The Council of Trent examin'd and disprov'd by Catholick tradition in the main points in controversie between us and the Church of Rome with a particular account of the times and occasions of introducing them : Part 1 : to which a preface is prefixed concerning the true sense of the Council of Trent and the notion of transubstantiation.

THE PREFACE.

THere is it seems a Train in Controversies, as well as in Thoughts; one thing still giving a start to another; Conferences produce Letters; Letters, Books; and one Discourse gives Occasion for another. For this follows the former as a necessary Pursuit of the same Argument against Tradition.

I. S. in his last Letter, had vouched the Authority of the Council of Trent proceeding upon Tradition, and he instanced in three Points, Transubstantiation, Sacramen∣tal Confession and Extreme Unction. The Examination of this I thought fit to reserve for a Discourse by it self; wherein, instead of confining my Self to those three Par∣ticulars, I intend to go through the most material Points there established, and to prove from the most Authentick Testimonies, that there was no true Catholick Tradition for any of them. And if I can make good what I have undertaken, I shall make the Council of Trent it Self the great Instance against the Infallibility of Tradition.

This is a new Undertaking; which the impetuousness of our Adversaries setting up Tradition for the Ground of their Faith, hath brought me to. But besides the shewing that really they have not Tradition on their side; I have endeavoured to trace the several steps and to set down the Times and Occasions of Introducing those Points which

have caused that unhappy breach in the Christian world, whose sad effects we daily see and lament, But have little hopes to see remied, till these new Points be discarded and Scripture interpreted by truely Catholick Tradition, be made the Standard of Christian Communion.

I do not pretend, that all these Points came in at one Time or in the same Manner; for some Errours and Corruptions came in far more early; some had the favour of the Church of Rome in a higher degree; some were more ge∣nerally received in the Practice of the Church in later times, than others; and some were merely School Points before the Council of Trent, but as far as the Thomists and Scotists could be made to agree there against the Re∣formers, these passed for Articles of Faith. For, this was one of the great Arts of that Council to draw up their Decrees in such Terms, as should leave Room enough for Eternal Wranglings among themselves, provided they agreed in doing the business effectually against the Here∣ticks, as they are pleased to call them. I therefore for∣bear to urge these as Points of Faith, which have been freely debated among themselves since the Council of Trent, without any Censure. We have enough in the plain Decrees and Canons of that Council, without medling with any School-Points. And so I cannot be charged with Misrepresenting.

The great Debate of late hath been about the true Exposi∣tion of the Points there defined; and for my part, I am con∣tent to yield to any just and reasonable Methods of giving the true sense of them. And such I conceive these to be,

I. Where the Council of Trent makes use of Words in a strict and limited Sense, there it is unreasonable to un∣derstand them in a large and improper Sense. As for in∣stance, Sess. 6. c. 26. It decrees that Justified Persons

do verè promerere; truely merit Eternal Life; and Can. 32. there is an Anathema against him who denies true Merit in the good Works of justified Persons, both as to Increase of Grace and Eternal Life. There is no one conversant in Ancient Writers, but knows that there was a large and improper Sense of the Word Merit; but how is it impossible to apply that Sense, where such Care is ta∣ken, that it may be understood in a strict and limited Sense? If the Council had left the Word in its General Sense, there might have been Reason to have given the fairest Interpretation to it; but when it is certainly known, that there had been a difference of Opinions in the Church of Rome about true and proper Merit, and that which was not (however it were called,) and the Council de∣clares for the former, no man of understanding can believe that onely the improper Sense was meant by it. As in the Point of the Eucharist when the Council declares that the words of Christ, This is my Body, are truely and properly to be understood; Would it not be thought strange for any one to say, that the Council notwithstanding might mean that Christ's Words may be figuratively understood? And we must take the true notion of Merit not from any large expressions of the Ancients, but from the Conditions of true and proper Merit among themselves. But of this at large afterwards. So as to the Notion of Sacraments; every one knows how largely that Word was taken in An∣cient Writers; but it would be absurd to understand the Council of Trent in that Sense, when Sess. 6. Can. 1. De Sacramentis, it denounces an Anathema not merely against him that denies seven Sacraments; but against him that doth not hold every one of them to be truely and properly a Sacrament. And in the Creed of Pius IV. one Article is, that there are seven true and proper Sacraments How vain a thing then were it for any

to Expound the Sacraments in a large and improper Sense?

