there were as many Bodies hypostatically united to him as there were several meats eaten by him no saith he this Argument carries not the shew of probability Rep. Sure I am this answer hath but the shew of a similitude for the Elements of Bread are changed into Christs whole Body but all the several meats Christ eat were not changed into Christs whole Body but only into some part of it but the similitude is good against him for as the several meats which by Conversion became parts of Christs Body were not the self same parts but divers So the several Wafers which by Conversion become Christs whole Body are not the same whole Body but divers thus doth T. G's similitudo turn tayl upon him And that the Doctors Argument is perfect demonstration is most evident for it depends upon this proposition that if one Consecrated Element by one Christs Body hypostatically united to him then must Two be Two and Ten be Ten and many Consecrated Elements many Bodys which is a evident as this if one Twenty shillings in a bag be one pound then must Two be Two pound and many Twenty shillings in a bag must be many pounds CHAP. III. The CONTENTS Prop. The Bread and Wine are not Transubstantiated 1. Because we do not drink blood 2. Because we do not eat mans Flesh 3. Because mankind was not redeemed by the first Sacrament 4. Because the Scripture after Consecration calls it Bread and Wine 5. Because our senses have no evidence of such a change IN the participation of the Eucharist we do not eat the humane body of our Lord which suffered on the Cross nor drink of humane blood Prop. 1. Sect. 1. but what we eat and drink is true substantial Bread and Wine for 1. If Christ had given to his Disciples blood to eat he must have taught them to have done what was forbidden in the Law of Moses whereas he both exactly did observe that Law Mat. 23 3. and taught his own Disciples to observe what ever by the Scribes and Pharisees was taught them from the Law of Moses which was in force till all things were fulfilled by the death of Christ Secondly Christs own Disciples after his Resurrection were strict observers of the Law of Moses for a considerable time and so were also many Thousands of the Jewish converts 21 Act. 20. St. Peter was so nice in observation of the Jewish Customs that till a vision had informed him better 10 Act. 14. he thought such meat was utterly unlawful as was forbidden by the Law and when in a vision on he was bid to stay and eat he presently cryes out as a man tempted to an unlawful act not so Lord for I have never eaten any thing that is unclean St. James gives an account to Paul of the great zeal that all the Jewish Converts had for the Law of Moses Act. 21.20 in these words Thou seest Brother how many Thousands of Jews there are which believe and they are all zealous of the Law he declares how highly they were all offended with him because they were informed that he taught that they were not obliged to yield Obedience to the Constitutions and customs of the Jewish Law vers 21. They are saith he informed of thee that thou teachest all the Jews which are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses saying that they ought not to Circumcise their Children neither to walk after their Customs And Thirdly he exhorts him for their better satisfaction so to act v. â—4 as that he might induce them to believe that he also walked soberly and did keep the Law And yet St. Peter before this vision had assembled to celebrate the Holy Sacrament and all these Jewish converts so zealous of the observation of the Ceremonial Law did very frequently receive this Cup of Blessing Act. 20.7 11. and upon every Lords day at least did meet together to break Bread Whence evident it is that they did not look upon that action as any violation of the Law of Moses and so could not imagine that by participation of this Sacrament they drunk what properly was blood For they could not be ignorant that blood was by this Law forbidden Lev. 3.17 it having said it shall be a perpetual Statute for your Generations throughout all your dwellings Lev. c. 7. v. 27. that ye eat neither Fat nor Blood and that whatsoever sâ—â—â—l it he that eateth any manner of Blood even that soul shall be cut off from his People Nor could they be both zealous observators of the Law and quarrellors with those that did not keep it and yet transgress it themselves The Sect of Nazarens continued in the Church of Christ 400 years for of the a Sectae illius meminit Hâ—â—ronymus in Epist ad August August ipse l. 4. con Crescon Danaeas in August de Haeres p. 75. Nazarens St. Jerom and St. Austin do make mention they multiplyed and spread themselves throughout the Eastern Church and yet this Sect observed b Nazaraei cum Dei filium confireantur esse Christum omnia tamen veteris legis observant August de Heresibus Cap. 9. vid. Epiphaâ—â—um Haeres 29. § 7. all the Law of Moses and held it necessary to Salvation so to do and therefore none of them did think that by participation of the Holy Sacrament they fed on blood and so transgressed it Again when the Disciples met together to consult of what was needfull to be observed by the Gentile Converts the better to avoid the Scandal of the Jews they strictly charged them to avoid things strangled and abstain from Blood Acts 15.28 29. and judged it necessary so to do Now had they fed on Blood in Holy Mysteries no Christian communicant could have observed this precept and nothing could have been more foolish than to give injunctions to avoid that Scandal which in their Holy Rites they daily ministred This therefore is a signal and triumphant evidence that they who first imposed this Decree and they who undertook to keep it were utter strangers to this idle dream of Transubstantiation The ancient Christians did for many Centuries abstain from Blood look upon it as a thing forbidden by this Canon which enjoyns this abstainance and reckons it amongst 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or things necessary of which we have sufficient Testimony from that Law of Leo the Emperour where having forbidden the use of Blood stuffed in the entrails of Beasts he affirms That in the Old Law and in the Gospel it was always esteemed impious to eat it and in the Canons called c 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Canonum Apestol cap. 62. Apostolical it is forbidden to a Clergy-man to eat Blood under pain of deposition to a Lay-man under pain of Excommunication And hence the Penitential Books had warrant enough to impose Canonical Penances upon them that did tast this forbidden Dish And that they did so is known and confessed by Pamelius
viz. The three branches are three days The seven Kine and seven ears of Corn are seven years The four great Beasts are four Kingdoms Thou art that Golden head The Seed is the word the Field is the World the Reapers are the Angels the Harvest is the end of the World the Rock is Christ c. Should we omit I say all these and many other instances of this familiar Trope it would be easie to produce many expressions of the like import with them For doth not the Scripture say of that same hair which by Ezekiel was burnt 5 Ezek. 5. and cut and bound up in his skirt this is Jerusalem And of that water which the three mighty men procured for David 2 Sam. 23. â—7 this is the Blood of the men that went in Jeopardy of their lives Have we not clear and pregnant instances of Sacramental Tropes in Scripture and in Jewish Writers doth not our Saviour call the Paschal-lamb the Passover doth not he say the Cup is the New Testament and was it not familiar with the Jewes to say of their unleavened Bread this is that Bread of affliction which our Fathers did eat and of the Lamb that it was Corpus Paschatis or the memorial of the Passover Buxt de Caena Dom §. 25. And is it therefore any absurdity to think Christ should affirm of Sacramental Bread designed to signifie and represent his Body broken for us and to conveigh the blessings he had purchased by the oblation of it on the Cross This is my Body Fifthly This Answer will render us unable to confute the Marcionites the Valentinians and the Manichaeans who thought Christs Body to be only the appearance of a Body and so denied the Article of his Incarnation and his real Passion This fond imagination the ancient Fathers did confute by Mediums which overthrows this answer and the whole Doctrine of Transubstantiation nor can it be sufficiently confuted by men of T. G's Principles 1 The ancient Fathers did confute it from this principle that we must certainly believe the evidence of Sence and that to doubt the certainty of what our sences apprehend is to endanger all Religion Tertullian discourseth thus a Non licet nobis in dubium sensesistos revorate ne in Ghristo de fide corum deliberetur Ne forte dicatur quod salso patris vocem audierit de ipso testificatum Recita Johannis testa ionem quod vidimus inquit quod audivimus quod manibus nostris palpavimus c. falsa utique testatlo si oculorum aurium manuum sensus natura mentitur de anima Cap. 17. B. C it is not lawful to doubt of our Sences least the same doubt be made concerning Christ least peradventure it should be said he was deceived when he heard the voice of his Father testifying concerning him Recite the Testimony of St. John what we have heard with our Ears and our Eyes have seen and our Hands have handled of the word of Life that declare we to you The Testimony verily is false if nature do deceive us in the Testimony of our Eyes and Ears and Hands And in his Book de Carne Christi he speaks thus b Sed qui carnem Christi putativam introduxit aeque potuit nativitatem quoque phantasma configere ut conceptus praegnatus partus Virginis Ipsrus exindeinfantis ordo 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 haberentur eosdem oculos eosdemque sensus fefellissent quos carnis opinio elusit cap. 1. He that doth introduce the Tenet of the Imaginary Flesh of Christ hath equal reason to introduce an imaginary Nativity and to assert the Conception Pregnance and the Virgins Birth and the whole Order of the Infant was Phantastical for they would only have deceived the same Eyes and Sences which were deceived by the opinion of his Flesh 2. They argue thus that if Christ had no real Flesh and if he did not suffer really the Sacrament cannot duely be stiled the Image Figure Symbol Type Similitude Memorial or Representation of his real Flesh c Acceptum panem distributum Discipulis corpus illum suum secit hoc est corpus meum dicendo id est figura Corporis mei Figura autem non suisset nisi veritatis esset Corpus Caeterum vacua res quod est phantasma figuram capere non possit Quid tune voluerit significasse panem satis declaravit corpus suum vocans panem Tertul. contra Marcionem l. 4. c. 40. Christ saith Tertullian said This is my Body i. e. the figure of my Body but it had been no figure unless the Body had been true for a Phantasme can have no figure But what he would have Bread to signifie he hath sufficiently declared calling Bread his Body and therefore thus he sums up his discourse d Panis calicis Sacrimento jam in Evangelio probavimus corporis sanguinis Dominici veritatem adversus phantasma Marcionis l. 5. c 8 against the Phantasme of Marcion We have proved the verity of Christs Body and Blood by the Sacrament of Bread and Wine And Maximus who flourished Anno Dom. 190. discourseth thus e Apud Orig. Dial. 3. part 2. If Christ as these Men say were without Body and Blood of what kind of Elesh or of what Body or of what kind of Blood did he give the Bread and Cup to be Images of when he commanded his Disciples by them to make a Commemoration of him Theodoret against the Eutichians disputeth thus f 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 4. p. 84 85. That the Flesh of Christ was not transformed into the nature of the Godhead because that Christians do participate of the Signs of his Body Now had this been the Doctrine of the Church of Christ that this blessed Sacrament contained his very Flesh and Blood they had much weakned their argument by those expressions for what is more convincing then this inference if Christians in the Sacrament do eat Christs real Flesh and Blood then must his Flesh and Blood be real if they do eat Christs real Body he had a real Body Secondly Why do they so absurdly and untruly set the Sacrament in opposition to Christs real Body as the Figure stands opposed to the Truth Thirdly why do they all expresly say the Bread and Wine are Types and Symbols and Remembrances of his Body and Blood and that of them he said This is my Body and my Blood seeing such Speeches cannot properly be true but must admit a Figure But Secondly These Hereticks can never be confuted by Men of T. G's Principles for hath the Roman Catholick one Text of Scripture to build his Dream upon so hath the Marcionite that passage of St. Paul which tells us that as in the Eucharist we have the shape of bread and yet no real bread so Christ was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the shape of Man and yet no Man as we have
