Full and Easy Satisfaction — Richard Baxter

Full and Easy Satisfaction · Richard Baxter

CHAP. IX. Of the Novelty of Tranſubſtantiation.

I Once thought to have next proved out of the Current of Antiquity, the Novelty of this inhumane doctrine of the Papiſts, and that the Antients commonly confeſſed, that there was true Bread and Wine remaining in the Sacrament after Conſecration: But, 1. I ſhould but tempt and weary ordinary Readers, who neither need any ſuch arguments (having Senſe and Scripture to give them ſatisfaction) nor are able to try them: For it is an indirect kind of dealing, to expect that the unlearned, or thoſe that are ſtrangers to the Writings of the Antients, ſhould believe this or that to be their mind and ſayings, meerly becauſe I tell them ſo. And if they read the plaineſt words, they know not whether I rightly recite them, but by believing me. And it is as unreaſonable on the other ſide, that the Papiſts ſhould expect, either by their Citations or their general Affirmations, that the Readers ſhould believe them, that the Antients were for Tranſubſtantiation. Till men can both read the Authors themſelves, and try the Copies, they can have no ſure hiſtorical notice what the Fathers held, except by the common conſent of credible Reporters or Hiſtorians: Not while one ſide ſaith, they ſay this, and the other ſide ſaith they ſay the contrary, and yet their Books are to be ſeen by all. We may bid them believe us, and the Papiſts may bid them believe them, and a Prieſt may cheat them by ſaying, that his word is the Churches: But though this will produce a humane belief in the Hearers or Readers, as by advantages it is moſt taking with them, yet that fallible belief is all the Certainty that it can afford them. Therefore I think it moſt ingenuous and reaſonable to give men ſuch arguments as they are capable of underſtanding and improving to certain ſatisfaction.

2. Becauſe they that can ſtudy ſuch Authors as have gathered the ſentences of the Antients in this Controverſie, may find it ſo fully done by Edmund. Albertinus in his ſecond Book, that they can need no more.

You know that Albertinus is anſwered.

And I know that he is again Defended: And who doubteth but you can anſwer me copiouſly, if I did maintain that the Sun giveth light: What is it that a man cannot talk for? eſpecially they that can hope to perſwade all the Chriſtian world, that they muſt be damned, unleſs they will believe that all mens ſenſes are deceived, and that God is the great Deceiver of the world.

But how can you think to pleaſe God and be ſaved, if you be not of the ſame faith as the Church hath alwayes been of? All the antient Fathers and Catholick Church were for Tranſubſtantiation; and are you wiſer and in a ſafer way than they?

You have loſt your credit with me ſo far, as that your word is no oracle to me: If I muſt not believe my own nor other mens ſenſes, I am not bound to believe you: at leaſt when I know you ſpeak falſly. But I pray tell me, How know you that the Church and Fathers did ſo believe?

Becauſe the preſent Church ſaith ſo; which cannot err.

Do not your own Writers ſay, that a General Council and Pope may err in matter of fact? and that they did ſo in Condemning Pope Honorius and in other Caſes?

Yes: but this is a matter of faith.

Is it not a matter of fact, what this or that man ſaid, and what doctrine the Church at ſuch a time did teach and hold?

But how know you that the preſent Church doth ſay ſo, that this was the faith of the antient Church?

By their teſtimony in a General Council.

Did you hear the Council ſay ſo?

No: but the Church telleth me that the Council ſaid ſo.

Who is it that you now call the Church which tells you ſo?

My Superiours, who have it from the Pope, and their Fathers.

Are your Superiours that told you ſo, the Church? Or is the Pope the Church? If ſo, What need you ſay a Council is the Church? And how know you that the Pope and your Superiours err not in a matter of fact?

I know it by the Decrees of the Council yet extant.

1. But if ſenſe be deceitful, how know you that you ever read ſuch Decrees? 2. How know you that they are not forgeries, or ſince corrupted?

The Church is a ſafe keeper of its, own Records.

Still what mean you by the Church? The Vulgar neither keep nor underſtand your Councils. The Council of Trent is long ceaſed: No other General Council hath been ſince, to tell you what are the true Decrees of that Council. The Pope is not the Church: And he may err in a matter of fact: What then is the Church that tells you certainly what the Council of Trent decreed? Tell me if you can.

We have ſuch common hiſtorical Evidence and Tradition, as you have for your Acts of Parliament when the Parliament is ended. The preſent Governours preſerve them.

