but of Baptism also where yet none assert any Conversion of the Substance of Water into any other thing Thus S. Ambrose * De in qui initiantur c. 9. ad finem Si ergo superveniens Spiritus S. in Virginem conceptionem operatus esf generationis munus implevit Non utique dubitandum est quod superveniens in fontem vel super eum qui baptismum consequitur veritatem regenerationis operetur Mary conceived by the Holy Ghost without the intervention of any Man as S. Matthew tells us She was found with Child of the Holy Ghost If then the Holy Spirit coming upon the Virgin made her to conceive c. we need not question but that the same Spirit coming upon the Water of Baptism or on him that is baptized do's produce true Regeneration And P. Leo Mag. †De Nativit Dom. Ser. 4. Christus dedit aquae quod dedit-Matri Virtus enim Altissimi obumbratio Spiritus S. quae fecit ut Maria pareret Salvatorem eadem facit ut regeneret unda credentem Christ gave to the Water what he gave to his Mother for the Power of the most High and the Overshadowing of the H. Spirit which caused Mary to bring forth our Saviour the same causes the Water to regenerate a Believer Excepting therefore these Wonders of God's Grace the Fathers knew no other Miracles in the Sacraments and these Wonders are common to both the Sacraments and not peculiar to one of them only This even Card. Cajetan * In 3. part q. 75. art 1. Non est disputandum de divina potentia ubi de Sacramentis tractatur Ibid. art 2. Stultum est ponere in hoc argumento quicquid Deus potest facere was so sensible of that he tells us We must not dispute concerning God's Power when we treat of Sacraments And again It is a fcolish thing to assert in this Argument whatsoever God can do He was not ignorant of what S. Austin had said long before †Lib. 3. de Trin. c. 10. Quia haec hominibus nota sunt quia per homines fiunt honorem tanquam religiosa possunt habere stuporem tanquam mira non possunt who speaking of Signs taken to signifie other things and instancing in the Bread taken and consumed in the Sacrament adds But because these things are known to men as being made by men they may have Honour given them for their relation to Religion but cannot raise Astonishment as Miracles or Wonders Which he could never have said if he had believed the Wonders and Miracles of Transubstantiation I 'le conclude this Head with another Saying of his * Lib. 3. cont Julian c. 3. Haec sunt sententiarum portenta vestrarum haec inopinata mysteria Dogmatum novorum haec paradoxa Pelagianorum haereticorum mirabiliora quà m Stoicorum Philosophorum Mira sunt quae dicitis nova sunt quae dicitis falsa sunt quae dicitis Mira stupemus nova cavemus falsa convincimus which may be as well applied to the absurd Paradoxes and Miracles which the Roman Church advances in this Case of the Eucharist as ever it was to those he there confutes about Baptism These are the Prodigies of your Opinions these are the uncouth Mysteries of New Dogma's these are the Paradoxes of Pelagian Hereticks more wonderful than those of the Stoick Philosophers The things you say are Wonderful the things you say are New the things you say are False We are amazed at your Wonders we are cautious against your Novelties and we confute your Falsities But this Difference being more general we go on to more particular ones CHAP. II. The Second Difference The Church of Rome differs from the Fathers in determining what that thing is which Christ calls MY BODY THE Trent Catechism (a) Ad Paroch part 2.37 §. Haec vero Si panis substantia remaneret nullo modo dici videretur Hoc est Corpus meum tho' it do's not determine what the word THIS refers to only telling us that it must demonstrate the whole Substance of the thing present yet it expresly denies that it refers to the Substance of Bread for it adds If the Substance of Bread remained it seems no way possible to be said that THIS IS MY BODY So Bellarmine confesses (b) De Euchar. l. 1. c. 1. sec Nonus that this Proposition This Bread is my Body must be taken figuratively that the Bread is the Body of Christ by way of signification or else it is plainly absurd and impossible And he acknowledges (c) Ib. lib. 2. cap. 9. §. Observandum that this Proposition The Wine is the Lord's Blood teaches that Wine is Blood by similitude and likeness And elsewhere (d) Lib. 3. cap. 19. It cannot be a true Proposition in which the Subject is supposed to be Bread and the Predicate the Body of Christ for Bread and Christ's Body are res diversissimae things most different And a little after If we might affirm disparata de disparatis different things of one another you might as well affirm and say that something is nothing and nothing something that Light is Darkness and Darkness Light that Christ is Belial and Belial Christ neither do's our Faith oblige us to defend those things that evidently imply a Contradiction So also Vasquez (e) Disp 180. cap. 9. n. 