sicut enim panis divinâ illum Sanctificante Gratiâ liberatus est quidem ab appellatione panis dignus autem habitus est dominici corporis appellatione etiam si natura panis in ipso permansit non duo corpora sed unum filiâ— corpus predicatur sic hic divinâ naturâ in corpore insidente Gr. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Mss Exemp Bibl. Florent Chrysost ad Caesarium Monachum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Theod. Dial. 1. p. 18. Because the Bread and Wine though after consecration they become signs and Images of Christs true body and his blood yet they abide in their proper substance and still retain the nature of Bread and Wine and that the change is wrought upon them not by destruction of their natures but by addition of grace to nature and so * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Theodorit 2 p. 84.85 the Hereticks say they are caught in their own Nets For then the paralel runs thus as the Symbols are called another thing because Gods grace is added to them but still retain their proper nature and the same substance which they had before Even so Christs humane body although by reason of its union to the God-head it may sometimes have those names whiâ—h signisie the nature and properties of God ascribed to it yet must it continue in its former nature reality and substance And as the Bread and Wine are not converted into Christs real body by reason of the grace annexed to them but do retain their former natures so neither is Christs body changed into the Deity by reason of its union with it but still retains its former substance nature and proprieties Having thus shewed the judgment of the ancient Fathers we now proceed to the consideration of those Testimonies which T. G. citeth from them to evince the contrary And here we have just reason to complain that nothing is produced which is not answered in Morton Down in Bishop Taylor White and all our modern Writers on this subject and that if we lay aside his spurious Authors and his false citations we have but little left to answer And First P. 152. That the passages of St. Ambrose de Sacramentis are supposititious is proved already by Albertinus de Sacramento Euch. p. 507. So is that book de Caena Domini which bears the nam of Cyprian by the confession of the m Author Sermon 's de caena Domini non est Cyprianus sed aliquis posterior Be larmâ— 4. de Eucharist c. 26. Author Sermonis de caena domini est ignorus Garetius de verâ—itate corporis Christi Fol. 181. v. Cochum p. 75. Roman Doctors the same we have just reason to assert of Cyril for if we may believe †James Bastardy of the false Fathers p. 12. †Biblioth Gesner or Samler sundry written Copies entitle them to John Bishop of Hirusalem one who lived well near Eight hundred years after Christ and of Eusebius Emissenus as is confessed by Bellarmine Baronius and by Antonius n Quae vero qui hunclibrum imprimendum cura-vit maxime inovit Homil. 5. in pascha ca etiam non potest esâ—e Eusebii Eâ—issent quia loquitur adversus Pelagium qui multo post tempore suit D. 〈◊〉 atact Apparat To. 1 titul Euseb Emiss vide Rivet Crit. Saâ—râ— 3. c. 1. Pâ—ssevinus who having told us the chief reason that moved them to the Printing of this Book was this fifth Homily which T. G. cited he adds that the said Homily must be spurious because it speaks against Pelagius who flourished in the dayes of Austin i. e full Forty years after the death of Eusebius and haply it was upon this account that T. G. cites this passage not by the name of Hom. 5. de Pasch as in Eusebius it is but as it is in Hierom under the name of Serm. de Corp. Dom. that so we might not take it for that Homily which is so manifestly spurious Secondly were they assuredly the works of these Renowned Fathers whose names they have usurped a Title to by false Translations and by concealing of those words which make against the Doctrine of the Roman Church they almost all of them are made to say the contradictory to what they really affirm Thus Tertuâ—ian is suborned to say that o Acceptum panem dlstributum Discipulis corpus illum iuum fecir dicendo hoc est corpus meum 〈◊〉 far T. G. then follows id est figura corporis mel Figura autem tion â—uiset nisi veritaris esset corpus Caeterum vacua res quod est phantaâ—pia figuram capere non posset Cur autem pancâ—m corpus suum appallat non magis Peponem quem Marcion cordis leco liabuit non intellâ— gens veterem fuis elstam figuram corporis Christi dicentis per Hiere miam adversus me cogitaverunt cogitatum dicentes venite conjiciamus lignum in panem ejus scilicet crucem in corpus ejus Advers Marcionem l. 4. Cap. 40. vid. etiam l. 3. c. 19. our Lord having taken Bread made it his own Body by saying this is my Body but these words must be concealed that is it is a figure of my Body whereas it could have been no figure of Christs body unless that body had been real and those that presently ensue must not be mentioned viz. Bread was an ancient figure of Christs body it being said by Jeremy come let us put wood into his Bread i.e. the Cross into his body Moreover it is told us that St. Ambrofe saith that when the Consecration is performed the Bread is made the Flesh of Christ he spake the word and it was made but then we must not know the words that do immediatly follow to inform us that it is so made Flesh as we are made new Creatures and that that change is a like instance of the power of God the words are these o Mandavit creatum est Tuipse eras vetus creatura postea quam consecratus es nova cretura esse accipe ergo Huemadmodum Sermo Christi creaturam omuem mutare consuevit mutat quando vult inslituta naturae Ambros de Sacram l. 4. c. 4. Thou thy self was 't an old Creature but after Confecration thou beginst to be a new see then after what manner Christs words do at his pleasure change all Creatures and alter natures Institutions Agreeably to this St. a Non solum nos Christianos factos esse sed Christum in Job Trasc 21. Austin saith that we are made not only Christians but even Christ himself And b De pass Serm 14. Leo that the body of the Regenerate fit caro Crucifixi is made the Flesh of the Crucified And c 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Act Hom. 23. Chrysistom that after Baptism of men we are made Angels and d Epist 16 Paulinus that we are made the blood of Christ From all which passages we have just reason to conclude with Cyril 〈◊〉
evident that all the instances produced leave it uncertain whether St. Ambrose did intend a proper change of substance or only a change of qualities and vertues Secondly had Ambrose only given instances of a substantial change it would not hence have followed that he did intend to prove the Sacramental Symbols were so changed but only a majori to prove that he who was the Author of such substantial mutations could certainly effect that change which was but accidental Thus from the substantial conversion of water into Wine he proves u Credendum jam est ex hoc mortalem hominem in immortalitatem posse converti quando vilis substantia in pretiosam conversa est substantiam Serm. 19. we ought to think that God can change our mortal into a glorious and immortal body which change is only accidental and from x Si ergo inquit superveniens Spiritus Sanctus in virginem conceptionem operatus est generationis munus implevit non utique dubitandum est quod superveniens in fontem vel super eum qui Baptismum consequitur veritatem regeneratiouis cooperetur cap. 9. de his qui initiantur the supernatural production of our Lord by vertue of the holy Ghost he in this very Chapter proves we must not doubt but the same Spirit can Regenerate the Baptized person So that we see it is familiar with him to prove the possibility of accidental changes by examples of a change substantial Ob. St. Ambrose saith a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Act. Hom. 23. the Symbols are not what nature formed them but what the Benediction consecrated them Answ True because they are not only so but by this more excellent and Spiritual change obtain a name which is more excellent denominations being taken from the better Thus Chrysostom affirms That such is the power of Baptism that it doth not suffer men to be still Men. And Leo b De Pass Dom. Ser. 14. That the Baptized person is not the same-before and after Baptism And Epiphanius That when we are endowed with Temperance the Flesh it no more Flesh c 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Haeres 66. Whence yet it were ridiculous to argue that either Baptism or Teâ—perance offentially change either the flesh or nature of a Christian Ob. He affirms further That by this Benediction nature is changed Answ True but then that word not only in the Authors before mentioned but in St. d De Virg. l. 2. Haxamer l. 3. c. 2. Ambrose doth very often signisie only a change of quality and virtue For he affirms That Thecla changed the nature of the Beasts that were designed to devour her and that the Beasts themselves had changed their nature i.e. their fierceness and rapacity and in this very place he saith That the Nature of the water of the River Jordan was clearly changed because that it was driven back We must be told that Chrysostom doth say T. G. p. 303. that things that lye before us are not the works of humane power we only hold the the place of Ministers but he that Sanctifieth changeth them is Christ But then we must not know that in this very Homily the Consecrated Elements are stiled the Symbols of Christs Body In Mat. Hom. 82. p. 510. l. 36 and that disputing against Marcian and Valentinian who held Christ had no real Body he confutes and stops their mouth by saying That in the Blessed Sacrament we have the Symbol of that Body Whereas could he have truly said we have their real Flesh and Blood he had then spoken what would have more effectually confuted their absurd position 2. We must not know that in that very place he confutes the Heresie of the Encratitae P. 511. l. 10 15. by shewing That when our Lord delivered the Mysteries he delivered the Wine and that after his Resurrection he drank wine to verifie this saying I will no more drink of the Fruit of the Vine till I drink it new with you in my Fathers Kingdome Nor Thirdly That Christ in those Holy Mysteries doth give himself unto the Faithful but to none other P. 514. l. 28. But had we no such indications of the mind of Chrysostom the words themselves are very insignificative and unconcluding for that which Chrysostom affirmeth of the Eucharist that these things are not the works of humane power we Protestants acknowledge as knowing that it is no work of humane power to cause the virtue of the Holy Spirit to attend these Mysteries and to make that to be food of the Soul which naturally can only feed the Body He that thus Sanctifies and changeth these material Symbols must be God And hence St. Chrysostom informs us the case is just the same in Baptism That it is not an Angel who there moves the Water Hom. 35. in Joh In 1 ad Cor. Hom. 8. but that it is Lord of Angels 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 who works all things there That man doth nothing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but that it is the power of God that worketh all things And whereas he adds that it is he who Sanctifies these things and changeth them St. Cyril doth inform us Catech. Mystag 5. that whatsoever the Holy Spirit toucheth is Sanctified and Changed St. * Paedag. l. 3. c 2. In Cant. Hom 4. In Gen. Hom. 41. vid Albert de sacr Euch. l. 2. P. 545. Clemens That the Devil doth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i.e. transmute Women into Whores Nyssenus that Regeneration 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i.e. doth change us into the Sons of Light and of the day And Chrysostom himself informs us That to make the barren Womb to bear is an example of this Transmutation Such therefore we may rationally conceive that change to be of which St. Chrysostom here speaketh Gaudentius must tell us T. G. p. 306. That the Maker and Lord of natures who produceth Bread out of the Earth doth again of Bread because he can and hath promised to do it make his own Body and he who made Water of Wine maketh of Wine his own Blood But then we must not know Tract in Ex. 2. that in the same place he asserts That when our Saviour said This is my Body he gave to his Disciples Consecrated Bread and Wine Or that because our Saviour in the Gospel saith I am the true Vine he did sufficiently declare that all the Wine he offered in the figure of his Passion was his Blood or that we eat his Flesh when we receive his Doctrine which doth sufficiently confute the Roman Doctrine and shew the change of which Gaudentius speaks to be Spiritual and Mystical For if the Consecrated Signs be Bread and Wine they are not properly Christs Body if what is offered be a Figure of his Passion it is not the Truth For as Gandentius there telleth us figura non est veritas sed imitatio veritatis i.e. a figure is the imitation of the truth but
Eliensis Respon ad Apol. Bel. pag. 7. Garnet openly confessed and therefore though they stande obliged to believe that the Bread is Transubstantiated some where or other at some time or other by some Priest or other yet they think no man is obliged to believe that any Priest now or at any one certain time does consecrate effectively And this concession is not very liberal if we consider what is acknowledged by Suarez b Multae sut causae propter quas potest accidere ut Christus non sit praesens ut si sacerdos non sit baptizatus vel non sit ritè ordinatus quod pendet ex multis aliis causis quibus ferè in infinitum progredi possumus ut ex parte materiae saepe accidit defectus Suarez in 3 Thom. qu. 79. Art 8. Disp 65.2 That we may almost infinitely proceed in the enumeration of the defects which will obstruct Christs presence in the Holy Sacrament For as we are informed by the Roman Missal if the c Si aliquid desit ex iis quae ad integritatem verborum in ipsâ consecratione requiruntur Verba autem consecrationis quae sunt forma hujus Sacramenti sunt haec hoc est enim corpus meum hic est enim calix sanguinis mei novi aeterni Testamenti misterium fidei qui pro vobis pro multis effundetur in remissionem peccatorum Si quis autem aliquid diminueret vel immutaret de forma consecrationis corporis sanguinis in ipsa verborum immutatione verba idem non significarent non Conficeret sacramentum Miss Rom. de Defec Miss p. 35. Priest happen to diminish or alter any of the words of Consecration so that the sense be varied or any word belonging to the form of Consecration be ontitted in all these cases Christ is not present in the Sacrament but it remaineth Bread now since the form of Consecration of the Cup containeth 11 words and so is the more subject to diminution or alteration seeing the Priest doth always speak the words of Consecration in a d Si quis dixerit Ecclesiae R. ritum quo submissa voce pars canonis verba consecrationis proseruntu◠damnandum esse aut lingua tantum vulgari missam celebrari debere anathema sit Concil Trid Sess 22. Can. 9. secret voice and not to be heard and in the Latine Tongue none of the People can be certain that he speaks the words of Consecration so fully and so regularly as to secure them from Worshipping a piece of Bread Secondly e Si panis non sit triticeus vel si triticeus sit admixtus granis alterius generis in tanta quan titate ut non maneat panis triticeus vel sit alioqui corruptus non conficitur Sacramentum ibid. pag. 34. If the Bread be corrupted or if it be not wheaten-Wheaten-Bread then is it not converted into Christs Body and if the Wine be sowre or turned into Vinegar if it be made of unripe Grapes if it be mixt with so much Water as will corrupt the Wine then is it not converted into the Blood of Christ Now by what means the person that adores the Sacrament can be assured that the Bread and Wine is subject unto none of these defects it is not easie to conceive f Si vinum sit factum pe nitus acetum vel penitus putridum vel de uvis acerbis seu non maturis expessum vel admixtum tantum aquae ut vinum sit corruptum non conficitur Sacramentum ibid. Thirdly g Siquis non intendit conficere sed delusorie aliquid agere non consecrat quiarequiritur inten tio ibid. P. 35.36 If the Priest have