Very good: It is the Office of the Governours to take that Care, but therein they are not indefectible and infallible; but they and the publiſhed Laws, and the notice of the whole Land, and the Judicial proceedings by them in the Courts of Judicature make up a Certain Hiſtorical Evidence. And ſo it may be in your Caſe: And when you have talkt your utmoſt, you can ſhew no more. And have not we the ſame Writings of Fathers and Councils as you have? You dare not deny it. Why then may not we know what is in them as well as you? And I pray you tell me, Whether your Antiquaries, ſuch as Albaſpinaeus, Sixtus Senenſis, Petavius, Sirmondus, &c. do prove what Cyprian, Optatus, Auguſtine, &c. held, by the judgement of the Pope or Councils, or by citing the words of the Authors themſelves? And do Crab, Binnius, Surius, Caranza, &c. prove what one Council ſaid by the authority of another, or by the Records themſelves, yet viſible to all?

Thoſe Records themſelves, even the viſible Writings of the Fathers and Councils are for Tranſubſtantiation.

Till you have perſwaded me out of my ſenſes, I will not believe you. I pray you tell me if you can of any Author or Council that ever uſed the name [Tranſubſtantiation] before Stephanus Aeduenſis after the year 1100, de Sacram. Altar. c. 13.

Though the name be new, the Doctrine is not.

Tell me next, what General Council did ever determine it, before the Council of Laterane under Innoc. 3. an. 1215.

Not expreſly: for General Councils need not mention it, till the Albigenſes Hereticks gave them occaſion by denying it.

Was it an Article of faith before? If it were, either the Councils are not the meaſure of your faith, or it is very mutable.

Among all your queſtionings anſwer me this queſtion if you can. If that General Council decreed Tranſubſtantiation, what could move them ſo to do, if it were not the faith of the Church before? Were they not all of the ſame mind the day before they did it? and ſo the day before that, and the day before that, &c. Or do you think that they were againſt Tranſubſtantiation the night before, and awaked all of another mind the next morning? What could make all the Paſtors of the Church think that this was the true faith, if they did not think it was the antient faith? And what could make them think it the antient faith, if it were not ſo? Did not they know what their Fathers held? And did not their Fathers know what their Fathers held? The ſame I ſay of the Council of Trent alſo.

Thus men that muſt not believe the common ſenſe of mankind, can believe the dreaming conjectures of their brains, and ſit in a corner, and thence tell the world what can and what cannot be done by publick aſſemblies, at many hundred years and miles diſtance. Who would not laugh at a Fryer, that in his Cell would tell by moral conjectures, all the thoughts and motions of an Army or Navy, that never ſaw them, and contrary to the experience of thoſe that were on the ground and intereſſed in their Councils and actions. Obſerve how many falſe ſuppoſitions go to make up your cheats.

1. You ſuppoſe this a true General Council, which is a pack of factious Prelates ſubject to the Pope, and aſſembled at Rome in his own Palace, under the awe of his preſence and power. And as if the ſmall number after at Trent had ſpake the minds of all the Churches.

2. You ſuppoſe all the members of a Council to be of one mind: when as they determine by the Major Vote. And oft times the difference is not above two or three, and its poſſible one Voice may turn the ſcales: And perhaps one, or two, or ten may be abſent one day, and preſent another, and ſo the Cry of [the Judgement of all the Biſhops in the world] may ſignifie no more, but that two or three of the other ſide ſtaid a little too long at dinner that day, while the other party carryed it by their abſence. And I pray you where hath God promiſed, that the faith of an hundred and one ſhall not fail, when the faith of ninety nine of the ſame company may fail (ſuppoſing the Council to be two hundred): Or why are the one hundred and one the Biſhops of all the world, and not the ninety nine?

3. Do you think we never read the Hiſtory of the Council of Trent? and before them, of the Councils of Ariminum, Epheſ. 2, yea, Calcedon, &c.? And yet muſt we ſuppoſe, that men come thither all of one mind? when they have ſuch ſhameful Contentions? Such cunning contrivances to get the majority of Votes? Such awe and terror from the power of the Chief? and ſuch carnal dependances and reſpects to their ſeveral worldly intereſts? Yea, ſometimes fighting it out unto blood (as Dioſcorus and Flavianus caſe doth ſhamefully evince?)

