say (n) Author Libr. cui tit Celebres Opiniones de Anima c. 10. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That it is impossible for one Body to penetrate another Body And the same Author says (o) Ibid. cap. ult Sic dici posset in milii grano coelum contineri That if this were possible you might then say That Heaven it self might be contained in a Grain of Millet The Fathers argue against Marcion upon this Rule That whatsoever contains another thing is greater than that which is contained in it So do's Epiphanius (p) Haeres 42. sec 7. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So do's Tertullian (q) Contr. Marcion l. 1. c. 15. Irenaeus (r) Adv. Haer. l. 2. c. 1. has the same Rule and laughs at Marcion's God upon that account Greg. Nyssen (s) De Vita Mosis proves that the Deity has no Bounds by this Argument That otherwise what contains would be greater than the Deity contained therein Theophylus Antioch (t) Ad Autolycum l. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 says This is the Property of the Almighty and True God not only to be every where but to inspect and hear all things Neither is he contained in a Place for else the containing Place would be greater than himself for that which contains is greater than that which is contained in it I will conclude this Chapter with the remarkable Words of Fulgentius (u) De Fide ad Petr. c. 3. Unaquaeque res ita permanet sicut à Deo accepit ut esset alia quidem sic alia autem sic Neque enim sic datum est corporibus ut sint sicut spiritus acceperunt c. Every thing so remains as it has received of God that it should be one on this manner and another on that For it is not given to Bodies to exist after such a manner as is granted unto Spirits c. CHAP. VI. The Sixth Difference The Church of Rome suitably to the strange Doctrine it teaches about Christ's Body and Blood teaches us not to believe the Report our Senses make That the Substance of Bread and Wine remain in the Sacrament but to pass a contrary Judgment to what they inform us herein But the Fathers teach the contrary That we may securely relie upon the Evidence of our Senses as to any Body even as to the true Body of Christ THat the Church of Rome would not have us in this Matter to attend to the Evidence of Sense is needless to prove since nothing is more common than to hear them call upon us to distrust them and to believe against their Report Thus the Trent Catechism * Ad Paroch de Euchar. part 2. num 25. Nullam Elementorum substantiam remanere quamvis nihil magis à sensibus alienum remotum videri possit teaches us to believe That no Substance of the Elements remains in the Eucharist tho' nothing seems more strange and remote from our Senses than this And again †Ib. n. 46. Corpus sanguinem Domini ita sumimus ut tamen quod verè sit sensibus percipi non potest We so receive the Body and Blood of Christ that yet we cannot perceive by our Senses that it is truly so As for the Fathers they are Strangers to this Doctrine nor did they betray the Christian Cause in this manner by taking away all Certainty from the Testimony of our Senses They on the contrary proved the Truth of Christ's Body against the Valentinians the Marcionites and other Hereticks by this Argument which the Church of Rome rejects they made their Appeals frequently as S. John had done before them to what had been seen with Mens Eyes to what their Ears had heard and their Hands had handled without any suspicion of their being deceived Thus Irenaeus (a) Lib. 3. adv Haeres c. 20. Hoc autem illis occurrit qui dicunt eum putativè passum Si enim non verè passus est nulla gratia ei cùm nulla fuerit passio Et nos cùm incipiemus verè pati seducens videbitur adhortans nos vapulare alteram praebere maxillam si ipse illud non prior in veritate passus est Et quemadmodum illos seduxit ut videretur ipse hoc quod non erat nos seducit adhortans perferre ea quae ipse non pertulit This meets with them who say That Christ suffered only seemingly For if he did not truly suffer no Thanks are due to him when there was no Passion And when he shall begin truly to suffer he will seem a Seducer when he exhorts us to suffer Stripes and to turn the other Cheek if he first did not suffer this in truth And as he seduced them in seeming to be that which he was not so he seduces us whilst he exhorts us to suffer the things which he did not suffer Again (b) Id. lib. 5. cap. 1. citante Theodoreto Dial. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 These things were not done seemingly only but in reality of truth for if he appeared to be a Man when he was not so he neither did remain the Spirit of God which he truly was since a Spirit is invisible nor was there any Truth in him for he was not that which he appeared to be He thought it you see absurdity enough to say That Christ appeared what he was not But what absurdity can this be to them that say it is constantly so in the Sacrament where that appears so and so which is not so as the Bread and Wine according to them do's Again (c) Id. lib. 5. cap. 7. Quomodo igitur Christus in carnis substantia resurrexit ostendit discipulis figuram clavorum apertionem lateris haec autem sunt indicia carnis ejus quae surrexit à mortuis sic nos inquit suscitabit per virtutem suam As Christ therefore rose again in the Substance of our Flesh and shewed to his Disciples the Print of the Nails and the Opening of his Side and these are Indications of his Flesh which arose from the Dead so also he says he will raise us up by his Power Tertullian also argues thus against Marcion (d) De carne Christi c. 5. Maluit crede nasci quam aliqua ex parte mentiri quidem in semetipsum ut carnem gestaret sine ossibus duram sine musculis solidam sine sanguine cruentam sine tunica vestitam sine fame esurientem sine dentibus edentem sine lingua loquentem ut phantasma auribus fuerit sermo ejus per imaginem vocis Believe it he chose rather to be born which Marcion thought absurd than in any respect to lie and that against himself so as to carry Flesh about him hard without Bones solid without Muscles bloody without Blood cloathed without a Garment craving Food without Hunger eating without Teeth speaking without a Tongue so that his Speech was a Phantasm to Mens Ears
Non debetis aquas illas oculis aestimare sed mente You ought not to make an Estimate of those Waters with your Eyes but with your Mind Thus also S. Ambrose (q) De his qui initiantur c. 3. Quod vidisti aquas utique sed non solas Levitas illic ministrantes summum Sacerdotem interrogantem consecrantem Primo omnium docuit te Apostolus non ea contemplanda nobis quae videntur sed quae non videntur c. Non ergo solis corporis tui oculis credas Magis videtur quod non videtur quia istud temporale illud aeternum aspicitur quod oculis non comprehenditur animo autem mente cernitur speaking of Baptism As to what thou hast seen to wit the Waters and not those alone but Levites there ministring and the Bishop asking Questions and Consecrating First of all the Apostle has taught thee That we are not to look upon the things that are seen but on the things that are not seen c. Do not therefore only believe thy bodily Eyes That is rather seen which is not seen because that is Temporal this is Eternal which is not comprehended by our Eyes but is seen by our Mind and Understanding S. Chrysostom (r) In Joan. Hom. 24. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 speaking also of Baptism thus breaks out Let us believe God's Affirmation for this is more faithful than our Sight for our Sight often is deceived that is impossible to fall to the Ground It is so frequent an Expression of S. Chrysostome That God's Word is more to be credited than our Eyes that he applies it not only to the Sacraments but even to the Case of Alms-giving For thus he says (s) Hom. 89. in Matth. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Let us be so affected when we give Alms to the Poor as if we gave them to Christ himself For his Words are more sure than our Sight Therefore when thou seest a poor Man remember the Words whereby Christ signified that he himself is fed For tho' what is seen is not Christ yet under this shape he receives thy Alms and asks it Ans 3. The Fathers in the matter of Signs and Sacraments therefore call upon us not to listen to our Senses and credit them because in such Cases they would have us to consider things beyond and above their information such as relate to their Use and Efficacy these being spiritual things signified by what is visible wherein they place the Mystery and which Sense can neither discover nor judge of S. Austin has a Rule (t) De Doctr. Christ l. 2. c. 1. De signis disserens hoc dico ne quis in eis attendat quod sunt sed potius quod signa sunt id est quod significant Signum est enim res praeter speciem quam ingerit sensibus aliud aliquid ex se faciens in cogitationem venire in this Case I say this treating of Signs in which none ought to attend to what they are but rather that they are Signs that is that they signifie For a Sign is a thing which besides what appears affecting the Senses do's of it self make somewhat else to come into our thoughts So also Origen (u) In Joan. tom 18. ad finem 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 describes a Sign to be a Note of another thing besides that which the Sense gives testimony to But none has so fully declared this Matter and answered the former Objection as S. Chrysostome in the place forecited whose Words deserve to be set down at large (x) In 1 Cor. Hom. 7. Edit Savil. Tom. 3. p. 280. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Where treating of Baptism the Eucharist and other Mysteries after he has told us as we heard before what a Mystery is viz. When we do not meerly believe what we see but see one thing and believe another he goes on thus I and an Infidel are diversly affected with them I hear that Christ was crucified I presently admire his Benignity He hears the same and he counts it Infirmity I hear that he was made a Servant and I admire his Care He when he hears the same counts it Infamy And so he goes on with his Death and Resurrection and the different Judgment is made of them and proceeds to speak of the Sacraments The Infidel hearing of the Laver of Baptism esteems it simply Water 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. but I do not look meerly upon what I see but regard the cleansing of the Soul by the Spirit He thinks that my Body only is washed but I believe that my Soul is made clean and holy I reckon the Burial Resurrection Sanctification Righteousness Redemption Adoption of Sons the Inheritance the Kingdom of Heaven the Supply of the Spirit For I do not judge of the things that appear by my Sight 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but by the Eyes of my Mind I hear of the Body of Christ I understand what is said one way an Infidel another Which he further illustrates admirably thus As Children looking upon Books know not the Power of Letters understand not what they look upon nay even to a grown Man that is unlearned it will be the same when a Man of Skill will find out much hidden Virtue Lives and Histories contained therein And if one of no skill receive a Letter he will judge it only to be Paper and Ink but he that has Skill hears an absent Person speak 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and discourses with him and speaks what he pleases to him again by his Letters Just thus it is in a Mystery Unbelievers hearing seem not to hear but the Believers being taught Skill by the Spirit perceive the Power of the hidden things This Discourse of S. Chrysostome's explains a Place of S. Cyril of Jerusalem (y) Catech. 4. Mystag 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. and teaches us how to understand it where speaking of the Eucharist he says Do not consider it as bare Bread and Wine for it is the Body and Blood of Christ according to our Lord's Affirmation And altho Sense suggests this to thee let Faith confirm thee Do not judge of the Matter by thy Taste but by Faith be undoubtedly persuaded that thou art honoured with the Body and Blood of Christ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And afterwards Being fully persuaded that the visible Bread is not Bread tho' the Taste perceive it such but the Body of Christ and the visible Wine is not Wine tho' the Taste would have it so but the Blood of Christ All which must be only understood of the Sacramental Relation that the Bread and Wine have to the Body and Blood of Christ which the Sense of Tasting acquaints us nothing at all with and therefore is not a fit Judge of this but we are to believe and not doubt of its Truth It will also help us to understand another Place of S. Chrysostome Homil. 83. in
oft-times in their very manner of speaking concerning the Body and Blood of Christ point at another thing than his Natural Body so that we need no Commentary upon their words to explain them for they carry at first hearing our sense and meaning in them and not that of the Romanists To give a few instances S. Cyprian (g) Epist 63. ad Caecilium Cùm dicat Christus ego sum vitis vera sanguis Christi non aqua est ucique sed vinum Quomodo nec Corpus Domini potest esse farina sola aut aqua sola nisi utrumque adunatum fuerit copulatum panis unius compagine solidatum discoursing against those that Consecated and drank only Water in the Sacrament says When Christ says I am the true Vine the Blood of Christ it's plain is not Water but Wine So neither can the Lords Body be flour alone or water alone unless both of them be united and coupled and kneaded together into one Loaf Where no Body can doubt of S. Cyprian's meaning that by Christs Body he understands not his natural Body but the Sacrament of it And so the Council of Carthage (h) Pandect Canon p. 565. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 decreed against the Armenians who made use of Wine only in the Eucharist That nothing shall be offered but the Body and Blood of Christ as the Lord himself delivered it the phrase carries its sense in the face of it if they had said no more but they add that is Bread and Wine mixed with Water What can be more plain than that of Theodoret (i) Dialog 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. when he says That our Saviour changed the names and on his Body he put the name of the sign or symbol and on the sign the name of his Body A little before he shows how You know says he that God called his Body Bread and elsewhere he called his flesh Wheat 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 except a Corn of Wheat fall to the Earth and die Matth. 12. But in the delivery of the mysteries he called Bread his Body and that which is mixed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Blood. Is it not clear that neither in one case nor the other these sayings are to be understood properly but figuratively Especially when Theodoret before all I now have cited makes this comparison As after Consecration Ib. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we call the mystical fruit of the Vine the Lords blood so he Jacob called the Blood of the true Vine the Blood of the Grape Both the one and the other must be figuratively understood When S. Cyprian in the forecited Epistle (k) Epist 63. Hoc quis veretur ne per saporem vini redoleat sanguinem Christi says that some might make it an Objection that by partaking of the Communion early in the Morning they might be discovered to the Heathen Persecutors by the smell of the Wine he expresses it thus One fears this lest by tasting Wine he should smell of Christs Blood. S. Jerome has such another saying which cannot well be mistaken to express any other sense but ours when speaking of Virgins (l) Epist ad Eustochium Ebrietati sacrilegium copulantes aiunt absit ut ego me abstineam à sanguine Christi that were reproved for drinking Wine to excess he says they made this excuse joining sacrilege to their drunkenness and said God forbid that I should abstain from the Blood of Christ Either they said nothing to the purpose or they took that which they called the Blood of Christ for Wine properly Thus also S. Chrysostome (m) Epist 1. ad Innocent 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 speaking of the rudeness of the Souldiers in the Church says that in the tumult the most holy Blood of Christ was shed upon the Souldiers Cloths Which could be nothing but Sacramental Wine Leo the Great speaking of the Manichees that for fear of the Laws came to the Communion of the Catholicks and directing how to discover them he says (n) Serm. 4. de Quadrages Ita in Sacramentorum communione se temperaur ut interdum tutiùs lateant Ore indigno Christi Corpus accipiunt sanguinem autem redemptionis nostrae haurire omninò declinant They so behave themselves in the Communion of the Sacraments that they may sometime be more safely concealed with an unworthy mouth they take the Body of Christ but altogether decline drinking the Blood of our redemption In the sense both of Leo and the Manichees the Body and Blood here must be taken figuratively for such bad men as they in the sense of the Antients could not eat or any way receive Christ's Body in a proper sense but being understood of the Type of it viz. of the Sacramental Bread that they would receive but not the Type of his Blood viz. the Wine because as S. Austin (o) De Heres 46. Vinum non bibunt dicentes fel esse principum tenebrarum observes they drink no Wine saying it is the Gall of the Prince of darkness They had no more prejudice against the Blood than the Body of Christ only they took it to be Wine which they abhorred 3. Observ The Fathers speak of Christ's Body and Blood in the Eucharist with such terms of restriction and diminution which plainly tell us that they understood it not of his substantial and natural Body but in a figurative sense Thus Origen (p) Contr. Celsum l 8. p. 399. Edit Cantabr 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 says That Bread in the Eucharist is made by Prayer a certain holy Body And S. Austin (q) In Psal 33. conc 2. Accepit in manus quod norunt sideles ipse se portabat quodammodo cùm diceret hoc est Corpus meum Christ took in his hands what the faithful understand and after a sort carried himself when he said This is my Body Bede (r) In Psal 33. Christus quodammodo ferebatur in manibus suis upon the same Psalm has the same term of restriction Christ after a sort was carried in his own hands S. Austin elsewhere (ſ) Epist 23. ad Bonifac. Secundum quendam modum Sacramentum Corporis Christi Corpus Christi est Sacramentum sanguinis Christi sanguis Christi est In a certain sense the Sacrament of the Body of Christ is Christ's Body and the Sacrament of the Blood of Christ is Christ's Blood. Just as at Easter we say this day Christ rose because it is a memorial of it S. Chrysostome (t) Epist ad Caesarium Dignus habitus est Dominici Corporis appellatione says of the Consecrated Bread That it has no longer the name of Bread tho' the nature of it remains but is counted worthy to be called the Lord's Body Theodoret in like manner (u) Dialog 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He honoured the visible Symbols with the appellation of his Body and Blood. Facundus Hermian (x) In defens 3.
