now willingly profess, is the true Catholic faith, without the which it is impossible to be saved; and I do promise, vow, and swear, that I
veritque mirabilem illam et singularem conversionem totius substantiz panis in corpus, et totius substantie vini in sanguinem, manentibus dumtaxat speciebus panis et vini, quam quidem conversionem Catholica Ecclesia aptissime transubstantiationem appellat, anathema sit. |
66 HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION.
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
* Bulla Pii Pape IV. confir. Conc. Trident. [in Hard. Concilia, x. p. 199. Ego N. firma fide credo et profiteor omnia et singula que continentur in symbolo fidei, quo sancta Romana Ecclesia utitur; videlicet: Credo in unum Deum, &c.—Profiteor pariter in missa offerri Deo verum, proprium et propitiatorium sacrificium pro vivis et defunc- tis; atque in sanctissimo eucharistize sacramento esse vere, realiter, et substantialiter corpus et sanguinem, una cum anima et divinitate Domini nostri Jesu Christi, fierique conversionem totius substantive viniin sanguinem; quam conversionem Catholica Ecclesia transubstantiationem ap- pellat.— Cetera item omnia a sacris canonibus et cecume- nicis conciliis, ac preecipue a sacrosancta Tridentina synodo tradita, definita, et declarata, indubitanter recipio atque profiteor; simulque contraria omnia atque hereses quas- cumque ab Ecclesia damnatas, rejectas et anathematizatas, ego pariter damno, rejicio et anathematizo. Hanc veram Catholicam fidem, extra quam nemo salvus esse potest, quam in presenti sponte profiteor et veraciter teneo, eam- dem integram usque ad extremum vite spiritum constan-: tissime, Deo adjuvante, retinere et confiteri, atque a meis subditis, vel illis quorum cura ad me in munere meo spec- tabit, teneri, doceri, et preedicari, quantum in me erit cura- turum, ego idem N. spondeo, voveo ac juro. Sic me Deus adjuvet et hee sancta Dei evangelia. |
HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 67
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. Peter’s church, the thirteenth of November, in the year of our Lord 1564, the fifth of our pontificate.”* Which is as much as to say, that he had received this his Roman faith from Pope Innocent III., who first decided and imposed this doctrine of the transubstantiation of the bread and wine into the body and blood 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 pro- pounded to the assembly at Lateran in 1215, and proclaimed afterwards by his nephew Pope Gre- _ gory IX.: 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 blood of Christ are truly contained under the accidents of bread and wine, which are transub- stantiated, the bread into the body, and the wine
[* Ib. p. 201. Nulli ergo omnium hominum liceat hanc paginam nostre voluntatis et mandati infringere, vel ei ausu temerario contraire. Si quis autem hoe attentare presumserit, indignationem omnipotentis Dei ac beatorum Petri et Pauli apostolorum ejus se noverit incursurum. Datum Rome apud sanctum Petrum, anno incarnationis 1564, idibus Novembris, pontificatus nostri anno quinto. |
68 HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION.
_Iinto the blood.” * 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 tran- substantiation, 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) “ the many testi- monies of the fathers concerning conversion, mu- tation, 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 blood of Christ.”+ Item: “ As David changed his
* Decret. de sum. Trin. et fide Cathol. tit. i. [Harduin, vii. 15. Firmiter credimus et simpliciter confitemur, quod unus solus est verus Deus.—Corpus et sanguis in sacra- mento altaris sub speciebus panis et vini veraciter con- tinentur, transubstantiatis pane in corpus, et vino in san- guinem. |
[+ Commentarii in Evangelia] tom. ix. tract. 16. [p. | 108. Necessario autem statuenda est transubstantiatio : tum ut excludatur panis et vini substantia, quam Lutherus et aliqui admiserunt ; tum ut verba Domini vera invenian- tur, ut deducemus; tum ut infinita patrum testimonia de
HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 69
countenance before Abimelech, and then received the shewbread, that was a certain type of the eucharist, so Christ in the sacrament feigns him- self to be bread, and yet is not bread, though he seems so to be most visibly.”* Secondly, of Car- dinal Francis Tolet: “ The words of consecration are efficacious instruments whereby to transub- stantiate 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 Catholic Church ever taught, that by the conversion of the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ (which
conversione, commutatione, transformatione, sanctifica- tione, consecratione, benedictione, (tot enim fere nominibus appellata ab illis transubstantiatio est) firma sint, et non inania vel futilia; tum denique ut solidam corporis et san- guinis Christi preesentiam absque ullo loci motu tueri pos- sumus. |
* Tom. xvi. disp. iii. ini. Ep. S. Petri [2. p.67. Nam ut David coram Abimelec vultum suum mutavit, et tunc ac- cepit panes propositionis, qui erant certus eucharistie typus, ita Christus in sacramento simulat se panem esse, qui pro- prie panis non est, etsi esse maxime videatur. |
+ Instr. Sacerd. 1. ii. c. xxvii. [p. 469, ed. 1603. Sunt enim illa verba, Hoc est enim corpus meum, ita efficacia, ut sint instrumenta transubstantiandi substantiam panis in
70 HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION.
_conversion hath been in after-times called tran- substantiation), it comes to pass that the body and blood 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 Latin 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
Christi verum corpus ; ita ut post prolationem, in illa hostia non sit panis ulla substantia, sed sola accidentia ipsius, scilicet, quantitas, cum colore, et sapore, odore, et primis qualitatibus, que dicuntur species panis, sub quibus est verum corpus Christi presens. |
* Controversize ; de Euchar. iii. ch. xi. [Catholica Ec- clesia semper docuit per conversionem substantie panis et vini in corpus et sanguinem Domini, que conversio post- modum transubstantiatio appellata est, fieri ut corpus et sanguis Domini vere ac realiter in sacramento eucharistia presentia sint. |
+ Defensio Bellarmini, lib. iii. ¢. ix.
{ Sylv. Prieras sub initio. [See Lutheri Op. i. 62 sq. and Brown’s Fasciculus, ii. 880.]
HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 71
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 stupendous 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 pope’s authority in the councils of Lateran and Trent; as I shall prove in the following chapters.
72 HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION.
CHAPTER V.
That neither the word nor name of transubstantiation, nor the doctrine or the thing itself, 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 there- fore not of faith.
1. Tue word transubstantiation is so far from being found either in the sacred records or in the monuments of the ancient fathers, that the main- tainers 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 itself without the word, that the doctrine without the expression, cannot be found in Scripture, is ingenuously ac- knowledged by the most learned schoolmen, Sco- tus, Durandus, Biel, Cameracensis, Cajetan, and
* See ch. i. art. 6, ch. iii. art. 4, ch. iv. art. 5, and this ch, art. 5. ~
HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 73
many more, who, finding it not brought in by the pope’s authority, and received in the Roman Church, till 1200 years after Christ, yet endea- voured to defend it by other arguments.
3. Scotus confessed, ‘ 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). Duran- dus said, * that the word is found, but that by it the manner they contend for cannot be proved.” t
* Scotus in iv, Sentent. d. xi. q. 3. [In opinione secunda (sc, non manere panem, nec converti, sed desinere per anni- hilationem, &c.) potest argui—quia ista transubstantiatio non videtur magis probari ex Scriptura, quam panem non manere, imo minus.—Principaliter autem videtur movere, quod de sacramentis tenendum est, sicut tenet sancta Romana Ecclesia; sicut habetur Evira. De hereticis, ad abolendam. Nunc autem ipsa tenet panem transubstan- tiariin corpus et vinum in sanguinem.—Et si queeras quare voluit Ecclesia eligere istum intellectum ita difficilem hujus articuli, cum verba Scripture possent salvari secundum intellectum facilem, et veriorem secundum apparentiam de hoc articulo ; dico, quod eo Spiritu exposite sunt Scripture quo condite. Et ita supponendum est, quod Ecclesia Ca- tholica eo Spiritu exposuit, quo tradita est nobis fides. |
+ Durand. ut supra. [Verbum audiri, sed ex verbo modum hune sciri negavit Durandus. Orig. Lat. I cannot find any sentence like this in Durandus ; but it is unques- tionable that it contains his sentiments: as for instance ; Satis etiam durum est, et derogare videtur immensitati divine potenti, dicere quod Deus non possit facere corpus
E
74 HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION.
» Biel affirms, “ that it is no where found in cano- nical 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
suum esse in sacramento per alium modum quam per conversionem substantiz panis in ipsum, maxime cum ponendo conversionem fieri, difficillimum est videre qua- liter ipsa faciat aliquid ad hoe quod corpus Christi sit in sacramento.— And, having explained his own opinion, which certainly is not the modern Romanist, and for which he has drawn upon himself the censure of Cajetan and other scholastic commentators, he says: Si autem iste modus esset verus de facto multe dubitationes que occur- runt circa hoc sacramentum (tenendo quod substantia panis non remaneat) essent solute.—Sed quia hic modus non debet teneri de facto, cum Ecclesia determinaverit opposi- tum, quee non preesumitur errare in talibus, ideo tenendo de facto aliam partem, respondendum ad argumenta que sunt in contrarium. In Sentent. lib. iv. dist. xi. q. 1.]
* Biel in Can. missa, lect. 40. [f. 94. b. ed. Basil. 1515. Circa quod notandum, quod quamvis expresse tradatur in Scriptura, quod corpus Christi veraciter sub speciebus panis continetur, et a fidelibus sumitur, ut patuit lectione pre- cedente ; tamen quomodo ibi sit Christi corpus, an per con- versionem alicujus in ipsum, an sine conversione incipiat esse corpus Christi cum pane, manentibus substantia et ac- cidentibus, non invenitur expressum in canone Biblie. |
+ Occam in iv. Sent. q.6. [Primus modus patet, quia hoc potest fieri per simplicem coexistentiam veri corporis Christi substantize panis.— Primus modus potest teneri, quia non repugnat rationi nec alicui auctoritati Biblia, et est rationabilior et facilior ad tenendum inter omnes modos. |
HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 75
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
[* Petr. de Alliaco Card.] Cam. in iv. d. xi. q. 6. [f. 265. Secunda opinio fuit, quod substantia panis non remanet panis, nec tamen desinit esse simpliciter, sed reducitur in materiam per se stantem vel aliam formam recipientem, et hoe sive in eodem loco, sive in alio, et corpus Christi co- existit accidentibus panis ; et heec opinio non potest repro- bari, nec per evidentem rationem, nec per auctoritatem Scripture cognitam. |
+ [Fisher] contra Lutherum, de Capt. Babyl. c.i. [ Bp. Fisher can hardly be reckoned among the number of those who acknowledged that transubstantiation cannot be found in the Scriptures. He is, however, like others of the same time, not very consistent with himself. In his work Contra Captivitatem Babylonicam, after arguing, justly enough, that the Scriptures alone are not a sufficient rule of inter- pretation to themselves, he says, in ch. x.: Ceterum quia Lutherus hanc controversiam introduxerat, ex eo justissima nobis datur occasio jam prestandi, quod ante pollicebamur, nimirum, ostendendi quod intellectus evangelii certius ha- beri potest ex interpretatione patrum, et usu nobis ab eisdem tradito, quam ex nudis ipsius evangelii verbis. Simulque patebit, non posse ex ipso evangelio probari missam esse promissionem. Sed prius illud aggrediamur et doceamur, quod citra patrum interpretationem et usum nobis ab eis- dem traditum, nemo probabit ex ipsis nudis evangelii
76 HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION,.
» Gospel to make us understand in a proper sense these words, ‘ This is My body.’* Nay, that pre- sence 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,
verbis sacerdotem quempiam his temporibus veram Christi carnem et sanguinem consecrare.
But then again, in ch. iv., he says: Sed et eucharistiam panem posse vocari, communis usus loquendi manifestat, Nam quum ovum, de quo supra disseruimus, in carnem et substantiam pulli versum fuerit, numquid non adhuc, pro communi loquendi more, vocatur ovum? et tamen haud- quaquam ovum est, sed vere pullus; et propterea priorem ovi nomenclaturam retinet, quia specie tenus referat ovum. Atque ita pariter et hoc sacramentum, pro communi usu loquendi, potest adhuc panis dici, panisque vocabulum adhue retinet in Scripturis, quaamquam omnino desierit ipsa panis substantie. This explanation is adopted by Cardi- nal Hosius and some others. |
* Cajetan in Tho. p. iii. q. 75. art.i. [Sciendum est, ex auctoritate sacree Scripture de existentia corporis Christi in sacramento eucharistiz nihil aliud haberi expresse, nisi verbum Salvatoris dicentis, Hoc est corpus meum. |
+ Ibid. q. 45. art. 14. [The reference is the same also in the Latin copy, but is manifestly incorrect, since there is no art. 14, nor does the passage referred to occur any where in that chapter. In quest. lxxy. art. 4. ad fin., Cajetan, after arguing against the explanation of the doc- trine of transubstantiation as given by Durandus (that is, a union of essences), concludes: Constat quod transubstan- tiatio importat aliud quam unionem materiarum, quam
HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 77
“that though he might bring Scripture clear enough, to his thinking, to prove transubstantia- tion by, to an easy man, yet still it would be doubtful whether he had done it to purpose, be- cause 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 Lord’s body is given, as His blood 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 under- stand the meaning of Christ, explains it thus: finxit Durandus fieri sub forma corporis Christi. Sonat namque apud omnes fideles mutationem quandam panis in corpus Christi ineffabilem.— Unde prestat, cum universali Ecclesia, in captivitatem redigere intellectum in obsequium Christi, quam, contra Ambrosii precepta, nature vires, ordinem aut potentiam in hoc mysterio querere. |
* Bell. de Euch. 1. iii. c. 28. [Dicit (Scotus in iv. dist. xi. q. 3.) non extare locum ullum Scripture tam expressum, ut sine Ecclesiz declaratione evidenter cogat transubstantiationem admittere. Atque id non est omnino improbabile. Nam etiamsi Scriptura, quam nos supra ad- duximus, videatur nobis tam clara, ut possit cogere homi- hem non protervum; tamen an ita sit merito dubitari potest, cum homines doctissimi et acutissimi, quam im- primis Scotus fuit, contrarium sentiant. |
78 HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION.
‘“*The bread which we break is the xowvwvia, 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 reached to them, there was no need of any proof, the receivers’ senses suffi- ciently convinced 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 itself. And though by the divine institution, and the explication of the apostle, every faithful com- municant may be as certainly assured that he receives the Lord’s 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. There- fore, 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
[* This is Thorndike’s view also. See his Epilogue to the Tragedy of the Church of England, book ii. p. 5.]
HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 79
true but by that conversion which the Church of Rome calls ¢ransubstantiation, 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; secondly, it would be inconsistent with the Divine benediction, which preserves things in their proper being; thirdly, it would be contrary to the true nature of a sacra- ment, which always consisteth of two parts; and lastly, it would in some manner destroy the true substance of the body and blood 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 falsely 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
80 HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION.
_their father’s lands and inheritance by deeds and
instruments signed and delivered for that pur- pose.
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 Catholic Church, do all clearly, constantly, and unanimously conspire in this, that the presence of the body of Christ in the sacrament is only mystic 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. 1 shall begin with that holy and ancient doctor, Justin Martyr,* who is one of the first after the apostles’ times whose undoubted writ- ings 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
* ap. 144, -
HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 81
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 blood are fed, and we are taught that it is the body and blood of Jesus Christ.” Therefore the substance of the bread remains, and remains corruptible food, even after the con- secration; 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 Irenzeus, bishop, much about
* Apologia ad Antoninum, prope finem. [p. 96. ed. Thirlby. 08 cuvreAdoavtos tas ebxas Kad Thy ebxapiorriay, was 6 mapav Aadbs erevpnuel A€ywr, Auhy.—edxapiorhoavros 5& Tod mpo- eor@tos, Kal emevpnuhoavtos mayTds Tov Aaod, of KarAotvuevor map’ jpiv Sidkova Siddaow Exdorm tov wapdyvTwy metadraPelv ard ebxa- giorndevtos &prov Kal otvov Kal baros, Kal Tois ov magovaw amope- gover’ Kal } Tpoph airy KaArEiTaL Tap july edxapioria.— ov yap ws Kowdv tiprorv, ove Kowdy réua, TadTa AauBdvouer.— ek Ts [sc. ed- xapiobelons tpopijs| aiua Kal odpkes Kara peraBorAdy tpépoyvta npaey, éxelvov Tod capkoroinbértos *Inood Kal odpka Kal alua éb- 5dxOnuev elvan. |
E 2
82 HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION.
,the same time :* “ The bread which is from the earth is no more common bread after the invoca- tion 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 re- moved. Again; “ As the grain of wheat falling in the ground and dying, riseth again much in- creased, and then receiving the word of God becomes the eucharist, which is the body and blood. 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 blood also, and that bread which is a creature and also His body: and so,
* Aad. 160,
+ Lib. iv. cont. Heeres. c. 34. [iv. 18. § 5. ds yap amd ys &ptos mpotAauBayduevos Thy ExkAnow Tov Ocod ovKéeri Kowds &pros éotiv, GAN edxagiotia, ék Bio mpayudtwy cuveotynkvia ém- yelou Te kal ovpavtou. |
{ Lib. v. c. 2. [al Svmep tpdmov 7d EAov Tod a&uméAou KALWEY eis THY Yay TE idl@ Kaip@ exaproddpyce, kal 6 KdKKOS TOD citov meow eis Thy yhv Kal Siadvbels moAAoords eyépOn, Sid Tod TVEVUATOS TOV Oeov, TOU cuvexovTos TH mdvTa, emeita SE Sid THs coplas Tod Oeod eis xpiow eAOdvTa avOpanwy, kal meocAauBaydueva Tov Adyov Tod Ocod evxapioTia yiverou, Smep éo7 cGua Kal aiua Tod Xpiorod, oltws Kal TA Hucrepa oduatra ef adris tpeddueva, Kad
TeOevra eis THY yh Kor SiaduvdevTa ev ath, dvarthrera ev 7G idip Kaip@. | ‘
HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. §3
when the bread and the cup are blessed by God’s word, they become the eucharist of the body and blood of Christ, and from them our bodies receive nourishment and increase.”* Now, that our flesh is fed and increased by the natural body of Christ, cannot be said without great impiety by them- selves, that hold transubstantiation: for naturally nothing nourisheth our bodies but what is made flesh and blood 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 blood of Christ, yield nourishment and increase to our bodies by their earthly nature, in such sort that by virtue also of the heavenly and spiritual food which the faithful receive by means of the material, our bodies are fitted for a blessed resur- rection to immortal glory.
9. Tertullian, who flourished about the two hundredth year after Christ, when as yet he was Catholic, and acted by a pious zeal, wrote against
* Ibid. [ered méan aitod éopér, kad did THs KTloews Tpe- pueda, thy St nrlow quiv abrds mapéxer, Toy HrLov abrod dvaréaA- Awy Kal Bpéxwy, rades Botarcra. 7d amd Tis Ktloews woThpior, alua BWrov apmordynoer, e& 05 Td juérepov Seder alua, kal tov ard THs KTi- gews Uprov, Biov cGua SiaBeBardoato, ad’ ob TA jucrepa avger od- para. drére obv Kal Td KeKpayevoy morhpiov, Kad 5 yeyovs pros emidéxera: Tov Ad-yov Tod Ocod Kal yiverar | edxapioria cHua Xpic- TOU, ek TobTwy St avter Kol cuvlotatar H THs capKds judy ind- orTacts. |
84, HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION.
Marcion the heretic, who, amongst his other im- pious opinions, taught that Christ had not taken of the virgin Mary the very nature and substance of a human body, but only the outward forms and appearances: out of which fountain the Romish transubstantiators seem to have drawn their doc- trine of accidents, abstracted from their subject, hanging in the air, that is, subsisting on nothing. Tertullian, disputing against this wicked heresy, draws an argument from the sacrament of the eucharist to prove that Christ had not a fantastic 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 mere appearance, an imaginary phantasm, is not capable of a figure.”* Each part of this argument is true, and contains a necessary conclusion. For, first,
* Contra Marcion, l. iv. c. 40. [Professus itaque se con- cupiscentia coneupisse edere pascha, ut suum (indignum . enim ut quid alienum concupisceret Deus), acceptum panem et distributum discipulis corpus suum illum fecit, Hoc est corpus meum dicendo ; id est, figura corporis mei. Figura autem non fuisset, nisi veritatis esset corpus. Ceterum vacua res, quéd est phantasma, figuram capere non posset. |
HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 85
the bread must remain bread, otherwise Marcion would have returned the argument against Ter- tullian, saying, as the transubstantiators, it was not bread, but merely the accidents of bread, which seemed to be bread. Secondly, 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 virtue, which in the bread is earthly, but in the body is heavenly. Lastly, the reality of the body is proved by that of its figure; and so if you deny the sub- stance of the bread (as the papists do), you thereby destroy the truth and reality 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 Mar- cionites) falsely hold, had neither flesh nor blood, of what manner of flesh, of what body, of what blood, did He give the signs and images when He gave the bread and wine?’’t If they be the signs and representations of the body and blood of Christ, though they prove the truth of His body
* A.D. 220.
+ Dialogus contra Marcionitas. [lect. iv. p. 116. ed. Westenii, 1674. «i & ds obrot gacw, &oapkos Kab tvaimos Fy, notas capkds 7} tTlvos odpmaros i mwolov aluaros ecixdvas didovs, uptov Te Ka) morhpiov everérdcero Tois uadnrais; This treatise is gene- rally considered spurious. |
.
86 HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION.
and blood, yet they, being signs, cannot be what they signify; and they not being what they repre- sent, the groundless contrivance of transubstantia- tion is overthrown. Also upon Leviticus he doth expressly oppose it thus: “ Acknowledge ye that they are figures, and therefore spiritual, not car- nal; examine and understand what is said; other- wise, 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 fiesh and drink My blood, the letter will kill you.’* Therefore as much as these words belong to the eating and drinking of Christ’s body and blood, 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 typic and mystical body of Christ; for the sacrament consisteth of both.
* Homil. 7. in Levit. [§ 5. Agnoscite quia figure sunt, qu in divinis voluminibus scripta sunt [1 Cor. xiv. 15], et ideo tanquam spirituales et non tanquam carnales exa- minate, et intelligite que dicuntur. Si enim quasi carnales ista suscipitis, ledunt vos et non alunt.—Est et in Novo Testamento litera que occidit eum qui non spiritualiter que dicuntur adverterit. Si enim secundum literam sequaris hoc ipsum quod dictum est, nist manducaveritis carnem meam et biberitis sanguinem meum, occidit hee
litera. |
HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 87
«“ That food,” saith he, “ which is sanctified by the word of God and prayer, as far as it is mate- rial, descends into the belly, and is cast out into the draught.”’** This he saith of the typic, 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 un- derstand his natural body by what Origen calls his material and sacramental body, which no man in his wits can understand of mere accidents.
11. St. Cyprian, bishop of Carthage, a glori- ous martyr of Christ, wrote a famous epistle to Ceecilius concerning the sacred chalice in the Lord’s supper, whereof this is the sum: “ Let that cup which is offered to the people in commemora- tion of Christ be mixed with wine” (against the opinion of the Aquarii, who were for water only) ; **for it cannot represent the blood of Christ when there is no wine in the cup; because the blood of Christ is expressed by the wine, as the faithful are understood by the water.”{ But the patrons
* Matt. xv. (15. ef 3 wav 7d ciomopevduevor eis 7d ordpa els KotAlay xwpet Kal eis apedpava éxBdAdAcTaL, Kal Td G&yraCsuevor Bp&po: dia Adyou Ocod Kad évreviews, nat’ ard uty 7d SAuKdy eis Thy Koirlav xwpel kat eis dpedgQGva éxBddAdAcrau.] Origen is unjustly numbered, by reason of these words, among the heretics called Stercoraniste.
+ A.D. 250.
} Lib. ii. ep. 3. sive 63. edit. Pamel. [Calix quiin com- memorationem ejus offertur mixtus vino offeratur. Nam
88 HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION,.
. 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 blood 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 blood, the wine being reduced to nothing (that is, to a mere 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 blood. 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 quickening food which the faithful get from the body and blood of Christ, and the mutual union of the whole people joined 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
cum dicat Christus, Ego sum vitis vera, sanguis Christi non aqua est utique, sed vinum. Nec potest videri sanguis: ejus, quo redempti et vivificati sumus, esse in calice, quando vinum desit calici quo Christi sanguis ostenditur.—Quando autem in calice vino aqua miscetur, Christo populus ad- unatur, et credentium plebs ei, &c. |
* A.D. 8265,
HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 89
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 appre- hended: “ 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 blood, let us believe these things to be the pledges and em- blems 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 litile, of the body of Christ? or who can believe that the Nicene fathers would call His body and blood symbols in a proper sense, when nothing can be an image or a sign of itself? And therefore, though we are
* In Actis ibid. a Gelasio. Cyzic. conscript. [ch. 30. Hard. Concil. i. 427. én) rijs Oelas tpamé(ns médw ndvtadda Hh TE TpoKkemevy Upty kal TG wornpl tamewas mporéxwmev’ GAN ipaocavres juav Thy didvow wiorer vohswuev KeioOa em ris iepas exelyns tparé(ns Tov duvdv Tod @cod Tov alpovra Thy duaptlay Tod ndopov, &0irws brd Tay lepéwy Ovduevov. Kad Td Titov avTod Tae Kal aiua dAndas AauBdvortas jas morevew Tata elvar Td THs huetépas dvarrdcews obuBora. 81d. rodTo yap obre TOAD AauBdvouer, GAN oAlyov, va yaepev Sr. od« els TAnoLOVhy, GAN eis Gyiaopdr. ]
90 HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION.
. 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 Catholic faith, acknow- ledgeth 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 cor- poral 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 shewn 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 eter-
* A.D. 330.
HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 91
nal life.’* Cardinal Perront 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 nobody ever did before him, there being no reason for it.