uo intention to consecrate the Bread and Wine if in this matter he acts dilusorily if he be asecret Atheist a Moor a Jew in all these cases the person Worshiping must give Latria to a Creature if none of all this happen yet h Quicquid horum deficit scilicet mat eria debita for ma cum intentione ordo Sacerdotalis in conficiente non consicitur Sacramentum ib. p. 34. if the Consecrated Priest were not Baptized with due form of words or if the Person that Baptized him doth not intend to do as the Church doth if he be not a Priest which often happens saith Pope * In quaest quodlib quaest 3. Adrian and certainly falls out when he that doth Ordain him doth noth not intend to do so or faultreth by diminution of or by addition to the form of Ordination so that the sence is changed or made imperefct or lastly if the Bishop that Ordain'd this Priest that doth now Consecrate were not himself Ordained and Baptized with due matter form and intention or if this happened to any Priest to Bishop before him or any one in the same Line of Ordainers till you come unto St. Peter that is if this hath happen'd out in sixteen hundred years then will the Elements remain still Bread and Wine as wanting Consecration by a real Priest for Baptism and Ordination being necessary requisites to Priesthood he who by the defect of these is only a supposed Priest can give but a supposed Priesthood and they that do receive their Priesthood or do derive it from such as have received it from them can receive nothing but a shadow it being undeniably certain that the unsupplyable defect of any necessary antecedent doth cause a nullity in all those consequences which depend upon it So that no R. Catholick can be assured he doth not Worship Bread without he can have no assurance there being no necessity that they should be true From the consideration of all these defects it is exceeding evident That all that live in the Communion of the Church of Rome and daily practice the adoration of the Host are unavoidably subjected to the continual peril of Idolatry and have just reason to suspect although the Doctrine of Transubstantiation should in the general be certain that the material object of their Worship is but Bread and Wine On this Objection T. G. reflects with so much insolence and triumph as if it were the vainest scruple that a tongue could utter and had been managed by the Dr. with the greatest weakness And yet so little reason had he to be thus insolent and pert that by his first reply unto it he hath quite overthrown the Roman Cause and given all considering persons such a clear convincing motive to desert the Church of Rome that nothing can be more prevailing For thus he speaks The absurdness of the assertion that another mans defect and wickedness should make me incur the Crime of Idolatry whether I will or no might suffice to make any reasonable man depose so Chimerical a seruple This I confess is a most clear and certain truth that it is infinitely absurd to say I should be guilty of so great a Crime only by reason of anothers fault or wickedness But then it must
have been constrained to fly to a Trope if he had said this Bread is my Body this Wine is my Blood because this had been a predication of Disparates as they call it 2. That you may be assured that by denying it to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he only meant to say it was not Bread without the Grace of Christ and the assistance of his Spirit to conveigh the Blessings Christ hath purchased but did not mean that it was Bread converted into the real Body of our Lord He tells us the mutation is like to that of Ointment used in Baptism Be careful saith he that you do not think this is meer Oyntment Catech. Myst 3. p. 235. A. for as the Eucharistick Bread after the invocation of the Holy Ghost 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not yet meer Bread but Christs Body Even so that Holy Oyl as one may say is not after the Consecration meer and common Oyl but it is the Grace or Gift of Christ and is effective of the presence of the Holy Ghost It is not common Bread saith he it is therefore Bread it is Christs Body as the Ointment is the Grace of Christ but Grace it is not by Conversion for it remaineth Ointment still but by the Accession of Grace unto it and by the presence of the Spirit with it 3. He adds That when Christ said Catech. Myst 4. p. 287. c. except you eat my Flesh c. the Jews were scandalized as thinking that he had advised them to Sareophagy not understanding his words Spiritually This Eating of Christs Flesh must therefore be Spiritual and not Sarcophagy or Eating of Christs real Flesh which yet we cannot rationally deny if we do literally interpret that passage of St. John or with the Romanists conceive that what we in the Holy Sacrament do eat is that same Flesh of Christ which hung upon the Cross Lastly if both these Fathers had intended to assert that notwithstanding the Judgment of our Sences to the contrary we stand obliged to believe the Sacrament to be that very Flesh and Blood which Christ did offer on the Cross We have two others to oppose against them who do expresly argue that it remains still Bread and Wine because our sences judge it so to be o Quod ergo vidistis panis est Calix quod vobis etiam oeuli vestri renâ—â—tiant Aug. in Ser. de Sacr. apud Bedam in 1 Cor. 10. Ratranum de Corp. Sang. Domini vel in Serm. de verbis Domini ut citatur ab Algero l. 1. de Sacr. c. 5. That which you see saith St. Augustine is the Bread and the Cup which your very Eyes do declare unto you The Sacramental Signs do still retain their Essence and their Nature saith p 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Theod. Dial 2. c. 24. Theodoret And both our Eyes and Feeling tell us they are what they were before We conclude then with that of Chrysostom q Hom. 29. in Joh. by these Sences we exactly learn all things and we are conceived worthy of credit in teaching what we have received from the informations of our Eyes and Ears as not being guilty of fiction or falshood in those matters CHAP. IV. Contains 1. The judgment of Antiquity against Transubstantiation 2. An answer to T. G's allegations from the Fathers 3. The pretended Confessions of the Protestants 4. The Confessions of many Roman Catholiks that Transubstantiation is a novell upstart Doctrine 5. The Judgment of Antiquity declaring with unanimous consent that the Sacrament is but the Figure Type the Symbol or Memorial of Christs Blood and Body and not that self same Body which suffered on the Cross and that same Blood which he then shed as to the Nature and the Substance of them 6. A Corollary in vindication of the Dr. from the vain Cavils of T. G. HAving thus confirmed our Doctrine from Scripture Common Sence and Reason we might by infinite Demonstrations shew that it hath also the perpetual consent of all Antiquity Why else do they inform us That a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Justin Dial. 2. p. 28. A. Ed. Paris 1636. the substance of our Flesh is nourished and augmented by this Holy Sacrament is a truth so clear that b Species Sacramentales per candem rationem possunt converti in corpus humanum per quam possunt converti in Cineres vel in vermes ideo manifestum est quod nutriunt Aquin part 3. qu. 77. Act. 6. Roman Doctors do confess it and there needs nothing but experience for confirmation of it to any that dares question or dispute it For neither can the accidents augment or nourish nor can we without Blasphemy assert That Christs whole Body is properly converted into the substance of all those that do receive it Why do they tell us that albeit the Sacramental Signes do change their names after the Consecration yet do they still d Sacramenta quae sumimus corporis fanguinis Christi divina res est propter quod per eadem divinae consortes efficimur naturz tamen esâ—e non desuat substantia vel natura panis vini Gelas contra Eutychen 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ephrem apud Phot. Bib. Cod 229. retain their former Natures Why do they tell us That e August in pars 98. Decr. dist 2. consecr Can. de Haec of that Sacrifice which Christ did offer on the Cross we neither do nor may partake why do they say that bread is by our Saviour stiled his body f Quando Dominus corpus suum panem vocat de mul rum gâ—anorum adunatione congestum quando sanguinem suuâ—◠〈◊〉 appellat de botris atque acinis plurimis expressum in unum coactum gregem nostrum sâ—gnificat commixtione adunatae multitudinis copulatum Cyprian Ep. 76. § 4. p. 247. which is made up of many Cornes and that Wine his blood which is pressed out of many Grapes Why do they frequently pronounce that Christ affirmed of the bread this is my body and of the Wine c Et quoniam â—â—embra ejus sumus per creaturam nutrimur creatura avtem ipse nobis praestat solem suum oriri faclens pluens quemadmodum vulr eum calicem qui est Creaturae N. B. suum sarguinem quâ—effusus est ex quo nostra auget corpora Et eum panem qui est a creatâ—ura suum corpus confirmavâ—â— ex quo nostra auget corpora Quando ergo mixtes calix fractus panis percipit verbum Dei fit Eucharistia sargâ—inis corporis Christi ex quibus augetur consistit carnis nostre substartia Quomodolcarnem negabunt esse capacem â—onationis Dei qui est vita aterna quz sanguine corpore Christ nutritus Iren. l. 5. c. 2. Pd. Colon. 1625. this is my blood I might be endless in these Interrogatives but I shall only add three things First
That when the Encratitae held it unlawful to drink Wine the Fathers did confute them by this very Argument That Christ himself drank Wine and did appoint it to be received in the Sacrament Wherefore did he not drink Water after his Resurrection but Wine saith Chrysostom that he might pull up by the Roots another wicked Heresie for because there are some who in the Mysteries use Water declaring that when he delivered the Mysteries he delivered Wine and that when he rose and spread a Common Table without the Mysteries he used Wine he saith I will not drink of the fruit of the Vine Now the Vine produceth Wine not Water Chrysost Hom. in Mattheum 12. p. 511. l. 12. Edit Eton. g 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Clem. Alex. Paedag. l. 2. c. 2. p. 158. B. Ed. Paris 1641. Be ye sure saith Clemens to the Encratitae he also did drink Wine for he blessed Wine when he said take drink this is my Blood the Blood of the Vine but that the thing which had been Blessed was Wine he shewed again saying to his Disciples I will not drink of the fruit of this Vine till I drink it new with you in my Fathers Kingdom h Illud quod lex dicit quia sanguis est anima esse positum dicimus sicut alia multa paenè â—mnia Scripturarum illarum Sacramenta lignis â—guris N. B. plena sunt suthrae pradicationis quae jam per Donm â—â—strum Jesu dâ—clatate est Contr. Adiman Coy 12. Sic est enim sanguis anima quo modo Petta erat Christus sicut dicit Apostolus bibehant enim de spirituali sequence eos Petra Petra autem erat Christus Notum est autem filâ—s Israel Petra percussa bibisse aquam in cremo de quibus loquebatur Apostolus cum haec diceres nec tamen ait Petra significabat Châ—istum â—sed ait Petra erat Christus quz rursus ne Garnaliter accipererur spiritualem illam vocat Ib. Cap. 12. Now had not the Sacramental Cup been truly Wine this Argument would have been frivolous and vain Had not they held as the Church of England their answer must have been a contradiction to the Doctrine of the Church of Christ Secondly The Manichees to prove the contradiction betwixt the Gospel and the Law opposed to that saying of our Saviour that none was able to cause the Soul to perish that of Moses that the Blood was the Soul To this St. Austin answers those words may be expounded thus the Blood is that is it signifies the Soul this he confirms 1. by this general assertion that almost all the Sacraments of those Scriptures are full of signs and figures of the future Preaching which is now declared by Christ and I am apt to think they were such signs and figures as were not properly converted into what they signified Seconly this he illustrates by a double instance †So is Blood the Soul as the Rock was Christ they drank of the spiritual Rock that followed them and that Rock was Christ he said not the Rock signified Christ but the Rock was Christ 2. I may expound it thus saith he * Blood is the Soul that is it signifies the Soul because our Saviour did not doubt to say this is my body when he gave the sign of his body since then as the Rock is Christ and as the signs and figures of the Old Testament are what thâ—â— Typified in the New so is the Bread Christs Boâ—â— It is wonderfully evident that in St. Austin's Judgment it is Christs Body not by conversion into Christs real Body but by signification of it k Nam ex â—o quod sâ—riptum est sanguinem pecoris animam ejus esse possum interpretaâ—i preceptum illud in signo esse positum non enim Dominus dubitavit dicere hoc est corpus meum cum signum daret sui corporis bl yea by such signification as excludes Christs body from being corporally present under the accidents of Bread for else the Manichees might have replyed upon St. Austin and given him the baffle thus as the sign not only signified Christs real Body but contained it too so must the Blood not only signifie but really contain the Soul Therefore it is apparent that in St. Austin's time the words of Christ were so interpreted by the Orthodox as to exclude Transubstantiation and to confirm the exposition of the Protestants Thirdly The Nestorians and Eutichians asserted that Christs humane nature was absorpt and changed into the Deity this some of them affirmed to be done after his Resurrection and Ascension only but others that it was thus changed at his Conception whence they affirm that whilst he lived on Earth he had the form and shape of man but not his proper nature For Illustration and Confirmation of these Heresies they urge †〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ΟΡΘ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ΕΡΑ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ΟΡΘ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ΕΡΑ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ΟΡΘ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ΕΡΑ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ΟΡΘ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Theodoret. To. 4. Dial. 2. p. 84 85. the Doctrine of Transubstantiation and had the Bread and Wine by Consecration lost their natures had they been really changed into Christs Flesh and Blood no greater Confirmation of their Heresie no fitter illustration of their Tenet could be well imagined for thus the similitude would run First That as in the Eucharist there is only the outward shape and form of Bread and not the real substance even so in Christ there was the shape and form of Flesh but not the very nature Secondly Even as in the Eucharist the essential form and material substance of Bread and Wine are swallowed up and converted into the Body and blood of Christ so likewise after Christs ascension the humane nature is absorpt and converted into the Deity What is it therefore that the Fathers answer do they confess the thing and say Transubstantiation was the Tradition of the Church and was the Doctrine of the Scriptures but that no like Tradition nor evidence from Scripture can be produced in favour of the Doctrine of the Eutichians and Nestorians which is the only thing that can be answered by men of T. G's principles No they expresly say and that in words as plain full as any Protestant could use that this similitude doth overthrow the Doctrine it was brought to justisie * Certe imago similitudo corporis sanguinis Christi in actione Mysteriorum celebrantur satis ergo nobis evidenter ostenditur hoc nobis in ipso Christo Domino sentiendum quod in ejus imagine profitemur celebramus sumus Ut sicut in hance scilicet in divinam transeant Sacramenta Sancto Spiritu perficiente substantiam permanentes tamen in suae proprietate-naturae sic illud ipsum mysterium principale cujus nobis effâ—eientiam virtutemque veraciter representant Gelasius de duabus naturis in Christo contra Euthich