II. Where the Council of Trent hath not declared it self, but it is fully done in the Catechism made by its Ap∣pointment, we ought to look on that, as the true Sense of the Council. As in the Case of the Sacraments; the Council never declares what it means by true and proper Sacraments; but the Catechism makes large and full a∣mends for this Defect. For after it hath mention'd the use of the Word in Profane and Sacred Writers, it sets down the Sense of it according to their Divines for a sen∣sible sign which conveys the Grace which it signifies. And after a large Explication of the Nature of Signs, it gives this Description of a true and proper Sacrament, that it is a sensible thing, which by Divine Institution not only hath the force of signifying but of causing Grace. And to shew the Authority of this Catechism for explicating the Doctrine of the Sacraments we need only to look into Sess. 24. c. 7. de Reform. where it is requi∣red that the People be instructed in the Sacraments ac∣cording to ••it. It is supposed that the Catechism was ap∣pointed to be made in the 18th Ses••ion at the Instigation of Carolus Borromaeus, (since Canonized) but it was not finished while the Council sate, and therefore Sess. 25. it was refer'd to the Judgment and Authority of the Pope. I confess therefore it hath not a Conciliar Autho∣rity stamped upon it, but it hath a sort of transfused In∣fallibility, as far as they could convey it; and as much as a Council hath, when it borrows it from the Popes Con∣firmation. It was near two Tears hammering at Trent, viz. from 26. of Feb. 1562. to Decemb. 1563. when the Council rose; Afterwards, it was preparing at Rome three Years longer, and then presented to the Pope to be ap∣proved, and published by his Authority, after it had been

carefully review'd by Cardinal Sirlet, Borromeo, and o∣thers; and hath since been universally received in the Ro∣man Church; so that we can have no more Authentick Exposition of the Sense of the Council of Trent, than what is contained in that Cat••chism.

III. Where the Council of Trent declares a thing in general to be lawfull and due, but doth not express the manner of it, that is to be understood from the generally receiv'd and allowed Practices at that time. For, other∣wise the Council must be charged with great unfaithfulness in not setting down and correcting publick and notorious Abuses, when it mention'd the things themselves and some Abuses about them. As in the 25th Session, concerning Purgatory, Invocation of Saints, Worship of Images and Relicks, it goes no farther than that the sound Doc∣trine be taught, that Saints are to be Invocated, Images and Relicks to be Worship'd; but never defines what that sound Doctrine is, what bounds are to be set in the Wor∣ship of Saints, Images and Relicks, which it is unlawfull to exceed. So that in this Case, we have no other way to judge of the Meaning of the Council, but by comparing the Publick and Allow'd Practices of the Church with the General Decrees of the Council. And we have this farther Reason for it, that we are told by the latest Expo∣sitors of it, that the Sense of the Church in speculative Points, is to be taken from Publick Practices. For, thus one of them expresses himself, Moreover, even her Spe∣culative Doctrines are so mixed with Practical Ceremo∣nies, which represent them to the Vulgar, and instruct even the meanest Capacities in the abstrusest Doctrines, that it seems ever impossible to make an alteration in her Doctrine without abrogating her Ceremonies, or chang∣ing her constant Practices.

IV. Where the Decrees of the Council, are not suffi∣ciently clear, there we must take in the Canons to make the Sense more plain. This Rule I take from the Council it self, which in the 6th Session, just before the Canons saith, that those are added, that all may know not only what they are to hold and follow, but what they are to shun and avoid. As in the famous Instance of Transub∣stantiation; suppose, that the Words of the Decree do not determine expresly the Modus; yet it is impossible for any one to doubt of it who looks into the Canon, which denoun∣ces an Anathema against him, not only that denies Tran∣substantiation, but that asserts the substance of Bread and Wine to remain after Consecration. Therefore he that asserts Transubstantiation according to the Council of Trent, must hold it in such a manner, as thereby to un∣derstand that the Substance of Bread and Wine doth not remain. Otherwise he is under an Anathema by the ex∣press Canon of the Council.