4. And muſt we ſuppoſe mens minds to be changed in their ſleep, when the awe or the oratory of other men change them? Do we not know the Courſe of the Parliaments of England of later times? How much a few men of more than ordinary parts and intereſt, can do with the reſt? And how oft the major Vote hath gone againſt the ſenſe of the far greater number of the Houſe?

5. And do we not know, that ordinarily he that is ſent to the Council from a Province, is choſen as it pleaſeth the Pope, the King, or the Archbiſhop, or ſome in greateſt power; and rarely according to the free-will and ſenſe of the greater part of the Clergy. If five hundred to one of the Clergy of a Kingdom be of one mind, and the Prince, or chief men, or powerfulleſt Prelates be of another, they will ſend a Biſhop thither of their own mind.

6. Do you think we know not that all the Papiſts are not paſt the third or fourth part of the Chriſtian world? Why then ſhould their ſenſe be called the ſenſe of all the Chriſtian world?

7. Do you think we know not how little reaſon you have to ſay, that the Council at Laterane ſpake the ſenſe of all the Church? When the Decrees were but propoſed by Pope Innocent, and recited there without any due Synodical deliberation, and ſome liked them, and ſome diſliked them? as you may find in Math. Paris in K. John, Nauclerus Gener. 41. ad an. 1215. Godefridus ad an. 1215. Platina in Vita Innoc. 3. And this one of your late falſe Scriblers in a Book for Toleration alſo ſaith; Though the Diſputers againſt Dr. Gunning and Dr. Pierſon copiouſly and confidently juſtifie that Council: and indeed with you it paſſeth for an Approved one.

8. And were not your arguing as ſtrong for the Council of Epheſ. 2. and that at Arim. and Sirmium, and divers at Conſtantinople diſallowed, and thoſe at Conſtance and Baſil, (where were many times the number of the Council at Trent)? Did theſe Councils all go to bed of one mind, and riſe of another? Or did they not know what their Fathers faith was? Why then do you reprobate them, and deny that which they decreed as of faith? Is it not a ſhame, to talk of [the Biſhops of all the world] and [Tradition from their Fathers] when your meaning is but that All theſe may err, and do oft err, unleſs one man, the Pope approve them? But where ſenſe is renounced, we muſt not expect modeſty.

But the antient Councils and Fathers are againſt you, as is to be ſeen.

It is utterly falſe: I will not abuſe the Reader ſo as to carry him into a Wood, and loſe him among a multitude of old Books, when he hath more ſatisfactory evidence enough at hand.

But, I. As to all your Citations from true antiquity (for your forged Authors and corrupted Teſtimonies we regard not) they are anſwered by this one true obſervation, that when old Writers ſometimes ſay, that after conſecration it is [No more bread and wine, but the body and blood of Chriſt], their whole Context plainly ſheweth, that they mean that it is no more MEER or Common Bread and Wine; and uſually they ſo ſpeak. Becauſe forma denominat, and it is the ultimate form that denominateth, all antecedent forms being but the diſpoſitio materiae. As if the queſtion be, Whether a Shilling be Silver or Money? Before the Coining, it was but Silver; but after, it is no more Common Silver, but Money: Silver is but the matter, and not the denominating form. Is your Garment to be called Cloth, or a Cloak? Before the making it was but Cloth, but now it is not meer Cloth, but a Cloak. The ſame I may ſay of the Kings Crown and Scepter, or of any Relative, Repreſentative or Perſonating form that is added to any matter or man. This is the plain meaning of the Antients.

II. And as to what they ſay againſt you, I will now only give you a few brief inſtances.

1. Juſtin Martyr. in Dial. cum Tryph. ſaith, [The offering of Flower delivered to be offered for them that were cleanſed of the Leproſie, was a Type of the BREAD of the Euchariſt which our Lord Jeſus Chriſt commanded us to make in remembrance of his paſſion, &c.]

And more plainly Apolog. 2. (indeed the firſt) [When the Preſident hath given thanks, and all the people acclaimed, thoſe that with us are called Deacons, diſtribute to every one preſent BREAD and WINE and Water, and bring them to thoſe that are abſent.]

2. Irenaeus ſaith lib. 4. c. 34. [For as the Bread which is of the Earth receiving the divine invocation, is not now Common Bread, but the Euchariſt, conſiſting of two things, the Terrene and the Celeſtial, &c.]

See more out of him in Albertinus, at large.