91. Si pronomen Hoc in illis verbis demonstraret panem fatemur etiam fore ut nulla conversio virtute illorum â—â—eri possit quia panis de quo enunciatur manere debet If the Pronoun THIS in Christ's Words pointed at the Bread then we confess it would follow that no Conversion could be made by virtue of these Words because the Bread of which it is affirmed sc that it is Christ's Body ought to remain Now that which the present Roman Church dare not affirm because if it be taken properly it is untrue absurd impossible as implying a Contradiction we shall now shew that the Fathers plainly affirm it who yet could not be ignorant of this Absurdity From whence it necessarily follows that they took the whole words THIS IS MY BODY figuratively as the Protestants do since they cannot be taken otherwise if Bread be affirmed to be Christ's Body as the Romanists confess Now that the Fathers affirmed that Bread is Christ's Body is certain by these following Testimonies S. Irenaeus (f) Adv. Haeres l. 5. c. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Our Lord confessed the Cup which is of the Creature to be his Blood and the Bread which is of the Creature he confirmed it to be his Body Clement of Alexandria (g) Paedag. lib. 2. c. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Our Lord blessed the Wine saying Take drink this is my Blood the Blood of the Grape For the Holy River of Gladness so he calls the Wine do's allegorically signifie the Word i. e. the Blood of the Word shed for many for the remission
of Sins Tertullian (h) Adv. Judaeos c. 21. Panem corpus suum appellans Calling Bread his Body Speaking of Christ And against Marcion (i) Idem adv Marcion lib. 3. cap. 19. Panem corpus suum appellans ut hinc eum intelligas corporis sui figuram pani dedisse c. he says the same Calling Bread his Body that thou mayst know that he gave to Bread the Figure of his Body c. And in the next Book (k) Lib. 4. advers Marc. c. 40. Acceptum panem distributum Discipulis corpus suum illum fecit Hoc est corpus meum dicendo id est figura corporis mei The Bread that he took and distributed to his Disciples he made it his Body saying This is my Body that is the Figure of my Body S. Cyprian (l) Epist 76. ad Magnum Quando Dominus corpus suum panem vocat de multorum granorum adunatione congestum c. When our Lord called the Bread which is made up of many united Grains his Body c. Tatianus Syrus (m) Harmon in Bibl. Patrum 1624. Tom. 7. Accepto pane deinde vini calice corpus esse suum ac sanguinem testatus c. Christ taking the Bread and after that the Cup of Wine testified that they were his Body and Blood c. Origen (n) Hom. 35. in Matth. Paâ—â— isce quem Dominus corpus suum esse fatetur That Bread which our Lord confessed to be his Body Eusebius (o) Demonstr Evang. lib. 8. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Christ appointed them or delivered to them to make use of Bread for a Symbol of his Body Cyril of Jerusalem (p) Catech. Mystag 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 When Christ affirms and says of the Bread This is my Body who will dare to doubt further of it S. Jerome (q) Epist ad Hedibiam Nos audiamus panem quem fregit Dominus deditque discipulis suis esse corpus Salvatoris c. Let us hear that the Bread which our Lord brake and gave to his Disciples is the Body of our Saviour Which he explains further elsewhere (r) Comm. in 26. Matt. Quomodo in praefiguratione ejus Melchisedek panâ—m vinum offerens fecerat ipse quoque veritatem sui corporis sanguinis repraesentaret That as Melchisedek prefiguring him had done when he offered Bread and Wine so he also represented the Truth of his Body and Blood. S. Chrysostom (s) In 1 Cor. Hom. 24. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 What is the Bread The Body of Christ What do they become that receive it The Body of Christ Not many Bodies but one Body S. Austin (t) Serm. ad recens baptizat apud Fulgentium Bedam c. Quod fides vestra postulat instruenda Panis est corpus Christi Calix sanguis Christi What your Faith is to be instructed in is That the Bread is the Body of Christ and the Cup the Blood of Christ And elsewhere (u) Contr. Adimantum c. 12. Non dubitavit Dominus dicere Hoc est corpus meum cum daret signum corporis sui Our Lord doubted not to affirm This is my Body when he gave the Sign of his Body Gaudentius (x) In Exod. tract 2. Cùm panem consecratum vinum discipulis suis porrigeret Dominus sic ait Hoc est corpus meam When our Lord reached the Consecrated Bread and Wine to his Disciples he said thus This is my Body Cyril of Alexandria (y) In Jâ—an 20.26 27. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Christ when he had broken the Bread as it is written distributed it saying This is my Body Theophilus Antioch (z) Com. in Matth. 