Therefore it is so far from being a fatal Oversight, (as a late Author expresses it,) to say that the Council of Trent hath determin'd the Modus of the Real Presence, that no man who is not resolved to oversee it can be of ano∣ther Opinion. And herein the Divines of the Church of Rome do agree with us, viz. that the particular Modus is not only determin'd by the Council, but that it is a Mat∣ter of Faith to all Persons of the Communion of that Church. As not only appears from the 2d Canon, but from the very Decree it self, Sess. 13. ch. 4.

The holy Synod declares, that by Consecration of the Bread and Wine, there is a Conversion of the whole Substance of the Bread into the Substance of the Body of Christ, and of the whole Substance of the Wine into the Substance of his Blood, which Conversion is fitly

and properly by the holy Catholick Church called Tran∣substantiation. In which Words the Council doth plainly express the Modus of the Real Presence to be, not by a Presence of Christ's Body together with the Substance of the Bread, as the Lutherans held, but by a Conversion of the whole Substance of the Bread into the Substance of the Body, &c. And since there were different Man∣ners of understanding this Real Presence, if the Council did not Espouse one so, as to reject the other as Heretical; then it is impossible to make the Lutheran Doctrine to be de∣clared to be Heretical, i. e, unless the Council did deter∣mine the Modus of the Real Presence. For, if it did not, then notwithstanding the Decrees and Canons of the Council of Trent, Persons are at liberty to believe either Transubstantiation or Consubstantiation, which I think no Roman Catholick will allow.

But. it is said, that the meaning of the Decree is, that the Real Presence is not to be understood after a Natural, but a Sacramental Manner; But doth it not plainly tell us, how that Sacramental Manner is to be understood, viz. by a Conversion of the whole Substance of the Bread in∣to the whole Substance of the Body, &c. And if other ways be possible, and all others be rejected, then this parti∣cular Modus must be determin'd.

I grant, that the Council doth not say, there is an An∣nihilation of the Elements; and I know no Necessity of using that Term, for that which is supposed to be turned into another thing cannot properly be said to be Annihilated (which is the reducing it to nothing) but the Council doth assert a Total Conversion of one Substance into another, and where that is, that Substance must wholly cease to be what it was; and so, there can be no Substance of the Ele∣ments remaining after Consecration. For, as Aquinas ob∣serves, Quod convertitur in aliquid factâ Conversione

non manet. If then the Substance of the Elements doth not remain after Consecration, by virtue of this total Con∣version, then the Council of Trent by its Decree hath plainly determin'd the Modus of the Real Presence, so as to exclude any such Manner, as doth suppose, the Sub∣stance to remain, whether it be by Impanation or Consub∣stantiation, or any other way.

What if Rupertus thought the Bread might become the Real Body of Christ by an Union of the Word to it? All that can be infer'd is, that the Modus was not then so determin'd, as to oblige all Persons to hold it. But what is this to the Council of Trent? Can any one hold the Substance to remain, and not to remain at the same time? For, he that holds with Rupertus must allow the Substance to remain; he that believes a total Conversion must deny it. And he that can believe both these at once, may believe what he pleases.

But the Council only declares the Sacramental Pre∣sence to be after an ineffable manner. I say, it deter∣mines it to be by a total Conversion of one Substance in∣to another; which may well be said to be ineffable, since what cannot be understood can never be expressed.

Our Dispute is not about the use of the Word, Transub∣stantiation, for I think it proper enough to express the Sense of the Council of Trent; but as the Word Consub∣stantial did exclude all other Modes how Christ might be the Son of God, and determin'd the Faith of the Church to that Manne••; so doth the Sense of Transubstantiation, as determin'd by the Council of Trent, limit the Manner of the Real Presence, to such a Conversion of the Sub∣stance of the Elements into the Substance of Christ's Bo∣dy and Blood, as doth imply no Substance to remain after Consecration.

It is to no purpose to tell us, the Council uses only the Word Species and not Accidents; for whatever they are called, the Council denounces its Anathema against those who hold the Substance to remain after Consecration; and denies the Total Conversion of the Substance of the Bread and Wine into the Substance of the Body and Bloud of Christ. If the Substance be not there, the Modus is to purpose determin'd. And whatever remains, call it what you will, it is not the Substance; and that is sufficient to shew, that the Council of Trent hath clearly determin'd the Modus of the Real Presence.