14. Cyril, bishop of Jerusalem, of the same age with St. Athanasius, treating of the chrism wherewith they then anointed those that were baptised, speaks thus: ‘ Take heed thou dost not think that this is a mere ointment only: for as the bread of the eucharist, after the invocation of the Holy Ghost, is no longer ordinary bread, but is the body of Christ, so this holy ointment is no longer a bare common ointment after it is conse- crated, but is the gift or grace of Christ, which, | by His divine nature, and the coming of the Holy
* In illud Evangelii, Quicunque dixerit verbum, &c. { Matt. xii. 32. 1d mvedua mpds 7d Kara odpka diéoretrer, Iva wh pedvov Td patvduevov, GAAG Kal rd adparov abTod moreboayres ud- Owow, re nad &AEyet odk Cort CapKiKd, GAAL vevpaTiKd. méooLs yap Hpke To oGua mpds Bpdow, iva Kal Tod Kécpuov TavTds TodTO Tpody yentat; GAAG 81a Todo Tis eis obpavods SiaBdoews euynudvevoe Tod viod Tod avOpdrov, iva Tis cwuarichs evvolas adTovs &pednton Kat Aourdy Thy eipnuévnv cdpxa Bpdow tvwler opdviov, kad mvev- Karichy tpophy nap’ abrod didouévnv uddwow. & yap AcAdANKA, bnoly, duiy mvedpd ears Kad (wh lov TG cimeiv, 7d wey deKviuevor Kat didduevoy ixtp Tod Kécuov d00hceTa tpoph, ds mvevuarinas év éxdore tabrny dvadldocbau, Kad yiverOar maior pudaxrhpiov eis dvd- oracw (wis aiwviov.—Vol. i. p. 979. ed. Paris, sae
+ De Euch. 1. ii. ¢, 1. art. 10.
¢ A.D. 350.
92 HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION.
Ghost, is made efficacious; so that the body is anointed with the ointment, but the soul is sanc- tified by the holy and vivifying Spirit.”* Can any thing more clear be said? Either the ointment 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 blood of Christ. Therefore as the oint- ment retains still its substance, and yet is not called a mere or common ointment, but the cha- rism, 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 blood of Christ. “* Under the type of bread,” saith he, “ the body is given thee, and the blood under the type of the wine.”+ This, Grodeciust doth captiously and un-
* Cateches. [xxi. Myst. i11.§ 3. Gar’ dpa ph brovonons éxeivo Td upoy Wirdy elvar Bomep yap 6 UpTos THs evXapioTias weTa Thy éxikAnow Tod aylov mvetuaTos, ovK ert &ptos Artds, GAAA Toa Xpio Tov ob rw kad Td &ytov ToDTO pov odK Eri WiAdy, OVS ws By etrot Tis Kowdy pet emlkAnow, GAAG Xpicrod xdpiowa Kal mveduaros aylov mapovolg Tis avTod OedrnTos evepyntiKdy ywduevov.—kal TE Bev pavouere pipy 7) goua xpletat, THE SE aryl Kat (worog mvev- pare} Wuxh ayid eran. |
+ Catech. Myst. iv. “Thy bodily palate,” saith he, ‘“‘ tasteth one thing there, and thy faith another.” [§ 3. év tim@ yap &prov didoral cor Td c&pua, Kad ev rUm@ olvov SidoTal go. Td aiua—§ 6. wh ad Tis yedoews Kplyns Td mparypya, GAN dard ris mlorews.— Compare also § 9. |
[t In the edition of 1608, Paris.]
HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 93
faithfully interpret under the appearances of bread and wine: for those mere appearances, or acci- dents subsisting without a subject, never so much as entered 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 blood of Christ,”* which he calls the bread of the eucharist after the consecration.t 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 itself, no more than a man can be his own son or father. There be also prayers in that liturgy, “ that the bread may be- come 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
* a.p. 360. [Qui proposuimus typum corporis et san- guinis Christi tuiadoramus. Anaphora D. Basilii, ex cod. Syrica lingua scripto trad. per And. Masium, p. 243. ed. 1659.—xpocbevres Ta Gytitura Tod aylov cdéuaros Kal aluaros Tod Xeurod cov. Goar’s Rituale Grec. p. 168. |
+ De Sancto Spiritu. [ch, xxvii. 7d rijs erucaAfoews ph- para én TH avadelte: Tod Uprov, Tis edxapiorias Kal Tod wornplov Tis évdoylas tis Tay aylwv eyypadws jpiv Karadéroirev; The genuineness of this treatise is questioned: Erasmus rejects it; others admit it. ]
[t Effice panem istum corpus gloriosum Domini Dei nostri Jesu Christi, corpus celeste, corpus vite efficiens,
94 HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION.
, 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 with- out faith Christ is never eaten, as is gathered from the same father.*
16. St. Gregory Nyssen,t 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 layman) 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 | itself, yet blest by a heavenly grace, renews the
corpus preciosum in expiationem culparum et remissionem peccatorum, vitamque eternam iis qui accipiunt. p. 244. | * De Baptismo [i. 3. Considered spurious by some critics]. + A.D. 370.
HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 95
man, working a spiritual regeneration in him.” * Now let the assertors of transubstantiation main- tain 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 conse- quence 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 baptised or consecrated,
* Orat. in baptismum Christi. [Opera, iii. p. 370. ed. Paris, 1638. émel xal 7d Ovoiaorhpiov TodTo Td Eyov, 6 map- eoTiKamev Aidos éotl Kata Thy plow Kowds ovdiv diapépwy Tav tAAwy TAaKady at Tods Tolxous judy oiKodomodat.—eme) 5é Kabepaben TH TOU Ocod Oeparela nad Thy eddoylay edékaro, Zor: Tpdmela ayia, Ovoiacrhpiov &xpavtov.—6s &pros wdAw Upros ear réws kowds, BAN Stay abtoy Td) wvoThpiov lepoupyhon, caua Xpiorrod Aéyeral re Kal ylverar.—% airy 5& Tod Adyou Sivauis Kad Tov iepéa more? ceuvdy Kal tTiuov, TH Kawdrnt. THs edAoylas THs mpds Tovs TOAAOds Kowws- THTOS Xwpi(suevov. KOs yap Kal mpony eis dwdpxwv TV TOAAGY Kat Tod Shuov, GOpdov amodelxvuTa Kabyyeudy, mpdedoos, d:ddoKaAos evoeBelas, uvoTnplwoy AavOavdyvtwv wvotarywyds, Kal TadTa Tove? un- Sty Tod céuaros } THs moppis ducipOels* GAN’ Sedpywv Kara Td pawduevov exeivos ds hv, Gopdtw TWh Suvdue Kad xdpite Thy adparov Wuxhy metamoppwbels mpds Td BéEATIOV.—KaTa St Thy duolay &kodov~ Olav Tay Aoyiopay Kal Td Hdwp oddev BAdo tvyxavdv 7 Twp, dvaxa- vite tov &vOpwrov eis thy vonthy dvayéevnow. |
+ A.D. 380.
96 HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION.
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 be- comes by baptism not what nature made him, but what grace new-makes him; and “ the bread be- comes by consecration not what it was by nature, but what the blessing consecrates it to be.’ For nature made only a mere man, and made only common bread; but regeneration, of a mere man makes a hely man, in whom Christ dwells spi- ritually : and likewise the consecration of common bread makes mystic and sacramental bread; yet this change doth not destroy nature, but to nature adds grace: as is yet more plainly expressed by that holy father in the fore-cited place; “ Per- haps 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 conse- crated, it becomes the body of Christ. This we are therefore to declare, how can that which is
* De Sacram. iv. cap. 4. [§ 16. Tu ipse eras, sed eras vetus creatura: posteaquam consecratus es, nova creatura esse ccepisti. |
+ Ambr. de Mysteriis, cap. 9. [Probemus non hoc esse [corpus] quod natura formavit, sed quod benedictio conse- cravit, majoremque vim esse benedictionis quam nature, quia benedictione etiam natura ipsa mutatur. ]
HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 97
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 per- fected. 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 consecra- tion, but now after the consecration it is the body of Christ; he said the word, and it was done: thou thyself wert before, but wert an old creature; after thou hast been consecrated in bap- tism, thou art become a new creature.”’* By these
* De Sacer. lib. iv. c. 4.[§ 14. Tu forte dicis: meus panis est usitatus. Sed panis iste, panis est ante verba sacramentorum ; ubi acceperit consecratio, de pane fit caro Christi. Hoe igitur adstruamus ; quomodo potest qui panis est, corpus esse Christi? Consecratione. Consecratio autem quibus verbis est et cujus sermonibus? Domini Jesu. Nam reliqua omnia que dicuntur in superioribus a sacerdote dicuntur, laudes Deo deferuntur, oratio petitur pro populo, pro regibus, pro ceteris; ubi venitur ut conficiatur vene- rabile sacramentum jam non suis sermonibus utitur sacer- dos, sed utitur sermonibus Christi. Ergo sermo Christi hoe conficit sacramentum. Quis est sermo Christi? Nempe is quo facta sunt omnia, Jussit Dominus, et factum est ceelum : jussit Dominus, et facta est terra: jussit Dominus,
F
98 HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION.
» words St. Ambrose teacheth how we are to under- stand 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 blood of Christ, and by that means certain pledges of our justification and redemption. What is there can refute more expressly the dream of transubstantiation ?
18. St. Chrysostom* doth also clearly discard and reject this carnal transubstantiation and eat- ing of Christ’s body without eating the bread. “* Sacraments,” saith he, “ ought not to be con-
et facta sunt maria: jussit Dominus, et omnis creatura generata est. Vides ergo quam operatorius sit sermo Christi. Si ergo tanta vis est in sermone Domini Jesu, ut inciperent esse quee non erant, quanto magis operatorius est, ut sint que erant, et in aliud commutentur? Ccelum non erat mare, mare non erat, sed audi dicentem David, Ipse dixit, et facta sunt: ipse mandavit, et creata sunt. Ergo tibi ut respondeam, non erat corpus Christi ante con- secrationem, sed post consecrationem dico tibi quia jam cor- pus est Christi. Ipse dixit, et factum est ; ipse mandavit, et creatum est. Tu ipse eras, sed eras vetus creatura; posteaquam consecratus es nova creatura esse ccepisti. | * a.vd. 390. ;
HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 99
templated and considered carnally, but with the eyes of our souls, that is spiritually, for such is the nature of mysteries ;”* where observe the oppo- sition betwixt carnally and spiritually, which ad- mits 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 blood of Christ is not received by any sensible corporal action, but by the spiritual dis- cernment of our faith, and of our hearts and minds ;”+ which is no more than this, that sen- sible things are called by the name of those spi- ritual things which they seal and signify. But he speaks more plainly in his epistle to Cesarius, 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 ele-
* In Johan. [c. vi. 63. ri 5é éori 7d capKiKds vojoa; Td amhas eis Ta mookelweva, Spay, kal wh wAéov Tt payTdecOa. TodTo yap €or copKinds. xph 5& wh obrw Kplvew Tots Spwuevors, GAAG ndvrTa TH wvoThoia Tots Evdov dpOaruois kaTrowredew. TodTO ydp ear: TVEUMATIK@S. |
+ Ibid. [I have not been able to find this passage in the Homilies on St. John. It is found in the Homilies on St. Matthew, ch. xxvi. 35. ére} ofv 6 Adyos nol, rodTd dort Td cape: Mov, kal meOapueba nad morebwuer, kad vonrois alts BrAérapmer 60- Oarpots. ovdty yap aicOnroy mapédwkev juiv 5 Xpiords, 4A aicbn- Tois wey modypact, mdvra 8é vonrd. oftw yap Kal ev 7S Bawrlc- kart 30 aicOnrod ev mpdyparos ylverau Tod Fdaros Td Sapov, vonrov
d¢ 7d &moreAodmevor, 4 yérvnors Kad 4 [avayevynors, Hrovy] dva- Katviors. |
100 HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION.
‘ments 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 Lord’s body, though the substance of the bread still re- mains.”** When Bellarmine could not answer
* In Ep. ad Cesarium. [vol. iii. p. 895. Sicut enim an- tequam sanctificatur panis panem nominamus: divina autem illum sanctificante gratia, mediante sacerdote, liberatus est quidem ab appellatione panis ; dignus autem habitus do- minici corporis appellatione, etiamsi natura panis in ipso permansit.
The Romanists have attempted in two ways to invali- date this authority ; some, like the Benedictines, denying its authenticity, others, as Harduin, acknowledging its au- thenticity, but denying its application to transubstantiation. It is quoted as St. Chrysostom’s by Joan. Damascenus, Anastasius, Nicephorus C. P., and others ; and is rejected by the Benedictines on the ground of the difference ofits style from the other writings of St. Chrysostom. But ifit differs from the homiletical, it does not differ from some of his epistolary writings: nor is there a greater discrepancy ob- servable in it than in the homilies on St. Matthew from those on St. John, or in the Acts of the Apostles from those on the epistle to the Romans. It is absurd, therefore, to
a
HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 101
this testimony of that great doctor, he thought it enough to deny that this epistle is St. Chrysos- tom’s:* but both he and Possevint do vainly contend that it is not extant among the works of Chrysostom. For besides that at Florence} and elsewhere 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 Antig. 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, writ- ten either by St. Chrysostom or some other ancient author,—a book in this at least very
reject this epistle on such presumptions; especially when there are hardly any two critics who agree upon the style of St. Chrysostom ; besides that so small a portion of the original language of the epistle remains to enable us to form a correct opinion. But whether it be genuine or not, it but little affects the general argument: for till the Ro- manists can produce, what they never have done and never can do, a catena from the ancient fathers to prove, not that the bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ, for that we acknowledge, but that after consecration the substance of bread and wine remains no longer, their su- gillating a few isolated passages is of little consequence. |
* De Eucharistia, ii. 22.
[+ Apparatus Sacr. p. 855. ]
{ Steph. Gardiner Episc. Wint. contra Pet. Mart. lib. de Eucharistia. [See P. Martyri Defensio de Eucharistia, p- 503. |
102 HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION.
* orthodox, and not corrupted by the Arians: “ 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 choose only three, which are as the sum of all the rest. “You are not to eat this body which you see, nor drink this blood which My crucifiers shall shed: I have left you a sacrament which, spi- ritually understood, will vivify 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 Christ’s body is in some sort His body, so the sacrament of faith is faith also.”{ To the same sense is what he writes
* a.p. 400.
+ In Ps. [xeviii. § 9. Spiritaliter intelligite quod lo- cutus sum: non hoc corpus quod videtis mandicaturi estis, et bibituri illum sanguinem quem fusuri sunt qui me cruci- figent. Sacramentum aliquot vobis commendavi, spiritali- ter intellectum vivificabit vos. |
{ Epist. 23—98. ad Bonif. [Si enim sacramenta quam- dam similitudinem earum rerum quarum sacramenta sunt non haberent, omnino sacramenta non essent. Ex hac autem similitudine plerumque etiam ipsarum rerum nomina
OE SS . 2
ee 2
HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 103
against Maximinus the Arian: “ We mind in the sacraments, not what they are, but what they shew; for they are signs which are one thing, and signify another.”* And in another place, speaking of the bread and wine: “ Let no man look to what they are, but to what they signify; for our Lord was pleased to say, This is My body, when He gave the sign of His body.”t 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 signify another, then they are not so changed into what they signify, 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 Lord’s supper ; but all that is changed is not presently abolished or transubstantiated ;
accipiunt. Sicut ergo secundum quemdam modum sacra- mentum corporis Christi corpus Christi est, sacramentum sanguinis Christi sanguis Christi est, ita sacramentum fidei fides est. |
* Contra Maximinum [ii. 22. § 3. Heec enim sacra- menta sunt, in quibus non quid sint, sed quid ostendant semper adtenditur: quoniam signa sunt rerum aliud exis- tentia et aliud significantia. |
+ De Doetrina Christ. [ii. ch. 1. § 1. De signis dis- serens hoc dico; ne quis in eis adtendat quod sunt, sed potius quod signa sunt, id est, quod significant.—§ 4. Nam et odore unguenti Dominus quo perfusi sunt pedes ejus, signum aliquod dedit, et sacramento corporis et sanguinis sui pregustato [per gustum ?] significavit quod voluit. |
104 HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION.
* 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 blood of our Saviour Christ (that is, the sacra- ment and the grace of the sacrament), as the per- son of Christ is both God and man.’’+ Who but the infamous heretic 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 Theodoret,t 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 par-
* a.v. 430.
+ Sententiz Prosperi. [ Decret. Gratiani, De Consecra- tione dist. 2. f. 618. b. Venet. 1514. Hoe est quod dicimus, quod modis omnibus approbare contendimus, sacrificium Ecclesiz duobus modis confici, duobus constare, visibili sacramentorum specie, et invisibili Domini nostri Jesu Christi carne et sanguine, et sacramento et re sacramenti, id est corpore Christi. Sicut Christi persona constat et conficitur ex Deo et homine. |
[t a.p. 481,]
HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 105
takers 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 blood, not changing what is natural, but add- ing 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 heretic that stands for Eutychius had said, “ As the sacrament of the Lord’s body and blood are one thing before the prayer of the priest, and afterwards, being changed, become another, so also the body of our Lord after His ascension is changed into the divine substance and nature,”’+ (according to the tenet of the transubstantiator,
* Dial. 1. [Immutabilis, iv. p. 17. ed. 1642. 65€ ye cwrhp 5 muerepos evhrdake Te dvduata Kal TE mev oduatt Td TOD cuuBdAov Téeev bvoua, TE FE cuuBsAw Td TOU TépaTos.—jBovaAhon yap Tovs Tay Ociwy uvoTnplwy weTadayxdvortas, uy TH poe: TY BrE- Tomevov mporeXe, GAAG 51d TIS TOY dvoudrwv evadrrAayiis, MoT eve TH ék THs xdprros yeyernuevy peTaBodrn. 6 yap 5) 7d hice: copa ctrov Kal &prov mpocaryopedous, kal ad méAw éavrdy kumeroy dvo- pdoas, obros Ta dpdueva obpBora TH Tod cduaros Kal aiwaros mpoc- nyopla terlunkev, ov Thy plow peraBardy, GAAQ Thy xdpw TH proe mpooreberkds. |
+ Dial. 2. [Inconfusus. Somep rotyyy ra cbuBora Tod dec- ToTiKod odpatds Te Kal aluaros 4AAa wév ciot mpd THs lepatixijs
F 2
106 HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION.
.this Eutychian argument is irrefragable, but) Ca- tholic antiquity answers it thus: “ Thou art en- tangled in the nets of thine own knitting; for the elements or mystic signs depart not from their nature after consecration, but remain in their former substance, form, and kind, and can be seen and touched 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 like- ness; for a figure must answer tothe 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 Theo- doret, who assisted at the universal councils of Kphesus and Chalcedon. It is an idle exception which is made by some in the Church of Rome, emiKAHoews, meTa 5€é ye Thy emlkAnow petaBdddAeTat Ka Ereva yive-
Ta. oTw Td SeomoTiKby Cua meta THY avdAnWw, cis Thy odolay ueTaBANOn Thy Oelay. |
[* Ibid. p. 85. édaws ais &pnves Upxvow. od8 yap peta Tov aylacuoy Ta pvoriKd obuBora THs oikelas elorarm pioews. ever yap én) tis mporépas ovolas, kal Tov oxhwaros Kal Tod efSous, Kal dpard éort kal arrd, ofa Kal mporepov hv" voetrar St dmep eyévero, kal moreverat, Kal mpockuvetrat, ds exeiva dvta rep moreveras. mapdbes Tolvuy TE apxerimw Thy eixdva, kal Byer THY duoidTyTA. xph yap eomévan TH GAnOelg Tov Témov. Kal yap éxeivo Td cHua Td wey mpdrepov eldos Exel, Kal oxjpma Kal weprypadhy Kai amratamwAds eimeiv, Thy Tod céuatos ovolay. aBdvarov dt pera Thy dvdoracw yéyove, a.T.A. |
a, a
HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 107
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 joins to- gether nature, substance, form, and figure: and, indeed, what answer could they have given to the Kutychian argument, if the substance of the bread being annihilated after the consecration, the acci- dents only remain? Or did Christ say concerning the accidents of the bread and wine, These acci- dents are, or this accident is, My body? But (though we have not that liberty, yet) the in- ventors 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 au- thority of so famous and so worthy a father as Theodoret, allege that he was accused of some errors in the council of Ephesus, though he re- pented 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 heretics, with
* De Eucharistia, ii. 27.
J08 HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION.
.the applause and approbation of the Catholic 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 Stephen Nicolinus, the pope’s printer, in the year 1547, it is plainly set down, ‘that in what concerned 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 join 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 Kutyches and Nestorius, concerning the two natures in Christ, in this manner: “ Doubtless the sacrament of the body and blood 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 blood of Christ is celebrated in this mysteri- ous 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,
* Preef. in Dial. Theod. + A.D. 470 or 490, plus minus.
HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION,. 109
by the perfecting virtue of the Holy Ghost, it be- comes 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 entire 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 blood 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
* De duabus Naturis in Christo. Biblioth. Patrum. [tom. v. P.3. p. 671. ed. Col. 1618. Certe sacramenta que sumimus corporis et sanguinis Christi divina res est, prop- ter quod et per eadem divine efficimur consortes nature ; et tamen esse non desinit substantia vel natura panis et vini. Et certe imago et similitudo corporis et sanguinis Christi in actione mysteriorum celebrantur. Satis ergo nobis evi- denter ostenditur, hoc nobis in ipso Christo Domino senti- endum, quod in ejus imagine profitemur, celebramus et sumimus, ut sicut in hane, scilicet in divinam transeant, Sancto Spiritu perficiente substantiam, permanente tamen in sue proprietate nature, sic illud ipsum mysterium principale, cujus nobis efficientiam virtutemque veraciter representant: ex quibus constat proprie permanentibus unum Christum, quia integrum verumque permanere de- monstrant. |
110 HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION.
. while we receive them, we are made partakers of the divine nature, by the body and blood 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 threadbare objection to this, “ that by the sub- stance of bread and wine the true substance itself 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.t
23. Now I add Cyril of Alexandria,+ who
' [* Rite, lector, intellige verba Gelasii; substantiam panis et vini appellat, non ipsam veram substantiam vocat naturam et essentiam accidentium que manent in eucha- ristia, et theologi species vocant, que quia vicem et pro- prietatem substantiz induunt in nutriendo, &c. quodam- modo hac etiam ratione substantia dici queunt. Hune autem morem loquendi non esse alienum a patribus nec a Gelasio presertim, abunde te docebunt Bellarminus de Eucharistia, ii. 27; Baronius, in Annal. ad an. 496. ¢. 8. Vid. Bib. Patr. ibid. not. marg. |
+ In the Colloquy at Ratisbon, a.p. 1541. { a.p. 450. Inter Ep. Cyr. in Con. Eph. | This pas- sage from St. Cyril I have not been able to discover. ]
HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 111
said, “ that the body and blood 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 transubstantia- tion, 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 Kutychians: 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 impalp- able, 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 sub- stance, and yet withal is united to a spiritual grace: and so baptism, though it becomes wholly
* Coneil. Chal. art. 5. + A.D. 540.
a
112 HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION,
spiritual, yet it loseth not the sensible property of its substance (that is 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.t 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 tran- scribe: ‘‘ The sacrament of adoption may be called adoption, as the sacrament of the body and blood of Christ, consecrated in the bread and wine, is said to be His body and blood ; not that His body be bread, or His blood wine, but be- cause the bread and wine are the sacrament of His body and blood, and therefore so called by Christ, when He gave them to His disciples.” t
* Photius, Bibliotheca, n. 229. [p. 252. ed. Bekker. GAN’ oddels by elmeiy Sdvara vodv Exwv ws H ad’Th pias WnrAayrod kal abnrAaphrov Kal dpatod Kal dopdrov' otrw Kal Td mapa Tay mo- Tov AapBavduevov GGua Xpiorov Kat ris aicOntIs ovclas ov étic- Tara. Kal THs vonris ddialperov wéver xdpitos, kal Td Bdwrioua dé mvevpatixoy drov yevduevoy Kal ev Srdexov, kal 7d Liov Tis aicOnris ovolas (Tod Hdaros Adyw) Siacw ler kal 6 yéyovey ove &mdrecer. |
+ A.D. 550.
{ Lib. ix.c. 5. [Nam sacramentum adoptionis susce- pere dignatus est Christus, et quando circumcisus est, et quando baptizatus est; et potest sacramentum adoptionis adoptio nuncupari. Sicut sacramentum corporis et san- guinis ejus, quod est in pane et poculo consecrato, corpus ejus et sanguinem dicimus. Non quod proprie corpus ejus
HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 113
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 ob- scure,’’* how unjust and injurious it is to that learned father, may easily be observed by any. 26. Isidore, bishop of Hispal, about the be- ginning of the seventh century,t wrote thus con- cerning the sacrament: “ Because the bread strengthens our body, therefore it is called the body of Christ; and because the wine is made blood, therefore the blood of Christ is expressed by it. Now these two are visible, but yet, being
sit panis et poculum sanguis; sed quod in se mysterium corporis ejus sanguinisque contineant. Hine et ipse Do- minus benedictum panem et calicem, quem discipulis tradi- dit, corpus et sanguinem suum vocavit. |
[* Durius hic fortasse vel obscurius quippiam elocutus videatur. |
+ A.D. 630.
114 HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION.
sanctified by the Holy Spirit, they become the sacraments of the Lord’s 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 blood, as it is written, I am the true vine.”* Behold, saith he, they become a sacrament, not the sub- stance of the Lord’s body; for the bread and wine which feed our flesh cannot be substantially, nor be said to be, the body and blood of Christ, but sacramentally they are so, as certainly as that they are so called. But this he declares yet more clearly: ‘“‘ 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
* De Officiis Eccl. [i. 18. Panis enim quem frangi- mus, corpus Christi est, qui dicit, Ego sum panis vivus, &ec.: vinum autem sanguis ejus est, et hoe est quod scrip- tum est, Ego sum vitis vera. Panis quia confirmat corpus, ideo corpus Christi nuncupatur ; vinum autem quia san- guinem operatur in carne, ideo ad sanguinem Christi re- fertur. Hec autem duo sunt visibilia; sanctificata tamen per Spiritum Sanctum, in sacramentum divini corporis transeunt. |
+ Etymol. vi. 19. [Panis vero et vinum ideo corpori et sanguini comparantur, quia sicut hujus visibilis panis vinique substantia exteriorem nutrit et inebriat hominem, ita verbum Dei, qui est panis vivus, participatione sui fide- lium recreat mentes. Ratramnus, § 40. |
HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 115
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 countryman, who lived in the eighth century,* in his sermon upon the epiphany ;+ of whom we also take these two testimonies follow- ing: “In the room of the flesh and blood of the lamb, Christ substituted the sacrament of His body and blood, in the figure of bread and wine.” } Also, “ At supper He gave to His disciples the figure of His holy body and blood.”§ These utterly destroy transubstantiation.
