call the Bread and Wine in the Sacrament the Body and Blood of Christ 2. They say that they are not so essentially but figuratively and therefore stile them signs Symbols Figures Antitypes Memorials It is usual to call the sign and the thing signified by the same name 3. They affirm that after Consecration the substance of the Bread and Wine remains and the change made is only in respect of Use Office and Dignity 4. They say That they nourish our flesh and blood and have the same effect that other food has and therefore they use to give the remains of the Euchariscical Bread to boyes and to abstain from the Communion upon Fasting days 5. They assert that wicked men do not eat and drink the Body and Blood of Christ but interpret the eating of his flesh Jo. 6. the receiving of him in a spiritual manner namely by Faith 6. When they deny the Eucharist to be a figure or sign they mean a bare sign The Sacrament is more than so It feals and exhibits It is a means whereby we receive the Body and Blood of Christ not only the benefits of them but Christ himself in a spiritual manner as crucified for us and is a real pledge to assure us thereof Tho' the crucified body of Christ is in Heaven yet that spirit which dwells in it being communicated to a worthy Receiver in the Sacramental action we are made to drink into one Spirit it produceth such a union betwixt us and Christ Jesus as laies a clear foundation of Communion with and participation of him 7. When they say there is a mutation in the nature of the Bread they mean by nature the use and property only as is manifest by their own explications Before Consecration it was appropriated to the nourishment of the body but now by Consecration it is exalted to a higher purpose A new dignity is put upon it It becomes a means whereby a worthy Communicant gains Communion with our blessed Lord. 8. When it 's said That the Senses are deceived and no competent judges of the mutation this may be very true altho' the change be Sacramental only The change is not the proper object of sense but of faith The knowledge of it with its effects is conveyed to us by a Divine Testimony extant in the holy Scriptures 9. When it is affirmed That under the species of Bread is given the Body and under the species of Wine the Blood by Species we must not understand the Accidents without their proper subjects This apprehension never entred into the thoughts of the antient Fathers They were perfect strangers to this kind of Philosophy S. Aust l. 4. cal â—â— Tâ—in Serm. de Temp. 38. S. Ambr. l. 4. de Init. By species they understand the specifical nature of a thing and by the species of Bread and Wine True Bread and True Wine as is manifest to any who consult their discourses 10. Where it is said That the Lord who changed Water into Wine could change in the Eucharist Wine into Blood the intention of Cyril is not to make these two conversions in every thing parallel Jerus as is manifest by the words that follow he presently asserts That the eating of Christ's flesh must be understood spiritually and calls the Table mystical and intellectual And therefore all that his words can import is this He who 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 changed Water into Wine by a corporal mutation changed at his mystical Table Wine into Blood not corporally but spiritually and mystically Lastly It must be acknowledged that there are many Hyperbolical expressions in the Fathers Hom 23. in Mat Par. 〈◊〉 as S. Chrysostome and others in relation to the Sacrament The design of them is to secure it from contempt and to elevate and raise the devotion of Communicants They being improper Speeches must not be expounded in such a sence as is inconsistent with what is elsewhere expressed by the same Authors in plain words without any figure They all agree in this in as clear expressions as can be desired That the substance of the Bread and Wine remain in the Eucharist Their Rhetorical flourishes cannot be interpreted to the prejudice of that which is plain and manifest When S. Chrysostome says That Christ mingles himself with us and not by Faith only but indeed makes us to be his Body His meaning is not That there is any corporal mixture or immediate contact betwixt us and his body but that when we receive the figure of his body which is in Heaven the Spirit which dwells in it is communicated to the worthy Receiver and produceth a union betwixt them and therefore what we receive â— 870. he presently calls the Grace of the Spirit Damascen who lived in the eighth Century was one of the first who deserted the Orthodox doctrin of the Fathers He being concerned in the controversie concerning Images and the opposers of them asserting that the Bread and Wine in the Sacrament were the only Image and representation which Christ allowed of himself he was transported with an intemperate zeal and affirmed they were no image or figure at all L. 4. c. sid Oâ—t ◠〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Tho' in these words he did not design