Wine in a Cup and said Drink ye all of this This is my Blood which is shed for many for the Remission of Sins The Apostles did as Christ commanded they consecrated Bread and Wine for the Eucharist And to his memory also afterward every one of their Successors and all Christ's Priests According to Christ's Command by the Apostolical Benediction did consecrate Bread and Wine in his Name Now Men have often disputed P. 470. and do it still How that Bread which is prepared of Corn and is baked by the heat of Fire can be changed into Christ's Body and how that Wine which is pressed out of many Grapes by any blessing of it can be changed into our Lord's Blood Now to such Men I answer that some things are spoken of Christ by signification some others by a known thing It is a true thing and known that Christ was born of a Virgin and voluntarily suffered Death and was buried and this Day rose from the Dead He is called Bread and a Lamb and a Lion and otherwise by signification He is called Bread because he is our Life and the Life of Angels He is called a Lamb for his Innocency A Lion for his Strength whereby he overcame the strong Devil Yet notwithstanding according to true Nature Christ is neither Bread nor a Lamb nor a Lion. Wherefore then is that Holy Eucharist called Christ's Body or his Blood if it be not truly what it is called Truly the Bread and Wine which are consecrated by the Mass of the Priests show one thing outwardly to Mens Senses and another thing they declare inwardly to believing Minds Outwardly Bread and Wine are seen both in appearance and in tast yet they are truly after Consecration Christ's Body and Blood by a Spiritual Sacrament An Heathen Child is Baptized yet he altereth not his outward shape though he be changed within He is brought to the Font full of Sin through Adam's Disobedience but he is washed from all his Sins inwardly tho' he has not changed his outward Shape So also that Holy Font-Water which is called the Well-spring of Life is like in Nature in specie to other Waters and is subject to corruption but the Power of the Holy Ghost by the Priest's Blessing comes upon that corruptible Water and after that it can wash both Body and Soul from all Sins P. 471. by spiritual Power We see now in this one Creature two things that whereby according to true Nature it is corruptible Water and that whereby according to the Spiritual Mystery it has a saving Power So also if we look upon that Holy Eucharist according to a corporeal Sense then we see that it is a Creature corruptible and changeable but if we own a spiritual Power there then we understand that Life is in it and that it confers Immortality on those that tast it by Faith. There is a great difference betwixt the insible Vertue and Power of this Holy Eucharist and the visible appearance of its proper Nature By its Nature it is corruptible Bread and corruptible Wine and by the Virtue of the Divine Word it is truly the Body and Blood of Christ yet not corporally so but spiritually There is much differencce betwixt that Body which Christ suffer'd in and that Body which is consecrated for the Eucharist The Body that Christ suffer'd in was Born of the Flesh of Mary with Blood and Bones with Skin and Nerves animated by a rational Spirit in humane Members but his Spiritual Body which we call the Eucharist is collected from many grains of Corn without Blood and Bone without Member or Soul wherefore there is nothing in it to be understood Corporeally but all is to be understood Spiritually Whatsoever is in that Eucharist which restores Life to us this is from Spiritual Virtue and from invisible Operation Therefore that Holy Eucharist is called a Sacrament because one thing is there seen and another thing understood that which is there seen has a bodily Nature that which we understand in it has a spiritual Virtue The Body of Christ that suffered Death P. 472. and rose from the Dead henceforth dies no more but is eternal and impassible That Eucharist is Temporary not Eternal it is corruptible and capable of division into minute Parts it is chewed with the Teeth and sent into the draught yet it will be true that according to spiritual Virtue it is whole in every part Many receive that Holy Body yet according to the spiritual Mystery it will be whole in every part Tho' some receive a lesser part of it yet there will not be more virtue in the greater part than in the lesser because it will be whole in all Men according to the invisible virtue This Sacrament is a Pledg and a Type the Body of Christ is the Truth We keep this Pledg Sacramentally till we come to the Truth it self and then is the Pledg at an end It is indeed as we said before Christ's Body and his Blood but not Corporally but Spiritually Do not dispute how this can be effected but believe it firmly that so it is Here follow some idle Visions which that credulous Age were fond of but are nothing to the purpose and therefore I omit them Paul the Apostle speaketh of the old Israelites writing thus in his Epistle to the Faithful P. 473. All our Fore-fathers were baptized in the Cloud and in the Sea and all ate the same spiritual Meat and all drank the same spiritual Drink for they drank of that spiritual Rock and that Rock was Christ That Rock from whence the Water then flowed was not Christ in a Corporal Sense but it signified Christ who declared thus to the Faithful Whosoever thirsteth let him come to me and drink and from his belly shall flow living Water This he said of the Holy Ghost which they that Believed on him should receive The Apostle Paul said that the People of Israel ate the same spiritual Meat and drank the same Spiritual Drink because the heavenly Food that fed them for forty Years and that Water that flowed from the Rock signified Christ's Body and Blood which are now dayly offered in the Church of God. It was the same which we offer to day not corporally but spiritually We told you before that Christ consecrated Bread and Wine for the Eucharist before his Passion and said This is my Body and my Blood he had not yet suffered and yet he changed by his invisible Power that Bread into his Body and that Wine into his Blood as he did before in the Wilderness before he was born Man when he turned the heavenly Food into his Flesh and that Water flowing from the Rock into his Blood. P. 474. Many Persons ate of the Heavenly Food in the Desart and drank of the Spiritual Drink and yet as Christ said are dead Christ meant not that Death which no Man can avoid but he understood eternal Death which several of
that People for their Unbelief had deserved Moses and Aaron and several others of the People that pleased God ate that heavenly Bread and did not die that everlasting Death tho' they died the common Death They saw that the heavenly Food was visible and Corruptible but they understood that visible thing spiritually and they tasted it spiritually Jesus said Whoso eateth my Flesh and drinketh my Blood hath Eternal Life He did not command them to eat that Body which he had assumed nor to drink that Blood which he shed for us but by that Speech he meant the Holy Eucharist which is Spiritually his Body and his Blood and whosoever tasteth this with a believing Heart shall have that Eternal Life Under the old Law the Faithful offered divers Sacrifices to God which had a future signification of the Body of Christ which he hath offered in Sacrifice to his heavenly Father for our Sins This Eucharist which is now consecrated at God's Altar is a Commemoration of the Body of Christ which he offered for us and of his Blood which he shed for us As he himself commanded Do this in remembrance of me Christ once suffered by himself but yet his Passion by the Sacrament of this Holy Eucharist is daily renewed at the Holy Mass Wherefore the Holy Mass is profitable very much both for the Living and also for the Dead as it hath been often declared c. The rest of the Sermon being of a moral and allegorical Nature I omit Besides this Sermon in Publick we have also two other Remains of Elfrike the Abbot in the Saxon Tongue * Published at the end of the foresaid Sermon printed by John Day Also in the Notes on Bede's Eccl. Hist p. 332 333 334. which speak the very same Sense and deserve to be inserted as far as they concern this Argument of the Eucharist and the change made in it The first is an Epistle to Wulffine Bishop of Shyrburn in which is this Passage The Eucharist is not the Body of Christ corporally but spiritually not the Body in which he suffered but that Body when he consecrated Bread and Wine for the Eucharist the night before his Passion and said of the Bread he Blessed This is my Body and again of the Wine he blessed This is my Blood which is shed for many for the Remission of Sins Now then understand that the Lord who was able to change that Bread before his Passion into his Body and that Wine into his Blood Spiritually that the same Lord by the Hands of the Priests daily consecrates Bread and Wine for his Spiritual Body and for his Spiritual Blood. The second an Epistle of Elfricke to Wulfstane Arch-Bishop of York in which among other things against too long reserving the Eucharist he says thus Vid. p. 334. Hist Eccles Sax. Lat. Bedae Christ himself consecrated the Eucharist before his Passion he blessed Bread and brake it saying thus to his Apostles Eat this Bread it is my Body and again he blessed the Cup filled with Wine and spake thus to them Drink ye all of this it is my Blood of the New Testament which is shed for many for the Remission of Sins Our Lord who consecrated the Eucharist before his Passion and said that Bread was his Body and Wine truly his Blood he also daily consecrates by the Priests hands Bread for his Body and Wine for his Blood in a Spiritual Mystery as we read in Books Yet notwithstanding that Lively Bread is not the same Body in which Christ suffered nor that Holy Wine the Blood of our Saviour which was shed for us in bodily thing or sence in re corporali but in a Spiritual sence in ratione Spirituali That Bread indeed was his Body and also that Wine his Blood just as that heavenly Bread which we call Manna which fed God's People forty Years viz. was his Body and that clear Water was his Blood that then flowed from the Rock in the Wilderness As Paul writes in his Epistle They all ate the same spiritual Meat and drank the same spiritual Drink c. The Apostle that says what you have heard They all ate c. he do's not say corporally but spiritually Christ was not as yet born nor his Blood shed then it was the People of Israel did eat that Spiritual Meat and drank of that Rock neither was that Rock Christ Corporeally tho' he spake so The Sacraments of the Old Law were the same and did spiritually signify that Sacrament or Eucharist of our Saviour's Body which we now consecrate This Last Epistle Elfricke wrote first in the Latin Tongue to Wulfstane containing tho' not word for word yet the whole Sence of the English Epistle and that Paragraph of it which I have inclosed between two Brackets was look'd upon as so disagreeable to the present Faith of the Roman Church that some had rased them out of the Worcester Book but the same Latin Epistle being found in Exceter Church it was restored I was once about to have added some Citations here out of Bertram's Book de corpore sanguine Domini out of which many passages in the Saxon Sermon foregoing were taken But they are so many that I must have transcribed and the Book it self is small and so well worth the reading especially with the late Translation of it into English and a Learned Historical Dissertation before it giving a large account of the Difference betwixt his Opinion and that of Transubstantiation printed An 1686 that I shall rather refer the Reader to it where he may abundantly satisfy himself Instead of it I will only add one Testimony more out of Rabanus Arch-bishop of Mentz in an Epistle to Heribaldus * Epist ad Herib c. 33. de Eucharist Which we are beholden to the Learned Baluzius for giving it us entire in Appendice ad Reginonem p. 516. a Passage having been rased out of the Manuscript out of which it was first published Thus he says As for the Question you put Quod autem interrogastis utrum Eucharistia postquam consumitur in secessum emittitur more aliorum ciborum iterum redeat in naturam pristinam quam habuerat antequam in Altari consecraretur superflua est hujusmodi Quaestio cùm ipse Salvator dixerit in Evangelio Omne quod intrat iâ—â—s in ventrem vadit in secâ—ssum emittitur Sacramentum Corporis Sanguinis ex rebus visibilibus corporalibus conficitur sed invisibilem tà m corporis quà m arimae efficit sanctificationem Quae est enim ratio ut hoc quod stomacho digeritur in secessum emittitur iterum in statum pristinum redeat cum nullus hoc unquam fieri asseruerit Nam quidam nuper de ipso Sacramento corporis sanguinis Domini non ritè sentientes dixerunt hoc ipsum corpus sanguinem Domini quod de Maria Virgine natum est in quo ipse Dominus passus est in Cruce resurrexit
lesser which the Fathers deny 29 CHAP. VI. The Sixth Difference The Roman Church teaches us to disbelieve the Report of our Senses which tell us That Bread and Wine remain in the Eucharist The Fathers urge this Evidence even with relation to Christ's true Body 31 Object The Fathers call upon us not to believe our Senses in the Case of the Eucharist Answ 1. The Fathers appeal to our Senses in this Case 39 2. They call upon Men not to regard their Information in Matters wherein none question the Truth of their Information ibid. 3. The true Reason why the Fathers call us off from listning to our Senses is to make us regard and attend to things beyond their Information 40 A Place of S. Cyril of Jerusalem and another of S. Chrysostome explain'd 42 CHAP. VII The Seventh Difference When the Fathers call the Eucharist Christ's Body and Blood the Roman Church understands it of Christs Natural Body but the Fathers mean it commonly of the Bread and Wine Several Observables from the Fathers to explain and prove this as 1 Obs They tell us of their studiously concealing the Mysteries from some Persons 44. 2 Obs The Fathers in their manner of speaking concerning Christ's Body point at another thing than his Natural Body 46 3 Obs They speak of Christ's Body with Terms of Restriction and Diminution 48 4 Obs They give us Reasons why it is call'd Christ's Body which none do for calling things by their Proper Names from its Resemblance and Representation 49 5 Obs What they call Christ's Body they say is without Life or Sense 51 6 Obs They speak of Divisions and Parts of it not to be affirmed of his Natural Body 52 7 Obs They speak of making Christ's Body differently from the Sense of the Roman Church 54 They affirm 1. That whatsoever is made was not before it was made 55 2. That Bread is made his Body and that it is made of Bread and Wine 55 56 They call it sometimes Mystical Bread sometimes Christs Mystical Body 57 8 Obs They speak of Christ's Body as sanctified and sacrificed in the Eucharist which is only true of his Typical Body 58 The Natural Body of Christ cannot be sanctified nor sacrificed properly 59 CHAP. VIII The Eighth Difference When the Fathers mention a Change and Conversion in the Eucharist the Roman Church understands such a Change as abolishes the Substance of Bread and Wine The Fathers never understand it so 62 Several Assertions of the Fathers to explain this 1 Assert They distinguish between the Conversion of a thing and its abolishing ibid. 2 Assert When they speak of a Conversion into what was before they suppose an Accession and Augmentation of that into which the Change is made 63 3 Assert The Fathers use the same Terms of Conversion Passing into Becoming another thing c. in other Cases besides that of the Eucharist wherein all confess no Change of Substances is made 65 Some Axioms of the Fathers to this purpose ibid. Their Instances of such Changes given in Nature in Regeneration in Christ's Incarnation our Resurrection in Baptism wherein the Change however exprest can be only in Qualities 65 66 67 4 Assert The Fathers by a Change in the Eucharist mean either a Change into a Sacrament or that of Efficacy and Virtue by infusing and adding Grace 69 70 5 Assert They express as fully and in the same manner our substantial Change into Christ's Body as of the Bread into Christ's Body 72 CHAP. IX The Ninth Difference The Roman Church asserts a substantial Presence of Christ's Natural Body in the Eucharist which the Fathers deny 74 Several Positions of the Fathers to this purpose 1 Pos The Fathers look upon Christ's Body as absent from Earth since his Ascension tho' in another sense he is present still ibid. 2 Pos They distinguish the presence of Christs Body from the Sacrament of it which they make to be a memorial of him as gone away 77 78 3 Pos Whatsoever presence of Christ the Fathers speak of in the Eucharist they acknowledge the same in Baptism and as fully 79 80 They speak of those Waters as turned into Blood of our being Baptized in Blood and yet neither they nor any else dream'd of Transubstantiation 82 4 Pos They so consider the presence of Christs Body in the Eucharist as can no way agree to his glorified Body 83 5 Pos According to them the Presence of Christs Body to us now is a presence to our Faith a presence of Union Efficacy and Grace 85 What foul play the Romanists have used with an Author that deny'd this 90 An Account of a late Learned Dissertation concerning Christs Body and Blood occasion'd by a doubt proposed to S. Austin 91 CHAP. X. The Tenth Difference The Fathers assert positively that the substance of Bread and Wine remain after Consecration which the R. Church denies 93 Proved by their asserting that Christ offered the same oblation with Melchisedek 101 Fraction in the Eucharist can only agree to the Bread. 103 CHAP. XI The Eleventh Difference The Fathers make the Bread and Wine to be the Sacrament Sign Figure Type Antitype Image c. of Christs Body and Blood which Transubstantiation contradicts 105 Instances of the particulars Their calling it a Sacrament ibid. Signs 106. Types 107. Antitypes ibid. A Figure 108. Image 110. Further Remarks of the Fathers confirming the Argument as 1 Remark They say an Image Figure c. cannot be the thing it self 111 2 Rem That an Image Type c. must visibly demonstrate that of which it is an Image Type c. 112 3 Rem They make the Elements to be the Signs Symbols c. of Christ as absent 113 Some Passages out of the old Liturgy in Bertram's time 114 The Doctrine of the Christians of St. Thomas in the East-Indies confirming the same 115 CHAP. XII The Twelfth Difference The Fathers assert that Christs Body is not eaten Corporally and Carnally but only spiritually Whereas the Rom. Church teaches a Corporal Eating of Christs Body 116 Berengarius's Recantation supposes this in the most literal sense ibid. Tho' this sense was opposed afterwards 117. Yet all Rom. agree that Christs Natural Body is taken into ours 118. How long they assert it makes its stay there ibid. Horrid Cases how resolved 119. What the Fathers call understanding things Carnally 120. That they opposed the literal and carnal eating of Christ's Body 121 122 123. Considerations proving they did not so understand it 1 Consid They say we partake of Christs Body in Baptism which can be only spiritually 125 2 Consid They distinguish eating Christs true Body from the Sacramental 126 3 Consid They assert that the Fathers under the Old Test did eat the same spiritual meat with us because they ate it by Faith. 127 4 Consid They represent Christs Body as dead and that so it must be taken Ergo spiritually 128 Two remarkable sayings of S. Austin to prove all this 130 CHAP.
