see them But we have great reason to suspect that they also are cited more Romano i.e. with great impertinence and falshood And I am certainly informed from Oxford that what is cited as from Vrsin is really the words of Vrsins Adversary Such ingenuity we meet with in the Citations of the Roman party Having produced these Testimonies of the Fathers which I have proved to be impertinent or spurious and these confessions of the Protestants which are insignificant or false or only such as do assert that Cyprian de Caena Domini Eusebius Emissenus and such spurious pieces seem to speak in favour of this Idle Dream He thus concludes that to deny what is confirmed by the Testimony of so many Ancient Fathers P. 308 309 and strengthned by the confession of our Brethren is most unreasonable But alas this flourish doth most assuredly confound the Church of Rome and evidently confutes that Doctrine it was intended to confirm For First it is confessed by many Doctors of the the Church of Rome that Transubstantiation is no ancient Doctrine viz. Peter Lombard Scotus Biel Erasmus and Peroon And Secondly a In Primitiva Ecclesia non erat de fide substantiam panis in co pus Christi converti Job Yribarn in 4 Sent. Dist 11. Q. 3. Disp 42. Sect. 1. That in the Primitive Church it was not any Article of Faith Thirdly b Scotus in 4 Distinct 11. Qâ—aest 3. s 1 â— Aâ—â—â—m That were it not for the authority and Determination of the Roman Church the words of Christ might more simply plainly and truly be understood and expounded Fourthly the Cardinal of c Distinct 4. Qu. 6. A. 2. Cambray adds that the opinion which holds the substance of bread not to remain doth not evidently follow of the Scripture nor to his seeming of the Churches determination Fifthly Your Secular d Discourse Modest p. 13. Priests affirm that it was concluded among the Fathers of the Society and what Catholick would not believe them that the Fathers have not so much as touched the point of Transubstantiation Sixthly It is no wonder saith e Antequam quaestio illa de Transubstantiatione in Ecclesia palam agitaretur minimè mirum est si unus aut alter aut etiam aliqui ex veteribus minus consideratè Rectè hâc de re senserint scripserint de Transub l. 2. c. 7. Gregory de Valentia if one or two or more of the Ancients have thought or written of this matter not so considerately and rightly And f Hinc discimus non essemirandum si Augustinus Theodoretus alii Veteres quaedam dixerint quae in specitem videntur favere haereticis L. 2. Euch. c. 25 p. 649. B. Bellarmin confesseth it is not to be wondred at if St. Austin Theodoret and other of the Ancients speak something which in show seems to favour the Hereticks The sayings of the ancient Fathers which interpret the words of Christ This is my Body in a figurative sence as much as any Protestant can do and which forced these Confessions from so many Cardinals Bishops Schoolmen Priests and Jesuites are these g Pane corpus suum representat l. 1. adv Marcion c. 14. by Bread Christ represents his Body saith Tertullian and again h Panem corpus suum appellat ut hinc jam eum intelligas corporis sui figuram pani dedisse L. 3. c. 19. Christ hath called Bread his Body that thereby thou mayest understand that he hath given to Bread the Figure of his Body And again i L. 4. c. 4 c. This is my Body that is the Figure of my Body St. k Ep. 63. §. 6. p. 175. Cyprian noteth That it was Wine even the Fruit of the Vine which the Lord saith was his Blood Our Lord saith St. l Paedag. l. 1. c. 6. p. 100 106. Clemens did bless Wine when he said Take drink this is my Blood and that it was Wine which was blessed be sheweth again saying I will no more drink of the Fruit of the Vine 2. Paedag. l. 1. c. 6. p. 100. 106. Our Lord in the Gospel of St. John doth otherwise expound Meat by Symbols when he saith Eat my Flesh and Drink my Blood an evident Symbol of Faith and the promises And again there is a donable Blood of the Lord Paed. l. 2. c. 2. one Carnal by which we are redeemed froim destruction and another Spiritual by which we are Anointed Origen speaks thus m Nec materia panis sed super illum dictus sermo est qui prodest non indigne Domino comedenti illum haee quidem de typico Symbolicoque corpore Orig. in Mat. 15. p. 17. Col. 1. B. It is not the matter of bread but the word spoken which profiteth him that doth not unworthily eat thereof and these things I speak of the Typical and Symbolical Body To the Fathers of the first three hundred years we will add the Testimonies of those that flourished in the 4th the first whereof shall be n Euseb l. 8. c. 1. Eusebius who saith ' That our Saviour delivered to his Disciples the Symbols of his Divine Dispensation commanding them to make the Image of his own Body and appointing them to use bread for the Symbol of his body And that o Euseb Demonst l. 1. c. 10 p. 27. we still celebrate upon the Lords Table the memory of his Sacrifice by the Symbols of his Body and Blood according to the Ordinances of the New Testament And lastly p Demoâ—ist l. 5. c. 3. p. 141. Our Saviour and Lord first and then all the Priests that have followed in all Nations celebrating the Spiritual Divine Service according to the Ordinances of the Church signifie unto us by the bread and wine the Mysteries of his body and blood q Serm. in illud quiounque dixerit verbum p. 979. Athanasius faith ' That Christ distinguished the Spirit from the Flesh that we might learn that the things he spake were not Carnal but Spiritual For how many men might his body have sufficed that it might be the food of the whole world it is as if he should have said that which is given for the world shall be given for meat that it may be Spiritually given to all In the Church saith r 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Macar Aegypt Hom 27 p. 164. Marcarius is offered bread and wine the Type of his Flesh and Blood and they which are partakers of the visible bread do Spiritually eat the Flesh of our Lord. Now we shall be partakers of the Passeover saith Å¿ Orat. 2 de Pasch To. 1. p. 692. Gregory Nazianzen but as yet in a Figure though more clear then in the Old Law For the Passover of the Law I will be bold to say it was but a more obscure figure of a figure Elsewhere he calls the Symbols the t In Epita Gorgon p. 187. Antitypes of the
there were as many Bodies hypostatically united to him as there were several meats eaten by him no saith he this Argument carries not the shew of probability Rep. Sure I am this answer hath but the shew of a similitude for the Elements of Bread are changed into Christs whole Body but all the several meats Christ eat were not changed into Christs whole Body but only into some part of it but the similitude is good against him for as the several meats which by Conversion became parts of Christs Body were not the self same parts but divers So the several Wafers which by Conversion become Christs whole Body are not the same whole Body but divers thus doth T. G's similitudo turn tayl upon him And that the Doctors Argument is perfect demonstration is most evident for it depends upon this proposition that if one Consecrated Element by one Christs Body hypostatically united to him then must Two be Two and Ten be Ten and many Consecrated Elements many Bodys which is a evident as this if one Twenty shillings in a bag be one pound then must Two be Two pound and many Twenty shillings in a bag must be many pounds CHAP. III. The CONTENTS Prop. The Bread and Wine are not Transubstantiated 1. Because we do not drink blood 2. Because we do not eat mans Flesh 3. Because mankind was not redeemed by the first Sacrament 4. Because the Scripture after Consecration calls it Bread and Wine 5. Because our senses have no evidence of such a change IN the participation of the Eucharist we do not eat the humane body of our Lord which suffered on the Cross nor drink of humane blood Prop. 1. Sect. 1. but what we eat and drink is true substantial Bread and Wine for 1. If Christ had given to his Disciples blood to eat he must have taught them to have done what was forbidden in the Law of Moses whereas he both exactly did observe that Law Mat. 23 3. and taught his own Disciples to observe what ever by the Scribes and Pharisees was taught them from the Law of Moses which was in force till all things were fulfilled by the death of Christ Secondly Christs own Disciples after his Resurrection were strict observers of the Law of Moses for a considerable time and so were also many Thousands of the Jewish converts 21 Act. 20. St. Peter was so nice in observation of the Jewish Customs that till a vision had informed him better 10 Act. 14. he thought such meat was utterly unlawful as was forbidden by the Law and when in a vision on he was bid to stay and eat he presently cryes out as a man tempted to an unlawful act not so Lord for I have never eaten any thing that is unclean St. James gives an account to Paul of the great zeal that all the Jewish Converts had for the Law of Moses Act. 21.20 in these words Thou seest Brother how many Thousands of Jews there are which believe and they are all zealous of the Law he declares how highly they were all offended with him because they were informed that he taught that they were not obliged to yield Obedience to the Constitutions and customs of the Jewish Law vers 21. They are saith he informed of thee that thou teachest all the Jews which are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses saying that they ought not to Circumcise their Children neither to walk after their Customs And Thirdly he exhorts him for their better satisfaction so to act v. â—4 as that he might induce them to believe that he also walked soberly and did keep the Law And yet St. Peter before this vision had assembled to celebrate the Holy Sacrament and all these Jewish converts so zealous of the observation of the Ceremonial Law did very frequently receive this Cup of Blessing Act. 20.7 11. and upon every Lords day at least did meet together to break Bread Whence evident it is that they did not look upon that action as any violation of the Law of Moses and so could not imagine that by participation of this Sacrament they drunk what properly was blood For they could not be ignorant that blood was by this Law forbidden Lev. 3.17 it having said it shall be a perpetual Statute for your Generations throughout all your dwellings Lev. c. 7. v. 27. that ye eat neither Fat nor Blood and that whatsoever sâ—â—â—l it he that eateth any manner of Blood even that soul shall be cut off from his People Nor could they be both zealous observators of the Law and quarrellors with those that did not keep it and yet transgress it themselves The Sect of Nazarens continued in the Church of Christ 400 years for of the a Sectae illius meminit Hâ—â—ronymus in Epist ad August August ipse l. 4. con Crescon Danaeas in August de Haeres p. 75. Nazarens St. Jerom and St. Austin do make mention they multiplyed and spread themselves throughout the Eastern Church and yet this Sect observed b Nazaraei cum Dei filium confireantur esse Christum omnia tamen veteris legis observant August de Heresibus Cap. 9. vid. Epiphaâ—â—um Haeres 29. § 7. all the Law of Moses and held it necessary to Salvation so to do and therefore none of them did think that by participation of the Holy Sacrament they fed on blood and so transgressed it Again when the Disciples met together to consult of what was needfull to be observed by the Gentile Converts the better to avoid the Scandal of the Jews they strictly charged them to avoid things strangled and abstain from Blood Acts 15.28 29. and judged it necessary so to do Now had they fed on Blood in Holy Mysteries no Christian communicant could have observed this precept and nothing could have been more foolish than to give injunctions to avoid that Scandal which in their Holy Rites they daily ministred This therefore is a signal and triumphant evidence that they who first imposed this Decree and they who undertook to keep it were utter strangers to this idle dream of Transubstantiation The ancient Christians did for many Centuries abstain from Blood look upon it as a thing forbidden by this Canon which enjoyns this abstainance and reckons it amongst 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or things necessary of which we have sufficient Testimony from that Law of Leo the Emperour where having forbidden the use of Blood stuffed in the entrails of Beasts he affirms That in the Old Law and in the Gospel it was always esteemed impious to eat it and in the Canons called c 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Canonum Apestol cap. 62. Apostolical it is forbidden to a Clergy-man to eat Blood under pain of deposition to a Lay-man under pain of Excommunication And hence the Penitential Books had warrant enough to impose Canonical Penances upon them that did tast this forbidden Dish And that they did so is known and confessed by Pamelius
