His words are plain in his Book against Eutyches and Nestorius Lib. de duabus Christi Naturis The Sacraments we receive of Christs body and bloud are divine things by which we are made partakers of the divine Nature and yet the substance or nature of Bread and Wine ceaseth not And indeed the Image of the body and bloud of Christ in the sacramental participation is celebrated Tamen non definit esse substantia vel Natura panis vini Imago similitudo c. In ejus imagine profitemur celebramus sumimus Permanent tamen in sua proprietate We must therefore think that of Christ our Lord which we profess celebrate and take in his Image i.e. the Sacramental signs of his Body and Bloud that as these by the operation of the Holy Ghost pass into a divine substance and yet remain in the propriety of their own nature so that great mystery of the Incarnation whose Vertue they represent shew one whole true Christ consisting of two Natures properly remaining The same is affirmed by the Patriarch Ephraim in Photii Bibliotheca Cod. 229. I purposely conclude with Saint Augustin Tract 25. in Joan. Basil in Psal 33. saith the same Lib. 3. de Doctrin Christ cap 16. Flagitium jubere videtur Nolite parare fauces sed Cor. Nos non tangimus Christum sed credimus Augustin Serm. 33. in Lucam Devorandus auditu ruminandus intellectu side digerendus Tertul. de Resur who hath with the consent of the more Ancient Fathers deliver'd several things which utterly overthrow the present Roman Article of Faith Transubstantiation As first That Christ's Body or Flesh is not to be eaten in a proper carnal oral but figurative and spiritual sense not by the mouth of the body but by Faith the mouth of the Soul. For having laid it down as a general Rule that whensoever the Scripture seems to command any thing wicked or flagitious we must understand it as a figurative and improper form of speech he instanceth in those words Unless ye eat the Flesh of the Son of man c. Figura est ergo It is therefore saith he a figure requiring us to communicate in Christ's Passion sweetly and profitably remembring that his flesh was crucify'd and wounded for us The same is affirm'd by Cyprian de coena Domini As often as we do this in remembrance of him we whet not our teeth to bite but with a sincere Faith we break the holy Bread. Which is saith he Cibus non dentis aut ventris sed mentis meat not of the mouth or teeth but mind In like manner Cyril Catec Mystag 4. Ambrose de Sacramentis lib. 1. cap. 4. Idem Serm. 58. in Lucae cap. 10. v. 24. Besides others of the Fathers I shall not now mention Secondly He expresly affirmeth that wicked men in the Sacrament do not eat Christ's body or drink his bloud Tract 26. in Joan. Cyprian de coena saith the same Compare Aug. De Civit. Dei l. 21. c. 25. Of the Lord's Table saith he some receive to life others to damnation but the thing whereof it is a Sacrament every man receives to life none to death To eat that meat and to drink that drink our Saviour explaineth when he saith He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my bloud dwelleth in me whence he that dwelleth not in Christ proculdubio questionless neither eats nor drinks spiritually altho he carnally and visibly press with his teeth the Sacrament of Christ's body and bloud but rather eats and drinks the Sacrament of so great a thing to his own condemnation because being unclean he presumes to come to the Sacrament of Christ Whosoever eateth me shall live by me In another place Non dicitur qui manducat dignè sed qui manducat me Cajetan in locum He that is at discord with Christ or an enemy to Christ neither eateth his body nor drinketh his bloud altho he daily receive indifferently as if there were no difference betwixt that bread and common bread the Sacrament of so great a thing to the punishment of his own presumption Which is no more than what Origen had written long before him on Matth. 