XIII The Thirteenth Difference The Fathers assert that the Faithful only eat Christs Body and drink his Blood not the wicked the Ro. Church extends it to both 131 The Church of Rome will have not only the wicked but bruit Creatures to eat it 132 The Cautions of the Mass suppose this ibid. The Fathers will not allow the wicked to partake of Christs Body 133 Two remarkable Testimonies of St. Austin 136 CHAP. XIV The Fourteenth Difference The different practices and usages of the two-Churches argue their different opinions about the Eucharist 137 Eight Instances of their differing practices given 1 Instance The Ancient Church excluded Catechumens Penitents c. from being present at the Mysteries enjoining all present to communicate ibid. In the Ro. Ch. any may be Spectators tho' none receive but the Priest 139 2 Inst The old practice was to give the Communion in both kinds 140 Transubstantiation made this practice cease 141. New devices for security against profaning Christs Blood. 142 No reason why the Fathers have not been as cautious in this as the Ro. Church but their different belief 143 3 Inst The Elevation of the Host that all may adore it the Roman practice 145 This not used in the first Ages at all when used afterwards not for Adoration 145 146 4. Inst The Rom. Church allows not the people to receive the Sacrament with their Hands but all is put by the Priest into their Mouths contrary to the Ancient Practice 147 5 Inst The Anc. Church used Glass Cups for the Wine which would be criminal now 148 6 Inst They mixed of old the Consecr Wine with Ink which would now be abhorr'd 149 7 Inst In the Reservation of the Eucharist Three differences herein consider'd 1 Difference The Anc. Church took no care to reserve what was not received in the Eucharist but the Ro. Church reserves all 151 c. 2 Differ What had been publickly received the Anc. Church allowed liberty to reserve privately 156. The present Ch. in no case allows such private reservation 157. 3. Differ They put what was so reserved to such uses of old as the Ro. Church would think profane 157 158 c. 8 Inst The infinite sollicitous caution to prevent accidents in the administration of the Sacrament their frights and strange expiations when they happen all unknown and strangers to the Ancient Church 160 c. Which is proved positively from the continued practice of Communicating Infants till Transubstantiation abolished it 165 This still a practice in the Eastern Churches that submit not to the Roman Church 167 CHAP. XV. The Fifteenth Difference About their Prayers in two particulars 1. That the old Prayers in the Canon of the Mass agree not with the Faith of the now Ro. Church 168 2. That their New Prayers to the Sacrament have no Example in the Anc. Church 175 CHAP. XVI The Sixteenth Difference That our ancient Saxon Church differ'd from the present Rom. Church in the Article of the corporal presence 182 c. The Saxon Easter-Sermon produc'd as a Testimony against them 183 184 c. Two Epistles of Elfric the Abbot declare against that Doctrine 187 188. A Remarkable Testimony also of Rabanus Archbishop of Mentz alledged 189 CHAP. XVII The Conclusion of the whole Shewing that Heathens and Jews reproached not the Ancient Christians about the Eucharist 191. Transubstantiation occasion'd new Calumnies from both 194. The Jew's Conversion seems to be hopeless whilst this is believed by them to be the common Faith of Christians 195. That the Jews have better explained Christs words of Institution agreed better with the Ancient Church in understanding the Sacrament in a figurative sense and have confuted Transubstantiation by unanswerable Arguments proved by Instances from p. 196. to the end Faults Escaped PAge 5. line 16. marg r. Serm. 5. p. 10. l. 7. marg r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 39. l. 11. r. supposes p. 53. l. 2. marg r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 68. l. 26. marg r. Serm. 5 p. 69. l. 10. r. thou art wholly changed in the inward Man Ibid. l. 12. marg r. totus in interiore homine mutatus es p. 73. l. 6. marg r. qui p. 98. l. 5. à fine r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 149. l. 26. r. Paten p. 152. l. 10. r. Evagrius p. 171. l. 23. r. that of Abel CHAP. I. The First Difference The Church of Rome is forced to assert a continued Series of Miracles to justifie her Doctrine of Transubstantiation But the Fathers never mention any Miracles in the Eucharist save only the Effects of God's powerful Grace working great Changes in us and advancing the Elements in the use of them thereunto without changing their Nature and Substance TO give the Reader a View of what Wonders are to be believed according to what the Trent Council has decreed concerning Transubstantiation we need go no further than to the Trent Catechism * Ad Parochos part 2. num 25. which tells us there are three most wonderful things which the Catholick Faith without any doubting believes and confesses are effected in this Sacrament by the Words of Consecration 1. That the true Body of Christ that same Body which was born of the Virgin and sits at the Right-hand of the Father is conteined in this Sacrament 2. That no Substance of the Elements remains in it tho' nothing may seem more strange and remote from our Senses 3. What is easily collected from both That the Accidents which are seen with our Eyes or are perceived by our other Senses are without any Subject in which they subsist in a strange manner not to be explained So that all the Accidents of Bread and Wine may be seen which yet inhere in no Substance but subsist by themselves since the Substance of the Bread and Wine are so changed into the very Body and Blood of our Lord that the Substance of Bread and Wine cease wholly to be But others of the Romish Writers have made a larger and more particular Enumeration of the Miracles wrought in the Eucharist which no Created Power can effect but God's Omnipotency alone I 'le give them in the Words of the Jesuite Pererius * In Joan. c. 6. Disp 16. num 48. who reckons these Nine distinct Miracles 1. The same Christ remaining in Heaven not departing thence and without any local mutation is really and corporally in the Sacrament of the Eucharist 2. Nor is he thus there only in one consecrated Host but is together in all Host consecrated throughout the whole Earth 3. Tho' the Body of Christ in the Sacrament has all its Quantity and Colour and other sensible Qualities yet as it is in the Sacrament it is neither there visibly nor quantitatively * Quantum ad situm extensionem ejus ad locum as to its fitus and extension unto Place 4. Tho' the Body of Christ be in it self greater than a Consecrated Host yet according to the
Matth. where he bids us 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Believe God every where without contradicting him tho' what he says seems contrary to our Reasonings and to our Eyes but let his Word prevail above our Reasonings and our Eyes Let us do the same in the Mysteries 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. not fixing our Eyes only upon the things set before us but let us hold fast his Words For his Word cannot deceive us but our Sense easily may That can never fall to the ground 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but this often fails Since therefore the Word says This is my Body let us be persuaded of it and believe it and look upon it with intellectual Eyes For Christ has given us nothing sensible but in sensible things all things intelligible Thus in Baptism by what is sensibly done there is the Gift of Water but what is perfected is intelligible viz. our Regeneration and Renovation If the Reader do's but remember that Baptism is as much concerned in this Discourse of S. Chrysostome as the Eucharist and that we are as much required not to trust our Eyes that may deceive us but to trust the Word of God in the one case as well as the other it will not give the least countenance to the Absurdities of Transubstantiation And as for those Words of his That Christ delivered nothing sensible to us they must be understood with an abatement That we are not to be intent and to fix our Thoughts meerly upon what we see for else it is certain that there is something sensible delivered in the Eucharist else there would be no Sign nor no Sacrament and that Father would contradict himself who in the very next Words tells us That by sensible things he has delivered intelligible that is spiritual things to us for which he brings what is bestowed upon us in Baptism as a Proof CHAP. VII The Seventh Difference When the Fathers call the Eucharist Christ's Body and Blood the Roman Church understands it of Christs natural Body given there But the Fathers do not so but understand it most commonly of the Elements of Bread and Wine even when they call them the Body of Christ and give us the reasons why they so call them I Need not tell you how the Romish Writers catch at every place of the Fathers where they meet with the mention of Christs Body and Blood all their Citations are full of little else but Testimonies of this kind But if they had a mind to understand their sense and did not meerly listen to the sound of their words they would quickly see them interpret themselves so that there could be no mistake nor countenance given hereby to Transubstantiation or any presence of Christ but what is spiritual Which by a few Observations out of them will appear I. Observ The Fathers give us warning of it and tell us That they studiously conceal and hide the Mysteries from some persons both out of the Church and in it Therefore their meer expressions concerning it are not sufficient to inform us of their meaning Thus Cyril of Jerusalem (a) Catech. Illum 6. pag. 149. Edit 4. Paris 1608. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. tells us That we do not speak openly of the mysteries among the Catechumens but often speak many things covertly that the faithful that are acquainted with the matter may understand it and they that are unacquainted may not be hurt S. Austin (b) In Psal 103. Quid est quod occultum est non publicum in Ecclesia Sacramentum Baptismi Sacramentum Eucharistiae Opera nostra bona vident Pagani Sacramenta vero occultantur illis in like manner What is it that is hidden and not publick in the Church The Sacrament of Baptism and the Sacrament of the Eucharist The very Pagans see our good works but the Sacraments are hid from them S. Chrysostome (c) In 1 Cor. 15. Hom. 40. upon those words why are they then Baptized for the dead says I have a mind to speak it openly but I dare not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because of them that are not initiated For they make our Exposition more difficult compelling us either not to speak plainly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or to declare to them things that ought to be conceal'd Upon this account they concealed what was apt to be despised whether they did well or no in this I shall not here question scarce vouchsafing to name the visible Elements but mentioning them with more glorious Titles such as could not be disregarded Thus they called Baptism by the name of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 illumination and they called the Eucharist the Sacrifice quod norunt fideles which the faithful know thus concealing it or the Sacrifice of the Body and Blood of Christ They call the Lords Table an Altar and the Ministers Priests tho' all these are to be understood in a figurative and improper sense Thus S. Austin says (d) De verb. Dom. Serm. 53. Penè quidem Sacramentum omnes corpus ejus dicunt Almost all call the Sacrament the Body of Christ Which very phrase shews that the Sacrament is not in substance Christs natural Body For who would phrase it so almost all call it in giving a proper name to a thing ex gr would any say that almost all call a House a House or a Man a Man but to say that almost all call Kings Gods tells you that however for certain Reasons Kings are called Gods yet they are not really and properly so The same Father (e) De Trinit l. 3. c. 4. Sed illud tantum quod ex fructibus terrae acceptum prece mystica consecratum ritè sumimus ad salutem spiricualem c. speaking of several things whereby Christ may be signified and set forth either by words written or spoken c. he says We do not call these the Body and Blood of Christ but that only which being taken from the fruits of the earth is rightly received by us to our spiritual health c. If the other things had been called so any one would have understood it must be improperly so called and so must this too as his following words tell us Non sanctificatur ut fit tam magnum Sacramentum nisi operante invisibiliter Spiritu Dei. that even this is not sanctified to become so great a Sacrament but by the invisible operation of the Spirit of God. So Isidore of Sevil (f) Orig. Lib. 6. cap. 19. Eo fc Christo jubente corpus Christi sanguinem dicimus quod dum fit ex fructibus terrae sanctificatur fit Sacramentum operante invisibiliter Spiritu Dei. gives the same account By the command of Christ we call the Body and Blood of Christ that which being made of the fruits of the earth is sanctified and made a Sacrament by the invisible operation of the spirit of God. 2. Observ The Fathers
(d) De Euchar. l. 2. cap. 5. Si quid de sanguine Domini stillaverit in terram speaks of some of the Blood of Christ dropping and distilling on the ground and directs what is to be done in that case 7. Observ The Fathers speak of making the Body of Christ in the Eucharist in a sense quite different from that of the Romanists S. Jerome frequently uses the phrase of making Christs Body and speaking of the Presbyters that succeeded to the Apostles in one Epistle (e) Epist 1. ad Heliodor Qui Christi Corpus Sacro ore conficiunt he says they make the Body of Christ with their Holy Mouth And in another Epistle (f) Ad Evagrium Ad quorum preces Christi Corpus sanguisque conficitur says of them That upon their Prayers the Body and Blood of Christ is made Also in a third Epistle (g) Ad Fabiolam Sequester Dei hominum carnes agni sacro ore conficiens he describes a Priest to be one that mediates betwixt God and Men and one that makes the flesh of the Lamb with his holy mouth Here now they of the Church of Rome take care to advance the Priesthood tho' even with words of Blasphemy One crys out (h) Stella Clericorum Qui creavit me sine me creatur mediante me He that created me without me is created by my means So also Biel (i) In Canon Missae Lect. 4. Qui creavit me si fas est dicere dedit mihi creare se qui creavit me sine me creatur mediante me He that created me if I may be bold to say it has given me power to create himself and he that created me without me is created by my means Biel also in the same Lecture makes a comparison between the Priests and the Bl. Virgin and makes them to carry it from her in this matter She by pronouncing eight words Behold the Handmaid of the Lord Illa prolatis octo verbulis Ecce Ancilla Domini fiat mihi secundùm Verbum tuum semel concepit Dei filium mundi Redemptorem Isti à Domino consecrati quinque Verbis eundem Dei Virginisque filium advocant quotidie corporaliter Attendite O Sacerdotes in quo gradu dignitate sitis constituti c. Conceived once the Son of God and the Redeemer of the World. They viz. the Priests being consecrated by the Lord by speaking five words do call the same Son of God and the Virgin bodily before them every day And then crys out Consider O Priests in what high degree and dignity you are placed But now the Fathers they sufficiently explain themselves that this of making Christs Body cannot be understood of the natural and proper Body of Christ For First They lay it down as a Rule that whatsoever is made was not before it was made Thus Athenagoras (k) De resurrect 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 says That which is already is not made but that which is not Tertullian in like manner says (l) Lib. contr Hermog cap. 19. Nihil quod fieri habet sine initio est quin initium sit illi dum incipit fieri Nothing that has a fieri is without a beginning but it begins to be while it begins to be made Athanasius (m) Contr. Arian Orat. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It is the property of Creatures and works that they are said to exist out of non-entities and not to be before they are made Greg. Nyssen (n) Contr. Eunom l. 9. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If he made it he made that which was not at all S. Hilary (o) De Trin. l. 12. Omne quod fit antequam fiat non fuit Every thing that is made was not before it was made S. Ambrose (p) De Incarn l. 3. Quod fit incipit That which is made begins to be S. Austin (q) De moribus Manich. c. 7. Facere enim est quod omnino non erat To make is true of that which was not at all Cyril Alexand. (r) Thesaur Assert 20. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It cannot be that what already exists should be brought into being but what do's not exist Vigilius also (s) Lib. 3. cont Eutychen Fieri ejus soleat esse proprium qui nunquam ante substiterat To be made is the usual property of him who never subsisted before Cassianus also (t) Lib. 7. de incarn c. 2. Quae orta jam fuerint redire in id rursum non queant ut novâ creatione generentur Things already sprung up cannot return into that state that they should he generated by a new creation These sayings do very ill accord with the Doctrine of the Roman Church (u) Catechis ad Paroch de Eucharist n. 39. Sine ulla Domini nostri mutatione neque enim Christus aut generatur aut mutatur aut augescit which teaches that the Conversion in the Eucharist is made without any change in our Lord for neither is Christ generated or is changed or increased Secondly They so speak of making Christs Body that it cannot be understood of any other than his typical and mystical Body For the Fathers say That Bread is made his Body Tertullian (x) Cont. Marc. l. 4. c. 40. Acceptum panem distributum discipulis Corpus suum illum fecit hoc est Corpus meum dicendo Christ when he had taken Bread and distributed it to his Disciples made it his Body saying This is my Body Eusebius (y) Demonst Evang. lib. 8. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Christ commanded his Disciples speaking of the Symbols of the Divine Oeconomy delivered to them i. e. Bread and Wine to make the image of his Body Cyril of Jerus (z) Catech. Mystag 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 When the Invocation is over the Bread is made the Body of Christ and the Wine the Blood of Christ Greg. Nyssen (a) Orat. in Christi Baptisma 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 says At first the Bread is common Bread but after the mystery has consecrated it it is called and is made the Body of Christ S. Austin (b) Serm. de diversis 87. Non omnis panis sed accipiens benedictionem Christi fit Corpus Christi Canon Missae Quam oblationem tu Deus in omnibus quaesumus benedictam adscriptam ratam rationabilem acceptamque facere digneris ut nobis Corpus sanguis fiat dilectissimi tui filii Domini nostri J. Christi c. Not all Bread but only that which receives Christ's blessing is made the Body of Christ Canon of the Mass Which Oblation O Almighty God we beseech thee vouchsafe to make blessed allowable firm rational and acceptable that it may be made to us the Body and Blood of thy most dear Son our Lord Jesus Christ c. Also the Fathers say still more expresly that the Body and Blood of Christ is made of Bread and