26. or the Author under his Name upon the Gospels soeaks just S. Cyprian's Language When Jesus said This is my Body he called the Bread his Body which is made up of many Grains by which he would represent the People c. Theodoret (a) In Dialog 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. In the delivery of the Mysteries he called the Bread his Body and that which is mixed Wine and Water in the Cup Blood. And afterwards He honoured the visible Symbols with the appellation of his Body and Blood c. Facundus Hermian (b) In Defens 3. capit lib. 9. c. ult Ipse Dominus benedictum panem calicem quem discipulis tradidit corpus sanguinem suum vocavit Our Lord himself called the Blessed Bread and Cup which he delivered to the Disciples his Body and Blood. Maxentius (c) Dialog 2. c. 13. Sed panis ille quem universa Ecclesia in memoriam Dominicae passionis participat corpus ejus speaking of the Church that is called Christ's Body adds Also the Bread which the whole Church partakes of in memory of the Lord's Passion is his Body Isidore of Sevil (d) Originum lib. 6. cap. 19. Hoc eo jubente corpus Christi sanguinem dicimus quod dum fit ex fructibus terrae sanctificatur fit Sacramentum operante invisibiliter Spiritu Dei. says We call this by his Command the Body and Blood of Christ which being made of the Fruits of the Earth is sanctified and made a Sacrament by the invisible Operation of the Spirit of God. Bede (e) Comm. in Marc. 14. Quia panis corpus confirmat vinum vero sanguinem operatur in carne hic ad corpus Christi mysticè illud refertur ad sanguinem Christ said to his Disciples This is my Body c. because Bread strengthens the Body and Wine produces Blood in the Flesh This relates mystically to Christ's Body and That to his Blood. The Seventh General Council at Constantinople (f) Extat in Conc. Nicen. 2. Art. 6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 after reciting the Words of the Institution This is my Body after his taking and blessing and breaking it adds Behold the Image of his Life-giving Body made preciously and honourably And afterwards It pleased him that the Bread of the Sacrament being the true Figure of his natural Flesh should be made a Divine Body being sanctified by the coming of the Holy Ghost upon it c. Druthmarus (g) Comm. in Matth. 26. Hoc est corpus meum id est in Sacramento Quia inter omnes vitae alimonias cibus panis vinum valent ad confirmandam recreandam nostram infirmitatem recte per haec duo mysterium sui Sacramenti confirmare placuit Vinum namque laetificat sanguinem auget idcirco non inconvenienter sanguis Christi per hoc figuratur quoniam quicquid nobis ab ipso venit laetificat laetitiâ verâ anget omne bonum nostrum This is my Body that is to say in a Sacrament Because among all things that are the Food of Life Bread and Wine serve to strengthen and refresh our Weaknesses it is with great Reason that he would in these two things
S. Chrysostome (t) Epist ad Caesarium Dignus habitus est Dominici Corporis appellatione says of the Consecrated Bread That it has no longer the name of Bread tho' the nature of it remains but is counted worthy to be called the Lord's Body Theoderet in like manner (u) Dialog 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He honoured the visible Symbols with the appellation of 〈◊〉 Body and Blood. Facundus Hermian (x) In defens 3. capit l. 9. Non quod propriè Corpus cjus 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 ipâ—arum 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. Fortê dicis speciem sanguinis non video Sed habet similitudinem Sicut enim mortis similitudinem sumpsisti ita etiam similitudinem pretiosi 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 significat 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 five granis five 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 five 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 just as if a person taking a Journey from home should leave some pledge to one whom he loves that as oft as he look'd upon it he might call to mind his kindnesses and friendships So also Amalarius (m) De Offic. Eccles l. 3. c. 25. Edit Hittorpii p. 425. Christus inclinato capite emisit spiritum Sacerdos inclinat se hoc quod vice Christi immolatum est deo Patri commendat Christ bowing his head gave up the Ghost The Priest bows himself and commends to God the Father this which is offered as a Sacrifice in the place of Christ 5. Observ That altho' for the Reasons given the Fathers call the Sacrament Christs Body yet they plainly say that what is distributed in the Eucharist is without any life or sense which cannot be said of Christs natural Body Epiphanius (n) In Anchorat 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 We see what our Saviour took in his hands viz. Bread and having given thanks said This is mine and that and yet we see that it is not equal to it nor like it not to the incarnate Image not to the invisible Deity not to the Lineaments of members for this the Bread is of a round form and