V. We must distinguish the School Points left undeter∣min'd by the Council of Trent, from those which are made Articles of Faith. We never pretend, that it left no School-Disputes about the Points there determin'd; but we say it went too far in making some School-Points to be Points of Faith, when it had been more for the Peace of Christendom to have left them to the Schools still. Thus in the Point of Transubstantiation, the elder School-men tell us, there were different Ways of explaining the Real Presence; And that those, which supposed the substance to remain, were more agreeable to Reason and Scripture than the other; and some were of Opinion, that the Modus was no matter of Faith then. But after the Point of the Real Presence came to be warmly contested in the time of Berengarius, it rose by degrees higher and higher, till at last the particular Modus came to be determin'd with an Anathema by the Council of Trent.

When Berengarius, A. D. 1059. was forced to Recant by Nicolaus 2d, with the Assistance of 113. Bishops; no more was required of him, than to hold that the Bread and Wine after Consecration; are not only the Sacra∣ment, but the true Body and Bloud of Christ, and that

it is sensibly handled and broke by the Priests hands, and eaten by the Communicants. Here is no denying the Sub∣stance of Bread to remain; and Joh. Parisiensis observes, that the words cannot be defended but by an Assumption of the Bread; for, saith he, If the Body of Christ be truely and sensibly handled and eaten, this cannot be understood of Christ's Glorious Body in Heaven, but it must be of the Bread really made the Body of Christ after Consecration.

The Sense which the Canonists put upon the Words of this Recantation is absurd, viz. that they are to be un∣derstood of the Species; For Berengarius his Opinion related to the Substance of Christ's Body which he denied to be in the Sacrament. And what would it have signified for him to have said that Christ was sensibly broken and eaten under the Species of Bread and Wine? i. e. that his Body was not sensibly broken and eaten but the Species were. It had signified something, if he had said, there was no Substance of Bread and Wine left but only the Species. But all the design of this Recantation was to make him assert the Sacrament to be made the true and real Body of Christ in as strong a manner, as the Pope and his Brethren could think of. And although the Canonists think, if strictly taken, it implies greater He∣resie than that of Berengarius; yet by their favour, this Form was only thought fit to be put into the Canon-Law, as the Standard of the Faith of the Roman Church then; and the following Abjuration of Berengarius was only kept in the Register of Gregory the seventh's Epistles.

For about twenty years after by Order of Gregory VII. Berengarius was brought to another Abjuration, but by no means after the same Form with the former. For by this he was required to declare, that the Bread and Wine are sub∣stantially Converted into the true and proper Flesh and

Bloud of Christ, and after Censecration are the true Body of Christ born of the Virgin and Sacrificed upon the Cross, and that sits at the right hand of the Father; and the true Bloud of Christ which was shed out of his Side, not only as a Sacramental Sign, but in propriety of Nature and Reality of Substance.

This was indeed a pretty bold Assertion of the Sub∣stantial Presence. And so much the bolder, if the Com∣mentary on S. Matthew be Hildebrand's. For there he saith, the manner of the Conversion is uncertain. But as far as I can judge, by Substantial Conversion he did not then mean, as the Council of Trent doth, a total Con∣version of one substance into another, so as that nothing of the former Substance remains; but that there was a Change by Consecration not by making the Body of Christ of the Substance of the Bread, but by its passing into that Body of Christ which was born of the Virgin. For, upon comparing the two Forms, there we shall find lies the main difference. Pope Nicolaus went no farther than to the true Body of Christ; which it might be as well by Assumption, as Conversion; Gregory VII. went farther and thought it necessary to add that the Change was into the Substance of that Body which was born of the Virgin, &c. And so this second Form excludes a true Body merely by Assumption, and asserts the Change to be into the Substance of Christ's Body in Heaven; but it doth not determine, that nothing of the Substance of the Elements doth remain. For when he puts that kind of Substantial Conversion which leaves nothing but the Accidents, and the Body of Christ to be under them, which belonged to the Substance of the Elements; he declares this matter to be uncertain. Which shews, that however a Change was owned into the Substance of Christ's Body, yet such a total Conversion, as is deter∣mined

by the Council of Trent, was not then made an Article of Faith.