15. where he saith Sentent 339. Qui discordat à Christo non corpus ejus manducat c. V. Ambrose de tis qui myster initiantur cap. 9. If it were possible for any wicked man persevering such to eat the Word made flesh seeing he is the living bread it would not have been written Whosoever eateth this bread shall live for ever St. Hierom in Jerem. lib. 4. cap. 22. and also cap. 66. in Esai affirms the same saying That Hereticks do not eat the body or drink the bloud of Christ in the Sacrament because then they should have everlasting life Thirdly Saint Augustin expresly affirmeth In signis diversis cadem fides Aug. Tract 45. in Joan. ubi plura legas Lib. 20. cont Faustum c. 21. that our Fathers the Patriarchs and Prophets under the Law did eat the same spiritual meat and drink the same spiritual drink with us under the Gospel i.e. Christ for they drank of that Rock which follow'd them and that Rock St. Paul says was Christ Tract 26. on John. Contr. Faustum lib. 19. cap. 16. Whence it undeniably follows that the eating of Christ's flesh in an oral carnal manner is not necessary to salvation which before Christ's Incarnation was impossible as it is now unprofitable Fourthly Saint Augustin Epist ad Dardanum writeth Epist 57. Tolie à Corporibus locorum spatia nusquam erunt Christus ubique per id quod Deus est in coeâ—o autem per id quod homo est c. that Christ's body being a true humane body necessarily taketh up a space answerable to its quantity and saith That to deny a body to take up space is to deny it to be a true body And adds That the body of Christ is not every-where but in a certain determinate place Whereby he utterly overthrows the Doctrine of Transubstantiation the possibility of eating and chewing or which is all one the swallowing down whole Christ's body that it should be in a thousand places at once and should be contain'd whole under the least piece of Wafer Which is in effect to revive the Heresie of Marcion and the Manichees who denyed the verity of Christ's Body turning it into a Phantasm Non hee corpus quod videtis manducaturi estis Sacramentum vobis commendavi c. Compare Cyprian de unctione Chrismatis Christus tradidit Discipulis figuram corporis sui Augustin in Psalm 3. Non hoc corpus quod videtis manducaturi estis Sacramentum commendavi vobis quod spiritualiter intellectum vivificabitvos Epist 23. Sprite or Spirit But I cannot omit his words upon the 98th Psalm where he brings in our Saviour speaking thus to his Apostles Ye shall not eat this body ye see nor drink that bloud that my Crucifiers shall
the Mass therefore Christ is not properly sacrific'd Mark what an absurdity in the Apostles judgment would follow thereupon If Christ should be offer'd by himself or others often more than once ver 26. then must he have often suffered But Christ hath suffer'd once and cannot suffer again Therefore he is not offer'd again by himself or by any Priest in the Mass as a proper and propitiatory Sacrifice for the quick and dead which our Adversaries affirm Yea if Christ were truly and properly sacrific'd in the Mass he must necessarily suffer death a thousand times over for sacrificing any living thing and such is Christ to God Ad verum sacrificium requiritur ut plane destruatur ipsa etiam substantia consumatur Bellar. lib. 1. de Missa cap. 2. implieth killing and taking away the life of what is sacrificed as the very name 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 noteth But I hope Romanists will not say they kill Christ in the Mass if they deny it then Christ is not there properly sacrific'd if they should attempt it the thing is impossible for Christ being now impassible and in a glorify'd State can die no more as we read Rom. 6.9 When then they distingush of sacrificing Christ in a bloudy and unbloudy manner and say they offer up and sacrifice him incruentè without bloudshed they yield the cause for all proper sacrificing implieth destruction as Bellarmine grants De Missa lib. 10. cap. ul or if it be a living thing the shedding the bloud is killing of what is sacrificed for without shedding of bloud there is no remission If by their sacrificing Christ in the Mass they meant only a representation to God or men of Christ's bloudy sacrifice of the Cross or a commemoration of his death termed 1 Cor. 11.26 a shewing and setting it forth visibly and sacramentally by eating of that Bread and drinking of that Cup we should not oppose them but Representation or Commemoration of Christ's death is one thing and proper Sacrificing his Body and Bloud really corporally and carnally as it was on the Cross is quite another As for Bellarmin's Reply that Christ is sacrific'd not under the likeness of a living thing but of Bread which hath no life and therefore there is no necessity he should be slain or kill'd in the Mass it signifies nothing For I ask Is