consecrated he sanctifies them that consecrate This can be only true in representation which is said of Christ's being sacrificed and sanctified or consecrated by us for the proper and natural Body of Christ can neither be sanctified in a proper sense nor sacrificed by us as I shall now show 1. Not sanctified properly For this in the sense of the Fathers is Dedication to God and tho' we may dedicate our selves to God yet not the Son of God to him Origen (t) In Levit. hom 11. Sanctificare aliquid hoc est vovere Deo. To sanctify a thing that is to vow it to God. Cyril Alexandr (u) Com. in Esaiam Edit gr lat p. 178. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That which is said to be sanctified do's not partake of all holiness but it rather signifies that which is devoted to God in honour of him Now Christ is certainly partaker of all Holiness Jobius * Apud Photium cod 222. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 We say a place or Bread or Wine is sanctified which are set apart for God and are not put to any common use Hesychius (x) In Levit. l. 7. Quod sanctificatur offertur eo quod offertur Sanctificari incipit ergo prius non erat sanctum That which is sanctified and offered because it is offered it begins to be sanctified therefore that it was not holy before This cannot be affirmed of Christs proper Body which was never other than holy but may of the Typical Bread which was common before 2. Not sacrificed properly Therefore Gaudentius (y) In Exod. tract 19. Labores Passionis c. in figura corporis sanguinis offerimus in the forecited Tract says We offer the Labours c. Of the Passion in the Figure of the Body and Blood. S. Austin (z) Epist 23. ad Bonifac. Nonne semel immolatus est Christus in seipso tamen in Sacramento omni die populis immolatur Was not Christ offered once in himself and yet every day in the Sacrament he is offered for the people He opposes you see these two to be Sacrificed in himself and that is but once and to be offered in the Sacrament and that may be every day Also elsewhere (a) In Psal 21. Praefat. in secundum expos Quotiens Pascha celebratur nunquid totiens Christus moritur Sed tamen anniversaria recordatio quasi repraesentat quod olim factum est sic nos facit moneri tanquam videamus in cruce pendentem Dominum Does Christ die so often as Easter is celebrated Yet this Anniversary remembrance do's as it were represent what was done of old and so admonishes us as if we saw our Lord hanging on the Cross And in the second Exposition it self he says (b) In secunda expos Psal 21. Coenam suam dedit Passionem suam dedit He gave us his Supper and he gave us his Passion viz. By representation S. Chrysostom (c) Hom. 83. in Matth. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 says the same The mystery viz. the Eucharist is the Passion and the Cross Which he explains thus elsewhere (d) Hom. 17. in Epist ad Hebr. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 We always offer the same Sacrifice or rather make a remembrance of his Sacrifice So Eulogius of Alexandria (e) Apud Photium cod 280. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 speaking of the tremendous mystery of Christs Body says It is not the offering of different Sacrifices but the remembrance of that one Sacrifice once offered Theodoret also fully (f) In Epist ad Hebr. 8.4 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 tells us That it is manifest to those that are skill'd in divine matters that we do not offer any other Sacrifice but make a remembrance of that one saving one S. Austin's words are also remarkable (g) De civit Dei l. 17. cap. 5. in fine Manducare panem in N. Testamento est Sacrificium Christianorum To eat Bread in the N. Testament is the Sacrifice of Christians Eusebius (h) Demonstr Evan. l. 1. c. 10. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 speaking of Christ's Sacrifice offered for our Salvation adds He commanded us to offer to God continually the remembrance instead of the Sacrifice What can be more plain S. Ambrose says (i) De Offic. l. 1. cap. 48. that Christ is offered here but it is in imagine in an image and he opposes this to his offering himself in veritate in truth S. Austin (k) Quaestion 83. quaest 61 Ipse etiam Sacerdos noster qui seipsum obtulit holocaustum pro peccatis nostris ejus Sacrificii similitudinem celebrandam in suae Passionis memoriam commendavit says Our Priest who offered himself an holocaust for our sins also commended the similitude of his Sacrifice to be celebrated in memory of his passion And elsewhere (l) Contr Faustum l. 20. c. 21. Hujus Sacrificii caro sanguis Post ascensum Christi per Sacramentum memoriae celebratur The Flesh and Blood of this Sacrifice after Christ's Ascension is celebrated by the Sacrament of remembrance Lastly Fulgentius (m) De fide ad Petrum c. 16. Sacrificium panis vini Gratiarum actio atque commemoratio est carnis Christi quam pro nobis obtulit calls the Sacrifice which the H. Catholick Church ceases not to offer through the whole World the Sacrifice of Bread and Wine and says that in this Sacrifice there is a thanksgiving and a commemoration of the Flesh of Christ which he offered for us For want of apprehending things thus they of the Church of Rome are tempted to utter words bordering upon Blasphemy and with Corn. à Lapide * Comm. in Heb. 7. v. 7. Adde Sacerdotem quatenus gerit personam Christi Sacrificantis quodam modo majorem esse Christo ipso sacrificato In omni enim Sacrificio sacerdos major est sua victima quam offert to make their Sacrificing Priest greater than Christ the Sacrifice CHAP. VIII The Eighth Difference The Church of Rome in all Sayings of the Fathers that mention a Change and Conversion in the Eucharist understand it of such a Change as abolishes the Substance of Bread and Wine the Accidents only remaining But the Fathers never use these Phrases in this Sense IT is acknowledged by us That the Fathers speak frequently of a Change of the Bread and Wine and their passing into and being converted into Christ's Body and Blood. It is needless therefore to cite their Testimonies to this purpose but I shall evidently prove that they do not understand this Change and Conversion in the Sense of Transubstantiation To give some Order to their Testimonies I shall not cite them in a heap but as Proofs of several Assertions of theirs which overthrow the Change by Transubstantiation 1 Assertion The Fathers make a difference betwixt the Change or Conversion of a Thing and its Abolition When they affirm the one they at the same time deny
3.5 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ibid. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 says The sensible Water is transelemented into a Divine Virtue for the Fathers make Changes in Baptism as well as the Eucharist and sanctifies those in whom it is Nay he affirms That the Water differs only from the Spirit in our manner of Conception for it is the same in Energy Cyril of Jerusalem (u) Catech. Mystag 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 calling the Flesh and Bread in the Feast of Idols defiled by the Invocation of impure Devils he illustrates it thus As the Bread and Wine of the Eucharist before the Invocation of the adored Trinity 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is bare Bread and Wine but after Invocation the Bread is made the Body of Christ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the Wine the Blood of Christ so also in the same manner those Meats of the Pomp of Satan in their own Nature being simple things yet by the Invocation of Devils they become impure That 's the Change here That those Meats are in Quality not in Substance made impure and so if the Comparison hold the Change in the other is That they are Hallowed Bread and Wine in Use and Efficacy different from what they were before The Author under Cyprian's Name (x) De Vnct. Chrysinat Inest Veritas signo Spiritus Sacramento speaking of Chrysm says Truth is in the Sign and the Spirit in the Sacrament Thus S. Ambrose (y) De iis qui init c. 9. in fine understands the Body of Christ for that Divine Substance and Presence of the Spirit which is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of Christ's Body Christ is in that Sacrament In Illo Sacramento Christus est quia corpus est Christi Non ergo corporalis esca sed spiritalis est Corpus enim Dei corpus est Spiritale Corpus Christi corpus est divini Spiritus quia Spiritus Christi sc est because it is the Body of Christ It is not therefore Corporeal but Spiritual Food For the Body of God is a Spiritual Body The Body of Christ is the Body of the Divine Spirit not his natural Body because it is the Spirit of Christ. Here Corpus Dei is Corpus Spiritale that is Substantia Spiritalis Spiritus The Author under his Name (z) De Sacram. lib. 4. cap. 4. Quomodo potest qui panis est corpus esse Christi Consecratione Ergo ut tibi respondeam Non erat corpus Christi ante consecrationem sed post consecrationem dico tibi quod corpus est Christi Ipse dixit factum est ipse mandavit creatum est Tu ipse eras verus creatura posteaquam consecratus es nova creatura esse coepisti c. How can that which is Bread be the Body of Christ By Consecration To answer thee therefore It was not the Body of Christ before Consecration but after Consecration I tell thee it is the Body of Christ. He said it and it was done he commanded and it was created Thou thy self wast an old Creature but after thou wast consecrated thou beganst to be a new Creature c. So that according to this Author as in Regeneration by Baptism Man changes his Nature so do's the Consecrated Bread in the Eucharist change its Nature Therefore it is no substantial Change because the other confessedly is not so Druthmarus (a) Comm. in Math. 26. speaking of a Person taking a long Journey and leaving a Pledge behind him to remember him by Ita Deus praecipit agi à nobis transferens spiritualiter panem in corpus vinum in sanguinem ut per haec duo memoremus quae fecit pro nobis de corpore suo c. he adds Thus also God has commanded us to do spiritually changing the Bread into his Body and the Wine into his Blood that by these two things we may remember what he hath done for us with his Body and Blood c. 5 Assertion The Fathers express in the same manner and as fully our substantial Change into Christ's Body as of the Bread into Christ's Body Yet none will from such Expressions assert the former and there is the same reason not to do the latter Gr. Nyssen (b) Orat. Catech. cap. 37. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 As a little Leaven according to the Apostle likens the whole Mass to it self so the Body of Christ put to death by God coming into our Body do's change and convert the whole into it self And again a little after His immortal Body being in him that receives it changes the whole into its own Nature Cyril of Alexandria (c) In Joan. lib. 4. cap. 3. says He that receives me by a participation of my Flesh shall have Life in himself 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being wholly transelemented into me P. Leo Magn. (d) De Nat. Dom. Serm. 10. Christi caro de utero virginis sumpta nos sumus We are the Flesh of Christ taken from the Womb of the Virgin. And elsewhere (e) Id. de Passion Serm. 14. Non aliud agit Participatio corporis sanguinis Christi quà m ut in id quod sumimus transeamus Ipsum per omnia spiritu carne gestemus The Participation of the Body and Blood of Christ intends nothing else but that we should pass into that which we receive That we may carry him in all things both in Spirit and Flesh Not as Bellarmine and others pervert the Sense reading gustemus Again in another place (f) Epist 23. In illa mysticâ distributione spiritualis alimoniae hoc impertitur hoc sumitur ut accipientes virtutem coelestis cibi in carnem ipsius quia caro nostra factus est transeamus In that mystical Distribution of Spiritual Food this is bestowed on us this is taken that receiving the Virtue of the Celestial Meat we should pass into his Flesh who was made our Flesh See more Testimonies to this sense in the Chapter following Position 3. CHAP. IX The Ninth Difference The Fathers differ from the Church of Rome in their Belief of Christ's Presence in the Eucharist The Church of Rome asserts the substantial Presence of Christ's Natural Body there but the Fathers deny it THe former is the Assertion of the Roman Church in the Trent Council in which an Anathema is pronounced (g) Conc. Trid. Sess 13. cap. 6. Can. 1. against such as deny That in the Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist is contained truly really and Substantially the Body and Blood of Christ but shall say That he is in it only as in a Sign or Figure or Virtue And the Catechism ad Parochos (h) Part. 2. de Eucharist n. 25. says That the True Body of our Lord Christ the same that was born of the Virgin and sits in the Heavens at the Right-hand of the Father is contained in this Sacrament I will now
in nobis Ut cùm ille in Patre per naturam Divinitatis esset nos contra in eo per corporalem Nativitatem ille rursum in nobis per Sacramentorum inesse mysterium crederetur speaks many things of our real Union with Christ in the Sacrament of the Eucharist We truly receive the Word in the Lord's Food how is he not then to be thought naturally to dwell in us We under the Mystery do truly take the Flesh of his Body and thereby shall be one because the Father is in him and he in us So that since he was in the Father by the Nature of the Divinity we on the contrary in him by Corporal Nativity and he might be believed again to be in us by the Mystery of the Sacraments But then it is observable that he do's not say these great things only of the Eucharist that by partaking of it we have a natural Union with Christ but he says we have the same by Faith by Regeneration and by Baptism (u) Ibid. Quomodo non naturalem in his intelligis unitatem qui per naturam unius fidei unum sunt Cessat in his assensûs unitas qui unum sunt in ejusdem regeneratione naturae Quid hic animorum concordia faciet cum per id unum sint quod uno Christo per naturam unius Baptismi induantur How dost thou not understand a natural Unity in those who are one by the nature of one Faith Again The Unity of Consent has no place in those who are one in the Regeneration of the same Nature Again What should Agreement of Wills do here when they are one by this that they are cloathed with one Christ by the Nature of one Baptism I 'le add but one Testimony more out of Fulgentius (x) De Bapt. Aethiop cap. ult Nec cuiquam aliquatenus ambigendum est tunc unumquemque fidelium corporis sanguinisque Dominici participem fieri quando in Baptismate membrum Christi efficitur but it is very home Neither need any one at all doubt that then every Believer is made Partaker of our Lord's Body and Blood when he is made a Member of Christ in Baptism And yet even this do's not infer a Substantial Presence of Christ in Baptism To make this Position still more full and cogent let me add That the Fathers so speak of the Waters of Baptism as if they were turned into Blood and we dyed in that Blood and baptized in Blood and yet all these neither prove the Presence of Christ's natural Body nor Transubstantiation there To name a few Testimonies S. Jerom (y) In Esa 1. Baptizemini in sanguine meo per lavacrum regenerationis upon those words Wash ye make ye clean says Be ye baptized in my Blood by the Laver of Regeneration Again (z) Baptizatus est in sanguine agni quem legebat In Esa 43. he says of the Eunuch He was baptized in the Blood of the Lamb whom he read of in the Prophet So S. Austin (a) In Joan. tract 11. Unde rubet Baptismus nisi sanguine Christi consecratus Whence comes Baptism to be red but because it is consecrated with Christ's Blood Prosper (b) De Promiss part 2. Baptismo sanguine Christi tinguntur They are dyed in the Blood of Christ in Baptism S. Chrysostome (c) Catech. ad illuminand 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 speaking to those that were to receive Baptism You shall be cloathed with the Purple Garment dyed in the Lord's Blood. Julius Firmicus (d) De Error Prof. Relig. c. 28. Quaere fontes ingenuos quaere puros liquores ut illic te post multas maculas cum Spiritu S. Christi sanguis incandidet Seek for the Noble Fountains enquire for the pure Waters that there after thy many Stains the Blood of Christ with the Holy Spirit may make thee White Caesarius (e) Hom. 5. Paschal Ingreditur anima vitales undas velut rubras sanguine Christi consecratas or the Author of the Paschal Homily The Soul enters the Waters of Life that are red as it were being consecrated by the Blood of Christ Isidore of Sevil (f) In Exod. c. 19. Quid Mare rubrum nisi Baptismum Christi sanguine consecratum What is the Red Sea but Baptism consecrated by the Blood of Christ And again (g) De vocat Gent. c. 23. Verus Israel ingreditur Mare rubrum baptismum scilicet Christi cruore signatum The true Israel enters the Red Sea to wit Baptism signed with the Blood of Christ And Primasius (h) In 1 Cor. 10. Mare rubrum significat Baptismum Christi sanguine decoratum The Red Sea signifies Baptism graced with the Blood of Christ 4 Position The Fathers so consider the Presence of Christ's Body in the Eucharist as can no way agree to the Presence of his natural and glorified Body there The Fathers as I have before proved see Chap. 7. Observ 4. Reason 2. look upon the Bread and Wine in the Eucharist as the Representative Body of Christ and thus Christ's Body is indeed present by that which is its Proxy or Pledge But this Presence in a proper sense is Absence and does suppose it I shall therefore here only insist upon one Consideration of Christ's Body there which can only agree to his Representative Body but not to the Natural and Glorified Body of Christ Viz. The Presence of Christ's Body in the Eucharist which the Fathers speak of is of his Body as crucified and slain and dead Now this cannot agree to his Natural Body which by our Adversaries Confession is impassible and invulnerable now it is glorified and cannot admit any separation of Parts which Crucifixion do's suppose nor die any more It is plain by the words of Institution that the Body of Christ there spoken of is his broken Body such as Crucifixon caused and his Blood is considered as shed and poured out of his Veins and separated from his Body which our Adversaries that speak of his Presence in the Sacrament do not believe But the Fathers did believe this and say so for which at the present in stead of all I need cite only S. Chrysostome (i) Hom. 21. in Act. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whose Phrase for the Eucharist is While this Death is perfected this tremendous Sacrifice these ineffable Mysteries Again (k) Homil. de Prodit Judae 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Christ lies before us slain In another place (l) In Epist ad Ephes Hom. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 While the Sacrifice is brought forth and Christ the Lord's Sheep is slain And elsewhere (m) Ad Popul Antioch hom 15. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 What dost thou O Man Thou swearest upon the Holy Table and there thou killest thy Brother where Christ lies slain Again (n) Lib. 3. de Sacerdotio 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. he expresses it thus rhetorically When thou seest the