Rhenanus and de la Cerda upon these words of Tertulian Ne animalium quidem sanguinem in epulis â—s ulentis habemus and being charged with the eating of the Blood of Infants they to evince the impudence and falseness of that charge did constantly return this answer d Nobis homicidium nec videre sas nec audire tantumque abhumano sanguine cayâ—mus ut neceduilum peccorum in cibis sanguinem noverimus Minuâ— par 34. cum notis Ouzel porro quale est ut quos sanguinempecoris horâ—ere confiditis humano inhiare credatis Tertul. Apol. c. 9. vid. Eusib Hist Eccl. l. 5. c 1. That they who held it utterly unlawful to eat the Blood of Beasts could not be guilty of Feasting on the Blood of Men whereas had they conceived that by partaking of the consecrated Cup they drank of humane Blood this answer could not have excused them nor could it with sincerity be urged by them since notwithstanding their abstaining from the Blood of Beasts they daily fed upon his Blood who was the Man Christ Jesus and to depose a Priest from eating 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i.e. Flesh that contains the Blood as the fore-mentioned Canon doth would in effect be to depose him for pertaking of the Holy Sacrament that being most emphatically 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Flesh with Blood according to the Roman Doctrine And therefore this opinion that it was lawfull for Christians to eat Blood found little or no countenance in the Church of Christ till the time of Berengarius when this prodigious Doctrine came in voge besides the ancient Fathers objected this against the Heathens as a most horrible reproachful thing e Quod Saturni filiâ—dignum est mali nexâ—â— hominis â—angâ—inâ—â— gâ—natur ipsoâ—â— credo decuâ—sse sanguinss foedere conjurare catalinam Bellonam sacrum suum haustu humani cruoris imbuere Comitialem morbum hominis sanguine id est â—orbo graviore sanare Minuc p. 34. de sanguinis pabulo ejusmodiâ—t agâ—es serculis legite nec ubi relatum sit est apud Herodotum opiâ—â—â— defusum brachiis sanguinem ex alterutro degustatum nationes quasdam foederà comparasse nescio quid sub Catilina tale degustatum est Tertul. Apol. C. 9. That they made Covenants by drinking humane Blood and used that barbarous custom as a fit cure of the Falling Sickness now had this been the Christians daily practice to bind themselves by the participation of humane Blood to the performance of all works of Piety as Pliny saith they did by the participation of the Holy Sacrament Had they thus used humane Blood to cure the diseases of their Souls and of their Bodies too as f Erat apud nos Acatius quidam honesto apud suos ortus loco qui clausis oculis natum se esse dicebat Sed quia intus sani palpeoris cohaerentibus non patebant medicum eos ferro aperire voluine neque hoc permisisse religiosam matrem suam sed id effecisse ex Eucharistia Cataplasmare cum jam puer quinque aut fere ampliuâ— esset annorum unde hoc se satis meminisse narrabat August l. 3. Sec. adv Julian Op. S. 164. they did use the Holy Sacrament what had been more a condemnation to the Christians then their own words and arguments and what could lay upon them an imputation of greater impudence and folly then to reproach the Heathens for doing what they daily practised Besides this they insisted on as a most pregnant evidence that many of the Heathen Deities were wicked and pernitious Spirits because g Hodie istic Bellonae sacratos sanguis de femore proscisso in palmulam exceptus esui datus signat Tertul. Apol. c. 9. a draught of humane Blood or the Oblation of the Blood of Man was deemed an acceptable service to them and that which would appease their anger and because their Priests were Consecrated by drinking humane Blood Now if the Christians did daily offer humane Blood to God as a most acceptable Sacrifice and if both Priest and People did as often drink it as they did celebrate the Sacrament what could these charges be but indications of the stupidity and impudence of those that made them Had Christ commanded his Disciples to eat his real Flesh Arg. 2. §. 2. and feed for ever on that very body which suffered on the Cross he had delivered that which could not have been thought of and much less practised without the greatest horrour For had he only taught them to eat humane flesh he had enjoyned them to do that which is repugnant unto humane nature and hath been constantly esteemed by the more sober Heathens a barbarous and inhumane thing Hence that expression of our Saviour Christ That they who would be made partakers of Eternal Life must eat his Flesh was by the unbelieving Jew rejected as a thing impossible Joh. 6.52 how can this Man say they give us his Flesh to Eat And if they deemed it a thing impossible that the whole Nation of the Jews should eat of one mans Flesh well might the Gentiles think it impossible that they should do so Nay when his own Disciples heard it verse 60. they presently cried out This is an hard saying who can hear it they judged it so absurd a Proposition and were so highly scandalized at it that notwithstanding all the conviction they received from their Eyes and other senses that he was the true Messiah they think this one proposal a sufficient motive to reject him verst 66. for from that very time many of his Disciples went back and walked no more with him So that our Blessed Saviour to obviate and to remove this Scandal doth in the judgment of the Fathers presently expound himself in a Spiritual sence and doth assert that this corporal eating was unprofitable and not the thing he did exhort them to for thus Eusebius doth paraphrase his words g 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Euseb l. 3. Eccles Theol. contra Marcell Ancyr M. S. Bibl. Oxon. do not think that I speak of that Flesh where with I am compassed as if you must eat of that neither imagin that I command you to drink my sensible and bodily Blood but understand well that the words which I have spoken unto you are Spirit and h See Bishop Ushers answer to the Jesuites p 48 49 50 51. Life This also is the Exposition of Tertullian Origen St. Augustin Athanasius to omit divers others And of this Exposition they give this account i August de Doct. Christiana l. 3. c. 15 16. that those expressions taken literally command what is an impious and k Est in N. Testamento litera quae occidit eum qui non spiritualiter ea quaedicuntur adverterit si enim secundum literam sequaris hoc ipsum quod dictum est nisi manducaveritis carnem meam c. occidit haec litera Origen in Lev. c. 10. Hom 7.
p. 87. wicked think and are a killing Letter and therefore must be taken in a Spiritual sence And we are informed by l Horum ergo nefarii ritus Christianis imputati ca autem immanitas coepit a Simone Mago ut Narrat Clem. de rebus geftis Petri qui perperam intellexerat illa Johannis cap. 6. nisi comederitis carnem filii hominis biberitis ipsius sanguinem c. Not. in Min. p. 34. vide Elmenhorst in haec verba Minuc infans farre contectus ut decipiat incautos apponitur Wowerius out of the Writings of Pseudo Clemens that that accursed practice of the Pepuzians Quintilians and others who mixt the Blood of Infants with the Eucharistick Bread had its first rise from Simon Magus misunderstanding those very words of John except you eat the Flesh of the Son of Man and drink his Blood c. Now if this oral manducation of the Flesh of Christ seemed so repugnant at the first view and apprehension to all that heard it can we suppose it would pass down so glib not only with the Jewish but all the Gentile converts and yet we do not find that ever Jew or Gentile was offended at the participation of the Holy Sacrament or that any Heathen or Apostate did object unto the Christians that they were Canibals on this account or that they did devour humane Flesh When Christ was careful to prevent this gross conception in the Jews can we believe that he should institute this oral manducation of his Flesh and Blood or had this Doctrine been delivered by Apostolical tradition and so received by the Church of Christ could those renowned Fathers have pronounced the literal and proper acceptation of the words to be a killing Letter and the injunction of the greatest wickedness could they have thought that place of John was misinterpreted by being used to countenance the eating humane Blood or could those Hereticks have any need to fly to such accursed arts that they might truly eat Christs Blood But then if we conceive this person we thus devour to be also God and therefore look upon this action as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or the devouring of our God and Maker it is so full of horrour scandal and amazament that nothing can be more for what this Doctrine doth assert was in the judgment of the a Ecquem tam amentem esse putas qui illud quo vescatur Deum credat esse de natura Deorum C. 3. Orator such an incredible madness as humane nature never could be guilty of And Averroes upon this single score pronounceth that b Qui dicit se Sectam Christianâ deteriorem aut ineptiorem nullam reperire cujus sectatores suum quem colunt Deum denibus discerpunt devorant Vide Perron de Euch. l. 3. c. 29. P. 973. among all Religious Sects the Christians were the worst and most ridiculous because that God they Worshipped they with their Teeth devoured and tore in pieces Hence as the highest Calumny which the Mahumetan can cast upon us we are by them reproached as d Christianos atrociores esse in Christum quam Judaeos ait Akmed Ben. Edris Mahummed hos enim Christum occisum reliquisse illos vero carnem ejus edere sanguinem bibere quod ipsa expeperientia teste trucu lentius esse affirmat V. Hotting Apol. de Luch §. 14. p. 220. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or the devourers of our God and they are wont to say that by thus eating of his Flesh we use him worse then did the Jews that Crucified him The ancient Fathers do agree in these with Cicero and Averroes and say with them That to adore what we do eat is the extreamest sottishness and hence we often find this objected to the Heathens as the most pregnant evidence of the absurdity of their devotions and of the Gods they Worshiped that what they Worshiped they did also Sacrifice and that they did devour him whom they adored as Tatian and Minutius suggest And Origen doth represent it as a most foolish thing That any Men should Worship that which was the food of other Nations Theodoret also doth affirm That e 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Quaest 55. in Genesin God foreseeing Men would fall to such extremity of madness as to Worship Beasts the better to restrain that Wickedness did suffer us to eat them which he conceived to be the greatest bar unto this gross Idolatry because saith he it is the evtreamest of all folly to Worship what we Eat He again adds That f Quaest in Gen. 55. in Lev. Qu. 11. p. 124. God divided Beasts into clean and unclean that Men abhorring what they judged unclean and eating what they called clean might Worship neither for can any Man of sense saith he f Quaest in Gen. 55. in Lev. Qu. 11. p. 124. conceive that to be God which he abominates as unclean or which he offers to the true God and himself doth Eat Thirdly he adds That God enjoyned the Jews to Eat and Sacrifice those Creatures which the Aegyptians Worshiped as Gods Serm. 7. de Sacrif To. 4. P. 585. that they might be induced to despise what they did Eat and Sacrifice and not be guilty of such extream stupidity and folly as to conceive them to be Gods Had therefore this been the received Doctrine of the Church of Christ it must have given greater scandal and been a fitter matter of reproach to Christians then was the scandal of the Cross and therefore had it been the Doctrine of Christ and his Apostles they would have been as careful to have removed this scandal as that other of the Cross The Jews and Heathens who cast this always in their Dish That they did Worship him who lately suffered on the Cross would not have stuck to load them with this more hainous Crime of Eating and Devouring that very God they did adore at least when this was frequently objected to them as the extreamest madness they must have presently retorted That you Christians confessedly do the same your God is also deemed your Sacrifice and you do first adore and then devour him The ancient Fathers of the Church who spent so many Writings and Apologies in vindication of that honour which they payed unto a Crucified Saviour would surely have afforded some Apology for that which in the Judgment of Heathens Turks and Christians seems the greatest folly that can be charged on any Sect. Since then we never find that Christs Disciples or the Ancient Fathers were in the least concerned to remove the Scandal since no malitious Jew or subtile Gentile did in the least accuse the Christians of what they all conceived a crime so monstrous although they were not wanting to seek occasions of reproach against them and to divulge false stories of them and were particularly upbraided with doing what if this Doctrine had obtained amongst them must be the Christians constant practice Lastly Seeing the