insensible as to any power Theophilus of Alexandria (o) Epist Paschal 2. Non recogitat a juas in Baptismate mysticas adventu Sp. Sancticonsecrari panemque Dominicum quo Salvatoris Corpus ostenditur quen frangimus in Sanctificationen nostri S. calicem quae in mensa Ecclesiae collocantur utique inanima sunt per invocationem adventum Spiritûs S. sanctificari discoursing against Origen who did not believe that the H. Ghost did operate upon things inanimate says He Origen do's not remember that the mystical waters in Baptism are consecrated by the coming of the H. Ghost and that the Lords Bread whereby the Body of our Saviour is shown and which we break for our sanctification and the H. Cup which are all placed upon the Table of the Church and are indeed without life yet are Sanctified by the Invocation and advent of the H. Ghost S. Jerome (p) Epist ad Theoph. Alex. Ut discant qui ignorant cruditi testimoniis Scripturarum qua debeant veneratione Sancta suscipere Altaris servitio deservire sacrosque calices sancta velamina caetera quae ad cultum pertinent Dominicae Passionis non quasi inanima sensu carentia Sanctimoniam non habere sed ex consortio corporis sanguinis Domini eadem qua Corpus ejus Sanguis Majestate veneranda commending the foresaid work and admiring at the profit the Churches would reap thereby says They they who are ignorant being instructed by Scripture-Testimonies may learn with what veneration they ought to meddle with holy things and serve at the Altar and that the H. Chalices and H. Veils and the rest of the things that appertain to the Celebration of our Lord's Passion are not to be look'd upon as having no sanctity as being without life and sense but by reason that they accompany the Body and Blood of our Lord are to be venerated with the same majestick regard that his Body and Blood is 6. Observ That the Fathers speak of Divisions and parts of the Eucharist which cannot be truly said of the natural Body of Christ which the Rom. Church confesses to be impassible but only of the Sacramental Bread and Wine Cyprian (q) Lib. de Lapsis Quidam alius ipse maculatus sacrificio à Sacerdote celebrato partem cum caeteris ausus est latenter accipere sanctum Domini edere contrectare non potuit Another who was also defiled the Sacrifice being Celebrated by the Priest was so bold as privily to take a part of it with others but he could not eat and handle the Holy Body of the Lord. Clemens Alexandr (r) Strom. l. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 When the Bishop according to custom had divided the Eucharist they suffered every one of the people to take a portion of it Origen (s) Hom. 13. in Exodum Cùm suscipitis Corpus Domini cum omni cautela veneratione servatis ne ex eo parum quid decidat ne consecratimuneris aliquid dilabatur c. if they be his genuine words says When ye receive the Lords Body ye keep it with all caution and veneration lest any little portion of it should fall down lest any thing of the consecrated gift should slip down to the ground c. S. Basil (t) Epist 289. ad Caesariam showing that they that have received the Communion in the Church may reserve it and Communicate themselves at home with their own hand and that the practice was thus in Alexandria and Egypt adds that when the Priest has distributed the Sacrifice he that receives it whole 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and takes daily a part of that which was so given him ought to believe that he rightly receives it It is the same in virtue whether a person receive a single part from the Priest or many parts together S. Ambrose agrees with it (u) Epist 1. ad Justum Etsi parum sumas etsi plurimum haurias eadem perfecta est omnibus mensura redemptionis speaking of the Blood of Christ Whether thou takest says he a little or drinkest a larger draught there is the same perfect measure of redemption to all So also S. Austin (x) Epist 59. ad Paulin. Ad. distribuendum comminuitur speaking of that upon the Lords Table which is blessed and sanctified which is Bread he says of it that it is broken into little parts to be distributed Which cannot be said of Christs proper Body And elswhere (y) Epist 86. ad Casulanum De agni immaculati corpore partem sumere his phrase concerning communicating is to take a part from the body of the immaculate Lamb. Also in another place he says (z) De Verb. dom serm 33. In accipiendo novimus quid cogitemus Modicum accipimus in corde saginamur In receiving we know what we think We receive a little portion and are fatted at heart Cyril of Alexandria (a) In Joan. 6.57 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 says The least part of the Consecrated Bread which he calls the Eulogy mingles the whole Body into it self and fills it with its own energy and thus both Christ is in us and we again are in him Eusebius
