Lord slain and lying and the Priest standing by the Sacrifice and praying and all the People purple-dyed in that precious Blood c. Again in another place (o) In Coemeter appel 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. speaking of the Priest standing before the Holy Table c. he adds When thou seest the Sheep viz. Christ slain and divided c. So also elsewhere (p) De Poenit in Encoen 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 O wonderful The Mystical Table being prepared the Lamb of God slain for thee c. his Blood emptied into the Cup out of his immaculate Side for thy Purification dost thou not fear This slaying and dividing the Body of Christ this emptying the Blood out of his Veins he speaks of cannot be understood of any thing but of his Representative Body Neither can another Saying of his have any other sense (q) Hom. 51. in Matth. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 where telling us how Christ has given us leave to be filled with his holy Flesh he adds He has proposed himself before us slain So that if we eat his Flesh it must be his dead Body for so he is set before us to be eaten But that 's impossible But all this is easily understood in our way or rather as he himself has explained it when he says (r) Hom. 83. in Matth. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Mystery is the Passion and Cross of Christ With which agrees that of S. Austin (s) In Psal 21. Coenam suam dedit passionem suam dedit He gave his Supper he gave his Passion Or as he says in another place (t) Super Evang. lib. 2. qu. 38. Tamen passiones Domini in Sacramentis corporis sanguinis ejus suavitate lambunt devotissimâ comparing the Gentiles to those Dogs that lick'd Lazarus's Sores Yet says he they lick the Passions of our Lord in the Sacraments of his Body and Blood with a devout Sweetness The Reader will meet with further Testimonies to this purpose afterwards under the Head of Eating Christ's Body and drinking his Blood which according to the Fathers is to be done mystically and spiritually considered as slain and therefore his Presence must be such too For his Body is present just as it is eaten The Sum of all is this That according to the Fathers Christ is considered in the Sacrament as dead and slain and therefore can be only present there typically and by representation For so Card. Perron himself confesses (u) De locis Augustin cap. 3. Sacramentum non est realiter corpus Christi in actuali occisi mortui inanimati statu constitutum nec eâ ratione illud continet sed eatenus tantum repraesentat c. The Sacrament is not really the Body of Christ put in the actual state of one slain dead and without Life nor do's it contain it so but in that respect do's only represent it 5 Position That according to the Fathers the Presence of Christ's Body to us now is a Presence to our Faith and Minds a Presence of Union of Efficacy and Grace This is S. Austin's constant Doctrine I have cited a place out of him before where reckoning up the several Presences of Christ (x) Serm. 120. de diversis the Presence of his Divinity so he is with his Father his Corporal Presence so he says Secundùm praesentiam corporalem jam supra coelos ad dextram patris est Secundùm vero praesentiam fidei in omnibus Christianis est he is now above the Heavens at the Right Hand of the Father and he knows but one more which is the Presence of Faith by which he is in all Christians Thus also elsewhere (y) Serm. 12. de diversis In coelo quidem Christus est sed etiam in corde credentium Christ is in Heaven but he is also in the Hearts of Believers And again (z) In Evang. Joan. tract 50. Audeant teneant Respondet Quem tenebo absentem Quomodo in coelum manum mittam ut ibi sedentem teneam Fidem mitte tenuisti parentes tui tenuerunt carnem tu tene corde quoniam Christus absens etiam praesens est nisi praesens esset à nobis teneri non posset c. Corpus enim suum intulit coelo majestatem non abstulit mundo exhorting the Jews to hear and take hold on Christ he brings one in asking Whom shall I lay hold of one that is absent c. He answers Send forth thy Faith and thou hast hold of him Thy Fathers laid hold of him in his Flesh do thou hold him in thy Heart because Christ who is absent is also present for if he were not present he could not be held by us But still all is to be done by Faith for the Reason he gives He brought his Body into Heaven but his Majesty i. e. his Divinity was not withdrawn from the World. And afterwards (a) Ibid. propè finem Secundùm praesentiam majestatis semper habemus Christum secundùm praesentiam carnis rectè dictum est discipulis Me autem non semper habebitis Habuit illum Ecclesia secundùm praesentiam carnis paucis diebus modo fide tenet oculis non videt According to the Presence of his Majesty we always have Christ according to the Presence of his Flesh it was rightly said to his Disciples Me ye have not always The Church had him a few days according to his Fleshly Presence now it holds him by Faith and sees him not So again (b) In Ev. Joan. tract 106. Non rectè intelliguntur nisi hi quos in se credentes servare jam coeperat praesentia corporali quos relicturus fuerat absentia corporali ut eos cum patre servaret praesentia spiritali speaking of those whom he kept when he was with them he says These Words can be rightly understood of none but those who believing on him were begun to be kept by him by his Corporal Presence and whom he was about to leave by his Bodily Absence that he might keep them together with his Father by his Spiritual Presence Lastly S. Austin says (c) Expos in Epist Joan. tract 1. Dominus consolans nos qui ipsum jam in coelo sedentem manu contrectare non possumus sed fide contingere ait illi Quia vidisti credidisti beati qui non viderunt credunt Our Lord comforting us who now that he sits in Heaven cannot handle him but only touch him by Faith says to Thomas Because thou hast seen thou hast believed blessed are they that have not seen and believe S. Cyril of Alexandria agrees perfectly with this Doctrine (d) In Joan. 13.33 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. and knows no other Presence of Christ now but what is Spiritual and Divine since he ascended to the Father and left the World. For they that judge
confute their Opinions differing from the pretended common Sentiments about the Body and Blood of Christ by what lay so plainly before them of his Body and Blood being in the Eucharist if they had believed it But I refer the Reader to Monsieur Allix his Dissertation before-named wherein he may find abundant Satisfaction in these Matters and also will see how sadly the Romanists are put to it to answer the Difficulties about the Blood of Christ which they pretend to shew in so many Churches and is produced in such Quantities that may well cause a new Doubt Whether if his Resurrection-Body have any Blood in it we must not suppose it to be of a new Creation since what was in his Body when he died cannot suffice to furnish more Blood if so much as their Vials and Glasses are filled withal CHAP. X. The Tenth Difference The Fathers assert positively that the substance of the Elements remain after Consecration that Bread and Wine are taken eaten and drunk in the Sacrament which all that believe Transubstantiation must deny WE have seen before that the Fathers say plainly that it was Bread which Christ called his Body when he blessed it Now we shall see that the Fathers are as positive that after Consecration and the change made by it yet still the Bread and Wine remains I begin with that famous Testimony of S. Chrysostome against the Apollinarians produced first by P. Martyr by some of our Adversaries charged upon him as his Forgery because it was so full against them by others shifted off to another John of Constantinople and denied to be S. Chrysostome's but vindicated for his See Append. to the Defence of the Exposition of the Doctrine of the Church of England p. 142 143 c. by the Learned Bigotius who had transcribed it out of the Florentine Library of S. Mark 's Monastery and prepared it for the Press in his Edition of Palladius then suppressed by some Doctors of the Sorbonne and the printed leaves taken out of the Book but now lately recovered and published to their shame A passage of which the subject of this great contest I shall here set down Christ is both God and Man God Deus homo Christus Deus propter impassibilitatem Homo propter Passionem Unus Filius unus Dominus idem ipse proculdubus unitarum naturarum unam dominationem unam potestatem possidens etiamsi non consubstantiales existunt unaquaeque in commiâ—tam proprietatis conservat agnitionem propter hoc quod inconfusa sunt duo dico Sicut enim antequam sanctificetur Panis Panem nominamus divina autem illum Sanctificante gratiâ mediante sacerdote liberatus est quidem appellatione panis dignus autem habitus est dominici corporis appellatione etiamsi natura panis in ipso permansit non duo corpora sed unum corpus filii praedicatur Sic hic Divinâ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 id est inundante corporis naturâ unum filium unam personam utraque haec fecerunt Agnoscendum tamen inconfusam indivisibilem rationem non in unâ solùm natura sed in duabus perfectis for that he is impassible Man for that he suffered One Son one Lord he the same without doubt having one Dominion one power of two united natures not that these natures are consubstantial seeing each of them do's retain without confusion its own properties and being two are inconfused in him For as in the Eucharist before the Bread is consecrated we call it Bread but when the grace of God by the Priest has consecrated it it has no longer the name of Bread but is counted worthy to be called the Lords Body altho' the nature of Bread remains in it and we do not say there are two Bodies but one Body of the Son. So here the divine nature being joined to the humane Body they both together make one Son one Person but yet they must be acknowledged to remain without confusion and after an indivisible manner not in one nature only but in two perfect natures Another remarkable Testimony is in Theodoret's Dialogues some part of which I hope the Reader will not think it tedious to be inserted here since by observing the thread of his Discourse he will see his undoubted sense to be that the substance of the Bread and Wine remain in the Eucharist and the change is by addition not annihilation and I will add his Greek where it is needful Dial. 1 Orthodoxus Do you not know that God called his Body Bread Erannistes I know it Orth. Elsewhere also he calleth his Flesh Wheat Eran. I know that also Unless a Corn of Wheat fall into the ground and die c. Orth. But in the delivery of the mysteries he called the Bread his Body and that which is mixed viz. Wine and Water in the Cup Blood. Eran. He did so call them Orth. But that which is his Body by nature 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is also to be called his Body and his Blood viz. by nature Blood. Eran. It is confess'd Orth. But our Saviour changed the names 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and on his Body he imposed the name of the symbol or sign and on the symbol he put the name of his body And so having called himself a Vine he called the Symbol Blood. Eran. Very right But I have a mind to know the reason of this change of names Orth. The scope is manifest to those that are initiated in Divine things 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For he would have those that participate the divine mysteries not to attend to the nature of those things that are seen but upon the changing of the names to believe the change that is made by grace For he that called his Body that is so by nature Wheat and Bread 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and again termed himself a Vine he honoured the visible Symbols with the appellation of his Body and Blood not altering nature but to nature adding grace Proceed we now to the next Dialogue Orth. The mystical Symbols offered to God by the Priests Dial. 2 pray tell me what are they signs of Eran. Of the Lords Body and Blood. Orth. Of his Body truly or not truly such Era. Of that which is truly his Body Orth. Very right For there must be an original of an Image 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for Painters imitate nature and draw the Images of visible things Era. True. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Orth. If then the divine mysteries are Antitypes of a true Body then the Lords Body is a true Body still not changed into the nature of the Deity but filled with Divine Glory Era. You have seasonably brought in the Discourse of the Divine Mysteries for thereby I will shew that the Lords Body is changed into another Nature Answer therefore my Question Orth. I will. Era. What call you the Gift that is offered before the Priests Invocation Orth. I may not openly declare
(l) Tract in illud Evang. Quicunque dixerit verbum contra filium hominis expounding those words What if ye see the Son of Man ascending where he was before It is the Spirit that quickneth the Flesh profiteth nothing c. adds 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He affirmed both of himself the Flesh and Spirit and made a difference betwixt the Spirit and the Flesh that not only believing that of him which was visible but what was invisible they might learn that those things which he spake were not carnal but spiritual 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For to how many could his Body have sufficed for Meat that it should be made the Food of the whole World But therefore he mentions the Son of Man's Ascension into Heaven that he might draw them from this corporal Conceit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and hereafter might learn that the Flesh he spake of was celestial Meat from above and spiritual Nourishment to be given by him c. It will suffice all the World if we follow Tertullian's (m) De Resurr c. 37. Quia sermo caro erat factus proinde in causam vitae appetendus devorandus auditu ruminandus intellectu fide digerendus Advice Since the Word was made Flesh he is to be long'd for that we may live to be devoured by Hearing to be chewed by Understanding and digested by Faith. It is an excellent Comment on this which Eusebius gives us (n) Lib. 3. Eccl. Theol. c. 1◠〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 upon those words of John 6. The Flesh profits nothing c. Do not imagine that I speak of that Flesh I am encompassed withal as if you must eat that nor think that I command you to drink sensible and corporeal Blood But know that the very Words that I have spoken to you are Spirit and Life So that these very Words and Speeches of his are his Flesh and Blood whereof whoso is always Partaker being nourished as it were with heavenly Bread shall be a Partaker of heavenly Life 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Let not the hasty hearing of those things by me of Flesh and Blood trouble you for things sensibly heard profit nothing but it is the Spirit that quickneth them that can spiritually hear them S. Basil (o) In Psal 33. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 says the same There is an intellectual Mouth of the inward Man whereby he is nourished who receives the Word of Life which is the Bread that descended from Heaven Facundus Hermian (p) Lib. 12. Defens 3. capit c. 1. takes this of eating Christ's Flesh to be a Mystery and that S. Peter when he answered Lord whither should we go thou hast the Words of Eternal Life did not then understand it For says he Quod si mysterium intellexisset hoc potius diceret Domine cur abeamus non est cûm credamus nos corporis sanguinis tui fide salvandos if he had understood the Mystery he should rather have said Lord there is no reason we should go away since we believe we shall be saved by Faith in thy Body and Blood. He means his Death and Passion which is his Sense of eating Christ's Body and Blood. Theodorus Heracleot (q) Catena in Joan. 6.54 55. refers this eating Christ's Flesh to the sincere embracing the Oeconomy of his Incarnation These says he 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 upon the reasoning of their Minds by assenting to it as it were tasting the Doctrine do rationally or spiritually eat his Flesh and by Faith partake of his Blood. S. Chrysostom (r) Hom. 46. in Joan. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. upon those words It is the Spirit that quickneth the Flesh profiteth nothing reckons up some of those carnal Doubts that profit nothing as It is a carnal thing says he to doubt how Christ descended from Heaven and to imagine him to be the Son of Joseph and how he can give us his Flesh to eat All these are carnal which ought to be mystically and spiritually understood Cyril of Jerusalem (s) Catech. Mystag 4. says That the Jews for want of understanding spiritually Christ's words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 imagined that Christ exhorted them to devour his Flesh which is hard to be distinguish'd from the Roman Churches Oral Manducation This carnal Fancy might well make them shrink and cry out This is a hard Saying who can hear it For as S. Austin (t) Cont. advers Legis l. 2. c. 9. Horribilius videatur humanam carnem manducare quam perimere humanum sanguinem potare quam fundere well observes It seems more horrible to eat Humane Flesh than to kill it and to drink Mans Blood than to shed it Origen's (u) Prolog in Cantic Est materialis hujus hominis qui exterior appellatur cibus potusque naturae suae cognatus corporeus iste sc terrenus Similiter autem spiritualis hominis ipsius qui interior dicitur est proprius cibus ut panis ille vivus qui de coelo descendit c. Rerum vero proprietas unicuique discreta servatur corruptibili corruptibilia praebentur incorruptibili verò incorruptibilia proponuntur words for I see no good reason to question they are his are enough to convince effectually all such carnal Jews and Christians There is a Meat and Drink for this material and outward Man as we call him agreeable to his Nature viz. this corporeal and earthly Food There is likewise a proper Food for the spiritual or as we call it inward Man as that living Bread that came down from Heaven c. But the Property of things is reserved to each distinct and corruptible things are given to that which is corruptible and incorruptible things are proposed to that which is incorruptible Greg. Nyssen (x) Hom. 1. in Cantic 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 also well expresses it thus There is an Analogy betwixt the Motions and Operations of the Soul and the Senses of the Body c. Wine and Milk are judged of by the Taste but these being intellectual the Power of the Soul that apprehends them must be altogether intellectual S. Chrysostom (y) Homil. 26. in Matth. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 said well That Christ gave himself to us for a spiritual Feast and Banquet And Procopius Gazaeus (z) Comment in Exod. Coelestis seu divinus Agnus animarum solet esse cibus The Celestial and Divine Lamb is wont to be the Food of Souls S. Austin (a) Tract 1. in Epist Joan. Ipsum jam in coelo sedentem manu contrectare non possumus sed fide contingere indeed tells us We cannot handle him who now sits in Heaven yet says he we may touch him by our Faith. For as he says elsewhere (b) Tract 26. in Evang. Joan. Non ad Christum ambulando currimus sed credendo nec motu
corporis sed voluntate cordis accedimus Sic se tangi voluit sic tangitur ab eis à quibus benè tangitur ascendens ad patrem manens cum patre aequalis patri We run to Christ not by walking but by believing nor do we approach him by the Motion of our Bodies but by the Will of our Hearts And afterwards Thus he would be touched and thus he is touched by all that rightly touch him ascending to the Father remaining with the Father equal to the Father And in the next Tractate (c) Idem Tract 27. in Joan. Quid est hoc Hinc solvit illud quod non noverant Illi enim putabant eum erogaturum corpus suum ille autem dixit se ascensurum in coelum utique integrum Cùm videritis filium hominis ascendentem ubi erat priùs certè vel tunc videbitis quia non eo modo quo puratis erogat corpus suum certè vel tunc intelligetis quia gratia ejus non consumitur morsibus upon those words What if ye see the Son of Man ascend c. What do's this mean He hence resolves that which they did not know For they imagined that he would bestow his Body upon them and he told them that he would ascend into Heaven entire and whole When you shall see the Son of Man ascending where he was before then surely you will see that he do's not bestow his Body after that manner you think he do's Surely you will then at least understand that his Grace is not consumed by bites of the Teeth Gelasius (d) Contr. Eutych l. 4. Credere in filium Dei hoc est videre hoc est audire hoc est odorari hoc est gustare hoc est contrectare eum therefore said well To believe on the Son of God this is to see him this is to hear him this is to smell this is to taste him and this is to handle him These Testimonies one would think are sufficient to tell us the Sense of the Fathers in this Matter yet with the Reader 's leave I will add a few Considerations more to put it out of all doubt 1 Consideration It appears there is no necessity to understand eating and drinking Christ's Body in the Eucharist of his natural Body received into ours because the Fathers say We eat and drink and partake of Christ's Body and Blood in Baptism which by the confession of all can be done only spiritually there Thus Cyril of Alexandria (e) In Joan. 9.6 says The Gentiles could not have shaken off their Blindness and contemplated the Divine and H. Light that is attained the Knowledge of the Holy and Consubstantial Trinity 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 unless by Holy Baptism they had been made Partakers of his Holy Flesh and washed away the blackness of their Sin and shak'd off the Devil's Power And elsewhere (f) Glaphyr in Exod. lib. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 speaking of the Eunuch He by his Question says he shewed that he was Partaker of the Spiritual Lamb for he was presently thought worthy of Baptism Fulgentius (g) De Bapt. Aethiop in fine Nisi manducaveritis carnem filii hominis biberitis ejus sanguinem non habebitis vitam in vobis Quod quisquis non solum secundùm veritatis mysteria sed secundùm mysterii veritatem considerare poterit in ipso Lavacro S. Regenerationis hoc fieri providebit Unless ye eat the Flesh of the Son of Man and drink his Blood ye shall have no Life in you Which whosoever can consider not only according to the Mystery of Truth viz. in the Sacraments but according to the Truth of the Mystery will see that this is done in the Laver of Holy Regeneration And again (h) Ibid. Nec cuiquam esse aliquatenus ambigendum tun◠unumquemque fidelium corporis sanguinisque participem fieri quando in baptismate membrum corporis Christi efficitur Neither need any one in the least doubt that every Believer is then made Partaker of Christ's Body and Blood when he is made in Baptism a Member of Christ's Body Therefore S. Basil (i) In Esa 3. says That the Lord takes away Christ from those who having put him on by Baptism 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by sinning afterwards trample upon his Body and count the Blood of the Covenant an unholy thing 2 Consideration The Fathers with reference to Eating and Drinking distinguish Christ's True Body from his Sacramental one which they could not do if Christ's True and Natural Body and Blood were eat and drunk in a proper sense in the Sacrament S. Chrysostome (k) In 1 Cor. c. 11. v. 29. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 expounding those words He that eateth and drinketh unworthily c. says As Christs Presence which brought those great and unspeakable Blessings to us did condemn those the more that did not receive it so also the Mysteries make way for greater Punishments to those that unworthily partake of them S. Austin (l) Contr. Faustum l. 20. c. 21. Hujus sacrificii caro sanguis c. in passione Christi per ipsam veritatem reddebatur post ascensum Christi per Sacramentum memoriae celebratur whose words I have given Chap. 10. Posit 2. makes the Flesh and Blood of Christ to be exhibited in the Truth at his Passion and in the Sacrament only the Memory of it to be celebrated Bede (m) In Psal 21 Intelligent in pane vino visibiliter sibi proposito aliud invisibile scilicet corpus sanguinem verum Domini qui verus cibus potus sunt quo non venter distenditur sed mens saginatur upon those words The Poor shall eat and be satisfied says By this Bread and Wine which are visibly offered to them they will understand another invisible thing viz. the true Body and Blood of our Lord which are really Meat and Drink not such as fills the Belly but which nourishes the Mind And in another place (n) In Esdram lib. 2. cap. 8. Immolatio Paschae gloriam insinuet resurrectionis cùm omnes electi carne agni immaculati id est Dei Domini nostri non amplius in Sacramento credentes sed in reipsa ac veritate videntes reficiuntur speaking of the Passover The Immolation of this Passover represents the Glory of our Resurrection when all the Elect shall eat together the Flesh of the Immaculate Lamb I mean of him who is our God and Lord no more in Sacrament as Believers but in the thing it self and in Truth as Spectators Neither is that of Isidore of Sevil (o) De Officiis Eccles l. 1 c. 15. to be passed over who mentions this Prayer in the Liturgy of his Time Ut oblatio quae Domino offertur sanctificata per spiritum sanctum corpori sanguini Christi conformetur not confirmetur as the last Colen Edition absurdly has printed it An. 1617. That the