viz. The three branches are three days The seven Kine and seven ears of Corn are seven years The four great Beasts are four Kingdoms Thou art that Golden head The Seed is the word the Field is the World the Reapers are the Angels the Harvest is the end of the World the Rock is Christ c. Should we omit I say all these and many other instances of this familiar Trope it would be easie to produce many expressions of the like import with them For doth not the Scripture say of that same hair which by Ezekiel was burnt 5 Ezek. 5. and cut and bound up in his skirt this is Jerusalem And of that water which the three mighty men procured for David 2 Sam. 23. â—7 this is the Blood of the men that went in Jeopardy of their lives Have we not clear and pregnant instances of Sacramental Tropes in Scripture and in Jewish Writers doth not our Saviour call the Paschal-lamb the Passover doth not he say the Cup is the New Testament and was it not familiar with the Jewes to say of their unleavened Bread this is that Bread of affliction which our Fathers did eat and of the Lamb that it was Corpus Paschatis or the memorial of the Passover Buxt de Caena Dom §. 25. And is it therefore any absurdity to think Christ should affirm of Sacramental Bread designed to signifie and represent his Body broken for us and to conveigh the blessings he had purchased by the oblation of it on the Cross This is my Body Fifthly This Answer will render us unable to confute the Marcionites the Valentinians and the Manichaeans who thought Christs Body to be only the appearance of a Body and so denied the Article of his Incarnation and his real Passion This fond imagination the ancient Fathers did confute by Mediums which overthrows this answer and the whole Doctrine of Transubstantiation nor can it be sufficiently confuted by men of T. G's Principles 1 The ancient Fathers did confute it from this principle that we must certainly believe the evidence of Sence and that to doubt the certainty of what our sences apprehend is to endanger all Religion Tertullian discourseth thus a Non licet nobis in dubium sensesistos revorate ne in Ghristo de fide corum deliberetur Ne forte dicatur quod salso patris vocem audierit de ipso testificatum Recita Johannis testa ionem quod vidimus inquit quod audivimus quod manibus nostris palpavimus c. falsa utique testatlo si oculorum aurium manuum sensus natura mentitur de anima Cap. 17. B. C it is not lawful to doubt of our Sences least the same doubt be made concerning Christ least peradventure it should be said he was deceived when he heard the voice of his Father testifying concerning him Recite the Testimony of St. John what we have heard with our Ears and our Eyes have seen and our Hands have handled of the word of Life that declare we to you The Testimony verily is false if nature do deceive us in the Testimony of our Eyes and Ears and Hands And in his Book de Carne Christi he speaks thus b Sed qui carnem Christi putativam introduxit aeque potuit nativitatem quoque phantasma configere ut conceptus praegnatus partus Virginis Ipsrus exindeinfantis ordo 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 haberentur eosdem oculos eosdemque sensus fefellissent quos carnis opinio elusit cap. 1. He that doth introduce the Tenet of the Imaginary Flesh of Christ hath equal reason to introduce an imaginary Nativity and to assert the Conception Pregnance and the Virgins Birth and the whole Order of the Infant was Phantastical for they would only have deceived the same Eyes and Sences which were deceived by the opinion of his Flesh 2. They argue thus that if Christ had no real Flesh and if he did not suffer really the Sacrament cannot duely be stiled the Image Figure Symbol Type Similitude Memorial or Representation of his real Flesh c Acceptum panem distributum Discipulis corpus illum suum secit hoc est corpus meum dicendo id est figura Corporis mei Figura autem non suisset nisi veritatis esset Corpus Caeterum vacua res quod est phantasma figuram capere non possit Quid tune voluerit significasse panem satis declaravit corpus suum vocans panem Tertul. contra Marcionem l. 4. c. 40. Christ saith Tertullian said This is my Body i. e. the figure of my Body but it had been no figure unless the Body had been true for a Phantasme can have no figure But what he would have Bread to signifie he hath sufficiently declared calling Bread his Body and therefore thus he sums up his discourse d Panis calicis Sacrimento jam in Evangelio probavimus corporis sanguinis Dominici veritatem adversus phantasma Marcionis l. 5. c 8 against the Phantasme of Marcion We have proved the verity of Christs Body and Blood by the Sacrament of Bread and Wine And Maximus who flourished Anno Dom. 190. discourseth thus e Apud Orig. Dial. 3. part 2. If Christ as these Men say were without Body and Blood of what kind of Elesh or of what Body or of what kind of Blood did he give the Bread and Cup to be Images of when he commanded his Disciples by them to make a Commemoration of him Theodoret against the Eutichians disputeth thus f 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 4. p. 84 85. That the Flesh of Christ was not transformed into the nature of the Godhead because that Christians do participate of the Signs of his Body Now had this been the Doctrine of the Church of Christ that this blessed Sacrament contained his very Flesh and Blood they had much weakned their argument by those expressions for what is more convincing then this inference if Christians in the Sacrament do eat Christs real Flesh and Blood then must his Flesh and Blood be real if they do eat Christs real Body he had a real Body Secondly Why do they so absurdly and untruly set the Sacrament in opposition to Christs real Body as the Figure stands opposed to the Truth Thirdly why do they all expresly say the Bread and Wine are Types and Symbols and Remembrances of his Body and Blood and that of them he said This is my Body and my Blood seeing such Speeches cannot properly be true but must admit a Figure But Secondly These Hereticks can never be confuted by Men of T. G's Principles for hath the Roman Catholick one Text of Scripture to build his Dream upon so hath the Marcionite that passage of St. Paul which tells us that as in the Eucharist we have the shape of bread and yet no real bread so Christ was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the shape of Man and yet no Man as we have
whether they had the knowledge of our condition yea or not Sect. 4. Fourthly That the forementioned Fathers did often speak to their departed Friends as present although they did not think them so to be Sect. 5. Fifthly That the very same Authors do make the like addresses to insensate Creatures which makes it reasonable to look upon them as Rhetorical Apostrophe's ibid. Sixthly That there is great difference betwixt the practise which then began to be approved in some parts of the Christian World and the practise of the Church of Rome as V.G. 1. That no instance can be given of any Christian that put up mental Prayers unto them or dia ascribe unto them the knowledge of the heart 2. That they prayed unto them only upon supposition of their presence at their Tombs and Oratories Sect. 6. The Authors cited by T. G. are partly spurious or doubtful Sect. 7. Partly impertinent and such as use either Rhetorical Apostrophe's or only wishes Sect. 8. or such as only do ascribe unto them the worship of honour and affection but say not any thing which necessarily includeth Prayer Sect. 9. Or only do assert that they did pray with us and so did help us with their Prayers Sect. 10. Or that they did commend themselves unto their Prayers by desiâ—ing God that for their intercession he would be gracious Sect. 11. § 1. AND thus we have confirmed the truth of our assertion from the most pregnant Testimonies of the ancient Fathers of the four first Centuries We come now to consider what T.G. offers from the Fathers to prove the invocation of the Saints departed to have been the practice of the Primitive Church Unto which purpose he alledgeth some passages of Gregory Nazianzen and Nyssen St. Cyril and St. Ambrose Ruffinus St. Basil Chrysostome St. Austin to which we Answer 1. That all these Fathers lived in the declining times of the fourth Century or after the conclusion of it Bas M. A. 370. Nazian 379. Nissenus 380. Ambrose 374. Chrysost An. 398. Hierom. ob 420. Ruffinus 418. August 396. Cyril Alex. 412. Theodoret 423. Nor can one Item of such a practice be produced from any of the former Writers so that if all these Fathers did expresly say what T. G. doth contend they do it would be only this That the most ancient Fathers of the three first Centuries and to the middle of the fourth were in this matter perfect Protestants whereas some of the middle Fathers who lived in the declining Ages of the Church do seem to speak in favour of the Church of Rome Now in this case we say with Cyprian (a) Si in aliquo nutaverit vacillaverit veritas ad originem Dominicam Evangdicam Apostolicam traditionem revertamur inde surgat actus nestri ratiâ— unde ordo origo surrexit Ep. 74. Sect. 14. If verity doth warp or lean aside we must look back and return to Divine Evangelical and Apostolick Tradition and derive the order of our action from the original ground where it first began And with Tertullian (b) Ostendam hoc exigere veritatem cui nemo praescribere potesi non sputium temporum non patrocinia personarum non privilegium regionum ex his enim ferè consuetudo ab aliqua ignorantia vel simplieitate initium sortita in usam per successionem corroboratur ita adversus veritatem vindicatur sed Dominus noster Christus veritatem senon consuetudinem cognominavit siquidem semper Christus prior omnibus aeque veritas sempiterna antiqua res De Veland Virg. c. 1. If a custome proceeding from ignorance or simplicity be confirmed by use of succession and opposed against verity we must observe that neither space of time nor priviledge of persons may prescribe against truth for Christ is eternal and before all and in like sort verity is most ancient For who knoweth not that above 100 years before this time the practice of communicating Infants had obtained in the Church St. * De Lapsis Sect 7. 20. Cyprian makes mention of it twice the †l. 8. c. 13. Apostolick Constitutions declare that first the Priests communicated then Virgins after them Widows and then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or their little Infants In the same Century (c) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Apud Phot. in Bibl. 177 Theodorus Bishop of Mopsuestia in Sicily concludes against his Adversaries that Infants must be acknowledged to be guilty of sin because it was the custome to administer Christs Body to them for the Remission of Sin They also held that it was necessary to eternal life for Infants to receive this Sacrament When Christ saith If you eat not my flesh you shall not have life in you should I say that an Infant should have life who ends his life without that Sacrament So Austin Again (d) Dominum audiamus inquam non quidam hoc de Sacramento Iavacri dicentem sed de Sacramento Sanâ—â— monsae suae quo nemo ritè nisi Baptizatus accedit nisi manducaâ—â—â— t is carnem meam biberitis sanguinem meum non habebitis vitan 〈◊〉 vobis an verò quisquam etiam hoc dicere audebit quod ad parâ—â—â— los haec sententia non pertineat possinique sine participatione corpâ—â—â— hujus sanguin is in se habere vitam Tom. 7. l. 1. de peccat 〈◊〉 ritis remiss c. 20. Let us hear our Lord saith he speaking of the Sacrament of the holy Table whether none rightly comes but he that is baptized and then citing this place Vnless you eat my flesh c. he adds Dare any say that this sentence belongs not to Children but that they may without the participation oâ— the body and blood of Christ have life in themselves For this he also urgeth the Testimony of thâ— See of Rome for then this Doctrine 〈◊〉 well as Practice was received there (e) Ecce B. memoriae Innocentius Papa sine Baptismo Christi sine participatione Corporis Sanguinis Christi vitam non habere parvulos dicit To. 7. contra duas Ep. Pelag. l. 2. c. 4. p. 190. L. Si autem cedunt Pelagiani Apostolicae sedi vel potiùs ipsi Magistro Domino Apostolorum qui dicit non habitures vitam in seipsis nisi manducaverint carnem filii hominis c. quod nisi Baptizati non utâ—que possunt nempe aliquando fatebuntur parvulos non Baptizatos vitam habere non posse Epist ad Paulinum Ep. 106. p. 101. Behold saith he Pope Innocent of blessed memory declares that little ones cannot have life without Baptism and the participation of the Body and Blood of Christ And in his Epistle to Paulinus if the Pelagians saith he will yield to the Apostles Seat or rather to their Lord and Master saying that except we eat his flesh and drink his blood which the unbaptized cannot do we shall not have life they will at last confess that
