Imprimatur Liber cui titulus A Full View of the Doctrines and Practices of the Ancient Church relating to the Eucharist c. H. Maurice Reverendissimo in Christo P. D. Wilhelmo Archiepiscopo Cant. Ã Sacris Octob. 6. 1687. A FULL VIEW OF THE Doctrines and Practices OF THE Ancient Church Relating to the EUCHARIST Wholly different from those of The Present ROMAN CHURCH And inconsistent with the Belief of TRANSUBSTANTIATION BEING A sufficient Confutation of Consensus Veterum Nubes Testium and other Late Collections of the Fathers pretending the contrary Rectum est Index sui Obliqui LONDON Printed for Richard Chiswell at the Rose and Crown in St. Paul s Church-yard MDCLXXXVIII A PREFACE to the READER THAT which is here offered to thy Perusal was occasioned by some late Pamphlets * Succession of Church and Sacraments Consensus Veterum Nubes Testium that appeared much about the same time in Print pretending by a Heap of Testimonies from the Fathers to prove as in some other Doctrines so particularly in that of the Corporal Presence and Transubstantiation That the Ancient Church and the present Roman are at a good Agreement It is very hard for Us to believe this and scarce credible that they themselves did so when we see so much Unsincerity in their Allegations such Deceit and contrived disguising the Sense of the Fathers in their Translations such late uncertain and supposititious Writings cited by them under the Venerable Names of Ancient Authors When the way that Procrustes took of stretching Limbs or chopping them off to make all agree to his Bed who were to be laid in it is used to make the Ancient and the Present Church to agree a Consent thus procured can occasion but a short and a sorry Triumph Yet those Performances have been cry'd up and they are look'd upon as Storehouses and Repositories whence any Champion of theirs who enters the Lists may be furnish'd from the Fathers either with what is necessary for his own Defence or the assailing of an Adversary The Representer since that made great use of them in a brisk Attaque he made upon the Dublin Letter tho' the Success I believe did not answer his Expectation The Convert of Putney's Performance who in his Consensus Veterum made the largest Shew of Fathers on behalf of Transubstantiation has had a particular Consideration given it by his worthy Answerer * Veteres Vindicati And so all the other Testimonies in the rest of them that are of any seeming strength and moment have received Answers to them from other Hands particularly from the Learned Author of The Doctrine of the Trinity and Transubstantiation compared Part 1. If any thing after all seems to be wanting on our Part it is this That as our Adversaries have made a Shew of Fathers for I can give it no better name pretended to countenance their Doctrines of the Corporal Presence and Transubstantiation so we also ought to have our Collection of Testimonies from the Ancients made faithfully and impartially wherein their true Sense in these Matters may be clearly seen and viewed and thereby their Dissent from this Church appear plainly in those things that either constitute this Doctrine or are necessary Consequents of it And this is that which I have undertaken in the following Papers wherein as the Usefulness of the Design has encourag'd me to take some Pains so I shall think them well bestowed if the Reader will bring an honest and unprejudic'd Mind to the Perusal of them and suffer himself to be determin'd in his Opinions concerning this Controversie according to the Evidence of Truth here offered for his Conviction If the Differences which the annexed Contents of the Chapters give an Account of are of such a Nature and stand at such a wide Distance that it 's impossible ever to bring Transubstantiation to shake Hands with them as Friends and if the two Churches the Ancient and the Present Roman are really divided and disagreeing as I pretend to have demonstrated in those Points it will then I hope hereafter be ridiculous to talk confidently of a Consent of Fathers and of a Cloud of Witnesses on their Side But if I am herein mistaken I am so little tender of my Reputation compared with Truth that I heartily desire to be confuted and made a Convert for I am conscious to my self of no false Fathers I have cited for true ones of no disguising or perverting their Sense by an Ill Translation of their Words which I have therefore set down in their own Language of no imposing upon the Reader a Sense of my own making contrary to what I believe that they intended I have but one Request more to make to the unknown Author of a Book intituled Reason and Authority c. who mentioning the Defence of the Dublin Letter * Pag. 119. for which I have some reason to be concern'd says That the Authorities of the Fathers there urged are as he conceives in the Sense of them either mistaken or misapplied and that he shall endeavour to reconcile them to other Expressions of the Fathers and to that which he calls the Catholick Doctrine of Transubstantiation I humbly desire when he is about this Reconciling Work and his Hand is in that he would go on to reconcile also the Differences urged in the following Papers Which if he shall do to any purpose I promise to return the Complements he has pass'd upon that Defender with Interest and to alter my present Opinion of him upon his Performances in that Book Farewell THE CONTENTS OF THE CHAPTERS BEING A Summary of the DIFFERENCES betwixt the FAITH and PRACTICES of the Two Churches CHAP. I. The First Difference The Roman Church asserts perpetual Miracles in the Eucharist The Ancient Church owns none but those of God's Grace working Changes in us not in the Substance of the Elements Page 1 CHAP. II. The Second Difference They differ in determining what that Thing is which Christ calls My Body which the Ancient Church says is Bread but the Roman Church denies it 7 CHAP. III. The Third Difference The Roman Church believes That Accidents subsist in the Eucharist without any Subject This the Fathers deny 12 CHAP. IV The Fourth Difference The Roman Church uses the Word Species to signifie those self-subsisting Accidents the Fathers never take Species in this Sense 16 CHAP. V. The Fifth Difference The Fathers differ from this Church about the Properties of Bodies as 1. They assert That every organiz'd Body even that of Christ is visible and palpable 21 2. That every Body possesses a Place and is commensurate to it and cannot be in more Places than one nor be entire in one Part nor exist after the manner of a Spirit All which Transubstantiation denies Page 22 3. That it is impossible for one to dwell in himself or partake of ones self this inferring Penetration of Dimensions and that a greater Body may be contained in a
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
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
Word of God we believed the true Flesh of Christ to be eaten with the Mouth of our Bodies But whether with or without the Word of God they believed such a corporal eating of Christ's Flesh had been all one to the Heathens if they knew that this was their Belief and it would rather have strengthned their Reproach if they knew that they were bound thus to believe But then what he adds is very remarkable Nam id semper infideles stultissimum paradoxum aestimârunt ut notum est de Averroe aliis That Infidels always counted this a most foolish Paradox as appears from Averroes and others I believe indeed that they must always count this a foolish Paradox which Averroes charged Christians withal in that known Saying of his (b) Se Sectam Christianâ deteriorem aut ineptiorem nullam reperire quam qui sequuntur ii quem colunt Deum dentibus ipsi suis discerpunt ac devorant That he found no Sect worse or more foolish than the Christians who tear with their Teeth and devour that God whom they worship But why was not this cast always in the Teeth of Christians if this was always their professed Doctrine Was Celsus or Julian or Lucian less sagacious or less malicious than Averroes that not a word of this foolish Paradox was ever so much as hinted by them to the reproach of Christians then But the Cardinal has instanced the most unluckily in the World in naming only Averroes for this Calumny when all acknowledg that this Philosopher P. Innocent 3. who establish'd Transubstantiation lived in the same Age and some very learned Men prove from the Arabian Accounts that those two were Contemporaries And as for his aliis others I should be glad to see any named that urged what Averroes did to the Christians reproach before the days of Berengarius After that indeed we can meet with a Follower of Mahomet who as a Learned Man (c) Hottinger in Eucharistia de â—ensa Sect. 14. p. 220. Ahmad bin Edris ita scribit verba autem Isa sic Arabes Christum vocant super quo pax Qui edit carnem meam bibit sanguinem c. Christiani literaliter intelligunt Atque sic Christiani atrociores sunt in Christum quà m Judaei Illi enim Christum occisum reliquerunt hi carnem ejus edunt sanguimem bibunt quod ipso teste experientia truculentius est gives us his words says thus Those words of Christ He that eateth my Flesh and drinketh my Blood he is in me and I in him c. Christians understand them literally and so Christians are more cruel against Christ than Jews for they left Christ when they had slain him but these eat his Flesh and drink his Blood which as experience testifies is more savage After the Roman Church's declaring for Transubstantiation though not before we meet with the Oppositions of Jews testifying their abhorrency (d) Ibid. Joseph Albo de Ikkarim lib. 3. cap. 25. Nam panis est corpus Dei ipsorum Aiunt enim corpus Jesu quod est in Coelis venire in Altare vestiri pane vino post pronunciata verba Hoc enim est Corpus meum à sacrificulo qualiscunque ille demum fuerit sive pius sive impius omnia fieri Corpus unum cum corpore Messia c. Repugnant hic omnia Intelligibilibus primis ipsis etiam sensibus of a Doctrine which talks of a Sacrifice and makes Bread to be the Body of their God which he means in the sence of Transubstantiation by being turned into it and cloathed with its Accidents whose Body that is in Heaven comes upon the Altar and upon the pronouncing these words For this is my Body by the Priest whether good or wicked is all one all things are made one Body with the Body of the Messias c. Which things are all repugnant to the first Principles of Reason and to our very Senses themselves As he afterwards shows in several Instances And now we are told that it is a common bye-Bye-word to reproach a Christian by among the Turks to call him Mange Dicu All these took their rise plainly from Transubstantiation and not from the Faith of the Ancient Church For if one of it (e) Theodoret. Interrog 55. in Genes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may speak for the rest the Old Christians agreed in the Abhorrence and called it the extreamest stupidity to worship that which is eaten And again Id. qu. 11. in Levit. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 How can any one of a sound Mind call that a God which being offered to the True God is after wards eaten by him But now after all the saddest Consideration is that the Prejudices are so great against this and another Twin-Doctrine of the Roman Church about the worship of Images that a perpetual Stumbling-block seems to be laid before the Jews and it may be look'd upon as the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that which will always hinder and obstruct their Conversion whilst it is believed by them to be the common Sence and Faith of Christians and they have too great a Temptation to believe so when they have seen this Church which has got the most worldly Power into its hands persecuting not only Jews but Hereticks as they call all other Christians that deny this Doctrine to the Death for gainsaying it and when that Work will cease God only knows The Jews can never be supposed to get over this hard Chapter whilst they who call themselves the only Catholick Christians hold such things about the Body of Christ and remember that it is about a Body which as the forenamed Jos Albo (f) Ibid. Ista talia sunt quae mens non potest concipere neque os eloqui neque auris audire speaks No Man's Mind can conceive nor Tongue utter nor any Ear can hear He means by reason of their absurdity So that the Case of the Jews and their Conversion seems to be hopeless and desperate according to all humane guesses till there be a change wrought not in the substance of the Bread and Wine this Church dreams of but in the Romanist's Belief And though this also may seem upon many accounts to be as hopeless as the former yet for a Conclusion I will try whether as once the Great Apostle thought it a wise method Rom. 11.14 by the Example of the Gentiles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to provoke the Jews to Emulation so it may not be as proper to propose the Example of the Jews themselves to the Romanists to provoke their Emulation whom they may see better explaining as blind as they are Christ's words of Institution and agreeing better with the Ancient Church in the matter of the Eucharist than themselves and raising such Arguments and Objections against the Transubstantiating Doctrine as can never to any purpose be answered The Instances of this are very remarkable in a Book called Eortalitium
thing is turned by such a change begins to exist Now it is manifest that Christ's Body did praeexist seeing it was conceived in the Womb of Mary It seems therefore impossible that it should begin to be on the Altar anew by the Conversion of another thing into it In like-manner neither by a change of Place because every thing that is locally moved do's so begin to be in one place that it ceases to be in that other in which it was before We must therefore say that when Christ begins to be on this Altar on which the Sacrament is perform'd he ceases to be in Heaven whither he ascended It is also plain that this Sacrament is in like manner celebrated on divers Altars Therefore it is impossible that the Body of Christ should begin to be there by a Local Motion 4. You Christians affirm Ibid. 13. Imposs fol. 134 that your Christ is whole in the Sacrament under the Species of Bread and Wine This I prove thus to be impossible Because never are the Parts of any Body contained in divers Places the Body it self remaining whole But now it is manifest that in this Sacrament the Bread and Wine are asunder in separate Places If therefore the Flesh of Christ be under the Species of Bread and his Blood under the Species of Wine it seems to follow that Christ do's not remain whole but that always when this Sacrament is celebrated his Blood is separated from his Body Ibid. 14. Imposs fol. eod 5. You Christians say that in that little Host the Body of Christ is contained This I prove to be impossible Because it is impossible that a greater Body should be included in the place of a lesser Body But it is manifest that the True Body of Christ is of a greater Quantity than the Bread that is offered on the Altar Therefore it seems impossible that the true Body of Christ should be whole and entire there where the Bread seems to be But if the whole be not there but only some part of it then the foresaid Inconvenience returns that always when this Sacrament is perform'd the Body of Christ is Differenced or separated by Parts I will only here set down what the Catholick Author replies to this after the unintelligible distinctions of the Schools and seems most to trust to even such wise Similitudes as these that the Soul is greater than the Body and yet is contained within it that a great Mountain is contained in the little Apple of the Eye and the greatest Bodies in a little Looking-glass and great Virtues in little precious Stones and in the Little Body of the Pope great Authority c. Ibid. 15. Imposs fol. 135. 6. The Jew says you Christians affirm that your Christ is in like manner on more Altars where Masses are celebrated This seems to be impossible because it is impossible for one Body to exist in more places than one But it is plain that this Sacrament is celebrated in more Places Therefore it seems impossible that the Body of Christ should be truly contained in this Sacrament Unless perhaps any should say that according to one part of it it is here and according to another Part elsewhere But from thence it would again follow that by the Celebration of this Sacrament the Body of Christ is divided into Parts when yet the Quantity of the Body of Christ seems not to suffice for the dividing so many Particles out of it as there are Places in which this Sacrament is performed 7. You Christians say that after Consecration Ibid. 16. Imposs fol. 136. all the Accidents of Bread and Wine are manifestly perceived in this Sacrament viz. the Colour Tast Smell Figure Quantity and Weight About which you cannot be deceived because Sense is not deceived about its proper Objects Now these Accidents as you assert cannot be in the Body of Christ as in their Subject Nor can they subsist by themselves seeing the Nature and Essence of an Accident is to be in another thing 7. Metaphys For Accidents seeing they are Forms cannot be individuated but by their Subject and if the Subject were taken away would be universal Forms It remains therefore that these Accidents are in their determinate Subjects viz. In the substance of Bread and Wine Wherefore there is there the substance of Bread and Wine and not the substance of Christ's Body for it seems impossible that two Bodies should be together in one place 8. The Jews say Ibid. 17. Imposs fol. 137. It is certain that if that Wine in your Sacrament were taken in great Quantity that it would heat the Body and intoxicate as before it was a Sacrament and also that the Bread would strengthen and nourish It seems also that if it be kept long and carelesly it will corrupt and it may be eaten of Mice the Bread and Wine also may be burnt and turned into Vapours all which cannot agree to the Body of Christ seeing your Faith declares it to be impassible It seems therefore impossible that the Body of Christ should be contained substantially in this Sacrament 9. The Jew says Ibid. 18. Imposs fol. 137. That you Christians break that Sacrament into Parts Therefore it is impossible that the Body of Christ should be there The Consequence is thus proved Because that Fraction which do's sensibly appear cannot be without a Subject For it seems to be absurd to say That the Subject of this Fraction is Christ's Body Therefore it is impossible Christ's Body should be there but only the Substance of Bread and Wine There is a great deal more of what the Jews say against this Doctrine in that Author but this is enough for the purposes I before mentioned and so I leave it to the Consciences of those concerned to show that even the Jews have better explained the words whereby Christ instituted this Sacrament than the Romanists have by making it a Figure of Christ's Body and not the Body it self spoken more agreeably to the Faith of the Ancient Church that did so and have confuted the Errors of this Church by Maximes consonant to the Sense and Reason of all Man-kind Which God grant they may be sensible of who have so manifestly swerved from them all that so their Words may never rise up in Judgment against them THE END Books lately printed for Richard Chiswell A Dissertation concerning the Government of the Ancient Church more particularly of the Encroachments of the Bishops of Rome upon other Sets By WILLIAM CAVE D. D. Octavo An Answer to Mr. Serjeant's Sure Footing in Christianity concerning the Rule of Faith With some other Discourses By WILLIAM FALKNER D.D. 40. A Vindication of the Ordinations of the Church of England in Answer to a Paper written by one of the Church of Rome to prove the Nullity of our Orders By GILBERT BVRNET D. D. Octavo An Abridgment of the History of the Reformation of the Church of England By GILB BVRNET D. D. Octavo The APOLOGY of the Church of England and an Epistle to one Signior Scipio a Venetian Gentleman concerning the Council of Trent Written both in Latin by the Right Reverend Father in God JOHN JEWEL Lord Bishop of Salisbury Made English by a Person of