J. Christi c. Not all Bread but only that which receives Christ's blessing is made the Body of Christ Canon of the Mass Which Oblation O Almighty God we beseech thee vouchsafe to make blessed allowable firm rational and acceptable that it may be made to us the Body and Blood of thy most dear Son our Lord Jesus Christ c. Also the Fathers say still more expresly that the Body and Blood of Christ is made of Bread and Wine Thus the Author of the Book of Sacraments under S. Ambrose's name (c) Lib. 4. de Sacram. c. 4. Tu fortè dicis meus panis est usitatus sed panis iste panis est ante verba Sacramentorum ubi accesserit consecratio de pane fit caro Christi Perhaps thou wilt say My Bread is usual Bread but tho' that Bread be Bread before the Sacramental words yet upon Consecration of Bread is made the Flesh of Christ Gaudentius (d) In Exod. trac 2. Ipse naturarum Creator Dominus qui producit de terra panem de pane rursus qui poâ—est promisit efficit proprium corpus qui de aqua vinum fecit de vino sanguinem suum The Creator and Lord of nature himself who produces Bread out of the Earth of Bread again seeing he is oble and has promised it he makes his own Body and he that of Water made Wine made also of Wine his Blood. Now all this can be meant of nothing else but what we heard out of Eusebius before of the Image of his Body which he commanded his Disciples to make S. Jerome also explains it of the Sacramental Bread and Wine upon those words of the Prophet (e) In Jerem. 31.12 De quo conficitur panis Domini sanguinis ejus impletur typus benedictio Sanctificationis ostenditur They shall flow together to the goodness of the Lord for Wheat and for Wine and Oil. He adds Of which the Lords Bread is made and the type of his Blood is fulfilled and the blessing of sanctification is shown And in another place (f) In cap. 9. Zachar. De hoc tritico efficitur ille panis qui de Coelo descendit confortat cor hominis Of this Wheat the Bread that descended from Heaven is made and which strengthens the heart of man. Which must be understood of the Bread received in the Eucharist So Tertullian (g) Antea citat Corpus suum illum sc panem fecit hoc est Corpus meum dicendo id est Figura Corporis mei explains himself He made Bread his Body saying This is my Body That is the Figure of my Body And Leo Magn. (h) Epist 88. Nec licet Presbyteris nisi eo sc Episcopo jubente Sacramentum Corporis sanguinis Christi conficere Neither may the Presbyters without the Bishops Command make the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ S. Chrysostom (i) Hom. 29. in Genes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 speaking of Wine says By this the matter of the good things for our Salvation is perfected Where by those good things he plainly means the Wine in the Eucharist It is also very observable that the Fathers sometimes call this the mystical Bread and Wine and sometimes the mystical Body and Blood of Christ Thus S. Austin (k) Contr. Faust l. 20. c. 13. Noster panis calix certâ consecratione mysticus fit nobis non nascitur says Our Bread and Cup is made mystical to us by a certain consecration and does not grow so S. Chrysostom (l) De râ—surrect mort Hom. 33. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 thus The mystical Body and Blood is not made without the grace of the spirit When S. Ambrose (m) Lib de iis qui initiant c. 9. Hoc quod conficimus Corpus ex Virgine est Sacramentum illud quod accipis sermonâ— Christi conficitur Vera utique caro Christi quae crucifixa est quae sepulta est Verè ergo carâ—is illius Sacramentum est had said This Body which we make is of the Virgin. He explains this phrase by another before it viz. That Sacrament which thou receivest is made by the Word of Christ And also by another saying of his that follows It was true Flesh of Christ that was Crucified and buried it is therefore truly the Sacrament of his Flesh Where you see he distinguishes these two the Flesh of Christ Crucified and that in the Sacrament which is only mystically so Hesychius (n) In Levit. lib. 6. Corpore mystico non vescetur speaking of Jews Pagans and Hereticks says that the Soul in Society with them may not eat of the mystical Body that is of the Eucharist And elsewhere (o) Id. ibid. lib. 2. Christus bibens ipse Apostolis bibere dans sanguinem intelligibilem speaking of the Cup in the Sacrament uses this phrase Christ drinking himself and giving to the Apostles the intelligible Blood to drink Where intelligible Blood is the mystical Blood in the Eucharist according to his constant use of that word Procopius of Gaza (p) In Esa cap. 3. upon those words of the Prophet of Gods taking away the Staff of Bread and stay of Water and telling us that Christs Flesh is meat indeed and his Blood drink indeed which they that have not have not the strength of Bread and Water he adds there is another enlivening Bread also taken from the Jews 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. where he means the Eucharist