Bread for Christ because their mistake would not be in taking the Bread for God as the Israelites did the Calf but in this that they conceived the Bread not to be there at all but in place thereof the only true and eternal God and so although the object or rather Subject materially there present would in such a case be Bread yet their act of Adoration would not be terminated formally upon that but upon God Answer as if this also were not their mistake who held the Calf to be God that they conceived no Creature to be there at all but in place thereof the only true and eternal God for can it be possible that the Israelites should conceive the Calf to be God and not conceive that when they worshipped him as God they had no Creature to be the object of their worship and so although the object materially present would in such a case be the golden Calf yet the act of Adoration would not be terminated formally on that but upon God 5ly T. G. proceeds to tell us in the words of Dr. Taylor that if they thought Christ were not present P. 329. they are so far from worshiping the Bread in this case that themselves profess it to be Idolatry so to do which is a demonstration that their Soul hath nothing in it which is Idololatrical Answer even so had not the Heathens thought that a good Spirit was present in their Images had not the Manichees and the Egyptians thought that God and Christ were present where we see the Sun had not the Israelites thought that God was present where they saw the Image of a Calf they would have been so far from worshiping the Calf or the material Sun that they themselves would have professed it to be Idololatrical to do so which is a demonstration that their Soul hath nothing in it which is Idololatrical And whereas he proceeds to add from Dr. Taylor P. 330. that before they pass an Act of Aloration they believe the Bread to be annihilated or turned into his substance who may lawfully be worshipped and they who have these thoughts are as much enemies of Idolatry as they who understand better it is manifest this doth as much excuse the Heathen as it doth the Papist for they also before they pass an Act of Adoration do believe that what they worship is the God of Heaven who lawfully may be worshipped and having such conceptions they according to this argument must be esteemed as much enemies of Idolatry as were those Christians and those Prophets which reproved them for it and passed so wicked and unjust a censure on them Baronius tells us that the Collyridians conceived that the blessed Virgin was a real Deity Apparat. 43. and that she had nothing humane in her and so before they ventured to Adore her they believed her humane nature was annihilated or turned into his substance who may lawfully be worshipped and yet if we may credit Epiphanius it was no better than an Idol-making Heresie and they were Diabolical Idolaters So that those passages of that ingenious and learned Prelate serve only to demonstrate that the highest judgment and the most pregnant subtile wit must strangely shuffle and most assuredly miscarry when it endeavours to excuse the Church of Rome from being guilty of Idolatry when the same Reverend Person undertook to shew the vanity and folly of what he had delivered on that Subject to excese the Papist when he proceeds to shew the grourds by which his judgment was established Real presence p. 347. no man could more apparently assert or more convincingly demonstrate what the Roman Catholicks alledged to free them from this Sin 1 b. p. 340.341 342. would free the worst of Heathens For he intreats them to consider first that no man without his own fault can mistake a Creature so far as to suppose him to be God especially not such a Creature as a piece of Bread Secondly That when the Heathens worshipped the Sun and Moon they did it upon their confidence that they were Gods and would not have given to them Divine Honour if they had thought otherwise Thirdly That no man in the world upon these grounds except he that is malicious and spightful can be an Idolater for if he have an ignorance great enough to excuse him he can be no Idolater if he have not he is spightful and malicious and then all the Heathens are also excused as well as they Fourthly That if good intent and ignorance in such cases can take off the crime then the persecutors that killed the Aplstles thinking they did God good service and Saul in blaspheming the Religion and persecuting the Servants of Jesus and the Jewes themselves in Crucifying the Lord of Life who did it ignorantly as did also their Rulers have met with their excuse upon the same account T. G. proceeds to urge from Mr. Thorndike thus P. 332. and truly he hath nothing worth consideration in his whole discourse but what is borrowed either from Dr. Taylor or Mr. Thorndike they who know that the God-head of Christ is the reason for which his Flesh and Blood is worshipped in the Eucharist cannot take that worship for Idolatry because his Flesh and Blood is not present in the Eucharist as they who worship it there think it is For they know that the Flesh and Blood of Christ is no Idol to Chistians wheresoever it is worshipped Answer This argument is so ridiculous and childish that I am tempted to believe this worthy person was deserted in this matter by God because he had deserted the Doctrine of the Church of England for so far are we from knowing that the Flesh and Blood of Christ is made no Idol by the Christian wheresoever it is worshipped that we do know that the whole Church of Christ condemned the Arian Photinian Nestorian and Eunomian as Idol-worshippers because they did Adore his Flesh and Blood this argument therefore is built on that foundation which gives the lie to the whole Christian World Secondly This argument doth as much excuse the Heathens and the Manicheans as it doth the Papist for they that know the Deity of Christ is the reason why he was worshipped in the Sun have as much reason to excuse the Manichees for worshipping the Sun upon this supposition that Christ was there as they have to excuse the Papist for worshipping the Sacrament upon a like false supposition that Christ is there But now comes in a Demonstration P. 329. so full of dazling light that nothing can withstand its evidence and thus it runs what ever is taken for an object of worship the understanding must affirm to be But Catholicks in the belief of Transubstantiation do not in their minds affirm the Bread to be Therefore the object of their worship is not Bread but Christ Answer what T. G. ignorantly stiles a Demonstration is such a miserable Sophism so childish and ridiculous that nothing
ancient Fathers did pass as deep a censure on this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or God-eating as the Heathens did and looked upon it as an instance of the greatest madness and stupidity to Worship as a God what they did Eat and Sacrifice And upon all occasions did upbraid the Heathens for being so exceeding mad and stupid It must be infinitely certain that they neither did nor could conceive this Doctrine to be the mind of Christ or his Apostles or the received tradition of the Church of Christ If Christ when he administred this Sacrament did give to his Disciples his natural Body Arg. 3. §. 3. and his proper Blood then was his natural Body broken and his Blood actually poured out before his Passion for he administred this Sacrament before his Passion and what he then administred was if we may believe his words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i.e. his broken Body and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i.e. his blood shed or extravasated now since his body was then whole and not yet broken on the Cross for us seeing his Blood remained still in its proper Chanuels and neither Heart nor Hand were pierced to let it out and therefore what he did then administer could not in any natural and proper sence be stiled his body broken and his blood shed for us his words must necessarily be interpreted in such a Tropical and Sacramental sence as Protestants do plead for Add to this That if Christ gave his Body in the natural sence at the last Supper then it was either a Sacrifice propitiatory or it was not if it was not then it is not now and then their Dream of the Mass is vanished if it was propitiatory at the last Supper then God was reconciled to all the world and Mankind was redeemed before the Passion of our Blessed Saviour For Christ expresly saith that he then gave unto them his body which was given for us Luk. 22.19 Mat. 26.28 and his Blood shed for many for the remission of Sins which if we literally understand his future passion must be vain and needless so dreadful are the consequences of this portentous Doctrine If we may credit the Apostle Paul what we receive in the participation of the Holy Sacrament is Bread Arg. 4. §. 4. for after Consecration he so stiles it 1 Cor. 10.16 17. at the least five times The Bread which we break is it not the Communion of the Body of Christ for we are all partakers of this Bread Let a man examine himself 1 Cor. 11.28 and so let him eat of that Bread for as often as you eat this Bread and drink this Cup you shew the Lords Death c. Wherefore verse 26. whosoever shall eat this Bread and drink this Cup unworthily shall be guilty of the Body and Blood of Christ In which expressions it is five times said that what we eat and do partake of what is unto us the Communion of Christs Body and sheweth forth his Death and therefore what is Consecrated in this Holy Sacrament is still bread And is it not a wonder that one passage mentioned by our Saviour whilst he was alive and had his blood within his Veins should be esteemed sufficient to make us all believe that his whole body and so his hand was in his hand and that this Living Christ was also Dead and Sacrificed and that his blood was shed before he suffered on the Cross and also that the same Body which was whole before the Eyes of his Disciples was also broken for them and many thousand contradictions more and yet that what the Holy Ghost who knew the meaning of our Saviours words as well as any R. Catholick hath called so often Bread and seems to all our sences so to be should not be deemed sufficient to make us think it Bread If Christ had said This is my Body and the Holy Ghost had never said that it was Bread we might have had some reason to suspect our sences in this matter But when it is so oft in Scripture affirmed to be Bread and is but once affirmed to be the Body of our Lord and it is absolutely necessary that one of these two affirmations should be acknowledged to be Tropical that as great evidence as sence and reason can afford in any case whatsoever should be of no effect at all or have no influence to move or to instruct our Judgments how to pass sentence in this case but that it should be thought as rational all other circumstances being equal to determine against the greatest evidence of sence and highest reason as to determin according to the verdict of them both is most apparently absurd Add to this that the Apostles buisness in this place was to reprove those persons who prophaned this Sacrament 1 Cor. 11.26 27 28. and used it as Common Bread and so discerned not the Lords Body and to convince them of the greatness of the Sin committed by their unworthy eating of this Bread and therefore it concerned him the better to convince them of so great a Crime and to discover the vileness of this prophanation to have expresly told them That what they thus prophaned was the very Son of God that suffered for them this being a most signal aggravation of their guilt whereas to say so often that it was Bread was to extenuate the Crime and therefore we may rationally presume St. Paul would have exprest himself not as we Protestants are wont to do but according to the Judgment of the Roman Catholicks had he believed as they do God never wrought a miracle in confirmation of the Faith of any body Argum. 5. Sect. 5. but he still represented it unto their sences and made it apparent to their eyes ears feeling or their experience that he wrought it there is not one instance to be given to the contrary from Scripture or any humane Writer the Devil himself is not so impudent as to require his servants to believe he works a wonder without some cunning slight to cheat their sences and make them seem to see hear or tast what really they do not To this convincing evidence and demonstration T. G. returns this sorry answer P. 293. that such miracles as are done for the Conversion of unbelievers ought to be objects of our sence but this is not done upon such an account but for the Sanctification of those that believe already and for these it is enough that Christ hath said it is his body they know very well the danger of not believing him more than their sences Answer 1. We have in Scripture many instances of Miracles done not for the Conversion of unbelievers but for the benefit of those that did believe and such were all the standing Miracles that are recorded in the Book of Moses the Manna the water of Jealousie the Vrim and Thummim c. Such also were all the Miracles that the Apostles wrought