it were possible that a wicked man continuing such should eat him that was made Flesh seeing he is the Word and the living Bread it would not have been written That whosoever eats this Bread shall live for ever This is that which Macarius (y) Homil. 14. discourses of so largely and piously Telling us that as a great rich Man having both Servants and Sons gives one sort of meat to the Servants 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and another to the Sons that he begot who being Heirs to their Father do eat with him So says he Christ the true Lord himself created all and nourishes the evil and unthankful but the Children begotten by him who are partakers of his grace and in whom the Lord is formed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. he feeds them with a peculiar refection and Food and Meat and Drink above and besides other men and gives himself to them that have Conversation with their Father as the Lord says He that eateth my Flesh and drinketh my Blood abides in me and I in him and shall not see death With whom S. Jerome (z) In c. 66. Esaiae Dum non sunt sancti corpore spiritu nec comedunt carnem Jesu neque bibunt sanguinem ejus de quo ipse loquitur Qui comedit carnem meam bibit sanguinem meum habet vitam aeternam agrees speaking of voluptuous men Not being holy in Body and Spirit they neither eat the Flesh of Jesus nor drink his Blood concerning which he says He that eateth my Flesh and drinketh my Blood hath Eternal Life S. Austin also (a) Contra Donatist post collat c. 6. De ipso pane de ipsa Dominica manu Judas partem Petrus accepit says Of that Bread and from our Lords own Hand both Judas and Peter took a part But then he (b) Tract 59. in Joan. Evang Illi manducabant Panem Dominum ille Panem Domini contra Dominum illi vitam ille poenam makes the distinction himself that Judas received only the Bread of the Lord when the other Disciples receiv'd the Bread that was the Lord. Which is directly contrary to Transubstantiation for according to that even such a one as Judas must eat the Lord and no Bread when this Father says that he ate the Bread and no Lord. Neither is S. Austin singular in this Phrase of the Bread of the Lord to signifie the real substance of that Element that is eaten in the Sacrament and not the proper Body of Christ For so S. Jerome uses it (c) In Jerem. c. 31. Confluent ad bona Domini super frumento de quo conficitur Panis Domini When he speaks of Corn of which the Bread of the Lord is made It is also very observable that as the Council of Trent as we heard before makes eating Christ Sacramentally and really to be the same and spiritual eating to be of another sort not real but one would think rather imaginary On the quite contrary the Fathers distinguish the sacramental eating from the real and make the spiritual and real eating to be the same and they will grant that a bad Man may eat Christ Sacramentally that is in sign but not really for so none but the faithful can do it For thus S. Austin (d) Serm. 2. de verb. Apost Tunc autem hoc erit id est Vita unicuique erit Corpus sanguis Christi si quod in Sacramento visibiliter sumitur in ipsa veritate spiritualiter manducetur spiritualiter bibatur Then will this be that is the Body and Blood of Christ will be Life to every one if that which is visibly taken in the Sacrament be in the Truth it self spiritually eaten and spiritually drank Which in another place (e) Tract 26. in Joan. Quod pertinet ad virtutem Sacramenti non quod pertinet ad visibile Sacramentum he expresses by the visible Sacrament and the virtue of the Sacrament Again most expresly (f) De Civit. Dei l. 21. c. 25. Ipse dicens qui manducat carnem meam bibit sanguinem meum in me manet ego in eo ostendit quid sit non Sacramento tenus sed revera Corpus Christi manducare sanguinem ejus bibere Christ saying He that eateth my Flesh and drinketh my Blood dwelleth in me and I in him shows what it is not sacramentally but really and in truth to eat Christs Body and drink his Blood. And therefore in the same Chapter (g) Ibid. Neque enim isti dicendi sunt manducare Corpus Christi quoniam nec in membris computandi sunt Christi speaking of wicked men he says Neither can they be said to eat the Body of Christ since they are not to be accounted Christs Members S. Austin again distinguishes the Sacramentum rei the Sacrament of the thing from the res Sacramenti the thing of which it is a Sacrament (h) Tract 26. in Joan. Hujus rei Sacramentum in Dominica Mensa praeparatur de Dominica Mensa sumitur quibusdam ad vitam quibusdam ad exitium Res vero ipsa cujus Sacramentum est omni homini ad vitam nulli ad exitium quicunque ejus particeps fuerit The Sacrament of this thing is prepared on the Lords Table and received from the Lords Table to some to Life and to others to destruction But the thing it self of which it is a Sacrament is for Life to every one that partakes of it and to none for destruction For as S. Chrysostom (i) Catena in Joh. 6.49 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 phrases it He that receives this Bread will be above dying I will conclude this Chapter with two remarkable places of St. Austin The first is cited by Prosper (k) Lib. Sentent ex August sententia mihi 341. vel 339. Escam vitae accipit aeternitatis poculum bibit qui in Christo manet cujus Christus habitator est Nam qui discordat à Christo nec carnem ejus manducat nec sanguinem bibit etiamsi tantae rei Sacramentum ad judicium suae praesumptionis quotidiè indifferenter accipiat who has gathered S. Austin's Sentences He receives the food of life and drinks the Cup of Eternity who abides in Christ and in whom Christ inhabits For he that disagrees with Christ neither eats his Flesh nor drinks his Blood altho' he takes indifferently every day the Sacrament of so great a thing to the Condemnation of his presumption The other place is upon the sixth Chapter of S. John (l) Tract 27. in Joan. in initio Exposuit Christus modum attributionis hujus doni sui quomodo daret carnem suam manducare dicens Qui manducat carnem meam bibit sanguinem meum in me manet ego in illo Signum quia manducat bibit hoc est si manet manetur si habitat inhabitatur si haeret ut
Wine in a Cup and said Drink ye all of this This is my Blood which is shed for many for the Remission of Sins The Apostles did as Christ commanded they consecrated Bread and Wine for the Eucharist And to his memory also afterward every one of their Successors and all Christ's Priests According to Christ's Command by the Apostolical Benediction did consecrate Bread and Wine in his Name Now Men have often disputed P. 470. and do it still How that Bread which is prepared of Corn and is baked by the heat of Fire can be changed into Christ's Body and how that Wine which is pressed out of many Grapes by any blessing of it can be changed into our Lord's Blood Now to such Men I answer that some things are spoken of Christ by signification some others by a known thing It is a true thing and known that Christ was born of a Virgin and voluntarily suffered Death and was buried and this Day rose from the Dead He is called Bread and a Lamb and a Lion and otherwise by signification He is called Bread because he is our Life and the Life of Angels He is called a Lamb for his Innocency A Lion for his Strength whereby he overcame the strong Devil Yet notwithstanding according to true Nature Christ is neither Bread nor a Lamb nor a Lion. Wherefore then is that Holy Eucharist called Christ's Body or his Blood if it be not truly what it is called Truly the Bread and Wine which are consecrated by the Mass of the Priests show one thing outwardly to Mens Senses and another thing they declare inwardly to believing Minds Outwardly Bread and Wine are seen both in appearance and in tast yet they are truly after Consecration Christ's Body and Blood by a Spiritual Sacrament An Heathen Child is Baptized yet he altereth not his outward shape though he be changed within He is brought to the Font full of Sin through Adam's Disobedience but he is washed from all his Sins inwardly tho' he has not changed his outward Shape So also that Holy Font-Water which is called the Well-spring of Life is like in Nature in specie to other Waters and is subject to corruption but the Power of the Holy Ghost by the Priest's Blessing comes upon that corruptible Water and after that it can wash both Body and Soul from all Sins P. 471. by spiritual Power We see now in this one Creature two things that whereby according to true Nature it is corruptible Water and that whereby according to the Spiritual Mystery it has a saving Power So also if we look upon that Holy Eucharist according to a corporeal Sense then we see that it is a Creature corruptible and changeable but if we own a spiritual Power there then we understand that Life is in it and that it confers Immortality on those that tast it by Faith. There is a great difference betwixt the insible Vertue and Power of this Holy Eucharist and the visible appearance of its proper Nature By its Nature it is corruptible Bread and corruptible Wine and by the Virtue of the Divine Word it is truly the Body and Blood of Christ yet not corporally so but spiritually There is much differencce betwixt that Body which Christ suffer'd in and that Body which is consecrated for the Eucharist The Body that Christ suffer'd in was Born of the Flesh of Mary with Blood and Bones with Skin and Nerves animated by a rational Spirit in humane Members but his Spiritual Body which we call the Eucharist is collected from many grains of Corn without Blood and Bone without Member or Soul wherefore there is nothing in it to be understood Corporeally but all is to be understood Spiritually Whatsoever is in that Eucharist which restores Life to us this is from Spiritual Virtue and from invisible Operation Therefore that Holy Eucharist is called a Sacrament because one thing is there seen and another thing understood that which is there seen has a bodily Nature that which we understand in it has a spiritual Virtue The Body of Christ that suffered Death P. 472. and rose from the Dead henceforth dies no more but is eternal and impassible That Eucharist is Temporary not Eternal it is corruptible and capable of division into minute Parts it is chewed with the Teeth and sent into the draught yet it will be true that according to spiritual Virtue it is whole in every part Many receive that Holy Body yet according to the spiritual Mystery it will be whole in every part Tho' some receive a lesser part of it yet there will not be more virtue in the greater part than in the lesser because it will be whole in all Men according to the invisible virtue This Sacrament is a Pledg and a Type the Body of Christ is the Truth We keep this Pledg Sacramentally till we come to the Truth it self and then is the Pledg at an end It is indeed as we said before Christ's Body and his Blood but not Corporally but Spiritually Do not dispute how this can be effected but believe it firmly that so it is Here follow some idle Visions which that credulous Age were fond of but are nothing to the purpose and therefore I omit them Paul the Apostle speaketh of the old Israelites writing thus in his Epistle to the Faithful P. 473. All our Fore-fathers were baptized in the Cloud and in the Sea and all ate the same spiritual Meat and all drank the same spiritual Drink for they drank of that spiritual Rock and that Rock was Christ That Rock from whence the Water then flowed was not Christ in a Corporal Sense but it signified Christ who declared thus to the Faithful Whosoever thirsteth let him come to me and drink and from his belly shall flow living Water This he said of the Holy Ghost which they that Believed on him should receive The Apostle Paul said that the People of Israel ate the same spiritual Meat and drank the same Spiritual Drink because the heavenly Food that fed them for forty Years and that Water that flowed from the Rock signified Christ's Body and Blood which are now dayly offered in the Church of God. It was the same which we offer to day not corporally but spiritually We told you before that Christ consecrated Bread and Wine for the Eucharist before his Passion and said This is my Body and my Blood he had not yet suffered and yet he changed by his invisible Power that Bread into his Body and that Wine into his Blood as he did before in the Wilderness before he was born Man when he turned the heavenly Food into his Flesh and that Water flowing from the Rock into his Blood. P. 474. Many Persons ate of the Heavenly Food in the Desart and drank of the Spiritual Drink and yet as Christ said are dead Christ meant not that Death which no Man can avoid but he understood eternal Death which several of
that People for their Unbelief had deserved Moses and Aaron and several others of the People that pleased God ate that heavenly Bread and did not die that everlasting Death tho' they died the common Death They saw that the heavenly Food was visible and Corruptible but they understood that visible thing spiritually and they tasted it spiritually Jesus said Whoso eateth my Flesh and drinketh my Blood hath Eternal Life He did not command them to eat that Body which he had assumed nor to drink that Blood which he shed for us but by that Speech he meant the Holy Eucharist which is Spiritually his Body and his Blood and whosoever tasteth this with a believing Heart shall have that Eternal Life Under the old Law the Faithful offered divers Sacrifices to God which had a future signification of the Body of Christ which he hath offered in Sacrifice to his heavenly Father for our Sins This Eucharist which is now consecrated at God's Altar is a Commemoration of the Body of Christ which he offered for us and of his Blood which he shed for us As he himself commanded Do this in remembrance of me Christ once suffered by himself but yet his Passion by the Sacrament of this Holy Eucharist is daily renewed at the Holy Mass Wherefore the Holy Mass is profitable very much both for the Living and also for the Dead as it hath been often declared c. The rest of the Sermon being of a moral and allegorical Nature I omit Besides this Sermon in Publick we have also two other Remains of Elfrike the Abbot in the Saxon Tongue * Published at the end of the foresaid Sermon printed by John Day Also in the Notes on Bede's Eccl. Hist p. 332 333 334. which speak the very same Sense and deserve to be inserted as far as they concern this Argument of the Eucharist and the change made in it The first is an Epistle to Wulffine Bishop of Shyrburn in which is this Passage The Eucharist is not the Body of Christ corporally but spiritually not the Body in which he suffered but that Body when he consecrated Bread and Wine for the Eucharist the night before his Passion and said of the Bread he Blessed This is my Body and again of the Wine he blessed This is my Blood which is shed for many for the Remission of Sins Now then understand that the Lord who was able to change that Bread before his Passion into his Body and that Wine into his Blood Spiritually that the same Lord by the Hands of the Priests daily consecrates Bread and Wine for his Spiritual Body and for his Spiritual Blood. The second an Epistle of Elfricke to Wulfstane Arch-Bishop of York in which among other things against too long reserving the Eucharist he says thus Vid. p. 334. Hist Eccles Sax. Lat. Bedae Christ himself consecrated the Eucharist before his Passion he blessed Bread and brake it saying thus to his Apostles Eat this Bread it is my Body and again he blessed the Cup filled with Wine and spake thus to them Drink ye all of this it is my Blood of the New Testament which is shed for many for the Remission of Sins Our Lord who consecrated the Eucharist before his Passion and said that Bread was his Body and Wine truly his Blood he also daily consecrates by the Priests hands Bread for his Body and Wine for his Blood in a Spiritual Mystery as we read in Books Yet notwithstanding that Lively Bread is not the same Body in which Christ suffered nor that Holy Wine the Blood of our Saviour which was shed for us in bodily thing or sence in re corporali but in a Spiritual sence in ratione Spirituali That Bread indeed was his Body and also that Wine his Blood just as that heavenly Bread which we call Manna which fed God's People forty Years viz. was his Body and that clear Water was his Blood that then flowed from the Rock in the Wilderness As Paul writes in his Epistle They all ate the same spiritual Meat and drank the same spiritual Drink c. The Apostle that says what you have heard They all ate c. he do's not say corporally but spiritually Christ was not as yet born nor his Blood shed then it was the People of Israel did eat that Spiritual Meat and drank of that Rock neither was that Rock Christ Corporeally tho' he spake so The Sacraments of the Old Law were the same and did spiritually signify that Sacrament or Eucharist of our Saviour's Body which we now consecrate This Last Epistle Elfricke wrote first in the Latin Tongue to Wulfstane containing tho' not word for word yet the whole Sence of the English Epistle and that Paragraph of it which I have inclosed between two Brackets was look'd upon as so disagreeable to the present Faith of the Roman Church that some had rased them out of the Worcester Book but the same Latin Epistle being found in Exceter Church it was restored I was once about to have added some Citations here out of Bertram's Book de corpore sanguine Domini out of which many passages in the Saxon Sermon foregoing were taken But they are so many that I must have transcribed and the Book it self is small and so well worth the reading especially with the late Translation of it into English and a Learned Historical Dissertation before it giving a large account of the Difference betwixt his Opinion and that of Transubstantiation printed An 1686 that I shall rather refer the Reader to it where he may abundantly satisfy himself Instead of it I will only add one Testimony more out of Rabanus Arch-bishop of Mentz in an Epistle to Heribaldus * Epist ad Herib c. 33. de Eucharist Which we are beholden to the Learned Baluzius for giving it us entire in Appendice ad Reginonem p. 516. a Passage having been rased out of the Manuscript out of which it was first published Thus he says As for the Question you put Quod autem interrogastis utrum Eucharistia postquam consumitur in secessum emittitur more aliorum ciborum iterum redeat in naturam pristinam quam habuerat antequam in Altari consecraretur superflua est hujusmodi Quaestio cùm ipse Salvator dixerit in Evangelio Omne quod intrat iâ—â—s in ventrem vadit in secâ—ssum emittitur Sacramentum Corporis Sanguinis ex rebus visibilibus corporalibus conficitur sed invisibilem tà m corporis quà m arimae efficit sanctificationem Quae est enim ratio ut hoc quod stomacho digeritur in secessum emittitur iterum in statum pristinum redeat cum nullus hoc unquam fieri asseruerit Nam quidam nuper de ipso Sacramento corporis sanguinis Domini non ritè sentientes dixerunt hoc ipsum corpus sanguinem Domini quod de Maria Virgine natum est in quo ipse Dominus passus est in Cruce resurrexit