not the truth Wherefore Gaudentius doth argue a majori thus he that made Water to be substantially Wine can certainly make Wine to become Sacramentally his Blood T. G. p. 507. We must be told that St. Ignatius confesseth Eucharist to be the Flesh of Christ which suffered for our Sins 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 2. But then we must not know that this Epistle is intended against the Simonians and Menandrians who held that Christ suffered only in appearance had no real Flesh therefore could not confess that the Eucharist was Sacramentally Christs flesh least admitting the figure they should be forced to admit the truth and substance and therefore his Interpolater disputes against them thus V. usher Not. in Epist ad Smyr p. 50 That incorporeal things have neither shape nor character nor figure of a Living Creature that hath form which may be seen whereas when Christ shall come to Judgment they who have pierced shall see him Secondly We confess the Eucharist to be Christs Body and his Flesh and only do dispute the manner how of which Ignatius saith nothing We do acknowledge that it is truly and indeed Christs flesh and Blood as knowing that it may be truly what it is Spiritually for Christ is the true Vine Job 15.1 Joh. 1.8 Heb. 8.2 Luk. 16.12 and the true Light Heaven is called the true Tabernacle and Spiritual Blessings the true Riches and of this we have innumerable instances both from the Fathers and the Church of Rome produced by Albertinus de Sacramento Euch. p. 218. 854. Moreover it is objected T. G. p. 306. Orat. Mag. Catec c. 37 that Gregorius Nyssen doth affirm That he believes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i.e. The Bread Sanctisied by the Word of God to be transmuted into the body of the word Answ True but then it is as true that this transmutation may be as well by the addition of Grace to Nature as by the substantial mutation of that nature it being evident from the abundant testimonies of Bafil Vid. Alb. de Sacr. Euch. l. 2. p. 487. Nazianzen Chrysostom and Cyril of Jerusalem and other Fathers that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and transmutari are terms indifferently used as well of a mutation which only doth respect the qualities States and conditions of the Subject as the nature of it and of this we have many instances in the undoubted works of Gregory Who tells us That the Soul made virtuous is a In Inscr Psal c. 8. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 transmuted and that b 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Cant. Hom 8. Regeneration is a transmutation of it into that which is Divine and that c ibid. Hom. 9. when we appear in Glory we shall undergo this transmutation nay in this very place he twice asserts That the mortal Body of Christ being received into our body doth change our body into its self or its own nature d 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ibid. So then these words cannot infer That the Sacramental Bread and Wine receive by Consecration any other change He tells us further that the virtue of the benediction doth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 change or transelement the nature of things which do appear Answ This word is also used ordinarily to signifie not any change of substance but of qualities and virtues only and of this kind you have in Albertinus many instances produced l. 2. p. 488 of which no less then twenty are cited from Gregorius Nyssen declaring that by Regeneration and Baptism we are transelemented or changed to a Spiritual Nature and that the Resurrection will thus transelement and change our Natures So that it may with equal reason be concluded from this word that in Baptism our Natures are Transubstantiated as that the nature of the Eucharistical Bread is changed into Christs real and substantial body And so much for that spurious or doubtful passage of Gregorius Nyssen The passage cited from St. Cyril saith T. G. p. 306. That our Saviour sometime changed Water into Wine and shall we not think him worthy of our belief that he changed Wine into his Blood But then the same St. Cyril doth also say Catech. 2. he who raised Lazarus when four dayes dead can he not much more easily raise thee viz. from a death of Sin unto a life of Righteousness who dost live and breath And again Catech. 4. the rod of Moses was changed by the will of God into the dissentaneous nature of a Serpent and shall not dead Man be restored unto himself again And both Ambrose and St. e Serm. 12. ex 40 a Sirmundo editis Austin do argue from the conversion of Water into Wine That God can change our mortal into immortal Glorious bodies If then it be ridiculous from any of these passages to argue a substantial change wrought in us by Regeneration or the Resurrection it must be also vain to argue a substantial change from the like instance used to illustrate the change which is by Consecration made upon the Eucharistick Symbols 2 The words immediately preceding do clearly evidence that Cyril argues a majori For saith he If God could make this change from Water into Wine 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Catech. 4. Myst shall it not much more be confessed that he doth give us the fruition of his Body and his Blood whereas had he conceived the mutation of the Eucharistick Symbols to have been equal to the change of Water into Wine that phrase had been improper and absurd for of two equal changes it cannot reasonably be affirmed he that is able to perform the one is much more able to perform the other 3 I have already largely proved that Cyril here intended only an accidental change and shall yet further make it evident from two considerations 1. That in the following Catechism he speaks thus we pray unto the God of Mercies * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that he would send his Spirit into the things that lye before us and would make the Bread the Body of Christ and the Wine his Blood For whatsoever the Holy Spirit toucheth is sanctified and changed not that it is substantially changed for he affirmeth of the Baptismal Oyl and Water that they are Sanctified by the Holy Spirit And yet no Romanist will hence infer that they do not retain the nature both of Oyl and Water 2. In his first Catechism he affirms that as the Eucharistick Bread and Wine before the Consecration remains meer Bread and Wine but afterwards is made the Body and Blood of Christ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 After like manner truly are the meaâ—â— used in the Pomps of Satan in themselves pure or simple but by invocation of the Daemons they are made impure As therefore the mutation of these meats is only a mutation of their qualities not of the substance of them so must the change of Bread and Wine with which it is compared and equalled be
supposed to be In fine P. 2â— to set before us the danger of nor believing Christ more then our sences and to make others know it as well as Roman Catholicks he promiseth to set before them the words of Epiphanius viz. We see the Sacrament is neither equal nor like unto the fleshly Image or the invisible Deity or the Characters of his Members for this is of a round form and insensible according to power And yet because he was pleased to say through Grace This is my Body every one believeth his saying For who believeth not that it is his very true Body falleth from Grace and Salvation Answ by this Translation of the words of Epiphanius we are like to see and others to know nothing but the detestable fraud and falshood of T. G. For Epiphanius doth not say as T. G. translates him That who believeth not that it is his very true Body falleth from Grace But his words are these a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Epiphanius Anch. p. 60 He that believeth not that Christ is true doth fall from Grace Now he that differs from another Church or Person in exposition of Christs words may yet believe that Christ is true in all his sayings as much as they from whom he differs Secondly had he considered well the context he would have found this passage is a strong argument against him For Epiphanius in this very Section affirmeth Man to be like God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i.e. in a similitude or figure but not according to nature for saith he men have not the Image of God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or equally and yet what God hath constituted we will not substract * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ib. for he is true who by his Grace hath given to man to be like unto him and we have many like examples and then immediately follows the example of the Eucharist Now the force of Epiphanius his argument consisting in this That we are like unto God after his Image but yet not according to nature even as the Sacramental Bread is like the Body of Christ it is plain that the Sacramental Symbols are the Body of Christ and his Blood 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to the Image or representment not according to nature Thridly St. Epiphanius affirms that Christ pronounced of Bread and Wine this is mine his words are these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ipsum panem Petav. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Now since that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or the things Christ took and blessed confessedly were Bread and Wine the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which doth answer to them must be so I might have added many other answers produced from these Fathers but I have chosen only to answer what the very places did suggest that so the Reader might perceive that T. G. either never read the places cited or else did chuse to cite them though he saw they held the contrary to that Doctrine for which he doth produce them and to convince the Reader that the Judgment of the Fathers must be clearly for us seeing the strongest passages the Romanists cite against us do confirm our Doctrine We have now done with his Fathers and briefly shall consider what he hath to â—ay from Protestants And thus he begins P. 299. That Transubstantiation was a Doctrine received in the Vniversal Church from the time of Berengarius that is 600 years ago is scarcely denied by any I know of Answ One of the Protestants you cite will be sufficient to help your ignorance I mean the Reverend Bishop Morton in the Treatise of the Mass Lib. 3. c. 2. §. 3 4. A.D. 1159 Where we have this confession of Peter Lumbard Master of the Sentences whether the conversion be substantial or not I am not able to determine And Scotus affirming a Si quaeratur qualis sit conversio viz. panis in Eucharistia an formalis an substantialis an alterius generis definire non sufficio Lomb. Sent. l. 4. Destruct 11. Lit. a. that the Article of Transubstantiation was no Doctrine of Faith before the Council of Lateran And Suarez saying that some School-men held that Transubstantiation was not very ancient Scotus to wit and Gabriel Biel among others And Erasmus that it was but lately determined in the Church And lastly Cardinal Perroon who did not look upon it as b Scotus dicit ante consilium Lateranense non fuisse dogma fidei Transubstantiationem Bellar. Lib. 3. de Euch. Cap. 23. ss sed tamen c In Synaxiserò definivit Ecclesia Transubsiantiationem diâ—iatis erat credere sub pane quocunque modo adesse verum CoÌ„rpus Christi Erasm in 1. Cor. 7. p. 373. a thing very commendable to oppugne the received Doctrine of the whole Church of Christ asserts Card. Perroon En. Sa. Hâ—rrang Autiâ—rs Estates p. 33 De Christ Eccles Suc câ—â—s p. 19 208. That if it had not been for the Council of Laterane it might be now lawful to oppugne it Pious and Learned Bishop Vsher shews out of ancient and authentick Records That after the times of Berengarius many continued even there where Satan had his Throne who privately employed both their Tongues and Pens in defence of the truth against the Doctrine of Transubstantiation Hamelman and Chemniitus are most impertinently cited T.G. p. 301. for they only do confess that St. Ignatius said what we all grant what doth not in the least confirm the Roman Doctrine as we have already proved p. 300. Perkins is also falsly and impertinently cited for he doth not affirm that this particular Heresie of Transubstantiation was spread over the whole world during the space of nine hundred years Nay he expresly doth assert That it was not concluded in the days of Lumbard Problem p. 155 156 nor then received as an Article of Faith and that for a whole thousand years the Church of Christ taught Sgiritual Manducation and that the Ancients did interpret the institution by a figure That the Centuriators do affirm of Origen T.G. p. 301. Cent. 3. p. 260. and of Tertullian p. 58. that they speak not commodiously of Transubstantiation is a notorious falshood what the Centuriators cite from Tertullian p. 58. is most expresly for the contrary and of Origen p. 260. they speak thus recte in Caena Domini sub pane vino sumi asserit corpus sanguinem Domini i.e. Origen rightly doth assert that in the Supper of the Lord under the bread and wine we take the body and blood of Christ What they cite out of Ambrose Cent. 4. p. 294. is from the Authour precationis primae Praepar ad Missam which is a spurious piece as they themselves have noted from Erasmus Erasmus non esse Ambrosii censuit The true Ambrosius is reckoned among the Fathers that maintained the pure Doctrine in this point p. 242. Of Hamphrey and Camerarius I can say nothing because I know not where to