on the diseased Christians if then in all those Miracles we cannot find one instance which was not made apparent to the senses of mankind what reason have we to esteem this so Besides is not a Miracle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or a sign sure I am the Scripture often calls it so and is not every sign declared by St. * Signum est res praeter speciem quam ingerit sensibus aliud aliquid ex se faciens in cogitationem venire De Doctrina Christiana l. 2. c. 1. Austin to be something sensible whereby we do perceive what is not sensible what therefore is no object of the sence can be no sign or Miracle Secondly we cannot possibly obtain a greater evidence that any Revelation is Divine than is the evidence of sence whence it doth follow that we can have no reason to believe a Revelation more than we do our sences as T. G. asserts for all the certainty we have of any object of our Faith depends on our assurance that the deliverers of it were infallibly assisted by the Divine Wisdom in that delivery and is not this attested by the Miracles they wrought the Prophesies they delivered the Doctrine they taught and that by sence should any of them be questioned must not we recur unto the sences of the Primitive Christians to confirm them and must they not then be the ultimate foundation of our Faith and our Traditions must we not be surer of the proof than of the thing proved And consequently of the evidence of sense than that of Faith which deriveth from it if not why Secondly doth our Lord pronounce them rather Blessed who believe and have not seen 20 Joh. 29 than Thomas who first saw and felt and then believed is it not because they do it upon lesser though sufficient evidence and so their Faith is more illustrious and praise worthy Thirdly should it be otherwise how cometh it to pass that men are equally assured of what equally they see but have not the like fulness of perswasion in what they believe That being once assured of the objects of sence they can admit of no greater certainty whereas after all our boasts of a Plerophory of Faith we have still need to strive and labour to encrease it Since then the certainty of Faith is proved inferior to that of sence It is not possible we should have greater reason to believe a Revelation or any matter of our Faith than to believe our sences as T. G. suggests hence also it doth follow that we can have no greater reason to believe that these four words this is my body are contained in Scripture or that they do assert the Sacrament to be Christs Body than that assurance which the sences of all Christians do afford us that it remaineth Bread And Thirdly hence it follows that we can have no greater reason to profess the Christian Faith than we have to reject the Figment of Transubstantiation Answer 3. As for that vain pretence that Christ hath said this is his Body and therefore we stand bound to think that he doth work a Miracle to make it so although it be against the sence and reason of mankind that he should do it This will oblige us also to believe that by some other like prodigious Miracle before his Incarnation he was Transubstantiated into the Rock which ministred water to the Jews during their Travels in the Wilderness for of that it is expresly said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Cor. 10.4 or that Rock was Christ 2. This will oblige us to believe that Christ hath neither Flesh nor Blood because the Scripture doth assure us that Flesh and Blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of God 1 Cor. 15.50 which yet Christ Jesus doth inherit We unbelieving Protestants perhaps might think it strange that Christ should have neither Flesh nor Blood yet the Sacrament should be his very Flesh and Blood but as for you you know the danger of not believing God more than your sences and your reasons and therefore this and many thousand contradictions of like nature can be no reason why you should not embrace the Letter 3. This will oblige us to be Anthropomorphites and to confess that all the arguments which have been urged against that Tenet by the Church of Christ are vain and ineffectual for Scripture hath not only said that man was made after the likeness and similitude of God but also doth in very many places attribute unto him the parts and members of an humane body what then will you oppose against them sence and reason T. G. will give this answer for them that they well know the danger of not believing Holy Scripture more than their sences or their reason Will you confute them by a Text of Scripture which seems to contradict their Doctrine alas that which is often stiled Bread must not be thought to be so because Christ hath once said it is his body and can we be so vain as to imagine that one ambiguous passage 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which may be rendred God makes or searcheth God loves or seeks the Spirit 4 Joh. 24. should carry it against so many which more expresly do ascribe unto him the members of an humane body or shall we fly unto Tradition alas is it not that which is derived from the sences of those men which in the matter of Transubstantiation have been all constantly deceived and if their hearing be a sufficient ground of Faith against the Doctrine of the Anthropomorphites must not their eyes and tast and smell and feeling be as cogent against the Doctrine of Transubstantiation Fourthly This must oblige us to believe what is the greatest Blasphemy viz. That Christ by all the Miracles he wrought among them gave no sufficient motive to the Jews to own him for the true Messiah for all his Miracles were only motives to believe that Law should be abolished which God hath often said should last 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or for ever Doth nor he tell them that the things he had revealed belonged to them and to their Children for ever Deut. 29.29 Exod. 12.17 that they might do all the things of this Law Doth not he call the Passover an everlasting Statute Hath not he said the Law of their first fruits shall be a Statute for ever throughout their Generations 23 Lev. 14 And if you answer that this word Gnolam doth not alwayes signifie an infinite duration but is sometimes used for such duration as admits a period and so must not be urged against so great conviction of their sence and reason Will not this answer justifie the Protestants when they produce so many instances to shew that when a thing in Scripture is stiled this or that the meaning only is that it doth signifie what it is said to be for to omit those passages so often cited 40 Gen. 12. 41 Gen. 26. 7 Dan. 38. 8 Luk. 11. 13 Mat. 38 39.
there the likeness of Wine and yet no Wine so Christ whilst he conversed in the World was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the similitude of Man but yet no Man If you should urge against them sence and reason they will answer with T. G. Christianity hath taught them to renounce them or if you urge against them all those places of Scripture which affirm Christ to have a Body they may answer it was in Scripture called a Body because it seemed to be so For this is that very answer which R. Catholicks do give to all those places of of Scripture which say the Sacrament is after Consecration Bread and Wine But Chrysostom and Cyril seem to say §. 6. we must not in this matter trust the Judgment of our our Sences Hom. 82. The words of Chrysostom are these Let us obey God in all things and not gainsay him though what is said seem to contradict both our Imaginations and our Eyes Let his word obtain more credit from us then our thoughts or sight And let us behave our selves in the Mysteries not beholding only those things which lye before us but holding fast his words For his Word is infallible but our sences are easie to be deceived That never fails but this most frequently mistakes Because therefore the word saith this is my Body let us obey and believe and behold him with the Eyes of our understanding Answ These words are Hyberbolical and high but must be soberly interpreted viz. That we must not finally resolve all into Sence but we must certainly believe that howsoever the Sences do perceive nothing but common ordinary Bread and Wine yet by Gods power they are changed into a supernatural use and operation and that by those sensible things spiritual blessings are conveighed unto us That this is the true sence of this expression and that it cannot be designed to intimate the change of Bread into Christs Body so that the accidents of Bread alone remain is evident First from the words immediately following g 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hom. 82. in Matt. p. 513. l. 41. For Christ delivered to us nothing sensible but by things sensible things which are intelligible for so it is in Baptism by thing sensible viz. Water the gift to wit Regeneration and Renovation is performed Where note I That the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or the intelligible thing conveighed in the Sacrament is said to be conveighed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by things sensible i.e. by such things sensible as Water Wherefore the things sensible are no more Transubstantiated then is that Element in Baptism Secondly the thing intelligible or the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 conveighed by Baptism makes but an accidental change a renovation consisting not in the conversion of the nature but in the addition of Grace to Nature So the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 conveighed by this holy Sacrament must not impart the Transubstantiated Bread but Bread converted in its use and operation by the addition of Spiritual Grace And therefore what he here declareth touching the Holy Eucharist he elsewhere doth apply to Baptism in these words let us believe Gods word for it is more certain then our sight for the sight is oftentimes deceived whereas Gods word can never fail And speaking of the poor he saith when we are charitable to them let us be so affected as is we gave to Christ himself for his words are more certain then our sight So that we may from these expressions with equal reason argue that the Baptismal Water is Tran. substantiated and that the poor man is truly changed into Christ as that the Sacramental Signes are changed into his Body and his Blood This is apparent Secondly from what he doth affirm of all good Christians viz. i 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 514. l. 16. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 B. l. 13. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 513. l 21. That their Tongues are red with the Blood of Christ that they are nourished and so mixed with him that they are Christs own Flesh and Body ' and that the whole multitude is the Body of Christ Thirdly from what he adds of wicked Men viz. 1. k 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 514. l. 27. That Christ doth not give his Body to them by the Mysteries which is impossible if both the Bread and Wine contain his Body And Secondly That the Table and the place which they resort to is l 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 514. l. 38. that same very Table and that same very upper room in which Christ with his own Disciples did eat the Passeover viz. because it doth contain the same Spiritual Viands And therefore may he not be thought to say his Sacramental Body is indeed the same which suffered on the Cross because it doth conveigh unto us the same Blessings which he purchased by it Hence in this Homily he doth not only call the Bread and Wine * P. 510. l. 36. the Symbols of Christs Body but he confutes the Encratitae by asserting that in those Holy Mysteries our Lord delivered Wine i.e. the fruit of the Grape The words of Cyril Catech. Myst p. 237 238. viz. Consider this is not meer Bread and Wine for it is the Body and Blood of Christ according to the words ef Christ himself And although sence do suggest this to thee viz. that it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Common Bread yet let Faith confirm thee Do not judge of the thing by thy tast but know and hold for most certain that this Bread which is seen of us is not Bread though the tast judge it to be Bread but the Body of Christ and that the Wine which is seen by us although it seem Wine to the sence of tasting notwithstanding is not Wine but the Blood of Christ I say these words if we consider well the context cannot admit of any other sence then that which we have given to the words of Chrysostom For 1. he doth expressly tell us that Christ pronounced 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of m 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Cotech Myst 4. p. 237. D. the Bread this is my Body and immediately before these words he gives this caution look not upon these things as upon common Bread and Wine Now even Romanists themselves confess n Beharm de Ench. l. 1. c. 1. l. 3. c. 19. that if the words this is my Body did make this sence This Bread is my Body this Sentence must either be taken tropically that Bread may be the Body of Christ significatively or else it is plainly absurd and impossible for it cannot be that Bread should be the Body of Christ It is the nature of this Verb Substantive Est or Is saith * Tom. 7. c. 20. Salmeron that as often as it joineth and coupleth togehter things of divers natures which by the Latines are termed Disparata there we must of necessity run to a Figure and Trope And therefore should we