de sepulchro Idea issi quod sumitur de altari cui errori quantum potuimus ad Egilonem Abbalem scriâ—â—â—â—â— de corpore ipso quid verè credendum sit aperuimus Whether the Eucharist after it is consumed and sent into the Draught as other Meats are do's return again into its former Nature which it had before it was consecrated on the Altar This Question is supersluous when our Saviour himself has said in the Gospel Every thing that entreth into the Mouth goeth into the Belly and is cast out into the Draught The Sacrament of the Body and Blood is made up of things Visible and Corporeal but effects the Invisible Sanctification both of Body and Soul. And what reason is there that what is digested in the Stomach and sent into the Draught shou'd return into its pristine State seeing none has ever asserted that this was done Some indeed of late not thinking rightly of the Sacrament of our Lord's Body and Blood have said which are the very words of Paschasius whom he opposes that the very Body and Blood of our Lord which was born of the Virgin Mary and in which our Lord suffered on the Cross and rose again out of the Grave is the same that is taken from the Altar which Error we having opposed as we were able writing to the Abbot Egilo and declared what ought truly to be believed concerning the Body it self That which he calls here an Error is an Article now of the Romish Faith which some Zealous Monk meeting withal and not enduring it should be condemned as an Error that the same Body which was born of the Virgin c. is the same that we receive at the Altar scraped out those words which I have inclosed between the Brackets and we may securely trust our Adversaries in this Matter who have skill enough to know what Assertions make for them and what against them CHAP. XVII The CONCLUSION That the Doctrine of Transubstantiation has given a new occasion to the Enemies of Christian Religion to blaspheme It is so great a stumbling-block to the Jews that their Conversion is hopeless whilst this is believed by them to be the Common Faith of Christians That tho' the Church of Rome will not hearken to us yet they may be provoked to emulation by the Jews themselves who have given a better account of Christ's Words of Institution and more agreeable to the Fathers than this Church has and raised unanswerable Objections against its Doctrine HAving considered in the foregoing Chapters the Sense of the Ancient Church about Matters relating to the Eucharist and Transubstantiation from their own Writings and found that their Assertions are inconsistent with the Belief of the present Roman Church and that their Practices are not to be reconciled thereunto Having also made an Enquiry into the Ancient forms of Devotion relating to the Eucharist remaining still in this Church and found them to speak a Language which has a Sence agreeing indeed with that of the Ancients but no Sence at all when the Doctrine of Transubstantiation is supposed and those Prayers to be interpreted by it c. I shall now for a Conclusion take a view also of the principal Enemies of the Christian Faith which will afford a convincing Evidence that the Roman Doctrine is Novel and a stranger to the Ancient Christians It is sufficiently known that the Adversaries of Christianity took all the occasions possible and whatsoever gave them any colour to reproach the Faith and Worship of Christians and to make their Names odious Nothing that looked strange and absurd in either escaped being taken notice of by such as Celsus and Porphyry Lucian and Julian among the Heathens and such as Trypho among the Jews They curiously examined and surveyed what they taught and practised and whatsoever they thought to be foolish and incredible they with all their wit and cunning endeavoured to expose it So they did with the Doctrines of the Trinity the Eternal Generation of the Son of God his Incarnation his Crucifixion especially and our Resurrection Neither were they less praying into the Christian Mysteries and Worship which they could not be ignorant of there being so many Deserters and Apostates in those Times of Persecution who were well acquainted with them and by threatnings and fear of torment if there were any thing secret were likely to betray them Not to insist upon this that the great Traducer of Christians I mean Julian was himself once initiated in their Mysteries and so could not be Ignorant of what any of them were and has in particular laught at their Baptism that Christians should fansy a purgation thereby from Great Crimes Yet after all this they took no occasion from the Eucharist to traduce them tho if Christians then had given that adoration to it that is now paid in the Roman Church and if they had declared either for a Corporal Presence or an oral Manducation of him that was their God they had the fruitfullest Subject in the World given them both to turn off all the Objections of the Christians against themselves for worshipping senseless and inanimate things and also to lay the most plausible Charge of folly and madness against them which their great Orator * Cicero l. 3. de Nat. Deorum Ecquem tam amentem esse putas qui illud quo vescatur Deum credat esse had pronounced before Christianity was a Religion in the World. Can any Man be supposed so mad to believe that to be a God which he eats A Learned Romanist †Rigaltius notis ad Tertal lib. 2. c. 5. ad Vxorem Se id facere in Eucharisticis suis testarentur affirms of the Ancient Christians That they did testify their eating the Flesh and drinking the Blood of their Lord God in their Discourses of the Eucharist Which is true indeed taking this eating and drinking in the Sacramental Sence we do and so their Adversaries must needs understand their meaning Otherwise without a Miracle to hinder it what be acknowledges in the same place could never be true (a) Ibid. Observandum vero inter tot probra convitia accusantium Christianos impietatis eò quod neque aras haberent neque sacrificarent interque tot fratrum perfidorum transfugia non extitisse qui Christianos criminarentur quod Dei ac Domini sui carnes ederent sanguinem potarent That among so many Reproaches of those that accused Christians of Impiety for not having Altars nor Sacrifices and among so many false Brethren that were Turn-coats yet there were none that made this an Accusation against them that they ate the Flesh of their God and Lord and drank his Blood. We have this ingenuous confession of Bellarmine himself (*) De Eucharist l. 2. c. 12. Verè stulti haberi possemus si absque Verbo Dei crederemus veram Christi carnem ore corporali manducari That we might be accounted truly Fools if without the
XIII The Thirteenth Difference The Fathers assert that the Faithful only eat Christs Body and drink his Blood not the wicked the Ro. Church extends it to both 131 The Church of Rome will have not only the wicked but bruit Creatures to eat it 132 The Cautions of the Mass suppose this ibid. The Fathers will not allow the wicked to partake of Christs Body 133 Two remarkable Testimonies of St. Austin 136 CHAP. XIV The Fourteenth Difference The different practices and usages of the two-Churches argue their different opinions about the Eucharist 137 Eight Instances of their differing practices given 1 Instance The Ancient Church excluded Catechumens Penitents c. from being present at the Mysteries enjoining all present to communicate ibid. In the Ro. Ch. any may be Spectators tho' none receive but the Priest 139 2 Inst The old practice was to give the Communion in both kinds 140 Transubstantiation made this practice cease 141. New devices for security against profaning Christs Blood. 142 No reason why the Fathers have not been as cautious in this as the Ro. Church but their different belief 143 3 Inst The Elevation of the Host that all may adore it the Roman practice 145 This not used in the first Ages at all when used afterwards not for Adoration 145 146 4. Inst The Rom. Church allows not the people to receive the Sacrament with their Hands but all is put by the Priest into their Mouths contrary to the Ancient Practice 147 5 Inst The Anc. Church used Glass Cups for the Wine which would be criminal now 148 6 Inst They mixed of old the Consecr Wine with Ink which would now be abhorr'd 149 7 Inst In the Reservation of the Eucharist Three differences herein consider'd 1 Difference The Anc. Church took no care to reserve what was not received in the Eucharist but the Ro. Church reserves all 151 c. 2 Differ What had been publickly received the Anc. Church allowed liberty to reserve privately 156. The present Ch. in no case allows such private reservation 157. 3. Differ They put what was so reserved to such uses of old as the Ro. Church would think profane 157 158 c. 8 Inst The infinite sollicitous caution to prevent accidents in the administration of the Sacrament their frights and strange expiations when they happen all unknown and strangers to the Ancient Church 160 c. Which is proved positively from the continued practice of Communicating Infants till Transubstantiation abolished it 165 This still a practice in the Eastern Churches that submit not to the Roman Church 167 CHAP. XV. The Fifteenth Difference About their Prayers in two particulars 1. That the old Prayers in the Canon of the Mass agree not with the Faith of the now Ro. Church 168 2. That their New Prayers to the Sacrament have no Example in the Anc. Church 175 CHAP. XVI The Sixteenth Difference That our ancient Saxon Church differ'd from the present Rom. Church in the Article of the corporal presence 182 c. The Saxon Easter-Sermon produc'd as a Testimony against them 183 184 c. Two Epistles of Elfric the Abbot declare against that Doctrine 187 188. A Remarkable Testimony also of Rabanus Archbishop of Mentz alledged 189 CHAP. XVII The Conclusion of the whole Shewing that Heathens and Jews reproached not the Ancient Christians about the Eucharist 191. Transubstantiation occasion'd new Calumnies from both 194. The Jew's Conversion seems to be hopeless whilst this is believed by them to be the common Faith of Christians 195. That the Jews have better explained Christs words of Institution agreed better with the Ancient Church in understanding the Sacrament in a figurative sense and have confuted Transubstantiation by unanswerable Arguments proved by Instances from p. 196. to the end Faults Escaped PAge 5. line 16. marg r. Serm. 5. p. 10. l. 7. marg r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 39. l. 11. r. supposes p. 53. l. 2. marg r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 68. l. 26. marg r. Serm. 5 p. 69. l. 10. r. thou art wholly changed in the inward Man Ibid. l. 12. marg r. totus in interiore homine mutatus es p. 73. l. 6. marg r. qui p. 98. l. 5. à fine r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 149. l. 26. r. Paten p. 152. l. 10. r. Evagrius p. 171. l. 23. r. that of Abel CHAP. I. The First Difference The Church of Rome is forced to assert a continued Series of Miracles to justifie her Doctrine of Transubstantiation But the Fathers never mention any Miracles in the Eucharist save only the Effects of God's powerful Grace working great Changes in us and advancing the Elements in the use of them thereunto without changing their Nature and Substance TO give the Reader a View of what Wonders are to be believed according to what the Trent Council has decreed concerning Transubstantiation we need go no further than to the Trent Catechism * Ad Parochos part 2. num 25. which tells us there are three most wonderful things which the Catholick Faith without any doubting believes and confesses are effected in this Sacrament by the Words of Consecration 1. That the true Body of Christ that same Body which was born of the Virgin and sits at the Right-hand of the Father is conteined in this Sacrament 2. That no Substance of the Elements remains in it tho' nothing may seem more strange and remote from our Senses 3. What is easily collected from both That the Accidents which are seen with our Eyes or are perceived by our other Senses are without any Subject in which they subsist in a strange manner not to be explained So that all the Accidents of Bread and Wine may be seen which yet inhere in no Substance but subsist by themselves since the Substance of the Bread and Wine are so changed into the very Body and Blood of our Lord that the Substance of Bread and Wine cease wholly to be But others of the Romish Writers have made a larger and more particular Enumeration of the Miracles wrought in the Eucharist which no Created Power can effect but God's Omnipotency alone I 'le give them in the Words of the Jesuite Pererius * In Joan. c. 6. Disp 16. num 48. who reckons these Nine distinct Miracles 1. The same Christ remaining in Heaven not departing thence and without any local mutation is really and corporally in the Sacrament of the Eucharist 2. Nor is he thus there only in one consecrated Host but is together in all Host consecrated throughout the whole Earth 3. Tho' the Body of Christ in the Sacrament has all its Quantity and Colour and other sensible Qualities yet as it is in the Sacrament it is neither there visibly nor quantitatively * Quantum ad situm extensionem ejus ad locum as to its fitus and extension unto Place 4. Tho' the Body of Christ be in it self greater than a Consecrated Host yet according to the
species manent sicut substantia conversa mansisset Et si species incorruptae evomuntur vel egrediuntur est ibi vere corpus Christi agrees citing Paludanus in the case Therefore the Body and Blood of Christ remains so long in the Belly and Stomach or Vomit or any where else as the Species remain just as the converted Substance viz. Bread and Wine would have remained And if the Species are vomited up whole or go forth downwards there is truly the Body of Christ. And he tells us of S. Hugo Cluniac how he commended one Goderanus who by a strange fervor swallowed down the Particles of an Host which a Leper had vomited up with vile Spittle saying That S. Laurence his Gridiron was more tolerable If these Consequences seem horrid and detestable to the Reader the Doctrine from which they necessarily flow ought to be look'd upon much more so But now to return to the Fathers and their Sense of Eating the Body of Christ. It is evident to any that will impartially consult their Writings that they were perfect Strangers to all these Cases that are thus currently resolved in the Roman Church That Christ's Natural Body should enter into ours is too gross and carnal a Thought to be attributed to them and fits only the Imaginations of a Carnal Church and of those Capernaites who in the Sixth of S. John ask How can this Man give us his Flesh to eat Christ tells them That the Words he spoke to them were Spirit and Life And so the Fathers always understood the eating of Christ's Body and drinking his Blood not in a literal and proper but in a figurative and spiritual Sense as I shall now prove from their Writings Wherein it may not be amiss to take notice first What their Sense is about understanding things carnally and spiritually S. Chrysostome (z) Hom. 46. in Joan. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 asking this Question What is it to think or understand carnally He answers Simply to look upon the things proposed and to think of no more But we ought to view all Mysteries with our inward Eyes for this is spiritually to view them S. Austin (a) De Doctr. Christ l. 3. c. 5. Cùm figuratè dictum sic accipitur tanquam propriè dictum sit carnaliter sapitur gives the same account We have a carnal Taste when we take that which is figuratively spoken as if it were properly spoken And elsewhere (b) Serm. 44. de diversis Omnis figurata allegorica lectio vel locutio aliud videtur sonare carnaliter aliud insinuare spiritualiter Every figurative and allegorical Reading or Speech seems to sound one thing carnally and to insinuate another thing spiritually S. Austin (c) De Doctr. Christ l. 3. c. 16. Si praeceptiva est locutio aut flagitium aut facinus vetans aut beneficentiam jubens non est figurata Si autem flagitium aut facinus videtur jubere aut utilitatem aut beneficentiam vetare figurata est Nisi manducaveritis carnem filii hominis c. facinus vel flagitium videtur jubere Figura ergo est praecipiens passioni Domini esse communicandum suaviter atque utiliter in memoria condendum quod caro ejus pro nobis crucifixa vulnerata est further gives a Rule when to understand a thing literally and when to understand it figuratively and spiritually If the Speech be by way of command either forbidding a Crime or heinous Wickedness or bidding a beneficial or good thing to be done it is not figurative But if it seems to command a Crime or heinous Wickedness or forbid an useful and beneficial thing it is figurative And then he gives the Example of his Rule in those words of Christ Except ye eat the Flesh and drink the Blood of the Son of Man ye have no Life in you Now this says he seems to command a Crime or horrid thing therefore it is a Figure commanding us to communicate in the Passion of our Lord and sweetly and profitably to treasure up in our Memory that his Flesh was crucified and wounded for us Origen said the very same before him (d) Hom. 7. in Levitic Non solùm in Veteri Testamento occidens Litera deprehenditur est in N. Testamento Litera quae occidit eum qui non spiritualiter quae dicuntur adverterit Si enim secundùm literam sequaris hoc ipsum quod dictum est Nisi manducaveritis carnem meam biberitis sanguinem meum occidit haec litera and gives the same Instance Not only in the Old Testament is found the killing Letter there is also in the New Testament a Letter that kills him who do's not spiritually consider what is said For if thou follow this according to the Letter which was said Unless ye eat my Flesh and drink my Blood this Letter kills And in another place (e) In Joan. Tom. 10. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 We are not to eat the Flesh of the Lamb as the Slaves of the Letter do c. To which he opposes those who receive the Spirituals of the Word Such as those whom S. Austin mentions (f) In Joan. tract 26. Quia visibilem cibum spiritaliter intellexerunt spiritaliter esurierunt spiritaliter gustavérunt ut spiritaliter satiarentur who pleased God and died not i. e. eternally Because they understood the visible Food Manna spiritually they hungred spiritually they tasted spiritually that they might spiritually be satisfied Or as he expresses it a little after (g) Ibid. Qui manducat intus non foris qui manducat in corde non qui premit dente He that eats inwardly not outwardly that eats in his Heart not he that presseth it with his Teeth And therefore elsewhere * Serm. 33. de Verb. Dom. Nolite parate fauces sed cor exhorts them Do not prepare your Jaws but your Heart This is what Clemens Alexandr (h) Strom. l. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 requires when he says That Christ when he broke the Bread set it before them that we may eat it rationally i. e. spiritually So S. Austin again (i) De Verb. Apost Serm. 2. Tunc vita unicuique erit corpus sanguis Christi si quod in sacramento visibiliter sumitur in ipsa veritate spiritualiter manducetur spiritualiter bibatur The Body and Blood of Christ will then be Life to every one if what is visibly taken in the Sacrament be in truth spiritually eaten and spiritually drunk Where he makes this to be eating in Truth and the other but Sacramental So Macarius (k) Homil. 27. having called the Bread and Wine the Antitype of Christ's Flesh and Blood he adds 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 They which are Partakers of the visible Bread do spiritually eat the Flesh of the Lord. He should rather have said orally according to the Doctrine of our Adversaries S. Athanasius
Oblation which is offered to God being sanctified by the Holy Spirit may be conformed to the Body and Blood of Christ Which very Phrase shews a difference betwixt what we receive in the Eucharist and the true Body and Blood of Christ Else it would not be Conformity but Identity as Monsieur Claude has well observed 3 Consideration They say That the Fathers under the Old Testament did eat the same spiritual Meat with us and give this as the Reason why it is spiritual Meat Because it is not eaten corporally but by Faith. Therefore both they and we must eat the same Meat only spiritually not corporally S. Austin has said so much in this Argument that I need go no further And I might insist upon many Passages I have upon other occasions named before as that in his Treatise upon S. John's Gospel (p) Tract 45. in Ev. Joan. Videte fide manente signa variata Ibi petra Christus nobis Christus quod in altari Dei ponitur Et illi pro magno Sacramento ejusdem Christi biberunt aquam profluentem de petra nos quid bibamus norunt fideles Si speciem visibilem intendas aliud est si intelligibilem significationem eundem potum spiritualem biberunt where explaining that of the same spiritual Drink the Fathers drank he has such Expressions as these See the Signs are varied Faith remaining the same There the Rock was Christ in Sign to us that which is laid on the Altar is Christ and they drank of the Water that flowed from the Rock for a great Sacrament of the same Christ what we drink the Faithful know If you regard the visible Species or Nature it is another thing if the spiritual or intelligible Signification they drank the same spiritual Drink In another place (q) Idem in Psal 77. Idem in mysterio cibus potus illorum qui noster sed significatione idem non specie Quia idem ipse Christus illis in petra figuratus nobis in carne manifestatus est Their Meat and Drink was the same with ours in Mystery not in Substance or Species the same but in Signification Because the same Christ who was figured to them in the Rock is manifested to us in the Flesh To add but one place more which fully comprehends the whole sense of the Argument (r) De Vtilit Poenitentiae cap. 1. Where S. Austin explaining the same words of our Fathers eating the same spiritual Meat c. he discourses thus Apostolus dicit Patres nostros non patres infidelium non patres impiorum manducantes morientes sed patres nostros patres fidelium spiritalem cibum manducasse ideo eundem Erant enim ibi quibus plus Christus in corde quam Manna in ore sapiebat Quicunque in Manna Christum intellexerunt eundem quem nos cibum spiritalem manducaverunt Sic etiam eundem potum Petra enim erat Christus Eundem ergo potum quem nos sed spiritalem id est qui fide capiebatur non qui corpore hauriebatur Eundem ergo cibum sed intelligentibus credentibus non intelligentibus autem illud solum Manna illa sola aqua c. The Apostle says That our Fathers not the Fathers of Unbelievers not the Fathers of the Wicked that did eat and die but our Fathers the Fathers of the Faithful did eat spiritual Meat and therefore the same For there were such there to whom Christ was more tasteful in their Heart than Manna in their Mouth Whosoever understood Christ in the Manna did eat the same spiritual Meat we do So also the same Drink For the Rock was Christ Therefore they drank the same Drink we do but spiritual Drink that is Drink which was received by Faith not what was swallowed down by the Body They ate therefore the same Meat the same to those that understand and believe but to them that do not understand it was only that Manna only that Water c. Here you see S. Austin calls that Spiritual Drink which Faith receives not which the Body takes down And thus whether Christ be come or be to come it 's all one as he says a little after Venturus venit diversa verba sunt sed idem Christus because Faith can apprehend what shall be as well as what is But if our Eating be Christ's natural Body swallowed down our Bodies then their Meat and ours were not the same For Christ could not be thus their Meat because then he had not taken Flesh upon him therefore those old Fathers could not take it down in the oral Sense 4 Consideration The Body and Blood are to be eaten and drunk and to be received as they are represented and set before us in the Sacrament But there the Body of Christ according to the Fathers as well as the Scriptures is set before us as broken and dead and his Blood as poured out of his Veins Therefore it can be eaten and drunk by us only figuratively and spiritually If the Reader look back to Chap. 10. Posit 4. he will find a great many Testimonies especially out of S. Chrysostome to prove that the Fathers considered Christ's Body in the Sacrament as slain and dead and his Blood poured out of his Veins and separated from his Body And how S. Chrysostome at the same time when he tells us that Christ has given us leave to be filled with his Holy Flesh s (i) Hom. 51. in Matth. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he has proposed and set himself before us as slain This I shall now give a further account of seeing the Fathers speak nothing more plainly and fully than this S. Austin (t) In Psal 100. Nos de cruce Domini pascimur quia corpus ipsius manducamus not only tells us in general That we are fed from our Lord's Cross because we eat his Body but more expresly says (u) Serm. 9. de 40. edit à Sirmondo Qui se pro nobis in mensa crucis obtulit sacrificium Deo Patri donans Ecclesiae suae Catholicae vitale convivium corpore suo nos videlicet satians inebrians sanguine That Christ offered himself a Sacrifice for us to God the Father on the Table of the Cross giving to his Catholick Church a vital Banquet viz. by satiating us with his Body and inebriating us with his Blood. But all this by looking upon him on the Table of the Cross sacrificed and slain This made Gr. Nyssen (x) Orat. 1. in Resurr Dom. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 say That the Body of the Victim speaking of Christ is not fit for eating if it be alive And S. Cyprian (y) Lib. 2. Ep. 3. Nec nos sanguinem Christi possemus bibere nisi prius calcatus fuisset pressus Neither should we be able to drink the Blood of Christ unless it were first trodden and pressed Alluding to Grapes in a Wine-press and that Christ's Blood must be out of