But from this supposition made by Hildebrand it appears, that the Dectrine of Substance and Accidents was then well known; and therefore the introducing Aristotle's Phi∣losophy from the Arabians afterwards could make no Al∣teration in this Matter. For the words of Hildebrand are as plain as to the difference of Substance and Acci∣dents, as of any of the School-men; and that the Acci∣dents of the Bread and Wine might be separated from the Substance of them; but this was not then made a Matter of Faith; as it was afterwards.

But the case was remarkably alter'd, after the Lateran Council under Innocent III. For Transubstantiation being admitted there among the Articles of Faith; and so entred in the Canon-Law in the very beginning of the Decretals; this did not merely become a School-Term, but by the Inqui∣sitors of that time, it was accounted Heresie to deny it. It may be sufficiently proved by the School-men and Canonists, that a difference of Opinions, as to the Modus did still con∣tinue, (but that belongs to a more proper place) and Joh. Parisiensis declares (p. 103) that the Lateran Coun∣cil in his Opinion did not make Transubstantiation a Point of Faith; or at least that Substance was not to be taken for the Matter, but the Suppositum; but the Inquisitors went more briskly to work and made it down∣right ••••••••esie to assert, that the Substance of the Elements did remain after Consecration.

Of this, we have full Evidence in the Register of Court∣ney Arch-Bishop of Canterbury, (which is no Invisible Manuscript.) For there we read f. 25. that he called a select Convecation of Bishops, Divines and Canonists, May 17. A. D. 1382. to declare some Propositions to be Heretical, and s••me to be Erroneous and contrary to the

determination of the Church. Among the first, these two are set down in the first Place,

1. That the material Substance of the Bread and Wine doth remain in the Sacrament of the Altar after Consecration.

2. That the Accidents do not remain without their Subject in that Sacrament after Consecration.

After this the Arch-Bishop sent forth his Mandate to all his Suffragans not only to prohibit the preaching of that Doctrine, but to inquire after those who did it. And June 12. Robert Rygge Chancellour of Oxford and Tho∣mas Brightwall appeared before him and were examined upon these Propositions; which they declared to be Here∣tical: who thereupon required the Publication of them as such in the University; and the proceeding against those who were suspected to favour them.

The Ground the Arch-Bishop went upon, was, that these had been already condemned by the Church, and there∣fore ex abundanti, they declared them to be so con∣demned; as appears by the Monition given to Robert Rygge himself as too much suspected to favour the con∣trary Doctrine; as well as Nicholas Hereford, Philip Reppyndon D. D. and John Ashton B. D.

Against these the Arch-Bishop proceeded as Inquisitor Haereticae Pravitatis per totam suam Provinciam, as it is in the Record; who appearing desired a Copy of the several Propositions, and then they were required to give in their judgment upon them. Ashton refused, but the other promised, which they performed soon after; and to these two Propositions, their Answers were,

To the first that as far as it was contrary to the De∣cretal, Firmiter Credimus, it was Heresie.

To the second that as far as it was contrary to the Decretal, Cum Marthoe, it was Heresie.

These Answers were judged insufficient, because they did not declare what that Sense was And the Arch-Bi∣shop put this Question to them, whether the same Nu∣merical material Bread which before Consecration was set upon the Altar, did remain in its proper Substance and Nature after Consecration, but they would give no other Answer at that time. But afterwards Reppyndon abjured, and was made Bishop of Lincoln.

From hence it appears, that it was then thought that the Modus was so far determin'd by the Lateran Council, that the contrary Doctrine was declared not merely Er∣roneous in Faith, but Heretical.

In the first Convocation held by Th. Arundel Arch-Bishop of Canterbury A. D. 1396, A Complaint was brought, that several Divines and others of the Univer∣sity of Oxford held some heretical and erroneous opinions; the first whereof was,

That the Substance of Bread doth remain after Con∣fecration; and doth not cease to be Bread; which is there affirmed to be Heresie, speaking of material Bread.

The second, that the Court of Rome in the Can. Ego Berengarius, had determined that the Sacrament of the Eucharist is naturally true Bread.

It is very hard to say, how this came to be then ac∣counted Heretical Doctrine, when no less a man than Durandus in the same Age affirms, that the Canonists grant that the Opinion of the ceasing of the Substance was grounded on the Can. Firmiter Credimus, i. e. on the Lateran Council; but that of the remaining of the Sub∣stance on that, Ego, Berengarius. But however it passed for Heretical, or at least very Erroneous Doctrine here; but the main Heresie was to hold, that the Substance remained.