Quality To which is added The Life of the said Bishop Collected and written by the same Hand Octavo The Life of WILLIAM BEDEL D. D. Bishop of Kilmore in Ireland Together with Certain Letters which passed betwixt him and James Waddesworth a late Pensioner of the Holy Inquisition of Sevil in Matters of Religion concerning the General Motives to the Roman Obedience Octavo The Decree made at ROME the Second of March 1679. condemning some Opinions of the Jesuits and other Casuists Quarto A Discourse concerning the Necessity of Reformation with respect to the Errors and Corruptions of the Church of Rome Quarto First and Second Parts A Discourse concerning the Celebration of Divine Service in an Unknown Tongue Quarto A Papist not Misrepresented by Protestants Being a Reply to the Reflections upon the Answer to A Papist Misrepresented and Represented Quarto An Exposition of the Doctrine of the Church of England in the several Articles proposed by the late BISHOP of CONDOâ— in his Exposition of the Doctrine of the Catholick Church Quarto A Defence of the Exposition of the Doctrine of the Church of England against the Exceptions of Monsieur de Meaux late Bishop of Condoâ— and his Vindicator 40. A CATECHISM explaining the Doctrine and Practâ—â—â— of the Church of Rome With an Answer thereunto By a Protestant of the Church of England 80. A Papist Represented and not Misrepresented being an Answer to the First Second Fifth and Sixth Sheets of the Second Part of the Papist Mispresented and Represented and for a further Vindication of the CATECHISM truly representing the Doctrines and Practices of the Church of Rome Quarto The Lay-Christian's Obligation to read the Holy Scriptures Quarto The Plain Man's Reply to the Catholick Missionaries 140. An Answer to THREE PAPERS lately printed concerning the Authority of the Catholick Church in Matters of Faith an the Reformation of the Church of England Quarto A Vindication of the Answer to THREE PAPERS concerning the Unity and Authority of the Catholick Church and the Reformation of the Church of England Quarto
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
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
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
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
capit l. 9. Non quod propriè Corpus ejus sit panis poculum sanguis c. is most express We call says he the Sacrament of his Body and Blood which is in the Consecrated Bread and Cup his Body and Blood not that properly the Bread is his Body and the Cup his Blood c. So also is S. Chrysostome (y) In Gal. 5.17 Vol. 3. Savil p. 755. in another place where he shows that the word Flesh is not always taken for the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the nature and substance of the Body which is the only proper sense and he gives other instances which are improper 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as that flesh signifies a depraved will. And adds two other improper senses in these words By the name of Flesh 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Scripture is wont also to call the mysteries he adds also that it calls the Church so when it calls it the Body of Christ The very phrase of being wont to call shows that of which it is affirmed to be improperly so called as the phrase of being thought worthy of the name as we heard before argues the name not properly to agree to it 4. Observ The Fathers knowing that the Eucharist was not in a proper sense Christs Body give us several reasons why it is called his Body But no body uses to give a reason why he calls a thing by its proper name I shall not name all the reasons here but reserve some to another place when we consider the Sacrament as a Sign Figure Type Memorial c. 1. One reason they give is from its likeness and resemblance either in respect of what it consists of or from the likeness of its effects S. Austin's saying is remarkable (z) Epist 23. Si Sacramenta quandam similitudinem earum rerum non haberent quarum Sacramenta sunt omninò Sacramenta non essent Ex hac autem similitudine plerunque etiam iptarum rerum nomina accipiunt If the Sacraments had not a resemblance of those things of which they are Sacraments they would not be Sacraments at all But from this resemblance they take commonly the name even of the things themselves which they resemble Bede also gives (a) In Cap. 6. Epist ad Roman Lib. 4. cap. 4. Fortè dicis speciem sanguinis non video Sed habet similitudinem Sicut enim mortis similitudinem sumpsisti ita etiam similitudinem preciosi sanguinis bibis c. the same reason in his Commentary on the Romans The Author of the Book of Sacraments under S. Ambrose his name speaks thus Thou mayst say perhaps I do not see the substance of Blood. Well but it has its likeness For as thou hast received the likeness of his death so thou drinkest the likeness of his pretious Blood. S. Cyprian (b) Epist 76. ad Magnum Quando Dominus Corpus suum panem vocat de multorum granorum adunatione congestum populum nostrum quem portabat indicat adunatum quando sanguinem suum vinum appellat de botris atque acinis plurimis expressum atque in unum coactum gregem item nostrum signisicat commixtione adunatae multitudinis copulatam When Christ called Bread made up of many united grains of Corn his Body he shewed the unity of Christian people whom he bore and when he call'd Wine pressed out of many Grapes and put together his Blood he signified also the uniting of a multitude of the Christian flock together So Rabanus Maurus (c) De Instit Cleric c. 31. Propterea Dominus noster Corpus sanguinem suum in eis rebus commendavit quae ad unum aliquid rediguntur ex multis sive granis sive acinis Sanctorum Charitatis unitatem significaret Therefore our Lord commended his Body and Blood in those things which consisting of many Grains or Grapes are brought together into one whereby he might signify the unity of the Charity of Saints Others again from the likeness of its effects Thus Isidore of Sevil (d) De Offic. Eccles l. 1. cap. 18. Panis quia confirmat Corpus ideo Corpus Christi nuncupatur vinum autem quia sanguinem operatur in carne ideo ad sanguinem Christi refertur Bread because it strengthens the Body is therefore called the Body of Christ and Wine because it produces Blood in the Flesh is therefore referred to the Blood of Christ The same reason is also given by Rabanus Maurus in his Commentary upon the 26 Chap. of S. Matthew 2 Reason Another reason why they call the Eucharist Christs Body is because it supplies the place is instead of it is its representative its pledge and pawn Tertullian (e) Lib. 6. de Orat. Corpus ejus in pane censetur Hoc est corpus meum His Body is reputed to be in the Bread This is my Body S. Austin (f) Tract 45. in Joan. Videte fide manente signa variata Ibi Petra Christus nobis Christus quod in altari Dei ponitur See how the signs are varied Faith remaining the same There in the Wilderness the rock was Christ to us that which is placed on Gods Altar is Christ Again elsewhere more fully (g) De Civit. Dei l. 18. c. 48. Quodammodo omnia significantia videntur rerum quas significant sustinere personas sicut dictum est ab Apostolo Petra erat Christus quoniam Petra illa de qua hoc dictum est significabat utique Christum All things intended to signify seem in a sort to sustain the persons of those things which they signify as the Apostle says The Rock was Christ because that Rock of which this is spoken did signify Christ Cyril of Jerusalem (h) Catech. Mystag 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. says Wherefore with all assurance let us receive it viz. The Bread and Wine as the Body and Blood of Christ for in the type of Bread his Body is given thee and in the type of Wine his Blood. Proclus of Constantinople (i) Orat. 18. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Instead of the Manger let us venerate the Altar instead of the Infant let us embrace the Bread that is blessed by the Infant viz. Christ Victor Antiochen (k) In Marc. 14. Citante Bulingero adv Casaub 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 When the Lord said this is my Body this is my Blood it was fit that they who set forth the Bread should after giving of thanks reckon it to be his Body and partake of it and account the Cup to be instead of his Blood. The Author of the Commentaries attributed to S. Jerome (l) In 1 Cor. 11. Ultimam nobis commemorationem sive memoriam dereliquit quemadmodum si quis peregrè proficiscens aliquod pignus ei quem diligit derelinquat ut quotiescunque illud viderit possit ejus beneficia amicitias memorare Christ left to us his last remembrance