* A.D. 720.
+ Serm. de Epiph. [inter Opera, vii. 320. ed. Col. 1612. Lavat itaque nos a peccatis nostris quotidie in sanguine suo, cum ejusdem beate passionis ad altare memoria repli- catur, cum panis et vini creatura in sacramentum carnis et sanguinis ejus ineffabili Spiritus sanctificatione transfertur. —Hujus recte figuram agnus in lege paschalis ostendit ; qui seme] populum de Hgyptia liberans, in memoriam ejusdem liberationis per omnes annos immolatione sua populum eundem sanctificare solebat, donec veniret ipse cui talis hostia testimonium dabat, oblatusque Patri pro nobis in hostiam odoremque suavitatis, mysterium sue passionis oblato agno in creaturam panis vinique transferret. |
} Com. in Luc. xxii. [Opera, v. 424. Pro carne agni vel sanguine sue carnis sanguinisque sacramentum in panis ac vini figura substituens. |
§ Com. in Psal. iii. [Opera, viii. 8324. [Sacratissima
ceena, in qua figuram sacrosancti corporis sanguinisque sui discipulis tradidit. ]
116 HISTORY OF 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 blood; 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 itself; 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 Paschasius,t a monk of Corbie, who first (as some say, whose judgment I follow not) among the Latins, taught that Christ was consubstantiated, or rather enclosed in the bread and corporally united to it in the sacrament ;§ for as yet there was no thoughts of the transubstan- tiation of bread. But these new sorts of expres-
* ADs 718.
[+ Alcuini Opera, p. 1150. ed. Paris, 1617, or i. 89. ed. 1777. Redemptor omnium ccenando cum discipulis panem fregit et calicem pariter dedit eis, in figuram corporis et sanguinis sui, nobisque profecturum magnum exhibuit sacramentum. |
{ A.pD. 818.
[§ In his book, De Corpore et Sanguine Domini. In ch. i. he says: Licet figura panis et vini hic sit, omnino nihil aliud quam caro Christi et sanguis post consecra- tionem credenda sunt. Though nearly approaching, this expression hardly amounts to the Roman doctrine of tran- substantiation. ]
HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 117
sions, not agreeing with the Catholic 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 Mentz; 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 Paschasius, 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 Sirmondust esteemed so highly, that they were not ashamed to say that he was the first that had writ to the purpose concerning the eu- charist, and that he had so explained the mean- ing 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 transubstantia- tion of the bread, or its destruction or removal. Indeed, he asserts the truth of the body and blood of Christ’s being in the eucharist, which Protestants deny not; he denies that the consecrated bread
* De Scriptoribus Eccles. in Paschasio. + In vita Paschasii, edit. Paris. prefixa.
118 HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION.
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 itself has 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 blood, 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 re- main in Christ.” And a little after; “ The flesh and blood 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 blood of Christ are not received carnally, but spi- ritually.”* In these he teacheth, that the mystery
[* Ch, 2. Diligenter ergo intelligere et spiritualia sacra- menta palato mentis et gustu fidei digne percipere.— Ib. Neque itaque sinit terrenum aliquid aut vile ibidem suspi- cari, sed mystica et spiritualia in his sapere.—Ch. 3. Quo nimirum vegetati gustu ad immortalia et eterna prepa- remur, quatenus spiritualiter jam angelica gratia saginati
in eo vivificemur.—Ch. 4. Per eundem [Spiritum] ex sub-
stantia panis ac vini mystice idem Christi corpus et sanguis
5 abet”
HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 119
of the Lord’s 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 (with- out doubt) of some superstitious forger (as Eras- mus complains that it too frequently happens to the writings of the ancients), it is fabulous; as the visible appearing of the body of Christ, in the form
consecratur. De qua videlicet carne ac sanguine, Amen, Amen, inquit, dico vobis, nisi manducaveritis carnem filii hominis et biberitis ejus sanguinem, non habebitis vitam eternam in vobis. Ubi profecto non aliam quam veram carnem dicit et verum sanguinem, licet mystice. Unde quia mysticum est sacramentum, nec figuram illud negare possumus.—Ib. Reliquit nobis hoc sacramentum, visibilem figuram et characterem carnis et sanguinis, ut per hee mens nostra et caro nostra ad invisibilia et spiritualia ca- pessenda per fidem uberius nutriatur. Est autem figura vel character hoc quod exterius sentitur, sed totum veritas et nulla adumbratio, quod intrinsecus percipitur.—Ch. 5. Christus ergo cibus est angelorum, et sacramentum hoc vere caro ipsius et sanguis, quam spiritualiter manducat et bibit homo: ae per hoc unde vivunt angeli, vivit et homo, quia totum spirituale est et divinum in eo quod percipit homo. —Nos autem dum nihil carnale in eo sapimus, imo spiri- tuales totum spiritualiter intelligentes, in Christo mane- mus.—Caro Christi et sanguis sumitur spiritualiter.—Bibi- mus quoque et nos spiritualiter, ac comedimus spiritualem Christi carnem, in qua vita eterna esse creditur. Alioquin Sapere secundum carnem mors est: et tamen veram Christi carnem spiritualiter percipere vita eterna est. |
120 HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION.
of an infant with fingers of raw flesh; such stuff is unworthy to be fathered on Paschasius, who pro- fessed that he delivered no other doctrine con- cerning 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 myself. Those things that are done in the celebration of divine service are done in the sacrament of the passion of our Lord as He Him- self 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 blood of Christ; for sacraments are some- what 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 blood 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 sacra- ments, if in some things they had not the likeness
* a.D. 830.
HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 121
of that whereof they are sacraments: now, by reason of this mutual likeness, they oftentimes are called by what they represent. Lastly ; sacra- ments have the virtue 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,t who could hardly be matched either in Italy or in Germany, published this his open con- fession: ‘‘ Our blessed Saviour would have the sacrament of His body and blood 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 ma- terial food feeds the body outwardly and makes it
* De Ecclesiast. Officiis, i. in Pref. [in Biblioth. Patr. ix. p. 301. In omnibus que scribo suspendor virorum sanctorum atque piorum patrum judicio: interim dico que sentio. Que aguntur in celebratione misse, in sacramento Dominice passionis aguntur; ut ipse preece- pit, dicens: Hac quotiescumque feceritis, in met memoriam facietis. Idcirco presbyter immolans panem et vinum et aquam in sacramento est Christi; panis, vinum et aqua in sacramento carnis Christi et ejus sanguinis. Sacramenta debent habere similitudinem aliquam earum rerum, qua- rum sacramenta sunt. Quapropter similis sit sacerdos Christo, sicut panis et liquor similia sunt corpori Christi, © Sic est immolatio sacerdotis in altari quodammodo ut Christi immolatio in cruce. |
T A.D. 825,
G
122 HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION.
to grow, so the word of God doth inwardly nour- ish 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 in- visible, 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 re- ceive the sacred sign at the Lord’s table to their salvation, and some to their ruin; 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 sub- stance 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 —
* Trithem. de Script. Eccl. Rabanus Maur. de Inst. — Cler. 1. i. ec. 31. [Maluit enim Dominus corporis et san- guinis sui sacramenta fidelium ore percipietinpastumeorum _ redigi, ut per visibile opus invisibilis ostenderetur effectus. Sic enim cibus materialis forinsecus nutrit corpus et vege- tat, ita etiam verbum Dei intus animam nutrit et roborat,
HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 123
the new doctrine of Rome, and as little with that opinion they attribute to Paschasius; and there- fore 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 countryman t (whom King Alfred took to be his and his children’s tutor, and to credit the new-founded University of
quia non in solo pane vivit homo, sed in omni verbo quod procedit de ore Dei.—Quod autem ex terre fructibus voluit hee. sacramenta confici, hee ratio est: ut sicut ipse Deus invisibilis in carne visibili ad salvandos mortales mortalis apparuit, ita etiam ex materia visibili rem invisibilem congrue ipsis demonstravit.— Unitas corporis et sanguinis Christi de mensa Dominica assumitur quibusdam ad vitam, quibusdam ad exitium: res vero ipsa omni homini ad vitam, nulli ad exitium. Quicumque enim ejus particeps fuerit, id est, Christo capiti membrum associatus fuerit in regno ceelesti, quia aliud est sacramentum, aliud virtus sacramenti; sacramentum enim ore percipitur, virtute sacramenti inte- rior homo satiatur.—Sicut ergo in nos id convertitur, cum id manducamus et bibimus, sic et nos in corpus Christi convertimur, dum obedienter et pie vivimus.—Ergo fideles bene et veraciter corpus Christi, si corpus Christi non negligant esse; fiunt corpus ricaahie si volunt vivere de Spiritu Christi. 7
* William of Malmsbury, a.p. 1200; and Thomas Waldensis, A.D. 1400. [ Doctrinalis, ii. 61.]
+ A.D. 860.
?
124 HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION.
Oxford), while he lived in France, where he was in great esteem with Charles the Bald, wrote a book* concerning the body and blood of our Lord, to the same purpose as Rabanus, .and backed it with clear testimonies of Scripture and of the holy fathers. But entering himself into the monastery of Malmsbury, as he was interpreting the book of Dionysius about the heavenly hier- archy (which he translated into Latin), and withal censuring the newly hatched doctrine of the car- nal presence of Christ in the eucharist, he was stabbed with penknivest by some unworthy scho- lars of his, set on by certain monks; though not long after he was by some others{ numbered among holy martyrs.
33. Walafridus Strabo, about the same time,§ wrote on this manner; ‘ Therefore in that last supper whereat Christ was with His disciples be- fore He was betrayed, after the solemnities of the ancient passover, He gave to His disciples the sacrament of His body and blood in the substance of bread and wine; and instructed us to pass from
* That book was afterwards condemned under Leo IX., two hundred years after, by the maintainers of transubstan- tiation. |
+ Anton. tit. c. 2. § 3. Vincentii [Speculum], xxiv. 42, et alii. |This is a very suspicious tale. |
{ Malmsbury De Gestis Reg. Angl. 1. ii. [4.]
§ a.D. 860. :
HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 125
carnal to spiritual things, from earthly to hea- venly things, and from shadows to the sub- stance.”’*
34. As for the opinion of Bertram,t} other- wise called Ratramnus or Ratramus, perhaps not rightly, it is known enough by that book which the Emperor Charles the Bald (who loved and honoured him, as all good men did, for his great learning and piety) commanded him to write con- cerning the body and blood of our Lord. For when men began to be disturbed at the book of Paschasius, some saying one thing, and some an- other, the emperor, 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 blood 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 itself
* De Rebus Eccl. c. 16. [In cena siquidem, quam ante traditionem suam ultimam cum discipulis habuit, post pasche veteris solemnia, corporis et sanguinis sui sacra- menta in panis et vini substantia discipulis tradidit.—Ipse in carne adveniens illis [sc. legis sacrificiis] majora in- stituit, et a carnalibus ad spiritalia, a terrenis ad ccelestia, a temporalibus ad eterna, ab imperfectis ad perfecta, ab umbra ad corpus, ab imaginibus ad veritatem docuit transeundum. |
+ Priest and abbot, a.p. 860.
1296 HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION.
daily received by the mouth of the faithful in the mystery of the sacrament? The first of these
Bertram resolved affirmatively, the second nega- —
tively; and said, that there was as great a differ- ence betwixt those two bodies, as betwixt the ear- nest and that whereof it is the earnest. ‘It is evident,’ saith he, “ that that bread and wine are figuratively the body and blood 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 blood of Christ by the con- secration of the priest, shews one thing by its outward appearance, and combines another in- wardly; 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 something else besides what is their proper being. For they are made spiritually the body and blood 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 blood of Christ. —
Hence, according to the visible creature, they
feed the body; but according to the virtue of a more excellent substance, they nourish and sanc- —
:
HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 127
tify the souls of the faithful.” Then having brought many testimonies of holy Scripture and the an- cient fathers to confirm this, he at last presents 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 blood of Christ, were given in the sacrament. “ Let it not be thought,” saith he, “ because we say this, that therefore the body and blood 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.”’*
[* Si enim nulla sub figura mysterium illud peragitur, jam mysterium non recte vocitatur; quoniam mysterium dici non potest, in quo nihil est abditum.—At ille panis, qui per sacerdotis ministerium Christi corpus conficitur, alind exterius humanis sensibus ostendit, et aliud interius fidelium mentibus clamat. Exterius quidem panis quod ante fuerat :—ast interius longe aliud. §. 9.—Vinum quo- que quod sacerdotali consecratione Christi sanguinis effici- tur sacramentum, aliud superficie tenus ostendit, aliud interius continet. Quid enim aliud in superficie quam substantia vini conspicitur?—Hec ita esse dum nemo potest abnegare claret, quia panis ille vinumque figurate Christi corpus et sanguis existit. §. 10.—Ex his omnibus que sunt hactenus dicta, monstratum est, quod corpus et sanguis Christi, que fidelium ore in ecclesia percipiuntur, figure sunt secundum speciem visibilem. At vero secundum invisibilem substantiam, id est, divini potentiam Verbi,
128 HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION.
For the question is not simply about the real truth, or the thing signified being present, with- out which it could not be a mystery, but about the false reality of things subsisting in imaginary efficaciousness, and about the carnal presence. 30. 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 them that are forbidden.* But the professors of Douay judging this pro- ceeding 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 licensers of books, and the authors of the Belgic Index Expurgatorius. ft
vere corpus et sanguis Christi existunt. Unde secundum visibilem creaturam corpus pascunt, juxta vero potentioris virtutem substantie fidelium mentes pascunt et sanctifi- cant. §. 49. Secundum creaturarum substantiam, quod fuerunt ante consecrationem, hoc et postea consistunt. §. 54. Nec ideo quoniam ista dicimus putetur in mysterio sacra- menti corpus Domini, vel sanguinem ipsius non a fidelibus sumi, quando fides, non quod oculus videt, sed quod credit accipit, quoniam spiritualis est esca, et spiritualis potus, spiritualiter animam pascens, et eterne satietatis vitam tribuens.| Ratramnus de Corpore et S. Domini.
* Index Librorum prohibitorum in fine Concil. Trident. authoritate Pape editus, in lit. B.
+ Index Expurg. Belg. jussu et authoritate Philip. II. Hisp. Regis atque Albani Ducis concilio concin. p. 54. v.
HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 129
**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 suf- fered and used after it is corrected; for Bertram was a Catholic priest, and a monk in the monas- tery of Corley, esteemed and beloved by Charles the Bald. And seeing we bear with many errors in ancient Catholic authors, and lessen and excuse them, and by some cunning device” (behold the good men’s 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 like equity, lest heretics 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 heretics, but also stub- born Catholics, read the book with the more greediness, and like it with the more confidence, because it is forbidden, and so it doth more harm by being prohibited than if it were left free.” What patch then will they sew 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 impassible; but that which is
Bertram. [I have not been able to obtain a sight of this book. The passage in the text is quoted in Aubertine’s celebrated treatise De Eucharistia, p. 930. ed. 1654.]
G2
130 HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION.
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 sacra- ment, or of the sacrament itself, 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 a substance, and many other things which this latter age hath added out of the Scripture with as great truth as subtlety.” 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 in their Index
[* Que a se differunt idem non sunt: corpus Christi quod mortuum est, et resurrexit et immortale factum, “¢ jam non moritur,”—eeternum est, nec jam passibile; hoc autem quod in ecclesia celebratur temporale est non eeter- num, corruptibile est non incorruptum. Ib. §. 76.]
[+ Quoted above. ]
{ Index Expurg. Hispan. D. Gasp. Quiroge Card.
et Inquisit. generalis in fine. [There is a copy of one edition of this Index in the British Museum, but I cannot
- HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 131
Expurgatorius. ‘ Let the whole epistle,” say they, “ of Udalricus, bishop of Augsburg, be blot- - ted out, concerning the single life of the clergy ; and let the whole book of Bertram the priest about the body and blood of Christ be suppressed.”’ What is this but, as Arnobius* said against the heathen, “ to intercept public records, and fear the testimony of the truth ?”’ For as for that which Sixtus Senensist and Possevin affirm, that that book of the body and blood of the Lord was writ by Gkcolampadius 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 catholic fathers against innovators in what concerns the body and blood of Christ, collected by Herigerus Abbas Lobiensis,{ we have also an ancient Easter homily in Saxon-English,§ which then used to be
find the passage to which Dr. Cosins refers, The other Index to which he refers is not to be found in the British Museum, Bishop Tennison’s library, or Sion College. |
* Lib. iii. [Intercipere scripta, et veritatis testifica- tionem timere. Bib. Patrum, i. 173.]
+ Sixtus Senensis, pref. in Bibl. Sanctam; et Pos- sevinus in prolegomena Appar. Sacri.
{ a.p. 980. [Lobium, or rather Laubium, a celebrated monastery belonging to the diocese of Cambray, situated on the river Sambre, between Hainau and Liege. |
§ Hom. Pasc. Angl, Sax. a.p. 990. Printed at London
>
132 _ HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION.
read publicly 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 where- in the host is consecrated. That body wherein Christ suffered was born of the Virgin Mary, consisting of blood and bones, skin and nerves, human 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 blood 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
[1623], and in MS. in publ. Cant. Acad. Bib. [The ori- ginal, and a translation of this homily, are given in Foxe’s Martyrs, ii. 450, ed. 1641. But some important passages have been omitted near the middle of the homily by the martyrologist ; as may be seen by comparing the printed copies with a very fine MS. preserved in the British Museum. |
a
ee ee ee ee ee
HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 133
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 spirit- ually; not that body wherein He suffered, but that body whereof He spake, when He conse- crated the bread and wine into an host.” Which to this day, in the Church of England, we hold to be a catholic truth.
37. And so hitherto we have produced the agreeing testimonies of ancient fathers for a thou- sand years after Christ, and have transcribed them more at large, to make it appear to every one that is not blind, that the true apostolic 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, pre- sumed to dispute against the ancient orthodox doctrine of the manner of Christ’s 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.
* Homil. Sacerd. Synod., printed at London; cum Homil. Paschali [printed in Foxe, ii. 448].
>
134 HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION.
CHAPTER VI.
Shews more at large that the doctrine and practice of the primitive Church is ineonsistent with transubstantiation, and answers the Romish objections vainly alleged 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 Clemens Romanus, commended by the papists themselves, and those of St. Ignatius, bishop of Antioch and martyr, are much against transubstantiation.* In the second likewise, St. Theophilus, fourth bishop of Antioch after Igna- tius ; Athenagoras and Tatianus, scholars to Justin Martyr. In the third, Clemens Alexandrinus, tutor to Origen; and Minutius Felix, a Christian orator. In the fourth, Eusebius bishop of Cesarea, Juvencus a Spanish priest, Macarius Aigyptius, — St. Hilary bishop of Poictiers, Optatus bishop of Milevis, Eusebius Emissenus, Gregorius Na-
[* The passages to which reference is made in the com- mencement of this chapter are, for avoiding confusion, printed in the Appendix. ]
HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 135
zianzenus, Cyrillus Alexandrinus, Epiphanius Sa- - laminensis, St. Hierom, Theophilus Alexandrinus, and Gaudentius bishop of Brixia. In the fifth, Sedulius a Scotch priest, Gennadius Massiliensis, and Faustus bishop of Regium. In the sixth, Fulgentius Africanus, Victor Antiochenus, Prima- sius bishop, and Procopius Gazeus. In the seventh, Hesychius priest in Jerusalem, and Maximus abbot of Constantinople. In the eighth, Johannes Damascenus. In the ninth, Nicepho- rus the patriarch, and Hincmarus archbishop of Rheims. Lastly, in the tenth, Fulbert bishop of Chartres. And, to complete all, to these single fathers we may add whole’ councils of them; as that of Ancyra, of Neocesarea, and besides the first of Nice, which I have mentioned, that of Laodicea, of Carthage, of Orleans, the fourth of Toledo, that of Bracara, the sixteenth of Toledo, and that of 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 blood of Christ, and of their true (yet spiritual, not carnal) pre- sence 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 blood
136 HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION.
“of Christ, and that, their substance still remain- ing, they are signs, types, resemblances, and ~ pledges of them, images, figures, similitudes, re- presentations, and samplers of them), yet there was no contrariety or diversity in the sense. For they were not so faithless as to believe, that these are only natural elements, or bare signs; and they were not of so gross and so dull an appre- hension as not to distinguish betwixt the sacra- mental and mystic, 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 par- takers thereof; and because, by the virtue of the Holy Spirit, and of Christ’s holy institution, the elements obtain those divine excellencies and pre- rogatives, 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 be- lieve transubstantiation, or that the presence of the body and blood of Christ is so inseparably
HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 137
tied 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 communion was ended :””* and who can believe that any Christian should dare or be willing to burn his Lord and Saviour, in body and blood, though it were never so much in his power? Doubtless it would have been as horrid and de- testable an action as was that of the perfidious Jews, for Christians, if they believed transubstan- tiation, to burn that very natural body which the Jews crucified, and which was born of the Virgin Mary. Therefore those Christians who used an- ciently 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 threatened
* a.p. 600. Hesychius in Levit. ii. 8. [Quod reli- quum est de carnibus et panibus in igne incendi precepit. Quod nune videmus etiam sensibiliter in ecclesia fieri, ignique tradi queecumque remanere contigerit inconsumpta. Biblioth. Patrum, tom. vii. p. 35, ed. 1618.] Spelman’s Concilia Angl. tredecimus inter eos qui Bede titulum
preferunt, a.p. 700, et sub Edgaro Rege, [can.] 38. A.D. 970 [p. 452].
138 © HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION.
. by the canon to every clergyman “ by whose ne- glect 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 perplexed the first maintainers of transubstantiation, who would in- vent any thing rather than own it possible, well knowing how abominable it is, and how dishon- ourable to Christian religion. Yet this is not inconsistent with the now Roman faith; nay, it necessarily follows from the tenet of transubstan- tiation, that the body of Christ may be in the belly of a mouse under the accidents of bread.t
* Cone. Arel. 3. A.D. 640. cit. a Gratiano de Consecr. dist. 2. [Qui bene non custodierit sacrificium, ut mus vel aliud aliquod animal illud comederit, xl. diebus poeniteat. ]
+ Alex. de Ales. p. iv. q. 45. m. 1. art. 2. et q. 53. m. 3. [see below, vii. § 24.] Thom. in 3. q. 80. art. 3. [Dicen- dum quod etiamsi mus vel canis hostiam consecratam manducet, substantia corporis Christi non desinit esse sub speciebus, quamdiu species ille manent: hoe est quam- diu substantia panis maneret, sicut etiam si projiceretur in lutum. Nec hoe vergit in detrimentum dignitatis corporis Christi, qui voluit a peccatoribus crucifigi absque diminu- tione sue dignitatis: preesertim cum mus aut canis non tangat ipsum corpus Christi secundum propriam speciem, sed solum secundum species sacramentales. Quidam autem dixerunt, quod statim cum sacramentum tangitur a mure vel cane, desinit ibi esse corpus Christi. Quod etiam —
HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 139
And the contrary opinion is not only disowned now by the papists, but, under pain of excommu- nication, forbidden by the pope ever to be owned ;* so that they must believe as an article of faith 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 testi- monies of the fathers of the first and middle age, whereby they would fain prove that those fathers
derogat veritati sacramenti, sicut supra dictum est.] Et in 4, d. ix. q. 2. |
* Greg. XI. in Director. Inquis. p. 1. n. 15, et p. 2. q. 10. [as quoted in Vasquez, below. |
+ Vasq. disp. 195. in 3. ¢.5. [Hoe est contra commu- nem sensum ecclesize, que species e loco sordido erutas tanquam verum sacramentum veneraretur, sicut etiamsi a bestia sumpte evomerentur. Porro autem Christum semper esse sub speciebus, communis schole opinio fuit, ut paulo inferius videbimus. Imo et Gregorius XI. in Directorio Inquisitorum (p. ii. q. 10.) damnavit predictam sententiam quam ex Bonaventura retulimus ; nempe, asse- rentes sub hostia consecrata projecta in lutum aut locum sordidum non manere corpus Christi, nedum corruptis speciebus. p. 272.—Utrumque tamen damnatum est per Gregorium XI. in Directorio Inquisitorum (p. ii. queest. 10.) nempe, et quod desinat corpus Christi esse sub speciebus simul atque ab aliquo bruto animante sumitur; et simi- liter, quod dum dentibus justi aut peccatoris species con- teruntur, Christus ad ccelum rapitur, ne videlicet in ven- trem vadat, ut docuit Bonaventura. p. 273. |
140 HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION.
* believed and taught the transubstantiation of the bread and wine into the natural body and blood 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 doctrine, which I have set down in the beginning 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 answer- ing each testimony by itself. |
Answer to the allegations out of Ireneus, Origen, Cyril of Jerusalem, Gregory Nazianzen, St. Jerome, St. Austin, and others. ‘4
d. To the first head belong those that call the eucharist the body and blood 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 mystic and spiritual sense, in that sacraments usually take the names of those things they re- present, because of that resemblance which they have with them; “ not by the reality of the thing, but by the signification of the mystery,”’* as we
* De Consecr. dist. 2. ¢. Sicut. [?]
HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 141]
have shewn before out of St. Austin and others.* For nobody can deny but that the things that are seen are signs and figures, and those that are not seen, the body and blood 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 blood of Christ, which in the celebra- tion 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 Christ’s body.
An answer to the proofs out of St. Hierom and St. Ambrose.
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,t and St. Ambrose,{ and others. To
[* See page 102.]