Lord slain and lying and the Priest standing by the Sacrifice and praying and all the People purple-dyed in that precious Blood c. Again in another place (o) In Coemeter appel 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. speaking of the Priest standing before the Holy Table c. he adds When thou seest the Sheep viz. Christ slain and divided c. So also elsewhere (p) De Poenit in Encoen 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 O wonderful The Mystical Table being prepared the Lamb of God slain for thee c. his Blood emptied into the Cup out of his immaculate Side for thy Purification dost thou not fear This slaying and dividing the Body of Christ this emptying the Blood out of his Veins he speaks of cannot be understood of any thing but of his Representative Body Neither can another Saying of his have any other sense (q) Hom. 51. in Matth. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 where telling us how Christ has given us leave to be filled with his holy Flesh he adds He has proposed himself before us slain So that if we eat his Flesh it must be his dead Body for so he is set before us to be eaten But that 's impossible But all this is easily understood in our way or rather as he himself has explained it when he says (r) Hom. 83. in Matth. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Mystery is the Passion and Cross of Christ With which agrees that of S. Austin (s) In Psal 21. Coenam suam dedit passionem suam dedit He gave his Supper he gave his Passion Or as he says in another place (t) Super Evang. lib. 2. qu. 38. Tamen passiones Domini in Sacramentis corporis sanguinis ejus suavitate lambunt devotissimâ comparing the Gentiles to those Dogs that lick'd Lazarus's Sores Yet says he they lick the Passions of our Lord in the Sacraments of his Body and Blood with a devout Sweetness The Reader will meet with further Testimonies to this purpose afterwards under the Head of Eating Christ's Body and drinking his Blood which according to the Fathers is to be done mystically and spiritually considered as slain and therefore his Presence must be such too For his Body is present just as it is eaten The Sum of all is this That according to the Fathers Christ is considered in the Sacrament as dead and slain and therefore can be only present there typically and by representation For so Card. Perron himself confesses (u) De locis Augustin cap. 3. Sacramentum non est realiter corpus Christi in actuali occisi mortui inanimati statu constitutum nec eâ ratione illud continet sed eatenus tantum repraesentat c. The Sacrament is not really the Body of Christ put in the actual state of one slain dead and without Life nor do's it contain it so but in that respect do's only represent it 5 Position That according to the Fathers the Presence of Christ's Body to us now is a Presence to our Faith and Minds a Presence of Union of Efficacy and Grace This is S. Austin's constant Doctrine I have cited a place out of him before where reckoning up the several Presences of Christ (x) Serm. 120. de diversis the Presence of his Divinity so he is with his Father his Corporal Presence so he says Secundùm praesentiam corporalem jam supra coelos ad dextram patris est Secundùm vero praesentiam fidei in omnibus Christianis est he is now above the Heavens at the Right Hand of the Father and he knows but one more which is the Presence of Faith by which he is in all Christians Thus also elsewhere (y) Serm. 12. de diversis In coelo quidem Christus est sed etiam in corde credentium Christ is in Heaven but he is also in the Hearts of Believers And again (z) In Evang. Joan. tract 50. Audeant teneant Respondet Quem tenebo absentem Quomodo in coelum manum mittam ut ibi sedentem teneam Fidem mitte tenuisti parentes tui tenuerunt carnem tu tene corde quoniam Christus absens etiam praesens est nisi praesens esset à nobis teneri non posset c. Corpus enim suum intulit coelo majestatem non abstulit mundo exhorting the Jews to hear and take hold on Christ he brings one in asking Whom shall I lay hold of one that is absent c. He answers Send forth thy Faith and thou hast hold of him Thy Fathers laid hold of him in his Flesh do thou hold him in thy Heart because Christ who is absent is also present for if he were not present he could not be held by us But still all is to be done by Faith for the Reason he gives He brought his Body into Heaven but his Majesty i. e. his Divinity was not withdrawn from the World. And afterwards (a) Ibid. propè finem Secundùm praesentiam majestatis semper habemus Christum secundùm praesentiam carnis rectè dictum est discipulis Me autem non semper habebitis Habuit illum Ecclesia secundùm praesentiam carnis paucis diebus modo fide tenet oculis non videt According to the Presence of his Majesty we always have Christ according to the Presence of his Flesh it was rightly said to his Disciples Me ye have not always The Church had him a few days according to his Fleshly Presence now it holds him by Faith and sees him not So again (b) In Ev. Joan. tract 106. Non rectè intelliguntur nisi hi quos in se credentes servare jam coeperat praesentia corporali quos relicturus fuerat absentia corporali ut eos cum patre servaret praesentia spiritali speaking of those whom he kept when he was with them he says These Words can be rightly understood of none but those who believing on him were begun to be kept by him by his Corporal Presence and whom he was about to leave by his Bodily Absence that he might keep them together with his Father by his Spiritual Presence Lastly S. Austin says (c) Expos in Epist Joan. tract 1. Dominus consolans nos qui ipsum jam in coelo sedentem manu contrectare non possumus sed fide contingere ait illi Quia vidisti credidisti beati qui non viderunt credunt Our Lord comforting us who now that he sits in Heaven cannot handle him but only touch him by Faith says to Thomas Because thou hast seen thou hast believed blessed are they that have not seen and believe S. Cyril of Alexandria agrees perfectly with this Doctrine (d) In Joan. 13.33 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. and knows no other Presence of Christ now but what is Spiritual and Divine since he ascended to the Father and left the World. For they that judge
confute their Opinions differing from the pretended common Sentiments about the Body and Blood of Christ by what lay so plainly before them of his Body and Blood being in the Eucharist if they had believed it But I refer the Reader to Monsieur Allix his Dissertation before-named wherein he may find abundant Satisfaction in these Matters and also will see how sadly the Romanists are put to it to answer the Difficulties about the Blood of Christ which they pretend to shew in so many Churches and is produced in such Quantities that may well cause a new Doubt Whether if his Resurrection-Body have any Blood in it we must not suppose it to be of a new Creation since what was in his Body when he died cannot suffice to furnish more Blood if so much as their Vials and Glasses are filled withal CHAP. X. The Tenth Difference The Fathers assert positively that the substance of the Elements remain after Consecration that Bread and Wine are taken eaten and drunk in the Sacrament which all that believe Transubstantiation must deny WE have seen before that the Fathers say plainly that it was Bread which Christ called his Body when he blessed it Now we shall see that the Fathers are as positive that after Consecration and the change made by it yet still the Bread and Wine remains I begin with that famous Testimony of S. Chrysostome against the Apollinarians produced first by P. Martyr by some of our Adversaries charged upon him as his Forgery because it was so full against them by others shifted off to another John of Constantinople and denied to be S. Chrysostome's but vindicated for his See Append. to the Defence of the Exposition of the Doctrine of the Church of England p. 142 143 c. by the Learned Bigotius who had transcribed it out of the Florentine Library of S. Mark 's Monastery and prepared it for the Press in his Edition of Palladius then suppressed by some Doctors of the Sorbonne and the printed leaves taken out of the Book but now lately recovered and published to their shame A passage of which the subject of this great contest I shall here set down Christ is both God and Man God Deus homo Christus Deus propter impassibilitatem Homo propter Passionem Unus Filius unus Dominus idem ipse proculdubus unitarum naturarum unam dominationem unam potestatem possidens etiamsi non consubstantiales existunt unaquaeque in commiâ—tam proprietatis conservat agnitionem propter hoc quod inconfusa sunt duo dico Sicut enim antequam sanctificetur Panis Panem nominamus divina autem illum Sanctificante gratiâ mediante sacerdote liberatus est quidem appellatione panis dignus autem habitus est dominici corporis appellatione etiamsi natura panis in ipso permansit non duo corpora sed unum corpus filii praedicatur Sic hic Divinâ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 id est inundante corporis naturâ unum filium unam personam utraque haec fecerunt Agnoscendum tamen inconfusam indivisibilem rationem non in unâ solùm natura sed in duabus perfectis for that he is impassible Man for that he suffered One Son one Lord he the same without doubt having one Dominion one power of two united natures not that these natures are consubstantial seeing each of them do's retain without confusion its own properties and being two are inconfused in him For as in the Eucharist before the Bread is consecrated we call it Bread but when the grace of God by the Priest has consecrated it it has no longer the name of Bread but is counted worthy to be called the Lords Body altho' the nature of Bread remains in it and we do not say there are two Bodies but one Body of the Son. So here the divine nature being joined to the humane Body they both together make one Son one Person but yet they must be acknowledged to remain without confusion and after an indivisible manner not in one nature only but in two perfect natures Another remarkable Testimony is in Theodoret's Dialogues some part of which I hope the Reader will not think it tedious to be inserted here since by observing the thread of his Discourse he will see his undoubted sense to be that the substance of the Bread and Wine remain in the Eucharist and the change is by addition not annihilation and I will add his Greek where it is needful Dial. 1 Orthodoxus Do you not know that God called his Body Bread Erannistes I know it Orth. Elsewhere also he calleth his Flesh Wheat Eran. I know that also Unless a Corn of Wheat fall into the ground and die c. Orth. But in the delivery of the mysteries he called the Bread his Body and that which is mixed viz. Wine and Water in the Cup Blood. Eran. He did so call them Orth. But that which is his Body by nature 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is also to be called his Body and his Blood viz. by nature Blood. Eran. It is confess'd Orth. But our Saviour changed the names 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and on his Body he imposed the name of the symbol or sign and on the symbol he put the name of his body And so having called himself a Vine he called the Symbol Blood. Eran. Very right But I have a mind to know the reason of this change of names Orth. The scope is manifest to those that are initiated in Divine things 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For he would have those that participate the divine mysteries not to attend to the nature of those things that are seen but upon the changing of the names to believe the change that is made by grace For he that called his Body that is so by nature Wheat and Bread 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and again termed himself a Vine he honoured the visible Symbols with the appellation of his Body and Blood not altering nature but to nature adding grace Proceed we now to the next Dialogue Orth. The mystical Symbols offered to God by the Priests Dial. 2 pray tell me what are they signs of Eran. Of the Lords Body and Blood. Orth. Of his Body truly or not truly such Era. Of that which is truly his Body Orth. Very right For there must be an original of an Image 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for Painters imitate nature and draw the Images of visible things Era. True. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Orth. If then the divine mysteries are Antitypes of a true Body then the Lords Body is a true Body still not changed into the nature of the Deity but filled with Divine Glory Era. You have seasonably brought in the Discourse of the Divine Mysteries for thereby I will shew that the Lords Body is changed into another Nature Answer therefore my Question Orth. I will. Era. What call you the Gift that is offered before the Priests Invocation Orth. I may not openly declare
species manent sicut substantia conversa mansisset Et si species incorruptae evomuntur vel egrediuntur est ibi vere corpus Christi agrees citing Paludanus in the case Therefore the Body and Blood of Christ remains so long in the Belly and Stomach or Vomit or any where else as the Species remain just as the converted Substance viz. Bread and Wine would have remained And if the Species are vomited up whole or go forth downwards there is truly the Body of Christ. And he tells us of S. Hugo Cluniac how he commended one Goderanus who by a strange fervor swallowed down the Particles of an Host which a Leper had vomited up with vile Spittle saying That S. Laurence his Gridiron was more tolerable If these Consequences seem horrid and detestable to the Reader the Doctrine from which they necessarily flow ought to be look'd upon much more so But now to return to the Fathers and their Sense of Eating the Body of Christ. It is evident to any that will impartially consult their Writings that they were perfect Strangers to all these Cases that are thus currently resolved in the Roman Church That Christ's Natural Body should enter into ours is too gross and carnal a Thought to be attributed to them and fits only the Imaginations of a Carnal Church and of those Capernaites who in the Sixth of S. John ask How can this Man give us his Flesh to eat Christ tells them That the Words he spoke to them were Spirit and Life And so the Fathers always understood the eating of Christ's Body and drinking his Blood not in a literal and proper but in a figurative and spiritual Sense as I shall now prove from their Writings Wherein it may not be amiss to take notice first What their Sense is about understanding things carnally and spiritually S. Chrysostome (z) Hom. 46. in Joan. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 asking this Question What is it to think or understand carnally He answers Simply to look upon the things proposed and to think of no more But we ought to view all Mysteries with our inward Eyes for this is spiritually to view them S. Austin (a) De Doctr. Christ l. 3. c. 5. Cùm figuratè dictum sic accipitur tanquam propriè dictum sit carnaliter sapitur gives the same account We have a carnal Taste when we take that which is figuratively spoken as if it were properly spoken And elsewhere (b) Serm. 44. de diversis Omnis figurata allegorica lectio vel locutio aliud videtur sonare carnaliter aliud insinuare spiritualiter Every figurative and allegorical Reading or Speech seems to sound one thing carnally and to insinuate another thing spiritually S. Austin (c) De Doctr. Christ l. 3. c. 16. Si praeceptiva est locutio aut flagitium aut facinus vetans aut beneficentiam jubens non est figurata Si autem flagitium aut facinus videtur jubere aut utilitatem aut beneficentiam vetare figurata est Nisi manducaveritis carnem filii hominis c. facinus vel flagitium videtur jubere Figura ergo est praecipiens passioni Domini esse communicandum suaviter atque utiliter in memoria condendum quod caro ejus pro nobis crucifixa vulnerata est further gives a Rule when to understand a thing literally and when to understand it figuratively and spiritually If the Speech be by way of command either forbidding a Crime or heinous Wickedness or bidding a beneficial or good thing to be done it is not figurative But if it seems to command a Crime or heinous Wickedness or forbid an useful and beneficial thing it is figurative And then he gives the Example of his Rule in those words of Christ Except ye eat the Flesh and drink the Blood of the Son of Man ye have no Life in you Now this says he seems to command a Crime or horrid thing therefore it is a Figure commanding us to communicate in the Passion of our Lord and sweetly and profitably to treasure up in our Memory that his Flesh was crucified and wounded for us Origen said the very same before him (d) Hom. 7. in Levitic Non solùm in Veteri Testamento occidens Litera deprehenditur est in N. Testamento Litera quae occidit eum qui non spiritualiter quae dicuntur adverterit Si enim secundùm literam sequaris hoc ipsum quod dictum est Nisi manducaveritis carnem meam biberitis sanguinem meum occidit haec litera and gives the same Instance Not only in the Old Testament is found the killing Letter there is also in the New Testament a Letter that kills him who do's not spiritually consider what is said For if thou follow this according to the Letter which was said Unless ye eat my Flesh and drink my Blood this Letter kills And in another place (e) In Joan. Tom. 10. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 We are not to eat the Flesh of the Lamb as the Slaves of the Letter do c. To which he opposes those who receive the Spirituals of the Word Such as those whom S. Austin mentions (f) In Joan. tract 26. Quia visibilem cibum spiritaliter intellexerunt spiritaliter esurierunt spiritaliter gustavérunt ut spiritaliter satiarentur who pleased God and died not i. e. eternally Because they understood the visible Food Manna spiritually they hungred spiritually they tasted spiritually that they might spiritually be satisfied Or as he expresses it a little after (g) Ibid. Qui manducat intus non foris qui manducat in corde non qui premit dente He that eats inwardly not outwardly that eats in his Heart not he that presseth it with his Teeth And therefore elsewhere * Serm. 33. de Verb. Dom. Nolite parate fauces sed cor exhorts them Do not prepare your Jaws but your Heart This is what Clemens Alexandr (h) Strom. l. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 requires when he says That Christ when he broke the Bread set it before them that we may eat it rationally i. e. spiritually So S. Austin again (i) De Verb. Apost Serm. 2. Tunc vita unicuique erit corpus sanguis Christi si quod in sacramento visibiliter sumitur in ipsa veritate spiritualiter manducetur spiritualiter bibatur The Body and Blood of Christ will then be Life to every one if what is visibly taken in the Sacrament be in truth spiritually eaten and spiritually drunk Where he makes this to be eating in Truth and the other but Sacramental So Macarius (k) Homil. 27. having called the Bread and Wine the Antitype of Christ's Flesh and Blood he adds 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 They which are Partakers of the visible Bread do spiritually eat the Flesh of the Lord. He should rather have said orally according to the Doctrine of our Adversaries S. Athanasius