have been constrained to fly to a Trope if he had said this Bread is my Body this Wine is my Blood because this had been a predication of Disparates as they call it 2. That you may be assured that by denying it to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he only meant to say it was not Bread without the Grace of Christ and the assistance of his Spirit to conveigh the Blessings Christ hath purchased but did not mean that it was Bread converted into the real Body of our Lord He tells us the mutation is like to that of Ointment used in Baptism Be careful saith he that you do not think this is meer Oyntment Catech. Myst 3. p. 235. A. for as the Eucharistick Bread after the invocation of the Holy Ghost 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not yet meer Bread but Christs Body Even so that Holy Oyl as one may say is not after the Consecration meer and common Oyl but it is the Grace or Gift of Christ and is effective of the presence of the Holy Ghost It is not common Bread saith he it is therefore Bread it is Christs Body as the Ointment is the Grace of Christ but Grace it is not by Conversion for it remaineth Ointment still but by the Accession of Grace unto it and by the presence of the Spirit with it 3. He adds That when Christ said Catech. Myst 4. p. 287. c. except you eat my Flesh c. the Jews were scandalized as thinking that he had advised them to Sareophagy not understanding his words Spiritually This Eating of Christs Flesh must therefore be Spiritual and not Sarcophagy or Eating of Christs real Flesh which yet we cannot rationally deny if we do literally interpret that passage of St. John or with the Romanists conceive that what we in the Holy Sacrament do eat is that same Flesh of Christ which hung upon the Cross Lastly if both these Fathers had intended to assert that notwithstanding the Judgment of our Sences to the contrary we stand obliged to believe the Sacrament to be that very Flesh and Blood which Christ did offer on the Cross We have two others to oppose against them who do expresly argue that it remains still Bread and Wine because our sences judge it so to be o Quod ergo vidistis panis est Calix quod vobis etiam oeuli vestri renâ—â—tiant Aug. in Ser. de Sacr. apud Bedam in 1 Cor. 10. Ratranum de Corp. Sang. Domini vel in Serm. de verbis Domini ut citatur ab Algero l. 1. de Sacr. c. 5. That which you see saith St. Augustine is the Bread and the Cup which your very Eyes do declare unto you The Sacramental Signs do still retain their Essence and their Nature saith p 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Theod. Dial 2. c. 24. Theodoret And both our Eyes and Feeling tell us they are what they were before We conclude then with that of Chrysostom q Hom. 29. in Joh. by these Sences we exactly learn all things and we are conceived worthy of credit in teaching what we have received from the informations of our Eyes and Ears as not being guilty of fiction or falshood in those matters CHAP. IV. Contains 1. The judgment of Antiquity against Transubstantiation 2. An answer to T. G's allegations from the Fathers 3. The pretended Confessions of the Protestants 4. The Confessions of many Roman Catholiks that Transubstantiation is a novell upstart Doctrine 5. The Judgment of Antiquity declaring with unanimous consent that the Sacrament is but the Figure Type the Symbol or Memorial of Christs Blood and Body and not that self same Body which suffered on the Cross and that same Blood which he then shed as to the Nature and the Substance of them 6. A Corollary in vindication of the Dr. from the vain Cavils of T. G. HAving thus confirmed our Doctrine from Scripture Common Sence and Reason we might by infinite Demonstrations shew that it hath also the perpetual consent of all Antiquity Why else do they inform us That a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Justin Dial. 2. p. 28. A. Ed. Paris 1636. the substance of our Flesh is nourished and augmented by this Holy Sacrament is a truth so clear that b Species Sacramentales per candem rationem possunt converti in corpus humanum per quam possunt converti in Cineres vel in vermes ideo manifestum est quod nutriunt Aquin part 3. qu. 77. Act. 6. Roman Doctors do confess it and there needs nothing but experience for confirmation of it to any that dares question or dispute it For neither can the accidents augment or nourish nor can we without Blasphemy assert That Christs whole Body is properly converted into the substance of all those that do receive it Why do they tell us that albeit the Sacramental Signes do change their names after the Consecration yet do they still d Sacramenta quae sumimus corporis fanguinis Christi divina res est propter quod per eadem divinae consortes efficimur naturz tamen esâ—e non desuat substantia vel natura panis vini Gelas contra Eutychen 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ephrem apud Phot. Bib. Cod 229. retain their former Natures Why do they tell us That e August in pars 98. Decr. dist 2. consecr Can. de Haec of that Sacrifice which Christ did offer on the Cross we neither do nor may partake why do they say that bread is by our Saviour stiled his body f Quando Dominus corpus suum panem vocat de mul rum gâ—anorum adunatione congestum quando sanguinem suuâ—◠〈◊〉 appellat de botris atque acinis plurimis expressum in unum coactum gregem nostrum sâ—gnificat commixtione adunatae multitudinis copulatum Cyprian Ep. 76. § 4. p. 247. which is made up of many Cornes and that Wine his blood which is pressed out of many Grapes Why do they frequently pronounce that Christ affirmed of the bread this is my body and of the Wine c Et quoniam â—â—embra ejus sumus per creaturam nutrimur creatura avtem ipse nobis praestat solem suum oriri faclens pluens quemadmodum vulr eum calicem qui est Creaturae N. B. suum sarguinem quâ—effusus est ex quo nostra auget corpora Et eum panem qui est a creatâ—ura suum corpus confirmavâ—â— ex quo nostra auget corpora Quando ergo mixtes calix fractus panis percipit verbum Dei fit Eucharistia sargâ—inis corporis Christi ex quibus augetur consistit carnis nostre substartia Quomodolcarnem negabunt esse capacem â—onationis Dei qui est vita aterna quz sanguine corpore Christ nutritus Iren. l. 5. c. 2. Pd. Colon. 1625. this is my blood I might be endless in these Interrogatives but I shall only add three things First
evident that all the instances produced leave it uncertain whether St. Ambrose did intend a proper change of substance or only a change of qualities and vertues Secondly had Ambrose only given instances of a substantial change it would not hence have followed that he did intend to prove the Sacramental Symbols were so changed but only a majori to prove that he who was the Author of such substantial mutations could certainly effect that change which was but accidental Thus from the substantial conversion of water into Wine he proves u Credendum jam est ex hoc mortalem hominem in immortalitatem posse converti quando vilis substantia in pretiosam conversa est substantiam Serm. 19. we ought to think that God can change our mortal into a glorious and immortal body which change is only accidental and from x Si ergo inquit superveniens Spiritus Sanctus in virginem conceptionem operatus est generationis munus implevit non utique dubitandum est quod superveniens in fontem vel super eum qui Baptismum consequitur veritatem regeneratiouis cooperetur cap. 9. de his qui initiantur the supernatural production of our Lord by vertue of the holy Ghost he in this very Chapter proves we must not doubt but the same Spirit can Regenerate the Baptized person So that we see it is familiar with him to prove the possibility of accidental changes by examples of a change substantial Ob. St. Ambrose saith a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Act. Hom. 23. the Symbols are not what nature formed them but what the Benediction consecrated them Answ True because they are not only so but by this more excellent and Spiritual change obtain a name which is more excellent denominations being taken from the better Thus Chrysostom affirms That such is the power of Baptism that it doth not suffer men to be still Men. And Leo b De Pass Dom. Ser. 14. That the Baptized person is not the same-before and after Baptism And Epiphanius That when we are endowed with Temperance the Flesh it no more Flesh c 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Haeres 66. Whence yet it were ridiculous to argue that either Baptism or Teâ—perance offentially change either the flesh or nature of a Christian Ob. He affirms further That by this Benediction nature is changed Answ True but then that word not only in the Authors before mentioned but in St. d De Virg. l. 2. Haxamer l. 3. c. 2. Ambrose doth very often signisie only a change of quality and virtue For he affirms That Thecla changed the nature of the Beasts that were designed to devour her and that the Beasts themselves had changed their nature i.e. their fierceness and rapacity and in this very place he saith That the Nature of the water of the River Jordan was clearly changed because that it was driven back We must be told that Chrysostom doth say T. G. p. 303. that things that lye before us are not the works of humane power we only hold the the place of Ministers but he that Sanctifieth changeth them is Christ But then we must not know that in this very Homily the Consecrated Elements are stiled the Symbols of Christs Body In Mat. Hom. 82. p. 510. l. 36 and that disputing against Marcian and Valentinian who held Christ had no real Body he confutes and stops their mouth by saying That in the Blessed Sacrament we have the Symbol of that Body Whereas could he have truly said we have their real Flesh and Blood he had then spoken what would have more effectually confuted their absurd position 2. We must not know that in that very place he confutes the Heresie of the Encratitae P. 511. l. 10 15. by shewing That when our Lord delivered the Mysteries he delivered the Wine and that after his Resurrection he drank wine to verifie this saying I will no more drink of the Fruit of the Vine till I drink it new with you in my Fathers Kingdome Nor Thirdly That Christ in those Holy Mysteries doth give himself unto the Faithful but to none other P. 514. l. 28. But had we no such indications of the mind of Chrysostom the words themselves are very insignificative and unconcluding for that which Chrysostom affirmeth of the Eucharist that these things are not the works of humane power we Protestants acknowledge as knowing that it is no work of humane power to cause the virtue of the Holy Spirit to attend these Mysteries and to make that to be food of the Soul which naturally can only feed the Body He that thus Sanctifies and changeth these material Symbols must be God And hence St. Chrysostom informs us the case is just the same in Baptism That it is not an Angel who there moves the Water Hom. 35. in Joh In 1 ad Cor. Hom. 8. but that it is Lord of Angels 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 who works all things there That man doth nothing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but that it is the power of God that worketh all things And whereas he adds that it is he who Sanctifies these things and changeth them St. Cyril doth inform us Catech. Mystag 5. that whatsoever the Holy Spirit toucheth is Sanctified and Changed St. * Paedag. l. 3. c 2. In Cant. Hom 4. In Gen. Hom. 41. vid Albert de sacr Euch. l. 2. P. 545. Clemens That the Devil doth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i.e. transmute Women into Whores Nyssenus that Regeneration 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i.e. doth change us into the Sons of Light and of the day And Chrysostom himself informs us That to make the barren Womb to bear is an example of this Transmutation Such therefore we may rationally conceive that change to be of which St. Chrysostom here speaketh Gaudentius must tell us T. G. p. 306. That the Maker and Lord of natures who produceth Bread out of the Earth doth again of Bread because he can and hath promised to do it make his own Body and he who made Water of Wine maketh of Wine his own Blood But then we must not know Tract in Ex. 2. that in the same place he asserts That when our Saviour said This is my Body he gave to his Disciples Consecrated Bread and Wine Or that because our Saviour in the Gospel saith I am the true Vine he did sufficiently declare that all the Wine he offered in the figure of his Passion was his Blood or that we eat his Flesh when we receive his Doctrine which doth sufficiently confute the Roman Doctrine and shew the change of which Gaudentius speaks to be Spiritual and Mystical For if the Consecrated Signs be Bread and Wine they are not properly Christs Body if what is offered be a Figure of his Passion it is not the Truth For as Gandentius there telleth us figura non est veritas sed imitatio veritatis i.e. a figure is the imitation of the truth but