[+ Apostolico gradui succedentes [clerici], Christi cor- pus sacro ore conficiunt ; per quos et nos Christiani sumus. Epist. i. alias v. in ed. Bened. |
[Quum apostolus perspicue doceat eosdem esse presby- teros quos episcopos, quis patiatur mensarum et viduarum minister, ut supra eos se tumidus efferat, ad quorum preces Christi corpus sangyisque conficitur?] Epist. ad Evagrium. [ Evangelium, 85 = 101. |
[{ Probemus non hoe esse [corpus] quod natura for- mavit, sed quod benedictio consecravit; majoremque vim
142 HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION.
, 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 pre- cious body. -For so saith St. Hierom, “ The body and blood 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 blood 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 St.Chrysostom saith well,* “ These are not the works of man’s power, but still the
esse benedictionis quam nature, quia benedictione etiam natura ipsa mutatur. § 52. tantum valuit humana bene- dictio, ut naturam converteret, &c. De Mysteriis, ch. ix. See also above, v. §. 17.]
* Hom. 83, in St. Matt. [The only passage which I ean find in this homily at all resembling the passage in the text, is the following: éo7Tw kal Aoyicudy Kal Tews Kupidbrepos avtov 6 Adyos. obtw Kal ér) Tov uvoTnplov ToLBuer, ov Tors Kel- uévors pdvov euBd€movtes, AAG TH Phuata avtod Karéxovres. 6 pev yap Adyos avTov amapardyioros, H 58 aloOnots tyuav edetamdrn- Tos.—érel obv 6 Adyos pnal, rodTd eat Td THud pov, kad weOducOa, Tom. vii. p. 787. But in the 24th of the homilies on the ist Epistle to the Corinthians several passages occur similar — to that in the text. | : E
HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 143
operation of Him, who made them in the last supper: as for us, we are only ministers, but He it is that sanctifies and changeth them.”
An answer to what is cited out of St. Cyprian, Ambrose, both the Cyrils, Chrysostom, Gregory of Nyssa, and others.
. 7. In the third place, to what is brought out of the fathers concerning the conversion, change, transmutation, transfiguration, and transelement- ation 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; transubstan-
tiation being another species of change, the enu- -meration was not full; for it doth not follow, that because there is a conversion, a transmutation, a transelementation, there should be also a tran- substantiation ; 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 blood of Christ, which could not be, did not the substance of the bread and wine remain; for a sacrament consist- eth of two parts, an earthly and a heavenly. And so, because ordinary bread is changed by conse- cration into a bread which is no more of common use, but appointed by divine institution to be a
144 HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION.
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 con- version 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 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 transubstan- tiated : for men thus converted have still the same human body, and the same rational soul as before, though in a far better state and condition, as every Christian will acknowledge. Nay, the fa- thers themselves use those words, transmutation,
* John iii. 3; 1 Pet. i. 3; 1 Cor. iv. 15; Rom. xii. 3; Eph. iv. 22; Gal. vi. 15.
Ls S
iy ne ey b Bie
————————————— ST ee ee eel errr. ee
HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 145
transformation, transelementation, upon other occasions, when they speak of things whose sub- stance is neither lost nor changed ; for those words be of so large a signification, that though some- times a substantial change is to be understood by them, yet for the most part they signify 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, Irenzeus, Clemens Alexandrinus, Origen, Cyril of Jerusalem, Basil, Gregory Nazianzen, Gregory Nyssen, Cyril of Alexandria, Chrysostom, Theodoret, Theophylact, and Cicumenius,* to express the resurrection of the body, the efficacy of divine doctrine, the sanc- tification of a regenerated person, the immortality of the flesh after the resurrection, the repentance of sinners, the assumption of the human nature in the person of Christ, the regeneration of saints, the virtue of the divine grace, the power of baptism, and the excellency of charity; and lastly, the al- teration for the better, the greatness, usefulness, power, and dignity of many things. Neither are the Latin fathers t without such kind of expres-
[* See the Appendix to this chapter. ]
+ St. Austin. contra Crescon. iv. 54. [Homines congre- gatos die pentecostes misso de ceelo Spiritu Sancto im- plevit. Ibi uno die tria, alio quinque millia credentium in suum corpus conversa suscepit.| St. Ambr. de Myst. c. 9, et de Sacr. iv. c. 4. [quoted above, v, §17.] Faust.
H
>
146 HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION.
sions ; 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 human natural condition is changed into a nobler, a heavenly state, which is a moral and mystic change, and not natural or substantial. The an- cientest of them, 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 human bodies should be so transformed into an angelical substance, that they should be no longer men nor human bodies, but properly and essentially angels? which Tertullian himself is expressly against, and saith, “ That angels were so changed into men that still they remained angels, without quitting their proper substance.’ +
Reg. sive Eus. Emiss. de Pasch. 55. [quoted above vi. § 7. | Facund. ix. ¢. ult. [quoted above, v. § 25. | |
* Contra Marcion. iii. c. 9. [Nune recordemur et hereticis renuntiemus ejus esse promissum, homines in angelos reformandi quandoque, qui angelos in homines formavit aliquando. |
+ De Carne Christi, cap. 3. [Angelos Creatoris con- versos in effigiem humanam aliquando legisti et credidisti, et tantam corporis gestasse veritatem, ut et pedes eis laverit Abraham, et manibus ipsorum ereptus sit Sodomitis Loth.
;
‘) ’ td
HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 147
As others have spoken of the bread in the eucha- rist, “ 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, no- thing at all of a substantial change. Transub- stantiation 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.
Answer to the testimonies of St. Chrysostom, Cyril of Alexandria, and others.
8. To the fourth head I refer what the fathers say of our touching and seeing the body of Christ, and drinking his blood 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 Chrysostom, and
—Quod ergo angelis inferioribus Deo licuit, uti conversi in .corpulentiam humanam, angeli nihilominus permanerent, hoe tu potentiori Deo aufers?] * Superius citati. [v. § 17 et 21.]
148 HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION.
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 blood 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 literal 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 blood, 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 St. Chrysostom; “ In the sacrament the blood is drawn out of the side of Christ ;t the
* Serm. de Coen. Dom. [Now generally attributed, even by the Romanists, to Arnoldus de Bona Villa, con- temporary with St. Bernard. The tract is usually pany at the end of St. Cyprian and St. Bernard.
Cruci heremus, sanguinem sugimus, et intra ipsa Re- demptoris nostri vulnera figimus linguam: quo interius
exteriusque rubricati. Opera S. Cypriani, App. p. xcix.. Vs
ed. Venet. 1728. | + Hom. in Encen. [De Peenitentia, Hom. ix. od
‘ ’
HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 149
tongue is made bloody with that wonderful blood.”* Again; “ Thou seest thy Lord sacri- ficed, and the crowding multitude round about sprinkled with His blood; He that sits above with the Father is at the same time in’ our hands.t+ Thou dost see, and touch, and eat Him.{ For I do not shew thee either angels or archangels, but the Lord of them Himself.”§ Again; “ He in- corporates 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
Oelov oduaros metadauBdvew vouicere, kal ds Tis Oclas Kat &xpav- Tov WAeupas epamtdéuevar Tots xelAcow, OUT TOD TwTnplov aiuaros peTarAdBwper. |
* Hom. 82. [al. 83. § 4.] in Matt. c. 26. [id0b abrdy spas, abrod darn, abroyv éoOleis—airds dé éavTdv cor Slwow, ovi ideiv wd- voy, GAAG Kal Epacbat Kad paryeiv Kal AaBetv v5ov.—tivos ody obk Zee Kabapérepoy eivar Tov TavTns amodatbovtTa Tis Ovolas; molas AALaKis aKTivos Thy XElpa Thy TavTny SiaTéuvoveay Thy odpKa, TL oTdua Td TAnpotpevoy mupds mvevuarikod, Thy yAGooay Thy powiooopevny aluart poicwdeordTy.
¢ Lib. de Sacerd. iii. §4. [8ray yap tons tov Kdguov rebuuevov kal Keluevov kal roy tepéa epectara TH Odpari kal érevxduevor, kad mdvras éxelvy TO Tiule powcoouevous aluari.—6d werd Tod warpds tive Kadhuevos, kara thy Spay exeivny trois amdytwy Karéxerar xepa? Kal didwow abroy Trois Bovdopévors meprmritacbat Kad repiAaBerv.]
{ Hom. 51 et 83. in Matt. [od 7d fudriov udvov, adArd Kat 7d oGpa, obx Sore dyacba udvov, GAN Sore Kal payhva Kad eu- popnOjvar. }
§ Hom. 24, 1 Cor. [§ 5. ob yap ayyéaous odd8 dpyayyérous 0d8€ odpavods Kad odpavods odpavadv, GAN abtoy Tov Tobrwy cot SelK- vou Seomdrny. |
150 HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION.
, 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 Chris- tians, 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 Christ’s flesh into the bread, as that the bread and wine are transubstantiated into his body and blood. 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.
* Hom. 45. in Joh. et 83. in Mat. [avéuitev éaurdy juiv Kal avépupe 7) cua avTod eis Huas—Ka) Tov abrod mdOov emdevis eis Tuas, odk iSeiv adbrdy udvoyv mapéoxe Tois émOupodow, GAAX Kar &pacba kal paryeiv rad eumitar rods dddvras TH cagki. |
+ Tract. xxi. in Johan. [§ 8. Ergo gratulemur et agamus gratias, non solum nos Christianos factos esse, sed Christum. |
{ Epist. 23. [In illa mystica distributione spiritalis alimonize hoe impartitur, hoc sumitur, ut accipientes vir- tutem ceelestis cibi, in carnem ipsius qui caro nostra factus est transeamus. |
4 i
HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 151
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: Ist, That they might extol and amplify the dignity of this mystery, which all true Christians acknowledge to be very great and peer- less. 2d, 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. 3d and lastly, That they might approach so great a _mystery with the more zeal, reverence, and devo- tion, And that those hyperbolic expressions are thus to be understood, the fathers themselves teach clearly enough, when they come to inter- pret 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 Lord’s supper as if they were the very body and blood of Christ, do also very often call them types, elements, signs, the figure of the body and blood 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 sacrament, use those former expressions which the Papists believe do most favour them, if they be under- stood, as they ought to be, sacramentally. But
152 HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION.
. the latter none can use, but he must thereby over- throw the groundless doctrine of transubstantia- tion; 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 itself.
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 blood of Christ, which they themselves disown that hold transubstantiation. Therefore in this change it is not a newness of substance, but of use and virtue, that is produced; which yet the fathers acknowledged, with us, to be wonderful, super- natural, and proper only to God’s omnipotency : for that earthly and corruptible meat cannot be- come to us a spiritual and heavenly, the com- munion of the body and blood of Christ, without God’s especial power and operation. And whereas it is far above philosophy and human reason, that Christ from heaven (where alone He is locally) should reach down to us the divine virtue 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
HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 153
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 fetched from antiquity, may read Hospinianus his History of the Sacrament,* and Antonius de Dominis in his fifth book of the Christian Commonwealth, chap. vi.,t and in his detection of the errors of Saurez, chap. ii.
Answer to single testimony of Fathers.
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
* Lib. ii. et iv. + A sect. 1. usque ad 13.
t Dial. 3. ex Epist. v. [ad Smyrn. ebyapiorlas Kal mpoo- popas ovK arodéxovrat, Sida Td wh Suoroyeiv Thy edxapiotiay odpKa elvat Tod cwrTipos Hua "Incod Xgiorod, Thy drip GpapTiav huey mabovoav, hy xpnordérnt: 5 marhp iyeper. Opera, iv, 154. ed. 1642. |
H2
154 HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION,
» Romish faith, “ That the heretics Simoniani and Menandriani would have no eucharistical obla- tions, because they denied the sacrament to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ,”’ makes no- thing for transubstantiation, as Bellarmine him- self confesseth. ‘ For,” saith he, “ those heretics 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,
* De Eucharistia, i. 1. [Primi qui negarunt Christi corporis esse in eucharistia videntur fuisse illi ipsi qui primi heresum zizania in ecclesia serere coeperunt; Si- moniani, Menandriani et similes. De his loquens S. Ignatius, in epistola ad Smyrnenses, sic ait: Hucharistias et oblationes non admittunt, eo quod non confiteantur eu- charistiam esse carnem Salvatoris nostri Jesu Christi: que sententia citatur a Theodoreto in 3. dialogo ex epistola ad Smyrnenses; ubi tamen nunc non habetur. Ne autem glorientur Calviniste sententiam suam valde antiquam esse, illud est observandum, antiquos illos hereticos non tam sacramentum eucharistie, quam mysterium incarna- tionis oppugnasse. Idcirco enim (ut Ignatius ibidem in- dicat) negabant eucharistiam esse carnem Domini, quia negabant Dominum ‘habere carnem. |
HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 155
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 represen- tation.
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 God’s word the eucharist is made, whereby our bodies are nourished, the body and blood of Christ.”* Now, when Christ took hu- man flesh, none could say without heresy 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 ap- pearance, 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 expressly deny
* Apologia ad Anton. [p. 96. dv rpdmov dik Adyou @cod capkorroinbels *Inoovs Xpiords 6 owrhp juav, kal odpKa Kad aiua brép cwrnplas hay éoxev, otTrws Kal Thy Be edxijs Adyov Tod wag’ adTod eixapiobeicay tpopiy é fs alua nal odpKes kata weraBorhy Tpépov- TH Nuwv. |
+ Sermo de Cena Domini. [App. p. xcvii. Panis iste
quem Dominus discipulis porrigebat, non effigie sed natura mutatus omnipotentia Verbi factus est caro. |
156 HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION.
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 5 as appears by what follows in the same period, “ of the human and divine natures of Christ,’? where the manhood is not substantially changed into the Godhead, except we will follow Eutyches the heretic. :
14. The words of Cyril, as the Roman doctors say,* 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 blood? Therefore let us with all certainty receive the body and blood of Christ; for His body under the appearance of the bread, and His blood 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
* Bellarmin. de Eucharistia, ii. 13. [Tam perspicua, ut omnino nesciam quid fingi possit ad eorum perversionem. |.
+ Cyril. Hieros. Catec. Mystag. iv. §2. [1d 88we wore eis olvov weraBeBAnker, ev Kava tis Tadwaalas oixelw veduatie kad odk atidmiotés eat olvoy petaBarwy eis aiua;—pmeTa maons mAnpo- goplas &s oduaros Kal aluatos metadauBdvwpev Xpiotod. év Timm yap Uprov Sidorat vor cGua, Kal év Tdmw olvov Sidoral cor Td aiua—
wh mpdoexe G&S WiAois TE UpTe Kal TE otvy.]
HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 157
changed into the blood 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 itself: 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 and wine makes nothing for transubstantiation, may be thus made to appear. That God’s omni- potency 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 Lord’s 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 hun- dred years, ever since the incarnation ; whereas that very wine which Christ made of the water
158 HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION.
was not in being before the change which He wrought. Now it is easy 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 be- ing, perfect and complete, should be made afresh of another substance, when it really subsisted be- fore. 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 sacra- ment; 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 con- secrated, 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
* De Sacram. iv. 4. et De Mysteriis, c. ix. [quoted above, pp. 96, 97. ]
: | |
HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 159
is not made the body of Christ by transub- stantiation, 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 word of Christ be effi- cacious 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 thyself wert, but wert the old man; but, being baptised, 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 virtue 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. Am-
[* Sacramentum istud quod accipis, Christi sermone conficitur. Quod si tantum valuit sermo Elie, ut ignem de ccelo deponeret, non valebit Christi sermo ut species mutet elementorum? De totius mundi operibus legisti: Quia ipse dixit, et facta sunt ; ipse mandavit, et creata sunt. Sermo ergo Christi, qui potuit ex nihilo facere quod non erat, non potest ea que sunt in id mutare quod non erant? Non
enim minus est novas rebus dare, quam mutare naturas. De Myst. ix. § 52. |
160 HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION.
*brose, 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 vanished away? ‘They say, “ that the compa- rison 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 man’s power, but by the Divine virtue, that things earthly and mean of themselves are made to us assured pledges of the body and blood 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
* Bellarmin. loco citato. [ii. c. 14. Quam inepte ista omnia dicerentur, si nulla fieret realis mutatio !]
+ Ibid. ii. 9. [Quee omnipotentia requiritur ad facien- dum nihil ? | ;
HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 161
only the substance, but also the species or acci- dents (as they call them) of the bread and wine are changed into the body and blood 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 them- selves are changed, who will not from hence understand that the groundless fabric of transub- stantiation (whereby they would have the sub- stance of the elements so abolished in the sacra- ment, that their mere accidents or appearances remain without any subject) is strongly battered and utterly ruined ?
16. All other testimonies of the fathers, if Athey 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, with- out the thing which it represents: for the car- dinal himself will not affirm that the body of Christ is produced out of the bread. This is, therefore, what we say with St. Austin, and en- deavour to prove by all means; ‘‘ That the sacrifice of the eucharist is made of two things, the visible element and the invisible flesh and blood 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 com-
162 HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION.
posed of two things, the sign and the thing sig- nified, that is the body of Christ.’’*
17. Let the champions of transubstantiation strut and vapour now, with their two-and-thirty stout seconds,ft who have stood for them, as they say, before the time of Pope Innocent the Third. For what Innocent the Third decreed,{ and the council of Trent defined (** that it was ever the persuasion of the catholic 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 itself, is wholly des- titute of the patronage of antiquity, and left to
* De Consecr. dist. 2. c. Hoc est. [quoted at p. 104. |
+ Bellarmin. Euch. iii. 20. [Habemus triginta duos probatissimos testes, quorum postremi quinque tempore 8. Bernardi, omnes autem ante Innocentium III. floruerunt. |
t Extra. de Trin. et Fide Cathol. ¢. 1.
§ Sess. 13. c. 4. [Quoniam autem Christus Redemptor noster corpus suum id quod sub specie panis offerebat, vere esse dixit, ideo persuasum semper in ecclesia Dei fuit, idque nunc denuo sancta hee synodus declarat, per consecrati- onem panis et vini conversionem fieri totius substantiz panis in substantiam corporis Christi Domini nostri, et totius substantie vini in substantiam sanguinis ejus; qué conversio convenienter et proprie a sancta catholica eccle- sia transubstantiatio est appellata. |
ce
HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 163
shift for itself. Alphonsus 4 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 Jesuits in England confessed, “‘ that the business of transubstantia- tion was not so much as touched by the ancient fathers ;”+ which is very true, as will appear more at large in the following chapter.
* Adversus Heereses, viii. f. 140, b. De Indulgentiis. [ De transubstantiatione panis in corpus Christi rara est in antiquis scriptoribus mentio. |
+ Discurs. modest. de Jesuit. p. 13. and Watson’s Quod- libets [p. 31].
164 HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION.
CHAPTER 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 dis- ciple Berengarius, who is opposed by others. 5, 6. The doctrine of Berengarius defended. 7. The roaring of Leo IX. against Berengarius. 8. The synod of Tours under Victor II., which cleared Berengarius as free from error. 9. Pope Nicolas II. gathers another synod against Berengarius, who is forced to make a wondrous hind 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 de- fine nothing of the transubstantiation of the bread, and reasons poorly upon the independency of the accidents. 16. Otho Frisingensis and those of his time confessed 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 III. published his decree of the transubstantiation of the bread and wine
HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 165
into the body and blood of Christ. 19,20. The won- derful pride of Innocent III, 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. Inex- tricable and unheard-of questions. 23. New orders of monks and of the schoolmen. 24. Of their fine wran- gling and disputing. 25. The sacrament abused most grossly by the patrons of transubstantiation. 26, 27. Holhot, Aquinas, Albertus Magnus, and other school- men, though sometimes they be not for transubstantia- tion, 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 IV. 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 leprosy 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 ex- pired, 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
166 HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION.
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., Benedict VIII., John XXI., Benedict IX., Sylvester III., Gregory VI., Damasus II., Leo [X., 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 pon- tificate was come to that pass, that good men being put by, they whose life and doctrine were 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 doc- trine of the Church, and some the new-sprung-up opinion.
3. Fulbert,t 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
* Card. Bar. tom. x. Annal. an. 897, § 4. Gilbertus Genebrardus, Chron. sub init. seculi x.
+ A.D. 1010.
HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 167
in the eucharist is not to be looked 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 blood of Christ; not that which is tasted with the mouth, but that which is relished by the heart’s affection. Therefore,” saith he, “ prepare the palate of thy faith, open the throat of thy hope, and enlarge the bowels of thy charity, and take that bread of life, which is the food of the inward man.” Again; “ The percep- tion 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 car- nally the mouth and stomach of the receivers.
4. Fulbert was followed by Berengarius his
* Epistola ad Adeodatum, inter alia ejus opera impressa Paris. an. 1608. [Est enim mysterium fide non specie esti- mandum, non visu corporeo sed spiritu intuendum.—Que substantia panis et vini apparebat exterius, jam corpus Christi et sanguis fit interius.—Sapit, ni fallor, cibum illum angelicum habentem intra se mystici saporis delectamen- tum, non quod ore discernas, sed quod affectu interiori de- gustes. Exere palatum fidei, dilata fauces spei, viscera _ eharitatis extende, et sume panem, vite interioris hominis alimentum.— De fide etenim interioris hominis procedit divini gustus saporis, dum certe per salutaris eucharistiz infusionem influit Christus in viscera anime sumentis. Biblioth. Patrum, xi. 4.]
168 HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION.
scholar, archdeacon of Angers* 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 Wil- liam of Malmsbury. |
‘¢ That Berengarius, who was so admired, Although his name yet lives, is now expired ; He outlives 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 ruin and with grief? For by his death the Church, the laws, and all The clergy’s 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’er it be !’’+
. [ Andegavensis, Anjou.| A.D. 1030. + Guliel. Malms. De Gestis Regum Anglorum. [p. 113. ed. Francof. Quem modo miratur, semper mirabitur orbis, Ille Berengarius non moriturus obit: Quem sacree fidei fastigia summa tenentem Jani quinta dies abstulit ausa nefas. Illa dies, damnosa dies et perfida mundo, Qua dolor et rerum summa ruina fuit.
HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 169
Now this Berengarius was not only archdeacon of Angers, but also the scholasticus, or master of the chair, of the same church ;* which dignity is ever enjoyed by the chancellor of the university, for his office is in great churches to teach the clergy, and instruct them in sound doctrine.t 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 John Garetius of Louvain,{ William Alan§ our country- man, and others, who not only accuse him of
Qua status ecclesize, qua spes, qua gloria cleri, Qua cultor juris jure ruente ruit.
Quicquid philosophi, quicquid cecinere poet Ingenio cessit eloquioque suo.
Sanctior et major sapientia majus adorta
Implevit sacrum pectus et ora Deo. * * * * * *
Fama minor meritis cum totum pervolet orbem ;
Cum semper crescat, non erit equa tamen. * * ¥* * * *
Vir vere sapiens, et parte beatus ab omni, Qui ceelos anima, corpore ditat humum.
Post obitum vivam secum, secum requiescam, Nee fiat melior sors mea sorte sua. |
* A. Thevet, Vies des Hommes illustres, iii. 62. + Pap. Masso Annales Francie, in lib. iii. { Garet. De vera preesentia [corporis Christi in cuebie ristia], in Epist. nuncup. et clas. v. § Alanus De Eucharistia, i. 21. [p. 337. scelere et su- perbia inflammatus—artium optimarum ignarus et osor. | I
170 HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION,.
being an heretic, but also a worthless and an © unlearned man.
5. Berengarius* stood up valiantly in defence of that doctrine which 170 years before was de- livered out of God’s 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 be- lieve or teach (as many falsely and shamelessly have imputed to him) that nothing more is re- ceived in the Lord’s supper but bare signs only, or mere bread and wine; but he believed and openly professed, as St. Austin and other faithful doctors of the Church had taught out of God’s word, that in this mystery the souls of the faithful are truly fed by the true body and blood 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. Entire books he wrote upon this subject ; but they have been wholly suppressed 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 —
* a.v. 1030.
HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 171
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. Am- brose had taught. Again; “ There are two parts in the sacrifice of the Church (this is according to St. Irenzus), 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 sacra- ment, for else they could not be a sacrament.” Lastly; “Sacraments are visible signs of divine things, but in them the invisible things are ho- noured.”* All this agrees well with St. Austin and other fathers above cited.
* Extant apud Lanfr. De verit. corp. Dom. in Euch. [in Bib. Patrum, tom. xi. Per consecrationem altaris fiunt panis et vinum sacramentum religionis; non ut desinant esse que erant, sed ut sint que erant, et in aliud commu- tentur, quod dicit beatus Ambrosius in libro De Sacra- mentis.— p. 340. Sacrificium ecclesie duobus constat, duobus conficitur, visibili sacramento et re sacramenti. Que tamen res, id est, corpus Christi, si esset pre oculis visibilis esset.— p. 341. Unde beatus Augustinus in libro De Civitate Dei: ‘‘ Sacramentum est sacrum signum.”’— Augustinus in Epistola ad Bonifacium episcopum: “ Si sacramenta rerum quarum sacramenta sunt similitudinem non haberent, omnino sacramenta non essent.” Idem De Catechizandis rudibus: ‘ Signacula quidem rerum divina- rum sunt visibilia, sed res invisibiles in eis honorantur.’’ |
172 HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION.
6. He did not, therefore, by this his ‘doctrine exclude the body of Christ from the sacrament; but in its right administration he joined 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 Sigibert,* William of Malmesbury,t Matthew Paris,t and 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
Angers.|| Now this greatly displeased the papal faction, who took great care that those men’s writings should not be delivered to posterity ; and now do write, that the doctrine of Berenga- rius, owned by the fathers, and maintained by many famous nations, skulked only in some dark corner or other.
7. The first pope who opposed himself to Be- rengarius was Leo the Ninth ;§ a plain man indeed, but too much led by Humbert and Hildebrand.
* Chron. a Mireo editum, ad an. 1051. [+ De Gestis Regum, p. 113.]
t In Hist. majori, ad an. 1087. § Ad eundem annum. || Baron. ad an. 1035, § 1.6. {J a.p. 1050.
HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 173
For as soon as he was desired, he pronounced sentence of excommunication against Berengarius absent and unheard ;* and not long after, he called a council at Verceil,t wherein John Erigena and Berengarius were condemned,{ upon this account, that they should say, that the bread and wine in the 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 Gallican churches || did also oppose the pope and his synod of Verceil, and defend with Berengarius the op- pressed truth.
8. To Leo succeeded Pope Victor the Second, ¥ who, seeing that Berengarius could not be cast down and crushed by the fulminations of his pre- decessor, sent his legate Hildebrand into France, and called another council at Tours,** where Berengarius, being cited, did freely appear, and whence he was freely dismissed, after he had given it under his hand, that the bread and wine in the
* Lanfranc in libro citato [p. 357. Ibid. ]
[+ a.p. 1050. See Harduin’s Concil. vi. 1. 1017.]
{ But it was about 200 years after the death of this most innocent man. .
§ Adelmannus in Epist. ad Berengarium. [Figuram quandam et similitudinem. Biblioth. Patrum, xi. p. 348.]
|| Those of Rennes, Anjou, Leon, Dola, and Maclo, &e.
{| a.p. 1055.
[** a.p. 1055. See Harduin, ib. 1045. |
174 HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION.
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 emperor’s consent, to call a new council at Rome against Berengarius.* For, that sensual manner of presence, by them devised, to the great dis- honour 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 falsely 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 pope’s mandate ; Berengarius came also; “ and,” as Sigonius and Leo Ostiensis § say, “ when none present could withstand him, they sent for one Albericus,
* A.D. 1058. + A.D. 1059. [Harduin, ib. 1064.] _ t De Regno Italico, ad an. 1059. [p. 345. ed. 1575. 4to.] § In Chronicon Cassin. iii. 33.
HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 175
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, to re- cant,* in that form prescribed and appointed by Cardinal Humbert, which was thus:+ “I Be- rengarius, &c. assent to the holy Roman and apostolic see, and with my heart and mouth do profess that I hold that faith concerning the sacrament of the Lord’s table which our lord and venerable Pope Nicholas, and this sacred council, have determined and imposed upon me by their evangelic and apostolic authority; to wit, that the bread and wine which are set on the altar,
* Baron. ad an. 1059, § 18. [Ego Berengarius indignus diaconus, &c. Consentio autem sancte Romane ecclesie et apostolice sedi, et ore et corde profiteor de sacramento Dominice mense eam fidem me tenere, quam dominus et venerabilis Papa Nicolaus et hec sancta synodus aucto- ritate evangelica et apostolica tenendam tradidit, mihique firmavit ; sc. panem et vinum, que in altari ponuntur, post consecrationem non solum sacramentum, sed etiam verum corpus et sanguinem Domini nostri Jesu Christi esse, et sensualiter, non solum sacramento, sed in veritate manibus sacerdotum tractari, frangi, et fidelium dentibus atteri. |
+ Habetur apud Gratian. De Consecr. Dist. ii. cap. 42. [f. 617, b.]
x
176 HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION,
are not after the consecration only a sacrament, sign, and figure, but also the very body and blood — 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 blood) 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 him.*
10. This form of recantation is to be found entire in Lanfrank,t Algerus,t and Gratian ;§ yet the glosser on Gratian, 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 heresy than his was, for he exceeded the truth, and spake hyperboli- cally.” || And so Richard de Mediavilla; “ Beren-
* Pap. Mass. Annal. France. iii.
+ Sub libri quem contra Bereng. scripsit initium.
t [De Sacramento] ii. 15. [in Biblioth. Patrum, xii. p. 2, c. 165.)
§ Ubi supra.
|| In c. Ego Berengarius. De Consecrat. Dist. ii. [Nisi sane intelligas verba Berengarii, in majorem incides heeresim
HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 177
garius, 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 writ- ing his own impious and absurd recantation, and said, “ That by force it was extorted from him by the church of malignants, the council of vanity.” Lanfrank of Caen, at that time head of a monas- tery in France, afterwards archbishop of Canter- bury, 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 re- mains, save some citations in Lanfrank. But it were to be wished that we had now the entire works of Berengarius, who was a learned man,
quam ipse habuit. f. 617, b.] Inc. Utrum sub figura. [Ibi hyperbolice locutus est, et veritatem excessit. f. 623. a. _ Semeca died in 1243. He was one of the greatest canonists of the age, and styled Dux Doctorum. |
* In iv. Dist. 9. prin. 1.q.1. [Quia ille Berengarius fuerat infamatus quod non credebat corpus Christi realiter contineri sub specie, ideo ad sui purgationem per verba excessiva contrarium asseruit. ]
[+ See Bramhall’s Answer to Militiere. Works, p.17.]
12
178 HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION.
and a constant follower of antiquity; for out of — them we might know with more certainty how 7 things went, than we can out of what his professed | 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 Gre- gory 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 acts of that council,t writ by those of the pope’s faction), his cause could not be so entirely oppressed but that — some bishops were still found to uphold it. Nay, — the ring-leader himself, Hildebrand, is said to have doubted, “‘ whether what we receive at the Lord’s table be indeed the body of Christ by a substantial conversion.” { But three months’ space having been granted to Berengarius,§ and a fast appointed to the cardinals, “ that God would shew by some sign from heaven” (which yet He did not) “who — * AsD. 1079, . + Excus. cum Lanfran. libro, et apud Binium. [Multis : hee, nonnullis alia sentientibus. Harduin, Concil. vi. p. i. p- 1584. ] { Engilb, Archiep. Trevir, apud Goldast. Imp. tom. i. — [There was no Engilbert Archbishop of Treves, nor is there
any work in this name in Goldasti. | § Bertoldus Constant. in Chron. an. 1079.
HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 179
was in the right, the pope or Berengarius, concern- ing the body of the Lord ;”* at last the business was decided without any oracle from above, and a new form of retractation imposed on Berenga- rius,t whereby he was henceforth forward to con- fess, under pain of the pope’s high displeasure, “ that the mystic bread”’ (first made magical and enchanting by. Hildebrandt) “ is substantially turned into the true and proper flesh of Christ :”§ which whether he ever did is not certain. For though Malmesbury tells us, “that he died in
* Benno Card. in vita Hildebrandi. [Jejunium indixit cardinalibus, ut Deus ostenderet quis rectius sentiret de corpore Domini, Romanane ecclesia, an Berengarius. In Brown’s Fasciculus, i. 79. ]
+ Habetur ista formula apud Tho. Waldens. tom. ii. ce. 42. et in Registro Greg. VII. [Cf. Harduini Concil. vi. 1. p. 1586.]
t Brix. Syn. Epise. apud Abb. Ursperg. in Chron. ad an. 1080. [Hildebrandum procacissimum, sacrilegia ac incendia preedicantem, perjuria et homicidia defendentem, catholicam et apostolicam fidem de corpore et sanguine Domini in questionem ponentem, heretici Berengarii anti- quum discipulum, divinationum ac somniorum cultorem, manifestum necromanticum.— These are the words of a council held at Brescia, consisting of thirty French and Italian bishops. |
[§ Corde eredo et ore profiteor panem et vinum, que ponuntur in altari, per mysterium sacre orationis et verba nostri Redemptoris substantialiter converti in veram ac propriam et vivificatricem carnem et sanguinem Domini nostri Jesu Christi, et post consecrationem esse verum
180 HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION.
that Roman faith,”’* yet there are ancienter than *het who say, that he was never converted from his first opinion.t 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 living.’’§ Other things related of him, by some slaves of the Roman see, deserve no credit.. These things happened, as we have said, in the year 1079; and soon after, Berengarius died.
13. Berengarius being dead, the orthodox and ancient doctrine of the Lord’s supper, which he maintained, did not die with him (as the Chro-
Christi corpus quod natum est de virgine, et quod pro salute mundi oblatum in cruce perpendit—non tantum per signum et virtutem sacramenti, sed et in proprietate nature et veritate substantie. Harduini Concil. ib. 1585. ]
* De Gest. Angl. iii. 58; et post eum ab aliis. Vide Bell. Chronol. an. 1079.
+ Pegm. Comment. 31. ad 2 part. direct. inquisit.
{ Bertoldi Constantiensis (qui tempore Berengar. vixit) in [Appendice ad] Chron. [Hermanni] ad an. 1083. [Be- rengarius, nove heresis de corpore Domini auctor, eo tempore deficiens abiit in locum suum, qui licet eandem heeresin seepissime in synodo abjuravit, ad vomitum tamen suum canino more non expavit redire. Nam et in Romana synodo canonice convictus heresin suam in libro a se de- scriptam combussit et abjuratam anathematizavit, nec tamen postea dimisit. |
§ Vincent. in Spec. xxvi. 40. Baron. ad an. 1088, § 15, &e,.
¥
HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 181
nicon Cassinense* would have it); for it was still constantly retained by St. Bernard, abbot of Clairvaux, who lived about the beginning of the twelfth century.t In his discourse on the Lord’s suppert he joins 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 Christ’s 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 blood of Christ is given, he saith, ** That the visible sign is as a ring, which is given
* iii. 33, + A.D. 1120.
t Sermo de Coena Dom. [Opera, p. 890, ed. 1690. Sacramentum dicitur sacrum signum sive sacrum secretum. Multa siquidem fiunt propter se tantum ; alia vero propter alia designanda, et ipsa dicuntur signa et sunt. Ut enim de usualibus sumamus exemplum: datur anulus absolute propter anulum, et nulla est significatio: datur ad inves- tiendum de heereditate aliqua, et signum est, ita ut jam dicere possit qui accipit: Anulus non valet quicquam, sed heereditas est quam querebam. In hunc itaque modum appropinquans passioni Dominus, de gratia sua investire curavit suos, ut invisibilis gratia signo aliquo visibili pre- staretur. Ad hoc instituta sunt omnia sacramenta, ad hoc eucharistie participatio. |
182 HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION.
not for itself 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 sub- stantially 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 blood 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. * Sermo de Purif. B. Marie (?). -
HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 183
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 whathe 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,t 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 ; *“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 indeed an unwarrantable opinion of the union of the bread and body of
* Sermo de 8. Martino [p. 1052. Usque hodie eadem caro nobis, sed spiritualiter, utique non carnaliter exhi- beatur. | |
+ De Sacerdotio, iii. [§ 4. 0b wip Karadépwy, Grad 7d mvedua Td &ytov. |
y.A.D. 1125.
§ In Exod. ii. 10. [Operatione Spiritus Sancti panis corpus, vinum fit sanguis Christi.—Totum attribuetis ope- rationi Spiritus Sancti, cujus affectus non est destruere vel corrumpere substantiam quamcumque suos in usus assumit, sed substantize bono permanenti quod erat, invisibiliter adjicere quod non erat. |
184 HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION.
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 Christ’s 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, Peter 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 blood 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.”t 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
* Ex quo sequitur, panem esse corpus Christi, sed cor- pus non humanum neque carneum, sed panaceum. [ Bel- larmine, De Euch. iii. 11. ] + A.D. 1140.
t Sent. iv. Dist.10. [Satis responsum est hereticis et objectionibus eorum qui negant verum corpus Christi in — altari esse, et panem in corpus vel vinum in sanguinem mystica consecratione converti.— Dist. 11. Si autem que-
ritur qualis sit illa conversio, an formaliter, an substanti- aliter, vel alterius generis, diffinire non sufficio. ]
HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 185
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 blood, (for he was nephew to Henry the Fourth, and the Em- peror Henry the Fifth married his sister; he was also uncle to Frederick, and half-brother to King Conrad,) lived about the same time. He believed and writ, “ that the bread and wine remain in the eucharist ;’+ as did many more in that age.
17. As for the new-coined word transubstan- tiation, it is hardly to be found before the mid- dle of this century.{ For the first that mention it are Petrus Blesensis,§ who lived under Pope Alexander the Third, and Stephen Eduensis,|| a bishop, whose age and writings are very doubt- ful. And those later authors, who make it as ancient as the tenth century, want sufficient wit- nesses to prove it by, as I said before.**
* a.p. 1145.
+ Christ. Agric, in Antipist. p. 18 (?).
f-a.D. 1180, § In Epistola 140.
|| De Sacr, Altaris, in B.B. Patrum. [vol. x. p. 412.] {| Bellarmin. et Possevin de Script. Ecclesiast. in vita. ** Chap. v. art. 50.
186 HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION.
18. The thirteenth century now follows, where- “in, 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 friars 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 blood of Christ : so that now there remained nothing but to con- firm 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 per- formed. He succeeding Celestin the Third at thirty years of age, and marching stoutly in the footsteps 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 mere authority. 19. How much he took upon himself, and what was the man’s 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,
‘* a.D. 1215. Innocen. III. Papa.
HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 187
‘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.* Am not I the bride- groom, and each of you the bridegroom’s friend ? The bridegroom I am, because I have the bride, the noble, rich, lofty, and holy Church of Rome, who is the mother and mistress of all the faithful.
* TInnocentius III. [in Consecratione Pontificis maximi | Sermo 2. [vol. i. p. 189. ed. Colon. 1575. Mihi namque dicitur in propheta: ‘‘ Constitui te super gentes et regna, ut evellas et destruas et disperdas et dissipes et edifices et plantes.” Mihi quoque dicitur in apostolo: “Tibi dabo claves regni ccelorum, et quodcumque ligaveris super terram erit ligatum et in ceelis,” &c. Cum omnibus apostolis lo- queretur particulariter dixit : ‘‘ Quorum remiseritis peccata remittuntur eis, et quorum retinueritis retenta sunt.” Cum autem soli Petro loqueretur universaliter ait : ‘‘ Quodcum- que ligaveris super terram erit ligatum et in ccelis,’”’ &e. quia Petrus ligare potest ceeteros, sed ligari non potest a ceeteris.—Jam ergo videtis quis iste sit servus, qui super familiam constituitur, profecto vicarius Jesu Christi, suc- cessor Petri, Christus Domini, Deus Pharaonis, inter Deum et hominem medius constitutus, citra Deum, sed ultra ho- minem ; minor Deo, sed major homine; qui de omnibus judicat, et a nemine judicatur. |
188 HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION.
Who hath brought me a precious and inestimable portion, to wit, the fulness of things spiritual, and the vastness of temporal, with the greatness and multitude of both.* God made two great lights in the firmament of heaven; He hath also made two great lights in the firmament of the universal 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 differ- ence between the (Roman) high priest and kings as between the sun and moon.’’+ Thus he, when
* Idem, Serm. 3, [ De Consecratione Pont. ib. p. 192. Annon ego sponsus sum, et quilibet vestrum amicus sponsi ? Utique sponsus quia habeo nobilem, divitem et sublimem, decoram, castam, gratiosam, sacrosanctam Romanam ec- clesiam, quze disponente Deo cunctorum fidelium mater est et magistra.—p. 194. Hee autem sponsa non nupsit vacua, sed dotem mihi tribuit absque pretio pretiosam, spiritualium videlicet plenitudinem, et latitudinem tem- poralium, magnitudinem et multitudinem utrorumque. | Addit: Multe filie congregaverunt divitias, hee autem sola supergressa est universas. |
+ Epist. ad Imper. Constant. Extra. de Major. et Obe- dientia, c. 6. [Gesta Innocentii III. vol. i. 29. ed. 1632. Ad firmamentum igitur cceli, hoc est, universalis ecclesie, . fecit Deus duo magna luminaria, id est, duas magnas in- stituit dignitates, quee sunt pontificalis auctoritas et regalis potestas: sed illa que preest diebus, id est, spiritualibus,
HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 189
he was become Christ’s vicar, or rather His rival. These things I rehearse that we may see how things went, and what was the face of the Latin Church, when Pope Innocent the Third pro- pounded and imposed transubstantiation as an article of faith; 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 increase his power and authority, wrought great troubles _to the Emperor Philip, stripped 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 juris- diction, took to himself both the supreme power over things temporal and the things themselves ; who “was proud and ambitious beyond all men, covetous to the height of greediness” (they -are the words of Matthew Paris), “ and ever ready to commit the most wicked villanies, so he might be recompensed for it;’’+ this, I say, was the man
major est, que vero carnalibus minor est: ut quanta est inter solem et lunam, tanta inter pontifices et reges dif- ferentia cognoscatur. |
* Exerc. de Transubst. [Not in the Museum or Sion College.]|
+ In Hist. Johan. Regis Anglie [p. 245. ed. 1640, No- verat autem et multiplici didicerat experientia, quod papa
e
190 HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION.
who in his Lateran council propounded that tran- substantiation should be made an article of faith; and when the council would not 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 merely the decrees of Pope Innocent, first writ by him, and read in the council, and disliked by many,f 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 heretics who for the future should deny that “the body and blood of Christ are duly contained in the sacrament of the altar under the outward form of bread and wine, the bread being tran- substantiated into the body, and the wine into the blood, delivers them all, of what office or dignity soever, to the secular power to receive condign punishment,”’{ that is, to be burnt; commands those that are suspected to be tried and examined ;
super omnes mortales ambitiosus erat et superbus, pecu- nique sitior insatiabilis, et ad omnia scelera pro preemiis datis vel promissis cereum et proclivum. ]
* Mat. Paris in Hist. min. et Platin. in vita Innoe. III.
+ Verba Mat. Paris, in Hist. majori, ad an. 1215. [ Aliis placabilia, aliis videbantur onerosa. ]
t Extr. de fide et sum. Trin. c. Firmiter credimus.
a nF Ff ee
HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 191
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, “that the secular powers shall be compelled by ecclesiastic censures publicly to swear that they will defend (this) faith, and endeavour utterly to destroy all whom the Church (of Rome) should note for heretics. But (saith he) if the temporal prince doth neglect this, let him be excommuni- cated: and if he slights to give satisfaction within a year, let the sovereign pontiff be certified of it, that he may absolve his subjects from their alle- giance, and expose his territories to be taken and enjoyed without any contradiction by any catholics (Romans) that destroy the heretics,”* &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
* Thid.
192 HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION.
we believe Chancellor 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 ap- proved by those that feared God.t And among the subscribers to transubstantiation there grew a thicket of thorny and monstrous questions, where- with the schoolmen were so busy, that it may with great truth be affirmed, that then came to
* Gerson, De Concilio generali. [Opera, ii. 27. Que reddiderunt ecclesiam totam brutalem et carnalem, nihil fere sapientem de his que Dei sunt. |
[+ “The first definition or determination of this manner of the presence was yet later [than Berengarius], in the council of Lateran, in the days of Innocent III., after the year 1200. Ante Lateranense concilium transubstantiatio non fuit dogma fidei. (Scotus in 4 Sent. dist. ii. q. 3.) And what the fruit of it was, let Vasquez bear witness : Audito nomine transubstantiationis, &c. ‘The very name of transubstantiation being but heard, so great a controversy did arise among the later schoolmen concerning the nature thereof, that the more they endeavoured to wind them- selves out, the more they wrapped themselves in greater difficulties, whereby the mystery of faith became more dif- ficult both to be explained and to be understood, and more exposed to the cavils of its adversaries.’ He adds, ‘That the names of conversion and transubstantiation gave occasion to these controversies.’” —BRAMHALL’S Answer to Mili-
tiere, p. 18.
HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 193
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, feigned 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 blood, any thing that could come into the idle fancies of idle and superstitious men. ‘ 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 priest’s hand, having made itself a passage, entered of its own accord into the place where the dying man’s heart lay hid, and the hole being made up again without any thing of a scar, the man lay down and then expired.”+ “ Another, being ready to die, begged that, his side being washed and co- vered with a clean cloth, the body of Christ might be set on it; which being done, the cloth by degrees gave place to the body of Christ, and soon after, when that divine body touched the man’s skin, it penetrated to his very heart, in the
[* Otho ab imperio judicio ecclesize depositus. Thom. de Walsingham, ut infra, an. 1214. ] )
+ Thomas de Walsingham, in Hypod. Neustrie, ad an. 1215.
K
194 HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION.
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 ox, and an ass, bowed their knees, and adored their Lord in the host.” These and such-like fictions were daily invented without number by the patrons of transubstantiation ; and the impu- dence and boldness of coining such forgeries hath from them past upon their successors. This was observed by King James in the writings of Bel- larminet himself, who reports “ of a certain de- vout mare” that worshipped the host kneeling ; knowing, doubtless, that by a due consecration it was transubstantiated. Cesarius the monk, who lived soon after Innocent III., 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 Cologne,” saith he, “ there was a canon in full orders, called Peter, when on a cer- tain day another of the canons was sick, and about to receive the sacrament in his presence, the offi- ciating priest asked the sick man, Dost thou be- lieve that this is the true body of the Lord which was born of the Virgin? He made answer, I be- lieve it. Peter hearing and observing their words
* Discip. de Temp. Serm. 80. _ + Car. Bellarm. Apol, q. 182. -
HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 195
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 other- wise is an heretic.* Then Peter, weeping, and smiting his breast, cried out, Wo 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 Lord’s body and blood.”
23. I have already touched it, that, together with the new doctrine of transubstantiation, there sprung up new sects of friars, which indeed in a short time increased beyond belief. For now to the order of Dominicans (whom Innocent III. had made his inquisitors, to kill and burn here- tics)+ was added the order of begging Francis- cans; and the Augustine eremits and the Car- melites were set up again. From these came the schoolmen, as we now call them, whose studies (as studies were in that time) were all employed about commenting on Peter Lombard, master of the sentences.
24. These men tired their brains (as we said) about unheard-of questions touching transubstan-
* For so it was decreed by Innocent III. + Meaning those that deny transubstantiation,
196 HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION.
_ tiation, 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 hap- pen often, and are caused either by men’s jug- gling, or by the operation of the devil.”* 2. Whe- ther the mice (who sometimes feast upon the hosts, when they are not well shut up) eat the body of Christ itself? Or if a dog or a hog should swal- low down the consecrated host whole, whether the Lord’s body should pass into their belly together with the accidents?+ Some indeed an- swer (other some being otherwise minded) that, “though the body of Christ enters not into the brute’s mouth as corporeal meat, yet it enters together with the appearances, by reason that they are inseparable one from the other,”’{ (mere non-
* Alex. de Ales. p. 4. q.53. m. 4. [art. 1. f. 216, b. Sed queeritur si post consecrationem apparet revera caro Christi in sua forma, ut si appareret in forma unius pueri, &c.— Hujusmodi apparitiones quandoque accidunt humana pro- curatione et sorte diabolica. |
+ Idem, q. 45. m. 1. a, 2. [Quidam enim opinantur quia corpus Christi continetur in illis speciebus insepara- biliter quamdiu sunt sacramenta. Hoc autem est quamdiu salva est forma panis.—Si enim canis vel porcus deglutiret hostiam consecratam integram, non video quare vel quando corpus Domininon simul cum specie trajiceretur in ventrem canis vel porci. | |
[t Dicendum quod corpus Christi non intrat in os bruti
HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 197
sense) ; “ for as long as the accidents of the bread”’ (i.e. the shape, and taste, and colour, &c.) “remain in their proper being, so long is the body of Christ inseparably joined with them; wherefore if the accidents in their nature pass into the belly, or are cast out by vomiting,* the body of Christ itself must of necessity go along with them: and for this cause pious souls” (I repeat their own words) “do frequently eat again with great rever- ence the parts of the host cast out by vomiting.” Others answer also, “ 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 in- quire about musty and rotten hosts; and because the body of Christ is incorruptible, and not sub- ut cibus corporalis, quia nullo modo esset cibus corporalis, sed solummodo ipsa species que dicitur; sed in ipsum corpus simul intrat cum specie, ratione inseparabilitatis unius ab alio. Ales. ib. f. ec, b.]
* Ibid. q. 53. m, 3. [Aliter autem potest dici, se. quod ex quo ita est quod species panis persistat, in esse suo vero consistit inseparabiliter corpus ChristiimEt ab hoc solent anime pie frequenter partes hostie ejectas per vomitum cum magna reverentia iterato sumere. ]
+ Tho. Aq. Sum. p. 3. q. 80. ¢. 8. [Dicendum est quod animal brutum sacramentaliter corpus Christi manducat, quia non est natum uti eo ut sacramento. Unde non sacra- mentaliter, sed per accidens, corpus Christi manducat, sicut
manducearet ille, qui sumeret hostiam consecratam, nesciens eam esse consecratam. |
198 HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION.
| ject to putrefaction, therefore they answer, “ That the hosts are never so; and that though they ap- pear as if they were, yet in reality they are not; as Christ appeared as a gardener, though he was no gardener.”** 4. They demand concerning in- digested 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, “ That whether they be cast into the sink or the privy, ‘as long as the appearances remain, the body of Christ is insepa- rable from them.’’+ 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 popet hath forbid it should be maintained under pain of ex- communication. Therefore the modern school- men add, ‘ That if any should hold the contrary, after the pope’s determination, he should be con- demned 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
* Alger De Sacramento, ii. 1. [Nec solum corpori Christo, sed et ipsi sacramento visibili eadem causa muco- rem negamus et putredinem.—Possunt tamen [species] videri mucide et putride, quamvis ita non sint; sicut Christus hortulanus, peregrinus, prout erant intuentium
mentes. | + Thom. in 4. dist, 9. q. 2. a. 1, Brulif. in 4. dist. 13. q.5. t Greg. Papa XI. [see above, p. 189. ]
HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 199
been condemned by Pope Gregory XI.’’* 5. They ask concerning the accidents, whether the body of Christ be under them when they are abstracted from their subject? This is against logic. Or whether worms be gendered, or mice nourished of accidents? And this against physic. 6. Whe- ther 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 | know not how many more such thorny questions have wearied and nonplussed them and all their school, and brought them to such straits and extremities, that they know not what to re- solve, 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 man), but about it they have sought out many inventions.t
25. Likewise, this transubstantiation hath given occasion to some most wicked and impi- ous wretches to abuse and profane most unwor- thily what they thought to be the body of Christ : for instances may be brought of some wicked
* Soto in 4. dist. 12. q. 1. a.3. Vasq. in 3. disp. 195, ¢.5. Direct. Inquis. p. 1. n. 5. et p. 2. g.10. [quoted at p- 139. |
+ Ecel. vii, 29.