(l) Tract in illud Evang. Quicunque dixerit verbum contra filium hominis expounding those words What if ye see the Son of Man ascending where he was before It is the Spirit that quickneth the Flesh profiteth nothing c. adds 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He affirmed both of himself the Flesh and Spirit and made a difference betwixt the Spirit and the Flesh that not only believing that of him which was visible but what was invisible they might learn that those things which he spake were not carnal but spiritual 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For to how many could his Body have sufficed for Meat that it should be made the Food of the whole World But therefore he mentions the Son of Man's Ascension into Heaven that he might draw them from this corporal Conceit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and hereafter might learn that the Flesh he spake of was celestial Meat from above and spiritual Nourishment to be given by him c. It will suffice all the World if we follow Tertullian's (m) De Resurr c. 37. Quia sermo caro erat factus proinde in causam vitae appetendus devorandus auditu ruminandus intellectu fide digerendus Advice Since the Word was made Flesh he is to be long'd for that we may live to be devoured by Hearing to be chewed by Understanding and digested by Faith. It is an excellent Comment on this which Eusebius gives us (n) Lib. 3. Eccl. Theol. c. 1◠〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 upon those words of John 6. The Flesh profits nothing c. Do not imagine that I speak of that Flesh I am encompassed withal as if you must eat that nor think that I command you to drink sensible and corporeal Blood But know that the very Words that I have spoken to you are Spirit and Life So that these very Words and Speeches of his are his Flesh and Blood whereof whoso is always Partaker being nourished as it were with heavenly Bread shall be a Partaker of heavenly Life 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Let not the hasty hearing of those things by me of Flesh and Blood trouble you for things sensibly heard profit nothing but it is the Spirit that quickneth them that can spiritually hear them S. Basil (o) In Psal 33. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 says the same There is an intellectual Mouth of the inward Man whereby he is nourished who receives the Word of Life which is the Bread that descended from Heaven Facundus Hermian (p) Lib. 12. Defens 3. capit c. 1. takes this of eating Christ's Flesh to be a Mystery and that S. Peter when he answered Lord whither should we go thou hast the Words of Eternal Life did not then understand it For says he Quod si mysterium intellexisset hoc potius diceret Domine cur abeamus non est cûm credamus nos corporis sanguinis tui fide salvandos if he had understood the Mystery he should rather have said Lord there is no reason we should go away since we believe we shall be saved by Faith in thy Body and Blood. He means his Death and Passion which is his Sense of eating Christ's Body and Blood. Theodorus Heracleot (q) Catena in Joan. 6.54 55. refers this eating Christ's Flesh to the sincere embracing the Oeconomy of his Incarnation These says he 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 upon the reasoning of their Minds by assenting to it as it were tasting the Doctrine do rationally or spiritually eat his Flesh and by Faith partake of his Blood. S. Chrysostom (r) Hom. 46. in Joan. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. upon those words It is the Spirit that quickneth the Flesh profiteth nothing reckons up some of those carnal Doubts that profit nothing as It is a carnal thing says he to doubt how Christ descended from Heaven and to imagine him to be the Son of Joseph and how he can give us his Flesh to eat All these are carnal which ought to be mystically and spiritually understood Cyril of Jerusalem (s) Catech. Mystag 4. says That the Jews for want of understanding spiritually Christ's words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 imagined that Christ exhorted them to devour his Flesh which is hard to be distinguish'd from the Roman Churches Oral Manducation This carnal Fancy might well make them shrink and cry out This is a hard Saying who can hear it For as S. Austin (t) Cont. advers Legis l. 2. c. 9. Horribilius videatur humanam carnem manducare quam perimere humanum sanguinem potare quam fundere well observes It seems more horrible to eat Humane Flesh than to kill it and to drink Mans Blood than to shed it Origen's (u) Prolog in Cantic Est materialis hujus hominis qui exterior appellatur cibus potusque naturae suae cognatus corporeus iste sc terrenus Similiter autem spiritualis hominis ipsius qui interior dicitur est proprius cibus ut panis ille vivus qui de coelo descendit c. Rerum vero proprietas unicuique discreta servatur corruptibili corruptibilia praebentur incorruptibili verò incorruptibilia proponuntur words for I see no good reason to question they are his are enough to convince effectually all such carnal Jews and Christians There is a Meat and Drink for this material and outward Man as we call him agreeable to his Nature viz. this corporeal and earthly Food There is likewise a proper Food for the spiritual or as we call it inward Man as that living Bread that came down from Heaven c. But the Property of things is reserved to each distinct and corruptible things are given to that which is corruptible and incorruptible things are proposed to that which is incorruptible Greg. Nyssen (x) Hom. 1. in Cantic 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 also well expresses it thus There is an Analogy betwixt the Motions and Operations of the Soul and the Senses of the Body c. Wine and Milk are judged of by the Taste but these being intellectual the Power of the Soul that apprehends them must be altogether intellectual S. Chrysostom (y) Homil. 26. in Matth. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 said well That Christ gave himself to us for a spiritual Feast and Banquet And Procopius Gazaeus (z) Comment in Exod. Coelestis seu divinus Agnus animarum solet esse cibus The Celestial and Divine Lamb is wont to be the Food of Souls S. Austin (a) Tract 1. in Epist Joan. Ipsum jam in coelo sedentem manu contrectare non possumus sed fide contingere indeed tells us We cannot handle him who now sits in Heaven yet says he we may touch him by our Faith. For as he says elsewhere (b) Tract 26. in Evang. Joan. Non ad Christum ambulando currimus sed credendo nec motu
corporis sed voluntate cordis accedimus Sic se tangi voluit sic tangitur ab eis à quibus benè tangitur ascendens ad patrem manens cum patre aequalis patri We run to Christ not by walking but by believing nor do we approach him by the Motion of our Bodies but by the Will of our Hearts And afterwards Thus he would be touched and thus he is touched by all that rightly touch him ascending to the Father remaining with the Father equal to the Father And in the next Tractate (c) Idem Tract 27. in Joan. Quid est hoc Hinc solvit illud quod non noverant Illi enim putabant eum erogaturum corpus suum ille autem dixit se ascensurum in coelum utique integrum Cùm videritis filium hominis ascendentem ubi erat priùs certè vel tunc videbitis quia non eo modo quo puratis erogat corpus suum certè vel tunc intelligetis quia gratia ejus non consumitur morsibus upon those words What if ye see the Son of Man ascend c. What do's this mean He hence resolves that which they did not know For they imagined that he would bestow his Body upon them and he told them that he would ascend into Heaven entire and whole When you shall see the Son of Man ascending where he was before then surely you will see that he do's not bestow his Body after that manner you think he do's Surely you will then at least understand that his Grace is not consumed by bites of the Teeth Gelasius (d) Contr. Eutych l. 4. Credere in filium Dei hoc est videre hoc est audire hoc est odorari hoc est gustare hoc est contrectare eum therefore said well To believe on the Son of God this is to see him this is to hear him this is to smell this is to taste him and this is to handle him These Testimonies one would think are sufficient to tell us the Sense of the Fathers in this Matter yet with the Reader 's leave I will add a few Considerations more to put it out of all doubt 1 Consideration It appears there is no necessity to understand eating and drinking Christ's Body in the Eucharist of his natural Body received into ours because the Fathers say We eat and drink and partake of Christ's Body and Blood in Baptism which by the confession of all can be done only spiritually there Thus Cyril of Alexandria (e) In Joan. 9.6 says The Gentiles could not have shaken off their Blindness and contemplated the Divine and H. Light that is attained the Knowledge of the Holy and Consubstantial Trinity 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 unless by Holy Baptism they had been made Partakers of his Holy Flesh and washed away the blackness of their Sin and shak'd off the Devil's Power And elsewhere (f) Glaphyr in Exod. lib. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 speaking of the Eunuch He by his Question says he shewed that he was Partaker of the Spiritual Lamb for he was presently thought worthy of Baptism Fulgentius (g) De Bapt. Aethiop in fine Nisi manducaveritis carnem filii hominis biberitis ejus sanguinem non habebitis vitam in vobis Quod quisquis non solum secundùm veritatis mysteria sed secundùm mysterii veritatem considerare poterit in ipso Lavacro S. Regenerationis hoc fieri providebit Unless ye eat the Flesh of the Son of Man and drink his Blood ye shall have no Life in you Which whosoever can consider not only according to the Mystery of Truth viz. in the Sacraments but according to the Truth of the Mystery will see that this is done in the Laver of Holy Regeneration And again (h) Ibid. Nec cuiquam esse aliquatenus ambigendum tun◠unumquemque fidelium corporis sanguinisque participem fieri quando in baptismate membrum corporis Christi efficitur Neither need any one in the least doubt that every Believer is then made Partaker of Christ's Body and Blood when he is made in Baptism a Member of Christ's Body Therefore S. Basil (i) In Esa 3. says That the Lord takes away Christ from those who having put him on by Baptism 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by sinning afterwards trample upon his Body and count the Blood of the Covenant an unholy thing 2 Consideration The Fathers with reference to Eating and Drinking distinguish Christ's True Body from his Sacramental one which they could not do if Christ's True and Natural Body and Blood were eat and drunk in a proper sense in the Sacrament S. Chrysostome (k) In 1 Cor. c. 11. v. 29. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 expounding those words He that eateth and drinketh unworthily c. says As Christs Presence which brought those great and unspeakable Blessings to us did condemn those the more that did not receive it so also the Mysteries make way for greater Punishments to those that unworthily partake of them S. Austin (l) Contr. Faustum l. 20. c. 21. Hujus sacrificii caro sanguis c. in passione Christi per ipsam veritatem reddebatur post ascensum Christi per Sacramentum memoriae celebratur whose words I have given Chap. 10. Posit 2. makes the Flesh and Blood of Christ to be exhibited in the Truth at his Passion and in the Sacrament only the Memory of it to be celebrated Bede (m) In Psal 21 Intelligent in pane vino visibiliter sibi proposito aliud invisibile scilicet corpus sanguinem verum Domini qui verus cibus potus sunt quo non venter distenditur sed mens saginatur upon those words The Poor shall eat and be satisfied says By this Bread and Wine which are visibly offered to them they will understand another invisible thing viz. the true Body and Blood of our Lord which are really Meat and Drink not such as fills the Belly but which nourishes the Mind And in another place (n) In Esdram lib. 2. cap. 8. Immolatio Paschae gloriam insinuet resurrectionis cùm omnes electi carne agni immaculati id est Dei Domini nostri non amplius in Sacramento credentes sed in reipsa ac veritate videntes reficiuntur speaking of the Passover The Immolation of this Passover represents the Glory of our Resurrection when all the Elect shall eat together the Flesh of the Immaculate Lamb I mean of him who is our God and Lord no more in Sacrament as Believers but in the thing it self and in Truth as Spectators Neither is that of Isidore of Sevil (o) De Officiis Eccles l. 1 c. 15. to be passed over who mentions this Prayer in the Liturgy of his Time Ut oblatio quae Domino offertur sanctificata per spiritum sanctum corpori sanguini Christi conformetur not confirmetur as the last Colen Edition absurdly has printed it An. 1617. That the
of Christ was touched by a Sinners lips it withdrew it self says This is an errour and manifestly against the Saints and therefore it is held commonly that in this there is no difference betwixt the just and unjust for both of them receive the very Body of Christ in the Sacrament And a little after It must be granted that the wicked receive the thing which the Sacrament is a sign of which is Christs true Body born of the Virgin c. This ought not to seem a strange Doctrine to be held by those who say that brute Creatures may devour Christs Body Which is the current opinion So Aquinas (l) Loc. citat ad Tertium Dicendum quod etiamsi mus vel canis hostiam consecratam manducet substantia corporis Christi non desinit esse sub speciebus quamdiu species illae manent We must say that altho' a Mouse or a Dog should eat a consecated Host yet the substance of Christs Body do's not cease to be under the species so long as the species remain Alensis (m) Ibid. sec 1. loco citat Si canis vel porcus deglutiret hostiam consecratam integram non video quare vel quomodo Corpus Domini non simul cum specie trajiceretur in ventrem canis vel porci is as positive and more plain If a Dog or a Hog should swallow a whole consecrated Host I see not why nor how the Body of our Lord would not together with the Species be conveyed into the Belly of that Dog or Hog It is also remarkable that among three Articles which P. Gregory XI an 1371. prohibited to be taught (n) See Pref. to the determ of Jo. Paris p. 32. Si hostia consecrata à mure corrodatur seu à bruto sumitur quod remanentibus speciebus sub iis definit esse Corpus Christi redit substantia Panis under pain of Excommunication which was also repeated by P. Clement VI. one of them was this If a Consecrated Host should be gnawed by a Mouse or taken by a Brute that then the species remaining the Body of Christ ceases to be under them and the substance of the Bread returns This he would not let pass for good Divinity Nor can it at this Day when this is one of the Cautions to be observed in the Celebrating of the Mass (o) De Defect Missae sec 10. n. 5. ante Missal Roman Si post consecrationem ceciderit musca aut aliquid ejusmodi fiat nausea Sacerdoti extrahat eam lavet cum vino finitâ Missa comburat combustio ac lotio hujusmodi in Sacrarium projiciatur Si autem non fuerit nausea nec ullum periculum timeat sumat cum sanguine That if a Fly or any such animal fall into the Chalice after Consecration if the Priest nauseats it then he must take it out and wash it with Wine and burn it when Mass is ended and the ashes and the wash be thrown into the H. Repository But if he do not nauseate to swallow it nor fears any danger let him take it down with the Blood. What is all this for but to tell us that they look upon it still to be Christs Blood and that its better it should be in the Belly of a Priest than of a Brute So also they give us another Case (p) Ibid. n. 14. Si Sacerdos evomat Eucharistiam si species integrae appareant reverenter sumantur nisi nausea fiat tunc enim species consecratae cautè separentur in aliquo loco sacro reponantur donec corrumpantur c. If a Priest should vomit up the Eucharist and the species appear entire they must be taken down reverently unless nauseated but in that case the Consecrated Species must be cautiously separated and put in some H. Place till they are corrupted c. But I beg the Readers Pardon for presenting him with such nauseous stuff God grant that they who thus unworthily represent their Saviour may have grace to repent that the thoughts of their hearts may be forgiven them As for the Fathers if by their plain words we can understand their sense they assert that only the Faithful and not the wicked eat the Body of Christ and drink his Blood in a proper sense S. Jerome (q) In Oseam c. 8. Cujus caro cibus credentium est calls the Flesh of Christ the food of Believers And Isidore of Sevil (r) In Genes c. 31. Caro ejus qui est esca Sanctorum Quam si quis manducaverit non morietur in aeternum that it is the meat of the Saints And he adds which makes it their food and of none else which if any one eat he shall not die eternally They therefore often call it the Bread of Life and Life it self S. Ambrose (s) In Psal 118. Serm. 18. Hic est panis vitae qui manducat vitam mori non potest quomodo enim morietur cui cibus vita est This is the Bread of Life he that eateth Life cannot die for how should he die whose Food is Life S. Austin says the same (t) Serm. de verb. Evangel apud Bedam in 1 Cor. 10. Quando Christus manducatur vita manducatur quando manducatur reficit When Christ is eaten Life is eaten When he is eaten he refreshes Again in another place (u) Serm. 44. de Diversis Filii Ecclesiae habent à rore coeli fertilitate terrae c. à fertilitate terrae omnia visibilia Sacramenta Visibile enim Sacramentum ad terram pertinet Haec omnia communia habent in Ecclesia boni mali Nam ipsi habent participant Sacramentis quod norunt fideles à tritico vino distinguishing the Portion of Saints and Sinners he makes the true Sons of the Church to partake both of the Dew of Heaven and the fatness of the Earth This fatness of the Earth he explains to be all visible Sacraments for they pertain to the Earth All these he says the good and bad in the Church have in common For the bad have and partake of the Sacraments and what the Faithful know made of Bread-Corn and Wine If then the visible Sacrament and that which has its original from Earth be all that evil men partake of to be sure they have nothing to do with Christ the Heavenly Bread or his Body which to use his Phrase do's not pertain to Earth at all but is a Divine Food Which none has more admirably and fully spoke to than Origen (x) In Matth. c. 15. v. 15. p. 253. Ed. Huet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Who having said a great deal about Christs Typical and Symbolical Body which S. Austin called before the visible Sacrament he goes on thus Many things also might be said concerning that word which was made Flesh and the true Food which whosoever eats shall surely live for ever no wicked Man being capable of eating it For if
congruenter nuncupatur vinum autem quia sanguinem operatur in carne ideo ad sanguinem Christi refertur explaining the Words of Institution says Because Bread strengthens the Body therefore it is fitly called the Body of Christ and Wine because it produces Blood in our Flesh is therefore referred to the Blood of Christ In the Aethiopick Churches (i) Ludolphi Aethiop Hist l. 3. c. 5 n. 56. Hic panis est corpus meum they use this Phrase which the Church of Rome is so shy of This Bread is my Body Bertram (k) De Corp. Sang. Dom. pag. 40. late Eng. Lat. Translation Non putamus ullum fidelium dubitare panem illum fuisse corpus Christi effectum quod Discipulis donans dicit Hoc est corpus meum c. I am confident no Christian doubts but that Bread was made the Body of Christ which he gave to his Discples saying This is my Body c. And he there shews that this is made by the same change whereby the Manna and the Water of the Rock in the Wilderness were turned into his Body and Blood. To conclude this Head It is plain that there is a general Consent of Fathers on the Protestant Side in this Particular That the Bread and Wine are Christ's Body and Blood. And it is the more remarkable because they give us this Sense when they are explaining Christ's Words and in their Commentaries upon the Gospels where the Words of Institution are recorded CHAP. III. The Third Difference The Church of Rome believes That Accidents in the Eucharist subsist without a Subject but the Fathers say the contrary That Accidents cannot subsist without a Subject and yet never except the Eucharist THe Catechism of the Trent Council * Ad Parochos part 2. de Euchar. n. 25. says That the Accidents which are either seen with our Eyes or perceived by our other Senses are without any Subject by a wonderful manner and such as cannot be explained They grant that we may see all the Accidents of Bread and Wine but that they inhere in no Substance but sustain themselves And afterwards †Ibid. n. 44. §. Tertium restat discourse thus The Species of Bread and Wine subsist in this Sacrament without any Subject in which they are For since the Body and Blood of Christ is truly in this Sacrament so that no Substance of Bread and Wine remains because those Accidents cannot be inherent in the Body and Blood of Christ it remains that the Accidents sustain themselves above all Order of Nature being upheld by nothing else besides And this they say was the perpetual constant Doctrine of the Catholick Church How false this Assertion is we shall now shew from the Testimonies of the Fathers Irenaeus (a) Lib. 2. c. 14. Non potest intelligi aqua sine humectatione neque ignis sine calore neque lapis sine duritia Unita enim sunt invicem haec alterum ab altero separari non potest sed semper coexistere We cannot understand Water without Moisture nor Fire without Heat nor a Stone without Hardness For these are united one to another one cannot be separated from the other but must always coexist Athanasius (b) Orat. 5. contra Arianos 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or the Author against the Arians in his Works asserts That every Quality is in a Substance Isidore Peleusiota (c) Lib. 2. Epist 72. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 says That Quality cannot be without Substance Methodius (d) Apud Photium Codic 232. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Quality cannot be separated as to its Subsistence from Matter And a little before he says This is the most impossible of all things S. Basil * Epist 43. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If by your reasoning you can distinguish Figure from a Body yet Nature admits no such Difference but one must be understood in conjunction with the other Greg. Nazianzen (e) Orat. 37. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 proves the Holy Ghost not to be a Quality because then it must be in a Subject For says he either it do's subsist by it self or is of the same kind with those which are called Accidents which are in another This would be ill reasoning if Transubstantiation were true for the Holy Ghost might be a Quality and yet be in no Subject as well as the Colour and Taste of Bread may be in the Eucharist without Bread or any other Substance in which it is Gr. Nyssen (f) De Opificio Homin c. 24. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 affirms That as that is not a Body to which Colour and Figure and Solidness and Space and Heaviness and other Properties are wanting so as he adds where those aforesaid do concur they produce a Bodily Subsistence S. Austin (g) Soliloq lib. 2. c. 12. Monstruosum enim à veritate alienissimum est ut id quod non esset nisi in ipso sc subjecto esset etiam cùm ipsum non fuerit posse esse It is monstrous and at the furthest distance from Truth that what would not be at all unless it were in a Subject yet should be able to exist when the Subject ceases to be This is a Saying with a witness to confute Transubstantiation where there is the Appearance and Figure Taste and Weight of Bread and yet no Substance of Bread is there Again he says (h) Ibid. cap. 13. Omne quod in subjecto est si semper manet ipsum etiam subjectum maneat semper necesse est Every thing that is in a Subject and always remains it is necessary that the Subject also should always remain Again * De Immortal Anim. cap. 5. Mutato subjecto omne quod in subjecto est necessariò mutari Et cap. 8. Quod per se non est si deseratur ab eo per quod est profectò non erit elsewhere When the Subject is changed every thing that is in the Subject is necessarily changed And again That which exists not by it self if it be forsaken of that by which it exists undoubtedly will not be at all Also in another place (i) Epist 57. ad Dardanum Tolle ipsa corpora qualitatibus corporum non erit ubi sint ideo necesse est ut non sint Take away Bodies from their Qualities and there will nothing remain where those Qualities should be and therefore it follows necessarily that they will not be at all Cyril of Alexandria (k) In Joan. lib. 4. cap. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 teaches the same copiously He calls it Madness to affirm That the Essence of the Son consists in Subjection to the Father For says he how can Subjection be conceived to subsist by it self without existing in any thing else And afterwards If there be no Subject and nothing praeexists in which those things are went to be done how can they exist by themselves which are understood and defined in the