3. Tertullian cont. Marcion l. 3. c. 19. [Calling Bread his Body, that hence you may underſtand that he gave to Bread the Figure of his body.]

And before l. 1. [He reprobated not — Bread, by which he Repreſenteth his very Body.]

And lib. 4. cap. 40. [The Bread which he took and diſtributed to his Diſciples he made his body, ſaying, This is my Body; that is, The figure of my body. — And what he would have Bread then ſignifie, he ſufficiently declared, calling Bread his Body.]

And it is a notable paſſage of Tertullians againſt the Academicks that queſtioned ſenſe, lib. de anim. c. 17. [What doſt thou, O procacious Academick? Thou overthroweſt the whole ſtate of life: Thou diſturbeſt the whole order of nature; Thou blindeſt the providence of God himſelf; as if he had made mens lying and deceitful ſenſes to be the Lords, in underſtanding, honouring, diſpenſing and enjoying all his works▪ Is not the whole Condition (of man) ſubadminiſtred by theſe.] And after [We may not call thoſe ſenſes into queſtion, leſt Chriſt himſelf muſt deliberate of their certainty (or muſt diſtruſt them). Leſt it may be ſaid, that he falſly ſaw Satan caſt down from Heaven, or falſly heard the voyce of his Father teſtifying of him; or was deceived when he touched Peters Wives Mother — or perceived not a true taſte of the Wine which he Conſecrated in the memorial of his blood.] Many ſuch places are in Tertullian.

4. Origen is large and plain to the ſame purpoſe in Matth. 25. calling it [Bread and a Typical and Symbolical Body, which profiteth none but the worthy receivers, and that according to the proportion of their faith, and which no wicked man doth eat, &c.] Many more ſuch places Albertinus vindicateth.

5. Cyprians Epiſtle to Magnus is too large this way to be recited. As [Even the Sacrifices of the Lord declare the Chriſtian Ʋnanimity, connexed by firm and inſeparable love: For when the Lord calleth Bread his body (or his body bread) made up of many united grains, &c. And when he calleth the Wine his Blood, &c.] So Epiſt. ad Caecil.

6. Euſebius Caeſar. demonſtr. Evang. l. 1. c. 10. [Celebrating daily the memorial of the body and blood of Chriſt] — [Seeing then we receive the memorial of this Sacrifice to be perfected on the Table, by the ſymbols of his body and moſt precious blood—] And l. 8. [He delivered to us to uſe, Bread as the ſymbol of his own body.]

7. Athanaſius's words are recited by Albertinus l. 2. p. 400, 401, &c.

8. Baſil. de Spir. Sanct. ſaith, [Which of the Saints hath left us in Writing the words of invocation, when the Bread of the Euchariſt, and the Cup of bleſſing are ſhewed?]

9. Ephrem (in Biblioth. Photii p. 415. Edit. Auguſt.) ſaith, [The body of Chriſt, which believers receive, loſeth not his ſenſible ſubſtance, and is not ſeparated from the intelligible grace.]

And ad eos qui filii Dei, &c. [Take notice diligently how taking Bread in his hands, he bleſſed it, and brake it, for a figure of his immaculate body, and he bleſſed the Cup and gave it to his Diſciples as a figure of his pretious blood.]

10. Cyrillus (vel. Johan.) Hieroſol. Catech. Myſtag. calls the bread indeed Chriſts body, but fully expounds himſelf de Chryſmate, Cat. 3. pag. 235. [For as the Bread of the Euchariſt, after the invocation of the Holy Ghoſt, is no more Common Bread, but is the Body of Chriſt: So alſo this Holy Oyntment is no more meer Oyntment, nor (if any one had rather ſo ſpeak) common, now it is conſecrated; but it is a Gift (or Grace) which cauſeth the preſence of Chriſt and the Holy Ghoſt; that is, of his Divinity.] As the Oyntment is Grace, or the Holy Ghoſt, juſt ſo the Bread is the body of Chriſt, as he ſaith after Cat. 4. It is not only what we ſee (Bread and Wine) but more.

11. Hierom cont. Jovinian. l. 2. The Lord as a type (or figure) of his blood, offered not water but wine.

12. Ambroſe de Sacram. l. 4. c. 4. [This therefore we aſſert, How that which is Bread, can yet be the body of Chriſt.]—And [If Chriſts ſpeech had ſo much force, that it made that begin to be which was not, how much more is it operative, that the things that were, both Be, and be changed into ſomething elſe.] And [As thou haſt drunk the ſimilitude of death, ſo thou drinkeſt the ſimilitude of pretious blood.]