his Veins when we drink it and so considered by us But none of the Ancients has given a fuller Account of this than Hesychius (z) Com. in Lev. l. 1. Carnem ejus quae ad comedendum inepta erat ante passionem aptam cibo post passionem fecit Si enim non fuisset crucifixus sacrificium corporis ejus minimè comederemus Comedimus autem nunc cibum sumentes ejus memoriam passionis who says That Christ made his Flesh fit to be eaten after his Passion which was not fit to be eaten before his Passion For if he had not been crucified we could by no means eat the Sacrifice of his Body But now we eat Food receiving the Memory of his Passion And again (a) Ib. l. 2. Sartaginem Domini crucem accipi oportet quae etiam superimpositam Dominicam carnem esibilem hominibus reddidit Nisi enim superimposita fuisset cruci nos corpus Christi nequaquà m mysticè percepissemus he compares the Cross to a Gridiron which when our Lord's Flesh is put upon it makes it fit to be Food of Men For unless it had been laid thus upon the Cross we could in no wise mystically have received Christ's Body And because this Food which is thus mystically to be eaten could not be fit Food for us unless Christ was crucified and slain therefore in several places he speaks of Christ as slaying himself in the Eucharist which cannot be understood properly before he was slain upon the Cross Thus he says (b) Ib. l. 1. Praeveniens seipsum in caena Apostolorum immolavit quod sciunt qui mysteriorum virtutem percipiunt Christ by way of anticipation slew or sacrificed himself in the Supper of the Apostles which they know that perceive the Virtue of the Mysteries Again (c) Ib. l. 2. Prius figuratam ovem cum Apostolis caenans Dominus posteà suum obtulit sacrificium secundò sicut ovem seipsum occidit Our Lord first supping upon the figurative Lamb with the Apostles did afterwards offer his Sacrifice and a second time as a Lamb slew himself And now after all these Testimonies and Considerations which put together demonstratively conclude against any eating of Christ's Body or drinking his Blood but what is spiritual and figurative I 'll put an end to this Chapter with two remarkable Sayings of S. Austin The first is upon the 98 Psalm (d) In Ps 98. where he confutes those who when our Saviour spake of eating his Flesh and drinking his Blood were offended at this as an hard Saying and then expounding that which Christ added The words I speak are Spirit and Life he makes our Lord speak thus to them Spiritualiter intelligite quod locutus sum Non hoc corpus quod videtis manducaturi estis bibituri illum sanguinem quem fusuri sunt qui me crucifigent Sacramentum aliquod vobis commendavi spiritualiter intellectum vivificabit vos si necesse est illud visibiliter celebrari oportet tamen invisibiliter intelligi Understand spiritually what I have spoken You are not to eat this Body which you see nor to drink that Blood which they shall shed that will crucifie me I have commended a certain Sacrament to you which if spiritually understood will give Life to you and if it be necessary this Sacrament should be visibly celebrated yet it must be invisibly i. e. spiritually understood by you No Protestant could chuse Words to express his Mind more fully by in this Matter His other Saying is against the Manichees who fansied a latent Christ in the Fruits of Trees and Ears of Corn and professed to eat him that was passible with their Mouths S. Austin thus sarcastically derides them (e) Contr. Faustum l. 20. c. 11. Ore aperto expectatis quis inferat Christum tanquam optimae sepulturae faucibus vestris Ye expect with open Mouth who should bring in Christ into your Jaws as the best Sepulcher for him If S. Austin had been for Oral Manducation of Christ's Body in the Eucharist he could not have had the confidence to have objected this as a Reproach to the Manichees which might so easily have been returned with shame upon himself I conclude therefore that the Trent Fathers when they called the Sacramental and Oral Manducation real eating to distinguish it from the spiritual eating and made that Canon (f) Conc. Trid. Sess 13. Can 8. Si quis dixerit Christum in Eucharistia exhibitum spiritualiter tantùm manducari non etiam sacramentaliter ac realiter anathema sit If any shall say That Christ exhibited in the Eucharist is only spiritually eaten and not also sacramentally and really let him be Anathema that herein they were so far from designing to testifie their Consent with the Fathers who as you have heard generally say the contrary that they seem rather to have had a Conspiracy against them CHAP. XIII The Thirteenth Difference The Fathers assert That the Faithful only eat Christs Body and drink his Blood in the Eucharist not the wicked Whereas they of the present Roman Church extend it to both THIS Assertion being a necessary consequence of the foregoing one will make my work the shorter for its proof What the Church of Rome holds in this matter cannot be questioned The Trent Catechism speaking of such a Person that makes no distinction betwixt the Sacrament and other common food expresses it thus (g) Catechis ad Paroch Part. 2. n. 27. Qui impurè sumens corpus Domini quod in Eucharistia occultè latet Who impurely taking the Body of the Lord which lies hid in the Eucharist there it is hid they mean under the species and the wicked take it Therefore Dom. Soto who was one of the Council of Trent says (h) In 4. dist 12. qu. 1. art 3. Est indubiè tenendum quòd corpus sc Christi descendit in Stomachum etiamsi ab iniquo sumatur We must undoubtedly hold that the Body of Christ descends into the stomach tho' a wicked man takes it So Aquinas (i) Part. 3. quaest 80. art 3. conclus Cùm corpus Christi in Sacramento semper permaneat donec species Sacramentales corrumpantur etiam injustos homines Christi corpus manducare consequitur Seeing the Body of Christ always remains in the Sacrament till the Sacramental Species are corrupted it follows that even wicked men do eat the Body of Christ. Alensis (k) Part. 4. Qu. 11. memb 2. art 2. sec 2. Illud sentire erroneum est manifestè contra sanctos ideo communiter tenetur quod in hoc non est differentia inter justum injustum quia uterque ipsum verum corpus Christi sumit in Sacramento c. Unde concedendum quod mali sumunt rem Sacramenti quod est corpus Christi verum quod natum est de Virgine c. taking notice of the opinion of some that thought that as soon as the Body
of Christ was touched by a Sinners lips it withdrew it self says This is an errour and manifestly against the Saints and therefore it is held commonly that in this there is no difference betwixt the just and unjust for both of them receive the very Body of Christ in the Sacrament And a little after It must be granted that the wicked receive the thing which the Sacrament is a sign of which is Christs true Body born of the Virgin c. This ought not to seem a strange Doctrine to be held by those who say that brute Creatures may devour Christs Body Which is the current opinion So Aquinas (l) Loc. citat ad Tertium Dicendum quod etiamsi mus vel canis hostiam consecratam manducet substantia corporis Christi non desinit esse sub speciebus quamdiu species illae manent We must say that altho' a Mouse or a Dog should eat a consecated Host yet the substance of Christs Body do's not cease to be under the species so long as the species remain Alensis (m) Ibid. sec 1. loco citat Si canis vel porcus deglutiret hostiam consecratam integram non video quare vel quomodo Corpus Domini non simul cum specie trajiceretur in ventrem canis vel porci is as positive and more plain If a Dog or a Hog should swallow a whole consecrated Host I see not why nor how the Body of our Lord would not together with the Species be conveyed into the Belly of that Dog or Hog It is also remarkable that among three Articles which P. Gregory XI an 1371. prohibited to be taught (n) See Pref. to the determ of Jo. Paris p. 32. Si hostia consecrata à mure corrodatur seu à bruto sumitur quod remanentibus speciebus sub iis definit esse Corpus Christi redit substantia Panis under pain of Excommunication which was also repeated by P. Clement VI. one of them was this If a Consecrated Host should be gnawed by a Mouse or taken by a Brute that then the species remaining the Body of Christ ceases to be under them and the substance of the Bread returns This he would not let pass for good Divinity Nor can it at this Day when this is one of the Cautions to be observed in the Celebrating of the Mass (o) De Defect Missae sec 10. n. 5. ante Missal Roman Si post consecrationem ceciderit musca aut aliquid ejusmodi fiat nausea Sacerdoti extrahat eam lavet cum vino finitâ Missa comburat combustio ac lotio hujusmodi in Sacrarium projiciatur Si autem non fuerit nausea nec ullum periculum timeat sumat cum sanguine That if a Fly or any such animal fall into the Chalice after Consecration if the Priest nauseats it then he must take it out and wash it with Wine and burn it when Mass is ended and the ashes and the wash be thrown into the H. Repository But if he do not nauseate to swallow it nor fears any danger let him take it down with the Blood. What is all this for but to tell us that they look upon it still to be Christs Blood and that its better it should be in the Belly of a Priest than of a Brute So also they give us another Case (p) Ibid. n. 14. Si Sacerdos evomat Eucharistiam si species integrae appareant reverenter sumantur nisi nausea fiat tunc enim species consecratae cautè separentur in aliquo loco sacro reponantur donec corrumpantur c. If a Priest should vomit up the Eucharist and the species appear entire they must be taken down reverently unless nauseated but in that case the Consecrated Species must be cautiously separated and put in some H. Place till they are corrupted c. But I beg the Readers Pardon for presenting him with such nauseous stuff God grant that they who thus unworthily represent their Saviour may have grace to repent that the thoughts of their hearts may be forgiven them As for the Fathers if by their plain words we can understand their sense they assert that only the Faithful and not the wicked eat the Body of Christ and drink his Blood in a proper sense S. Jerome (q) In Oseam c. 8. Cujus caro cibus credentium est calls the Flesh of Christ the food of Believers And Isidore of Sevil (r) In Genes c. 31. Caro ejus qui est esca Sanctorum Quam si quis manducaverit non morietur in aeternum that it is the meat of the Saints And he adds which makes it their food and of none else which if any one eat he shall not die eternally They therefore often call it the Bread of Life and Life it self S. Ambrose (s) In Psal 118. Serm. 18. Hic est panis vitae qui manducat vitam mori non potest quomodo enim morietur cui cibus vita est This is the Bread of Life he that eateth Life cannot die for how should he die whose Food is Life S. Austin says the same (t) Serm. de verb. Evangel apud Bedam in 1 Cor. 10. Quando Christus manducatur vita manducatur quando manducatur reficit When Christ is eaten Life is eaten When he is eaten he refreshes Again in another place (u) Serm. 44. de Diversis Filii Ecclesiae habent à rore coeli fertilitate terrae c. à fertilitate terrae omnia visibilia Sacramenta Visibile enim Sacramentum ad terram pertinet Haec omnia communia habent in Ecclesia boni mali Nam ipsi habent participant Sacramentis quod norunt fideles à tritico vino distinguishing the Portion of Saints and Sinners he makes the true Sons of the Church to partake both of the Dew of Heaven and the fatness of the Earth This fatness of the Earth he explains to be all visible Sacraments for they pertain to the Earth All these he says the good and bad in the Church have in common For the bad have and partake of the Sacraments and what the Faithful know made of Bread-Corn and Wine If then the visible Sacrament and that which has its original from Earth be all that evil men partake of to be sure they have nothing to do with Christ the Heavenly Bread or his Body which to use his Phrase do's not pertain to Earth at all but is a Divine Food Which none has more admirably and fully spoke to than Origen (x) In Matth. c. 15. v. 15. p. 253. Ed. Huet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Who having said a great deal about Christs Typical and Symbolical Body which S. Austin called before the visible Sacrament he goes on thus Many things also might be said concerning that word which was made Flesh and the true Food which whosoever eats shall surely live for ever no wicked Man being capable of eating it For if
non deseratur Christ says he expounded the manner of his assignment and gift how he gave his Flesh to eat saying He that eateth my Flesh and drinketh my Blood dwelleth in me and I in him The sign that he eateth and drinketh is this if he abides in Christ and Christ in him if he dwells in him and is inhabited by him if he cleaves to him so as not to be forsaken by him And he concludes with this Exhortation (m) Ibid. propè finem Hoc ergo totum ad hoc nobis valeat dilectissimi ut carnem Christi sanguinem Christi non edamus tantum in Sacramento quod multi mali sed usque ad Spiritus participationem manducemus bibamus ut in Domini corpore tanquam membra maneamus ut ejus spiritu vegetemur c. Let all that has been said Beloved prevail thus far with us that we may not eat Christs Flesh and Blood in Sacrament or sign only but may eat and drink as far as to the participation of the Spirit that we may remain as Members in our Lords Body that we may be enlivened by his spirit c. CHAP. XIV The Fourteenth Difference Several Vsages and Practices of the Fathers relating to the Eucharist declare That they did not believe Transubstantiation or the Presence of Christ's Natural Body there whose contrary practices or forbearance of them in the Roman Church are the Consequences of that belief As also some things the present Roman Church practises because they believe Transubstantiation and the Corporal Presence and dare not neglect to practise so believing which yet the Ancient Church did forbear the practice of not knowing any obligation thereto which plainly argues their different Sentiments about the Eucharist in those Points IT is possible this Argument may have as good an effect to open Mens Eyes as any I have urged before tho' I think I have urged very cogent ones For tho' some Men have a Faculty eternally to wrangle about the Words and Sayings of others and to shift off an Argument of that kind yet they cannot so easily get rid of an Objection from Matter of Fact and a plain Practice I shall therefore try by several Instances of Usages and Forbearances in the cases above-named whether we may not see as clearly as if we had a Window into their Breasts that the Ancient Church and the present Church of Rome were of different Minds and Opinions in this Matter 1. Instance It was a part of the Discipline of the Ancient Church to exclude the uninitiated Catechumens the Energumeni acted by evil Spirits and Penitents from being present at the Mysteries and to enjoin all that were present to communicate It is so known a Case that the Deacons in the Churches cried aloud to bid such depart as I before named when they went to the Prayers of the Mass which was so called from this dismission of Catechumens Penitents c. that I shall not stay to prove it See the Constitutions attributed to Clemens l. 8. cap. 6 7 9 12. and S. Chrysostom Hom. 3. in Ep. ad Ephes By the same Laws of the Church those that remained after the exclusion of the rest were all to communicate whom the Author of the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy under the name of Dionysius the Areopagite (n) Hierarch Eccles c. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 calls Persons worthy to behold the Divine Mysteries and to communicate For this because it is not so universally acknowledged as the former I shall refer the Reader to the Second Canon of the Council of Antioch (o) Can. 2. Concil Antioch 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. which says That they which enter into the Church of God and hear the Holy Scriptures and do not communicate in Prayers with the People or turn away from receiving the Eucharist through any disorderliness are to be cast out of the Church till they confess their Sin and repent c. Which is the same in sense with that Canon (p) Canon Apostol 9. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is very ancient tho' not Apostolical as it pretends That all the Faithful that enter and hear the Scriptures and do not continue at Prayer and also at the Holy Communion are to be separated as those that bring disorder into the Church S. Chrysostom discharges a great deal of his Zeal as well as Eloquence against those Persons that were present at the Eucharist and did not communicate (q) Chrysost Hom. 3. in Ep. ad Ephes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In vain he tells them do's the Priest stand at the Altar when none participates in vain is the daily Sacrifice He minds them that the Cryer had said indeed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That those that were in penitence or penance should depart but thou says he art not of that number but of those that may participate i. e. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not being hindred by any Church-Censures as Penitents were and regardest it not He says That the King at the Marriage-Supper 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 did not ask Why didst thou sit down but why didst thou enter And adds That whosoever being present does not receive the Mysteries stands there too boldly and impudently The rest is well worthy the reading in that Homily Gregory the Great also tells us (r) Dialog l. 2. cap. 23. Si quis non communicat det locum it was the custom in his Time for a Deacon to cry aloud If any do not Communicate let him depart There must be no Spectators that is unless they were Communicants For as Justin Martyr (s) Apolog. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 acquaints us it was the usage of his Time That the the Deacons reach to every one present of the consecrated Bread and Wine and Water that they may communicate If we now look upon the practice of the Roman Church we shall find all quite contrary There they may have as many Spectators as please to come when there is but one alone that receives the Eucharist I mean the Priest Any one that knew nothing of the Matter would conclude when he saw their Masses that they came thither about another Business ordinarily than to eat and drink in remembrance of their Saviour which was the only use that the Ancients understood of it They considered it as a Sacrament by Institution designed to represent Christ's Passion and Crucifixion these consider the presence of his Glorified Body and his Divinity there and are taken up with adoration more than any thing else That they will not abate every day you are present when the Host is shown for that end But as for the other the receiving of the Eucharist they are satisfied if it be done but once a Year The Ancients look'd upon it as an Invitation to a Table where the Sacrament was to be their Meal but here you are called to look upon the King present and sitting in state and chiefly to take care