see them But we have great reason to suspect that they also are cited more Romano i.e. with great impertinence and falshood And I am certainly informed from Oxford that what is cited as from Vrsin is really the words of Vrsins Adversary Such ingenuity we meet with in the Citations of the Roman party Having produced these Testimonies of the Fathers which I have proved to be impertinent or spurious and these confessions of the Protestants which are insignificant or false or only such as do assert that Cyprian de Caena Domini Eusebius Emissenus and such spurious pieces seem to speak in favour of this Idle Dream He thus concludes that to deny what is confirmed by the Testimony of so many Ancient Fathers P. 308 309 and strengthned by the confession of our Brethren is most unreasonable But alas this flourish doth most assuredly confound the Church of Rome and evidently confutes that Doctrine it was intended to confirm For First it is confessed by many Doctors of the the Church of Rome that Transubstantiation is no ancient Doctrine viz. Peter Lombard Scotus Biel Erasmus and Peroon And Secondly a In Primitiva Ecclesia non erat de fide substantiam panis in co pus Christi converti Job Yribarn in 4 Sent. Dist 11. Q. 3. Disp 42. Sect. 1. That in the Primitive Church it was not any Article of Faith Thirdly b Scotus in 4 Distinct 11. Qâ—aest 3. s 1 â— Aâ—â—â—m That were it not for the authority and Determination of the Roman Church the words of Christ might more simply plainly and truly be understood and expounded Fourthly the Cardinal of c Distinct 4. Qu. 6. A. 2. Cambray adds that the opinion which holds the substance of bread not to remain doth not evidently follow of the Scripture nor to his seeming of the Churches determination Fifthly Your Secular d Discourse Modest p. 13. Priests affirm that it was concluded among the Fathers of the Society and what Catholick would not believe them that the Fathers have not so much as touched the point of Transubstantiation Sixthly It is no wonder saith e Antequam quaestio illa de Transubstantiatione in Ecclesia palam agitaretur minimè mirum est si unus aut alter aut etiam aliqui ex veteribus minus consideratè Rectè hâc de re senserint scripserint de Transub l. 2. c. 7. Gregory de Valentia if one or two or more of the Ancients have thought or written of this matter not so considerately and rightly And f Hinc discimus non essemirandum si Augustinus Theodoretus alii Veteres quaedam dixerint quae in specitem videntur favere haereticis L. 2. Euch. c. 25 p. 649. B. Bellarmin confesseth it is not to be wondred at if St. Austin Theodoret and other of the Ancients speak something which in show seems to favour the Hereticks The sayings of the ancient Fathers which interpret the words of Christ This is my Body in a figurative sence as much as any Protestant can do and which forced these Confessions from so many Cardinals Bishops Schoolmen Priests and Jesuites are these g Pane corpus suum representat l. 1. adv Marcion c. 14. by Bread Christ represents his Body saith Tertullian and again h Panem corpus suum appellat ut hinc jam eum intelligas corporis sui figuram pani dedisse L. 3. c. 19. Christ hath called Bread his Body that thereby thou mayest understand that he hath given to Bread the Figure of his Body And again i L. 4. c. 4 c. This is my Body that is the Figure of my Body St. k Ep. 63. §. 6. p. 175. Cyprian noteth That it was Wine even the Fruit of the Vine which the Lord saith was his Blood Our Lord saith St. l Paedag. l. 1. c. 6. p. 100 106. Clemens did bless Wine when he said Take drink this is my Blood and that it was Wine which was blessed be sheweth again saying I will no more drink of the Fruit of the Vine 2. Paedag. l. 1. c. 6. p. 100. 106. Our Lord in the Gospel of St. John doth otherwise expound Meat by Symbols when he saith Eat my Flesh and Drink my Blood an evident Symbol of Faith and the promises And again there is a donable Blood of the Lord Paed. l. 2. c. 2. one Carnal by which we are redeemed froim destruction and another Spiritual by which we are Anointed Origen speaks thus m Nec materia panis sed super illum dictus sermo est qui prodest non indigne Domino comedenti illum haee quidem de typico Symbolicoque corpore Orig. in Mat. 15. p. 17. Col. 1. B. It is not the matter of bread but the word spoken which profiteth him that doth not unworthily eat thereof and these things I speak of the Typical and Symbolical Body To the Fathers of the first three hundred years we will add the Testimonies of those that flourished in the 4th the first whereof shall be n Euseb l. 8. c. 1. Eusebius who saith ' That our Saviour delivered to his Disciples the Symbols of his Divine Dispensation commanding them to make the Image of his own Body and appointing them to use bread for the Symbol of his body And that o Euseb Demonst l. 1. c. 10 p. 27. we still celebrate upon the Lords Table the memory of his Sacrifice by the Symbols of his Body and Blood according to the Ordinances of the New Testament And lastly p Demoâ—ist l. 5. c. 3. p. 141. Our Saviour and Lord first and then all the Priests that have followed in all Nations celebrating the Spiritual Divine Service according to the Ordinances of the Church signifie unto us by the bread and wine the Mysteries of his body and blood q Serm. in illud quiounque dixerit verbum p. 979. Athanasius faith ' That Christ distinguished the Spirit from the Flesh that we might learn that the things he spake were not Carnal but Spiritual For how many men might his body have sufficed that it might be the food of the whole world it is as if he should have said that which is given for the world shall be given for meat that it may be Spiritually given to all In the Church saith r 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Macar Aegypt Hom 27 p. 164. Marcarius is offered bread and wine the Type of his Flesh and Blood and they which are partakers of the visible bread do Spiritually eat the Flesh of our Lord. Now we shall be partakers of the Passeover saith Å¿ Orat. 2 de Pasch To. 1. p. 692. Gregory Nazianzen but as yet in a Figure though more clear then in the Old Law For the Passover of the Law I will be bold to say it was but a more obscure figure of a figure Elsewhere he calls the Symbols the t In Epita Gorgon p. 187. Antitypes of the
precious body or blood of the Lord under the Type of bread the body is given to thee and under the Type of wine the blood So St. u Catech. Myst 4. p. 237. Cyril Hieros x Constit l. 5. c. 16. Pseudo Clemens saith That Christ having given us the Mysteries figurative of his precious body and blood c. went up into the Mount of Olives and that y Constit l. 6. c. 23. the Mystical and unbloody Sacrifice is celebrated by the Symbols of his body and blood And he adds That in the Participation of this Sacrament they used this thanksgiving z L. 5. c. 16 We give thee thanks our Father for the precious blood of Jesus Christ which was shed for us for the precious body of which we celebrate these Signs by his command to announce his Death Of the same Judgment were the Latine Fathers for a Dicit Sacerdos fac nobis hanc oblationem ascriptam rationabilem acceptabilem quod est figura Domini nostri Jesu Christi Ambrose in the fourth Book of the Sacraments Chap. 5. affirmeth that in his time this clause was in the publick Service make this Oblation to be set to our account acceptable and reasonable which is the figure of the body and blood of the Lord. And again b Hic in imagine quidem Christus offertur in caelo verò in veritate L. 1. Officiorum cap. 48. T. 1. p. 37. Christ here saith he is offered in the Image in Heaven in the Truth Hilary the Deacon saith c Nam Mâ—ses â—ece pâ—o sanguine vituli in patera aspersit filios Israel dicens hoc est Testamentum hoc figura fuit Testamenti Testamentum ergo sanguine constitutum est Quia beneficii divini sanguis testis est in cujus typum nos calicem Mysticum Sanguinis ad tuitionem corporis nostri animae percipimus In 1 Cor 11. The blood is a witness of divine benefit for the Figure of which we receive the mystical Cup of Blood for the preservation of the Body and the Soul Gelasius saith d Certe Imago Similitudo corporis sanguinis Christi in actione mysteriorum celebrantur Contra Eutych indeed the Image and the similitude of the body and blood of Christ are celebrated in the action of the Mysteries In the Fifth Century St. Chrysostom speaks thus e 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hom. 82. in Matthaeum T. 2. p. 510. if really Christ dyed not Hom. 47. in T. 2. p. 750. of what is this Celebration Symbola Hom. 47. in T. 2. p. 750. see how he studies to make us alwayes mindful of his death hence by the Sacraments he calls to mind his passion Again it is a carnal thing to doubt how Christ could give his flesh to eat we ought to understand it Mystically and spiritually his words were spiritual and had nothing carnal in them Theodoret speaks thus f 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Theodoret Dial. 1. T. 4. p. 17 18. G. 12. Our Saviour changed the names and gave unto the body that which is the name of the Symbol and to the Symbol the name of the body So when he had named himself the Vine he called that which was the Symbol the blood And when the Heretick desired to know the reason of this change of names he gives it thus Christ would have those who are partakers of the Divine Mysteries not to attend unto the nature of the things they see but by reason of the change of names to believe that change which is made by Grace For he that called that which was Wheat and Bread his natural body and again calls himself a Vine he honoured the Symbols which are seen with the appellation of his body and his blood not changing the nature but adding Grace unto it And ween the Heretick had granted that the Sacrament contained the Symbols of a real body g 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Id. Dial. 2. T. 4. p. 84. This is well answered saith the Orthodox For every Image ought to have his Architype and Painters imitate the nature and paint the Images of things visible Gaudentius saith that * Tract 2. in Exod. v. Supr in the Bread the figure of Christs body is reasonably understood St. Hierom that the Lord did not offer Water but Wine for a Type of his blood St. Austin saith h In Typo sangui nis sui non obtulit aquam sed vinum l. 2. adv Jovinian p. 27. F. the Lord did not doubt to say this is my body when he gave the sign of his body And most emphatically in these words i Dominus non dubitavit dicere hoc est corpus meum quum figuum daret corporis sui Contr. Adimantum c. 12. T. 6. p. 128. a preceptive speech for bidding a crime or commanding something good or profitable is not figurative but if it seems to command a crime or forbid a good then it is figurative Vnless ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man k Si preceptiva locutio est aut flagitium aut facinus vetans aut utllitatem aut beneficentiam jubens non est figurata Si autem flagitium aut facinus videatur jubere aut utilitatem aut beneficentiam vetare sigurata est Nisi manducaveritis inquit Christus Joh. 6.53 Carnem c. Facinus vel flagitium videtur jubere Figura est ergo precipiens passioni Domini esse communicandum suaviter atque utiliter recondendum in memoria quòd pro nobis caro ejus crucifixa vulnerata sit L. 3. de Doctr. Christian c. 16. c. Seems to command a wickedness it is therefore a figure commanding us to Communicate with the Passion of our Lord and sweetly and profitably to lay it up in our memory that his flesh was crucifyed and wounded for us Again l Sacramenta sunt signa rerum aliud existentia aliud significantia Idem contra Maxim S. 3. cap. 22. T. 6. p. 522. the Sacraments are signs of things being one thing and signifying another Again the Israelites did m Bibebant de spirituali sequente petra petra autem erat Christus Videte ergo petrâ manente signa variata ibi perra Christus nobis Christus quod in altari Dei ponitur Id. Tract 45 in Joh. I. 9. p. 333. drink of the spiritual Rock that followed them and that Rock was Christ see therefore faith remaining how the signs are varied there the Rock was Christ to us that which is placed upon the Altar is Christ Lastly n Habes Christum in praesenti per sidem in presenti per signum in presenti per Baptismatis Sacramentum in presenti per altaris cibum potum Secundum presentiam carnis rectè dictum est discipulis me autem no semper habebitis Quomodo absentem tenebo Quo modo in coelum manum mittam ut ibi sedentem teneam Fidem mitte