any real conversion of the Elements but rather a corporal presence or consubstantiation yet he gave occasion to some in the ninth Age to dispute for a substantial mutation Paschasius Ratbertus was the first who writ seriously and copiously about it as Bellarmine asserts His sentiments about this argument were received with a warm opposition Rabanus Maurus Bertram Joannes Scotus Erigena did strongly assert the contrary doctrin In the tenth Age which was a night of ignorance all things fell asleep controversies were laid aside Darkness did reconcile them as the want of light does various colours In the eleventh Age Berengarius was awakened and did with great perspicuity assert the Truth Tho' the violence of his enemies and infirmity of his nature induced him to submit to a recantation The controversie all this while was managed with so much ambiguity that Joannes Duns Scotus asserts That it was not necessary for any to believe a substantial conversion or Transubstantiation till the Lateran Council held under Innocent the Third in the year 1215. and therefore the master of the Sentences who flourished in the Century before about the year 1145. useth these words What kind of conversion it is 〈…〉 illa 〈…〉 whether formal or substantial I am not able to determine The truth is that Transubstantiation was brought forth by Paschasius confirmed by Innocent the Third and at last so firmly married to the See of Rome by the Council of Trent that there was no possibility of a divorce tho' there is just reason to believe that the most Learned of that Community could heartily desire it The issue produced by this unhappy conjunction is the mutilation of the Sacrament the Adoration of the Host the Sacrince of
personal favours of his Prince to pay the Rights which belong to the Crown yet the formal object and reason of his so doing is the Sovereignty and dominion which the Prince is invested with As the Son so likewise the Spirit is the Object of Adoration He is placed in the same rank with the Father and the Son Mat. 28. v. 19. Jo. 1.5 7. and honoured with the attribution of the peculiarities of the Deity as Eternity Immensity Omniscience The dishonour done to him by Blasphemy has as black a character in the Scripture as the dishonour of the Father or Son It is represented as a delinquency of the first magnitude and excluded the benefit of pardon He who is thus dignified and secured by the most severe commination against dishonour must necessarily of right challenge the same degree of Honour and Worship which is due to the Father and the Son The Adoration given to them all must be so directed that we may worship the Trinity in Unity and Unity in Trinity The ground of divine Veneration is the unlimited and peerless perfection of God The motives conducing to it are the benefits which none but so transcendent a Being can conferr The same internal eminency is common to the Three Persons Every external benefit is the product of their joint concurrence They having all an equal interest in the foundation of Religion and the motives conducing to it it is very reasonable when we direct an act of Worship to one that we should not exclude the other When we name the Son only the Father and holy Spirit are to be understood or the Father only the Son and the Spirit or the Spirit only the Father and the Son Consonant to this doctrine are the words of Nazianzen 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Let us Worship in Three one Deity and the practice of the universal Church which is apparent by the Latin and Greek Liturgies Now I have done with the fourth Proposition This One God is to be Worshipped 5. This God is only to be Worshiped This is the express assertion of the Holy Scripture the dictate of Reason the sence of the Ancient Church 1. The assertion of Holy Scripture It is the first of the moral Laws Thou shalt have no other Gods but me and placed in the front of the Gospel Him only shalt thou serve In a sense of this appropriate allegiance to Jehovah the Angel did forbid S. John and S. Paul and Barnabas the people of Lycaonia to pay them any Divine Veneration Daniel's refusal of the portion of meat which was first consecrated to an Idol will easily induce us to believe that he had an equal disgust of the Idolatrous worship which was given to him If Abraham's deportment when the Angels appeared had more than a moral or civil respect The Son of God his being in the company will excuse him from Idolatry one of them is expresly dignified with the incommunicable name of the Deity 2. The dictate of reason Worship is either internal or external Internal includes a deep and reverential esteem as an ingredient essential to its nature This esteem must be of an elevation agreeable to the excellency of the Object it is terminated upon There being no object that can be a Rival with the Supreme Being in point of perfection it is not possible that the same esteem which his transcendent dignity challengeth from us should with justice be given to any other External