Word of God we believed the true Flesh of Christ to be eaten with the Mouth of our Bodies But whether with or without the Word of God they believed such a corporal eating of Christ's Flesh had been all one to the Heathens if they knew that this was their Belief and it would rather have strengthned their Reproach if they knew that they were bound thus to believe But then what he adds is very remarkable Nam id semper infideles stultissimum paradoxum aestimârunt ut notum est de Averroe aliis That Infidels always counted this a most foolish Paradox as appears from Averroes and others I believe indeed that they must always count this a foolish Paradox which Averroes charged Christians withal in that known Saying of his (b) Se Sectam Christianâ deteriorem aut ineptiorem nullam reperire quam qui sequuntur ii quem colunt Deum dentibus ipsi suis discerpunt ac devorant That he found no Sect worse or more foolish than the Christians who tear with their Teeth and devour that God whom they worship But why was not this cast always in the Teeth of Christians if this was always their professed Doctrine Was Celsus or Julian or Lucian less sagacious or less malicious than Averroes that not a word of this foolish Paradox was ever so much as hinted by them to the reproach of Christians then But the Cardinal has instanced the most unluckily in the World in naming only Averroes for this Calumny when all acknowledg that this Philosopher P. Innocent 3. who establish'd Transubstantiation lived in the same Age and some very learned Men prove from the Arabian Accounts that those two were Contemporaries And as for his aliis others I should be glad to see any named that urged what Averroes did to the Christians reproach before the days of Berengarius After that indeed we can meet with a Follower of Mahomet who as a Learned Man (c) Hottinger in Eucharistia de â—ensa Sect. 14. p. 220. Ahmad bin Edris ita scribit verba autem Isa sic Arabes Christum vocant super quo pax Qui edit carnem meam bibit sanguinem c. Christiani literaliter intelligunt Atque sic Christiani atrociores sunt in Christum quà m Judaei Illi enim Christum occisum reliquerunt hi carnem ejus edunt sanguimem bibunt quod ipso teste experientia truculentius est gives us his words says thus Those words of Christ He that eateth my Flesh and drinketh my Blood he is in me and I in him c. Christians understand them literally and so Christians are more cruel against Christ than Jews for they left Christ when they had slain him but these eat his Flesh and drink his Blood which as experience testifies is more savage After the Roman Church's declaring for Transubstantiation though not before we meet with the Oppositions of Jews testifying their abhorrency (d) Ibid. Joseph Albo de Ikkarim lib. 3. cap. 25. Nam panis est corpus Dei ipsorum Aiunt enim corpus Jesu quod est in Coelis venire in Altare vestiri pane vino post pronunciata verba Hoc enim est Corpus meum à sacrificulo qualiscunque ille demum fuerit sive pius sive impius omnia fieri Corpus unum cum corpore Messia c. Repugnant hic omnia Intelligibilibus primis ipsis etiam sensibus of a Doctrine which talks of a Sacrifice and makes Bread to be the Body of their God which he means in the sence of Transubstantiation by being turned into it and cloathed with its Accidents whose Body that is in Heaven comes upon the Altar and upon the pronouncing these words For this is my Body by the Priest whether good or wicked is all one all things are made one Body with the Body of the Messias c. Which things are all repugnant to the first Principles of Reason and to our very Senses themselves As he afterwards shows in several Instances And now we are told that it is a common Bye-word to reproach a Christian by among the Turks to call him Mange Dicu All these took their rise plainly from Transubstantiation and not from the Faith of the Ancient Church For if one of it (e) Theodoret. Interrog 55. in Genes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may speak for the rest the Old Christians agreed in the Abhorrence and called it the extreamest stupidity to worship that which is eaten And again Id. qu. 11. in Levit. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 How can any one of a sound Mind call that a God which being offered to the True God is after wards eaten by him But now after all the saddest Consideration is that the Prejudices are so great against this and another Twin-Doctrine of the Roman Church about the worship of Images that a perpetual Stumbling-block seems to be laid before the Jews and it may be look'd upon as the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that which will always hinder and obstruct their Conversion whilst it is believed by them to be the common Sence and Faith of Christians and they have too great a Temptation to believe so when they have seen this Church which has got the most worldly Power into its hands persecuting not only Jews but Hereticks as they call all other Christians that deny this Doctrine to the Death for gainsaying it and when that Work will cease God only knows The Jews can never be supposed to get over this hard Chapter whilst they who call themselves the only Catholick Christians hold such things about the Body of Christ and remember that it is about a Body which as the forenamed Jos Albo (f) Ibid. Ista talia sunt quae mens non potest concipere neque os eloqui neque auris audire speaks No Man's Mind can conceive nor Tongue utter nor any Ear can hear He means by reason of their absurdity So that the Case of the Jews and their Conversion seems to be hopeless and desperate according to all humane guesses till there be a change wrought not in the substance of the Bread and Wine this Church dreams of but in the Romanist's Belief And though this also may seem upon many accounts to be as hopeless as the former yet for a Conclusion I will try whether as once the Great Apostle thought it a wise method Rom. 11.14 by the Example of the Gentiles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to provoke the Jews to Emulation so it may not be as proper to propose the Example of the Jews themselves to the Romanists to provoke their Emulation whom they may see better explaining as blind as they are Christ's words of Institution and agreeing better with the Ancient Church in the matter of the Eucharist than themselves and raising such Arguments and Objections against the Transubstantiating Doctrine as can never to any purpose be answered The Instances of this are very remarkable in a Book called Eortalitium
consequitur veritatem regenerationis operetur Mary conceived by the Holy Ghost without the intervention of any Man as S. Matthew tells us She was found with Child of the Holy Ghost If then the Holy Spirit coming upon the Virgin made her to conceive c. we need not question but that the same Spirit coming upon the Water of Baptism or on him that is baptized do's produce true Regeneration And P. Leo Mag. †De Nativit Dom. Ser. 4. Christus dedit aquae quod dedit Matri Virtus enim Altissimi obumbratio Spiritus S. quae fecit ut Maria pareret Salvatorem eadem facit ut regeneret unda credentem Christ gave to the Water what he gave to his Mother for the Power of the most High and the Overshadowing of the H. Spirit which caused Mary to bring forth our Saviour the same causes the Water to regenerate a Believer Excepting therefore these Wonders of God's Grace the Fathers knew no other Miracles in the Sacraments and these Wonders are common to both the Sacraments and not peculiar to one of them only This even Card. Cajetan * In 3. part q. 75. art 1. Non est disputandum de divina potentia ubi de Sacramentis tractatur Ibid. art 2. Stultum est ponere in hoc argumento quicquid Deus potest facere was so sensible of that he tells us We must not dispute concerning God's Power when we treat of Sacraments And again It is a foolish thing to assert in this Argument whatsoever God can do He was not ignorant of what S. Austin had said long before †Lib. 3. de Trin. c. 10. Quia haec hominibus nota sunt quia per homines fiunt honorem tanquam religiosa possunt habere stuporem tanquam mira non possunt who speaking of Signs taken to signifie other things and instancing in the Bread taken and consumed in the Sacrament adds But because these things are known to men as being made by men they may have Honour given them for their relation to Religion but cannot raise Astonishment as Miracles or Wonders Which he could never have said if he had believed the Wonders and Miracles of Transubstantiation I 'le conclude this Head with another Saying of his * Lib. 3. cont Julian c. 3. Haec sunt sententiarum portenta vestrarum haec inopinata mysteria Dogmatum novorum haec paradoxa Pelagianorum haereticorum mirabiliora quà m Stoicorum Philosophorum Mira sunt quae dicitis nova sunt quae dicitis falsa sunt quae dicitis Mira stupemus nova cavemus falsa convincimus which may be as well applied to the absurd Paradoxes and Miracles which the Roman Church advances in this Case of the Eucharist as ever it was to those he there confutes about Baptism These are the Prodigies of your Opinions these are the uncouth Mysteries of New Dogma's these are the Paradoxes of Pelagian Hereticks more wonderful than those of the Stoick Philosophers The things you say are Wonderful the things you say are New the things you say are False We are amazed at your Wonders we are cautious against your Novelties and we confute your Falsities But this Difference being more general we go on to more particular ones CHAP. II. The Second Difference The Church of Rome differs from the Fathers in determining what that thing is which Christ calls MY BODY THE Trent Catechism (a) Ad Paroch part 2. n. 37. §. Haec vero Si panis substantia remaneret nullo modo dici videretur Hoc est Corpus meum tho' it do's not determine what the word THIS refers to only telling us that it must demonstrate the whole Substance of the thing present yet it expresly denies that it refers to the Substance of Bread for it adds If the Substance of Bread remained it seems no way possible to be said that THIS IS MY BODY So Bellarmine confesses (b) De Euchar. l. 1. c. 1. sec Nonus that this Proposition This Bread is my Body must be taken figuratively that the Bread is the Body of Christ by way of signification or else it is plainly absurd and impossible And he acknowledges (c) Ib. lib. 2. cap. 9. §. Observandum that this Proposition The Wine is the Lord's Blood teaches that Wine is Blood by similitude and likeness And elsewhere (d) Lib. 3. cap. 19. It cannot be a true Proposition in which the Subject is supposed to be Bread and the Predicate the Body of Christ for Bread and Christ's Body are res diversissimae things most different And a little after If we might affirm disparata de disparatis different things of one another you might as well affirm and say that something is nothing and nothing something that Light is Darkness and Darkness Light that Christ is Belial and Belial Christ neither do's our Faith oblige us to defend those things that evidently imply a Contradiction So also Vasquez (e) Disp 180. cap. 9. n. 91. Si pronomen Hoc in illis verbis demonstraret panem fatemur etiam toâ—e ut nulia conversio virtute illorum fieri possit quia panis de quo enunciatur manere debet If the Pronoun THIS in Christ's Words pointed at the Bread then we confess it would follow that no Conversion could be made by virtue of these Words because the Bread of which it is affirmed sc that it is Christ's Body ought to remain Now that which the present Roman Church dare not affirm because if it be taken properly it is untrue absurd impossible as implying a Contradiction we shall now shew that the Fathers plainly affirm it who yet could not be ignorant of this Absurdity From whence it necessarily follows that they took the whole words THIS IS MY BODY figuratively as the Protestants do since they cannot be taken otherwise if Bread be affirmed to be Christ's Body as the Romanists confess Now that the Fathers affirmed that Bread is Christ's Body is certain by these following Testimonies S. Irenaeus (f) Adv. Haeres l. 5. c. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Our Lord confessed the Cup which is of the Creature to be his Blood and the Bread which is of the Creature he confirmed it to be his Body Clement of Alexandria (g) Paedag. lib. 2. c. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Our Lord blessed the Wine saying Take drink this is my Blood the Blood of the Grape For the Holy River of Gladness so he calls the Wine do's allegorically signifie the Word i. e. the Blood of the Word shed for many for the remission of Sins Tertullian (h) Adv. Judaeos c. â—1 Panem corpus suum appellans Calling Bread his Body Speaking of Christ And against Marcion (i) Idem adv Marcion lib. 3. cap. 19. Panem corpus suum appellans ut hinc eum intelligas corporis sui figuram pani dedisse c. he says the same Calling Bread his Body that thou mayst know that
Matth. where he bids us 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Believe God every where without contradicting him tho' what he says seems contrary to our Reasonings and to our Eyes but let his Word prevail above our Reasonings and our Eyes Let us do the same in the Mysteries 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. not fixing our Eyes only upon the things set before us but let us hold fast his Words For his Word cannot deceive us but our Sense easily may That can never fall to the ground 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but this often fails Since therefore the Word says This is my Body let us be persuaded of it and believe it and look upon it with intellectual Eyes For Christ has given us nothing sensible but in sensible things all things intelligible Thus in Baptism by what is sensibly done there is the Gift of Water but what is perfected is intelligible viz. our Regeneration and Renovation If the Reader do's but remember that Baptism is as much concerned in this Discourse of S. Chrysostome as the Eucharist and that we are as much required not to trust our Eyes that may deceive us but to trust the Word of God in the one case as well as the other it will not give the least countenance to the Absurdities of Transubstantiation And as for those Words of his That Christ delivered nothing sensible to us they must be understood with an abatement That we are not to be intent and to fix our Thoughts meerly upon what we see for else it is certain that there is something sensible delivered in the Eucharist else there would be no Sign nor no Sacrament and that Father would contradict himself who in the very next Words tells us That by sensible things he has delivered intelligible that is spiritual things to us for which he brings what is bestowed upon us in Baptism as a Proof CHAP. VII The Seventh Difference When the Fathers call the Eucharist Christ's Body and Blood the Roman Church understands it of Christs natural Body given there But the Fathers do not so but understand it most commonly of the Elements of Bread and Wine even when they call them the Body of Christ and give us the reasons why they so call them I Need not tell you how the Romish Writers catch at every place of the Fathers where they meet with the mention of Christs Body and Blood all their Citations are full of little else but Testimonies of this kind But if they had a mind to understand their sense and did not meerly listen to the sound of their words they would quickly see them interpret themselves so that there could be no mistake nor countenance given hereby to Transubstantiation or any presence of Christ but what is spiritual Which by a few Observations out of them will appear I. Observ The Fathers give us warning of it and tell us That they studiously conceal and hide the Mysteries from some persons both out of the Church and in it Therefore their meer expressions concerning it are not sufficient to inform us of their meaning Thus Cyril of Jerusalem (a) Catech. Illum 6. pag. 149. Edit 4. Paris 1608. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. tells us That we do not speak openly of the mysteries among the Catechumens but often speak many things covertly that the faithful that are acquainted with the matter may understand it and they that are unacquainted may not be hurt S. Austin (b) In Psal 103. Quid est quod occultum est non publicum in Ecclesia Sacramentum Baptismi Sacramentum Eucharistiae Opera nostra bona vident Pagani Sacramenta vero occultantur illis in like manner What is it that is hidden and not publick in the Church The Sacrament of Baptism and the Sacrament of the Eucharist The very Pagans see our good works but the Sacraments are hid from them S. Chrysostome (c) In 1 Cor. 15. Hom. 40. upon those words why are they then Baptized for the dead says I have a mind to speak it openly but I dare not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because of them that are not initiated For they make our Exposition more difficult compelling us either not to speak plainly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or to declare to them things that ought to be conceal'd Upon this account they concealed what was apt to be despised whether they did well or no in this I shall not here question scarce vouchsafing to name the visible Elements but mentioning them with more glorious Titles such as could not be disregarded Thus they called Baptism by the name of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 illumination and they called the Eucharist the Sacrifice quod norunt fideles which the faithful know thus concealing it or the Sacrifice of the Body and Blood of Christ They call the Lords Table an Altar and the Ministers Priests tho' all these are to be understood in a figurative and improper sense Thus S. Austin says (d) De verb. Dom. Serm. 53. Penè quidem Sacramentum omnes corpus ejus dicunt Almost all call the Sacrament the Body of Christ Which very phrase shews that the Sacrament is not in substance Christs natural Body For who would phrase it so almost all call it in giving a proper name to a thing ex gr would any say that almost all call a House a House or a Man a Man but to say that almost all call Kings Gods tells you that however for certain Reasons Kings are called Gods yet they are not really and properly so The same Father (e) De Trinit l. 3. c. 4. Sed illud tantum quod ex fructibus terrae acceptum prece mystica consecratum ritè sumimus ad salutem spiricualem c. speaking of several things whereby Christ may be signified and set forth either by words written or spoken c. he says We do not call these the Body and Blood of Christ but that only which being taken from the fruits of the earth is rightly received by us to our spiritual health c. If the other things had been called so any one would have understood it must be improperly so called and so must this too as his following words tell us Non sanctificatur ut fit tam magnum Sacramentum nisi operante invisibiliter Spiritu Dei. that even this is not sanctified to become so great a Sacrament but by the invisible operation of the Spirit of God. So Isidore of Sevil (f) Orig. Lib. 6. cap. 19. Eo fc Christo jubente corpus Christi sanguinem dicimus quod dum fit ex fructibus terrae sanctificatur fit Sacramentum operante invisibiliter Spiritu Dei. gives the same account By the command of Christ we call the Body and Blood of Christ that which being made of the fruits of the earth is sanctified and made a Sacrament by the invisible operation of the spirit of God. 2. Observ The Fathers
oft-times in their very manner of speaking concerning the Body and Blood of Christ point at another thing than his Natural Body so that we need no Commentary upon their words to explain them for they carry at first hearing our sense and meaning in them and not that of the Romanists To give a few instances S. Cyprian (g) Epist 63. ad Caecilium Cùm dicat Christus ego sum vitis vera sanguis Christi non aqua est ucique sed vinum Quomodo nec Corpus Domini potest esse farina sola aut aqua sola nisi utrumque adunatum fuerit copulatum panis unius compagine solidatum discoursing against those that Consecated and drank only Water in the Sacrament says When Christ says I am the true Vine the Blood of Christ it's plain is not Water but Wine So neither can the Lords Body be flour alone or water alone unless both of them be united and coupled and kneaded together into one Loaf Where no Body can doubt of S. Cyprian's meaning that by Christs Body he understands not his natural Body but the Sacrament of it And so the Council of Carthage (h) Pandect Canon p. 565. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 decreed against the Armenians who made use of Wine only in the Eucharist That nothing shall be offered but the Body and Blood of Christ as the Lord himself delivered it the phrase carries its sense in the face of it if they had said no more but they add that is Bread and Wine mixed with Water What can be more plain than that of Theodoret (i) Dialog 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. when he says That our Saviour changed the names and on his Body he put the name of the sign or symbol and on the sign the name of his Body A little before he shows how You know says he that God called his Body Bread and elsewhere he called his flesh Wheat 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 except a Corn of Wheat fall to the Earth and die Matth. 12. But in the delivery of the mysteries he called Bread his Body and that which is mixed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Blood. Is it not clear that neither in one case nor the other these sayings are to be understood properly but figuratively Especially when Theodoret before all I now have cited makes this comparison As after Consecration Ib. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we call the mystical fruit of the Vine the Lords blood so he Jacob called the Blood of the true Vine the Blood of the Grape Both the one and the other must be figuratively understood When S. Cyprian in the forecited Epistle (k) Epist 63. Hoc quis veretur ne per saporem vini redoleat sanguinem Christi says that some might make it an Objection that by partaking of the Communion early in the Morning they might be discovered to the Heathen Persecutors by the smell of the Wine he expresses it thus One fears this lest by tasting Wine he should smell of Christs Blood. S. Jerome has such another saying which cannot well be mistaken to express any other sense but ours when speaking of Virgins (l) Epist ad Eustochium Ebrietati sacrilegium copulantes aiunt absit ut ego me abstineam à sanguine Christi that were reproved for drinking Wine to excess he says they made this excuse joining sacrilege to their drunkenness and said God forbid that I should abstain from the Blood of Christ Either they said nothing to the purpose or they took that which they called the Blood of Christ for Wine properly Thus also S. Chrysostome (m) Epist 1. ad Innocent 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 speaking of the rudeness of the Souldiers in the Church says that in the tumult the most holy Blood of Christ was shed upon the Souldiers Cloths Which could be nothing but Sacramental Wine Leo the Great speaking of the Manichees that for fear of the Laws came to the Communion of the Catholicks and directing how to discover them he says (n) Serm. 4. de Quadrages Ita in Sacramentorum communione se temperaur ut interdum tutiùs lateant Ore indigno Christi Corpus accipiunt sanguinem autem redemptionis nostrae haurire omninò declinant They so behave themselves in the Communion of the Sacraments that they may sometime be more safely concealed with an unworthy mouth they take the Body of Christ but altogether decline drinking the Blood of our redemption In the sense both of Leo and the Manichees the Body and Blood here must be taken figuratively for such bad men as they in the sense of the Antients could not eat or any way receive Christ's Body in a proper sense but being understood of the Type of it viz. of the Sacramental Bread that they would receive but not the Type of his Blood viz. the Wine because as S. Austin (o) De Heres 46. Vinum non bibunt dicentes fel esse principum tenebrarum observes they drink no Wine saying it is the Gall of the Prince of darkness They had no more prejudice against the Blood than the Body of Christ only they took it to be Wine which they abhorred 3. Observ The Fathers speak of Christ's Body and Blood in the Eucharist with such terms of restriction and diminution which plainly tell us that they understood it not of his substantial and natural Body but in a figurative sense Thus Origen (p) Contr. Celsum l 8. p. 399. Edit Cantabr 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 says That Bread in the Eucharist is made by Prayer a certain holy Body And S. Austin (q) In Psal 33. conc 2. Accepit in manus quod norunt sideles ipse se portabat quodammodo cùm diceret hoc est Corpus meum Christ took in his hands what the faithful understand and after a sort carried himself when he said This is my Body Bede (r) In Psal 33. Christus quodammodo ferebatur in manibus suis upon the same Psalm has the same term of restriction Christ after a sort was carried in his own hands S. Austin elsewhere (ſ) Epist 23. ad Bonifac. Secundum quendam modum Sacramentum Corporis Christi Corpus Christi est Sacramentum sanguinis Christi sanguis Christi est In a certain sense the Sacrament of the Body of Christ is Christ's Body and the Sacrament of the Blood of Christ is Christ's Blood. Just as at Easter we say this day Christ rose because it is a memorial of it S. Chrysostome (t) Epist ad Caesarium Dignus habitus est Dominici Corporis appellatione says of the Consecrated Bread That it has no longer the name of Bread tho' the nature of it remains but is counted worthy to be called the Lord's Body Theodoret in like manner (u) Dialog 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He honoured the visible Symbols with the appellation of his Body and Blood. Facundus Hermian (x) In defens 3.