it for perhaps some here present may not be initiated Era. Answer then Aenigmatically Orth. I call it the food that is made of a certain grain Era. How call you the other Symbol Orth. By a common name that signifies a kind of drink Era. But how do you call it after Consecration Orth. The Body of Christ and the Blood of Christ Era. And do you believe you partake the Body and Blood of Christ Orth. Yes I believe it Era. As then the Symbols of Christs Body and Blood are one thing before the Priests Invocation but after the Invocation are changed and become another thing so the Lords Body after his Assumption 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is changed into a Divine Essence Orth. You are caught in a Net of your own weaving For after sanctification the mystical Symbols do not depart from their own nature for they remain still in their former substance and figure and form and may be seen and touched just as before But they are understood to be that which they are made and are believed and venerated as being those things they are believed to be How shamefully Mr. Sclater has attempted to pervert these last words of Theodoret he has been told sufficiently by his Answerer The next Testimony is of Gelasius (t) De duabus naturis in Christo Certè Sacramenta quae sumimus corporis sanguinis Christi divina res est propter quod per eadem divinae efficimur consortes naturae tamen esse non desinit substantia vel natura panis vini certè Imago similitudo corporis sanguinis Christi in actione mysteriorum celebrantur Satis ergo nobis evidenter ostenditur hoc nobis in ipso Christo Domino sentiendum quod in ejus imagine profitemur celebramus sumimus ut sicut in hanc sc in Divinam transeunt Spiritu S. perficiente substantiam permanente tamen in suae proprietate naturae sic illud ipsum mysterium principale cujus nobis efficientiam Virtutemque veraciter repraesentant ex quibus constat propriè permanentibus unum Christum quia integrum verumque permanere Bishop of Rome The Sacraments of the Body and Blood of Christ which we take are surely a divine thing for which reason we become by them partakers of the Divine nature and yet the substance or nature of Bread and Wine do's not cease to be and indeed the Image and likeness of the Body and Blood of Christ are celebrated in the action of the mysteries therefore it appears plainly enough to us that we ought to think that of our Lord which we profess and celebrate and receive in his image that as they viz. the Elements pass into that Divine substance the H. Spirit effecting it their nature still remaining in its own property so that principal mystery whose efficiency and virtue these the Elements truly represent to us remains one entire and true Christ those things of which he is compounded viz. the two natures remaining in their properties Ephrem Antiochenus (u) Apud Pâ—otii Biblioth eod 229. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 treating of the two Natures which he calls palpable and impalpable visible and invisible united in Christ adds Thus the Body of Christ which is received by the faithful do's not depart from its sensible substance and yet remains unseparated from the intellectual grace So Baptism becoming wholly spiritual and one it preserves its own sensible substance I mean Water and do's not lose what it is made to be Our Adversaries to testify the respect they have for the Fathers when they do not speak as they would have them they try to make them speak so as no Body shall understand their true sense And as the Putney Convert did by Theodoret so the Jesuit Andr. Schottus not for want of skill but honesty has dealt with this of Ephrem making it by his translation obscure or rather unintelligible nonsense For the first words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he translates sensibilis essentiae non cognoscitur it is not known of a sensible nature and the other expression about Baptism 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he turns it thus Hocque substantiae sensibilis proprium est per aquam inquam servat And this is the property of sensible substance it keeps I say by Water A good Man cannot take more pains to find out Truth than this Man do's that it may be lost The next Testimony is of Facundus (x) Lib. 9. defens 3. capit cap. 5. Sacramentum adoptionis suscipere dignatus est Christus quando circumcisus est quando baptizatus est potest Sacramentum adoptionis adoptio nuncupari sicut Sacramentum corporis sanguinis ejus quod est in pane poculo consecrato corpus ejus sanguinem dicimus non quod propriè corpus ejus sit panis poculum sanguis sed quod in se mysterium corporis sanguinisque contineant Hinc ipse Dominus benedictum panem calicem quem discipulis tradidit corpus sanguinem suum vocavit the African Bishop Christ vouchsafed to receive the Sacrament of Adoption both when he was Circumcised and when he was Baptized and the Sacrament of Adoption may be called Adoption just as we call the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ which is in the Consecrated Bread and Cup his Body and Blood. Not that properly Bread is his Body and the Cup his Blood but because they contain in them the mystery of his Body and Blood. Hence it is that our Lord himself called the Bread and Cup he blessed and gave to his Disciples his Body and Blood. Nothing can be more positive than these five Testimonies that the Bread and Wine remain in their substance after Consecration And I cannot but here add the remarkable Confession of an Adversary concerning two of them For thus Card. Alan (y) De Euchar. Sacram. l. 1. c. 35. De duobus Gelasio Theodoreto facilè mihi persuadeo eos solos esse ex omni Antiquitate qui inclinaverunt in communem posteà multorum errorem ut ita defenderent veram conversionem panis ut materiam Elementi sicut in caeteris naturalibus transmutationibus fieri videbant relictam esse concederent c. says Concerning these two Gelasius and Theodoret I readily persuade my self that they are the only persons in all Antiquity tho' I have already produced three more of their mind who inclined to that which was afterwards a common errour so to defend the true Conversion of Bread that they granted the matter of the Element to remain as they saw it did in all other natural transmutations But we will try whether the rest of the Fathers did not also speak the same thing Justin Martyr (z) Dial. cum Tryph. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 speaking of the oblation of fine Flour for those that were cleansed from Leprosy says It was a type of the Bread of the Eucharist which our
more need of Symbols or Signs when the Body it self appears I refer the Reader to the Testimonies produced before Chap. 10. Position 2. out of S. Austin Sedulius Primasius Bede c. I will conclude this Chapter with a passage or two out of the Prayers after the Sacrament in the Old Liturgy used in Bertram's time (k) V. Bertram de corp sang Christi prope finem p. 112. Edit ult Lat. Engl. We who have now received the Pledge of Eternal Life most humbly beseech thee to grant (l) Ut quod in imagine contingimus Sacramenti manifesta participatione sumamus That we may be manifestly made partakers of that which we here receive in the Image of the Sacrament And thus afterwards (m) Ibid. p. 114. Perficiant in nobis quaesumus Domine tua Sacramenta quod continent ut quae nunc specie gerimus rerum veritate capiamus in another Prayer Let thy Sacraments work in us O Lord we beseech thee those things which they contain that we may really be partakers of those things which now we celebrate in a Figure Bertram Comments upon these Prayers in such passages as these Whence it appears says he that this Body and Blood of Christ are the Pledge and Image of something to come which is now only represented but shall hereafter be plainly exhibited therefore it is one thing which is now celebrated and another which shall hereafter be manifested And afterwards p. 115. The Prayer says that these things are celebrated in a Figure not in Truth that is by way of similitude or representation not the manifestation of the thing it self Now the Figure and the Truth are very different things Therefore the Body and Blood of Christ which is celebrated in the Church differs from the Body and Blood of Christ which is glorified since the Resurrection c. Ps 117. We see how vast a difference there is between the mystery of Christs Body and Blood which the faithful now receive in the Church and that Body which was born of the Virgin Mary which suffered rose again ascended into Heaven and sitteth at the right hand of the Father For this Body which we celebrate in our way to happiness must be spiritually received for Faith believes somewhat that it sees not and it spiritually feeds the Soul makes glad the heart and confers Eternal Life and Incorruption if we attend not to that which feeds the Body which is chew'd with our teeth and ground in pieces but to that which is spiritually received by Faith. But now that Body in which Christ suffered and rose again was his own proper Body which he assumed of the Virgin which might be seen and felt after his Resurrection c. It is very observable and a great confirmation of what has been said in this Chapter That the Ancient Christians of S. Thomas inhabiting the Mountains of Malabar in the East Indies agree with the Ancient Church in denying our Saviours Corporal Presence in the Sacrament of the Eucharist as appears from their Publick Offices and other Books mentioned in a Synod which was celebrated amongst them by Dom Aleixo de Menezes Archbishop of Goa in the Year 1599. In the fourteenth Decree of the third Action of the said Synod in which most of their Church Offices and other Books are Condemned for containing Doctrines contrary to the Roman Faith there is particular notice taken of their contradicting the Roman Faith in the point of Transubstantiation 1. The Book of Timothy the Patriarch is condemned for asserting through three Chapters that the true Body of Christ our Lord is not in the Sacrament of the Altar but only the Figure of his Body 2. The Book of Homilies is condemned which teacheth that the H. Eucharist is only the Image of Christ as the Image of a Man is distinguished from a real Man and that the Body of Christ is not there but in Heaven 3. The Book of the Exposition of the Gospels is condemn'd which teacheth that the Eucharist is only the Image of the Body of Christ and that his Body is in Heaven at the right Hand of the Father and not upon Earth 4. Their Breviary which they call Iludre and Gaza is condemn'd which teaches that the most H. Sacrament of the Eucharist is not the true Body of Christ Lastly The Office of the Burial of Priests is condemn'd where it is said that the most H. Sacrament of the Altar is no more but the virtue of Christ and not his true Body and Blood. This Synod was Printed in the University of Conimbra with the Licences of the Inquisition and Ordinary in the Year 1606. and is in the Possession of a Learned Person who gave me this account out of it CHAP. XII The Twelfth Difference The Fathers assert That Christ's Body is not eaten corporally and carnally but only spiritually But the Church of Rome teaches a Corporal Eating a Descent of Christ's Natural Body into ours and understands the Eating of Christ's Body literally and carnally IF the Church of Rome declares its own Faith when it imposes the Profession of it upon another and makes one abjure the contrary under pain of Anathema then I am sure it was once with a witness for the eating of Christ's Body in the most literal and proper Sense when An. Dom. 1059. Pope Nicholas II. and the General Council of Lateran prescribed a Profession of it to Berengarius made him swear it and anathematize the contrary as it is set down by Lanfrank (n) De Eucharist Sacram. adv Berengar which because the Nubes Testium tho' it has set down two other Forms durst not give us I will therefore here transcribe out of him Ego Berengarius indignus Diaconus Ecclesiae S. Mauritii Andegavensis cognoscens veram Catholicam Apostolicam Fidem anathematizo omnem Haeresm praecipue eam de quâ hactenus infamatus sum quae astruere conatur panem vinum quae in altari ponuntur post consecrationem solummodo Sacramentum non verum corpus sanguinem Dom. nostri Jesu Christi esse nec posse sensualiter nisi in solo Sacramento manibus Sacerdotum tractari vel frangi aut fidelium dentibus atteri Consentio autem S. Romanae Ecclesiae Apostolicae sedi ore corde profiteor de Sacramentis Dominicae mensae eam fidem tenere quam Do minus Venerabilis Papa Nicholaus haec S. Synodus authoritate Evangelica Apostolica tenendam tradidit mihique sirmavit scilicet Panem vinum quae in altari ponuntur post consecrationem non solum Sacramentum sed etiam verum corpus D. N. J. Christi esse sensualiter non solum Sacramento sed in veritate manibus Sacerdotum tractari frangi fidelium dentibus atteri jurans per S. homousion Trinitatem per haec sacrosancta Christi Evangelia Eos vero qui contra hanc fidem venerint cum dogmatibus sectatoribus suis