Order of Accidents And elsewhere he says (l) Thesaur assert 31. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 To be Unbegotten is predicated of the Divine Essence as inseparable from it just as Colour is always predicated of every Body And in another place (m) Ibid. assert 16. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. disputing about the Eternity of the Son and how proceeding from the Father he is not separated from him he instances in Accidents that are inseparable from their Subjects We see says he Heat inseparably proceeding from Fire but it is the Fruit of the very Essence of Fire proceeding inseparably from it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as also Splendor is the Fruit of Light. For Light cannot subsist without Splendor nor Fire without Heat For what is begotten of them do's always adhere to such Substances Again in his Dialogues (n) De Trinitate Dial. 2. p. 451. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Trinity he asks Whether Black and White if they be not in their Subjects can subsist of themselves And the Answer is They cannot Claud. Mamertus (o) De Statu Animae l. 3. c. 3. In rebus corporeis subjectum est corpus color corporis in subjecto in incorporeis animus disciplina quae ita sibi nexa sunt ut nec sine colore corpus nec sine disciplina rationalis sit animus Utrum nam probare valeamus manere quod in subjecto est ipso intereunte subjecto In corporeal things the Body is the Subject and the Colour of the Body in the Subject In incorporeal matters the Soul and Discipline are Instances which are so connected that the Body cannot be without Colour nor the Rational Soul without Discipline Can we ever prove that what is in the Subject abides when the Subject it self perishes Isidore Hispal (p) Originum lib. 2. cap. 26. Quantitas qualitas situs sine subjecto esse non possunt Quantity Quality and Situation can none of 'em be without a Subject Bertram (q) Contra Graec. l. 2. c. 7. in Tom. 2. Spicilegii D. Acherii proves against the Greeks That the Holy Ghost was not in Jesus Christ as in his Subject because says he the Holy Ghost is not an Accident that cannot subsist without its Subject These Testimonies of the Fathers may suffice to shew how they differ from the Church of Rome in this Point of Accidents being without a Subject which to them is so necessary a Doctrine that Transubstantiation cannot be believed without it and if the Fathers had believed Transubstantiation it is incredible that they should deny this Doctrine without so much as once excepting the Case of the Eucharist None can imagine how their Memory and Reflection should be so short especially when as we have heard they form their Arguments to prove the Eternity of the Son of God and the Personality of the Holy Ghost from the inseparability of Accidents from their Subject Nay one of them says (r) Orat. 5. contra Arianos inter Athanasii Opera That if God himself had Accidents they would exist in his Substance When therefore P. Innocent (s) De Myst Missae l. 4. c. 11. Est enim hic color sapor quantitas qualitas cùm nihil alterutro sit coloratum aut sapidum quantum aut quale asserts That in the Eucharist there is Colour and Taste and Quantity and Quality and yet nothing coloured or tasteful nothing of which Quantity or Quality are Affections This is plainly to confound the Nature of all things and to turn Accidents into Substances So that if for instance the Host should fall into the Mire and contract Dirt and Filth this Filth sticks in nothing or else Accidents are the Subject of it for it is confessed on all hands That Christ's Body cannot be soiled or made filthy Not to insist upon the Nonsense of his Assertion which is just as if one should talk of an Eclipse without either Sun or Moon or of an Horses Lameness without a Leg concerning which only Lameness can be affirmed CHAP. IV. The Fourth Difference The Church of Rome has brought in the Word SPECIES to signifie those Accidents without any Subject But the Fathers never take it in this Sense I Need only refer the Reader for the first part of this Assertion to the Thirteenth Session of the Council of Trent Canon 2. 3. where the Word Species is so used And to what we heard before out of their Catechism of the Species of Bread and Wine subsisting without any Subject in which they are Every one knows this is their Customary Word to express Appearances of things by when nothing real is under them to support them But now we shall see this to be a strange and foreign usage of this Word which the Fathers know nothing of in their Sense but in stead of denoting Accidents by the Word Species which are in no Subject they use it commonly for the Substance the Nature the Matter of a thing the Subject it self that appears Not for Appearances without a Subject S. Ambrose often uses this Word Species but never in the Sense of the Romanists For which take these Instances S. Ambrose says (a) Serm. 21. Dominum rogatum ad Nuptias aquae substantiam in vini speciem commutasse That at the Marriage of Cana our Lord being requested did change the Substance of Water into the Species of Wine That is not into the Appearance of Wine but into real Wine that he changed it And in another place * Serm. 22. Speciem magis necessariam Nuptiis prastitit He provided for the Marriage a more necessary Species i. e. Wine more agreeable to a Marriage-Feast than Water In another Book (b) Officior lib. 2. cap. 28. Hic numerus captivorum hic ordo praestantior est quam species poculorum speaking of Holy Vessels which he broke for the Redemption of Captives he says This Number and Order of Captives far excels the Species of Cups i. e. all sorts of them Again elsewhere (c) De iis qui initiant cap. 9. Gravior est ferri species quam aquarum liquor The Species of Iron is heavier than the Liquor of Water i. e. the Substance of Iron S. Austin (d) In Joan. tract 11. Omnes in Moyse baptizati sunt in nube in mari Si ergo figura maris tantum valuit species baptismi quantum valebit They were all baptized into Moses in the Cloud and in the Sea. If therefore the Figure of the Sea availed so much how much will the Species of Baptism avail In another place (e) Serm. ad Infantes Ut sit species visibilis panis multa grana in unum consperguntur To make the visible Species of Bread many Grains are mixed together into one Again (f) Lib. 3. de Trinit cap. 4. Quod cùm per manus hominum ad illam visibilem speciem perducitur non sanctificatur
Lord J. Christ commanded us to make in memory of his passion What we make as was show'd cap. 8. observ 7. can be only Bread not Christs Body in a proper sense Again (a) Apol. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 telling us of the Bishops praying and giving thanks over the Elements he adds that the Deacons give to every one present leave to take of the Bread and Wine of the Eucharist That this was his sense appears further by another Character he gives of it in the same place 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when he calls it Food by which our Flesh and Blood by a change are nourished What he says in another place (b) Dial. cum Tryp p. 345. Edit Paris 1615. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of Christians remembring their Lords Passion by their dry and wet food can agree only to Bread and Wine which therefore must be supposed to remain S. Irenaeus (c) L. 5. adv haeres c. 2. Ex quibus augetur consistit carnis nostrae substantia asserts with Justin that the Bread and Cup of the Eucharist is that by which the substance of our Flesh is nourished and consists In another place (d) Ibid. l. 4. c. 34. Carnem quae à corpore Domini sanguine alitur Quemadmodum qui est à terra panis percipiens invocationem Domini jam non communis panis est sed Eucharistia ex duabus rebus constans terrena coelesti c. he not only says that our Flesh is nourished by the Body and Blood of our Lord but adds As the Bread that is from the Earth perceiving the Lords Invocation is not now common Bread but the Eucharist consisting of two things an Earthly and an Heavenly c. Tho' not common Bread yet Bread still because else it would consist only of one thing viz. Christs Body and no earthly thing besides Origen (e) Comm. in Matth. 15. v. 15. p. 254. Edit Haet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If every thing that enters into the mouth goes into the Belly and is cast into the draught then also the food that is sanctified by the word of God and Prayer as to the material part of it which can be nothing but Bread goes into the Belly c. but in respect of the Prayer that is superadded it becomes profitable c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Nor is it the matter of the Bread but the word that is said over it that profits him that eats it not unworthily of the Lord. Cyprian (f) Epist ad Caecilium l. 2. Ep. 3. alias 63. Invenimus calicem mixtum fuisse quam Dominus obtulit vinum fuisse quod sanguinem suum dixit We have found that it was a mixed Cup which our Lord offered and that it was Wine which he called his Blood. Macarius (g) Homil. 27. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In the Church is offered Bread and Wine the Antitype of his Flesh and Blood and they that are partakers of the visible Bread do spiritually eat the Flesh of the Lord. Epiphanius (h) In Compend fidei 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in a place I before cited speaking of the Eucharist says that the Bread is food but the virtue that is in it is for begetting Life It do's not cease to be food tho' the quickening power is all from the grace and spirit of God in it S Ambrose (i) De Benedict Patriarch c. 9. Hunc panem dedit Apostolis ut dividerent populo credentium hodiéque dat nobis eum quum ipse quotidè sacerdos consecrat suis verbis Hic panis factus est esca Sanctorum speaking of the Benediction of Assur Her Bread is fat c. says Christ gave this Bread to the Apostles to divide it among believing people and now he gives it to us whenas the Priest daily Consecrates with his words This Bread is made to be the food of Saints S. Austin (k) L. 3. de Trin. c. 4. Corpus Christi sanguinem dicimus illud tantum quòd ex frugibus terrae acceptum prece mysticâ consecratum rite sumimus ad salutem spiritualem in memoriam pro nobis Dominicae Passionis quod cùm per manus hominum ad illam visibilem speciem perducitur non sanctificatur ut sit tam magnum Sacramentum nisi operante invisibiliter Spiritu Dei. We only call that the Body and Blood of Christ which being taken from the fruits of the Earth and Consecrated by mystical Prayer we rightly receive to our spiritual health in memory of our Lords Passion Which when it is by the hands of men brought to that visible substance is not sanctified to become so great a Sacrament unless the spirit of God invisibly operate Again (l) Idem Ibid. c. 10. Panis ad hoc factus in accipiendo Sacramento consumitur Bread made for this purpose is consumed in receiving the Sacrament But it is neither received nor consumed till it be Consecrated nor then but when eaten And again elsewhere (m) Serm. 9. de divers cap. 7. Eucharistia panis noster quotidianus est sed sic accipiamus illum ut non solum ventre sed mente reficiamur The Eucharist is our daily Bread but let us so receive it that we may not only have refreshment for our bellies but for our minds Upon this account it is that looking upon the Sacrament as a refreshing food to our Bodies as S. Austin here speaks the Ancients believed that by partaking of the Eucharist they Broke their Fasts this appears beyond all question in what Tertullian (n) Lib. de Orat. c. 14. ad finem Stationum diebus non putant plerique sacrificiorum orationibus interveniendum quod statio solvenda sit accepto corpore Dominico says who in resolving a doubt that troubled some minds what they should do when it happened that by a private vow they undertook a strict Fast which obliged them not to take any refreshment till Evening and this fell out upon a station day which was usually Wednesdays and Fridays when the Fast was ended at three a Clock by receiving the Communion Most think says he that on the station days they ought not to be present at the Prayers of the Sacrifices when the Eucharist was administred because the Fast was broken upon receiving the Lords Body Tertullian excepts not against this reason but grants it and finds out such an expedient as would be counted ridiculous in the Roman Church where this of the Sacraments breaking the Fast is not believed which is to be present and to take the Sacrament and reserve it to be eaten at night Accepto corpore Dominico reservato utrumque salvum est participatio Sacrificii executio officii By receiving the Lords Body says he and reserving it both is salved both the partaking of the Sacrifice i. e. of the Eucharist given at three a Clock and the execution of their duty he
means of fasting till Evening according to their Vow and eating the Sacrament then and not before But to proceed with our Testimonies Hesychius (o) In Levit. l. 2. c. 8. Propterea carnes cum panibus comedi praecipiens ut nos intelligeremus illud ab eo mysterium dici quod simul panis caro est sicut Corpus Christi panis vivi qui de Coelo descendit God therefore commanded Flesh to be eaten with Bread that we might understand that that mystery viz. the Eucharist was spoken of by him which is both Bread and Flesh as the Body of Christ the living Bread that descended from Heaven It can be only Bread and Flesh in our way for in that of Transubstantiation it is only Flesh and no Bread. S. Austin (p) Lib. cont Donatist c. 6. De ipso pane de ipsa Dominica manu Judas Partem Petrus accepit tamen quae Societas quae consonantia quae pars Petri cum Juda Of the very Bread Judas and Peter both took a part and yet what Society what agreement what part has Peter with Judas Again (q) Id Tract in Joan. 26. Patres manducaverunt spiritualem utique eandem escam nam corporalem alteram quia illi Manna nos aliud omnes eundem potum spiritualem biberunt aliud illi aliud nos sed specie visibili quidem tamen hoc idem significante virtute spirituali The Fathers did eat the same spiritual meat with us but the corporal was different they did eat Manna we another thing he means Bread and they all drank the same spiritual drink they one thing we another another as to the visible substance but in spiritual virtue signifying the same thing And again elsewhere (r) Id. Tract 45. in Joan. Videte ergo fide manente signa variata Ibi Petra Christus nobis Christus quod in Altari ponitur illi pro magno Sacramento ejusdem Christi biberunt aquam profluentem de Petra nos quid bibamus norunt fideles Si speciem visibilem intendas aliud est si intelligibilem significationem eundem potum spiritualem biberunt Behold while Faith remains the same the signs are varied There in the Wilderness the Rock was Christ to us that which is placed on the Altar viz. Bread is Christ And they drank the Water that flowed from the Rock for a great Sacrament of the same Christ what we drink the faithful know viz. Wine if you regard the visible substance it is another thing if the spiritual signification they drank the same spiritual drink Again in another place (s) Tract 26. in Joan. Nam nos hodie accepimus visibilem cibum sed aliud est Sacramentum aliud est virtus Sacramenti We have received to day the visible food but the Sacrament is one thing and the virtue of the Sacrament is another That which he calls here cibus visibilis the visible food a little after S. Austin calls it visible Sacramentum a visible Sacrament where he distinguishes this again from the Virtus Sacramenti the Virtue of the Sacrament so that the visible food and the visible Sacrament with him are the same I have already produced the Testimonies vid. chap. 8. Observ 5. where the Fathers make what is distributed in the Eucharist to be without Life or sense which can be true of nothing else but of the Bread and Wine So that unless we make them distribute what they had not consecrated the Bread and Wine must remain after Consecration The same is also evidently proved from another common assertion of the Fathers that Christ offered the same oblation with Melchisedek S. Cyprian (t) Lib. 2. Epist 3. Quis magis sacerdos Dei summi quam Dominus noster Jesus Christus qui Sacrificium Deo Patri obtulit obtulit hoc idem quod Mechisedec obtulerat id est panem vinum suum scilicet corpus sanguinem Who was more a Priest of the most High God than our Lord Jesus Christ who offered a Sacrifice to God the Father and offered this same that Melchisedeck had offered that is Bread and Wine to wit his Body and Blood Which indeed the Wine and Bread was by representation but if you understand this of proper Flesh and Blood offered in the Eucharist then it is not the same oblation with that of Melchisedeck Isidore Peleusiota (u) Lib. 1. Epist 431. ad Paliad 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Melchisedeck performed his sacred Office in Bread and Wine by which he foresignified the type of the divine mysteries Eusebius (x) Lib. 5. Dem. Evang. c. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Melchisedeck 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For as he Melchisedeck being a Priest of the Gentiles never seems to have made use of Bodily Sacrifices but blessed Abraham only in Bread and Wine After the same manner also first our Lord and Saviour himself then all the Priests that derive from him performing in all Nations their spiritual function according to the Ecclesiastical Sanctions by Bread and Wine do express the mysteries of his Body and saving Blood Melchisedeck having foreseen these things by a divine spirit and having used before these images of future things S. Jerome (y) Epist ad Evagrium Melchisedec pane vino simplici puroque sacrificio Christi dedicaverit Sacramentum Melchisedeck by Bread and Wine which is a simple and a pure Sacrifice did dedicate Christs Sacrament S. Austin (z) Epist 95. Melchisedec prolato Sacramento coenae Dominicae novit aeternum ejus sacerdotium figurare Melchisedeck bringing forth the Sacrament of the Lords Supper i. e. Bread and Wine knew how to figure Christs Eternal Priesthood Again (a) L. 17. de civit Dei c. 17. Ex eo quod jam nusquam est Sacerdotium Sacrificium secundum ordinem Aaron ubique offertur sub sacerdote Christo quod protulit Melchisedec quando benedixit Abraham upon those words Thou art a Priest for ever c. He adds Since now there is no where any Priesthood or Sacrifice according to the Order of Aaron and that is every where offered under Christ the Priest which Melchisedeck brought forth when he blessed Abraham In many other places S. Austin says the same Arnobius (b) In Psal 109. Christus per mysterium panis vini factus est sacerdos in aeternum Christ by the mystery of Bread and Wine is made a Priest for ever S. Chrysostom (c) Comment in Psal 110. vel 109. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Why did he say a Priest after the Order of Melchisedeck Even because of the mysteries because he also brought out Bread and Wine to Abraham Isidore of Sevil (d) In Genesin cap. 12. Non secundùm Aaron pecudum Victimas sed oblationem panis vini id est corporis sanguinis ejus Sacramentum in Sacrificium offeramus Let us not offer the