the likeness of Bread onely offer'd up to God as a propitiatory Sacrifice or Christ himself his Body and Bloud Bellarmine placeth the essence of the Sacrifice of the Mass in the Priests manducation or eating and consumption not of the substance of Christ's Body but the Accidents or Appearance of Bread only de missa l. 1. c. â—â—â— But a true Sacrifice requireth a consumption of its substance as is above by him granted Ergo. who is a living Person yea liveth for ever If Bread onely 't is blasphemous to make it a propitiatory sacrifice for sin If Christ himself who is a living Person be truly and properly sacrific'd he must be truly and properly slain As for their usual pretence that Masses apply to us the Vertue and Merits of Christ's Passion I answer That the Sacrament of the Eucharist is abundantly sufficient thereunto and peculiarly instituted to that very purpose for the bread that we break is it not the Communion or communication of the Body of Christ and the Cup of blessing that we bless the Communion of the Bloud of Christ And what is the Communion or communication of Christ's Body and Bloud broken and shed for the remission of our sins but the communication or application of the Merits of both unto us in order thereunto So that the reiteration of Christs sacrifice of himself on the Cross is altogether unnecessary Nor Communion in one kind only As to the ninth Article of Pope Pius his Creed That is is not necessary to receive both Bread and Cup in the Holy Sacrament of Christ's Body and Bloud it is so plainly and almost palpably contrary to the institution example and command of Christ himself as also the Apostolical tradition of St. Paul that 't is a wonder how any Christians dare own any such Doctrine Take eat drink do this in remembrance of me so our Lord at the first institution of it Saint Paul repeats this Institution to the Corinthians commending it to the observation of the whole Church Laity as well as Clergy joineth eating of the Bread and drinking of the Cup together four several times in four Verses 1 Cor. 11.26 27 28 29. Layeth down an express Apostolical Canon Let a man examine himself c. What man An Apostle only or a consecrating Priest No. But any ordinary Christian capable of this Sacrament Well What is then to be done Let him eat of that bread as it is his necessary and indispensable duty to do but is that all No. For he addeth And let him whether Layman or Clerick whether Consecrator or not also drink of that Cup. For as often as ye Christians in general eat of this Bread and drink of this Cup ye shew forth as is your duty to do and which otherwise you do not the Lords death till he come Doth it not look like Antichristianism for Christ's Vicar to presume to alter Panis vinum ad essentiam sacramenti pertinent Bellarmin de Euchar lib. 40. cap. 60. v. Concil Trident. Panis vinum non tam essentiales quam integrales hujus sacramenti partes videntur Bellarmin de Euchar. lib. 4. cap. 22. Sine vino igitur sacramentum non integrè administratur mutilate or in any substantial part as the Cup in the Eucharist is acknowledg'd to be to abrogate his Lords Instituion and Command How dare any Christian divide asunder what Christ and Saint Paul have join'd together The receiving the Cup is as necessary to any Christian Clerick or Laick as the sacred Bread. By the same reason the Church of Rome forbids the Laity one they may both for both are equally commanded both are as necessary as either The Romish pretended Power to dispense with the Laws of God and to alter the institutions of Christ is alone a sufficient argument to discover how little they regard the Apostolical Doctrine or Primitive practice of the Church from which as we see they have manifestly departed In a word If the Pope and his Councils have power to alter and dispense with yea countermand Christ's express Laws and Institutions Sir Edward Sandys Europae Speculum but it is made as a learned Traveller observes a mere piece of humane Policy to be fram'd alter'd and modell'd at the wills and pleasures of men which directly tends to promote Atheism for which crime Italians are notorious Thus I hope I have made it evident to any unprejudic'd Person that the 9 Articles above-mention'd which Pope Pius not 200 years ago added to the old Nicene Creed as parts of the true Catholick Apostolick Faith without which no