For A. D. 1400. (as appears by the Register p. 2. f. 179.) William Sawtre alias Chatris a Parochial Priest in Lon∣don, was summoned before the same Arch-Bishop in Con∣vocation upon an Information of Heresie; and one of the main Articles against him was that he held the Substance of the Bread to remain in the Sacrament of the Altar after Consecration; and that it doth not cease to be Bread. Sawtre answered, that he believed, that after Consecration the Bread did remain with the Body of Christ; but it doth not cease to be simply Bread, but it remains holy and true the Bread of Life and Body of Christ. The Arch Bishop examined him chiefly upon this Article; and because he did not answer home to the point, he was condemned for a Heretick, and was the first who was burned for Heresie in England. And yet his Answer was, that he could not understand the matter; then the Arch-Bishop asked him, if he would stand to the Churches Determination; he said, he would so far as it was not contrary to the Will of God. Upon which he was decla∣red an Heretick and delivered over to the Secular Power.

In the same Convocation John Purvey made an Abjura∣tion of Heresie, and the first he renounced was that after Consecration in the Sacrament of the Altar, there neither is, nor can be an Accident without a Subject, and that the same Substance and Nature of Bread remained which was before.

In the Examination of William Thorp by Thomas Arundel, Arch-Bishop of Canterbury A. D. 1407. (which is not in the Register being defective, but the account is preserved from his own Copy) The Arch-Bishop decla∣red, that the Church had now determined, that there abideth no Substance of Bread after Consecration in the Sacrament of the Altar. And that if he believed other∣wise he did not believe as the Church believed. Thorp

quoted S. Augustin and Fulgentius to prove that the Sub∣stance remained; and the very Mass on Christmas Day. The Arch-Bishop still pressed him with the Churches De∣termination. Thorp said this was a School-nicety whe∣ther Accidents could be without a Subject; no, said the Arch-Bishop, it is the Faith of the Church I go upon. Thorp replyed, it was not so for a thousand years after Christ.

In the Examination of the Lord Cobham A. D. 1412. by the same Arch-Bishop we find that he owned the Real Presence of Christ's Body as firmly as his Accusers; but he was condemned for Heresie, Because he held the Sub∣stance of Bread to remain. For the Arch-Bishop decla∣red this to be the Sense of the Church; that after Con∣secration, remaineth no material Bread or Wine which were before, they being turned into Christ's very Body and Bloud. The Original words of the Arch-Bishop as they are in the Register, are these.

The faith and the determination of holy Church touching the blestfull Sacrament of the auter is this, that after the Sacramental Words ben said by a Prest in his Masse, the material bred that was before is tur∣ned into Christ's veray body. And the material Wyn that was before is turned into Christ veray blode, and so there leweth in the auter, no material brede ne ma∣terial Wyn the wich wer ther byfore the saying of the Sacramental words.

And the Bishops afterwards stood up and said; It is ma∣nifest Heresie to say that it is Bread after the Sacramen∣tal Words be spoken; because it was against the Deter∣mination of holy Church.

But to make all sure, not many years after, May 4th. A. D. 1415. the Council of Constance Session 8. declared the two Propositions before mentioned to be heretical;

viz. to hold that the Substance doth remain after Conse∣cration, and that the Accidents do not remain without a Subject.

Let any impartial Reader now judge, whether it be any fatal Oversight to assert, that the Modus of the Real Presence was determin'd by the Council of Trent, when there were so many leading Determinations to it, which were generally owned and received in the Church of Rome. But there were other Disputes remaining in the Schools relating to this Matter; which we do not pretend were ever determin'd by the Council of Trent. As,