aeterno anathemate dignos esse pronuncio c. I Berengarius unworthy Deacon c. knowing the true Catholick and Apostolick Faith do anathematize all Heresie especially that for which I have hitherto been defamed which endeavours to maintain that the Bread and Wine placed on the Altar after Consecration are only a Sacrament or Sign and not the true Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ and cannot save only in the Sign be handled or broken by the Priest's Hands or be ground by the Teeth of the Faithful But I agree with the Holy Roman Church and the Apostolick Seat and do with my Mouth and from my Heart profess That I hold the same Faith concerning the Sacraments of the Lords Table which our Lord and Venerable Pope Nicholas and this Holy Synod by Evangelical and Apostolical Authority has delivered to me to hold and confirmed to me viz. That the Bread and Wine which are placed on the Altar after Consecration are not only a Sacrament but also the true Body of our Lord Jesus Christ and is sensibly not only in the Sign and Sacrament but in truth handled and broken by the Priests Hands and ground by the Teeth of the Faithful Swearing this by the Holy and Co-essential Trinity and by the most Holy Gospels of Christ And as for those that oppose this Faith I judge them with their Opinions and Followers worthy of an eternal Anathema c. This we may look upon as the Belief of that Church then and this to be the manner of eating the Body of Christ since as Bellarmine well observes (o) De Sacr. Euchar. l. 3. c. 21. Nec coguntur ulli abjurare anathematizare sententias dubias sed eas tantùm quae damnantur ab Ecclesia tanquam haereses exploratae None are compelled to abjure and anathematize dubious Opinions but only such as are condemned by the Church as known Heresies But however Infallible this Pope and that General Council were this way of eating Christ's Body by tearing it with the Teeth was quickly opposed as a late Learned Preface to the Determination of Joh. Parisiensis shews at large Peter Lombard could not digest it (p) Sentent lib. 4. dist 12. Fractio partes quae ibi videntur fieri in Sacramento fiunt i. e. in visibili specie Ideoque illa Berengarii verba ita distinguenda sunt ut sensualiter non modo in Sacramento sed in veritate dicatur corpus Christi tractari manibus Sacerdotum Frangi verò atteri dentibus verè quidem sed in Sacramento tantum For tho' the Pope and Council defined That both the handling and also the breaking and tearing with the Teeth of Christ's Body were not only in the Sign and Sacrament but in Truth performed he makes a distinction and in express words cited in the Margin says That Christ's Body is handled indeed not only in Sacrament but in Truth but that it is broken and torn with the Teeth truly indeed but yet only in Sacrament That is in the visible Species as he before explains that Phrase Directly contrary to Berengarius's Recantation The words also of Job Semeca the Author of the Gloss upon the Canon-Law (q) Gloss apud Gratian. de Consecr Dist 2. c. Ego Berengarius Nisi sanè intelligas verba Berengarii in majorem incides Haeresin quam ipse habuit ideo omnia referas ad species ipsas nam de Christi corpore partes non facimus are very bold against it Unless you understand the words of Berengarius in a sound sense and there can be no other the words are so plain but what must contradict it you will fall into a greater Heresie than he was guilty of and therefore you must refer all to the Species that 's directly contrary to the Pope and Council for we do not make Parts of Christ's Body In fine all the great Writers especially the Jesuits have forsaken this Definition as not to be maintained and this Eating in the most proper sense is wholly discarded and we are told (r) De Sacr. Euchar. l. 1. c. 11. Ad rationem manducationis non est necessaria attritio sed satis est sumptio transmissio ab ore ad stomachum per instrumenta humana naturalia i. e. linguam palatum by Bellarmine That grinding with the Teeth is not necessarily required to Eating but it suffices that it be taken in and transmitted from the Mouth into the Stomach by humane and natural Instruments viz. the Tongue and Palate This way in plainer terms is swallowing the Body of Christ without chewing And indeed without this Descent of it into the Body there could no Account be given of that Prayer in the Roman Missal (s) Corpus tuum Domine quod sumpsi sanguis quem potavi adhaereat visceribus meis Lord let thy Body which I have taken and thy Blood which I have drunk cleave unto my Entrals They have also determined how long this Sacred Body makes its stay there Aquinas whom they all now follow says (t) In 3. part quaest 76. art 6. ad 3. Corpus Christi remanet in hoc Sacramento quousque species sacramentales manent Quibus cessantibus desinit esse corpus Christi sub eis The Body of Christ remains in this Sacrament so long as the Sacramental Species remain When they cease to be the Body of Christ ceases to be under them Thus also Domin Soto (u) In 4. dist 12. qu. 1. art 3. Est indubiè tenendum quod corpus sc Christi descendit in stomachum Cùm digestio fiat in stomacho illic desinunt esse species atque adeo corpus quare non descendit in ventrem We ought undoubtedly to hold That Christ's Body descends into the Stomach Since Digestion is made in the Stomach there the Species cease to be and so also Christ's Body and therefore will not descend into the Draught But now comes a scurvy Case that will force out the whole Truth Suppose by reason of any Disease the Species should descend further than the Stomach as in a Flux when there is no Digestion of the Species nor time to do it in the Stomach but they are presently carried downward whole or else brought up immediately as in case of sudden Vomiting This also is resolved by the same Principles So the last-named Author (x) Soto ibid. Sed si ob aliquem morbum species descenderent consequenter ipsum corpus descenderet emitteretur Pudor enim non debet esse in causa negandi veritatem If by reason of any Disease the Species should descend into the Draught he means the Body also it self would descend and be sent forth For Shame ought not to be a Reason for denying the Truth To which S. Antoninus (y) Part. 3. tit 13. cap. 6. sect 3. Igitur corpus Christi sanguis tamdiu manet in ventre stomacho vel vomitu quocunque alibi quamdiu
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
Oblation which is offered to God being sanctified by the Holy Spirit may be conformed to the Body and Blood of Christ Which very Phrase shews a difference betwixt what we receive in the Eucharist and the true Body and Blood of Christ Else it would not be Conformity but Identity as Monsieur Claude has well observed 3 Consideration They say That the Fathers under the Old Testament did eat the same spiritual Meat with us and give this as the Reason why it is spiritual Meat Because it is not eaten corporally but by Faith. Therefore both they and we must eat the same Meat only spiritually not corporally S. Austin has said so much in this Argument that I need go no further And I might insist upon many Passages I have upon other occasions named before as that in his Treatise upon S. John's Gospel (p) Tract 45. in Ev. Joan. Videte fide manente signa variata Ibi petra Christus nobis Christus quod in altari Dei ponitur Et illi pro magno Sacramento ejusdem Christi biberunt aquam profluentem de petra nos quid bibamus norunt fideles Si speciem visibilem intendas aliud est si intelligibilem significationem eundem potum spiritualem biberunt where explaining that of the same spiritual Drink the Fathers drank he has such Expressions as these See the Signs are varied Faith remaining the same There the Rock was Christ in Sign to us that which is laid on the Altar is Christ and they drank of the Water that flowed from the Rock for a great Sacrament of the same Christ what we drink the Faithful know If you regard the visible Species or Nature it is another thing if the spiritual or intelligible Signification they drank the same spiritual Drink In another place (q) Idem in Psal 77. Idem in mysterio cibus potus illorum qui noster sed significatione idem non specie Quia idem ipse Christus illis in petra figuratus nobis in carne manifestatus est Their Meat and Drink was the same with ours in Mystery not in Substance or Species the same but in Signification Because the same Christ who was figured to them in the Rock is manifested to us in the Flesh To add but one place more which fully comprehends the whole sense of the Argument (r) De Vtilit Poenitentiae cap. 1. Where S. Austin explaining the same words of our Fathers eating the same spiritual Meat c. he discourses thus Apostolus dicit Patres nostros