Wine Thus the Author of the Book of Sacraments under S. Ambrose's name (c) Lib. 4. de Sacram. c. 4. Tu fortè dicis meus panis est usitatus sed panis iste panis est ante verba Sacramentorum ubi accesserit consecratio de pane fit caro Christi Perhaps thou wilt say My Bread is usual Bread but tho' that Bread be Bread before the Sacramental words yet upon Consecration of Bread is made the Flesh of Christ Gaudentius (d) In Exod. trac 2. Ipse naturarum Creator Dominus qui producit de terra panem de pane rursus qui potest promisit efficit proprium corpus qui de aqua vinum fecit de vino sanguinem suum The Creator and Lord of nature himself who produces Bread out of the Earth of Bread again seeing he is able and has promised it he makes his own Body and he that of Water made Wine made also of Wine his Blood. Now all this can be meant of nothing else but what we heard out of Eusebius before of the Image of his Body which he commanded his Disciples to make S. Jerome also explains it of the Sacramental Bread and Wine upon those words of the Prophet (e) In Jerem. 31.12 De quo conficitur panis Domini sanguinis ejus impletur typus benedictio Sanctificationis ostenditur They shall flow together to the goodness of the Lord for Wheat and for Wine and Oil. He adds Of which the Lords Bread is made and the type of his Blood is fulfilled and the blessing of sanctification is shown And in another place (f) In cap. 9. Zachar. De hoc tritico efficitur ille panis qui de Coelo descendit confortat cor hominis Of this Wheat the Bread that descended from Heaven is made and which strengthens the heart of man. Which must be understood of the Bread received in the Eucharist So Tertullian (g) Antea citat Corpus suum illum sc panem fecit hoc est Corpus meum dicendo id est Figura Corporis mei explains himself He made Bread his Body saying This is my Body That is the Figure of my Body And Leo Magn. (h) Epist 88. Nec licet Presbyteris nisi eo sc Episcopo jubente Sacramentum Corporis sanguinis Christi conficere Neither may the Presbyters without the Bishops Command make the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ S. Chrysostom (i) Hom. 29. in Genes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 speaking of Wine says By this the matter of the good things for our Salvation is perfected Where by those good things he plainly means the Wine in the Eucharist It is also very observable that the Fathers sometimes call this the mystical Bread and Wine and sometimes the mystical Body and Blood of Christ Thus S. Austin (k) Contr. Faust l. 20. c. 13. Noster panis calix certâ consecratione mysticus fit nobis non nascitur says Our Bread and Cup is made mystical to us by a certain consecration and does not grow so S. Chrysostom (l) De resurrect mort Hom. 33. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 thus The mystical Body and Blood is not made without the grace of the spirit When S. Ambrose (m) Lib de iis qui initiant c. 9. Hoc quod conficimus Corpus ex Virgine est Sacramentum illud quod accipis sermone Christi conficitur Vera utique caro Christi quae crucifixa est quae sepulta est Verè ergo carnis illius Sacramentum est had said This Body which we make is of the Virgin. He explains this phrase by another before it viz. That Sacrament which thou receivest is made by the Word of Christ And also by another saying of his that follows It was true Flesh of Christ that was Crucified and buried it is therefore truly the Sacrament of his Flesh Where you see he distinguishes these two the Flesh of Christ Crucified and that in the Sacrament which is only mystically so Hesychius (n) In Levit. lib. 6. Corpore mystico non vescetur speaking of Jews Pagans and Hereticks says that the Soul in Society with them may not eat of the mystical Body that is of the Eucharist And elsewhere (o) Id. ibid. lib. 2. Christus bibens ipse Apostolis bibere dans sanguinem intelligibilem speaking of the Cup in the Sacrament uses this phrase Christ drinking himself and giving to the Apostles the intelligible Blood to drink Where intelligible Blood is the mystical Blood in the Eucharist according to his constant use of that word Procopius of Gaza (p) In Esa cap. 3. upon those words of the Prophet of Gods taking away the Staff of Bread and stay of Water and telling us that Christs Flesh is meat indeed and his Blood drink indeed which they that have not have not the strength of Bread and Water he adds there is another enlivening Bread also taken from the Jews 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. where he means the Eucharist distinguishing it from Christs proper Flesh and Blood. S. Ambrose (q) De benedict Patriarch c. 9. Hunc panem dedit Jesus Apostolis ut dividerent populo credentium hodieque dat nobis eum quem ipse quotidie sacerdos consecrat suis verbis Hic panis factus est esca Sanctorum Possumus ipsum Dominum accipere qui carnem suam nobis dedit sicut ipse ait Ego sum panis vitae makes the same distinction where speaking of the Benediction of Asser that his Bread was fat c. and that Asser signifies riches he adds Jesus gave this Bread to the Apostles that they should divide it among believing people and he now gives it to us being that which the Priest daily Consecrates with his words This Bread is made the food of Saints We may also understand thereby the Lord himself who gave his Flesh to us as he says I am the Bread of Life What can be more clear than that he distinguishes here between the Eucharistical Bread which he calls the Saints food and Christ himself the Bread of Life 8. Observ The Fathers speak of Christ's Body sanctified and sacrificed in the Eucharist which cannot be understood of any thing but his representative and Typical Body S. Austin (r) Epist 59. Quod in Domini mensa est speaking of that which is upon the Lords Table which the Church of Rome will have to be Christ's Natural Body says that it is blessed and sanctified benedicitur santificatur And Gaudentius (s) In Exod. tract 19. Per singulas Ecclesiarum domos in mysterio panis vini reficit immolatus vivificat creditus consecrantes sanctificat consecratus speaking of Christ whom he compares to the Paschal Lamb says Through all the Houses of the Churches in the mystery of Bread and Wine being sacrificed he refreshes being believed on he quickens being
his Body could be present in Heaven and Earth after the manner of a Spirit Vigilius Taps (t) Contr. Eutych l. 1. Hoc erat ire ad patrem recedere à nobis auferre de mundo naturam quam susceperat à nobis Nam vide miraculum vide utriusque proprietatis mysterium Dei filius secundùm humanitatem suam recessit à nobis secundùm divinitatem suam ait nobis Ecce vobiscum sum omnibus diebus c. Quos reliquit à quibus decessit humanitate sua non reliquit nec deseruit divinitate sua This was to go to the Father and recede from us to take from the World the Nature that he had taken from us For see the Miracle see the Mystery of both Natures distinct not a Word of the Mystery of a Body being in more places than one The Son of God according to his Humanity departed from us according to his Divinity he says to us Behold I am with you always c. Those whom he left and departed from by his Humanity he did not leave nor forsake by his Divinity Again (u) Id. ibid. l. 4. Quando in terra fuit non erat utique in coelo nunc quia in coelo est non est utique in terra c. Quia verbum ubique est caro autem ejus ubique non est apparet unum eundemque Christum utriusque esse naturae esse quidem ubique secundùm naturam divinitatis suae loco contineri secundùm naturam humanitatis suae Haec est Fides Confessio Catholica quam Apostoli tradiderunt Martyres roborarunt Fideles nunc usque custodiunt When Christ was on Earth he was not in Heaven and now because he is in Heaven he surely is not on Earth c. Because the Word is every where but his Flesh is not every where it appears plainly that one and the same Christ is of both Natures and that he is every where according to the Nature of his Divinity and contained in a Place according to the Nature of his Humanity which would be a bad Argument if his Body were in Heaven and in the Eucharist at the same time And then he concludes This is the Catholick Faith and Confession which the Apostles delivered the Martyrs confirmed and the Faithful now still keep and preserve Leo Magn. (x) Serm. 2. de Ascens Dom. Christus coram Discipulis elevatus in coelum corporalis praesentiae modum fecit Christ being raised up to Heaven in sight of his Disciples he put an end to his bodily Presence So he explains it that he was to remain at the Right-hand of his Father till he should come again to judge the Quick and Dead Bede (y) Com. in Marc. 13. Christus ad Patrem post resurrectionem victor ascendens Ecclesiam corporaliter reliquit quam tamen nunquam divinae praesidio praesentiae destituit manens in illa omnibus diebus usque ad consummationem seculi Christ ascending after his Resurrection into Heaven as a Conqueror left the Church as to his bodily Presence which yet he never left destitute of the security of his Divine Presence remaining in the Church always to the end of the World. This may abundantly suffice to prove the First Position 2 Position The Fathers distinguish the Presence of Christ's Body from the Sacrament of it which they make to be a Memorial and Pledge of Christ as gone away and absent S. Chrysostome (z) In 1 Cor. 11.29 expounding those words He that eateth and drinketh unworthily eateth and drinketh judgment and asking how that Table which is tha Cause of so many good things 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and flows with Life should be made Condemnation to any resolves it thus That this happens not from its own Nature 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but from the Purpose of him that approaches this Table For says he as Christ's Presence which brought those great and unspeakable Blessings to us did condemn those the more that did not receive it so also the Mysteries make way for greater Punishments to those that unworthily partake of them A remarkable Testimony because we see he distinguishes the Presence of Christ from the Sacrament of it compares the one with the other and because of the Relation that the Mysteries have to Christ and that both are intended to convey great Blessings therefore they both when unworthily treated occasion greater Punishments S. Austin (a) Contr. Faust l. 20. c. 21. Hujus sacrificii caro sanguis ante adventum Christi per victimas similitudinum promittebatur in passione Christi per ipsam veritatem reddebatur post ascensum Christi per Sacramentum memoriae celebratur The Flesh and Blood of this Sacrifice before Christ's coming was promised by Victims of Resemblance in the Passion of Christ it was exhibited in the Truth it self after Christ's Ascension it is celebrated by the Sacrament of Remembrance Where you see the Sacrament of Remembrance is opposed to the Exhibition of the Truth Author Comm. in Epistolas Pauli inter Hieronymi Opera (b) In 1 Cor. 11. Hoc est benedicens etiam passurus ultinam nobis commemorationem sive memoriam dereliquit Quemadmodum si quis peregrè proficiscens aliquod pignus ei quem diligit derelinquat ut quotiescunque illud viderit possit ejus beneficia amicitias memorari quod ille si perfecte dilexit sine ingenti defiderio non possit videre vel fletu upon those words He took Bread and after he had given thanks he brake it That is says he blessing us even when he was about to suffer he left his last Memorial with us Just as if one travelling into another Country should leave a Pledge with him when he loved that whensoever he look'd upon it he might call to mind his Favours and Friendship which such a Person if he perfectly lov'd him could not behold without a great passion or weeping It will be very hard to reconcile this Pledge of Absence with such a constant Presence of his Body as the Church of Rome teaches even there where we are required to look upon that Pledge and remember our absent Friend Sedulius has the same Exposition of the Place almost in the same words Primasius also confirms it (c) In 1 Cor. 11. upon those words The same night that our Lord was betrayed he took Bread. He left says he Ultimam nobis commemorationem reliquit Salvador Deus exemplum dedit ut quotiescunque hoc facimus in mente habeamus quod Christus pro nobis omnibus mortuus est Ideo nobis dicitur Corpus Christi ut cùm hoc recordati fuerimus non simus ingrati gratiae ejus quemadmodum si quis moriens relinquat ei quem diligit aliquod pignus quod ille post mortem ejus quandocunque viderit nunquid potest lacrymas continere si eum perfectè dilexerit to us his last Memorial
God our Saviour gave us an Example that as often as we do this we may call to mind that Christ has died for us all Therefore we call it Christ's Body that when we remember this we may not be unthankful for his Grace As if one that was a dying should leave some Pledge to one whom he loved which he after his death when ever he look'd upon could not contain his Tears if he perfectly loved him Bede (d) In Proverb lib. 1. c. 3. Sicut in medio Paradisi lignum vitae positum testatur Moses ita per Sapientiam Dei viz. Christi vivificatur Ecclesia cujus nunc Sacramentis carnis sanguinis pignus vitae accipit in futuro praesenti beatificabitur aspectu has also given us the same Account As says he Moses witnesses that the Tree of Life was placed in the midst of Paradise so by the Wisdom of God to wit of Christ the Church has Life given it in whose Sacraments of his Flesh and Blood she now receives the Pledge of Life and hereafter shall be made happy in a present Sight of him Where you see he distinguishes this Pledge from his present Aspect hereafter Gaudentius (e) In Exod. tract 2. Vere illud est haereditarium munus Testamenti ejus novi quod-quod nobis ea nocte qua tradebatur crucifigendus tanquam pignus suae praesentiae dereliquit Hoc illud est viaticum nostri itineris quo in hac via vitae alimur ac nutrimur donec ad ipsum pergamus de hoc seculo recedentes calls the Eucharist that hereditary Gift of his New Testament which on the night that he was delivered to be crucified he left with us as a Pledge of his Presence This is the Provision of our Journey by which we are fed and nourished in this way of Life till removing from this World we go to him Still we see it is a Pledge of Absence 3 Position Whatsoever Presence of Christ the Fathers speak of in the Eucharist they acknowledge the same in Baptism and in as full Expressions So that if we will follow the Fathers we may as well assert a Substantial Presence of Christ's Body in Baptism as in the Eucharist But this on all hands is denied Gaudentius (f) Tract 2. in Exod. in fine Quem Sacramentis suis inesse credimus in the Place last cited speaking of our Lord Jesus says We believe him to be in his Sacraments He had spoke of both Sacraments before and his words may well be understood of both I am sure other Fathers give their full consent to it S. Basil (g) De Baptism lib. 1. cap. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 speaking of the Excellency of Christ's Baptism and the supereminent Glory of it says That Christ the Son of God has determined it That one greater than the Temple and greater than Solomon is here So Gr. Nazianzen (h) Orat. 40. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Behold one greater than the Temple is here to them that perfectly consider S. Ambrose (i) Apol. David c. 12. Christe in tuis te invenio Sacramentis speaking of Baptism says O Christ I find thee in thy Sacraments And again (k) De his qui initiant c. 2. Crede illic esse Divinitatis praesentiam Believe that there is the Presence of the Divinity So afterwards (l) Ibid. cap. 5. Crede adesse Dominum Jesum invocatum precibus Sacerdotum Believe that the Lord Jesus is present being invoked by the Prayers of the Priests S. Austin (m) In Joan. tract 50. Habes Christum in praesenti per fidem in praesenti per signum Christi in praesenti per baptismatis Sacramentum in praesenti per altaris cibum potum upon those words The poor ye have always with you but me ye have not always discourses thus concerning having Christ now Now thou hast Christ by Faith now thou hast him by the Sign of Christ now by the Sacrament of Baptism now by the Meat and Drink of the Altar Here you see he makes no difference of having Christ at present these several ways he mentions S. Chrysostome (n) Hom. 51. in Matth. Lat. Graec. Savil. Hom. 50. pag. 322. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. As when thou art baptized it is not he viz. the Priest that baptizes thee but it is God that holds thy Head by his invisible Power and neither Angel nor Archangel nor any other dare approach and touch thee c. The same Father * Id. Epist ad Colos Hom. 6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 thus speaks of one to be baptized Thou shalt presently embrace our Lord himself be mingled with his Body be incorporated into that Body which is seated above whither the Devil cannot approach So the Author of the Commentaries upon S. Mark (o) Inter Opera Chrysost Hom. 14. Vos qui accepturi estis Baptismum primum tenete pedes Salvatoris lavate lachrymis crine tergite c. speaks to those that are to be baptized as if Christ were present You that are to receive Baptism first lay fast hold on the Feet of your Saviour wash them with your Tears wipe them with your Hair c. Marcus the Hermite (p) De Baptism 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 speaking of a baptized Person says Upon his Baptism he has Christ lying hid in him S. Chrysostome again (q) In Gal. 3. v. 27. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If Christ be the Son of God and thou hast put him on viz. in Baptism having the Son in thy self and being made like to him thou art brought into one Kindred and Nature Again elsewhere (r) In Ephes 5. v. 30. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 speaking of Christ's partaking of our Flesh and Blood he says He communicated with us not we with him How then are we of his Flesh and of his Bones He means this That as he was begotten by the Holy Ghost without the concurrence of Man so are we regenerate in Baptism 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 As therefore the Son of God was of our Nature so are we also of his Substance and as he had us in himself so also we have him in our selves And all this is by Baptism Cyril of Alexandr (s) Tom. 6. in Collectan 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 says of the Soul That it is conjoined perfectly to Christ by holy Baptism And tho' every one knows that Union supposes Presence and Nearness yet this is never made an Argument that Christ is present corporally in Baptism No more can such like Phrases used by him concerning the Eucharist be urged as a Proof of it S. Hilary (t) Lib. 8. de Trinit Nos verè Verbum cibo Dominico sumimus quomodo non naturaliter manere in nobis existimandus est c. Nos sub Mysterio verè carnem corporis sui sumimus per hoc unum erimus quia Pater in illo est ille
in nobis Ut cùm ille in Patre per naturam Divinitatis esset nos contra in eo per corporalem Nativitatem ille rursum in nobis per Sacramentorum inesse mysterium crederetur speaks many things of our real Union with Christ in the Sacrament of the Eucharist We truly receive the Word in the Lord's Food how is he not then to be thought naturally to dwell in us We under the Mystery do truly take the Flesh of his Body and thereby shall be one because the Father is in him and he in us So that since he was in the Father by the Nature of the Divinity we on the contrary in him by Corporal Nativity and he might be believed again to be in us by the Mystery of the Sacraments But then it is observable that he do's not say these great things only of the Eucharist that by partaking of it we have a natural Union with Christ but he says we have the same by Faith by Regeneration and by Baptism (u) Ibid. Quomodo non naturalem in his intelligis unitatem qui per naturam unius fidei unum sunt Cessat in his assensûs unitas qui unum sunt in ejusdem regeneratione naturae Quid hic animorum concordia faciet cum per id unum sint quod uno Christo per naturam unius Baptismi induantur How dost thou not understand a natural Unity in those who are one by the nature of one Faith Again The Unity of Consent has no place in those who are one in the Regeneration of the same Nature Again What should Agreement of Wills do here when they are one by this that they are cloathed with one Christ by the Nature of one Baptism I 'le add but one Testimony more out of Fulgentius (x) De Bapt. Aethiop cap. ult Nec cuiquam aliquatenus ambigendum est tunc unumquemque fidelium corporis sanguinisque Dominici participem fieri quando in Baptismate membrum Christi efficitur but it is very home Neither need any one at all doubt that then every Believer is made Partaker of our Lord's Body and Blood when he is made a Member of Christ in Baptism And yet even this do's not infer a Substantial Presence of Christ in Baptism To make this Position still more full and cogent let me add That the Fathers so speak of the Waters of Baptism as if they were turned into Blood and we dyed in that Blood and baptized in Blood and yet all these neither prove the Presence of Christ's natural Body nor Transubstantiation there To name a few Testimonies S. Jerom (y) In Esa 1. Baptizemini in sanguine meo per lavacrum regenerationis upon those words Wash ye make ye clean says Be ye baptized in my Blood by the Laver of Regeneration Again (z) Baptizatus est in sanguine agni quem legebat In Esa 43. he says of the Eunuch He was baptized in the Blood of the Lamb whom he read of in the Prophet So S. Austin (a) In Joan. tract 11. Unde rubet Baptismus nisi sanguine Christi consecratus Whence comes Baptism to be red but because it is consecrated with Christ's Blood Prosper (b) De Promiss part 2. Baptismo sanguine Christi tinguntur They are dyed in the Blood of Christ in Baptism S. Chrysostome (c) Catech. ad illuminand 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 speaking to those that were to receive Baptism You shall be cloathed with the Purple Garment dyed in the Lord's Blood. Julius Firmicus (d) De Error Prof. Relig. c. 28. Quaere fontes ingenuos quaere puros liquores ut illic te post multas maculas cum Spiritu S. Christi sanguis incandidet Seek for the Noble Fountains enquire for the pure Waters that there after thy many Stains the Blood of Christ with the Holy Spirit may make thee White Caesarius (e) Hom. 5. Paschal Ingreditur anima vitales undas velut rubras sanguine Christi consecratas or the Author of the Paschal Homily The Soul enters the Waters of Life that are red as it were being consecrated by the Blood of Christ Isidore of Sevil (f) In Exod. c. 19. Quid Mare rubrum nisi Baptismum Christi sanguine consecratum What is the Red Sea but Baptism consecrated by the Blood of Christ And again (g) De vocat Gent. c. 23. Verus Israel ingreditur Mare rubrum baptismum scilicet Christi cruore signatum The true Israel enters the Red Sea to wit Baptism signed with the Blood of Christ And Primasius (h) In 1 Cor. 10. Mare rubrum significat Baptismum Christi sanguine decoratum The Red Sea signifies Baptism graced with the Blood of Christ 4 Position The Fathers so consider the Presence of Christ's Body in the Eucharist as can no way agree to the Presence of his natural and glorified Body there The Fathers as I have before proved see Chap. 7. Observ 4. Reason 2. look upon the Bread and Wine in the Eucharist as the Representative Body of Christ and thus Christ's Body is indeed present by that which is its Proxy or Pledge But this Presence in a proper sense is Absence and does suppose it I shall therefore here only insist upon one Consideration of Christ's Body there which can only agree to his Representative Body but not to the Natural and Glorified Body of Christ Viz. The Presence of Christ's Body in the Eucharist which the Fathers speak of is of his Body as crucified and slain and dead Now this cannot agree to his Natural Body which by our Adversaries Confession is impassible and invulnerable now it is glorified and cannot admit any separation of Parts which Crucifixion do's suppose nor die any more It is plain by the words of Institution that the Body of Christ there spoken of is his broken Body such as Crucifixon caused and his Blood is considered as shed and poured out of his Veins and separated from his Body which our Adversaries that speak of his Presence in the Sacrament do not believe But the Fathers did believe this and say so for which at the present in stead of all I need cite only S. Chrysostome (i) Hom. 21. in Act. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whose Phrase for the Eucharist is While this Death is perfected this tremendous Sacrifice these ineffable Mysteries Again (k) Homil. de Prodit Judae 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Christ lies before us slain In another place (l) In Epist ad Ephes Hom. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 While the Sacrifice is brought forth and Christ the Lord's Sheep is slain And elsewhere (m) Ad Popul Antioch hom 15. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 What dost thou O Man Thou swearest upon the Holy Table and there thou killest thy Brother where Christ lies slain Again (n) Lib. 3. de Sacerdotio 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. he expresses it thus rhetorically When thou seest the