not the truth Wherefore Gaudentius doth argue a majori thus he that made Water to be substantially Wine can certainly make Wine to become Sacramentally his Blood T. G. p. 507. We must be told that St. Ignatius confesseth Eucharist to be the Flesh of Christ which suffered for our Sins 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 2. But then we must not know that this Epistle is intended against the Simonians and Menandrians who held that Christ suffered only in appearance had no real Flesh therefore could not confess that the Eucharist was Sacramentally Christs flesh least admitting the figure they should be forced to admit the truth and substance and therefore his Interpolater disputes against them thus V. usher Not. in Epist ad Smyr p. 50 That incorporeal things have neither shape nor character nor figure of a Living Creature that hath form which may be seen whereas when Christ shall come to Judgment they who have pierced shall see him Secondly We confess the Eucharist to be Christs Body and his Flesh and only do dispute the manner how of which Ignatius saith nothing We do acknowledge that it is truly and indeed Christs flesh and Blood as knowing that it may be truly what it is Spiritually for Christ is the true Vine Job 15.1 Joh. 1.8 Heb. 8.2 Luk. 16.12 and the true Light Heaven is called the true Tabernacle and Spiritual Blessings the true Riches and of this we have innumerable instances both from the Fathers and the Church of Rome produced by Albertinus de Sacramento Euch. p. 218. 854. Moreover it is objected T. G. p. 306. Orat. Mag. Catec c. 37 that Gregorius Nyssen doth affirm That he believes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i.e. The Bread Sanctisied by the Word of God to be transmuted into the body of the word Answ True but then it is as true that this transmutation may be as well by the addition of Grace to Nature as by the substantial mutation of that nature it being evident from the abundant testimonies of Bafil Vid. Alb. de Sacr. Euch. l. 2. p. 487. Nazianzen Chrysostom and Cyril of Jerusalem and other Fathers that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and transmutari are terms indifferently used as well of a mutation which only doth respect the qualities States and conditions of the Subject as the nature of it and of this we have many instances in the undoubted works of Gregory Who tells us That the Soul made virtuous is a In Inscr Psal c. 8. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 transmuted and that b 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Cant. Hom 8. Regeneration is a transmutation of it into that which is Divine and that c ibid. Hom. 9. when we appear in Glory we shall undergo this transmutation nay in this very place he twice asserts That the mortal Body of Christ being received into our body doth change our body into its self or its own nature d 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ibid. So then these words cannot infer That the Sacramental Bread and Wine receive by Consecration any other change He tells us further that the virtue of the benediction doth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 change or transelement the nature of things which do appear Answ This word is also used ordinarily to signifie not any change of substance but of qualities and virtues only and of this kind you have in Albertinus many instances produced l. 2. p. 488 of which no less then twenty are cited from Gregorius Nyssen declaring that by Regeneration and Baptism we are transelemented or changed to a Spiritual Nature and that the Resurrection will thus transelement and change our Natures So that it may with equal reason be concluded from this word that in Baptism our Natures are Transubstantiated as that the nature of the Eucharistical Bread is changed into Christs real and substantial body And so much for that spurious or doubtful passage of Gregorius Nyssen The passage cited from St. Cyril saith T. G. p. 306. That our Saviour sometime changed Water into Wine and shall we not think him worthy of our belief that he changed Wine into his Blood But then the same St. Cyril doth also say Catech. 2. he who raised Lazarus when four dayes dead can he not much more easily raise thee viz. from a death of Sin unto a life of Righteousness who dost live and breath And again Catech. 4. the rod of Moses was changed by the will of God into the dissentaneous nature of a Serpent and shall not dead Man be restored unto himself again And both Ambrose and St. e Serm. 12. ex 40 a Sirmundo editis Austin do argue from the conversion of Water into Wine That God can change our mortal into immortal Glorious bodies If then it be ridiculous from any of these passages to argue a substantial change wrought in us by Regeneration or the Resurrection it must be also vain to argue a substantial change from the like instance used to illustrate the change which is by Consecration made upon the Eucharistick Symbols 2 The words immediately preceding do clearly evidence that Cyril argues a majori For saith he If God could make this change from Water into Wine 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Catech. 4. Myst shall it not much more be confessed that he doth give us the fruition of his Body and his Blood whereas had he conceived the mutation of the Eucharistick Symbols to have been equal to the change of Water into Wine that phrase had been improper and absurd for of two equal changes it cannot reasonably be affirmed he that is able to perform the one is much more able to perform the other 3 I have already largely proved that Cyril here intended only an accidental change and shall yet further make it evident from two considerations 1. That in the following Catechism he speaks thus we pray unto the God of Mercies * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that he would send his Spirit into the things that lye before us and would make the Bread the Body of Christ and the Wine his Blood For whatsoever the Holy Spirit toucheth is sanctified and changed not that it is substantially changed for he affirmeth of the Baptismal Oyl and Water that they are Sanctified by the Holy Spirit And yet no Romanist will hence infer that they do not retain the nature both of Oyl and Water 2. In his first Catechism he affirms that as the Eucharistick Bread and Wine before the Consecration remains meer Bread and Wine but afterwards is made the Body and Blood of Christ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 After like manner truly are the meaâ—â— used in the Pomps of Satan in themselves pure or simple but by invocation of the Daemons they are made impure As therefore the mutation of these meats is only a mutation of their qualities not of the substance of them so must the change of Bread and Wine with which it is compared and equalled be
Usher Answ to the Jesuits challenge p. 79. Much is betwixt the body Christ suffered in and the body that is hallowed to housel the body truly that Christ suffered in was born of the flesh of Mary with blood and with bone with skin and with sinews in humane limbs with a reasonable soul living and his spiritual body which we call the housel is gathered of many Corns without blood and bone without limb without Soul and therefore nothing is to be understood therein bodily but spiritually This mystery is a pledge and a figure Christs body is truth it self And again Christ hallowed Bread and Wine to housel before his suffering and said this is my body and my blood Yet he had not then suffered but so notwithstanding he turned through invisible vertue the Bread to his own body and that Wine to his blood as he before did in the Wilderness before that he was born to men when he turned that heavenly meat to his flesh and the flowing water from that stone to be his own blood The like matter also was delivered to the Clergy by the Bishops at their Synods out of two or three writings of the same Aefrick in the one one whereof directed to e Impress Lond. cum Homil. Paschali Ms. in Bibl. Bodl. Wulfsine Bishop of Shirburn we read thus That housel is Christs body not bodily but spiritually Not the body which he suffered in but the body of which he spake when he blessed Bread and Wine to housel the night before his suffering and said by the blessed Bread this is my body and again by the holy Wine this is my blood which is shed for many in forgiveness of sins In the other written to Wulfstane Archbishop of York thus The Lord which hallowed housel before his suffering and saith that the Bread was his own body and that the Wine was truly his blood halloweth daily by the hands of the Priest Bread to his body and Wine to his blood in spiritual mystery as we read in books And yet notwithstanding that lively Bread is not bodily so nor the self-same body that Christ suffered in nor that holy Wine is that Saviours blood which was shed for us in bodily thing but in spiritual understanding But now if T. G. should deny all this that is the testimony of almost all the Fathers of the Church and the confessions of so many Cardinals and Schoolmen and of the Fathers of the Society aforesaid to prove that Transubstantiation is a late upstart Doctrine and that the Scripture is to be interpreted according to the mind of Protestants to shew the unreasonableness of this denyal I would propose this case to his consideration and the Readers viz. in supposition that a controversie arise in this present age about the sense of a Law which was made 500 years past and that a considerable number of those who framed the novel exposition should confess that for the last Two hundred years the contrary to what they maintained was generally received in the Kingdom as the sense of the Law and should farther confess that the most eminent Lawyers of the former ages from the first enacting of the Law held the same with the latter Nor had there ever been any disagreement or opposition among them in that point whether it be not a sufficient proof that what they taught to be the sence of the Law was generally received as the sence and meaning of it from the beginning The Testimonies themselves of those antient Lawyers would be conviction enough how much more when strengthned by the confession of the adverse party it self Now if this be so in the delivery of the sense of a human Law where it happens very often that great Lawyers may be and often are of different judgments how much more in the delivery of a Divine Doctrine where the Pastors of the Church are bound to deliver what they received and the succeeding age is still bound to receive what they delivered surely if we add to this the confession of the very Adversaries themselves the proof as St. Ireneus saith must be true and without contradiction for if the Testimony of Ten Fathers and a few false impertinent confessions of our meanest Writers was by T.G. esteemed sufficient cause of this Triumphant flourish the Testimony of so many hundred Fathers of the Church and the confession of so many Cardinals and Schoolmen Jesuits and Fathers of the Roman party must be a demonstration of the truth of our assertion and exposition of the words of Christ sufficient to convince the obstinacy of this vain Apostate wherefore I shall conclude with that most pertinent exhortation of the learned Origen d Haec qui audire nesciâ— detorqueat ortasse avertaâ— auditum secundum illos qui â—â—icebant 〈…〉 bis carnem suam manducare sed vos Si fiâ—â—â— estis Ecclesiae si Evangelicis imbuti mysteriis si verbum caro fastum habitat in vobis agnoscite quia figurae sunt quae in divinis voluminibus scripta sunt ideo tanquam spirituales non tanquam carnales examinate intelligite quae dicuntur Si â—nim tanquam carnales ista suscipitis laedunt vâ—s non alunt-Est in N. Testamento litera quae occidit c. ut supra Orig. in Levit. c. 10. Hom 7. p. 87. If you be Sons of the Church if you are imbued with Gospel Mysteries and if the word made flesh doth dwell within you acknowledge these are figures which are written in the Sacred Volumns and therefore understand ye what is written as spiritual and not as carnal men for if as carnal you receive them they will hurt but will not nourish you There is in the New Testament a letter which killeth him that doth not spiritually understand it for if according to the letter you do follow that which is said except you eat the flesh c. the letter killeth Hence we may see the vanity of this assertion of T. G. That the definition of the present Church of Rome for that is most absurdly called the Church-Catholick p. 252. is ground sufficient to believe the Doctrine of Transubstantiation Whereas it is confessed by their most learned Writers that in primitiva Ecclesia non erat de fide i. e. this was not any Article of Faith delivered to her by the antient Church and that the e De Transubstantiatione panis in corpus Christi rara est in antiquis scriptoribusmentio Alphonsus a castro de Haer l 8. v indulgentia thing as well as name of transubstantiation is very rarely mentioned by the antient Fathers Nay they spake nothing of it And it is evident from the clear pregnant Testimonies and the concurrent judgment of many Hundred Fathers that the Church of Christ did generally hold the contrary to what the Church doth now define and held that exposition of our Saviours words was true and Genuine which they have now condemned as Heretical 2. How