(1.) Whether the Words of Consecration are to be un∣derstood in a Speculative or Practical Sense? For, the Scotists say, in the former Sense, they do by no means prove Transubstantiation; since it may be truly said This is my Body, though the Substance of Bread do remain; and that they are to be understood in a Practical Sense, i. e. for converting the Bread into the Body, is not to be deduced ex vi verborum, from the mere force of the Words, but from the Sense of the Church which hath so understood them. Which in plain terms is to say, it can∣not be proved from Scripture, but from the Sense of the Church; and so Scotus doth acknowledge, but then he adds, that we are to judge this to be the Sense of Scrip∣ture, because the Church hath declared it. Which he doth not think was done before the Council of Lateran. So that, this Council must be believed to have had as In∣fallible a Spirit in giving this Sense of Scripture as there was in the writing of it; since it is not drawn from the Words, but added to them. On the other side, the Tho∣mists insist on the force of the Words themselves; for, if, say they, from the Words be infer'd that there is a Real Presence of the Substance of Christ's Body, then it follows

thence, that there is no Substance of the Bread remaining; for a Substance cannot be where it was not before, but it must either change its place, or another must be turned in∣to it; as Fire in a House must either be brought thither, or some other thing must be turned into Fire; but, say they, the Body of Christ cannot be brought from Heaven thither, for then it must leave the place it had there; and must pass through all the Bodies between; and it is impossible for the same Body to be Locally present in seve∣ral places; and therefore the Body of Christ cannot other∣wise be really and substantially present, but by the Conver∣sion of the Substance of the Bread into it.

(2.) In what Manner the Body of Christ is made to be present in the Sacrament? The Scotists say, it is impossi∣ble to conceive it otherwise than by bringing it from the place where it already is; the Thomists say that is im∣possible, since that Body must be divided from it self by so many other Bodies interposing. The former is said to be an adductive Conversion, the latter a productive; but then here lies another difficulty, how there can be a pro∣ductive Conversion of a thing already in being. But my business is not to give an account of these School-Disputes; but to shew how different they were from the point of Tran∣fubslantiation; and that both these disputing Parties did agree that the Modus of the Real Presence was defined to be by changing the Substance of the Elements into the Body and Blood of Christ; but they still warmly disputed about the Modus of that Modus; viz. how a Body al∣ready in being could be present in so many places without leaving that Place where it was already. And no Man who hath ever look'd into these School Disputes can ever ima∣gine that they disputed about the Truth of the Doctrine of Transubstantiation, but only about the manner of explain∣ing

it. Wherein they do effectually overthrow each others Notions without being able to establish their own; as the Elector of Cologn truly observed of their Debates about this matter in the Council of Trent.

VI. Where the Sense of Words hath been changed by the introducing new Doctrine, there the words ought to be understood according to the Doctrine at that time received. Of this we have two remarkable Instances in the Council of Trent;

The first is about Indulgences, which that Council in its last Session never went about to define; but made use of the old Word, and so declares both Scripture and Antiqui∣ty for the use of them. But there had been a mighty change in the Doctrine about them, since the Word was used in the Christian Church. No doubt there was a Power in the Church to relax Canonical Penances in extraordinary Cases; but what could that signifie when the Canonical Discipline was laid aside, and a new Method of dealing with Penitents was taken up, and another Trade driven with Respect to Purgatory Pains? For here was a new thing carried on under an old Name. And that hath been the great Artifice of the Roman Church; where it hath evidently gone off from the old Doctrines, yet to retain the old Names, that the unwary might still think, the things were the same, because the Names were. As in the present Case, we deny not the use of Indulgences in the Primitive Church; as the Word was used for Relaxations of the Canonical Discipline; but we utterly deny it as to the Pains of Purgatory. And that this was the Sense then receiv'd in the Church of Rome, appears from the Papal Constitutions of Bon face the 8th, Clemens the 6th, and Leo the 10th. But of these more hereafter.

The other Instance is in the Word Species used by the Council of Trent, Sess. 13. Can. 2. where an Anathema is denounced against him that denies the Conversion of the whole Substance of the Elements into the Body and Blood of Christ, the Species of Bread and Wine only remaining. Now a Controversie hath been started in the Church of Rome, what is to be understood by Species, whether real Accidents or only Appearances.

Some of the Church of Rome who have had a Tast of the New Philosophy, reject any real Accidents, and yet declare Transubstantiation to be a matter of Faith, and go about to explain the Notion of it in another manner. Among these one Emanuel Maignan, a Professor of Divi∣nity at Tholouse, hath at large undertaken this matter. The Method he takes is this.