tenuisti Idem Tract 50. in Joh. T. eod p. 358 371. thou hast Christ present by faith and in the sign by the Sacrament of Baptism and the meat and drink of the Altar According to his carnal presence it is truly said to his Disciples me you shall not have alwayes how shall I send my hand to Heaven that I may hold him sitting there †send thy faith and thou dost hold him To conclude the Fathers po expresly say that Christ pronounced of the Bread this is my body and of the Wine this is my Blood which say the R. Doctors had our Lord affirmed we must have understood him figuratively and metaphorically For proof hereof B. Morton of the Mass l. 2. chap. 6. § 6 behold a Torrent of ancient Fathers pressing upon you Irenaeus Tertullian Origen Hierom Ambrose Agustine Cyril of Hierusalem Cyril of Alexandria Theodoret Gaudentius Cyprian Clemens of Alexandria and Isidore thirteen to the dozen whose sayings we may best know by their own Idiom and Tenure of speech 1. Accipiens panem corpus suum esse confitebatur Irenaeus l. 4. c. 57 The first noting Christ to have confessed Bread to have been his body The second Christ to have called Bread his body Third that Christs speech was spoken of Bread The fourth that that which he brake was Bread The fifth 2. Christus panem corpuâ— suum appellat Tertullianus adv Judeos that it was Bread which he brake The sixth that it was Bread of the Lord not Bread the Lord. The seventh that the words my Body were spoken of the Bread The eighth that Christ saith of the Bread this is my Body And the same Father as if he had studied to take away all scales of doubtfulness from the eyes of our minds 3 Nec matteria panis est sed super illum dâ—ctus sermo qui prodest non indigne comedent i. Orig in mat 15. illustrates the matter thus So saith he did Christ call his Body Bread as elsewhere he calleth his Flesh a grain of Wheat except the grain of Wheat die it bringeth forth no fruit The ninth that Christ gave to the Bread the name of his Body The tenth that Christ said of the consecrated Bread this is my 4 Nos audiamus panem quem fregit Dominus esse corpus servatoris Hieron Ep. ad Helvid Qu. 2. 5. Panem fractum tradidit disâ—lpulis suis dicens Accipite hoc c. Ambrose l. 4. de Sacrament cap. 5. 6. Judas manducavit panem Domini c. Augustinus Tract 59. in Joh. Cyril Hieros 7. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Catech Myst 4 p 528. 8. Cum ipse Christus sic affirmat ac dicat de pane Hoc est corput meum c. Cyril Alez Catech. 4 9. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Theod. Dial. 1. c. 8. 10. Gaudent tract de rat sacra Body The eleventh 11. Vinum fuisse quod sanguinem suum dixit Christus Cyprian Ep. 63. that it was Wine which he called his Blood The twelfth that he blessed Wine when he said drink and the last the Bread strengthning mans Body was therefore called the Body of Christ To these citations add that of Cyprian and †Theophilus the Lord calleth Bread his Body which is made up of many grains 12. Clem. Alex. Paedag l. 2. c. 3. and that of Tatian or †Ammonius having taken the Bread then afterward the cup of Wine and testified it to be his Body and Blood 13. Panis quia confirmat corpus ideo corpus Christi nuncupatur I st dor l. 1. de officiis cap. 8. be commanded them to eat and drink thereof Forasmuch as it was the memorial of his future Passion and Death That also of * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Dial. 1 T. 4 p 17 Theodoret that in the institution of the mysteries Christ called Bread his Body and that which was mixt his blood And as if this was beyond all dispute he puts this question to the Heretique * ΟΡΘ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 EPAN 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ΕΡΑΠId. ibid. knowest thou that God called Bread his proper Body and makes him answer yea I know it By all which passages a Dominus corpus suum punem vocat Ep. 76. and many more that might be cited it appeareth that in those elder times the words of the institution were no otherwise conceived than as if Christ had plainly said this Bread is my Body and this Wine is my Blood b In Evan l 1 p 152 L. 2. and therefore that they did as certainly conceive the sense and meaning of these words c Mox accepto pane deinde vini calice corpus esse suum ac sanguinem restatus manducare illos jussit c. Ammon Harmon Evang. T. 3. Biblioth Patr. p. 28. this is my Body to be Metaphorical and figurative as any Protestant now doth note also by the way that this sufficiently checks the clamors of T. G. against the Doctor for saying they believe Bread to be God for let him put what sense he can upon the Fathers words the same will justifie the words of Dr. Stilling fleet which being Written to a Protestant Lady were very proper and lyable to no exception since they import this only that the Romanist believes that to be a God which we believe is Bread and to one of that perswasion the Doctors argument is a most powerful disuasive from the embracing of the Roman faith but to proceed To all these Fathers we will adjoyn three Councils The first is that of Carthage held An. Dom. 397. by above Two hundred Bishops whereof St. Austin and Aurelius were two which thus decrees that a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Cod. Can. Eccles Afr. c. 37. in the Holy mysteries nothing be offered but only the body and blood of the Lord. as also the Lord commanded it that is the Bread and the Wine mingled with water The second is that of Trull whose judgment Balsamon relateth in these words b 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Bals. in Can. 40. Syn. Carthag p. 653. The 32 Canon of the Synod of Trull giveth an ordinance at large that the unbloody Sacrifice be made with Bread and Wine mingled with water because Bread is the figure of the Lords body and the Wine a figure of his blood c In Can. 40. Concil Carthag p. 426 427. Zonaras saith the same In the Seventh Council of Constantinople held An. Dom. 754. by Three hundred thirty eight Bishops the Bread is called d 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the holy Image of Christ and the true Image of his natural body and the Image of his flesh given by God And this was certainly the Doctrine of the Church of England about 650 years agoe witness the Homily appointed publickly to be read to the People upon Easter-day before they did receive the Sacrament where we have these words viz. * Aeifrick Saxon Homily v.
Usher Answ to the Jesuits challenge p. 79. Much is betwixt the body Christ suffered in and the body that is hallowed to housel the body truly that Christ suffered in was born of the flesh of Mary with blood and with bone with skin and with sinews in humane limbs with a reasonable soul living and his spiritual body which we call the housel is gathered of many Corns without blood and bone without limb without Soul and therefore nothing is to be understood therein bodily but spiritually This mystery is a pledge and a figure Christs body is truth it self And again Christ hallowed Bread and Wine to housel before his suffering and said this is my body and my blood Yet he had not then suffered but so notwithstanding he turned through invisible vertue the Bread to his own body and that Wine to his blood as he before did in the Wilderness before that he was born to men when he turned that heavenly meat to his flesh and the flowing water from that stone to be his own blood The like matter also was delivered to the Clergy by the Bishops at their Synods out of two or three writings of the same Aefrick in the one one whereof directed to e Impress Lond. cum Homil. Paschali Ms. in Bibl. Bodl. Wulfsine Bishop of Shirburn we read thus That housel is Christs body not bodily but spiritually Not the body which he suffered in but the body of which he spake when he blessed Bread and Wine to housel the night before his suffering and said by the blessed Bread this is my body and again by the holy Wine this is my blood which is shed for many in forgiveness of sins In the other written to Wulfstane Archbishop of York thus The Lord which hallowed housel before his suffering and saith that the Bread was his own body and that the Wine was truly his blood halloweth daily by the hands of the Priest Bread to his body and Wine to his blood in spiritual mystery as we read in books And yet notwithstanding that lively Bread is not bodily so nor the self-same body that Christ suffered in nor that holy Wine is that Saviours blood which was shed for us in bodily thing but in spiritual understanding But now if T. G. should deny all this that is the testimony of almost all the Fathers of the Church and the confessions of so many Cardinals and Schoolmen and of the Fathers of the Society aforesaid to prove that Transubstantiation is a late upstart Doctrine and that the Scripture is to be interpreted according to the mind of Protestants to shew the unreasonableness of this denyal I would propose this case to his consideration and the Readers viz. in supposition that a controversie arise in this present age about the sense of a Law which was made 500 years past and that a considerable number of those who framed the novel exposition should confess that for the last Two hundred years the contrary to what they maintained was generally received in the Kingdom as the sense of the Law and should farther confess that the most eminent Lawyers of the former ages from the first enacting of the Law held the same with the latter Nor had there ever been any disagreement or opposition among them in that point whether it be not a sufficient proof that what they taught to be the sence of the Law was generally received as the sence and meaning of it from the beginning The Testimonies themselves of those antient Lawyers would be conviction enough how much more when strengthned by the confession of the adverse party it self Now if this be so in the delivery of the sense of a human Law where it happens very often that great Lawyers may be and often are of different judgments how much more in the delivery of a Divine Doctrine where the Pastors of the Church are bound to deliver what they received and the succeeding age is still bound to receive what they delivered surely if we add to this the confession of the very Adversaries themselves the proof as St. Ireneus saith must be true and without contradiction for if the Testimony of Ten Fathers and a few false impertinent confessions of our meanest Writers was by T.G. esteemed sufficient cause of this Triumphant flourish the Testimony of so many hundred Fathers of the Church and the confession of so many Cardinals and Schoolmen Jesuits and Fathers of the Roman party must be a demonstration of the truth of our assertion and exposition of the words of Christ sufficient to convince the obstinacy of this vain Apostate wherefore I shall conclude with that most pertinent exhortation of the learned Origen d Haec qui audire nesciâ— detorqueat ortasse avertaâ— auditum secundum illos qui â—â—icebant 〈…〉 bis carnem suam manducare sed vos Si fiâ—â—â— estis Ecclesiae si Evangelicis imbuti mysteriis si verbum caro fastum habitat in vobis agnoscite quia figurae sunt quae in divinis voluminibus scripta sunt ideo tanquam spirituales non tanquam carnales examinate intelligite quae dicuntur Si â—nim tanquam carnales ista suscipitis laedunt vâ—s non alunt-Est in N. Testamento litera quae occidit c. ut supra Orig. in Levit. c. 10. Hom 7. p. 87. If you be Sons of the Church if you are imbued with Gospel Mysteries and if the word made flesh doth dwell within you acknowledge these are figures which are written in the Sacred Volumns and therefore understand ye what is written as spiritual and not as carnal men for if as carnal you receive them they will hurt but will not nourish you There is in the New Testament a letter which killeth him that doth not spiritually understand it for if according to the letter you do follow that which is said except you eat the flesh c. the letter killeth Hence we may see the vanity of this assertion of T. G. That the definition of the present Church of Rome for that is most absurdly called the Church-Catholick p. 252. is ground sufficient to believe the Doctrine of Transubstantiation Whereas it is confessed by their most learned Writers that in primitiva Ecclesia non erat de fide i. e. this was not any Article of Faith delivered to her by the antient Church and that the e De Transubstantiatione panis in corpus Christi rara est in antiquis scriptoribusmentio Alphonsus a castro de Haer l 8. v indulgentia thing as well as name of transubstantiation is very rarely mentioned by the antient Fathers Nay they spake nothing of it And it is evident from the clear pregnant Testimonies and the concurrent judgment of many Hundred Fathers that the Church of Christ did generally hold the contrary to what the Church doth now define and held that exposition of our Saviours words was true and Genuine which they have now condemned as Heretical 2. How
pretend to consult these wicked Artists as persons guilty of Idolatry T. By the like reason no married man commits Adultery by lying with another woman provided he intends not to con verse with any other under the notion of a wife a fine expedient in this debauched age to make new converts to the Church of Rome And in like manner no Subject will he guilty of Rebellion though he desert his Prince follow the Ensigns of his Enemy and fight in his defence against his Soveraign provided he intend not by so doing to procure to his Enemy the estimation of a King These false opinions being thus removed § 6. we assert That Idolatry is then committed when any honour due to God alone is attributed to or is conferd upon any thing that is not God and that all actions which give unto the Creature the honour due to the Creator only are Idolatrous And this description of Idolatry is that which was received by the antient Schoolmen till the disputes of Protestants constrained them to renounce and vary from it Thus in the judgment of (s) 2a 2ae qu. 94. Art 1.3 Aquinas it is Idolatry cuicunque Creaturae divinum cultum exhibere honerem divinum Creaturae impendere divinum cultum exhibere cui non debet exhiberi To impart divine worship to any Creature or any thing to which it ought not to be given All divine worship given to a Creature is Idolatry So (t) Part. 2. qu. 160. Alexander Halensis to omit divens others This also is the definition or description of Idolatry we have received from the antient Fathers of the Church [u] Vid. voss de Idol l. 1. c. 3. p. 9. Rainold de R. Ecc. Idol l. 2. c. 9. §. 