Christs humanity is as to the substance and the nature of it changed into the Deity and that the accidents form and figure of it only remain unchanged that is he grants all that the Heretick asserts and he endeavoured to refure For thus the Heretick dispuâ—es As the Symbols of the body and blood of Christ are other things before the invocation of the Priest but after the invocation they are changed and made other so the body of Christ after the assumption is changed into the divine substance and thus the Orthodox doth answer thou art caught in thy own Net for the mystical signs after Sanctification do not recede from their own natures Again the Orthodox puts this question are not the mysteries Ibid. vid. p. 57. the signs of the body which truly is this being granted by the Heretick he makes this inference If the divine mysteries do truly represent the body then the body of our Lord now is and is not changed into the Deity but only filled with his Glory When therefore is it affirmed by Theodoret that this Sacrament is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a venerable Type And that the Symbols are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Symbols which are Worshiped This phrase can signifie no more then this That they are venerable Types and Symbols such as deserve a reverence or honorary Worship from all Christians which is a very common acceptation of the word for thus Christian Temples are stiled by the Ancients a Concal sub Menna act 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Venerable Temples the Apostles Throat b Epist Leonis 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Venerable Throne and Baptism c Justinian Novil 6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Venerable Baptism The same uncenscionable dealing we meet with in that passage of St. Austin for no Man eats Christs flesh 〈◊〉 be have siâ—sâ— adored for in that very place he tells us That * In â—â—sâ—l 98. p 241. â— G. H the Jews interpreted the eating of Christs Flesh like Fools for they interpreted it carnally whereas Christ did instrâ—â— his own Disciples and say unto them understand Spiritually what I say unto you you shall not eat the Body which you see and drink the Blood which they will shed that Crucifie me I have commended unto you a Sacrament that Spiritually being understood will quicken you So that St. Austin in this very place asserts the contradictory to what the Church of Rome believes touching the presence of Christs Body in the Sacrament and calls them Fools that think Christ did intend what they imagine he hath said Therefore it is manifest that St. Austin in this place speaks nothing of the adoration of Christs Flesh under the accidents of Bread but only of the adoration of hs Flesh considered as united to the Godhead and placed at the Right Hand of God I astly to that of Ambrose De spir Saâ—cto l 3. c. 12. By the Footstool is understood the Earth and by the Earth the flesh of Christ which we Adore in the mysteries at this day and which the Apostles adored in our Lord Jesus I answer that he saith no more than this that in these mysteries we Worship Christ and câ—nâ—â—quently the flesh of Christ as being not divided from him â—u he doth not say that in adoring the mysteries we adore Christ or that we do adore the mysteries which are Christ 1. Therefore let it be observed that St. Ambrose doth not say that we adore Christ only in this mysteries but in mysteriis or in the Celebration of the Sacraments which it was the custome of Antiquity to do because they held these mysteriâ—s to be instituted by him to convey unto us those blessings he had purchased by his blood and did conceive he * in Job 9 6.7 Cyril words it doth invisibly swim in the waters of Baptism And therefore in the Celebration of that rite they eall upon us as * Paulinus Epist 4. Chrysost To. 6. in illud simile est regnum czlorum Captives to fall down before our King and with hands lifted up to Heaven to adore him and mutually to exhort our selves and say come let us Worship before the Lord who made us And yet I hope T. G. will not infer that Element of Water to be transmuted into Christs Body and therefore Worshiped by the Christians of those times Secondly observe that Christs Sacred Flesh being united to his Godhead and adored with it the Worship which at the celebration of those Mysteries was directed to him as sitting in the Heavens must be the Worship of his Flesh and this assuredly must be the meaning of St. Ambrose who in his exposition of these words seek those things which are above serm 58. c. speaketh thus we ought not now to seek our Saviour upon the Earth or according to the Flesh it we would find and touch him but according to the Glory of his Divine Majesty that we may say with the Apostle Paul but now we know not Christ according to the Flesh And therefore Blessed Stephen by his Faith did not seek Christ upon the Earth but did acknowledge him standing at the Right Hand of God where with the devotion of the mind he sought him Now this no Protestant denies that Christ even in the celebration of the Eucharist is to be Worshiped where he is and where he is to be sought after by such as do desire to sind him i.e. at the right hand of God CHAP. VI. The Contents Prop. 1. When we ascribe unto the Creature the Homage due to the Creator we become guilty of Idolatry Prop. 2. To know the secrets of the hearts of persons praying at all times and in all places of the World is a divine and incommunicated excellency Prop. 3. That to ascribe this knowledge to any Creature to whom God doth not thus discover the secrets of the heart and to pay that honour to it which doth suppose that knowledge is Idolatry Prop. 4. Those outward Acts of Worship which by consent of Nations or by common Use do signifie the honour due to the Creator are Idolatrical when given to a Creature Corol 1. That to offer Sacrifice is to perform that Worship which is proper only to God 2. That to vow to Angels or to Saints departed is to ascribe unto them the honour due to the Creator 3. Prayer offered and put up in any time and place to an invisible and not corporeally present Being is the oblation of that Worship to it which is due to God alone Objections Answered §. 1. HAving thus endeavoured to confirm and justifie the Judgment of the Church of England touching the Worshipping of the Host I now proceed to shew the Equity and Justice of her Censure of the Roman practice in reference unto the Invocation and Adoration of Holy Angels and of Saints departed And what we have to say in this particular as the foundation of this Charge shall be contained in these
unbaptized Infants cannot have it The Words of Innocentius are these (f) Haec enim ejus verba sunt Illud verò quod eos vestra fraternitas asserit praedicare parvulos aeternae vitae praemiis etiam sine Baptismatis Gratia posse donari perfatuum est risi enim manducaverint carnem filii hominis August contr duas Epist Pelag. l. 2. c 4. Whereas your Brotherhood asserts that the Pelagians say that Infants may be saved without Baptism this is a very fond opinion for unless they eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his Blood they have no life in them (g) Hinc constat Inncoentii primi sentententia quae 600 circiter annos in Ecclesia viguit quamque Augusitnus sectatus est Eucharistiam etiam Infantibus neceâ—sarium fuisse Concil Tom. 1. part 4. p. 624. Whence it is evident saith Binius that this was Pope Innocents opinion which also was maintained in the Church 600 years viz. that the participation of the Eucharist was necessary to Infants and what he thus confesseth is made good by * Dalle from the fourth inclusivè to the eleventh Century by the plain pregnant Testimonies of them that lived in those Times Who also doth abundantly consute that vain imagination of Mr. Cressy and Vasquezius that they conceived it necessary that Infants should partake Christs Body and his Blood not Sacramentally but Spiritually by such a participation as may be had in Baptism Lastly they also do affirm this Doctrine to be derived from (h) Optimè Funici Christiani Baptismum ipsum nihil a liud quam salutem Sacramentum Corporis Christi nihil aliud quam viâ—um vocant unde nisi ex Aatiqua ut existimo et Apostolica traditione qua Ecclesiae Christi insitum tenent praeter Baptismum participationem dominicae mensae non solum ad regnum Dei sed we ad salutem vitam aeternam posse quenquam hominum pervenire hoc enim scriptura testatur viz. Tit. 3.5 1 Petr. 3.21 John 6.51 53. si ergo ut tot tanta Divina testimonia concinunt nec salus nec vita aeâ—crna sine Baptâ—â—mâ— Corpore Sanguine Domini cuiquam speranda est frustra â—â—ne his promittitur parvulis Tom. 7. lib. 1. de peccat meritis c. c. 24. p. 144 D. E. Apostolical Tradition and deeply setled in the Churches of Christ as doth most evidently appear from that of Austin From an ancient and as I suppose Apostolical Tradition the Churches of Christ have this deeply setled in them that without Baptism and the participation of the Lords Supper no man can attain to the Kingdom of God nor yet to life eternal If therefore so many Testimonies Divine convince us that everlasting Life is not to be expected without Baptism and the Body and Blood of Christ 't is in vain to promise it to children without them And yet the Church of Rome hath laid aside this practise and determined against this Doctrine thus (i) Concil Trid. Sesi 21. Can. 4. Si quis dixerit Parvulis antequam ad annos discretionis pervenerint necessariam esse Eucharistiae communionem anathema sit Which must be thus interpreted If any Person now doth say what the whole Church of Christ did for 600 years together viz. That it is necessary for Infants to be partakers of the Eucharist let him be accursed I will not quarrel with them as Mr. Dalle doth for their intolerable irreverence to the ancient Fathers or for the Curse they have pronounced on the whole Church of Christ for many Ages but I will take the Boldness to infer that if they may condemn a practice far more ancient than was the Invocation of departed Saints a practice not opposed as that was by many Fathers of the Church upon its first encroachment when about A. D. 360. it began to creep into the Church a practice so deeply setled in all Christian Churches in St. Austins time when that of Invocation of Saints departed was but in the Embryo Lastly a practice proved from clear unanimous and numerous assertions of the learned Fathers Whereas what is produced for the other practice is obscure and contradictory to what in other places they deliver and fairly may admit another sense as you shall see hereafter I say if they may wholly lay aside this practice and may pronounce Anathema's against it I hope we also may refuse to practice this Invocation of the Saints departed provided that it were as ancient as the Times of Nazianzen Basil and St. Austin 2 Observe § 2. That though these Fathers cited by T. G. seem in some places to assert or use this invocation of the Saints departed in others they deny the Doctrine and disapprove the practice of it and this they do in Writings more assuredly Authentick and in words more clear and pregnant than are or can be brought to justifie it This I might easily make good by an induction of the places cited pro and con from all these Father but since T. G. hath singled out St. Austin p 431. as a man so clear and pregnant in this Point that whosoever shall deny St. Austin to have held such formal invocation to be the Worship due to Saints must shut his eyes and fight against the light of a noon-day truth Let any man peruse the places which are cited from that Father and say whether I have not reason to affirm this bold Assertion to be a manifest untruth The passages produced out of the genuine Works of Austin for Invocation are 1. Let Blessed Cyprian help us with his prayers T. G. p. 430. 2. We Christian People do with religious solemnity celebrate the memory of Martyrs both to excite us unto the imitation of them and that we may become partakers of their merits and may be helped by their prayers T. G. p. 433. 3. It is an injury to pray for a Martyr to whose prayers we ought to be commended T. G. p. 434. Against it we produce these Testimonies * Ipse Sacerdos est qui nunc ingressus in interiora Veli solus ibi ex his qui carnem gestaverunt interpellat pro nobis In Psalm 64. p 144. M. 1. Christ is the Priest who being now entred within the Vail only of all that have been made partakers of flesh makes intercession for us there †Si vero ita diceret hoc scripsi vobis ut non peccetis si quis peccaverit Mediatorem me habetis apud Patrem ego exoro pro peccatis vestris sicut Parmenianus quodam loco Mediatorem posuit Episcopum inter Populum Doum quis cum ferret bonorum atque fidelium Christianorum quis sicut Apostolum Christi non sicut Antichristum intueretur Contr. Epistol Parmen l. 2. c. 8. p. 7. L. Tom. septimo 2. If he i. e. St. John had said thus If any man sin you have me a Mediator with the Father I make intercession for your sins