(1.) He grants, that nothing remains of the Bread af∣ter Consecration, but that whereby it was an Object of Sense; because that which is really the Being of one thing cannot be the Being of another. And he confesses that the Modus as to the not being of the Substance after Conse∣cration, is determin'd by the Councils of Constance and Trent.

(2.) He asserts, that real Accidents, supposing them se∣parable from the Substance, are not that whereby the Ele∣ments are made the Objects of Sense; because they do not make the Conjunction between the Object and the Fa∣culty.

(3.) Since he denies, that Accidents have any real Be∣ing distinct from the Substance they are in, he grants, that it is as much a matter of Faith, that there are no real Accidents after Consecration, as that there is no real Sub∣stance; and he brings the Authorities of the Councils of Lateran, Florence and Trent to prove it.

(4.) As the Substance did by Divine Concourse so Act upon the Senses before, as to make it be an Object of Sense; so after Consecration, God by his immediate Act makes the same Appearances, although the Substance be gone. And this, he saith, is the effect of this Miraculous Conversion, which is concealed from our Senses, by God's immediate cau∣sing the very same Appearances, which came before from the Substance. Which Appearances, he saith, are the Spe∣cies mention'd by the Council of Trent; and other elder Councils and Fathers.

Against this new Hypothesis, a famous Jesuit, Theo∣philus Raynaudus, opposed himself with great vehemency; and urged these Arguments against it.

(1.) That it overthrows the very Nature of a Sacra∣ment, leaving no external visible sign; but a perpetual il∣lusion of the Senses, in such a manner, that the Error of one cannot be corrected by another.

(2.) That it overthrows the Design of the Sacrament, which is to be true and proper Food. My Flesh is meat indeed, &c. John 6. Which, he saith, is to be under∣stood of the Sacrament, as well as of the Body of Christ, and therefore cannot agree with an imaginary appea∣rance.

(3.) It is not consistent with the Accidents which befall the Sacramental Species, as to be trod under foot, to be cast into indecent places, to be devoured by Brutes, to be Putrified, &c. If the Body of Christ withdraws, there must be something beyond mere Appearances.

(4.) He makes this Doctrine to be Heretical, because the Council of Constance condemned it as an Heretical Proposition, to affirm, that in the Eucharist Accidents do not remain without their Subject; and because the Council of Trent uses the Word Species in the Sense

then generally received, and so it signified the same with Accidents. Which, saith he, farther appears, because the Council speaks of the Species remaining; but if there be no real Accidents, the Species doth not remain in the Object; but a new Appearance is produced. And it seems most reasonable to interpret the Language of the Council according to the general Sense wherein the Words were understood at that time.

VII. What things were disputed and opposed by some in the Council, without being censured for it, although they were afterwards decreed by a Major Party, yet cannot be said to have been there received by a Catholick Traditi∣on. Because Matters of Faith which have been univer∣sally received in the Church, can never be supposed to be contested in a Council without Censure; but if it appears that there were Heats and warm Debates among the Par∣ties in the Council it self, and both think they speak the Sense of the Catholick Church; then we must either al∣low that there was then no known Catholick Tradition about those matters, or that the Divines of the Church of Rome assembled in Council did not understand what it was. And what happens to be decreed by a Majority, can never be concluded from thence to have been the Traditi∣on before, because there was a different Sense of others concerning it. And since in a division, a single Person may make a Majority, it will be very hard to believe, that he carries Infallibility and Catholick Tradition along with him.

But I think it Reasonable in the enquiry after Catho∣lick Tradition to take notice of the different Opinions in the Council; and among the School-men before it; and not only to observe, what was the Sense of the Roman

Church, but of the Eastern Churches too; and where the matter requires it, to go through the several Ages of the Church up to the Apostolical Times; that I may ef∣fectually prove, that in the main Points in Controversie be∣tween us, which are established by the Council of Trent, there cannot be produced any Catholick and Apostolical Tradition for them.

Notes

• Third Letter p. 64.
• Catechism Rom. Part 2.
• Reply to the Defence of the Expo••••∣tion, &c. p. 134.
• Sess. 13. Can. 2.
• 3 Q. 75. A. 2.
• Regist. f. 47.
• Registr. Arundel p. 2. f. 143.
• Maignan Phi∣losophia Sa∣••ra. Part 2. Append. 5.