non patres infidelium non patres impiorum manducantes morientes sed patres nostros patres fidelium spiritalem cibum manducasse ideo eundem Erant enim ibi quibus plus Christus in corde quam Manna in ore sapiebat Quicunque in Manna Christum intellexerunt eundem quem nos cibum spiritalem manducaverunt Sic etiam eundem potum Petra enim erat Christus Eundem ergo potum quem nos sed spiritalem id est qui fide capiebatur non qui corpore hauriebatur Eundem ergo cibum sed intelligentibus credentibus non intelligentibus autem illud solum Manna illa sola aqua c. The Apostle says That our Fathers not the Fathers of Unbelievers not the Fathers of the Wicked that did eat and die but our Fathers the Fathers of the Faithful did eat spiritual Meat and therefore the same For there were such there to whom Christ was more tasteful in their Heart than Manna in their Mouth Whosoever understood Christ in the Manna did eat the same spiritual Meat we do So also the same Drink For the Rock was Christ Therefore they drank the same Drink we do but spiritual Drink that is Drink which was received by Faith not what was swallowed down by the Body They ate therefore the same Meat the same to those that understand and believe but to them that do not understand it was only that Manna only that Water c. Here you see S. Austin calls that Spiritual Drink which Faith receives not which the Body takes down And thus whether Christ be come or be to come it 's all one as he says a little after Venturus venit diversa verba sunt sed idem Christus because Faith can apprehend what shall be as well as what is But if our Eating be Christ's natural Body swallowed down our Bodies then their Meat and ours were not the same For Christ could not be thus their Meat because then he had not taken Flesh upon him therefore those old Fathers could not take it down in the oral Sense 4 Consideration The Body and Blood are to be eaten and drunk and to be received as they are represented and set before us in the Sacrament But there the Body of Christ according to the Fathers as well as the Scriptures is set before us as broken and dead and his Blood as poured out of his Veins Therefore it can be eaten and drunk by us only figuratively and spiritually If the Reader look back to Chap. 10. Posit 4. he will find a great many Testimonies especially out of S. Chrysostome to prove that the Fathers considered Christ's Body in the Sacrament as slain and dead and his Blood poured out of his Veins and separated from his Body And how S. Chrysostome at the same time when he tells us that Christ has given us leave to be filled with his Holy Flesh s (i) Hom. 51. in Matth. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he has proposed and set himself before us as slain This I shall now give a further account of seeing the Fathers speak nothing more plainly and fully than this S. Austin (t) In Psal 100. Nos de cruce Domini pascimur quia corpus ipsius manducamus not only tells us in general That we are fed from our Lord's Cross because we eat his Body but more expresly says (u) Serm. 9. de 40. edit à Sirmondo Qui se pro nobis in mensa crucis obtulit sacrificium Deo Patri donans Ecclesiae suae Catholicae vitale convivium corpore suo nos videlicet satians inebrians sanguine That Christ offered himself a Sacrifice for us to God the Father on the Table of the Cross giving to his Catholick Church a vital Banquet viz. by satiating us with his Body and inebriating us with his Blood. But all this by looking upon him on the Table of the Cross sacrificed and slain This made Gr. Nyssen (x) Orat. 1. in Resurr Dom. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 say That the Body of the Victim speaking of Christ is not fit for eating if it be alive And S. Cyprian (y) Lib. 2. Ep. 3. Nec nos sanguinem Christi possemus bibere nisi prius calcatus fuisset pressus Neither should we be able to drink the Blood of Christ unless it were first trodden and pressed Alluding to Grapes in a Wine-press and that Christ's Blood must be out of
non deseratur Christ says he expounded the manner of his assignment and gift how he gave his Flesh to eat saying He that eateth my Flesh and drinketh my Blood dwelleth in me and I in him The sign that he eateth and drinketh is this if he abides in Christ and Christ in him if he dwells in him and is inhabited by him if he cleaves to him so as not to be forsaken by him And he concludes with this Exhortation (m) Ibid. propè finem Hoc ergo totum ad hoc nobis valeat dilectissimi ut carnem Christi sanguinem Christi non edamus tantum in Sacramento quod multi mali sed usque ad Spiritus participationem manducemus bibamus ut in Domini corpore tanquam membra maneamus ut ejus spiritu vegetemur c. Let all that has been said Beloved prevail thus far with us that we may not eat Christs Flesh and Blood in Sacrament or sign only but may eat and drink as far as to the participation of the Spirit that we may remain as Members in our Lords Body that we may be enlivened by his spirit c. CHAP. XIV The Fourteenth Difference Several Vsages and Practices of the Fathers relating to the Eucharist declare That they did not believe Transubstantiation or the Presence of Christ's Natural Body there whose contrary practices or forbearance of them in the Roman Church are the Consequences of that belief As also some things the present Roman Church practises because they believe Transubstantiation and the Corporal Presence and dare not neglect to practise so believing which yet the Ancient Church did forbear the practice of not knowing any obligation thereto which plainly argues their different Sentiments about the Eucharist in those Points IT is possible this Argument may have as good an effect to open Mens Eyes as any I have urged before tho' I think I have urged very cogent ones For tho' some Men have a Faculty eternally to wrangle about the Words and Sayings of others and to shift off an Argument of that kind yet they cannot so easily get rid of an Objection from Matter of Fact and a plain Practice I shall therefore try by several Instances of Usages and Forbearances in the cases above-named whether we may not see as clearly as if we had a Window into their Breasts that the Ancient Church and the present Church of Rome were of different Minds and Opinions in this Matter 1. Instance It was a part of the Discipline of the Ancient Church to exclude the uninitiated Catechumens the Energumeni acted by evil Spirits and Penitents from being present at the Mysteries and to enjoin all that were present to communicate It is so known a Case that the Deacons in the Churches cried aloud to bid such depart as I before named when they went to the Prayers of the Mass which was so called from this dismission of Catechumens Penitents c. that I shall not stay to prove it See the Constitutions attributed to Clemens l. 8. cap. 6 7 9 12. and S. Chrysostom Hom. 3. in Ep. ad Ephes By the same Laws of the Church those that remained after the exclusion of the rest were all to communicate whom the Author of the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy under the name of Dionysius the Areopagite (n) Hierarch Eccles c. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 calls Persons worthy to behold the Divine Mysteries and to communicate For this because it is not so universally acknowledged as the former I shall refer the Reader to the Second Canon of the Council of Antioch (o) Can. 2. Concil Antioch 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. which says That they which enter into the Church of God and hear the Holy Scriptures and do not communicate in Prayers with the People or turn away from receiving the Eucharist through any disorderliness are to be cast out of the Church till they confess their Sin and repent c. Which is the same in sense with that Canon (p) Canon Apostol 9. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is very ancient tho' not Apostolical as it pretends That all the Faithful that enter and hear the Scriptures and do not continue at Prayer and also at the Holy Communion are to be separated as those that bring disorder into the Church S. Chrysostom discharges a great deal of his Zeal as well as Eloquence against those Persons that were present at the Eucharist and did not communicate (q) Chrysost Hom. 3. in Ep. ad Ephes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In vain he tells them do's the Priest stand at the Altar when none participates in vain is the daily Sacrifice He minds them that the Cryer had said indeed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That those that were in penitence or penance should depart but thou says he art not of that number but of those that may participate i. e. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not being hindred by any Church-Censures as Penitents were and regardest it not He says That the King at the Marriage-Supper 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 did not ask Why didst thou sit down but why didst thou enter And adds That whosoever being present does not receive the Mysteries stands there too boldly and impudently The rest is well worthy the reading in that Homily Gregory the Great also tells us (r) Dialog l. 2. cap. 23. Si quis non communicat det locum it was the custom in his Time for a Deacon to cry aloud If any do not Communicate let him depart There must be no Spectators that is unless they were Communicants For as Justin Martyr (s) Apolog. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 acquaints us it was the usage of his Time That the the Deacons reach to every one present of the consecrated Bread and Wine and Water that they may communicate If we now look upon the practice of the Roman Church we shall find all quite contrary There they may have as many Spectators as please to come when there is but one alone that receives the Eucharist I mean the Priest Any one that knew nothing of the Matter would conclude when he saw their Masses that they came thither about another Business ordinarily than to eat and drink in remembrance of their Saviour which was the only use that the Ancients understood of it They considered it as a Sacrament by Institution designed to represent Christ's Passion and Crucifixion these consider the presence of his Glorified Body and his Divinity there and are taken up with adoration more than any thing else That they will not abate every day you are present when the Host is shown for that end But as for the other the receiving of the Eucharist they are satisfied if it be done but once a Year The Ancients look'd upon it as an Invitation to a Table where the Sacrament was to be their Meal but here you are called to look upon the King present and sitting in state and chiefly to take care