imports a declaration of inward esteem by some outward acts As the Veneration terminated upon God is peculiar and appropriate So must the Acts be which are designed for the signification of it Betwixt the sign and the thing signified there ought to be such a similitude that the one may be known by the other This cannot be done in the present case except there be such an appropriation as we speak of The nature of Divine Supremacy requires in outward as well as inward Worship a discrimination from that which is given to the Creature Earthly Monarchs expect an agnition of their Sovereignty to be made by the payment of an appropriate homage They have some Jewels in their Crown which they will not permit any of their Subjects to wear Tho' Moral and Civil regards may be tendred to a Creature yet if they rise so high as to have any mixtures of those peculiarities which are devoted by nature or institution to signifie Divine Veneration they are as distasteful to God as it would be to a Prince to stand by and see the Allegiance which is due only to himself given to another This Truth is warranted with so much clear reason that those who have had no other advantage but the light of Nature have taken notice of it Among those instructions which Orpheus left with Musaeus Lib. de Monarch Det p. 104 108. This is one 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Adore him alone who is the King of the World It was the advice of Menander 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to honour him alone who is Lord of all Ad Antolycum p. 122. The Verses of the Sibyl in Theophilus Antiochenus are of the same importance 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Laâ—t de â—â—lsa Relig. p. 20. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Ruler of the World alone adore Who ever was and shall be ever more 3. The Sence of the Ancient Church Among those Truths which are owned by the most early Writers this is of the first magnitude that God only is to be Worshipped They never mention the worshipping any thing else as the Sacrament the Cross the Relicks of Saints When they delineate the rites appertaining to the Eucharist there is not the least intimation of that Veneration which the Romanist say is due to the Sacrament They were far from asserting that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quae debetur vero Deo is to be given to it Circumstances purely accidental as the time when the Institution was made the place where the mingling Water with Wine are recorded Those who had leisure to preserve the memory of these circumstances would not have omitted a point so material in case any such thing had been known to be agreeable to the mind of God As for the individual Cross upon which our blessed Lord suffered there could be no Adoration directed to it for the first three hundred years It is confessed that it lay concealed under ground till the time of Helena mother to Constantine the Great Neither is there the least signification of any religious addresses made to artificial imitations of it When the Veneration of the Cross is objected by the Heathens against the Christians Mirâ—â— Fâ—l it is answered by them Cruces etiam nec colimus nec optamus We neither Worship Crosses nor wish for them Bellarmine indeed infers that the objection implies that some such practice was then in use but he may by the same reason perswade us that the Christians Worshipped the Head of an Ass because their
which the ingredients of a humane body are exposed unto To what is received in the Eucharist the primitive Church in relation to the body attributes the power of Nutrition The Analogy of Faith obligeth us to believe that God will not command inhumanity But if the sence of the Church of Rome be true the greatest inhumanity is practised according to his Will What is more savage than to eat the body of a living man much more must it be to champ with our Teeth and swallow down the living Body of our blessed Lord to whom supreme Veneration is due This made a Pagan to say Who dost thou think Cott. in Cicer. de nat Decr. l. 3. can be so mad as to believe that to be his God which he eats It was an abomination to the Aegyptians to eat with the Hebrews Gen. 43.32 The Chaldee paraphrast gives the reason because the Hebrews eat those Cattle which the Aegyptians use to worship Those words except ye eat the flesh of the son of man c. Joh. 6.55 give no countenance to what is asserted by the Church of Rome By Flesh is meant the bread spoken of v. 51. The bread that I will give you is my flesh and by the Bread we are to understand our blessed Lord himself I am the bread of life v. 35. and by eating believing on him as is evident by the consequent words he that cometh to me shall never hunger and he that believeth on me shall never thirst As eating and drinking satisfie our natural appetite so believing in Christ our spiritual By faith we draw out of his fulness and plenitude a supply of our necessities This spiritual Sence is pointed at v. 56. and very