from that Bread as they are by Romanists from that Cup unless they have a special Licence from the Church But concerning the judgment and practice of Primitive times we shall say more by and by I might add more instances but these may suffice to make good my first Assertion that the present Roman Faith or Religion is not grounded on the holy Scriptures Assert 2 The sence of Antiquity concerning the Points in Dispute The second thing I am oblig'd to shew is That the Points above-mention'd are no parts of the true antient Catholick Faith or were so esteem'd by the holy Fathers and Councils for at least 4 or 500 years after Christ but rather condemn'd and rejected by them Art. 1 Concerning the seven Sacraments I will begin with the Doctrine of the seven Sacraments The antient Fathers when they treat of the Sacraments of the Church in the strict and proper sense of the word for it is equivocal mention two onely V. Augustin de Symbolo Ambros de Sacram. Card. Richelieu hence grants there are properly but two Examen Pacific Epist 118. ad Januar. V. Ambros de Sacram. Incarnation V. Cyprian de ablution pedùm Aug. de bono Conjug 1.18 lib. 1. cont Faust c. 14. Bernard de coena Domini viz. Baptism and the Lord's Supper These Justin Martyr in the end of his 2d Apology where he describeth the publick service of the Church on the Lord's days takes notice of and none of the other five Chrysostom Cyril and Theophylact on John 19. As also Ambrose Austin and Damascen write that the Water and Bloud that came out of our Saviours side signify'd the Sacraments of the Church viz. the Water Baptism and the Bloud the Eucharist Irenaeus no where mentions any more Sacraments than these two Saint Austin saith Christ hath left us a very few Sacraments numero paucissima Baptism and the Eucharist 'T is true The Fathers sometimes term Confirmation Orders c. Sacraments but then they use the word in a more large sense as when they call the Doctrines of the Trinity Incarnation c. Sacraments i. e. Mysteries Our Saviour's washing his Disciples feet the sign of the Cross yea Polygamy are sometimes honour'd by Cyprian Augustin Bernard with the name of Sacraments i. e. sacred or mystical Signs In which sense there may be not onely seven but seventeen Sacraments But to avoid falling into a Logomachia or strife about words it is agreed as Bellarmin himself grants that the essential note of a proper Sacrament is to communicate justifying Grace De Sacram l. 1. c. 11. Costerus Enchir p. 340. Peter Lombard and Durandus say Matrimony confers not Grace See Cassandr Art 14. Do holy Orders communicate justifying Grace or Matrimony either If the latter I wonder why they should prohibit it the Clergy If the former surely there would not be found sons of Eli or Belial in their Church who know not the Lord. But enough of this at present Art. 2 Concerning Transubstant Secondly The Ancient Fathers did not believe or teach the Doctrine of Transubstantiation Alphonsus de Castro de Haeres lib. 8. saith the same It was first taught by Paschasius anno 818. See Bellarmin de Script i.e. that by consecration the substance of the Bread and Wine cease to be and are turn'd into the very substance of the Body and Bloud of Christ which he now hath being at the right hand of God. * Ad Philadelphin Ignatius saith that in the holy Eucharist one and the same Bread is administred to all Justin Martyr calleth it Bread and Wine after Consecration and saith our flesh and bloud are nourished by them In Apol. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In like manner Irenaeus lib. 5. c. 12. Bellar. min lib. 2. de Euch. cap. 4. ad finem V. Bonavent l. 4. Sent. Dist 12. art 3. qu. 1. I adjoin But mere Accidents cannot nourish our bodies Therefore the true substance of Bread and Wine still remain Our Adversaries dare not affirm that our bodies are nourish'd by some substance He addeth a little after that the Deacon useth to carry to the sick Bread and Wine to be receiv'd at their own Houses Irenaeus declareth that the Eucharist consists of two things one terrestrial viz. the Elements of Bread and Wine the other Celestial viz. Christ's Body and Bloud Iren. Lib. 4. adv Haer. c. 34. Ex duabus rebus constat terrena caelesti Clemens Alex. Paed. l. 1. cap. 6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Paedag. l. 2. c. 2. in fine 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 