distinguishing it from Christs proper Flesh and Blood. S. Ambrose (q) De benedict Patriarch c. 9. Hunc panem dedit Jesus Apostolis ut dividerent populo credentium hodieque dat nobis eum quem ipse quotidie sacerdos consecrat suis verbis Hic panis factus est esca Sanctorum Possumus ipsum Dominum accipere qui carnem suam nobis dedit sicut ipse ait Ego sum panis vitae makes the same distinction where speaking of the Benediction of Asser that his Bread was fat c. and that Asser signifies riches he adds Jesus gave this Bread to the Apostles that they should divide it among believing people and he now gives it to us being that which the Priest daily Consecrates with his words This Bread is made the food of Saints We may also understand thereby the Lord himself who gave his Flesh to us as he says I am the Bread of Life What can be more clear than that he distinguishes here between the Eucharistical Bread which he calls the Saints food and Christ himself the Bread of Life 8. Observ The Fathers speak of Christ's Body sanctified and sacrificed in the Eucharist which cannot be understood of any thing but his representative and Typical Body S. Austin (r) Epist 59. Quod in Domini mensa est benedicirur sanctificatur speaking of that which is upon the Lords Table which the Church of Rome will
do it but waves this always even where he seems as he do's in his Retractations to determine for his having palpable Flesh and Bones 2. Why S. Austin should ever at all doubt or hesitate about this Matter of Christ's Blood after his Resurrection is unconceivable if he with the rest of the Fathers had such a constant Belief of its Presence in the Eucharist as the Romanists affirm 3. That tho' the Fathers use the Argument of the Eucharist to prove the Truth of Christ's Body yet none ever urged Origen or his Followers with an Argument from thence to confute their Opinions differing from the pretended common Sentiments about the Body and Blood of Christ by what lay so plainly before them of his Body and Blood being in the Eucharist if they had believed it But I refer the Reader to Monsieur Allix his Dissertation before-named wherein he may find abundant Satisfaction in these Matters and also will see how sadly the Romanists are put to it to answer the Difficulties about the Blood of Christ which they pretend to shew in so many Churches and is produced in such Quantities that may well cause a new Doubt Whether if his Resurrection-Body have any Blood in it we must not suppose it to be of a new Creation since what was in his Body when he died cannot suffice to furnish more Blood if so much as their Vials and Glasses are filled withal CHAP. X. The Tenth Difference The Fathers assert positively that the substance of the Elements remain after Consecration that Bread and Wine are taken eaten and drunk in the Sacrament which all that believe Transubstantiation must deny WE have seen before that the Fathers say plainly that it was Bread which Christ called his Body when he blessed it Now we shall see that the Fathers are as positive that after Consecration and the change made by it yet still the Bread and Wine remains I begin with that famous Testimony of S. Chrysostome against the Apollinarians produced first by P. Martyr by some of our Adversaries charged upon him as his Forgery because it was so full against them by others shifted off to another John of Constantinople and denied to be S. Chrysostome's but vindicated for his See Append. to the Defence of the Exposition of the Doctrine of the Church of England p. 142 143 c. by the Learned Bigotius who had transcribed it out of the Florentine Library of S. Mark 's Monastery and prepared it for the Press in his Edition of Palladius then suppressed by some Doctors of the Sorbonne and the printed leaves taken out of the Book but now lately recovered and published to their shame◠A passage of which the subject of this great contest I shall here set down Christ is both God and Man God Deus homo Christus Deus propter impassibilitatem Homo propter Passionem Unus Filius unus Dominus idem ipse proculdubus unitarum naturarum unam dominationem unam potestatem possidens etiamsi non consubstantiales existunt unaquaeque in commixtam proprietatis conservat agnitionem propter hec quod inconfusa sunt duo dico Sicut enim antequam sanctificetur Panis Panem nominamus divina autem illum Sanctificante gratiâ mediante sacerdote liberatus est quidem appellatione panis dignus autem habitus est dominici corporis appellatione etiamsi natura panis in ipso permansit non duo corpora sed unum corpus filii praedicatur Sic hic Divinâ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 id est inundante corporis naturâ unum filium unam personam utraque haec fecerunt Agnoscondum tamen inconfusam indivisibilem rationem non in unâ solùm natura sed in dimbus perfectis for that he is impassible Man for that he suffered One Son one Lord he the same