4. Tertullian and Nazianzen St. Augustine and almost all the Greek and Latine Fathers with one voice consent to this Idolatry is then committed when divine honour is ascribed to another hence that of Hilary the Deacon Idolatry usurps the honour hue to God and gives it to the Creature * Idololatria Dei honorisicentiam usurpat vendieat creatuax in cap. 5. ad Ephes This Thirdly may be evidently proved from Scripture for that the Gentiles were guilty of this hainous crime cannot be doubted by the Christian now their Idolatry did in the judgment of St. Paul consist in this that they did homage to those beings which by nature were not Gods but Creatures only Secondly the first commandment in the affirmative * Gal. 4.8 commands us to have the true Jehovah for our God and consequently to give unto him that worship which is due to God when therefore in the Negative it doth enjoyn us to have no ether God besides him it must be deened to enjoyn us also to give unto no other that worship which we owe unto him and by which we acknowledge him to be our God and even reason will instruct us that he who doth ascribe Gods worship he gives his glory to another and acknowledgeth another God as much as any man can do For we know no other way whereby we can acknowledge any thing to be a Deity but by ascribing to it in our thoughts or actions that worship which is due to God alone CHAP. II. The CONTENTS Prop. 1. That if the Sacrament continue after Consecration to be Bread the Church of Rome is guilty of Idolatry Prop. 2. That if it really be doubtful whether it be Bread or not she cannot be excused from that Crime Prop. 3. That we have just cause to doubt of every particular Host according to the Doctrine of the Church of Rome that it is not duely consecrated and consequently that the Sacrament is after Consecration Bread and Wine Prop. 4. That were it certain that every particular Host contains Christs real Flesh and Blood yet have we no just warrant upon that Supposition to adore it with Latria THe Church of Rome expresly doth enjoyn us to give the Worship of Latria * Nullus itaque dubitandi locus relinquitur quin omnes Christi sideles Latrix cultum qui vero Deo debetur huie Sanctissimo Sacramento in veneratione exhibeant neque enim ideo minus est adorandum quod fuer it a Christo Domino ut sumatur institutum Concil Trid. Sess 13. c. 5. huic Sanctissimo Sacramento to the Holy Sacrament § 1. as the Trent Council hath defined that is unto that very being vvhich the Priest puts into the mouth of the Communicant and vvhich he must svvallovv dovvn into his Stomack for that they call the Holy Sacrament Hence presently they tell us That this Holy Sacrament ought not to be the less adored because our Lord commanded that it should be taken This practice vve conceive to be Idolatry and to make good the charge vve lay dovvn these preparatory Propositions We may be guilty of Idolatry in paying divine Homage to a Creature Prop. 1. though we conceive that Creature to be God and sointend to give that worship only to God for if such a vain conception which we may have just reason to reject but can have no inevitable and certain reason to embrace can be sufficient to excuse this guilt then he who thus conceits touching the vilest Creature cannot justly be charged with Idolatry what ever act of worship he should pay unto it admit we then the Heathen Jupiter the World the Sun the Earth and whatsoever else was worshiped by the ignorant and superstitious world as their supream Creator to be the vilest Devils pitty we may their ignorance and folly but no man should accuse them of Idolatry for paying Adotation to a Subject which in their apprehensions did so well deserve it p. 363. and what T. G. so often mentions as an Aggravation of that worship which Pagans gave to their inferior Daemons viz. that they esteemed them to be Gods would be their best excuse and the extenuation of their guilt And those expressions of the Prophets which reproach the Jevvs and Heathens for saying to a stock or stone thou art my God Jet 2.27 Hos 4.12 if they be literally understood as many Roman Doctors do conceive they ought to be will be so far from proving that they were Idolaters that they will perfectly excuse them from this crime because according to that supposition they worshiped only that which they conceived to be God The Collyridions if we be well informed by Baronius conceived the blessed Virgin vvas a real Deity and yet St. Epiphanius calls them a Sect of Idol-makers who offered their Cakes unto her Haer. 79. p. 1061. B. The (b) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Just Mart. Apol 2. p. 69. Samaritans who worshiped Simon Magus The Romans who if Justin Martyr may be credited p. 91 in honour of him did erect a Satue with this inscription Simoni Deo Sancto to Simon the Holy God and many others who as (c) Hic sgitur a multis quasi Deus Glorificatus est Iren
p. 87. wicked think and are a killing Letter and therefore must be taken in a Spiritual sence And we are informed by l Horum ergo nefarii ritus Christianis imputati ca autem immanitas coepit a Simone Mago ut Narrat Clem. de rebus geftis Petri qui perperam intellexerat illa Johannis cap. 6. nisi comederitis carnem filii hominis biberitis ipsius sanguinem c. Not. in Min. p. 34. vide Elmenhorst in haec verba Minuc infans farre contectus ut decipiat incautos apponitur Wowerius out of the Writings of Pseudo Clemens that that accursed practice of the Pepuzians Quintilians and others who mixt the Blood of Infants with the Eucharistick Bread had its first rise from Simon Magus misunderstanding those very words of John except you eat the Flesh of the Son of Man and drink his Blood c. Now if this oral manducation of the Flesh of Christ seemed so repugnant at the first view and apprehension to all that heard it can we suppose it would pass down so glib not only with the Jewish but all the Gentile converts and yet we do not find that ever Jew or Gentile was offended at the participation of the Holy Sacrament or that any Heathen or Apostate did object unto the Christians that they were Canibals on this account or that they did devour humane Flesh When Christ was careful to prevent this gross conception in the Jews can we believe that he should institute this oral manducation of his Flesh and Blood or had this Doctrine been delivered by Apostolical tradition and so received by the Church of Christ could those renowned Fathers have pronounced the literal and proper acceptation of the words to be a killing Letter and the injunction of the greatest wickedness could they have thought that place of John was misinterpreted by being used to countenance the eating humane Blood or could those Hereticks have any need to fly to such accursed arts that they might truly eat Christs Blood But then if we conceive this person we thus devour to be also God and therefore look upon this action as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or the devouring of our God and Maker it is so full of horrour scandal and amazament that nothing can be more for what this Doctrine doth assert was in the judgment of the a Ecquem tam amentem esse putas qui illud quo vescatur Deum credat esse de natura Deorum C. 3. Orator such an incredible madness as humane nature never could be guilty of And Averroes upon this single score pronounceth that b Qui dicit se Sectam Christianâ deteriorem aut ineptiorem nullam reperire cujus sectatores suum quem colunt Deum denibus discerpunt devorant Vide Perron de Euch. l. 3. c. 29. P. 973. among all Religious Sects the Christians were the worst and most ridiculous because that God they Worshipped they with their Teeth devoured and tore in pieces Hence as the highest Calumny which the Mahumetan can cast upon us we are by them reproached as d Christianos atrociores esse in Christum quam Judaeos ait Akmed Ben. Edris Mahummed hos enim Christum occisum reliquisse illos vero carnem ejus edere sanguinem bibere quod ipsa expeperientia teste trucu lentius esse affirmat V. Hotting Apol. de Luch §. 14. p. 220. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or the devourers of our God and they are wont to say that by thus eating of his Flesh we use him worse then did the Jews that Crucified him The ancient Fathers do agree in these with Cicero and Averroes and say with them That to adore what we do eat is the extreamest sottishness and hence we often find this objected to the Heathens as the most pregnant evidence of the absurdity of their devotions and of the Gods they Worshiped that what they Worshiped they did also Sacrifice and that they did devour him whom they adored as Tatian and Minutius suggest And Origen doth represent it as a most foolish thing That any Men should Worship that which was the food of other Nations Theodoret also doth affirm That e 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Quaest 55. in Genesin God foreseeing Men would fall to such extremity of madness as to Worship Beasts the better to restrain that Wickedness did suffer us to eat them which he conceived to be the greatest bar unto this gross Idolatry because saith he it is the evtreamest of all folly to Worship what we Eat He again adds That f Quaest in Gen. 55. in Lev. Qu. 11. p. 124. God divided Beasts into clean and unclean that Men abhorring what they judged unclean and eating what they called clean might Worship neither for can any Man of sense saith he f Quaest in Gen. 55. in Lev. Qu. 11. p. 124. conceive that to be God which he abominates as unclean or which he offers to the true God and himself doth Eat Thirdly he adds That God enjoyned the Jews to Eat and Sacrifice those Creatures which the Aegyptians Worshiped as Gods Serm. 7. de Sacrif To. 4. P. 585. that they might be induced to despise what they did Eat and Sacrifice and not be guilty of such extream stupidity and folly as to conceive them to be Gods Had therefore this been the received Doctrine of the Church of Christ it must have given greater scandal and been a fitter matter of reproach to Christians then was the scandal of the Cross and therefore had it been the Doctrine of Christ and his Apostles they would have been as careful to have removed this scandal as that other of the Cross The Jews and Heathens who cast this always in their Dish That they did Worship him who lately suffered on the Cross would not have stuck to load them with this more hainous Crime of Eating and Devouring that very God they did adore at least when this was frequently objected to them as the extreamest madness they must have presently retorted That you Christians confessedly do the same your God is also deemed your Sacrifice and you do first adore and then devour him The ancient Fathers of the Church who spent so many Writings and Apologies in vindication of that honour which they payed unto a Crucified Saviour would surely have afforded some Apology for that which in the Judgment of Heathens Turks and Christians seems the greatest folly that can be charged on any Sect. Since then we never find that Christs Disciples or the Ancient Fathers were in the least concerned to remove the Scandal since no malitious Jew or subtile Gentile did in the least accuse the Christians of what they all conceived a crime so monstrous although they were not wanting to seek occasions of reproach against them and to divulge false stories of them and were particularly upbraided with doing what if this Doctrine had obtained amongst them must be the Christians constant practice Lastly Seeing the
ancient Fathers did pass as deep a censure on this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or God-eating as the Heathens did and looked upon it as an instance of the greatest madness and stupidity to Worship as a God what they did Eat and Sacrifice And upon all occasions did upbraid the Heathens for being so exceeding mad and stupid It must be infinitely certain that they neither did nor could conceive this Doctrine to be the mind of Christ or his Apostles or the received tradition of the Church of Christ If Christ when he administred this Sacrament did give to his Disciples his natural Body Arg. 3. §. 3. and his proper Blood then was his natural Body broken and his Blood actually poured out before his Passion for he administred this Sacrament before his Passion and what he then administred was if we may believe his words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i.e. his broken Body and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i.e. his blood shed or extravasated now since his body was then whole and not yet broken on the Cross for us seeing his Blood remained still in its proper Chanuels and neither Heart nor Hand were pierced to let it out and therefore what he did then administer could not in any natural and proper sence be stiled his body broken and his blood shed for us his words must necessarily be interpreted in such a Tropical and Sacramental sence as Protestants do plead for Add to this That if Christ gave his Body in the natural sence at the last Supper then it was either a Sacrifice propitiatory or it was not if it was not then it is not now and then their Dream of the Mass is vanished if it was propitiatory at the last Supper then God was reconciled to all the world and Mankind was redeemed before the Passion of our Blessed Saviour For Christ expresly saith that he then gave unto them his body which was given for us Luk. 22.19 Mat. 26.28 and his Blood shed for many for the remission of Sins which if we literally understand his future passion must be vain and needless so dreadful are the consequences of this portentous Doctrine If we may credit the Apostle Paul what we receive in the participation of the Holy Sacrament is Bread Arg. 4. §. 4. for after Consecration he so stiles it 1 Cor. 10.16 17. at the least five times The Bread which we break is it not the Communion of the Body of Christ for we are all partakers of this Bread Let a man examine himself 1 Cor. 11.28 and so let him eat of that Bread for as often as you eat this Bread and drink this Cup you shew the Lords Death c. Wherefore verse 26. whosoever shall eat this Bread and drink this Cup unworthily shall be guilty of the Body and Blood of Christ In which expressions it is five times said that what we eat and do partake of what is unto us the Communion of Christs Body and sheweth forth his Death and therefore what is Consecrated in this Holy Sacrament is still bread And is it not a wonder that one passage mentioned by our Saviour whilst he was alive and had his blood within his Veins should be esteemed sufficient to make us all believe that his whole body and so his hand was in his hand and that this Living Christ was also Dead and Sacrificed and that his blood was shed before he suffered on the Cross and also that the same Body which was whole before the Eyes of his Disciples was also broken for them and many thousand contradictions more and yet that what the Holy Ghost who knew the meaning of our Saviours words as well as any R. Catholick hath called so often Bread and seems to all our sences so to be should not be deemed sufficient to make us think it Bread If Christ had said This is my Body and the Holy Ghost had never said that it was Bread we might have had some reason to suspect our sences in this matter But when it is so oft in Scripture affirmed to be Bread and is but once affirmed to be the Body of our Lord and it is absolutely necessary that one of these two affirmations should be acknowledged to be Tropical that as great evidence as sence and reason can afford in any case whatsoever should be of no effect at all or have no influence to move or to instruct our Judgments how to pass sentence in this case but that it should be thought as rational all other circumstances being equal to determine against the greatest evidence of sence and highest reason as to determin according to the verdict of them both is most apparently absurd Add to this that the Apostles buisness in this place was to reprove those persons who prophaned this Sacrament 1 Cor. 11.26 27 28. and used it as Common Bread and so discerned not the Lords Body and to convince them of the greatness of the Sin committed by their unworthy eating of this Bread and therefore it concerned him the better to convince them of so great a Crime and to discover the vileness of this prophanation to have expresly told them That what they thus prophaned was the very Son of God that suffered for them this being a most signal aggravation of their guilt whereas to say so often that it was Bread was to extenuate the Crime and therefore we may rationally presume St. Paul would have exprest himself not as we Protestants are wont to do but according to the Judgment of the Roman Catholicks had he believed as they do God never wrought a miracle in confirmation of the Faith of any body Argum. 5. Sect. 5. but he still represented it unto their sences and made it apparent to their eyes ears feeling or their experience that he wrought it there is not one instance to be given to the contrary from Scripture or any humane Writer the Devil himself is not so impudent as to require his servants to believe he works a wonder without some cunning slight to cheat their sences and make them seem to see hear or tast what really they do not To this convincing evidence and demonstration T. G. returns this sorry answer P. 293. that such miracles as are done for the Conversion of unbelievers ought to be objects of our sence but this is not done upon such an account but for the Sanctification of those that believe already and for these it is enough that Christ hath said it is his body they know very well the danger of not believing him more than their sences Answer 1. We have in Scripture many instances of Miracles done not for the Conversion of unbelievers but for the benefit of those that did believe and such were all the standing Miracles that are recorded in the Book of Moses the Manna the water of Jealousie the Vrim and Thummim c. Such also were all the Miracles that the Apostles wrought