200 HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION,
priests who for filthy lucre have sold some con- secrated hosts to Jews and sorcerers, who have stabbed and burnt them, and used them for witch- craft and enchantments. Nay, we read 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 persuade 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 poisons 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 doc- trine of Innocent III., being liable to such foul absurdities and detestable abuses, ‘* few men could be persuaded,” in the fourteenth century, “ that the body of Christ is really (or by transubstantia- tion) in the sacrament of the altar;”’ as it-is re- corded by our countryman Robert Holkot,t who lived about the middle of that century. As also Thomas Aquinas reports of some in his time,
* Leuncl. de Rebus Ture. § 116. + In 4. q. 3. an. 1850.
HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 201
*“ who believed that after consecration, not only the accidents of the bread, but its substantial form remained.’’* And Albertus Magnus himself, who was Thomas’s tutor, and writ not long after Inno- cent III., speaks of transubstantiation as of a doubtful question only. Nay, that it was abso- lutely rejected and opposed by many, is generally known; for the anathema of Trent had not yet backed the Lateran decree.
27. As for the rest of the schoolmen (espe- cially the modern), who are, as it were, sworn to Pope Innocent’s determination, they use to ex- press their belief in this matter with great words, but neither pious nor solid, in this manner: *“The common opinion is to be embraced, not because reason requires it, but because it is de- termined by the bishop of Rome.”’t Item, “That ought to be of the greatest weight that we must hold with the holy Church of Rome about the sacraments: now it holds that the bread is tran- substantiated into the body, and the wine into the blood, as it is clearly said, Extra. De summa Tri-
* (Summa Theologie] 3. q. 75. [concl. vi. Quidam posuerunt quod facta consecratione non solum remanent accidentia panis, sed etiam forma substantialis ejus. ]
+ Th. Argentina, in 4. d. 11. q. 1. art. 2. [Jam dictam igitur conversionem teneo, non propter aliquam rationem cogentem, sed propter sanctorum auctoritatem et sancte matris ecclesize determinationem.— Quod etiam istud de- terminatum sit per Romanam ecclesiam, etc. |
K 2
202 HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION:
_ nitate et fide, cap. § Firmiter.’”’* Again; “TI 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 III., doc- trines 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 III. the Roman faith was thus much increased{ by the determina- tion of Pope Gregory XI.,§ that, if it so happens, the body of Christ in the consecrated host may descend into a rat’s belly, or into a privy, or any such foul place.
* Scot. in 4. dist. 11. q. 3. [f. 56, b. ed. Venet. 1598. Principaliter autem videtur movere, quod de sacramentis tenendum est sicut tenet sancta Romana ecclesia, sicut habetur Extra. de hereticis. “‘ Ad abolendam.” Nunc au- tem ipsa tenet panem transubstantiari in corpus et vinum in sanguinem, sicut manifeste habetur Extra. de sum. tri. et fide, cap. ‘‘ Firmiter.” | |
+ Bacon, in 4. dist. 8. q. 1. a. 2. [Probo quod necessario continetur sub fide, quod panis convertitur in corpus Christi; nam, ut dictum est, oportet declarationem fidei tenere quam Romanus pontifex tenendam declarat. |
{ Ut supra, art. 24. : § A.D. 1371.
HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 203
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 sacra- ment of the altar; and that in the same sacra- ment no accidents of bread and wine remain without a substance :” which two assertions are most true.
29. Cardinal Cameracensis, who lived about the time of the council of Constance,t 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, ‘‘ That it is pos- sible; that it is not against reason or the autho- rity of the Bible:” { but concerning’ the con- version 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
* ap. 1415. + A.D. 1420. t In 4. q, 6,.a. 2. § A.D, 1439,
204 HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION,
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 Soto,+ Bellar- mine,t and the Roman catechism,§$) is no decree of the council, as we have demonstrated some- where else,|| but a false and forged decree of Pope Eugenius [V., who doth indeed in that instruction prescribe to the Armenians a form of doctrine about the sacrament, saying, “ that by virtue of the words of Christ the substance of the bread is turned into His body, and the substance of the wine into His blood.” 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 C. de Capite Fontium, archbishop of Cesarea, in his book De necessaria Theolo- gie Scholastice Correctione,q dedicated to Pope Sixtus V. 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 done,** the Armenians,
* Instr. ad Armen. + In 4, dist. 11. q. 1. art. 2. { De Euch. 1. 4. ¢. 13. § Part. 2. c. 4. num. 18.
|| In the History of the Canon of Scripture, p. 158.
{ P. 51, 53, et 56. ** Ex Act. Cone. Flor.
HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 205
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 transub- stantiation, 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 III. or Gregory [X., in the pretended decrees of the council of Lateran, which were the pope’s 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 Armenians believe that the ele- ments 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 mere novelty; not warranted either by Scripture or antiquity; in- vented about the middle of the twelfth century, out of some misunderstood sayings of some of the fathers ; confirmed by no ecclesiastic or papal decree before the year 1215; afterwards received
* Joh. Lasic. de Relig. Armeniorum.
206 HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION.
only here and there in the Roman Church; de- _ bated in the schools by many disputes; liable 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 Trent,* by a few Latin 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 pope.t So that we have no reason to em- brace it, until 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.
* Sess. 13. + Bulla Pii IV. de profess. fidei.
207
APPENDIX TO CHAP. VI.
Clemens Romanus, Constitutiones Apostolice, vi. 23. [avrt bvolas THs BC aiudrwr, Aoyuchy Kal dvaluakroy, Kal Thy pvoTiKhy, Artis eis Tov Odvarov Tov puplov cuuBdrAwy xdpiw émiTeAciTas TOU ocdépatos avtod Kal Tod aluaros. Ib. c. 29: thy dytirumov Tod Ba-
athelov séuatos Xpiorov Sexthy evxapiotiay mpoopéepere.
Ignatius, Epistola ad Philadelph. [ula yap éorw 7 odpt Tov xuplov *Inood Kad ev adrov 7d aiua, Td imtp Hua éxxubér. els Kal pros Tots maow eOpipen, Kal ev morhpiov Tots bAas SieveuhOn. |
Theophilus, ad Autol. ii.
Athenagoras, Legat. pro Christ. [§ 13. ri 5€ wor dAoKavtdécewv év py Setrar 6 Oeds ; Kalror mpoopepew Séov avaluanrov Ouvciav, Kat Thy AoyiKhy mpoodyew Aarpelay. |
Tatianus in Diatessaron [sub nomine Ammonii eyulgatum in Bib. Patr. i. p. iii. Accepto pane, deinde vini calice, corpus esse suum ac sanguinem testatus, manducare illos jussit et bibere, quod ea sit futura calamitatis sue mortisque memoria. |
“Clemens Alexandrinus, Stromatai. [cwrhp &prov AaBov mparov eadanoe kab ebxaplorncer, eira kAdoas Tov Uprov mpoebnKey, iva 5h pdywouev AoyiKas. |
Pedagog. ii. (2. pvorindy &pa oduBorov h ypaph aluaros ayiov olvoy wvduacer. |
Minutius Felix, in Octavio. [Bib. Pat. i. p.iii. 9, Quem colimus
208 HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION.
‘Deum nec ostendimus nec videmus ; immo ex hoc Deum credimus, quod eum sentire possumus, videre non possumus. ]
Eusebius, de Demonstratione Evangelica, i. 10. [rodrou 597 TOU Obuaros Thy uynuhy em Tpame (ns exrerEiv, did TUUBSAwY TOD TE couaTos avTov Kat Tod owrnplov aluaros Kara Oecuods THS KaLWHS Siabhuns maperAnpdres. mddw yap abtds Ta oiuBora Tis evOov oikovoulas Tots adTod mapedldou uabyntais, Thy eikdva Tov idtov cdua-
Tos TotetoOon TapakeAcuduevos. |
Juvencus, de Historia Evangelica, iv. [Bib. Pat. iv. p. 20.
Hec ubi dicta dedit, palmis sibi frangere panem Divisumque dehinc tradit, sancteque precatus Discipulos docuit proprium se tradere corpus.
‘“~ _Hine calicem sumit Dominus vinoque repletum Magnis sanctificat verbis, potumque ministrat, Edocuitque suum se divisisse cruorem. _ Atque ait: Hic sanguis populi delicta remittit. Hunc potate meum. |
Macarius Hgyptius, Hom. 37 [or 27. ofre avéBn abray én) Kap- Stay Br. tora: Bdrricua mupds Kal mvedpatos wylov, Kal bri ev rH exkAnola mpoopéperar pros Kat olvos avtitumoy tis capKkds avTod kal oduartos, Kal of meradapBdvortes &x TOD paivouevov kprov, mvev- MaTiK@s Thy cdpka Tod Kuplov écOlovor. |
Hilarius, in Matt. ch. ix. [In fide enim resurrectionis sacra- mentum panis coelestis accipitur. Cap. xxxi. Sine quo pascha ac- cepto calice et fracto pane conficitur. Dignus enim eternorum sacramentorum communione non fuerat [Judas]. Et De Synodis [§ 13. Neque enim ipse sibi quisquam imago est. ] .
Optatus, contra Parm. iii. [Vinum a peccatoribus operariis et calcatur et premitur, et sic inde Deo sacrificium offertur. In Bib. Pat. iv. 281.]
APPENDIX TO CHAP. VI. 209
Eusebius Emissenus [sive Gallicanus], Homil. de Corpore Christi, [sive Homilia v. de Pascha, in Bib. Pat. v. 560. Quia corpus assumptum oblaturus erat ex oculis nostris et sideribus illaturus, necessarium erat, ut nobis in hac die sacramentum corporis et sanguinis sui consecraret, ut colentur jugiter per mysterium quod semel offerebatur in pretium. ]
Gregorius Nazianzenus, Oratio funebris [xi.], de Gorgonia. [efra TG wap’ éavrijs papudny toltw Td cGpua way emidelpovoa, kal elmov Tt Tav dytiTimwy TOD TYulov GeopaTos 7 TOU aiwatos 7 xele
eOnoadpicrer. |
Cyrillus Alexandrinus, in Johan. xx. 29, [rls &v atrots mAnpo- popias ert SiagKhs eyévero tpdmos ovk byTos Mev emi Yijs TwuaTiK@s ert Xpiorod, dvaBeRnkdros 5& wGAAov eis ovpavods ; |
Epiphanius, in Anchorato. [dp@uev drt ZAaBev 6 owrhp eis Tas xelpas abrod ws tye ev TH evayyeAly, Ori aveotn ev TH Selnvy kal érAaBe rdde. nad ebyapiorhoas elre, TodTS pov éor: Td5e. Kal bp@pev Bri odk toov early, ovdt Suorov, od TH evodpKy eikdu, ov TH dopdrp Oedrynti, ov Trois xapakTipor Tav meAGv. Td wey yap eae oTpoyyvaoeses kal dvaloOnrov ds mpbs Thy Stvapuuv. |
Hieronymus, contra Jovin, ii. [Dominus in typo sanguinis sui non obtulit aquam, sed vinum.] Ser. 31. [Super frumento et vino et oleo, de quo conficitur panis, Domini et sanguinis ejus impletur typus.; In Mat. xxvi. [Audiamus panem quem fregit Dominus deditque discipulis suis esse corpus Domini Salvatoris, ipso dicente ad eos, Accipite et comedite, hoc est corpus meum. ]
Theophilus Alexandrinus, Epist. Pasch. [in Bib. Pat. iv. 712. Non recogitat [Origenes] aquas in baptismate mysticas adventu S. Spiritus consecrari, panemque Domini cum quo Salvatoris cor- pus ostenditur, et quem frangimus in sanctificationem nostri, et sacrum calicem que in mensa ecclesie collocantur, et utique in- anima sunt per invocationem et adventum Sancti Spiritus sancti- ficari. ]
910 HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION.
S. Gaudentius [Brixiensis, de Pasche observatione tract. ii. in Bib. Pat. iv. p. 807. Quod autem sacramenta corporis sui et sanguinis in specie panis et vini offerenda constituit, duplex ratio est.—Deinde quomodo panem de multis tritici granis in pollinem redactis per aquam confici et per ignem necesse est consummari ; rationabiliter in eo figura accipitur corporis Christi. ]
Sedulius, in Epist. S. Pauli [vi. in Bib. Pat. v. Ipsius pignus et imaginem. |
Gennadius Massiliensis, de Dogm. Eccl. c. 25. [The passages from this and the following author to which Dr. Cosin refers, I have not been able to find. }
Faustus, Homil. 2 in Epiphan.
Ferrandus Diaconus, in Epistola ad Severum [in Biblioth. Pat. vi. p. 360. Ideo est filius hominis in coelo, quia ibi est semper filius Dei qui factus est filius hominis. ]
Fulgentius Africanus, de Fide, [c. 19. Sacrificium panis et vini, in fide et charitate, sancta ecclesia catholica per universum orbem terree offerre non cessat. ]
Victor Antiochenus, Com. in Marc. c. 14. [Per panis quidem
symbolum corporis Christi, per calicem vero ejusdem sanguinis participes se fieri. In Bib. Pat. iv. 330.]
Primasius, in Epist. ad i. Corinth. x. [Panis quem frangimus, nonne participatio corporis Domini est? Sic et idolorum panis dzmonum participatio est. Ib. vi. 2. 60.]
Procopius Gazzeus, in Genes. 49. [ydAa 7d Aaumpdy Sroonuatver Kat Kabapdy Tis pvoTnpi@dov Tpopijs’ mapedwxe yap cixdva Tod idlov
Témaros pabnrais, unkéeTs Tas vomKas Kal dv aiudrwy Ovolas mpooré- KM p
hevos. Td Tolvuv &otou Td Kabapdy Tis Tpopis 51d TeV AevKay dddv- Tov eofArwee. |
ee eS ee ee
or.
APPENDIX TO CHAP. VI. 911
Hesychius, in Levit. i. [2. In Bib. Pat. vii. 8. Carnem autem ejus que ad comedendum inepta erat ante passionem (quis enim comedere cupiebat carnem Dei ?), aptam cibo post passionem fecit ; si enim non fuisset crucifixus, sacrificium corporis ejus minime comederemus. Comedimus autem nunc cibum sumentes ejus memoriam passionis. |
Maximus, in Hierarch. Dionys. [in c. 3. otuSoda tadra, kal ovK GANPeLa. |
Johannes Damascenus, de Fide orthodoxa [iii. 3. més ula pvois Tov évaytiwy ovowdav diaddpwy Sextikh yevhoera; mAs yap Suva- toy Thy aithy obow Kara Tabtdy KTioThy elvan Kal &KTicTOY OvnThY
ka) &Odvarov, weprypamThy Kat dareplyparror ; |
Nicephorus [Constantinopolitanus], de Cherub. c. 6. [Quo- modo idem dicitur corpus et imago Christi? Quod enim est alicujus imago, hoc corpus ejus esse non potest. In Bib. Pat. vii. ]
Hincmarus, in vita St. Remigii. [Cum ejusdem beatze passionis ad altare memoria replicatur, cum panis et vini creatura in sacra- mentum carnis et sanguinis ejus ineffabili spiritus sanctificatione transfertur. Surius, i. 290. ed. Colon.]
Fulbert. Epist. ad Adeodat. [1. Dominus defectum nostre fragilitatis miseratus, adversus quotidianas nostre prolapsionis offensas sacrificii placabilis expiamenta, ut quia corpus suum, quod semel pro nobis offerebat in pretium, paulo post a nostris visibus sublaturus fuerat in coelum, ne sublati corporis presenti fraudaremur munimine corporis, nihilominus et sanguinis sui pignus salutare nobis reliquit, non inanis mysterii symbolum. In Bib. Pat. xi.]
A.D. 314.
Concil. Ancyr. can. ii. [S:axdvous duolws Oioayras, mera Se TavTa dvamadalcayras, Thy Mev BAAnY Tinhy exew, Tenadoe Oa St ad-
212 HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION.
Tous mdons THs lepas Aevroupylas Tis Te Tod Uprov 2 morhpioy ava- pépew } xnotooew. Harduini Concil. i. p. 271.]
Concil. Neocesar. can. xiii. [émiydpiot mpeoBirepor ev Te Kupt~ aK@ THs wéAEws mpoopepew ov SivayTat, mapdvrTos émioKdrov }) TpEo- Butépwv mérews, obre phy uprov Siddvar év edxf, ovde morhpior. Ib. p. 286.]
[a.D. 325.]
Concil. Nicenum, can. xxx. [ém? rijs elas tpamé(ns méAw Kav- TAvOa wh TH mpoKeméevy Upto kal TS woTNolw Tamewas MpoceXwpEV, GAN tidoavres Hav thy Sidvowav mlater vohowuey KeioOa em) Tis iepas éxelvns rparé(ns Toy duvdy Tod Ocod Tov alpoyra Thy Gpaptiay Tov Kéopou, &biTws bwd THY tepéwy Ovduevov. Kal Td Tlutov abTod capa Kar aiua &AnOGs AauBdvovtas Huas morevew Tadra Elva TA THs NmeTEepas dvarrdcews obuBora. did TovTo yap obre TOAY AapBa- vouev, GAN dAlyor, iva, yvaGuev Bri od eis TAnTMOVHY, GAN eis ayI- acudv. Ib. p. 428.]
A.D. 364. [vel circ. 372.]
Concil. Laodicenum, can. xxv. [871 od Se? Sanpéras Uprov 51d6- vat, ov8€ moThpiov evaoyeiv. Ib. 786.]
AD. O9Fs
Concil. Carthagin. [iii.] can. xxiv. [Ut in sacramentis corporis et sanguinis Domini nihil amplius offeratur quam ipse Dominus tradidit, hoc est, panis et vinum aqua mixtum. Nec amplius in sacrificiis offeratur quam de uvis et frumentis. Ib. p. 964. Com- pare with this the Canones Ecclesiz Africane, can. xxxvii. Ib. p- 883.]
A.D. 541.
Concil. Aurelian. can. iv. [Ut nullus in oblatione sacri calicis nisi quod ex fructu vinee speratur et hoc aqua mixtum offerre pre- sumat, quia sacrilegium judicatur aliud quam quod in mandatis sacratissimis Salvator instituit. Ib. ii. 1438.]
APPENDIX TO CHAP. VI. 213
A.D. 633,
Concilium Toletanum [iv.], can. xviii. [Nonnulli sacerdotes post dictam orationem dominicam statim communicant, et postea benedictionem in populo dant: quod deinceps interdicimus: sed post orationem dominicam et conjunctionem panis et calicis bene- dictio in populum sequatur, et tunc demum corporis et sanguinis Domini sacramentum sumatur. Ib. iii. p. 584.]
A.D. 675.
Concil. Bracarense, can. ii. [— Nulli deinceps licitum erit aliud in sacrificiis divinis offerre, nisi juxta antiquorum sententias conciliorum, panem tantum et calicem vino et aqua permixtum. Tb. p. 1033.)
A.D. 693.
Concil. Toletanum [xvi.], can. vi. [Quia et Redemptoris verba testantur, quod panem integrum accipiens, non buccellam, quem post benedictionem confrangens suis particulatim discipulis de- derit ; et Paulus apostolus similiter nihilo minus narrat, quod panem acceperit et gratias agens confregerit ; necnon et illud, quod Christus de quinque panibus confractis turbam refecerit, quid aliud instituit nos, nisi ut panem integrum sumentes, super altaris ejus mensam benedicendum ponamus? Jb. p. 1796.]
A.D. 691. [706.]
Concil. Constantinopol. quinisextum sive in Trullo, can. xxxii. [et tis ody exloxoros 7) mpeaBirepos wh KaTd Thy mapadobeicay Srd tay amootéAwy tdkw more?, Kad Bdwp pryvds oftw Thy &xpavrov mpocdyet Ovolay, Kabapelodw, ds &reAGs 7 pvoThpiov ekaryyéAAwv Kat xouvi(ov Ta mapadedoueva. Ib. p. 1674.]
§ 7. p. 146.
Irenzeus, v. 10. [Homo per fidem insertus et assumens Spiritum Dei—aliud accipit vocabulum, significans illam que in melius est
914 HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION.
Cail taal ele ee
- transmutationem, jam non caro et sanguis sed homo spiritalis existens. |
Clemens Alexandrinus, Strom. iv. [§ 23. 4 didaxy werapvOuicer Tov &vOpwrov.—kal Sihveynev oddity h pice mrAacOHva Todvde 7
xpdvp Kad wabhoer weraruTwOjvau. |
Origen, Sermo ii. in Diversos. [Sanctus itaque theologus in Deum transmutatus veritatis particeps, &c.]
Cyril. Hierul. Catech. 18. [§ 9. 7d yap c&ua rodro éyelperat,
évdvoduevoy Thy apbapclay weTamo.etTau. |
Basilius, Exhortatio ad Baptismum. [@ Tod @aduaros dvaxaviCn
Bh xwvevduevos, dvamAdtTn mh cvvTpiBdpevos. |
Chrysostomus, Homil. v. de Poenitentia. [The words to which Dr. Cosin refers do not occur in this Homily. See, however, Hom. 47 in Mat. et Hom. 2 in John. for instances to the point. ]
Gregorius Nazianzenus, Orat. xl. [7 did rijs dvaryevhoews yiwouevn metamoinois THs (wis tev ovn by etn meramoinots. Ib.
Xpioroy peramemolnua TH Bawricpart. |
Gregorius Nyssen. in Christi Resur. Hom. i. [yéyovey &AAn yévynots, Blos Erepos, UAAO wijs Eidos, adtis Tis pioews Hudy metacroxelwois. Opera, iii. 384. Paris, 1638.]
Contra Eunom. Orat. ii. [uéAAwy fuads pmetamoety ex TOU poaprod mpds Td kpOaproy, Sid Thy kvwlev yevnoews, THs d: Baros Kal mvevuatos. Opera, ii. 453.] .
Epistola ad Letoium. [ée maaryyevecias wetacrorxetoumevous 31a THs TOU AovTpod xdpiros. Opera, ii.114.] In Epist. ad Eusta- thiam, &c. [Thy piow hua mpds Thy Oclay Sbvauw meTaoTOLXELous. Opera, iii. 658.] "
Cyril. Alexand. Hom. Pasch. vi. [karepO@apuévny Tod avOpwxov
APPENDIX TO CHAP. VII. 215 piow eis kavdrnra pmetapvOulCwy (wis. Opera, v. 2. p.79.] vii. [kal rdvra merapvOuhoas Ta ev huiv eis duelvova tat. Ib. p.91.] xiv. [werapvdut(er eis ayacudy, Sieady tH wiore Tov mpocepxs- pevov. Ib. p. 197.]
Chrysostomus, Hom. xxiii. in Act. Apost. [weydAn tod mved- patos ) Sivas, 6Tt werémAacer, STi wereppvomce. |
Hom. xxxiii. in 1 Cor. [c. xii. weydAn yap abrn diSdoKados Kal ixavh kai wAdvns draryaryeiv Kad rpdérov perappv0uloa.
Theodoret. Dialog. ii. [To what passage Dr. Cosin refers, I have not been able to discover. |
Theophylact. in vi. Johan. [Somep ody gnoly, eyo (@ dia Tov marépa, TovTérriv, ws yevnbels ex Tov matpds bs éort (wy, obTw Kal b tpdywv we Choerar 8¢ eve dvaxipydpevos, Somep Kal peracroxe-
ovmevos eis ue Tov Cworyoveiv irxtovra. p.654. ed. 1635. ]
(Ecumenius in | Pet. i. [dia Tis éx vexgav avacrdcews "Inood Xpiorod avaryevhoas Huas Hrou ueratohoas. |
[ For an account of the origin and cause of this Conference,
| |
the reader is referred to the Life of Bishop Cosin pre- fixed to this volume. The MS. from which the Con-
9 ference is printed will be found in Dr. Cosin’s own
handwriting, preserved among the Tanner MSS. #& the |
Bodleian Library. | ;
| |
eee eee eee eee ee ee
ACCOUNT OF TWO CONFERENCES
HELD AT
YORK-HOUSE, IN 1625.
The Second Conference with Mr. Montague himself, Feb. 17, 1625.*
Arter two former meetings at York-house, in the presence of the Duke of Buckingham, Pem- broke lord-president of the council, Dorset, Bridg- water, Carlisle, Mulgrave, and Secretary Coke, the Lord Say and the Earl of Warwick, oppo- sition was made by my Lord of Lichfield in nine points against Mr. Montague’s books, and by Dr. Preston in three; all defended and freely answered by Mr. Montague himself, my Lord of Rochester, Dr. Whyte, and myself (Mr. Cosin), as a poor assistant commanded thither by the duke, by reason I had been so much interested in the business from the beginning. The occasion of this conference was the Earl of Warwick’s and the Lord Say’s importunate suit unto the duke and to his majesty, that their two champions
* “ This is the sum; but the conference itself is want- ing.”—Note in Abp. Sancroft’s hand. The first conference commenced Feb. 11 (see p. 220); and this should have been placed after: but I have followed the order of the MS.
L
218 THE SECOND CONFERENCE.
might be but admitted to shew their valour —
against the heresies, blasphemies, treasons, apos- tacies, that were pretended to be in the books.
The gross heresies propounded were these :—
1. General councils lawful, &c. cannot err in fundamentals.
2. We go to heaven and hell according to our deservings.
3. Justification taken largely sor peehen tet good works.
4. A woman is not held by us to be supreme governor in cause ecclesiastical, but in reference to persons that may be forced to do their duties in them.
®. As Lucifer fell from heaven, so man may fall from grace—a graceless blasphemy.
6. God is not substantially mixed with all things, as the Stoics held.
7. The Church of Rome and ours stand firm upon one and the main foundation.
8. We allow more sacraments than two.
9. The pope is not that great antichrist.
Dr. PREsToN.
1, Traditions mentioned in S. Basil (27th
disputation) we allow.
2. Arminius was not the cause of all the stindl ;
and broils in the Low Countries. 3. Election and reprobation are not irrespec- tive of &e.
All which the opposers urged against with FA
WITH MR. MONTAGUE HIMSELF 219
vehemency; and Mr. M. answered with per- spicuous brevity, and delight to all that were present, unless my Lord Say. Not a lord be- sides him and Warwick but expressed themselves ashamed of such poor objections, and highly satis- fied with such a plain, ingenious, and learned expression as Mr. M. made of himself. The conference held about six hours, till past eight at night. The news was presently related to the king, who swears his perpetual patronage of our cause. If the faction had conquered, they had shewed no mercy; now they are subdued, they shew no patience, &c.
