she sees it obscurely for she sees it as it is, or else she sees it not at all: and therefore must declare it to be so: that is, probably, obscurely, peradventure, but not evidently, compellingly, necessarily.

6. So that if, according to the casuists, especially of the Jesuits' order, it be lawful to follow the opinion of any one probable doctor; here we have five good men and true, besides Ocham, Bassolis, and Melchior Camus, to acquit us from our search after this question in Scripture. But because this, although it satisfies me, will not satisfy them that follow the decree of Trent; we will try whether this doctrine be to be found in Scripture.- Pede pes.'

SECTION III.

Of the Sixth Chapter of St. John's Gospel.

6

In this chapter, it is earnestly pretended, that our blessed' Saviour taught the mystery of transubstantiation; but with some different opinions; for in this question they are divided all the way some reckon the whole sermon as the proof of it, from verse 33. to 58.; though how to make them friends with Bellarmine I understand not; who says", "Constat," It is known' that the eucharist is not handled in the whole chapter; for Christ there discourses of natural bread: the miracle of the loaves, of faith, and of the incarnation, are a great part of the chapter; Solùm igitur quæstio est de illis verbis,-Panis quem ego dabo, caro mea est pro mundi vitâet de sequentibus, fere ad finem capitis;'-' The question only is concerning those words, (verse 51.) The bread which I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world,—and so forward almost until the end of the chapter.'" The reason which is pretended for it, is, because Christ speaks in the future, and therefore probably relates to the institution which was to be next year: but this is a trifle; for the same thing, in effect, is before spoken in the future tense, and by way of promise'; "Labour not for the meat that perisheth, but for that meat, that endureth to everlasting life, f John vi. 27.

e Lib. de Euchar. cap. 5.

which the Son of man shall give unto you." The same also is affirmed by Christ, under the expression of water, St. John, iv. 14.; "He that drinketh the water which I shall give him, shall never thirst; but the water which I shall give him, shall be a fountain of water springing up to life eternal." The places are exactly parallel; and yet, as this is not meant of baptism, so neither is the other of the eucharist; but both of them of spiritual sumption of Christ. And both of them being promises to them that shall come to Christ and be united to him, it were strange if they were not expressed in the future; for although they always did signify in present and in sensu currenti,' yet because they are of never-failing truth, to express them in the future is most proper, that the expectation of them may appertain to all,

6

Ad natos natorum et qui nascentur ab illis.

But then, because Christ said, "The bread which I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world,"_to suppose this must be meant of a corporal manducation of his flesh in the holy sacrament, is as frivolous as if it were said, that nothing that is spoken in the future, can be figurative; and if so, then let it be considered what is meant by these; "To him that overcomes, I will give to eat of the tree of life:" and, "To him that overcomes I will give to eat of the hidden manna." These promises are future, but certainly figurative; and, therefore, why it may not be so here, and be understood of eating Christ spiritually or by faith, I am certain there is no cause sufficient in this excuse. For if eating Christ by faith be a thing of all times, then it is also of the future; and no difference of time is so apt to express an 'eternal truth' as is the future, which is alway in flux and potential signification. But the secret of the thing was this; the arguments against the sacramental sense of these words, drawn from the following verses between this and the fifty-first verse, could not be so well answered; and therefore, Bellarmine found out the trick of confessing all till you come thither, as appears in his answer to the ninth argument: "that of some Catholics"." However, as to this article I am to say these things:1. That very many of the most learned Romanists affirm, that, in this chapter, Christ does not speak of sacramental or

g Rev. ii. 7. 17.

h Lib. 1. Euch. c. 7. sect. Respondeo Verba,

oral manducation, or of the sacrament at all: Johannes de Ragusio', Biel, Cusanus', Ruard, Tapper", Cajetan", Hessels, Jansenius P, Waldensis ", Armachanus :-save only that Bellarmine, going to excuse it, says in effect, that they did not do it very honestly; for he affirms, that they did it, that they might confute the Hussites and the Lutherans about the communion under both kinds : and if it be so, and not be so, as it may serve a turn, it is so for transubstantiation, and it is not so for the half-communion, we have but little reason to rely upon their judgment or candour in any exposition of Scripture. But it is no new thing for some sort of men to do so. The heretic Severus, in Anastasius Sinaita, maintained it lawful, and even necessary, δεῖ πρὸς τοὺς καιροὺς καὶ τὰς ἀνακυπτούσας αἱρέσεις τὰ δόγματα Χριστοῦ μεταλλάττειν καὶ με ταῤῥυθμίζεσθαι, Tappulμíleodai," according to occasions and emergent heresies to alter and change the doctrines of Christ:" and the Cardinal of Cusa' affirmed it lawful, diversely to expound the Scriptures according to the times." So that we know what precedents and authorities they can urge for so doing: and I doubt not but it is practised too often, since it was offered to be justified by Dureus against Whitaker.