understood those words Unless ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man in a symbolical or figurative sense and disputing against the Encratites who condemn'd all use of Wine he confutes them from the Example of our Saviour who drank in the holy Eucharist of the fruit of the Vine An evident proof that Clemens did not believe any transubstantiation of the substance of the Wine into the very Bloud of Christ Tertullian disputing against Marcion who held that Christ had not a real but phantastick body onely as Romanists speak of the Sacramental Elements which seem only to be what in truth they are not draws an argument from the Eucharist saying A figure of a Body argues a true Body in another place Christ represented by Bread his Body But Christ taking Bread made it his Body In Marcion lib. 1. c. 14. Repraesentat corpus suum pane Ad Marcion lib. 4. c. 4. Hoc est corpus meum hoc est figura corporis mei V. lib. 3. in Marcion c. 19. corporis sui figuram pani dedisse saying This is my Body i.e. the figure of my Body So Tertullian understood it Marcion might easily have retorted this Argument if the substance of Bread remained not in the Sacrament by saying As the Bread in the Sacrament seems to be Bread but is not truly and really so in like manner Christ's body appear'd to to be a true humane Body but was not really what it seem'd Origen in his third Dialogue against Marcion uses the same argument V. Hom. 9. Si secundum literam sequaris occidit haec litera Hom. 7. In cap. 17. Matth. Juxta id quod habet materiale Haec de Typico Symbolicoque corpore and in his seventh Homily on Levit. he saith In the Gospel there is the Letter which killeth him who understandeth not spiritually If according to the letter you take those words Unless ye eat the flesh of the son of man c. Occidet haec litera this letter or literal sense will kill ye And in another place he is not affraid to affirm that the consecrated Elements according to what is material in them go into the belly and so into the draught which it were horrid blasphemy to affirm of Christs natural Body But he ascribes it to his sacramental typical or symbolical Body as he there calls it Cyprian disputing against
shed I have commended to you a Sacrament which being spiritually understood spiritualiter intellectum shall give you life What can possibly be said more plainly by any Protestant against Transubstantiation Our Adversaries answer That they did eat the very same body which they did see but not codem modo not in a mortal visible but in an invisible immortal and impassible manner Which Answer signifies nothing For altho not in the same manner yet they grant the very same body was really and substantially eaten by the Apostles which they saw present with them at the Table and that not in a spiritual and Sacramental but in a corporal carnal and substantial sense which perfectly contradicts what Saint Augustin there saith Ye shall not eat the body ye see c. Again I would gladly be resolv'd whether the Apostles did eat Christ's very body then present as mortal or immortal If as mortal and passible then they did eat it eodem modo after the same manner as it was there present and seen by them if as immortal how did then Christ's body really die upon the Cross And then it must be granted that Christ's body was immortal before his Resurrection or Ascension I will onely add that I be not too tedious his words in his Epistle to Boniface If Sacraments had not some similitude or likeness of those things of which they are Sacraments Ex hac similitudine plerumque etiam ipsarum rerum nomina accipiunt Compare Quaest in Levit. lib. 3. cap. 57. Sicut scriptum est septem spicae septem anni sunt Non enim dixit septem annos significant they would be no Sacraments From this similitude for the most part they receive the names of the things themselves they represent As then secundùm quendam modum after some manner the Sacrament of Christ's body is his body so the Sacrament of Faith is Faith. Thus I hope I have made it evident that the present Doctrine of Transubstantiation is no part of the Primitive and Catholick Faith which the Fathers in the five first Centuries after Christ owned not but refuted and condemn'd it I know very well that many things are objected against us out of the Fathers that Ignatius Justin Martyr and Irenaeus affirm that the Bread and