Victims of Beasts according to Aaron but let us offer in Sacrifice the oblation of Bread and Wine that is the Sacrament of Christs Body and Blood. Bede (e) Hom. de 55. in Vigil S. Jo. Bapt. Redemptor noster ideo sacerdos esse dicitur secundùm Ordinem Melchisedec quia ablatis victimis legalibus idem sacrificii genus in mysterium sui corporis sanguinis in N. Testamento offerendum instituit Our Redeemer is therefore called a Priest after the Order of Melchisedeck because taking away the legal Sacrifices he instituted the same kind of Sacrifice viz. Bread and Wine should be offered under the N. Testament for the mystery of his Body and Blood. What the Scriptures acquaint us with that after the Blessing of the Bread Christ brake it and gave it to his Disciples is also insisted on by the Fathers as done in the Eucharist in order to the distributing of it to the receivers But Bellarmine says expresly (f) L. 1. de Missa c. 27. Nostra fractio non fit ad distribuendum sed ad certum mysterium significandum That our breaking is not made for distribution but to signify a certain mystery Therefore in the Roman Church that which they give in the Sacrament to the people is whole and not broken off from any other thing Wherein they differ from the Fathers for their Eucharist was what the Apostles call breaking of Bread Act. 2.46 and the Jesuit Lorinus upon that place observes that it was the manner of the Primitive Church Lorinus in Act. 2. v. 46. Panem unum conficere atque illum consecratum in tot partes frangere quot erant communicantes sicut Christus in coena fecit to make one Loaf and when they had consecrated it to break it into so many parts as there were Communicants as Christ also did in his Supper And thus as it is 1 Cor. 10.17 There is one Bread c. and we being many are one Body for we all partake of one Bread. This Fraction tho' the Fathers express it as if it were done to the proper Body of Christ yet they mean it only of the Bread that represents it and therefore that must remain for there is nothing else to be broken When therefore S. Chrysostome (g) Hom. 24. in 1 Cor. Tom. 3. Edit Savil. p. 397. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 says that upon the Cross a Bone of him was not broken but what Christ did not suffer upon the Cross that he suffers in the oblation for thy sake and suffers himself to be broken that he may fill us all This cannot be meant of any thing but what represents his Body torn and rent viz. Bread. So S. Austin (h) Epist 59. Et ad distribuendum comminuitur speaks of that upon the Lords Table which is blessed and sanctified and broke in small pieces to be distributed Which can be only Bread. And this elsewhere (i) Epist 86. Sicut frangitur in Sacramento Corporis Christi he expresses more plainly Paul says he broke Bread that night as it is broken in the Sacrament of the Body of Christ Again (k) August apud Bedam in 1 Cor. 11. Manducemus Christum vivit manducatus quia surrexit occisus nec quando manducamus partes de illo facimus quidem in Sacramento id fit norunt fideles quemadmodum manducent carnem Christi unusquisque accipit partem c. S. Austin thus exhorts Let us eat Christ he lives tho' eaten for he arose tho' slain Neither when we eat him do we make parts of him so indeed we do in the Sacrament and the faithful know how they eat the Flesh of Christ there Every one takes a part c. This is a very remarkable Testimony because of the distinction he makes between Christ's proper Body and that in the Eucharist affirming quite different things of them as this of taking and eating a part which is only true of the Bread. For as for the true Body of Christ we are informed by another Chrysologus (l) Serm. 159. Non porest Christus edi dividi Integer à credentibus sumitur integer in ore cordis recipitur Christ cannot be eaten and divided He is taken whole of Believers he is received whole in the mouth of the heart I will conclude this Chapter with the sayings of three great persons among the Fathers who positively assert what I have been proving that the Bread and Wine remain in the Eucharist S. Chrysostom (m) Hom. 83. in Matth. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Who says expresly When our Lord delivered the mysteries he delivered Wine S. Austin (n) De Civ Dei lib. 17. cap. 5. Manducare panem est in N. Testamento sacrificium Christianorum To eat Bread is the Sacrifice of Christians in the N. Testament Fulgentius (o) De fide ad Petrum cap. 19. Christo nunc id est tempore N. Testamenti cum Patre Spiritu Sancto cum quibus una est illi Divinitas Sacrificium panis vini in fide charitate Sancta Ecclesia Catholica per universum orbem terrae offerre non cessat Now that is in the time of the N. Testament the Holy Catholick Church throughout the whole Earth do's not cease to offer in Faith and Charity the Sacrifice of Bread and Wine to Christ with the Father and H. Spirit who have one Divinity together with him CHAP. XI The Eleventh Difference The Fathers make the Bread and Wine to be the Sacrament Sign Figure Type Antitype Image c. of Christs Body and Blood. They of the Church of Rome make either the Accidents subsisting without a Subject or the Body of Christ latent under those Accidents to be the Sacrament Sign Figure c. and not the substance of Bread and Wine which they say is abolished Therefore they have no Sacrament such as the Fathers assert I Might give in here a very large Collection out of the Fathers calling the Bread and Wine by all those names above mention'd but to avoid tediousness I shall only select some few of them enow to prove the Truth of what I have asserted under the several heads S. Ambrose (p) De iis qui initiant c. 9. Vera utique caro Christi quae crucifixa est quae sepulta est verè ergo carnis illius est Sacramentum It is the true Flesh of Christ that was buried therefore it viz. the Eucharist is truly the Sacrament of his flesh S. Austin (q) Serm. ad recen Batis Quomodo est panis corpus ejus calix vel quod habet calix sanguis ejus Ista fratres ideo dicuntur Sacramenta quia in iis aliud videtur aliud intelligitur How is the Bread his Body and the Cup or what the Cup contains his Blood These Brethren are therefore called Sacraments because in them we see one thing and understand another Again (r) In Psal 68. conc
1. Cùm veniret Dominus ad coenam qua commendavit Sacramentum corporis sanguinis sui When the Lord came to the Supper wherein he commended the Sacrament of his Body and Blood. Facundus (s) Defens 3. capit l. 9. Christi fideles Sacramentum corporis sanguinis ejus accipientes corpus sanguinem Christi rectè dicuntur accipere non quod propriè corpus ejus sit panis poculum sanguis sed quod in se mysterium corporis sanguinisque continâ—â—nt Christs faithful ones receiving the Sacrament of his Body and Blood are rightly said to receive his Body and Blood. And he had said before Not that the Bread is properly his Body and the Cup his Blood but because they contain in them the mystery of his Body and Blood. Isidore (t) De Offic. Eccles l. 1. c. 18. Haec duo sunt visibilia sanctificata autem per Spiritum Sanctum in Sacramentum Divini Corporis transeunt speaking of the Bread and Wine says These two are visible but being sanctified by the Holy Spirit they pass into a Sacrament of his Divine Body They call them also Symbols Origen (u) Comm. in Matth. 15. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Having discoursed as we heard before of the Eucharist concludes thus Thu much may suffice concerning the Typical and symbolical Body And distinguishes it from the word that was made Flesh which he calls true food Eusebius (x) Dem. Evang. l. 1. cap. 10. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Having received a command to celebrate the memory of this Sacrifice upon the Table by the Symbols of his Body and saving Blood according to the Ordinances of the N. Testament Theodoret (y) Comm. in 1 Cor. 13. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not only in the large Testimony produced out of him in the last Chapter calls the Bread and Wine the Symbols of Christs Body and Blood but says thus elsewhere In the most H. Baptism we see a type of the resurrection then we shall see the resurrection it self Now we see the Symbols of the Lords Body there we shall see the Lord himself They call them Signs S. Austin (z) Contr. Adimant c. 12. Non dubitavit Dominus dicere hoc est corpus meum cùm daret signum corporis sui Our Lord did not doubt to say This is my Body when he gave the sign of his Body S. Ambrose (a) De iis qui init c. 9. Ante benedictionem verborum Coelestium alia species nominatur post Consecrationem Corpus Christi significatur of the Bread. Before the Benediction of the Heavenly words another species is named after the Consecration the Body of Christ is signified S. Cyprian (b) Nec potest videri sanguis ejus quo redempti vivificati sumus esse in calice quùm vinum desit calici quo Christi sanguis ostenditur Epist ad Caecilium Neither can the Blood of Christ whereby we are redeemed and quickned be seen to be in the Cup when Wine is wanting in the Cup whereby the Blood of Christ is shown Speaking against those that used only Water Tertullian (c) L. 1. adv Marcion Nec panem reprobavit quo ipsum Corpus suum repraesentat Neither did he reject Bread whereby he represents his own Body S. Jerome (d) In Matth. 26. Ut quomodo in praefiguratione ejus Melchisedec summi Dei sacerdos panem vinum offerens fecerat ipse quoque veritatem sui corporis sanguinis repraesentaret Christ says he took Bread that comforts mans heart and proceeded to the true Sacrament of the Passover That like as Melchisedeck the Priest of the High God had done when he offered Bread and Wine so he also might represent the truth of his Body and Blood. It 's a very trifling objection that our Adversaries make both to this and the former Testimony in Tertullian that the word repraesentare to represent signifies very often to exhibit a thing and make it present for tho' it should be granted it would not help their cause since they both say that it is Bread that represents his Body which therefore must remain since that which is not cannot act any thing but then I add that tho' in some Cases to represent is to exhibit yet never in the Case of Sacraments and Signs for their Essence consists in signification therefore their representation as Signs must be to denote and show rather something absent which they represent than to make it present They call them also Types Cyril of Jerus (e) Catech. Mystag 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He bids us receive the Bread and Wine with all certainty as the Body and Blood of Christ for in the Type of the Bread his Body is given to thee and in the type of Wine his Blood. Greg. Nazianzen (f) In Pasch Orat. 43. Ed. Basil Gr. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 We shall receive the Passover now in a Type still tho' more clear than that of the old Law for the legal Passover I am bold to say it was an obscure Type of a Type but within a while we shall receive it more perfect and more pure S. Jerome (g) In Jerem. 31. upon those words of Jerem. 31. They shall flow unto the goodness of the Lord for Wheat and Wine and Oyl adds De quo conficitur panis Domini sanguinis ejus impletur typus benedictio sanctificationis ostenditur Of which is made the Lords Bread and the Type of his Blood is filled and the Blessing of Sanctification is shown Theodoret (h) Dialog 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 calls the Eucharist The venerable and saving Type of Christs Body Another name is Antitypes signifying the same with the former Author Constitutionum (i) Lib. 5. cap. 13. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 under the name of Clemens Roman Christ delivered to us the mysteries which are antitypes of his precious Body and Blood. Again (k) Lib. 7. c. 26. O our Father we give thee thanks for the precious Blood of Jesus Christ shed for us 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and for his precious Body of which we celebrate these Antitypes Eustathius of Antioch (l) In Proverb 9. citat in Conc. Nic. 2. Act. 6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 expounding those words Eat my Bread and Drink the Wine that I have mingled says He speaks these things by Bread and Wine preaching the Antitypes of Christs Bodily Members Macarius (m) Homil. 27. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In the Church is offered Bread and Wine the Antitype of Christs Flesh and Blood. Greg. Nazianzin (n) Orat. 11. telling the story how his Sister Gorgonia was Cured of a desperate Malady by applying the Sacrament mixed with tears to her Body he expresses it thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Whatsoever of the Antitypes of the precious Body and Blood of Christ her hand had treasured up c. Cyril
more need of Symbols or Signs when the Body it self appears I refer the Reader to the Testimonies produced before Chap. 10. Position 2. out of S. Austin Sedulius Primasius Bede c. I will conclude this Chapter with a passage or two out of the Prayers after the Sacrament in the Old Liturgy used in Bertram's time (k) V. Bertram de corp sang Christi prope finem p. 112. Edit ult Lat. Engl. We who have now received the Pledge of Eternal Life most humbly beseech thee to grant (l) Ut quod in imagine contingimus Sacramenti manifesta participatione sumamus That we may be manifestly made partakers of that which we here receive in the Image of the Sacrament And thus afterwards (m) Ibid. p. 114. Perficiant in nobis quaesumus Domine tua Sacramenta quod continent ut quae nunc specie gerimus rerum veritate capiamus in another Prayer Let thy Sacraments work in us O Lord we beseech thee those things which they contain that we may really be partakers of those things which now we celebrate in a Figure Bertram Comments upon these Prayers in such passages as these Whence it appears says he that this Body and Blood of Christ are the Pledge and Image of something to come which is now only represented but shall hereafter be plainly exhibited therefore it is one thing which is now celebrated and another which shall hereafter be manifested And afterwards p. 115. The Prayer says that these things are celebrated in a Figure not in Truth that is by way of similitude or representation not the manifestation of the thing it self Now the Figure and the Truth are very different things Therefore the Body and Blood of Christ which is celebrated in the Church differs from the Body and Blood of Christ which is glorified since the Resurrection c. Ps 117. We see how vast a difference there is between the mystery of Christs Body and Blood which the faithful now receive in the Church and that Body which was born of the Virgin Mary which suffered rose again ascended into Heaven and sitteth at the right hand of the Father For this Body which we celebrate in our way to happiness must be spiritually received for Faith believes somewhat that it sees not and it spiritually feeds the Soul makes glad the heart and confers Eternal Life and Incorruption if we attend not to that which feeds the Body which is chew'd with our teeth and ground in pieces but to that which is spiritually received by Faith. But now that Body in which Christ suffered and rose again was his own proper Body which he assumed of the Virgin which might be seen and felt after his Resurrection c. It is very observable and a great confirmation of what has been said in this Chapter That the Ancient Christians of S. Thomas inhabiting the Mountains of Malabar in the East Indies agree with the Ancient Church in denying our Saviours Corporal Presence in the Sacrament of the Eucharist as appears from their Publick Offices and other Books mentioned in a Synod which was celebrated amongst them by Dom Aleixo de Menezes Archbishop of Goa in the Year 1599. In the fourteenth Decree of the third Action of the said Synod in which most of their Church Offices and other Books are Condemned for containing Doctrines contrary to the Roman Faith there is particular notice taken of their contradicting the Roman Faith in the point of Transubstantiation 1. The Book of Timothy the Patriarch is condemned for asserting through three Chapters that the true Body of Christ our Lord is not in the Sacrament of the Altar but only the Figure of his Body 2. The Book of Homilies is condemned which teacheth that the H. Eucharist is only the Image of Christ as the Image of a Man is distinguished from a real Man and that the Body of Christ is not there but in Heaven 3. The Book of the Exposition of the Gospels is condemn'd which teacheth that the Eucharist is only the Image of the Body of Christ and that his Body is in Heaven at the right Hand of the Father and not upon Earth 4. Their Breviary which they call Iludre and Gaza is condemn'd which teaches that the most H. Sacrament of the Eucharist is not the true Body of Christ Lastly The Office of the Burial of Priests is condemn'd where it is said that the most H. Sacrament of the Altar is no more but the virtue of Christ and not his true Body and Blood. This Synod was Printed in the University of Conimbra with the Licences of the Inquisition and Ordinary in the Year 1606. and is in the Possession of a Learned Person who gave me this account out of it CHAP. XII The Twelfth Difference The Fathers assert That Christ's Body is not eaten corporally and carnally but only spiritually But the Church of Rome teaches a Corporal Eating a Descent of Christ's Natural Body into ours and understands the Eating of Christ's Body literally and carnally IF the Church of Rome declares its own Faith when it imposes the Profession of it upon another and makes one abjure the contrary under pain of Anathema then I am sure it was once with a witness for the eating of Christ's Body in the most literal and proper Sense when An. Dom. 1059. Pope Nicholas II. and the General Council of Lateran prescribed a Profession of it to Berengarius made him swear it and anathematize the contrary as it is set down by Lanfrank (n) De Eucharist Sacram. adv Berengar which because the Nubes Testium tho' it has set down two other Forms durst not give us I will therefore here transcribe out of him Ego Berengarius indignus Diaconus Ecclesiae S. Mauritii Andegavensis cognoscens veram Catholicam Apostolicam Fidem anathematizo omnem Haeresm praecipue eam de quâ hactenus infamatus sum quae astruere conatur panem vinum quae in altari ponuntur post consecrationem solummodo Sacramentum non verum corpus sanguinem Dom. nostri Jesu Christi esse nec posse sensualiter nisi in solo Sacramento manibus Sacerdotum tractari vel frangi aut fidelium dentibus atteri Consentio autem S. Romanae Ecclesiae Apostolicae sedi ore corde profiteor de Sacramentis Dominicae mensae eam fidem tenere quam Do minus Venerabilis Papa Nicholaus haec S. Synodus authoritate Evangelica Apostolica tenendam tradidit mihique sirmavit scilicet Panem vinum quae in altari ponuntur post consecrationem non solum Sacramentum sed etiam verum corpus D. N. J. Christi esse sensualiter non solum Sacramento sed in veritate manibus Sacerdotum tractari frangi fidelium dentibus atteri jurans per S. homousion Trinitatem per haec sacrosancta Christi Evangelia Eos vero qui contra hanc fidem venerint cum dogmatibus sectatoribus suis
that upon the Sign given all may fall down together and worship him S. Chrysostom (t) Loc. citat 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 calls it a contumely against him that invites one to Feast to be present and not to partake of it and asks Whether it had not been better for such a one to have been absent But the Council of Trent was of another mind and their Opinion is (u) Conc. Trid. Sess 22. c. 6. Non propterea Missas illas in quibus solus sacerdos Sacramentaliter communicat ut privatas illicitas damnare sed probare atque adeo commendare That those Masses in which the Priest communicates sacramentally alone are not to be condemned as private and unlawful but to be approved and commended And not content with this they thunder out an Anathema (x) Ibid. Can. 8. Si quis dixerit Missas in quibus solus sacerdos Sacramentaliter communicat illicitas esse adeoque abrogandas anathema sit against those that say and let S. Chrysostom look to himself that such Masses are unlawful and to be abrogated At these Masses the Novices and Catechumens may be present and no Deacon cries out to them to withdraw for tho' indeed they may not eat yet they may worship And the Penitents that were excluded while their Penance lasted from so much as seeing the Sacrament in the Ancient Church in this Church the oftner they come for this purpose the more welcome and by direction when publick Penance has been enjoined the Holy Altar has been the place chosen before which to perform it as their Annals (y) Annal. Japan ad An. 1579. tells us of one Sangunus a noted Courtier in Japan that for the expiation of a Crime came and fell down at the Altar in the Church of the Royal City and there before the Holy Sacrament claw'd his Back with Scourges so long as one of the Seven Penitential Psalms was recited These Practices tho' so contrary to one another are yet natural enough and well-suited to the Principles of each Church but then it is plain their Principles and Opinions concerning the Sacrament were widely different and that such things were never practised of old was not because Christians then wanted their Devotion but their Faith. 2. Instance A second practice of the Christian Church of old was giving the Communion in both kinds the Cup that is as well as the Bread tho' now by a Law of the Roman Church in the Council of Constance and Trent abolished That the ancient Practice was to deliver it in both Kinds has been often proved by Learned Men on our side and particularly by an excellent late Dicourse against the Bishop of Meaux (x) Discourse of the Communion in one kind in Answer to the Bishop of Meaux's Treatise upon this Subject and has been also acknowledged by the Learned Men of the Roman Communion such as Cassander Wicelius Petavius c. Which makes it needless to insist further upon the proof of it We are sure it continued thus even to the Age when Transubstantion was established by the Lateran Council since we find a whole Army of Charles King of Sicily as the Historian (a) Apud Du Chesn Tom. 5. Hist Franc. p. 840. citante Dallaeo de cultib Latin. lib. 5. c. 12. Cum exercitus esset in procinctu Decanum Meldensem associatis sibi Monachis corpus sanguinem Christi regiis militibus dedisse tells us just before they went to the Fight against Manfred Ann. 1265. or 1266 as other Historians will have it all received the Body and Blood of Christ Aquinas agrees That it was the ancient Custom of the Church That all that communicated of the Body communicated also of the Blood (b) In Joan. 6. Propter periculum effusionis But for to prevent spilling the Blood he says in some Churches the practice is that the Priest alone communicates in the Blood and the rest in the Body of Christ We see then about what time this grand Sacrilege as P. Gelasius calls it (c) Speaking of some Persons that taking the Body abstained from the Cup of the Holy Blood says Aut integra Sacramenta percipiant aut ab integris arceantur quia divisio umus ejusdemque mysterii sine grandi Sacrilegio non potest pervenire Apud Gratian. decrit 3. part 2. dist of dividing one and the same Mystery made a more publick entry into the Church it was when Transubstantiation had been newly made an Article of Faith and it was very natural that this practice should within a while by easy steps be a Consequent of that For Transubstantiation makes Christ's Flesh and Blood the same which he took of the Virgin and which he had when he was crucified to be actually and corporally present in the Eucharist and that in a glorified State to which Divine Adoration is due this is apt to beget a profound Veneration and a mighty Concern lest any thing contumelious should happen to that which Men justly account so very precious Now it being certain that the Blood which is under the Species of Wine is subject to those Casualties by reason of its fluidity which the other Species is not so liable to and that in the glorified State the Body and Blood are inseparable and therefore that one Species viz. that of the Bread contains under it both the Body and Blood together what could be more agreeable to such Sentiments as these than that Men should willingly part with their Right in a Matter wherein they seem not to be much wrong'd being only deprived of a few Accidents of Wine when the Blood was secured to them to secure the Honour of their Saviour It is true indeed that the Stream of the contrary Custom made it difficult to remove that at once notwithstanding this danger of effusion of the Blood which they had been wont in all preceding Ages to receive therefore the Wits of Men being set on work by a new Transubstantiating Doctrine found out some new Devices practised first in the Cells of the Monks but afterwards about the time of Berengarius brought into the Churches to secure that dreadful Danger and yet not deprive the People of communicating in the Blood of Christ One was the Device of Intinction or steeping the Bread in the Wine and thus receiving both at once which as Card. Cusanus informs us (d) Epist 3. ad Bohem. Non parva altercatio in principio mutationis illius prioris tamen universalis Ecclesia quia ita tempori congruebat populum cum intincto pane communicare permisit tho' it went not down without great contention at the first change from the old Practice yet the Universal Church complying with the Times permitted it But it was not long it was thus suffered for by a Decree of Pope Vrban 2. in the Council of Clermont and by an enforcement of it by his Successor P. Paschal 2. whose Epistle to Pontius Abbot of Cluny