66

"

2. These great clerks had reason to expound it, not to be meant of sacramental manducation, to avoid the unanswerable argument against their half-communion: for so Christ said, “Unless ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you." 1. It is therefore as necessary to drink the chalice as to eat the bread, and we perish if we omit either. And their new whimsey of concomitancy' will not serve the turn, because there it is sanguis effusus,' that is, sacramentally poured forth: ‹ blood that is poured forth,' not that is in the body. 2. If it were in the body, yet a man, by no concomitancy, can be said to drink what he only eats. 3. If in the sacramental body, Christ gave the blood by concomitancy, then he gave the blood twice; which to what purpose it might be done, is not yet revealed. 4. If the blood be, by concomitancy, in the i De Communione sub utraque specie.

1 Epist. 7. ad Bohem.

k In Canon.

• Lib. de Commun. sub unâ specie.

4 Tom. 2. de Sacram. c. 91.

r Lib. 9. c. 8. Ejusdem sententiæ sunt Eneas Sylvius dial. contr. Tabor,

Alensis, part. 4. q. 11. mem. 2. a. 4, Lindanus, Gaspar Sagerus, et alii.

body, then so is the body with the blood: and then it will be sufficient to drink the chalice without the host, as to eat the host without the chalice; and then we must drink his flesh as well as eat his blood, which if we could suppose to be possible, yet the precept of eating his flesh, and drinking his blood, were not observed by drinking that, which is to be eaten, and eating that, which is to be drunk. But certainly they are fine propositions which cannot be true, unless we can eat our drink and drink our meat, unless bread be wine and wine be bread, or, to speak in their style, unless the body be the blood, and the blood the body; that is, unless each of the two symbols be the other as much as itself; as much that which it is not, as that which it is. And this thing their own Pope Innocentius the Third, and from him Vasques", noted, and Salmeron *,-who affirmed that Christ commanded the manner as well as the thing; and that, without eating and drinking, the precept of Christ is not obeyed.

3. But whatever can come of this, yet upon the account of these words so expounded by some of the fathers concerning oral manducation and potation, they believed themselves bound by the same necessity to give the eucharist to infants, as to give them baptism; and did, for above seven ages together, practise it; and let these men, that will have these words spoken of the eucharist, answer the argument :-Bellarmine is troubled with it, and, instead of answering, increases the difficulty, and concludes firmly against himself, saying, "If the words be understood of eating Christ's body spiritually, or by faith, it will be more impossible to infants ; for it is easier to give them intinctum panem,' 'bread dipped in the chalice,' than to make them believe." To this I reply, that therefore it is spoken to infants in neither sense, neither is any law at all given to them; and no laws can be understood as obligatory to them in that capacity. But then, although I have answered the argument, because I believe it not to be meant in the sacramental sense to any; nor in the 'Lib. 4. de Miss. Myster. c. 21.

* Tom. 8. tr. 24.

u In 3. t. 3. dist. 216. n. 50.

y Clem. Rom. 1. 8. c. 20. Constit. Apost. Eccles. Hierarch. cap. ult. Gennadius, cap. 52. de Dogmat. Eccles. cap. de Sabbato Sancto Paschatis. S. Cyprian. Epist. 59. ad Fiduc. Concil. Tolet. 2. c. 11. S. August. Epist. 93. 106. Innocentius Papa, ibid. Paulinus Episc. Nolanus A. D. 353. Epist. 12. ad Severum. Paulinus de Infantibus ait : Pura salutiferis imbuit ora cibis.-Hic mos duravit ad tempora Ludovici Pii, et Lotharii, ait Beat. Rhenan. in Tertul. de Cor. Milit.

spiritual sense to them; yet Bellarmine hath not answered the pressure that lies upon his cause. For since it is certain (and he confesses it) that it is easier, that is, it is possible to give infants the sacrament; it follows, that if here the sacrament be meant, infants are obliged; that is, the church is obliged to minister it, as well as baptism: there being, in virtue of these words, the same necessity, and, in the nature of the thing, the same possibility, of their receiving it. But then, on the other side, no inconvenience can press our interpretation of spiritual eating Christ by faith,' because it being naturally impossible that infants should believe, they cannot be concerned in an impossible commandment. So that we can answer St. Austin's and Innocentius's arguments for communicating of infants, but they cannot.

4. If these words be understood of sacramental manducation, then no man can be saved but he that receives the holy sacrament. 1. For “Unless ye eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, ye have no life in you;" if it be answered, that the holy sacrament must be eaten in act or desire; I reply, that is not true; because if a catechumen desires baptism only in the article of his death, it is sufficient to salvation, and they dare not deny it. 2. Fools, young persons, they that are surprised with sudden death, cannot be thought to perish for want of the actual susception or desire. 3. There is nothing in the words, that can warrant or excuse the actual omission of the sacrament; and it is a strange deception, that these men suffer by misunderstanding this distinction of receiving the sacrament either in act or desire. For, they are not opposite but subordinate members, and differ only as act and disposition; and this disposition is not at all required, but as it is in order to the act, and therefore is nothing of itself, and is only the imperfection of, or passage to, the act; if therefore the act were not necessary, neither were the disposition; but if the act be necessary, then the desire, which is but the disposition to the act, is not sufficient. As, if it be necessary to go from Oxford to London, then it is necessary that you go to Henley, or Uxbridge; but if it be necessary to be at London, it is not sufficient to go to Uxbridge; but if it be not necessary to be at London, neither is it necessary to go so far. But this distinction, as

z Lib. 1. Euchar. c. 7. sect. Respondeo Communem.