The sum and substance of the two Conferences lately had at York-house concerning Mr. Mon- tague’s books ; which it pleased the Duke of Buck- ingham to appoint, and with divers other honour- able persons to hear, at the special and earnest request of the Earl of Warwick and the Lord Say.
The first day’s meeting was without any con- ference. Feb. 9th, 1625.
The day first appointed by the Lord Duke of Buckingham was Thursday the 9th of Feb., on which the Dean of Carlisle and Mr. Montague were suddenly sent for, came and attended at York-house, and, after two or three hours ex- pectation, it pleased the duke’s grace to signify
) : :
220 THE FIRST CONFERENCE.
unto them, that the lords who desired the confer- — ence, and the opposers (who were hereafter to be — brought forth, but as yet concealed men from — himself) being either not ready with their objec- — tions, or not at leisure for other occasions, hath failed both himself and them for that day. So wishing them to attend no more until further and more certain notice was given unto them, they b went their way. 1
The First Conference. Feb. 11.
All the day following Mr. Montague still at- tended in London, expecting when he shall be called, but as yet no message came ; and therefore he resolved to go and despatch some serious busi- ness the next day at Windsor, and to return upon the Monday morning; after which, as he thought, would be the soonest time that was now likely to be assigned for any conference. Yet upon the next day, which was Saturday the llth of Feb. (when Mr. M. was but newly gone out of the town), were both he and the dean sent for again, and wished to be ready at York-house by two of the clock in the afternoon. The Dean of Carlisle* — (finding Mr. M. gone) was desirous, as he came — along by Durham-house, to have Mr. Cosin with him to the conference: and together they went at the time assigned. : * Dr. Fr. White, author of the Reply to Fisher the ig | Jesuit. ‘ .
UPON MR. MONTAGUE’S BOOKS. 221
Immediately upon their coming to York-~- house was my Lord Bishop of Rochester* sent for by the duke, and requested to the conference.
When his lordship was come, we all entered into the chamber, where we found the Lord Duke of Buckingham, the Earl of Pembroke, and the Earl of Carlisle, together with the Earl of War- — wick, the Lord Say, Mr. Secretary Coke, and the Bishop of Lichfield,t who was now perceived to be of those that should accuse and appear against Mr. M.
After a few salutations passed, the doors being commanded to be shut, and the lords desired to order and place themselves at the table, it pleased the Bishop of Lichfield to prevent all others, — to begin his speech and say,
*€ That he should in all humble wise crave of his grace and the rest of the honourable assembly to conceive rightly of his appearing that day against Mr. M., which was no other than what he was forced unto for the discharge of his con- science, of a true and sincere love which he and many others bore to the profession of the Gospel and the truth of God; protesting withal that he came not out of any spleen or malice against Mr. Montague’s person, as intending to destroy him,
* Bp. Buckeridge, the friend of Andrews and Laud. + Bp. Morton, author of several learned works against the Romanists.
999 THE FIRST CONFERENCE.
but with a true and upright meaning to lay forth his errors, and intending to reform him; for that in books of his lately published, the one called the Gag, the other the Appeal, there were such gross errors, such heresies and blasphemies con- tained, as were not to be endured in a Christian commonwealth. |
“* And by their honourable patience he should make it appear how, by the publishing of these books,—1. Authority had been abused. 2. That the articles and religion of the Church of Eng- land. 3. That no less than treason had been ut- tered, and both the oath of allegiance and supre- macy condemned. 4. That apparent heresy had been maintained. 5. That the learned and worthy writings of our late sovereign lord King James had been rejected and vilified. 6. That the whole Gospel of Jesus Christ had been by some passages overthrown. And, 7. and lastly, that a great gap had been opened for popery to be brought in or get increase among us; besides many scandalous and profane passages, which should likewise be observed and offered unto consideration.”
When his lordship had said and made an end of this his general accusation, the Duke of Buck- ingham desired him to respite a little, having been all this while prevented and hindered by him from telling the occasion of this meeting together.
Which his grace then declared to have risen
UPON MR. MONTAGUE’S BOOKS. 223
from some private speeches that had lately passed between my Lord of Warwick and him concern- ing sundry matters that were said to be erroneous and dangerous in Mr. M.’s books; wherein, be- cause he was not so well versed himself as to judge or censure matters of so high a nature, he was willing to yield to their request who had so earnestly desired a conference for manifesting of such dangerous errors as were pretended; or otherwise for the quieting of all differences, if no such error could be proved. Adding thereunto, that the judgment of divers grave and learned prelates of this Church had yet confirmed both his majesty and himself in the good opinion which his late sovereign lord and master always con- ceived of Mr. M.’s worth and learning, together with his constant resolution to maintain the doc- trine publicly established in the Church of Eng- land, and to continue sound in his religion, whereof some had begun to make a doubt.*
Moreover, he said that in this opinion of him he should still continue, whilst he had no just cause shewed him to remove from it; and if any just cause were shewn, it must be in the sub- stance of his books; for as for the sharpness of style or language wherein they were written, it
* The duke refers to a letter, since published in the
Cabala, signed by several of the bishops, in favour of Mr. Montague’s books.
294: THE FIRST CONFERENCE.
was partly by direction given him, and partly by peevishness of his adversaries, which might well draw him thereunto: and for concluding that the substantial parts of his writings were only to be regarded in this conference, and that if they were not found erroneous, Mr. M.’s language, whatso- ever it were, ought to be no prejudice unto him, [and so] he wished his Lordship of Coventry and Lichfield to proceed.
Which he did, in urging for his first point, that authority had been abused. For in pub- lishing of the Appeal divers passages were now printed which were never allowed or approved of before. And for instance he alleged the chapter of antichrist, where the word rather was added, and the sentence made, “ the Turk is rather that antichrist than the pope.”
Whereupon the Dean of Carlisle (unto whom the approbation of the book was committed by his majesty) made answer, that he could not re- member whether the printed copy and that which he licensed did in every tittle, word, and title agree or no; but for any substantial and material addition or alteration he could observe none to be made through the whole book ; and therefore was still ready to maintain every thing now printed and published to be answerable unto that appro- bation whereunto he subscribed his name, unless it could be proved that he was mistaken therein,
4 x a 3 a
a —
OF GENERAL COUNCILS. 925
The bishop, not seeming to be satisfied with this answer, still made instance in the word rather, and urged it so, as if the dean himself had in some company affirmed it to have been added. ,
The dean answering again as before, and that it was a matter of no moment whether any such word was added or no, the Bishop of Rochester began to put his Lordship of Lichfield in mind that the adding or not adding of this word, unless it were first proved by him to concern the doc- trine of the Church of England, made little to his purpose; and that therefore his lordship should do well to shew first, where the Church of Eng- land had by public authority, either one way or other, determined that controversy.
“< If it concerns not the public established doctrine of the Church,” quoth the duke, “ why should we trouble ourselves withal ?”’
Whereupon the Bishop of Lichfield (though with some unwillingness and reluctation) gave over this first objection against the word, signify- ing withal, that he meant to speak of the matter of antichrist soon after. And so proceeded to his second objection, which was concerning general councils. Whereupon he urged that Mr. M., in his Appeal, p. 122, &c. had contradicted the public doctrine of the Church of England, de- livered in the 21st article, the affirming that
L2
2926 THE FIRST CONFERENCE.
** general councils neither have erred nor can err;” and the article allowing the contrary, that ‘* general councils, forasmuch as they be an as- — sembly of men, whereof all are not governed by. — the Spirit and word of God, may err, and some- times have erred, even in things appertaining to God.” |
After the bishop had a while advanced this objection, the Dean of Carlisle answered, that when Mr. M. was rightly understood, the seem- ing contradiction between his words and the words of the article would be soon taken away. For, first, whereas the article speaketh of general councils indefinitely and at large, that is, of such as have been reputed lawful and general accord- ing to the opinion of the multitude, Mr. M. pro- poseth his assertion of none such, but of some certain general councils only, which are such as be not lawfully called alone, and which consist of the most worthy and learned pastors or bishops of the Christian world, but such also as, being so called, do with a pious affection orderly proceed to the making of their canons and framing their conclusions, according to the rule of God’s word, submitting themselves to the guidance of his Spirit, which he hath pro- mised unto such as are gathered together in his name.
And here, as the dean was about to proceed,
OF GENERAL COUNCILS. 22°7
“Take what council you will,’’ quoth my Lord of Lichfield, “and qualified with any conditions whatsoever, I will prove by this 21st article that all the councils of the world may err. For this is my syllogism :
All assemblies of men may err ;
But all general councils whatsoever are assem-
blies of men; therefore
All general councils whatsoever may err.”’
It was answered, that all assemblies of men in sensu diviso, and considered merely as men, may err; but all assemblies of men in sensu composito, considered as men rightly qualified, and duly proceeding through the power of God’s Spirit (wherewith they have promise to be assisted and led unto all truth), shall not so err.
As the Bishop of Lichfield began to reply, * My lord,’ quoth the Bishop of Rochester, *< you shall not need; for as you propound your argument, you make an adversary to yourself, where you find none. The point of difference is not so much, whether general councils may err or no at all (for in many things they have erred, saith the article, and Mr. M. denies it not); but whether general councils qualified, as before was told you, have erred, shall or may err in funda- mentals or no, which the article doth not, and Mr. M. will not, affirm.”
‘JT will prove it,” said the Bishop of Lich-
998 THE FIRST CONFERENCE. *
field, “ that it saith they may err in funda- mentals :
Things necessary to salvation are matters fun-
damental ;
But the article saith, they may err and have
erred in things necessary to salvation ;
Therefore the article saith, they may err in
fundamentals.”
It was answered, that the article said no more but that they might err, and sometimes have erred even in things appertaining unto God, and many things appertaining unto God are nei- ther fundamental nor necessary to salvation.
‘¢ There can no sense be made of the article,” quoth my Lord of Lichfield, “ but only that which I have made already; things appertaining unto God, and things necessary to salvation, have reference here one to another, and are made the same things.”
My Lord of Rochester replied, “ that the sense was this: first, that general councils at all times, and in all things appertaining unto God, are not infallible; for in some of these they may
q bean
err, and sometimes have erred ;—and secondly,
that if they proceed in a further degree of making things which pertain unto God and religion to be also necessary to salvation, their authority shall not be received without the Scripture. So that here was a plain difference put between things
OF GENERAL COUNCILS. 229
necessary to salvation and things generally apper- taining unto God. |
Hereupon my lord chamberlain called for the book of Articles, and comparing the former words with the latter, professed that my Lord of Rochester had given a most plain and true mean- ing of them both. Dr. White added, “ that how- soever the article saith, they may and have erred in things appertaining unto God, yet it doth not affirm that they have or shall err in things neces- sary to salvation, so long as they take the Scrip- ture for their guide, and use the means which God hath appointed, and which the first four general councils used to guide them.”’
“ Do not all things necessary to salvation per- tain to God?” quoth the Bishop of Lichfield.
“‘ Yea,”’ quoth my Lord of Rochester ; “ but all things appertaining unto God are not neces- sary to salvation. Neither doth the article speak of erring in all things that pertain to God, but in some only; for the matter being contingent, and the proposition indefinite, the rule is, I[ndefinita propositio in materia contingenti semper est parti- cularis ; and therefore in some things they have erred and may err, but not in all.”
The Bishop of Lichfield replied, “It is a true rule, my lord, in other things, but not in arti- cles ;” and being yet not satisfied, endeavoured so long with his logic in antecedents to prove that
230 THE FIRST CONFERENCE.
either the article must bear that sense which him- — self had made of it, or else have no sense in it at — all, as that the lords begun to be somewhat weary of his discourse; and thereupon desired him to return where he was before, and to shew when and in what fundamental point any general coun- cil hath erred, which was qualified as Mr. M. requireth.
The bishop made instance in the second council of Ephesus, which was both general and lawfully called by the Emperor Theodosius ; yet it erred in approving of Eutyches’ impiety against Christ.
It was answered by my Lord of Rochester, that this was no lawful council, but a factious and heretical conventicle, which wanted all the condi- tions that Mr. M. requireth to the constitution of a true general council.
It was also added by Mr. Cosin, that all men know that synod at Ephesus was condemned and vilified by the great general council of Chalce- don; and the reason was given by Mr. Dean of Carlisle, not only because of the decrees in faith there concluded, but also in respect of the out- ward form and manner of proceeding therein. —
Then was a second instance made by the Bishop of Lichfield in many later general coun- cils, and especially that of Trent.
It was answered again, that all these were —
OF GENERAL COUNCILS. 931
neither truly general, nor yet otherwise qualified according to the conditions required in a council by Mr. M., who hath exempted none from error but such (for still his discourse runs upon the
word such, said my lord duke and the Earl of Carlisle) as have the like form and qualifications _ to the first four general councils. ‘“ Yet,’’ quoth my Lord of Rochester, “as ill as things were carried in the very council of Trent, which was
far from being general, it is hard to demonstrate _ where this council hath erred in any direct funda-
mental points of faith ; for that in the very begin-
ning of the council, sess. fertia, it had made a
special decree that all and the only fundamental
points of faith, which every man must necessarily _ believe for his salvation, were contained, totidem _ verbis, in the Constantinopolitan creed then used
in the Church, and there repeated and established
by that council. Whereupon whatsoever they determined afterwards, cannot, by their own de-
cree, be made fundamental or necessary to sal- vation.” And with this discourse the lords professed
themselves much satisfied, and were confirmed in the truth, or so great probability, at least, of the
truth of Mr. M.’s assertion, as that it deserved
not to be quarrelled.
‘<I perceive,” quoth my lord chamberlain,
“that Mr. M. restraineth his assertion to the
932 THE FIRST CONFERENCE.
first four general councils. Can my Lord of Lich-_ field shew us in what point they have erred that — is fundamental ?”’
“* The first four?” quoth my Lord of Lichfield, “I cannot tell; Mr. M. saith in one place he ac- knowledgeth none truly general but them, and in other places he seems to aim at more.’
““ Nay, if it be come to seeming,” quoth my lord duke, “ we shall look long enough before we see the apparent errors that you spake of, and promised to shew us.”’
The bishop replied, “ that Mr. M. prevari- cated, said and unsaid ; but he knew his meaning | well enough.”
“< Yea, there it is,” yuoth my Lord Say, “he prevaricates, that the papists may take advantage against us out of his words.”
My Lord of Rochester told them that preva- ricating was a hard and unseemly word to be put upon a man of Mr. M.’s ingenuity, who spake nothing but what he meant very truly. Yet still the Bishop of Lichfield urged that his meaning in this point could not be good.
“Know you his meaning better than him- self?”? quoth the duke. Whereupon it was de- sired by Mr. Cosin, that inasmuch as every man was the best explainer of his own meaning, Mr. M.’s words might be read, wherewith he had fully interpreted himself concerning this matter.
OF GENERAL COUNCILS. 233
The duke and the lord chamberlain demand-
ing if any such plain and full place could be
shewn, Mr. Cosin brought the book unto them, and pointing out the place, desired my lord chamberlain to peruse it, and to ask the Bishop of Lichfield what he could desire to have a man write or say more.
When his lordship had privately read over the place or passage with the duke, he spread the book suddenly upon the tabie, and requested the lords to hear the place read; “a place,’ quoth he, ‘* that will end all this controversy ; for it is
' the conclusion and sum of all Mr. M.’s discourse
about general councils. And thus he writes, pp- 125, 126: speaking of these words in the arti- cle, ‘ Things necessary to salvation must be taken out of Scripture alone :-—‘ Councils have no such over-awing power and authority to tie men to
_ believe upon pain of damnation, without express
warrant of God’s word, as is rightly resolved in the article. They are but interpreters of the law, they are not absolute to make such alaw. Inter- pretation is required but in‘ things of doubtful issue ; our fundamentals are no such. Councils are supposed not to exceed their commission, which warranteth them to debate and determine questions and things Uitigiosi status. If they do not hoc agere sincerely; if they shall presume to make laws without warrant (“ Mark you that,”
234 THE FIRST CONFERENCE.
quoth the duke], and new articles of faith (who | have no further authority than to interpret them) } laws without God’s word, that shall bind the con- science, and require obedience upon life and death [“ What then?” quoth my lord chamberlain] ; our Church will not justify their proceedings, nor doar”
“And by my faith,” says my lord chamber- lain, as soon as ever he had read the place, “ if ye accuse Mr. M. for such opinions as these, you must accuse me and all my lords here be- sides, for I think we be all of his mind.”
“J know not what the Bishop of Lichfield would have,” quoth the duke, “ if this will not satisfy him.” “It giveth me,” saith Mr. Secre- tary Coke, “ full satisfaction.”
My Lord Say made answer, and the Bishop of Lichfield seconded him, that they took no ex- ceptions against this place, but against a former passage, where Mr. M. saith, that a general council shall never err in fundamentals. ‘ Nay,” quoth Mr. Cosin, ‘may it please your lordships, Mr. M. speaketh of such a general council where- of he said before; and he doth not peremptorily say, it shall never err, but he delivers it as a pro- bable opinion only, and no more. The last words of his chapter are, De tali concilio, et saniori parte, et conclusionibus in fide, probabile est.” “¢ You may take in the former words,” quoth the
! | | |
OF GENERAL COUNCILS. 935
duke, “ ‘ to conclude the information is a mere -eavil.’”’
The Lord Say and Seal still insisted upon it that Mr. M. in this passage had contradicted the former, which was it that they took exceptions against; and therefore he bade Mr. Cosin leave pointing to places, and read no more.
« What,” quoth my lord duke, “ will you not give a man leave to explain himself, and have his mind told? Doth not the place which comes after explain that which went before? These are the most unreasonable men that ever were talked
withal.”’
Whereupon the Bishop of Lichfield professed, that if Mr. M. intended no more than what these latter passages of his chapter imported, he was
‘content to be quiet, and would quarrel him no more further in the point.
** Yea,”’ quoth the duke, “ and good reason ; otherwise upon what ground shall we believe my Lord of Lichfield, or any other preacher who will tell us they do not err, if we cannot be persuaded that whole general councils, true and lawful, taking for their rule the word of God, and pro- ceeding in the same steps that the first four did (whereof my Lord spake before), shall not in all probability err, or deceive us in fundamentals and things necessary to salvation? We may safely conclude, then, that Mr. M. is quit of this objec- tion.”
236 THE FIRST CONFERENCE.
OF JUSTIFICATION AND GOOD WORKS.
Pala
“The next point of it, may it please your —
grace,” quoth the Bishop of Lichfield, “ is con- cerning justification and good works, wherein Mr. M. hath opposed the doctrine of the Church of Christ in her 11th article, where we read of ‘ the
justification of man, that we are accounted right-—
eous before God only for the merit of our Lord
and Saviour Jesus Christ by faith, and not for.
our own works or deservings.’ But in Mr. M. we are taught otherwise, as in his answer to the Gagyer, p. 143: ‘ Justification consisteth in forgiveness of sins primarily, and grace infused secondarily.’ Jtem, p. 144: ‘ In the point of jus- tification we yield to hope and holiness, and the fruits of the Spirit in good works.’ All these,”
quoth my Lord of Lichfield, “ besides God and _
faith.”
The Dean of Carlisle perceiving this objection not to be against the book, which he had ap- proved, told the bishop that he came thither to
defend the Appeal; and asked him, if he had no-
more to say against that book? ‘‘ Yes,” says the bishop, “I have enough to object against the Appeal hereafter.”
The lords asked, who licensed the formed book? Mr. Cosin made answer, that King James had not only given his direction for the writing, but his own authority and command also for the publishing of it.
OF JUSTIFICATION. 237
: « But,” saith my Lord of Lichfield, “ Mr. Dean, what answer you for him to my objec- tion ?”’
_ Nothing,” quoth the dean; “ for Mr. Cosin hath the place here ready, where Mr. M. answers you himself at large, and it is in that very period which your lordship hath cited. His words are these :—‘ In the third acceptance of the word justification, we acknowledge instrumentally faith alone, and causally God alone. In a second and third sense, besides God and faith, we yield to hope, and holiness, and sanctification, and the fruits of the Spirit in good works. But these are rather fruits, and consequences, and effects, and appendants of justification, than justification itself (as it signifieth remission of sins and imputation of Christ’s merits), which is a solitary act.’”
The bishop replied, that this was but shuffling ; and that all Mr. M.’s discourse about justification was for the justifying of popish doctrine, and bringing in of good works to be a part of justifi- cation, against our English article ; for why else should Mr. M. tell us of an access to justification ?
‘Your lordship shall hear Mr. M. declare himself,’ quoth the dean, “ in that book which I have subscribed. It was the informer’s objection, and he answered them after this manner. App. — p- 195, 197: ‘1 do also avow an access of justifi- cation made unto it by works of a holy and lively
238 THE FIRST CONFERENCE.
faith; not as essential thereunto, or ingredient — intrinsically (for justification is properly the work — of God), but only declaratory, as I have plainly © expressed myself in direct words, and as the doctrine of the Church of England is in the
12th article.’ ”’ |
“If this be not good divinity,” quoth my lord the Earl of Carlisle, “ why do you preach good life??? “ And it is a marvellous thing to me,” quoth my lord chamberlain, “ to hear Mr. M. accused for popery, in saying, that a man made just by the grace of God, through faith, is also declared to be just by his holy life and conver- sation.”
The Bishop of Lichfield said, that he found no fault with this explication ; “ but belike, then,”’ quoth he, “ Mr. M. in his latter book hath re- tracted his opinion which he wrote in the former ; and let that be confessed, and I have done.” __
“¢ By your lordship’s leave,” quoth Mr. Cosin, ‘* you cannot say that Mr. M. retracts that which he never wrote. And it may be his own answer (for I will not take upon me to oppose your lord- ship), whose words are, p. 197, containing the very point: ‘ It is not in itself, nor is delivered by me, nor is conceived of by me, to be any part of proper justification.’”’
«< And what is not delivered first, nor con- ceived by him,” says the duke, “ he could never
OF MERIT AND DESERT. 239
recant.” Whereupon the Bishop of Lichfield, perceiving all the company to be satisfied, made
haste to a fourth objection.
CONCERNING MERIT AND DESERT.
** Herein,” quoth the bishop, “ Mr. M. hath
contradicted the 11th article again. ‘ We are not justified for our own merits and deservings,’ saith the article. But Mr. M. teacheth us that we get _ heaven itself through our own deservings.”” “ It
cannot be,” quoth the Dean of Carlisle, “ that
_ Mr. M. should write or let fall any such sen- tence.”
“ For merit,” said Mr. Cosin, “ may it please your lordships to give me leave, and suffer me
to read Mr. M.’s own words, whereby he doth utterly disclaim it. App. p. 206, his words are:
‘I never said it, never thought it; do detest it
from my heart.’” ‘* What doth he detest ?”
quoth the bishop. ‘“ Marry,”’ quoth Mr. Cosin, ** your lordships shall hear: ¢ that by our good works we may deserve grace, goodness, heaven, happiness at God’s hands, I detest it from my heart.”
That place was so clear and heavy, that in all haste my lord duke called to Mr. Cosin for the book, to read the saying over again. ‘* And is it
possible,” quoth he, “ that we should be ready _ with such a place to fit him? This was happily
240 THE FIRST CONFERENCE.
bin milan tai ail
found out indeed. What say you, my Lord of Lichfield? are you answered now?’ Hereupon the lords seemed to be somewhat displeased with — the bishop’s accusations. ‘And for God’s sake,”
quoth my lord chamberlain, “ what manner of objections are these? or why sit we here to hear an ingenious man accused of these errors, from
which he professeth himself to abhor?’ And, —
turning himself to the bishop, “ My lord,” quoth he, “ you do much wrong both to us and him at 1b.
The Bishop of Lichfield replied, that by their lordships’ patience he would prove what he had objected out of Mr. M.’s own words, which in the Appeal, p. 233, were these :—‘ ‘The good go to the enjoying of happiness without end; the wicked to the enduring of torments everlasting.
Thus is their state diversified to their deservings.’ |
And if deserving of heaven and happiness be not here acknowledged,” quoth the bishop, ‘‘ I under- stand no English.”” About this time Dr. Preston knocked at the chamber-door, and being let in, came and stood at my Lord of Lichfield’s elbow. ** About what matter speaks he now?” quoth the duke, not well attending, for other talk, what the bishop had said last. ‘ About no matter at all,’ quoth Mr. Cosin, then standing next; “ it is but about a word only, as your grace shall hear.” My lord chamberlain said, that had he read
a= = F—— -
OF MERIT AND DESERT. 941
over the piece ten times, he should never have
taken exception against it.
The Bishop of Rochester and the Dean of Carlisle replied, that “ the diversifying of every man’s state to their deserving,” in the place cited
_ was no more, in Mr. M.’s sense, than the “ reward-
ing of every man according to his work,” which be the very words of the Scripture; and that per opera and per merita, in good sense, was one thing, propter opera or propter merita was ano- ther; as the Schools did rightly distinguish.
** In Mr. M.’s sense, and in a good sense,”’ quoth my Lord of Lichfield, “so you may excuse any popery whatsoever: here is a plain affection of popish merit; if his meaning were otherwise, why was it not expressed ?”
“It is,” quoth Mr. Cosin; “ for the whole. 13th chapter of this Appendix is written to that purpose: ‘ The merit and deserving that I mean,’ quoth Mr. M. ‘is no more but this; verily there is a reward for the righteous; God rewardeth the proud after their own deserving. And so king David is become a papist as well as I.’ But for any popish sense or meaning of the word, he dis- claims it in express terms, p. 203, a whole page together. ‘ The Jesuits use the word mereri con- trary to the meaning of the ancient fathers, and to the natural origination and sense thereof; which
M
9492 THE FIRST CONFERENCE.
was but to procure, to incur, to purchase, and ©
obtain, as was shewn out of Tacitus and others.
My Lord of Rochester added, that whereas we
read in St. Paul (1 Tim. i. 13), “ Sed miseri- cordiam consecutus sum, quia ignorans feci;” St.