Wine in the holy Eucharist is the Body flesh and bloud of Christ yea as Cyprian and Saint Ambrose declare That they are changed De coena Domini De Sacram. tho not in shew or Effigies yet in Nature that they remain what they were and are changed into another thing To all which in brief I answer That we question not the truth of him that said This is my Body We unfeignedly grant it is so secundum quendam modum as Augustin above Epist 23. in a true and sacramental tho not literal and proper sense We undoubtedly believe on Saint Paul's infallible Authority that the Rock in the Wilderness of which the Israelites drank was Christ he saith not as Saint Augustin somewhere observes it signify'd Christ but it was Christ yet no man is so simple as to understand those words not in a figurative and improper but a proper and literal sense Furthermore Petra erat Christus Non dixit Petra significat Christum c. Quaestiones in Levitic l. 3. c. 37. we grant with Cyprian that the Bread and Wine are not changed in outward shew yet in Nature taking the word Nature in a general sense as when we say a man becoming more kind and civil he is grown better natur'd In regard of common bread and wine they are chang'd and converted into an holy Sacrament wherein we have Communion with or real tho spitual communication of the body and bloud of Christ In like manner we subscribe to that of Ambrose That they remain what they are i.e. as to substance which directly overthrows Transubstantiation and yet are changed into other things as to use and quality When in and by the Resurrection a natural mortal and corruptible body is turned into a spiritual and immortal one we all grant the nature of it is changed yet no good Christian will deny but that it remains for substance the very same body I know also our Adversaries much urge the sayings of Hilary and Cyril of Alex. Lib 6. de Trin. in Concil Ephes That by vertue of the Eucharist Christ's body and blood is corporally and naturally united to us But this is impertinently alledg'd for they speak not of the Union of Christ's Body and Bloud to the outward Elements of Bread and Wine but to the souls and bodies of all faithful Communicants and to them onely who thereby become bone of his bone and flesh of his flesh In a word As the Fathers say Christ's Body is in us V. Ambrose de Sacram. l 4. c. 4. Augustin Tract 1. in Epist Joann Sicut Christus in nobis hic ita nos ibi in illo sumus so that our bodies are in him not onely by Faith and Charity but in very deed And if it be so that our substance is not turn'd into Christ's substance why should we think that the substance of the bread must be changed into the substance of Christ's body Or his body should be any more corporally in our body than our body is in his Lastly They vehemently press the sayings of Chrysostom and other of the Fathers in their popular Homilies who say Hom. 83. in Matth. Hom. 63. in Matth. Hom. 60. ad Populum Antiochen Hom. 45. in Joann Hom. 24. in 1. Epist ad Corinth Vid. Aug. in the holy Sacrament we see touch and eat Christ's body that our tongues are made red with his bloud even that bloud which did flow from his side on the Cross that what he suffer'd not on the Cross he suffers in the Sacrament viz. his body to be broken with our teeth Dost thou see Bread and Wine in the Sacrament Think it not In like manner Cyril of Jerus Mystag But such Hyperbolical expressions used by the Fathers to stir up devotion and preserve an high reverence of the Sacrament in the minds of their Hearers are not to be taken as our Adversaries well know in a strict literal and dogmatical sense No Papist according to his own principles can rationally hold that Christ's body is corporally pressed pierc'd or touch'd by mens teeth or that their tongues are dyed red with his bloud seeing they affirm that Christ's Body is there incruentè in an unbloudy manner insomuch that they acknowledge those words in Berengarius his Recantation tho drawn up by the Pope viz. That Christ's flesh in the Sacrament is sensually press'd or torn by mens teeth must be cautiously understood not of Christ's Body but of the outward Species or Elements onely Autor Glossae in Decret lest we fall into a worse Errour than that he retracted Secondly I answer That the Fathers use the like Rhetocal or Hyperbolical expressions in their popular Discourses concerning Baptism