agreeable to the manner of speaking amongst the Jews with whom Christ conversed when he spoke the words under consideration Maimon More Nevoâ— par 1. c. 30. The Hebrews use 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 comedere not only to express the feeding upon that which conduceth to the nourishment of the body but likewise the acquisition of Learning and Wisdom such as faith imports which tends to the nutrition of the Soul Psal 33. or 34 v. 2. S. Basil says that there is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an intellectual mouth of the inward Man With this we receive the impressions made by external objects and ruminate upon and digest them by meditation All this being considered it is evident that Transubstantiation is contrary to the Holy Scripture 2. Antiquity Those who assert the Body of Christ to be corporally present in the Sacrament and the substance of the Bread and Wine not speak contrary to the sence of all the primitive Fathers Ignatius who lived in the first Century 〈…〉 calls that which is broken and given in the Sacrament 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Justin Martyr in the second Century Apol. 2. stiles it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and attributes to it a nutritive power in relation to the body Tertullian in the third Century asserts L. 4 cont Marc. that Christ made the bread which he took to be his body that is a figure of his body Origen says L. 8. cont Celsum we have a symbol of thanksgiving to God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 bread which is called the Eucharist S. Cyprian affirms 〈…〉 that the Lord calls the bread compounded of many grains his Body Eusebius in the fourth Century terms L. 1 â—emon Evan. c. ult what is received in the Sacrament symbols of the Body and blood of Christ Cyril of Jerusalem stiles it Bread and Wine Catech. Mystagog 1.3 and compares the change which is made by consecration to that in consecrated Oil which doth not lose its old Nature but is dedicated and set apart to a higher use and purpose S. Ambrose affirms L. 4. de Saâ— c. 4. that the Bread and Wine in the Sacrament sunt a â—â—â—e panis vinum altho changed into the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ Gregory Nissen owns that which he calls the Body of Christ by the name of Bread Orat. de San. Bapr and expresseth at large that the Bread and Wine being Consecrated retain their pristine nature even as Baptismal Water an Altar a Priest do after Consecration has passed upon them Gaudentius represents the Sacrament as an image of the passion and figure of the Body and Blood of Christ Tract 2. in Exo. S. Chrysostome in the fifth Century useth these words Epist ad Casâ—arium Monashum Before the Bread is sanctified we call it Bread when the Divine Grace hath sanctified it by means of the Priest it loseth the name of Bread and is held worthy to be called the Lord's Body altho the nature of the Bread doth remain in it and is not called two bodies but the body of the Son S. Austin says Ad Adamantum â— 12. That the Lord doubted not to say This is my Body when he gave the sign of his Body Cyril of Alexandria asserts L. 4. c. 14. in Evang. Joan. that our Lord gave fragments of Bread saying Take eat This is my Body Theodoret affirms 1. Dial. cont Eutyc that our Saviour honoured the visible Symbols with the name of his Body and Blood not changing the nature but adding grace to nature Gelasius is of the same mind De duabus Christi naturis The Sacraments which we receive of the Body and Blood of Christ are a divine thing by means whereof we are made partakers of the Divine Nature and yet the substance of the Bread and Wine doth not cease to be Bellarmine in his Polemical Discourse concerning the Eucharist useth most of the names which I have mentioned to a contrary purpose and brings them into the field with a great deal of pomp His policy seems to resemble that of a great Commander When he had drawn up his Souldiers into a military order and was ready to engage the enemy a great part of them declared they would not fight He being not in a capacity to retreat with honour or security told them that the only kindness which he desired of them was to march to a Hill a little way of and there be Spectators of the courage and fate of their fellow Souldiers hoping they might appear to the enemy as a Reserve and prove as great a discouragement to them as if they had actually engaged them I cannot imagine why these antient Fathers who have so positively declared in the Testimonies above-cited that they will not fight should be continued in view except it be with the like design to impose upon the Faith of those who are strangers to their intentions To the Authorities already produced I might add many more which do evidently manifest that the Church was a stranger to the doctrin of Transubstantiation for many hundred years What might be alledged I will sum up in the following particulars 1. They all agree in an imitation of the stile of Scripture and