concerning this Matter Baronius has given us (e) Baronius Append. ad Tom. 12. ad An. 1118. this practice was abrogated A second Device also about the same time was brought into play Of sucking the Consecrated Wine through little Pipes or Canes called Pugillares like Quills concerning which Cassander de communione sub utraque gives us an account and that some of them were to be seen in his Time. And indeed this seems to be a sufficient security to the danger of Effusion and also prevents that great Offence of any drops of Blood sticking to the Beards of People when they drank out of the Cup and yet even this would not satisfy nor any thing else be a sufficient Caution against the prophanation of the Blood but only debarring the People wholly of it Yet this way is still used by the Pope himself and I think he has the sole privilege to do it who in that which is called the Missa Papalis when he himself celebrates and communicates he sucks part of the Blood through a golden Quill * Cum pontifex Corpus Christi sumpserit Episcopus Cardinalis porrigit â—i calamum quem Papa ponit in Calice in manibus Diaconi existente Sanguinis partem sugit Sacrarum Cerimon lib. 2. cap. de Missa Majori Papa personaliter celebrante But neither do's he always thus communicate for their Book of Sacred Ceremonies acquaints us (**) Ibid. cap. Si Papa in nocte Nativitatis personaliter celebrat Non sugit sanguinem cum calamo sed more communi That when He celebrates personally on the Night of the Nativity of our Lord that all things are observed that are described in the Papal Mass except that he communicates at the Altar alone and not in his eminent and high Seat and do's not suck the Blood with a Quill but takes it after the common manner But now after all what account can we give of the Ancient Fathers they apprehended it necessary to receive in both Kinds in all their Publick Communions and so they practised Must we not then accuse them either of great Dulness or Indevotion either that they wanted Sagacity in not apprehending the imminent danger they in their way exposed the Blood of Christ to or that they were guilty of a strange carelesness and indifferency in not preventing it by any of those Methods which the Roman Church hath found out to do it Truly for my part I am inclined to have as great if not a greater opinion of them in both respects especially for their Devotion than I can have of the Roman Church and I am the more perswaded hereto because the Apostles themselves must come in to the side of the Ancient Church their practice being the same not to insist upon the Deference that ought to be paid to that Holy Spirit that we are sure acted them who if there had been any such real danger of prophanation by receiving in both kinds or ever was likely to be any such would not have failed to have given directions to them how they should avoid it and we cannot think the Apostles would not have set down those Directions to us in some of their Writings But they have not done it no not the Zealous St. Paul who yet says so much to the careless Corinthians about this Argument and tells them that they came together not for the better but the worse charges them with unworthy receiving and being thereby guilty of the Body and Blood of the Lord 1 Cor. 11. and that for this cause many were weak and sick among them and were judged of the Lord for their prophanations c. But this is none of the Charges against them nor does he direct them to any of the wise Methods of the Roman Church for preventing this Danger tho' he says What he received of the Lord he delivered to them There is nothing then remains but that we assign the true Cause of this different Practice which can be none other but the Roman Churches innovating in their Faith about the Sacrament and altering so their Opinions about the Body and Blood of Christ in the Eucharist that they require a different Conduct for their Devotion so that neither the Practice of the Primitive Fathers nor the Rules of the Apostles will sâ—it and agree with their Perswasions and Apprehensions But now the Faith of the Ancient Church in this Matter was such as neither requires nor can admit of any Alteration like what the Church of Rome has made in communicating the People only in one Kind For as I have before proved they look'd upon this Sacrament not as an actual Exhibition and Presentation of the Natural and Glorified Body of our Saviour which they believed to be absent and contained in the Heavens but as a Representation of his Crucified Body where his Blood was separated from his Body and poured out of his Veins and that not only the Elements but the Sacramental Actions of breaking the Bread and pouring out the Wine and our eating and drinking were instituted to shew forth this painful Death of our Lord and the shedding of his most precious Blood for the Remission of Sins By the presence of his glorified Body there as the Roman Church believes this cannot be done no breaking nor no parts to be made of that nor no separation of Blood as out of the Body But all can be done in the Representative Body of Christ which is the Eucharist all the Ends of the Institution can be there fully effected and the Sacrifice on the Cross in this Image of it made present to our Faith and to our Minds and set livelily before us and by the Effects of this upon our Hearts while we partake of the Elements through the powerful Grace of God's Holy Spirit we may be prepared to receive all the Blessed Fruits and Benefits of his Passion According to these Perswasions it 's plain there can be no abatement of communicating in the Cup because without that there is no representation of a Crucified Body for the distinct partaking of the Blood not as supposed to be contained and received in the other Species is that which alone shows as I said before the separation that was then made of his Body and Blood. 3. Instance Another Practice of the Roman Church differing from the Ancient is The Elevation of the Eucharist that all present may at once adore it For thus the Missal (*) Ritus celebr Missam cap. 8. Dicit hoc est enim Corpus meum Quibus prolatis celebrans Hostiam tenens inter pollices indices genuflexus eam adorat Tunc se erigens quantum commodè potest elevat in altum Hostiam intentis in eam oculis quod in Elevatione Calicis facit populo reverenter ostendit adorandam directs That when the Priest comes to the words of Consecration and has said This is my Body then holding the Host as he is directed he kneels down
no Remains kept any where but upon the publick Altars where no Hand must touch them but the Priest's The Council of Trent (m) Sess 25. cap. 10. will not allow the Sanctimoniales the very Nuns in their Quires or in any places within their Cloister intra chorum vel septa Monasterii to keep it by them but only in publica Ecclesia notwithstanding any former Grants and Privileges And a Great Man (n) Petavius de Poenit. l. 1. c. 7. Si quis nunc Laicus simile quid auderet is apud nos censeretur gravi poena expiandi criminis reus veluti sanctissimi Sacramenti profanus temerator speaking of the former Usages says If any Lay-man now should dare to do so he would be accounted guilty of a Crime to be expiated by a grievous punishment as a profane Violator of the most Holy Sacrament But if it be so great a Crime with them to reserve it when they have received it What will they say to the next Difference I shall now mention 3. Difference That among the Ancients what was so privately reserved was put to such uses as the present Roman Church must abhor because they are direct Affronts to the belief of Transubstantiation and the corporal Presence It appears by S. Cyprian libr. de Lapsis that the very Women in his Time had liberty to take the Eucharist home with them and dispose of it as they pleased and the Woman he there speaks of that lock'd it up in her Chest had not the Roman Opinion of a Latent Deity which such usage ill agrees with or rather affronts Neither had Cyril of Jerusalem (o) Catech. Mystag 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 their Perswasions when he advises his Communicant whilst his Lips were wet and dewy with what he had drank in the Cup with his Hands to touch his Eyes and Forehead and the rest of the Organs of his Senses for their Sanctification But what Gorgonia Nazianzen's Sister did with the Remains of the Antitypes of Christ's Body and Blood exceeds it when as he reports of her to her commendation (p) Orat. 11. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. she mixed them with her Tears and anointed her whole Body with it for the recovery out of a grievous Disease A like Story to which S. Austin gives us (q) Lib. 3. secundi op adv Jul. Neque hoc permisisse religiosam matrem suam sed id effecisse ex Eucharistiae cataplasmate of the Mother of one Acatius who was born with closed Eyes which a Physician advised should be opened with an Instrument of Iron but she refused and cured him with a Cataplasm or Plaster made of the Eucharist In honour to our Saviour we find a Woman anointing his Body but to make his Body an Ointment for hers or to make it into a Medicine is but course usage of it and such as none would adventure upon that was perswaded it was a deified Body The old Custom which Eusebius mentions (r) Lib. 5. Hist Eccles c. 24. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of sending the Sacrament from one Bishop to another as a Token of Peace and Communion seems to argue but little good Manners with the Church of Rome's Opinions concerning it for tho' God sent his Son on a blessed Errand and Embassy it looks too saucy for us to send him on ours What Indecencies would this Church justly fear the Body of Christ would be subject to if there were that permission that was granted of old to carry the Eucharist along with them in their Voyages at Sea Yet this P. Gregory the Great tells us was practised by Maximianus and his Companions returning from Constantinople to Rome and being in a Tempest in the Adriatick Sea (s) Dial. l. 3. c. 36. Sibimet pacem dedisse corpus sanguinem Redemptoris accepisse Deo se singulos commendantes They gave one another the Pax received the Body and Blood of their Redeemer recommending every one himself to God. But that which S. Ambrose informs us (t) Orat. de obitu fratris Priusquamperfectioribus esset initiatus mysteriis in naufragio constitutus ne vacuus mysterii exiret è vita quos initiatos esse cognoverat ab his Divinum illud fidelium sacramentum poposcit ligari fecit in oratio orarium involvit in collo atque ita se dejecit in mare of his Brother Satyrus was still more bold Who being Shipwrack'd at Sea and not yet having been baptized lest he should die without the Mystery he begg'd of some of those that were baptized to let him have that Divine Sacrament of the Faithful the Custom then being to have it reserved about them which they granting he put it up in his Handkerchief which he then tied about his Neck and so threw himself into the Sea. Whatsoever Conceits Satyrus might have when he borrowed it yet those that bestowed it could never think fit with the foresaid belief to deliver it into the Hands of one not yet a perfect Christian nor to be tied about his Neck in a cloth that I suppose was no Corporal as they call it to be exposed to the dashing of Sea-waves like a Bladder or a Cork to keep him from drowning But there is a more irreconcileable Practice of the Ancients with the present Belief with which I shall end this Particular about reservation of the Sacrament It is the Custom of burying the reserved parts of it with their dead Bodies The Author of the Life of S. Basil (u) Vita Basil c. 6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 tells us That he kept a Particle of the Eucharist to be buried with him and left it so to be by his last Will. St. Gregory (x) Dialog l. 2. c. 24. Quibus vir Dei â—â—nu sua protenus communionem Dominici corporis dedit dicers Ite atque hoc Dominicum corpus super pectus ejus ponite sic sepulturâ— cum tradite Quod dum factum fuisset susceptum corpus ejus terra tenuit nec ultra projecit tells a strange Story of a Youth that was a Monk who going out of S. Benet's Monastery without his Benediction suddenly was found dead and being buried the next day was forced out of his Grave and a second Time was found so after Burial Whereupon says he they ran weeping to S. Benet praying him to bestow his Blessing upon him To whom that Man of God gave the Communion of the Lord's Body saying Go and lay this Body of our Lord upon his Breast and so bury him They did so and then he kept in his Grave and the Earth threw him out no more I know that there are several Canons of Councils made against this Practice as the 20th Canon of the Council of Carthage and the 83 Canon of the 6th General Council at Constantinople in Trullo upon which last Canon Zonaras observes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. That it was an ancient Custom to deliver the
Fidei contra Judaeos c. printed An. 1494. but written as the Author himself tells us fol. 61. in the Year 1458. where he gives us the Arguments of a Jew against Transubstantiation some of which I shall out of him faithfully translate The Jew (g) Vid. l. 3. consid 6. fol. 130 impossibl 10. begins with Christ's words of Institution and shows that they cannot be interpreted otherwise than figuratively and significatively as the Fathers we have heard have asserted 1. Vos Christiani dicitis c. Ye Christians say in that Sacrament of the Eucharist there is really the Body and Blood of Christ This is impossible Because when your Christ showing the Bread said This is my Body he spake significatively and not really as if he had said this is the Sign or Figure of my Body After which way of speaking Paul said 1 Cor. 10. The Rock was Christ that is a Figure of Christ And it appears evidently that this was the Intention of your Christ because when he had discoursed about the eating his Body and drinking his Blood to lay the offence that rose upon it among the Disciples he says as it were expounding himself The words that I have spoken to you are Spirit and Life denoting that what he had said was to be understood not according to the Letter but according to the Spiritual Sence And when Christ said This is my Body holding Bread in his Hands he meant that that Bread was his Body in potentia propinqua in a near possibility viz. after he had eaten it for then it would be turned into his Body or into his Flesh and so likewise the Wine And after this manner we Jews do on the day of Unleavened Bread for we take unleavened Bread in memory of that time when our Fathers were brought out of the Land of Egyyt and were not permitted to stay so long there as whilst the Bread might be leavened that was the Bread of the Passover and we say This is the Bread which our Fathers ate though that be not present since it is past and gone and so this unleavened Bread minds us of the Bread of Egypt and this Bread is not that so is that Bread of which the Sacrifice of the Altar is made It is sufficient for Christians to say that it is in memory of that Bread of Christ though this Bread be not that And because it was impossible that one Bit of his Flesh should be preserved in memory of him he commanded that that Bread should be made and that Wine which was his Flesh and Blood in the next remove to come into act as we Jews do and Christ borrowed his Phrases and the Elements from their Supper at the Passover with the unleavened Bread as we said before When therefore your Christ at the Table took Bread and the Cup and gave them to his Disciples he did not bid them believe that the Bread and Wine were turned into his Body and Blood but that as often as they did that they should do it in remembrance of him viz. in memory of that past Bread and if you Christians did understand it so no impossibility would follow but to say the contrary as you assert is to say an impossible thing and against the intention of your Christ as we have show'd This is what the Jew urges with great reason But the Catholick Author makes a poor Answer to it and has nothing to say in effect but this That the Tradition of the Catholick Church concerning this Sacrament is true viz. That in this Sacrament there is really and not by way of Signification the True Body and True Blood of Christ 2. Whereas the Roman Church-flies to Miracles in this case of Transubstantiation the Jew encounters that next of all thus You Christians say that the Body and Blood of Christ is in the Sacrament of the Altar by a Miracle Ibid. 11. Impossib p. 131. this I prove to be impossible Because if there were any Miracle in the case it would appear to the Eye as when Moses turned the Rod into a Serpent that was performed evidently to the Eye though Men knew not how it was done So also in the case of the Ark of the Covenant of Old mighty Miracles were wrought and those not only sensible Miracles but also publick and apparent to all the People insomuch that Infidels were terrifyed at the very report of such Miracles Men seeing before their Eyes the Divine Power brightly shining in Reverence of the Ark of his Covenant as appears in his Dividing the Waters of Jordan while the People of Israel passed over dry-shod the Waters on one side swelling like a Mountain and on the other flowing down as far as the dead Sea till the Priests with the Ark went over the Chanel of Jordan and then Jordan returned to its wonted course But the Kings of the Amorites and Canaanites hearing of so great and publick a Miracle were so confounded with the terror of God that no Spirit remained in them Josu c. 4. 5. and so I might instance in many other Evident Miracles which to avoid tediousness I omit And yet in that Ark neither God nor Christ was really contained but only the Tables of Stone containing the Precepts of the Decalogue and the Pot of Manna c. Exod. 16. and the Rod of Aaron that flourished in the House of Levi Numb 17. If therefore by the Ark that carried only the foresaid Bodies that were inanimate how sacred soever they were God wrought in Honour of it such evident far-spreading and publick Miracles how much more powerfully should they have been wrought by him if it were true that in your Sacrament of the Altar the true God or Christ were really contained whom you affirm that he ought to be worshipped and venerated infinitely above all Since therefore no such thing do's appear there to the Eye it follows that it is impossible for any Miracle to be done there since this is against the Nature of a Miracle The answer to this is so weak and so the rest are generally such an unintelligible School-jargon that I shall not tire the Reader with them But shall go on with the Jew Ibid. 12. Impossib fol. 132. 3. You Christians do assert that the true Body of Christ begins to be on the Altar This seems to be impossible For a thing begins to be where it was not before two ways Either by Local Motion or by the conversion of another thing into it as appears in Fire which begins to be any where either because it is kindled there anew or is brought thither de novo But it is manifest that the true Body of Christ was not always on the Altar because the Christians assert that Christ ascended in his Body to Heaven It seems also impossible to be said that any thing here is converted anew into Christ's Body because nothing seems convertible into that which existed before since that into which another
Misere nobis Hostia Sancta Misere nobis Calix Benedictionis Misere nobis Mysterium fidei Miserere nobis Praecelsum venerabile Sacramentum Miserere nobis Sacrificium omnium Sanctissimum Miserere nobis Vere propitiatorium pro vivis defunctis Miserere nobis Coeleste Antidorum quo à peccatis praeservamur Miserere nobis Stupendum supra omnia miraculum Miserere nobis Sacratissima Dominicae passionis commemoratio Miserere nobis Donum transcendens omnem plenitudinem Miserere nobis Memoriale praecipuum divini amoris Miserere nobis Divinae affluentia largitatis Miserere nobis Sacrosanctum augustissimum mysterium Miserere nobis Pharmacum immortalitatis Miserere nobis Tremendum ac vivificum Sacramentum Miserere nobis Panis omnipotentia verbi caro factus Miserere nobis Incruentum Sacrificium Miserere nobis Cibus conviva Miserere nobis Dulcissimum convivium cui assistunt Angeli ministrantes Miserere nobis Sacramentum Pietatis Miserere nobis Vinculum Charitatis Miserere nobis Offerens Oblatio Miserere nobis Spiritualis dulcedo in proprio fonte degustata Miserere nobis Refectio animarum Sanctarum Miserere nobis Viaticum in Domino morientium Miserere nobis Pignus futurae gloriae c. Miserere nobis The Litany of the Sacrament in the Manual aforesaid Living Bread that didst descend from Heaven Have mercy on us God hidden and my Saviour Have mercy on us Bread-Corn of the Elect Have mercy on us Wine budding forth Virgins Have mercy on us Fat Bread and the delight of Kings Have mercy on us Continual Sacrifice Have mercy on us Pure Oblation Have mercy on us Lamb without spot Have mercy on us Manual adds Table of Proposition Have mercy on us Most pure Table Have mercy on us Food of Angels Have mercy on us Hidden Manna Have mercy on us Memorial of God's wonderful Works Have mercy on us Supersubstantial Bread Have mercy on us Word made Flesh and dwelling in us Have mercy on us Holy Host Have mercy on us Chalice of Benediction Have mercy on us Mystery of Faith Have mercy on us Most high and venerable Sacrament Have mercy on us Sacrifice of all other most Holy Have mercy on us Truly propitiatory for the Quick and Dead Have mercy on us Heavenly Antidote whereby we are preserved from Sin Have mercy on us Miracle above all other astonishing Have mercy on us Most sacred Commemoration of our Lord's Death Have mercy on us Gift surpassing all Fulness Have mercy on us Chief Memorial of Divine Love Have mercy on us Abundance of Divine Bounty Have mercy on us Holy and most Majestical Mystery Have mercy on us Medicine of Immortality Have mercy on us Dreadful and Life-giving Sacrament Have mercy on us Bread by the Word's Omnipotence made Flesh Have mercy on us Unbloody Sacrifice Have mercy on us Meat and Guest Manual omits Have mercy on us Most sweet Banquet whereat the Ministring Angels attend Have mercy on us Sacrament of Piety Have mercy on us Bond of Charity Have mercy on us Offerer and Oblation Have mercy on us Spiritual sweetness tasted in its proper Fountain Have mercy on us Refection of Holy Souls Have mercy on us Viaticum of those who die in our Lord Have mercy on us Pledge of future Glory c. Have mercy on us This is enough to show into what strains of Devotion the present Roman Church now runs since Transubstantiation is an Article of its Faith. I deny not that these Prayers are very natural if that Doctrine were true and I would fain have a good Reason assigned why if this Doctrine was believed of old this was not the way of the Primitive Devotion If they affirm that it was it lies upon them to produce the evidence But then let me tell them before-hand that we will not be shamm'd off with a Rhetorical Prosopopoeia of an Author under the name of S. Denis the Areopagite which has been the only thing I have seen alledged and as often answered whose Authority neither cannot be considerable to us who remember that he was first produced and shown to the World by Hereticks and rejected by the Orthodox CHAP. XVI The Sixteenth Difference Our Ancient Roman-Saxon Church differred from the present Roman Church in the Article of Transubstantiation and Corporal Presence THis is the Last Difference I shall mention tho' not the least but a very material confirmation of what I have been all along proving That there is no consent of the Ancient Church with the present Roman Church in their Faith and Opinions about the Eucharist when we shall find that even our own Old English Church that had received most of its Instructions in Christianity from the Roman and in many other things agreed with what it now professes yet in this widely differ'd from it This plainly argues one of these two things either that the then Roman Church had not the Opinions of the present Church in these Matters and so did not propagate them to us which cannot be said when we remember the busy Disputes about these Matters in the 9th Century tho' they were not yet come to a determination or else that when the Roman Church warped and generally espoused a New Doctrine which the Ancient Fathers were strangers to we still kept our Ground and did not suffer our selves to be perverted but held to the Ancient Belief This is the Truth of our Case as appears by a noble Remain of an Easter Sermon about 700 Years old in the Saxon Tongue among other Catholick Homilies that were to be read yearly in the Church It was produced in the last Age in the Saxon with a Translation in our English Tongue printed by John Day it was since put with the same Translation by Mr. Fox into his Martyrology * Vol. 2. p. 380. last Edition and has been set forth with a Latin Translation by the Learned Abr. Whelock in his Saxon Edition of Bede's Ecclesiastical History p. 462. printed at Cambridg 1644. out of which I shall transcribe as much as will serve to prove our Assertion softning the harshness of the Phrases of the last Age and expressing the sense in words more easily understood The Easter Sermon begins thus MEN Beloved you have been often discoursed to concerning our Saviour's Resurrection how he after his Passion on this Day rose powerfully from the Dead Now we shall by God's Grace explain something to you about the Holy Eucharist which this day we are bound to frequent and instruct your understanding about this Mystery both according to the Old and New Testament that no doubting may disturb you concerning this Life-giving Banquet The Sermon goes on with an account of the Jewish Passover and the Application of those things to the Eucharist which I omit Christ before his suffering consecrated Bread P. 469. and distributed it to his Disciples saying thus Eat this Bread it is my Body and do this in remembrance of me Also he Consecrated