13. Theodoret in Dialog. Immutab. dealeth with an Eutychian Heretick, who defended his Error by pleading that the bread in the Euchariſt was changed into the body of Chriſt: To whom ſaith Theodoret, [The Lord who hath called that meat and bread which is naturally his Body, and who again called himſelf a Vine, did honour the viſible ſigns with the appellation of his body and blood; not having changed their Nature, but added Grace to Nature.]

And in Dialog. 2. In confuſ. he ſaith, [The divine Myſteries are ſigns of the true body.] And again, anſwering the Eutychians pretence of a change he ſaith, [By the net which thou haſt made, art thou taken. ☞ For even after the Conſecration, the Myſtical ſigns change not their nature: For they remain in all their firſt SƲBSTANCE, figure and form, and are Viſible, and to be Handled as before. But they are underſtood to be the things which they were made, and are believed and venerated as made that which they are believed to be.] Would you have plainer words?

14. Gelaſius cont. Neſt. & Eutych. ſaith, [Verily the Sacraments of the body and blood of Chriſt which we take, is a Divine thing, for which and by which we are made partakers of the divine nature. ☞ And yet it ceaſeth not to be the Subſtance and Nature of Bread and Wine. And certainly the Image and ſimilitude of the body and blood of Chriſt are celebrated in the action of the Myſteries.] What can be plainer?

15. Cyril. Alexandr. in John 4. cap. 14. ſaith, [He gave to his believing diſciples fragments of Bread, ſaying, Take, Eat, This is my body.]

16. Facundus lib. 9. cap. 5. pag. 404. (as cited by P. Molin. de Novitate Papiſmi) [We call that the body and blood of Chriſt which is the Sacrament of his body, in the conſecrated Bread and Cup. ☞ Not that the Bread is properly his body, and the Cup his blood; but becauſe they contain the Myſterie of his body and blood.]

But I am ſo weary of theſe needleſs Tranſcriptions, that I will trouble my ſelf and the Reader with no more. Albertinus will give him enow more who deſireth them: And no doubt but with a wet finger they can blot out all theſe, and teach us to deny the ſenſe of words, as well as our ſenſes.

But you ſaid alſo, that the Preſent Church and its Tradition is againſt Tranſubſtantiation, as well as the Antient: How prove you that?

Juſt as I prove that the Proteſtants are againſt it.

By the preſent Church, I mean the far greater part of all the Chriſtians in the world. The Greeks with the Muſcovites, the Armenians, the Syrians, the Copties, the Abaſſines, and the Proteſtants, and all the reſt who make up about twice or thrice as many as the Papiſts.

That they hold that there is true Bread and Wine after Conſecration, all impartial Hiſtorians teſtifie, both Papiſts and Proteſtants, and their own ſeveral Countreymen; and alſo Travellers who have been among them. And their Liturgies, even thoſe that are in the Bibliotheca Patrum put out by themſelves, do teſtifie for thoſe Countreys where they are uſed (Though as Biſhop Ʋſher hath detected) by one words addition they have ſhameleſly endeavoured to corrupt the Ethiopick Liturgy about the Real preſence.) But I need no more proof of that which no faithful Hiſtory doth deny.

And then I need not prove, that Tranſubſtantiation is againſt the moſt General or Common Tradition, For all theſe Chriſtians, the Greeks, Armenians, Abaſſines, &c. profeſs to follow the Religion which they have received from their Anceſtors, as well as the Papiſts do: And if the Papiſts be to be believed in ſaying that this is the Religion which they received from their forefathers, Why are not the other to be believed in the ſame caſe? And if the Popiſh Tradition ſeem regardable to them, Why ſhould not the Tradition of twice or thrice as many Chriſtians be more regardable? And if in Councils, the Major Vote muſt carry it; Why not in the Judgement and Tradition of the Real body of Chriſts Church? As for their trick of excepting againſt them as Schiſmaticks and Hereticks, to invalidate their Votes and Judgement, we deſpiſe it, as knowing that ſo any Uſurper that would make himſelf the ſole Judge, may ſay by all the reſt of the world: But as they judge of others, they are juſtly judged by others themſelves.

Full and Easy Satisfaction, Part 4 · Chapter 9

CHAP. IX. Of the Novelty of Tranſubſtantiation.