there the likeness of Wine and yet no Wine so Christ whilst he conversed in the World was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the similitude of Man but yet no Man If you should urge against them sence and reason they will answer with T. G. Christianity hath taught them to renounce them or if you urge against them all those places of Scripture which affirm Christ to have a Body they may answer it was in Scripture called a Body because it seemed to be so For this is that very answer which R. Catholicks do give to all those places of of Scripture which say the Sacrament is after Consecration Bread and Wine But Chrysostom and Cyril seem to say §. 6. we must not in this matter trust the Judgment of our our Sences Hom. 82. The words of Chrysostom are these Let us obey God in all things and not gainsay him though what is said seem to contradict both our Imaginations and our Eyes Let his word obtain more credit from us then our thoughts or sight And let us behave our selves in the Mysteries not beholding only those things which lye before us but holding fast his words For his Word is infallible but our sences are easie to be deceived That never fails but this most frequently mistakes Because therefore the word saith this is my Body let us obey and believe and behold him with the Eyes of our understanding Answ These words are Hyberbolical and high but must be soberly interpreted viz. That we must not finally resolve all into Sence but we must certainly believe that howsoever the Sences do perceive nothing but common ordinary Bread and Wine yet by Gods power they are changed into a supernatural use and operation and that by those sensible things spiritual blessings are conveighed unto us That this is the true sence of this expression and that it cannot be designed to intimate the change of Bread into Christs Body so that the accidents of Bread alone remain is evident First from the words immediately following g 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hom. 82. in Matt. p. 513. l. 41. For Christ delivered to us nothing sensible but by things sensible things which are intelligible for so it is in Baptism by thing sensible viz. Water the gift to wit Regeneration and Renovation is performed Where note I That the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or the intelligible thing conveighed in the Sacrament is said to be conveighed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by things sensible i.e. by such things sensible as Water Wherefore the things sensible are no more Transubstantiated then is that Element in Baptism Secondly the thing intelligible or the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 conveighed by Baptism makes but an accidental change a renovation consisting not in the conversion of the nature but in the addition of Grace to Nature So the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 conveighed by this holy Sacrament must not impart the Transubstantiated Bread but Bread converted in its use and operation by the addition of Spiritual Grace And therefore what he here declareth touching the Holy Eucharist he elsewhere doth apply to Baptism in these words let us believe Gods word for it is more certain then our sight for the sight is oftentimes deceived whereas Gods word can never fail And speaking of the poor he saith when we are charitable to them let us be so affected as is we gave to Christ himself for his words are more certain then our sight So that we may from these expressions with equal reason argue that the Baptismal Water is Tran. substantiated and that the poor man is truly changed into Christ as that the Sacramental Signes are changed into his Body and his Blood This is apparent Secondly from what he doth affirm of all good Christians viz. i 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 514. l. 16. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 B. l. 13. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 513. l 21. That their Tongues are red with the Blood of Christ that they are nourished and so mixed with him that they are Christs own Flesh and Body ' and that the whole multitude is the Body of Christ Thirdly from what he adds of wicked Men viz. 1. k 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 514. l. 27. That Christ doth not give his Body to them by the Mysteries which is impossible if both the Bread and Wine contain his Body And Secondly That the Table and the place which they resort to is l 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 514. l. 38. that same very Table and that same very upper room in which Christ with his own Disciples did eat the Passeover viz. because it doth contain the same Spiritual Viands And therefore may he not be thought to say his Sacramental Body is indeed the same which suffered on the Cross because it doth conveigh unto us the same Blessings which he purchased by it Hence in this Homily he doth not only call the Bread and Wine * P. 510. l. 36. the Symbols of Christs Body but he confutes the Encratitae by asserting that in those Holy Mysteries our Lord delivered Wine i.e. the fruit of the Grape The words of Cyril Catech. Myst p. 237 238. viz. Consider this is not meer Bread and Wine for it is the Body and Blood of Christ according to the words ef Christ himself And although sence do suggest this to thee viz. that it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Common Bread yet let Faith confirm thee Do not judge of the thing by thy tast but know and hold for most certain that this Bread which is seen of us is not Bread though the tast judge it to be Bread but the Body of Christ and that the Wine which is seen by us although it seem Wine to the sence of tasting notwithstanding is not Wine but the Blood of Christ I say these words if we consider well the context cannot admit of any other sence then that which we have given to the words of Chrysostom For 1. he doth expressly tell us that Christ pronounced 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of m 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Cotech Myst 4. p. 237. D. the Bread this is my Body and immediately before these words he gives this caution look not upon these things as upon common Bread and Wine Now even Romanists themselves confess n Beharm de Ench. l. 1. c. 1. l. 3. c. 19. that if the words this is my Body did make this sence This Bread is my Body this Sentence must either be taken tropically that Bread may be the Body of Christ significatively or else it is plainly absurd and impossible for it cannot be that Bread should be the Body of Christ It is the nature of this Verb Substantive Est or Is saith * Tom. 7. c. 20. Salmeron that as often as it joineth and coupleth togehter things of divers natures which by the Latines are termed Disparata there we must of necessity run to a Figure and Trope And therefore should we
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that to be made doth not continually import a change of nature and therefore that this passage of St. Ambrose cannot with any certainty be thus interpreted Secondly we must not know what follows in that very Chapter to explain these words and to confute the Doctrine of Transubstantiation viz. p Si tant a vis Sermone Domini Jesu ut inciperent esse quae non erant quanto magis operatorius est ut sint quae erant N. B. in aliud commutentur ibid. if there be so great force in Christs words that by it things begin to be that which before they were not how much more operative must it be to cause that things be what they were and yet be changed into another Which words are extant thus in all the Ancient Maniscripts and old Editions of St. Ambrose and are thus cited by Guitmund Yvo Algerus Gratian and Anselm and in the old Editions of Lanfrancus though in the late Editions of St. Ambrose they are corrupted and to abet this fraud Lanfraneus in a new Edition is produced affirming that some Copies did admit a diverse lection We must not know what also here he doth affirm That q Sed forte dicis speciem sanguinis non video Sed habet fimilitudinem sicut enim similitudinem mortis sumpsisti ita etiam smilitudinem pretion sanguinis bibis ut nullus horror cruoris sit pretium tamen operetur redemptionis ibid. as we do receive in Baptism the likeness of his death so in the holy Sacrament do we receive the likeness of his pretious blood Again we must be told St. Ambrose saith * T. G. p. 305 de Sacram. l. 6 c 1. That as our Lord Jesus Christ is the true Son of God not as men are by Grace but as the Son of the substance of his Father so it is his very true Flesh as him self hath said which we receive and his very true Blood which we drink But then we must not know what follows to explain this passage and to confirm our Doctrine viz. That r In similitudinem quidem accipls Sacramentum sed vere naturae gratiam virtutemque consequeris de Sacr l 1 c. 6. we receive this Sacrament in a Similitude but truly do obtain the grace and the vertue of the nature whence it is evident that it is therefore said to be Christs very Flesh and Blood because it doth convey the vertue of them which is more evident form that which follows to wit that Å¿ Quomodo discendit panis vivus de Caeso Resp quia idem Dominus noster Jesus Christus consors est divinitatis corporis to quia accipis Panem N. B. Divinae ejus substantiae in illo participaris alimento ibid. our Lord Christ being partaker of the Divinity and humane nature thou who receivest Bread dest in that nourishment partake of his Divinity And let it be observed that Ambrose doth indeed affirm that as Christ said that which we receive is truly Flesh and is true drink but he doth not affirm that we receive it truly and substantially and as when Christ declared that unless we eat the Flesh of the Son of Man c. That Flesh drink he spake of was true Flesh and drink but the receiving the eating and the drinking of it was Metaphorical so may it be here and hence * De Baptismo Aethiopum c. ult Cyril Glaphyr in Exod. l. 2. Fulgeutius and others tells us that we do eat it in our Baptisme and therefore as we are said to eat it there so also may we be conceived to eat it in the other Sacrament Lastly we must be told how the same Ambrose doth assert that the Word of Christ which of nothing could make that to be which was not can change those things which are into that which before they were not And yet that this mutation was not a change of nature but of signification and of the vertue of the Sacrament is evident from that vvhich follovvs in this Chapter viz. That * T. G. p. 304. Non corporealis esus sed spiritualis est ante benediction in verborum caelestium aliaâ—pecies nominatur post consecrationem corpus Christi significatur c. 9. de his qui initiantur it is not Corporal meat but Spiritual and that before the benediction it is named another kind but after Consecration it signifies Christs body or that elsevvhere he tells us that the power of God so operates to change them as that they still continue what they were before Nay this is also evident from the vvords cited by T. G. viz. That word of Christ which of nothing could make that to be which was not can it not change those things which are into those things which they were not For it is not a less matter to give new natures to things than to change their natures vvhere evident it is that this nevv nature given to the Sacramental Elements is opposed to the mutation of their nature and therefore it is evident that in the judgment of St. Ambrose this change was made not by mutation of the nature of Bread and Wine but by addition of a new nature to them i.e. by the addition of new qualities and vertues in which familiar acceptation of the word St. Peter tells us that by the promises of Christ we are all made partakers of the diuine nature And the Fathers frequently affirm that by faith and by the holy spirit we are changed into another nature and that after the Resurrection we shall thus be changed Or this kind * De Sacr. Euch. l. 2. p. 489.504 Albertinus hath collected above Thirty instances Ob. The change which is made in the nature of Bread is here illustrated by the examples of those miraculous changes T. G. p. 304. which were wrought by holy men of old in the natures of things as of Moses his Rod being turned into a Serpent the waters of Aegypt into Blood c. Answ But this c. conceals three instances produced by Ambrose which only signifie an accidental change viz. t Jordanus retrorsum conversus contra naturam in sui fontis revertltur exordium nonne claret naturam vel maritinotum fluctuum vel fluvialis cursus esse mutatam Marath fluvius amarissâ—mus erat ut sitiens populus bibere non posset Mifit Moses lignum in aquam amari tudinem suam aqua rum natura deposuit quam infusa subito gratia temperavit Sub Haeliseo propheta uni ex filiis prophetarum excussum est ferrum de securi statim mersum est Rogavir Helisaeum qui amisserit ferrum misit etiam Helisaeus lignum in aquam ferrum natavit utique hoc praetet naturam factum esse cognoscimus cap. 9. de his qui initiantur The sweetning of the waters of Marah the swimming of the Iron and the returning of the waters of the River Jordan Whence it is