sereno vultu respicere digneris accepta habere sicuti accepta habere dignatus e◠munera pueri tui justi Abel sacrificium Patriarchae nostri Abrahae quod tibi obtulit summus Sacerdos tuus Melchisedeck sanctum Sacrificium immaculatam Hostiam Supplices te rogamus omnipotens Deus jube haec perferri per manus sancti Angeli tui in sublime Altare tuum in conspectu Majestatis tuae ut quotquot ex hac altaris participatione Sacrosanctum Filii tui corpus sanguinem sumpserimus omni benedictione coelesti gratia repleamur Per eundem J. Christum D. N. Nobis quoque peccatoribus partem aliquam societatem donare digneris cum tuis sanctis Apostolis intra quorum nos consortium non estimator meriti sed veniae quaesumus largitor admitte Per Christum D. N. Per quem haec omnia Domine semper bona creas sanctificas vivificas benedicis praestas nobis Wherefore we O Lord thy Servants and yet thy Holy People being mindful as well of the Blessed Passion as also of the Resurrection from the Dead and of the glorious Ascension into Heaven of the same thy Son our Lord Jesus Christ do offer to thy most excellent Majesty out of thy own Donations and Gifts a pure Sacrifice an Immaculate Sacrifice the Holy Bread of Eternal Life and the Cup of Everlasting Salvation Vpon which Gifts vouchsafe to look with a propitious and serene Aspect and to accept them as thou didst vouchsafe to accept the Gifts of thy Child the Righteous Abel and the Sacrifice of our Patriarch Abraham and the Holy Sacrifice the immaculate Hostie which thy High Priest Melchisedeck did offer to thee Almighty God we humbly beseech thee command these things to be carried by the Hands of thy Holy Angel to thy High Altar before thy Majesty that as many of us as by this partaking of the Altar have received the most holy Body and Blood of thy Son may be filled with all Heavenly Benediction and Grace by the same Jesus Christ our Lord. Vouchsafe also to bestow on us Sinners some part and society with thy Holy Apostles c. into whose society we intreat thee to admit us not weighing our Merit but bestowing Pardon on us Through Christ our Lord. By whom O Lord thou dost always create sanctify quicken bless and bestow on us all these good things Immediately after all have communicated this follows Quod ore sumpsimus Domine purâ mente capiamus de munere temporali fiat nobis remedium sempiternum What we have taken with our Mouth O Lord may we receive with a pure Heart and of a temporal Gift may it be made to us an Eternal Remedy While the Priest is washing his Thumbs and Fore-fingers over the Cup with Wine and Water and wiping of them he is bid to say Corpus tuum Domine quod sumpsi sanguis quem potavi adhereat visceribus meis praesta ut in me non remaneat scelerum macula quem pura sancta refecerunt Sacramenta Qui vivis c. Let thy Body O Lord which I have taken and thy Blood which I have drunk cleave to my Entrals and grant that the stain of my Crimes may not remain in me whom pure and Holy Sacraments have refreshed Who livest c. All these Prayers I have cited the Reader must remember are after Consecration upon which immediately according to the present Faith of the Roman Church the Substance of Bread and Wine is destroyed and nothing but the Species and Shadows of them remain and now Christ instead of them becomes present there in his Body and Soul and Divinity This is their Faith. But it is impossible to reconcile this to those foregoing Prayers For at the beginning of the Canon they pray * Supplices rogamus ac petimus uti accepta habeas benedicas haec dona haec munera haec sancta sacrificia illibata That God would accept and bless these Donations and Gifts these holy undefiled Sacrifices that is the Oblations of Bread and Wine which are no more than so till the words of Consecration After this as you heard they pray That this Oblation may be made to us the Body and Blood of thy dear Son Jesus Christ Which do not imply a change of Substances for those words fiat nobis be made to us may very well consist with the Oblations remaining in Substance what they were before only beging the Communication of the Virtue and Efficacy of Christ's Passion to themselves And that this is the sense of the Canon appears by those words after Consecration when they say We offer to thy Majesty a pure Sacrifice of thy Donations and Gifts Which words plainly suppose that they are in Nature what they were God's Creatures still not the appearance and shadow of them only But they call them now the Bread of Eternal Life and the Cup of Salvation because after they are blessed and made Sacraments they are not now to be look'd upon as bodily Food but as the Food of our Souls as representing that Body of Christ and his Passion which is the Bread of Eternal Life If they had understood nothing to remain now after consecration but Christ's Natural Body they would not have called this thy Gifts in the Plural Number but expressed it in the Singular thy Gift Neither can they refer to the remaining Accidents because they are no real Things and rather tell us what God has taken away the whole Substance of them than what he has given But then what follows puts it out of all doubt * Supra quae propitio ac sereno vultu respicere digneris Vpon which still in the Plural look propitiously If it had been Look upon us propitiously for the sake of Christ it had been well enough Or to desire of God to look upon these things propitiously which they offer if they mean as he that made the Prayer did that God would accept this Oblation of Bread and Wine as he did of Abel and Melchisedeck which latter was indeed Bread and Wine this had been very proper But to make that which we offer to be Christ himself as they that believe Transubstantiation must expound it and to desire God to look propitiously and benignly upon him when there can be no fear that he should ever be unacceptable to his Father nor none can be so foolish as to think that Christ stands in need of our recommendation to God for acceptance this sense can never be agreeable to the Prayer Therefore the most Ancient of all the spurious Liturgies I mean that attributed to Clemens in his Constitutions (r) Lib. 8. c. 12. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. has given us the true sense of it We offer to thee this Bread and this Cup and we beseech thee to look favourably upon these Gifts set before thee O God who standest in need of nothing and be well pleased
with them for the honour of thy Christ c. Would it not run finely to pray that God would be well pleased with Christ for the honour of his Christ But besides the Petition that God would look propitiously upon them it follows in the Canon That God would accept them as he did the Gifts of Abel and Abraham and Melchisedeck How unagreeable is this if Christ himself be understood here to make the Comparison for acceptance betwixt a Lamb and a Calf or Bread and Wine and Christ the Son of God with whom he was always highly pleased But then what follows still entangles Matters more in the Church of Rome's Sense The Prayer That God would command these things to be carried by the hands of his Holy Angel to the High Altar above For how can the Body of Christ be carried by Angels to Heaven which never left it since his Ascension but is always there Besides the High Altar above in the Sense of the Ancients is Christ himself And Remigius of Auxerre tells us (s) De celebrat Missae in Bibl. Pat. 2dae Edit Tom. 6. p. 1164. In Coelo rapitur ministerio Angelorum consociandum corpori Christi That S. Gregory's Opinion of the Sacrament was That it was snatched into Heaven by Angels to be joined to the Body of Christ there But then in the sense of Transubstantiation what absurd stuff is here to pray that Christ's Body may be joined to his own Body So that there can be no sense in the Prayer but ours to understand it of the Elements offered devoutly first at this Altar below which by being blessed become Christ's Representative Body and obtain acceptance above through his Intercession there And thus it is fully explained by the Author of the Constitutions (t) Lib. 8. c. 13. in initio 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Let us entreat God through his Christ for the Gift offered to the Lord God that the good God by the mediation of his Christ would receive it to his Coelestial Altar for a sweet smelling Savour To put the Matter further out of all doubt it is observable that the Liturgies that go under the name of S. James and S. Mark do both of them mention the acceptance of the Gifts of Abel and Abraham and the admitting them to the Celestial Altar before the reciting the words of the Institution or Consecration as the Roman Church calls them by which they say the Change is made That the Liturgy of S. Chrysostom prays That God would receive the Oblations proposed to his Supercelestial Altar almost in the same words both before and after Consecration and that he look'd upon them to be the same in substance that they were before plainly appears by an expression after all where he prays (u) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That the Lord would make an equal division of the proposed Gifts to every one for good according to every Man 's particular need Which cannot be understood of Christ's proper Body but of the consecrated Bread and Wine which cannot admit of shares or Portions equal or unequal Lastly That S. Basil's Liturgy also before the Consecration prays That the Oblations may be carried unto the supercelestial Altar and be accepted as the Gifts of Abel Noah Abraham c. And to