not Things The Flesh is Meat and the Blood Drink yet Christ remains whole under each Kind Uncut unbroken undivided he is received whole by him that takes him When a thousand take him one takes as much as they nor is he consumed in taking The Good and Bad both take him but their Lot is unequal in Life and Death He is Death to the Bad and Life to the Good behold an unlike end of a like taking When the Sacrament is broken Be not stagger'd but remember There is as much in a Particle As the whole covers Here is no division of the thing Only a breaking of the Sign Whereby neither the State nor Stature of the thing signified is diminished c. Another Hymn of the same Author which begins Pange lingua gloriosi In Breviar Rom. in sesto Corp. Christi In supremae nocte coenae Recumbens cum fratribus Observata lege plenè Cibis in legalibus Cibum turbae duodenae Se dat suis manibus Verbum caro panem verum Verbo carnem efficit Fitque sanguis Christi merum Et si sensus deficit Ad firmandum cor sincerum Sola fides sufficit Tantum ergo Sacramentum Veneremur cernui Et antiquum documentum Novo cedat ritui Praestet fides supplementum Sensuum defectui c. Thus translated in the Manual of Godly Prayers At his last Supper made by Night He with his Brethren takes his Seat And having kept the Ancient rite Using the Laws prescribed Meat His twelve Disciples doth invite From his own Hands himself to eat The Word made Flesh to words imparts Such strength that Bread his Flesh is made He Wine into his Blood converts And if our Sense here fail and fade To satisfy Religious Hearts Faith only can the Truth perswade Then to this Sacrament so high Low rev'rence let us now direct Old Rites must yield in dignity To this with such great Graces deckt And Faith will all those Wants supply Wherein the Senses feel defect c. In another Hymn of Th. Aquinas which begins Verbum supernum prodiens they pray thus to the Sacrament In Breviar Rom. in Festo Corp. Christi O salutaris Hostia Quae Coeli pandis ostium Bella premunt hostilia Da robur fer auxilium O saving Host that openest Heaven's Door Th' Arms of our Foes do us enclose Thy strength we need O help with speed We humbly thee implore There was published at Paris with the approbration of three Doctors of the Faculty there An. 1669. a little Book in French called Practique pour Adorer le tres Saint Sacrament de l' Autel Or A Form for the Adoration of the most Holy Sacrament of the Altar Which begins thus Praised and adored be the most Holy Sacrament of the Altar And then adds Whosoever shall say these Holy Words Praised be the most Holy Sacrament of the Altar shall gain an hundred days of Indulgences and he that do's reverence hearing them repeated as much He that being confessed and communicated shall say the above-said words shall gain a Plenary Indulgence and the first five times that he shall say them after his having been Confessed and Communicated he shall deliver five of his Friends-souls whom he pleases out of Purgatory Then follows the Form for honouring the Holy Sacrament consisting of two Prayers as follows which I shall set down in Latin and English because I find them in the Hours of Sarum Fol. 66. and in the S. Litaniae variae p. 44. printed at Colen 1643. The first of them has this Rubrick before it in the Hours of Salisbury Our Holy Father the Pope John xxii hath granted to all them that devoutly say this Prayer after the Elevation of our Lord Jesu Christ three thousand days of Pardon for deadly Sins Anima Christi sanctifica me Corpus Christi salva me Sanguis Christi inebria me Aqua lateris Christi lava me Hor. Sar. Splendor vultus Christi illumina me Passio Christi conforta me H. Sar. Sudor vultus Christi virtuofissime sana me O bone Jesu exaudi me Intra vulnera tua absconde me Ne permittas me separari à te Ab hoste maligno defende me In hora mortis meae voca me Et jube me venire ad te Ut cum sanctis tuis laudem te In faecula soeculorum Amen Soul of Christ sanctify me Body of Christ save me Blood of Christ inebriate me Water of Christ's Side wash me Passion of Christ comfort me O good Jesus hear me Within thy Wounds hide me Suffer me not to be separated from thee From the malicious Enemy defend me In the Hour of my Death call me And command me to come to thee That with thy Saints I may praise thee For evermore Amen At the Elevation of the Mass Hor. sec us Sar. Ibid. Ave verum corpus natum De Maria Virgine Vere passum immolatum In cruce pro homme Cujus latus perforatum Unda fluxit sanguine Esto nobis praegustatum Mortis in examine O Clemens O pie O dulcis Fili Mariae Thus translated in the Manual of Godly Prayers All hail true Body born of the Blessed Virgin Mary Truly suffered and offered upon the Cross for Mankind Whose Side pierced with a Spear yielded Water and Blood. Vouchsafe to be received of us in the Hour of Death O good O Jesu Son of the Blessed Virgin have mercy on me After this the French Form adds what follows These two good Prayers were found in the Sepulchre of our Lord Jesus Christ in Jerusalem and whosoever carries them about him with Devotion and in Honour of our Lord Jesus Christ shall be delivered from the Devil and from suddain Death and shall not die of an ill Death He shall be preserved from Pestilence and all infectious Diseases No Sorcerer nor Sorcery shall be able to hurt him or her that has these two good Prayers about them The Fire from Heaven shall not fall upon the House where these Prayers are rehearsed with devotion A Woman with Child saying them devoutly shall be brought to Bed without any danger of her own or her Child's Death Lightnings and Thunders shall not fall upon the Houses where these Prayers are rehearsed with Devotion Such a one shall not die without Confession and God will give him Grace to repent of his Sins Now I will add a Specimen of Litanies of the Sacrament Litaniae de Sacramento S. Litaniae variae p. 30. Panis vivus qui de Coelo descendisti Misere nobis Deus absconditus Salvator Misere nobis Frumentum Electorum Misere nobis Vinum germinans Virgines Misere nobis Panis pinguis deliciae Regum Misere nobis Juge Sacrificium Misere nobis Oblatio munda Misere nobis Agnus absque macula Misere nobis Mensa purissima Misere nobis Angelorum Esca Misere nobis Manna absconditum Misere nobis Memoria mirabilium Dei Misere nobis Panis Supersubstantialis Misere nobis Verbum caro factum habitans in nobis
de sepulchro Idea issi quod sumitur de altari cui errori quantum potuimus ad Egilonem Abbalem scriâ—â—â—â—â— de corpore ipso quid verè credendum sit aperuimus Whether the Eucharist after it is consumed and sent into the Draught as other Meats are do's return again into its former Nature which it had before it was consecrated on the Altar This Question is supersluous when our Saviour himself has said in the Gospel Every thing that entreth into the Mouth goeth into the Belly and is cast out into the Draught The Sacrament of the Body and Blood is made up of things Visible and Corporeal but effects the Invisible Sanctification both of Body and Soul. And what reason is there that what is digested in the Stomach and sent into the Draught shou'd return into its pristine State seeing none has ever asserted that this was done Some indeed of late not thinking rightly of the Sacrament of our Lord's Body and Blood have said which are the very words of Paschasius whom he opposes that the very Body and Blood of our Lord which was born of the Virgin Mary and in which our Lord suffered on the Cross and rose again out of the Grave is the same that is taken from the Altar which Error we having opposed as we were able writing to the Abbot Egilo and declared what ought truly to be believed concerning the Body it self That which he calls here an Error is an Article now of the Romish Faith which some Zealous Monk meeting withal and not enduring it should be condemned as an Error that the same Body which was born of the Virgin c. is the same that we receive at the Altar scraped out those words which I have inclosed between the Brackets and we may securely trust our Adversaries in this Matter who have skill enough to know what Assertions make for them and what against them CHAP. XVII The CONCLUSION That the Doctrine of Transubstantiation has given a new occasion to the Enemies of Christian Religion to blaspheme It is so great a stumbling-block to the Jews that their Conversion is hopeless whilst this is believed by them to be the Common Faith of Christians That tho' the Church of Rome will not hearken to us yet they may be provoked to emulation by the Jews themselves who have given a better account of Christ's Words of Institution and more agreeable to the Fathers than this Church has and raised unanswerable Objections against its Doctrine HAving considered in the foregoing Chapters the Sense of the Ancient Church about Matters relating to the Eucharist and Transubstantiation from their own Writings and found that their Assertions are inconsistent with the Belief of the present Roman Church and that their Practices are not to be reconciled thereunto Having also made an Enquiry into the Ancient forms of Devotion relating to the Eucharist remaining still in this Church and found them to speak a Language which has a Sence agreeing indeed with that of the Ancients but no Sence at all when the Doctrine of Transubstantiation is supposed and those Prayers to be interpreted by it c. I shall now for a Conclusion take a view also of the principal Enemies of the Christian Faith which will afford a convincing Evidence that the Roman Doctrine is Novel and a stranger to the Ancient Christians It is sufficiently known that the Adversaries of Christianity took all the occasions possible and whatsoever gave them any colour to reproach the Faith and Worship of Christians and to make their Names odious Nothing that looked strange and absurd in either escaped being taken notice of by such as Celsus and Porphyry Lucian and Julian among the Heathens and such as Trypho among the Jews They curiously examined and surveyed what they taught and practised and whatsoever they thought to be foolish and incredible they with all their wit and cunning endeavoured to expose it So they did with the Doctrines of the Trinity the Eternal Generation of the Son of God his Incarnation his Crucifixion especially and our Resurrection Neither were they less praying into the Christian Mysteries and Worship which they could not be ignorant of there being so many Deserters and Apostates in those Times of Persecution who were well acquainted with them and by threatnings and fear of torment if there were any thing secret were likely to betray them Not to insist upon this that the great Traducer of Christians I mean Julian was himself once initiated in their Mysteries and so could not be Ignorant of what any of them were and has in particular laught at their Baptism that Christians should fansy a purgation thereby from Great Crimes Yet after all this they took no occasion from the Eucharist to traduce them tho if Christians then had given that adoration to it that is now paid in the Roman Church and if they had declared either for a Corporal Presence or an oral Manducation of him that was their God they had the fruitfullest Subject in the World given them both to turn off all the Objections of the Christians against themselves for worshipping senseless and inanimate things and also to lay the most plausible Charge of folly and madness against them which their great Orator * Cicero l. 3. de Nat. Deorum Ecquem tam amentem esse putas qui illud quo vescatur Deum credat esse had pronounced before Christianity was a Religion in the World. Can any Man be supposed so mad to believe that to be a God which he eats A Learned Romanist †Rigaltius notis ad Tertal lib. 2. c. 5. ad Vxorem Se id facere in Eucharisticis suis testarentur affirms of the Ancient Christians That they did testify their eating the Flesh and drinking the Blood of their Lord God in their Discourses of the Eucharist Which is true indeed taking this eating and drinking in the Sacramental Sence we do and so their Adversaries must needs understand their meaning Otherwise without a Miracle to hinder it what be acknowledges in the same place could never be true (a) Ibid. Observandum vero inter tot probra convitia accusantium Christianos impietatis eò quod neque aras haberent neque sacrificarent interque tot fratrum perfidorum transfugia non extitisse qui Christianos criminarentur quod Dei ac Domini sui carnes ederent sanguinem potarent That among so many Reproaches of those that accused Christians of Impiety for not having Altars nor Sacrifices and among so many false Brethren that were Turn-coats yet there were none that made this an Accusation against them that they ate the Flesh of their God and Lord and drank his Blood. We have this ingenuous confession of Bellarmine himself (*) De Eucharist l. 2. c. 12. Verè stulti haberi possemus si absque Verbo Dei crederemus veram Christi carnem ore corporali manducari That we might be accounted truly Fools if without the
Fidei contra Judaeos c. printed An. 1494. but written as the Author himself tells us fol. 61. in the Year 1458. where he gives us the Arguments of a Jew against Transubstantiation some of which I shall out of him faithfully translate The Jew (g) Vid. l. 3. consid 6. fol. 130 impossibl 10. begins with Christ's words of Institution and shows that they cannot be interpreted otherwise than figuratively and significatively as the Fathers we have heard have asserted 1. Vos Christiani dicitis c. Ye Christians say in that Sacrament of the Eucharist there is really the Body and Blood of Christ This is impossible Because when your Christ showing the Bread said This is my Body he spake significatively and not really as if he had said this is the Sign or Figure of my Body After which way of speaking Paul said 1 Cor. 10. The Rock was Christ that is a Figure of Christ And it appears evidently that this was the Intention of your Christ because when he had discoursed about the eating his Body and drinking his Blood to lay the offence that rose upon it among the Disciples he says as it were expounding himself The words that I have spoken to you are Spirit and Life denoting that what he had said was to be understood not according to the Letter but according to the Spiritual Sence And when Christ said This is my Body holding Bread in his Hands he meant that that Bread was his Body in potentia propinqua in a near possibility viz. after he had eaten it for then it would be turned into his Body or into his Flesh and so likewise the Wine And after this manner we Jews do on the day of Unleavened Bread for we take unleavened Bread in memory of that time when our Fathers were brought out of the Land of Egyyt and were not permitted to stay so long there as whilst the Bread might be leavened that was the Bread of the Passover and we say This is the Bread which our Fathers ate though that be not present since it is past and gone and so this unleavened Bread minds us of the Bread of Egypt and this Bread is not that so is that Bread of which the Sacrifice of the Altar is made It is sufficient for Christians to say that it is in memory of that Bread of Christ though this Bread be not that And because it was impossible that one Bit of his Flesh should be preserved in memory of him he commanded that that Bread should be made and that Wine which was his Flesh and Blood in the next remove to come into act as we Jews do and Christ borrowed his Phrases and the Elements from their Supper at the Passover with the unleavened Bread as we said before When therefore your Christ at the Table took Bread and the Cup and gave them to his Disciples he did not bid them believe that the Bread and Wine were turned into his Body and Blood but that as often as they did that they should do it in remembrance of him viz. in memory of that past Bread and if you Christians did understand it so no impossibility would follow but to say the contrary as you assert is to say an impossible thing and against the intention of your Christ as we have show'd This is what the Jew urges with great reason But the Catholick Author makes a poor Answer to it and has nothing to say in effect but this That the Tradition of the Catholick Church concerning this Sacrament is true viz. That in this Sacrament there is really and not by way of Signification the True Body and True Blood of Christ 2. Whereas the Roman Church-flies to Miracles in this case of Transubstantiation the Jew encounters that next of all thus You Christians say that the Body and Blood of Christ is in the Sacrament of the Altar by a Miracle Ibid. 11. Impossib p. 131. this I prove to be impossible Because if there were any Miracle in the case it would appear to the Eye as when Moses turned the Rod into a Serpent that was performed evidently to the Eye though Men knew not how it was done So also in the case of the Ark of the Covenant of Old mighty Miracles were wrought and those not only sensible Miracles but also publick and apparent to all the People insomuch that Infidels were terrifyed at the very report of such Miracles Men seeing before their Eyes the Divine Power brightly shining in Reverence of the Ark of his Covenant as appears in his Dividing the Waters of Jordan while the People of Israel passed over dry-shod the Waters on one side swelling like a Mountain and on the other flowing down as far as the dead Sea till the Priests with the Ark went over the Chanel of Jordan and then Jordan returned to its wonted course But the Kings of the Amorites and Canaanites hearing of so great and publick a Miracle were so confounded with the terror of God that no Spirit remained in them Josu c. 4. 5. and so I might instance in many other Evident Miracles which to avoid tediousness I omit And yet in that Ark neither God nor Christ was really contained but only the Tables of Stone containing the Precepts of the Decalogue and the Pot of Manna c. Exod. 16. and the Rod of Aaron that flourished in the House of Levi Numb 17. If therefore by the Ark that carried only the foresaid Bodies that were inanimate how sacred soever they were God wrought in Honour of it such evident far-spreading and publick Miracles how much more powerfully should they have been wrought by him if it were true that in your Sacrament of the Altar the true God or Christ were really contained whom you affirm that he ought to be worshipped and venerated infinitely above all Since therefore no such thing do's appear there to the Eye it follows that it is impossible for any Miracle to be done there since this is against the Nature of a Miracle The answer to this is so weak and so the rest are generally such an unintelligible School-jargon that I shall not tire the Reader with them But shall go on with the Jew Ibid. 12. Impossib fol. 132. 3. You Christians do assert that the true Body of Christ begins to be on the Altar This seems to be impossible For a thing begins to be where it was not before two ways Either by Local Motion or by the conversion of another thing into it as appears in Fire which begins to be any where either because it is kindled there anew or is brought thither de novo But it is manifest that the true Body of Christ was not always on the Altar because the Christians assert that Christ ascended in his Body to Heaven It seems also impossible to be said that any thing here is converted anew into Christ's Body because nothing seems convertible into that which existed before since that into which another