29>
Cyprian reads it, “ guia misericordiam merui ;”? and —
merui there was taken in sense good enough, &c. ‘¢ Howsoever you may qualify it,” saith the Lord Say and Seale, “ the word deserving, in these times, seeing it hath been so abused by the Papists, is very offensive to a good Protestant.” ‘“¢ T will answer you for that,” quoth my lord duke, and my lord chamberlain repeated it; “ let the word deserving here be applied to that clause of the sentence that immediately goeth before it, that is, ‘The wicked go to enduring of torments everlasting,’ as it may be well so applied, and there will be no offence in it at all.”’ ? “My lord bishop,”’ quoth my lord chamber- lain, “ you stretch and wrest a well-meaning man’s words too far. This is but a very poor objection. I beseech you let us be troubled no longer with it.” And hereupon the Bishop of Lichfield turned over his papers for a fifth accusation.
OF THE OATH OF SUPREMACY. 243
CONCERNING THE OATH OF SUPREMACY.
Which oath he accused Mr. M. to have de-
_ cried in plain terms.
“‘ That were somewhat strange,” quoth the
dean. “As strange as it is,” quoth the bishop,
* [ will prove it. For in his answer to the Gag, p-68, when the Papist objected to us as an error, and yet said truly, ‘ That we held a woman may be supreme governess of the Church in all causes, as well ecclesiastical as temporal, as Queen Eliza- beth was; for this saying Mr. M. giveth him the lie, and affirms, ‘ that no Protestant ever thought so.” And the bishop added, that he thought this saying of Mr. M. was not far from treason.
The lords being at the first somewhat troubled to hear this great accusation and objection against him, desired to see the place which was cited. And forthwith Mr. Cosin delivering the book to the duke, and shewing withal that Mr. M. had
not blamed the Gagger for the words recited,
but for leaving out other words which should have gone along with them.
‘What words are they?” quoth the duke. Mr. Cosin said, “ ‘over all persons,’ my lord,”’ and directed him to the place. Whereupon the duke, turning to the Bishop of Lichfield, ‘‘ My lord,”’ said he, “‘ I pray you hear me read you a passage here, out of Dr. M.’s own words, to answer your
24:4: THE FIRST CONFERENCE.
accusation withal: ‘Can your small understanding put no difference betwixt over all and in all, be- — twixt persons and causes? Over all persons, in — all causes, is one thing; over each, or over causes — without persons, looketh your way. But causes © with persons over the parties in their proceedings is no such exorbitancy.” And I cannot but won- der,” quoth the duke, “ that you will make such large accusations and prove nothing.” | The Bishop of Lichfield replied that he stood to Mr. M.’s first words. ‘ What!” quoth my lord chamberlain and the Earl of Carlisle; “ you must give a man leave to finish his answer before you can justly pass any censure upon him. Mr. M., in the words immediately following, saith as much as you or any reasonable man can require him to say: p. 69 his words are these (and my lord chamberlain read them), ‘ We say princes have supreme power in earth, under God, over all persons, in all causes whatsoever, within these dominions, even in causes merely ecclesiastical, to compel them to do their duties by the civil sword. Not over all causes to do as they will, to com- mand or change belief or faith.’ ”’ ‘ So that this accusation,” quoth my lord the duke, “ might have been well spared ; for we are all of Mr. M.’s mind; and if you be not so likewise, my Lord of — Lichfield, you are much to blame.” | “ Nay,’’ quoth the sale tis “< T am very glad
ON ~~
OF THE CHURCH OF ROME. 945
that things are thus answered and solved: I seek not to destroy the man, who hath many excellent
parts in him. But, if it please your grace, I
will proceed to another objection.’”’ — “ Let it be to some purpose, then,” quoth the duke; “ for
hitherto nothing hath been said that is of any moment.” And to this saying most of the lords
agreed, and wished my Lord of Lichfield had never appeared in the business.
CONCERNING THE CHURCH OF ROME.
The next objection was, Mr. M. had opposed the doctrine of the Church of England in the 19th article, the words whereof are, “ That the Church of Rome hath erred not only in their living and manner of ceremonies, but also in matters of faith.” “* Now Mr. M. would make men .believe the contrary, Gag, p.50; and_ his words are written in Latin,” quoth the bishop, “that his popery, no doubt, might not be ap- parent : ‘Et quamvis presens hec ecclesia Romana, non parum in morum et discipline integritate, adde etiam in doctrine sinceritate, ab antiqua illa, unde orta et derivata est, discesserit ; tamen eodem fun- damento doctrine, et sacramentorum a Deo insti- tutorum firma semper constitit, et communionem cum antiqua illa et indubitata Christi ecclesia ag- noscit et colit.’”
246 THE FIRST CONFERENCE. 7
*‘They are none of his words,” quoth the Dean of Carlisle; “ they are Cassander’s.” ~& Yea,” quoth the bishop, “ but he saith,
‘moderate men will confess as much on both —
sides ;’ whereby it appeareth that himself is one —
of those moderators, as well as Cassander; and
al
i
this is a plain opening of gaps to let in popery.” ‘< It will be shewed,” said my Lord of Roches- —
ter, “ that many moderate and learned men of our
Church, who were far from popery, have said as —
much.”
“¢ Well,” quoth my lord chamberlain, “ I pray, what saith the article?’’ The bishop answered, “Tt affirmeth, ‘ that the Church of Rome hath erred in matters of faith.’ ”’ |
“* Matters of faith?”? said Mr. Cosin; “ doth
not your lordship mistake? I beseech you read
over the words again. The words are, ‘ firma constitit in eodem fundamento,’ which all matters —
of faith are not.”
When this observation was a while explained, |
at the duke’s request; “ I confess,’ quoth the —
bishop, “ that this is the best answer which can be made unto it: but what say you to that which —
followeth? ¢ The Church of Rome hath continued —
in the right doctrine of the sacraments.’” “ Of sacraments instituted by God,” said the dean. ** | pray your lordship take in these words too;
——-
OF THE CHURCH OF ROME. DAT
for the Church of Rome may persist and keep
them, howsoever they make addition of more, which God himself ordained not.”’
The bishop asked, if it were not a destroy-
ing of the doctrine of the sacraments to add unto the number of them, and make more than two? |
It was answered, that in a large acceptation
the Church of England hath been aecustomed to _ give the name of sacraments unto many more
rites and ceremonies than baptism and the supper of the Lord only.*
“ That did it never,” quoth the bishop. *‘Shew me any place where any other rite is called a sacrament but those two only.”
“¢ Your lordship may have divers places shewed you,” said Mr. Cosin; “ and here the Common Prayer-book is ready for the purpose: in the act first before the book, where the minister is en- joined ‘to use the matins and even-song there prescribed, together with the administration of the Lord’s supper, and celebration of each other of the sacraments.’ And then in the rubric at the end of the communion, every parishioner (who is supposed to be baptised already) ‘ must
* Tpse Calvinus ait (Jnst. iv. 14, § 20), impositionem manuum, qua ecclesiz ministri in suum munus initiantur, ut non invitus patior vocari sacramentum, ita inter ordi- naria sacramenta numero,
248 THE FIRST CONFERENCE.
communicate thrice in the year at least, and also —
Pmt ef
receive the sacraments.
My Lord of Lichfield, having never observed ‘
these places before, seemed to be a little troubled
at them ; but at last made answer, that in a large ; sense we might make seven-score sacraments, if —
we would. “ Be it so,” quoth the dean; “ and in a strict sense there are some pontificians that admit but two.” :
The bishop asked how many Mr. M. would allow of ?
It was answered, that if Mr. M. were present there would be no disagreement betwixt his lord- ship and him in the number of the sacraments.
‘¢ T wish he were here,” quoth my lord cham-
berlain ; “‘ we have all a great desire to hear him- ©
self speak.” And the Bishop of Lichfield said he must be sent for, or else there would never be an end. 7
‘“‘ May it please your lordships,” quoth Mr. Cosin, “ to appoint any other day of meeting; and as Mr. M. hath left order with me, I shall soon have him here to attend you.”
“You shall send for him,’ quoth the duke, ‘cif it shall so please my lords here, against Thursday next.”” And the lords assenting, they began to rise all from the table; the duke smiling,
and my lord chamberlain shaking his head at the —
needless. accusations which had been made.
OF FALLING FROM GRACE. 949
_ © And surely,” saith the duke, “if these be the greatest matters you be grieved with, I can
see no reason but Mr. M. should be defended.”’
OF FALLING FROM GRACE,
* Well,” quoth my Lord Say, “ the chiefest
matter of all is yet behind; which is, touching - falling away from grace, and concerning the defi-
nitions of the synod of Dort against Arminianism,
wherein Dr. Preston shall speak, and manifest
Mr. M.’s errors, if your lordships will be pleased to stay a while longer.”
“Yea,” quoth my Lord of Lichfield, “ that’s another main point, about falling from grace, which no orthodox divine will maintain.”
“ What’s that,” quoth the Dean of Carlisle, “that a man, being once in the state of grace, may either totally or finally fall away from that state ?”
© It is,” quoth the bishop.
The lords being willing to hear the matter de-
bated, Dr. White answered, that howsoever Mr.
M. had not resolved or determined the question either way, but had only declared his opinion in it, whereunto he was led by divers reasons drawn both out of the fathers and the public doctrine of the Church of England; yet because his lordship was so confident on the other side, he craved
leave to put a question to him. mM 2
250 THE FIRST CONFERENCE.
“If a man,” quoth the dean, “ who is justi- * fied, and for the time present in the state of — grace, do afterwards commit a foul, wilful, and : enormous sin; as, for example, if he fall in love ~ with another man’s wife, and commit the act of ‘ adultery with her sundry times, persisting in that — foul and wicked course of life for the space of ‘ two, three, four, five, ten months or more; doth — this man remain in the state of grace and salva- tion all that while, or is he justified before he ~ hath forsaken and abandoned his sin ?”’
The bishop answered, ‘ That man was never justified, nor in the state of grace. Yet suppose he were (for I perceive you are upon David’s case), for all that sin, he is in the state of saving grace.” And my Lord Say would needs add, that he still held his union with Christ, though he lost his communion with him, which was the feeling and comfort of God’s Spirit.
“¢ Will you set up a school of sin ?”’ quoth my Lord of Rochester: “ this is a most licentious, a sensual, and a dangerous doctrine to be taught to any people.”
But the dean proceeded in his arguments :— — “No man is justified, or in the state of saving grace, that hath not remission of his sins; but this : man hath not remission of his sins; therefore he — is not justified. And that he hath not remission of his sins before he forsakes them, I hope,” —
OF FALLING FROM GRACE. 251
quoth the dean, “ your lordship will never deny.”
The bishop answered by denying the major _ proposition; and said that man was justified, _ although he had not remission of his sins.
| “ Yea,” quoth the dean, “ I had thought re- mission of sins had either been justification itself, according to some divines, or an essential part of it at least, according to all.”
“« You speak of the act of justification,”’ quoth the bishop; ‘* but a man may be justified, though he be not actually justified.”’
“« May he so?” says the dean. “ What will your lordship then answer to the tenet of all Pro- testants, that say there is no justification but that which is actual; for actual it must be, or ha- bitual; and habitual it cannot be, because all habits are qualities inherent, which I am sure your lordship will never grant justification to be?”
* There is,’’ quoth the bishop, “ a justifica- tion ex parte subjecti, and a justification ex parte Dei. With this distinction I answer.”
“That the person so sinning, and continu- ing in sin as before?” quoth the dean. “ Be it so,” quoth the bishop, “ that this person may be justified and is so justified ex parte Dei, although he be not justified ex parte subjecti.”’
“A very fair distinction,” quoth the dean, ** and a contradiction withal. For if a person be
252 THE FIRST CONFERENCE.
not justified ex parte subjecti, then he is not jus- tified ex parte sua; nor can he be justified at all, inasmuch as justification is not applied unto him,
by your lordship’s own confession. And justifi- —
cation not applied is no justification in regard of him to whom it is not applied ; for what is he the better for it?”
The bishop answered, that he was justified in the sight of God, by the grace of predestination and election.
‘* This is as much to say,’ quoth my Lord of Rochester, “‘ as that God cannot see any sin in the elect; a wholesome doctrine for the health of men’s souls!’ And my lord chamberlain added, that his soul abhorreth from it.
But the Dean of Carlisle went on, and rejected the Bishop of Lichfield’s answer with some dis- taste. ‘ Know you not, my lord,” quoth he, ** that according to Thomas, and all other intelli- gent divines, predestinatio nihil ponit in predesti- nato until it come to execution in time, it being an imminent act of God. If it be God’s predesti- nation that always makes aman to be in the state of justification, then was St. Paul a justified man when he was knocking out St. Stephen’s brains, and all the while that he continued to blaspheme and persecute the Church; and then was I a doctor of divinity when I was in my mother’s belly. God’s predestination is his eternal pur-
OF FALLING FROM GRACE: 253
pose that things shall be done in time; and that which shall be done in time hath no temporal existence or being until the time come that it be done. For though God ordained that I should be a doctor, yet was I not so until the time came. And I beseech your lordship, what good will you get by this doctrine, to persuade men, that if once,
in all their lifetime, they have been in the state
of grace and justification, they should presently assure themselves of their salvation, by a grace of predestination conceived to remain in them? What will follow, but that always after they shall re- main justified and sanctified men in God’s sight, although they walk in the meanwhile after the flesh, and continue in foul and wilful sins ?”’
“Teach you this doctrine, divinity?” quoth my lord duke to the Bishop of Lichfield. ‘* God defend us from following of it!” The Earls of Pembroke and Carlisle added, that to their under- standing it was a most pernicious doctrine, and unfit for any people to hear.
** We teach not men to live thus,”’ quoth the bishop. Yet his answer giving small satisfaction, for that out of his tenet men might take advan- tage to live so, and yet persuade themselves that they are God’s elect children all the while; Dr. Preston was called upon by my Lord Say, and the lords desired to hear him speak unto this point.
254: THE FIRST CONFERENCE.
Whereupon the doctor came in, and began very soberly to declare that it was none of his — desire to say any thing; but yet seeing it pleased their lordships to have it so, he would endeavour — to answer Dr. White’s objections, and to make i
the matter as clear and evident as might be. :
*“* And first,’ quoth he, “I will give your : lordships an example, by which it will easily ap- pear, that notwithstanding that which hath been said concerning these sins, whereinto the children of God may fall, and sometimes do fall, yet it was impossible they should fall away from that grace whereby they are his children. As, for example :— |
“* A man hath a son, and this son doth justly offend his father by committing some great crimes against him: his faults continue, and he is not yet reclaimed. Now, all this while he is sud ira patris indeed, under the rod and anger of his father, yet for all that he continueth in familia and in domo patris still; he is not turned out of his father’s house, nor can he cease to be his child howsoever. In like manner, when God’s children sin against him, God may well be angry with them, and sorely punish them too; yet in regard they are his children, he cannot cease to be their father, nor will he turn them out of his family, and make strangers of them, for every sin which they commit against him,”
we ‘¥-
OF FALLING FROM GRACE. 255
To this it was answered, that the question was not made of every sin, but of foul and wilful sins, sins mortal, sins continued in, often acted and frequented, as was expressed before; and therefore that Dr. Preston’s talk of every sin was
4 impertinent.
“‘ But for the other sins you insist upon,” quoth the Bishop of Lichfield, “ did not the pro- digal son, when he was in his dissolute course of life, remain his father’s son still, and continue in his affection as a son ?”’
The dean answered, “ That the prodigal son, being a natural child to his father, could not lose that relation which a son hath to a father; for natural relations are permanent, so long as their foundation is in being: but the present question is, concerning sons by grace and adoption only.”
Here my Lord of Rochester interposed, and told Dr. Preston that his example of a natural [father] and his child could hold no farther and prove no more than a perpetual relation betwixt God and his creatures, which no man could cease to be, because he created them; but as for their filiation and right of inheritance to the kingdom of heaven, they had it by covenant and promise, and ought not to presume upon it longer than they keep the covenant.
Adding hereunto, that oftentimes men’s own children, howsoever they be children still, yet
256 THE FIRST CONFERENCE.
through their lewd life and disobedience are dis- inherited by their parents, and justly exposed unto misery.
‘TI pray resolve me,” quoth the lord cham- berlain to the Bishop of Lichfield, “ whether the prodigal son, in whom you made instance, if he had died in his lewd courses before his return to his father, had he not died a disobedient child, and perished in his misery ?”
“He had,”’ quoth the bishop; “ but yet a child.”
** So shall all men whatsoever die God’s crea- tures,”’ quoth my Lord of Rochester. ‘ But was
not the state of the prodigal a representation of
their state that live in wickedness and sin; and of their perdition, if they die in that sin, before they turn back again unto God by repentance ?”’
‘‘'They shall turn back again,” quoth Dr. Preston. -
“* How know you that?” said my lord cham- berlain.
““ By reason of their election,” quoth the doctor; “‘ which is sure not to fail, and will bring them in time to repentance.”
“In time ?”’ quoth the dean: “ but while that time comes, in what state are they? Be not these children of God guilty of his eternal anger till they repent ?”’ |
“ No,” quoth Dr. Preston ; “ it is but of his
4 eee
OF BAPTISM AND REGENERATION. 257
temporal anger only.””. And without any more ado repeated it again as a possible and certain doctrine, that they which were once the children of God, did by such grievous sins incur the guilt of a temporal punishment only.
The dean replied, “ That temporal punish-
_ ments were common to the children of God with _ others that are none of his children. But the
apostle St. Paul spake to justified men, when he gave them warning, and said, ‘ They that dosuch things have no inheritance in the kingdom of God nor of Christ ;? and when he said so, he spake not of temporal, but of eternal punishment.”
‘Yea, but,” quoth Dr. Preston, “ such per- sons, though they might seem to be, yet in truth they never were sons, nor ever had any right to that inheritance whereof St. Paul speaks.”
OF BAPTISM AND REGENERATION.
“ No?” quoth the dean. “I hope you will grant us that, at leastwise, in ‘ baptism they were made the sons of God, and the heirs of everlasting life.’ They be the words of our catechism, and the whole series of our administration of baptism sheweth as much.”
« What,” quoth my Lord of Lichfield, “ will you have the grace of God tied to sacraments ?”’
The dean replied, “That God could bestow his grace otherwise, as it pleased him; but if his
258 THE FIRST CONFERENCE.
lordship denied sacraments to confer grace, and to regenerate them that were born in original sin, he denied the doctrine of the Church of Eng- land.” :
The Liturgy was produced, and the words read out of the form of baptism, “ Forasmuch as this infant is regenerate,” &c.
“« That’s but the judgment of charity,”’ quoth my Lord Say. ‘“ And we say so, because we know nothing to the contrary,” quoth the Bishop of Lichfield.
Mr. Cosin suggested, that “ to believe one baptism for the remission of sins,’’ was an article of Christian faith ; and that our form of baptism saith, ‘* ye shall earnestly believe it.”
*“* Yea,”’ quoth the bishop, “ but what follows ? ‘ Ye shall earnestly believe that God will favour- ably receive these present infants, that he will embrace them, and that he will give unto them the blessing of eternal life.” Mark,” quoth the bishop, “ he will do it. The book doth not say that he doth it now, but that in process of time he will do it, when these children shall actually believe; and so here is no present effect of bap- tism proved.” It was answered, that the cate- chism of the Church teacheth children other doc- trine: “In baptism I was made a member of Christ, and an inheritor of the kingdom of heaven.”’. And again, in the administration of
; lige
4
OF BAPTISM AND REGENERATION. 259
baptism: “I certify you, that this child being born in sin and in the wrath of God, is now, by
_ the laver of regeneration in baptism, received _ into the number of the children of God, and heir _ of everlasting life. Doubt ye not, therefore, but
earnestly believe that He hath received this pre- sent infant, that He hath made him partaker of His everlasting kingdom,” &c. And yet again: ** We give thee hearty thanks, that it hath pleased
_ thee to regenerate this infant,” &c.
Hereupon my Lord of Warwick desired Mr. Cosin to turn to the burial of the dead, where he should find such another giving of thanks for every brother departed, &c.; whereof some might be such, as though we had no uncharitable conceit of them, yet we were not tied to believe they were saved, and should have perfect con- summation in soul and body in the kingdom of heaven.
“ Yea, my lord,”’ quoth he, “ here is giving of thanks and hope only mentioned; but in bap- tism faith and certain assurance go together with giving of thanks.” And his lordship seemed to be satisfied.
In the meanwhile, my lord duke and the Earl of Carlisle demanded of the Bishop of Lichfield, why children are baptised, if they received no grace, nor remission of sins by it? And told him, that he had much disparaged his own ministry,
260 THE FIRST CONFERENCE.
and did not only dishonour the Church of Eng- land, but also debase the sacrament through this opinion which he maintained.
Lastly, the Dean of Carlisle added, that it was.a branch of Catholic faith, and had been so maintained in all ages, that infants rightly bap- tised are regenerated and made the sons of God by adoption. He alleged St. Augustine, Expl. 90, reporting the decree of the council of Carthage, ** Quicumque negat parvulos per baptismum Christi perditione liberari, et salutem percipere eternam, anathema sit.” And consequently concluded, that they which denied this doctrine, expressly denied the doctrine of the Church of England, but of the whole Catholic Church besides, and were guilty of a far greater error than any they could object against Mr. Montague.
OF THE SYNOD OF DORT.
When the matter was come to this issue, and the lords ready to break off any further confer- ence for this time, most of them professing them- selves hitherto satisfied, it pleased the Lord Say and Secretary Coke to make a motion to the duke’s grace, that he would be a means to bring in the synod of Dort, and get it established here by authority in the Church of England. Where- by (they make no doubt) all controversies in this kind would cease, and a firm peace ensue.
6 Se i ie, ee | Be
OF THE SYNOD OF DORT. 261
** Nay, my lords,” quoth the duke, “ this is - not the first motion that hath been made for the _ synod of Dort; but I have been assured by divers _ grave and learned prelates, that it can neither stand with the safety of this Church nor state to bring it in.”
“<T beseech your lordships,” said the dean, “‘ that we of the Church of England be not put to borrow a new faith from any village in the Netherlands. As for the synod. of Dort, it seemeth to me, that in the second article, either plainly or involvedly, they have established a doc- trine repugnant to the faith of our Church. The Dortists (as appeareth by their several expositions of that article) have denied that Christ died for all men. But our Church, in the catechism, and many other places, hath taught us to believe that Christ died for all, ‘ and hath redeemed me and all mankind ;’ that is, paid the ransom and price for all without exception: and that if any man be damned, it is not because Christ died not for him, but because the fruit of Christ’s death, by that man’s own fault, is not applied unto him. Adding hereunto, that a great and manifest mis- chief it was, to have our people taught that Christ, died not for them all. For if this were once ad- mitted, how could we teach every man to believe that Christ had redeemed him, as we ought to do? Or how could we say to all communicants
262 THE FIRST CONFERENCE.
whatsoever, ‘ The body of our Lord which was given for thee,’ as we are bound to say? Let the opinion of the Dortists be admitted, and the tenth person in the Church shall not have been redeemed.”
“The body of our Lord? Yea,” quoth the Bishop of Lichfield, “ it is said to be given for them, if men do repent.” What if they have no repentance ?”’ quoth the dean. “The greater is their fault.” “ But shall they not therefore believe the articles of their creed? and it is one of those articles to believe that Christ hath re- deemed them.”
“* Let the synod of Dort bind them that have submitted themselves unto it,’ said the Lords Pembroke and Carlisle: “‘ in England we have a rule of our own.” And the lord duke added: * We have nothing to do with that synod; it is all about the hidden and intricate points of pre- destination, which are not fit matters to trouble the people withal.”’
‘* Predestination ?”? quoth my Lord of Lich- field. “ Our own articles speak of predestina- tion ; and it is a very comfortable doctrine to the elect people of God, explained in the seventeenth article.”
“ But, may it please your lordship,” quoth Mr. Cosin, “ the conclusion of that article ‘is, that predestination is so be taught, as that the
— sc SC
¥) v i ;
OF THE SYNOD OF DORT. 263
_ general promises of the Gospel be not destroyed ie by it.”
And here was an end; only the Bishop of
i Lichfield, for a conclusion of all, desired that Mr. _ M.’s books might be kept from further sale until _ they were somewhat better explained.
At which motion the duke, with some dis-
4 pleasure, turned himself hastily away, and told _ the bishop he was not admitted thither for to
_ appoint what should be done with Mr. M.’s
_ books, but to shew his objections against them,
which as yet were not so weighty as to persuade
any such matter.
And so desiring the lords, &c. to meet again
_ upon Tuesday following, when Mr. M. should be
there himself, they all left the chamber and de- parted.
THE END.
LONDON :
PRINTED BY ROBSON, LEVEY, AND FRANKLYYS, 46 St. Martin’s Lane.
Cosin, John ——_-——-~
2220 The history of
| | 083 Popish transub stantia- ' + tion . | it Se amen | ISSUED TO
; bet saat te ks 4 i; a é oh eas of ¥ abl ie eo ert I
CEG Wanted tae tata Ft
Bik
i ai Yt A phetevees sels if
arena aca ANE
SSR ta MULE HN ayn RCN bI ees OP <j DULL asn oe Ba Xs a tae M dirt tara tL | aye i Hohl . Bae se
ae ae
Ht hte re be a8 + iy e feat : ; ‘ ei irs ff { rs st o of 35 ; #: ty
=
nee Bb ie
oe, as
; | PL, a4 i qaitg Menara iho: ihe niatpk ed rently yy bes yf 9 cle Ieesieealtts th main! y Mest d eet lay UE eta spite Hee coe
snp y oy bey Milt be F zy ; ae i ats AP dn vat ry 7 why f ey ae Pincay fue, te Meta ey |
yeti Gai ieee i dase
tebe Hid ty x ‘
>
2 bon Eyed sek SC Gp em:
s
: =e a
be Saig! r Lae 43 pits BI * i ; : tus ip ae x ts uy. ; vas fas } la ty oF es + ti a4 be 4 : £4 " } “| Pals eine te) my ij fi ml ia j ; ae MERA Jip aia eisbes PU