shew that even after the words of Institution he did not believe them to be other things than they were before he still calls them the Antitypes (x) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. of the Body and Blood of Christ and prays That the Spirit may come upon us and upon the Gifts proposed to bless and sanctify them and to make this Bread the venerable Body of our Lord God and Saviour Jesus Christ and this Cup his Blood the Spirit working the change And afterwards the Priest prays (y) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That by reason of his Sins he would not divert the Grace of his Holy Spirit from the proposed Gifts A needless fear if the Gifts were already Christ's Body that the Spirit should be hindred from coming upon that where all the Fulness of the God-head dwells bodily by any Man's Sins The next Passage of the Canon increases still the difficulty to them that believe Transubstantiation When it says Through Jesus Christ our Lord by whom O Lord thou dost always create sanctify quicken bless and bestow all these good things on us If there be no good thing remaining in the Eucharist besides Christ when these words are said What Sense or Truth is there in them Can Christ or his Body that already exists be created anew and be always created Can that be always sanctified that was never common Or is he to be raised and quickned anew daily that once being so raised can die no more c. But that which makes the Absurdity of this Interpretation the greater is that they say that all this is done to Christ by Christ himself as if God by Christ did create Christ and by Christ did bless and quicken and sanctify Christ which none but he that is forsaken of common Sense can affirm The old Interpreters of the Canon made other work of it and supposed that the Creatures offered to God remained Creatures still for thus the forecited Remigius (z) In Bibl. Patr. Tom. 6. p. 1165. Per Christum Deus Pater haec omnia non solum in exordio creavit condendo sed etiam semper creat praeparando reparando bona quia omnia à Deo creata valdè bona creata suis conspectibus oblata sanctificat ut quae erant simplex creatura fiant Sacramenta vivificat ut sint mysteria vitae Benedicit quia omni benedictione coelesti gratiâ accumulat Praestat nobis per eundem secum sanctificantem qui de corpore suo sanguine suo nobis tam salubrem dedit refectionem comments upon them God the Father not only in the beginning created all these things by Christ but also always creates them by preparing and repairing them Good because all things created by Good are very good He sanctifies those things so created and offered in his sight when the things that were a simple Creature are made Sacraments he quickens them so that they become Mysteries of Life He blesses them because he heaps all Celestial Benediction and Grace on them He bestows them on us by the same Christ sanctifying them with him who has given to us so wholsom a repast from his Body and Blood. What can be also more plain than the words of the next Prayer I mentioned That what we have taken with our Mouth may of a Temporal Gift be made an Eternal Remedy Did ever any one call Christ a Temporal Gift in distinction from an Eternal Remedy Is it not certain that the Oblata the things offered are the Temporal Gift which by our due receiving them become eternally beneficial to us The last Prayer also which beg That the Body and Blood of Christ may
Misere nobis Hostia Sancta Misere nobis Calix Benedictionis Misere nobis Mysterium fidei Miserere nobis Praecelsum venerabile Sacramentum Miserere nobis Sacrificium omnium Sanctissimum Miserere nobis Vere propitiatorium pro vivis defunctis Miserere nobis Coeleste Antidorum quo à peccatis praeservamur Miserere nobis Stupendum supra omnia miraculum Miserere nobis Sacratissima Dominicae passionis commemoratio Miserere nobis Donum transcendens omnem plenitudinem Miserere nobis Memoriale praecipuum divini amoris Miserere nobis Divinae affluentia largitatis Miserere nobis Sacrosanctum augustissimum mysterium Miserere nobis Pharmacum immortalitatis Miserere nobis Tremendum ac vivificum Sacramentum Miserere nobis Panis omnipotentia verbi caro factus Miserere nobis Incruentum Sacrificium Miserere nobis Cibus conviva Miserere nobis Dulcissimum convivium cui assistunt Angeli ministrantes Miserere nobis Sacramentum Pietatis Miserere nobis Vinculum Charitatis Miserere nobis Offerens Oblatio Miserere nobis Spiritualis dulcedo in proprio fonte degustata Miserere nobis Refectio animarum Sanctarum Miserere nobis Viaticum in Domino morientium Miserere nobis Pignus futurae gloriae c. Miserere nobis The Litany of the Sacrament in the Manual aforesaid Living Bread that didst descend from Heaven Have mercy on us God hidden and my Saviour Have mercy on us Bread-Corn of the Elect Have mercy on us Wine budding forth Virgins Have mercy on us Fat Bread and the delight of Kings Have mercy on us Continual Sacrifice Have mercy on us Pure Oblation Have mercy on us Lamb without spot Have mercy on us Manual adds Table of Proposition Have mercy on us Most pure Table Have mercy on us Food of Angels Have mercy on us Hidden Manna Have mercy on us Memorial of God's wonderful Works Have mercy on us Supersubstantial Bread Have mercy on us Word made Flesh and dwelling in us Have mercy on us Holy Host Have mercy on us Chalice of Benediction Have mercy on us Mystery of Faith Have mercy on us Most high and venerable Sacrament Have mercy on us Sacrifice of all other most Holy Have mercy on us Truly propitiatory for the Quick and Dead Have mercy on us Heavenly Antidote whereby we are preserved from Sin Have mercy on us Miracle above all other astonishing Have mercy on us Most sacred Commemoration of our Lord's Death Have mercy on us Gift surpassing all Fulness Have mercy on us Chief Memorial of Divine Love Have mercy on us Abundance of Divine Bounty Have mercy on us Holy and most Majestical Mystery Have mercy on us Medicine of Immortality Have mercy on us Dreadful and Life-giving Sacrament Have mercy on us Bread by the Word's Omnipotence made Flesh Have mercy on us Unbloody Sacrifice Have mercy on us Meat and Guest Manual omits Have mercy on us Most sweet Banquet whereat the Ministring Angels attend Have mercy on us Sacrament of Piety Have mercy on us Bond of Charity Have mercy on us Offerer and Oblation Have mercy on us Spiritual sweetness tasted in its proper Fountain Have mercy on us Refection of Holy Souls Have mercy on us Viaticum of those who die in our Lord Have mercy on us Pledge of future Glory c. Have mercy on us This is enough to show into what strains of Devotion the present Roman Church now runs since Transubstantiation is an Article of its Faith. I deny not that these Prayers are very natural if that Doctrine were true and I would fain have a good Reason assigned why if this Doctrine was believed of old this was not the way of the Primitive Devotion If they affirm that it was it lies upon them to produce the evidence But then let me tell them before-hand that we will not be shamm'd off with a Rhetorical Prosopopoeia of an Author under the name of S. Denis the Areopagite which has been the only thing I have seen alledged and as often answered whose Authority neither cannot be considerable to us who remember that he was first produced and shown to the World by Hereticks and rejected by the Orthodox CHAP. XVI The Sixteenth Difference Our Ancient Roman-Saxon Church differred from the present Roman Church in the Article of Transubstantiation and Corporal Presence THis is the Last Difference I shall mention tho' not the least but a very material confirmation of what I have been all along proving That there is no consent of the Ancient Church with the present Roman Church in their Faith and Opinions about the Eucharist when we shall find that even our own Old English Church that had received most of its Instructions in Christianity from the Roman and in many other things agreed with what it now professes yet in this widely differ'd from it This plainly argues one of these two things either that the then Roman Church had not the Opinions of the present Church in these Matters and so did not propagate them to us which cannot be said when we remember the busy Disputes about these Matters in the 9th Century tho' they were not yet come to a determination or else that when the Roman Church warped and generally espoused a New Doctrine which the Ancient Fathers were strangers to we still kept our Ground and did not suffer our selves to be perverted but held to the Ancient Belief This is the Truth of our Case as appears by a noble Remain of an Easter Sermon about 700 Years old in the Saxon Tongue among other Catholick Homilies that were to be read yearly in the Church It was produced in the last Age in the Saxon with a Translation in our English Tongue printed by John Day it was since put with the same Translation by Mr. Fox into his Martyrology * Vol. 2. p. 380. last Edition and has been set forth with a Latin Translation by the Learned Abr. Whelock in his Saxon Edition of Bede's Ecclesiastical History p. 462. printed at Cambridg 1644. out of which I shall transcribe as much as will serve to prove our Assertion softning the harshness of the Phrases of the last Age and expressing the sense in words more easily understood The Easter Sermon begins thus MEN Beloved you have been often discoursed to concerning our Saviour's Resurrection how he after his Passion on this Day rose powerfully from the Dead Now we shall by God's Grace explain something to you about the Holy Eucharist which this day we are bound to frequent and instruct your understanding about this Mystery both according to the Old and New Testament that no doubting may disturb you concerning this Life-giving Banquet The Sermon goes on with an account of the Jewish Passover and the Application of those things to the Eucharist which I omit Christ before his suffering consecrated Bread P. 469. and distributed it to his Disciples saying thus Eat this Bread it is my Body and do this in remembrance of me Also he Consecrated
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