without doubt having one Dominion one power of two united natures not that these natures are consubstantial seeing each of them do's retain without confusion its own properties and being two are inconfused in him For as in the Eucharist before the Bread is consecrated we call it Bread but when the grace of God by the Priest has consecrated it it has no longer the name of Bread but is counted worthy to be called the Lords Body altho' the nature of Bread remains in it and we do not say there are two Bodies but one Body of the Son. So here the divine nature being joined to the humane Body they both together make one Son one Person but yet they must be acknowledged to remain without confusion and after an indivisible manner not in one nature only but in two perfect natures Another remarkable Testimony is in Theodoret's Dialogues some part of which I hope the Reader will not think it tedious to be inserted here since by observing the thread of his Discourse he will see his undoubted sense to be that the substance of the Bread and Wine remain in the Eucharist and the change is by addition not annihilation and I will add his Greek where it is needful Orthodoxus Dial. 1 Do you not know that God called his Body Bread Erannistes I know it Orth. Elsewhere also he calleth his Flesh Wheat Eran. I know that also Unless a Corn of Wheat fall into the ground and die c. Orth. But in the delivery of the mysteries he called the Bread his Body and that which is mixed viz. Wine and Water in the Cup Blood. Eran. He did so call them Orth. But that which is his Body by nature 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is also to be called his Body and his Blood viz. by nature Blood. Eran. It is confess'd Orth. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But our Saviour changed the names and on his Body he imposed the name of the symbol or sign and on the symbol he put the name of his body And so having called himself a Vine he called the Symbol Blood. Eran. Very right But I have a mind to know the reason of this change of names Orth. The scope is manifest to those that are initiated in Divine things 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For he would have those that participate the divine mysteries not to attend to the nature of those things that are seen but upon the changing of the names to believe the change that is made by grace For he that called his Body that is so by nature Wheat and Bread 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and again termed himself a Vine he honoured the visible Symbols with the appellation of his Body and Blood not altering nature but to nature adding grace Proceed we now to the next Dialogue Orth. Dial. 2 The mystical Symbols offered to God by the Priests pray tell me what are they signs of Eran. Of the Lords Body and Blood. Orth. Of his Body truly or not truly such Era. Of that which is truly his Body Orth. Very right For there must be an original of an Image 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for Painters
imitate nature and draw the Images of visible things Era. True. Orth. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If then the divine mysteries are Antitypes of a true Body then the Lords Body is a true Body still not changed into the nature of the Deity but filled with Divine Glory Era. You have seasonably brought in the Discourse of the Divine Mysteries for thereby I will shew that the Lords Body is changed into another Nature Answer therefore my Question Orth. I will. Era. What call you the Gift that is offered before the Priests Invocation Orth. I may not openly declare 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 duābus naturis in Christo Certè Sacramenta quae sumimus corporis sanguinis Christi divina res est propter quod per eadem divinae efficimur consortes naturae tamen esse non definit 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 ramen 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 Photii Biblioth cod 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'
Sacramentum It is the true Flesh of Christ that was buried therefore it viz. the Eucharist is truly the Sacrament of his flesh S. Austin (q) Serm. ad recen Batis Quomodo est panis corpus ejus calix vel quod habet calix sanguis ejus Ista fratres ideo dicuntur Sacramenta quia in iis aliud videtur aliud intelligitur How is the Bread his Body and the Cup or what the Cup contains his Blood These Brethren are therefore called Sacraments because in them we see one thing and understand another Again (r) In Psal 68. conc 1. Cùm veniret Dominus ad coenam qua commendavit Sacramentum corporis sanguinis sui When the Lord came to the Supper wherein he commended the Sacrament of his Body and Blood. Facundus (s) Defens 3. capit l. 9. Christi fideles Sacramentum corporis sanguinis ejus accipientes corpus sanguinem Christi rectè dicuntur accipere non quod propriè corpus ejus sit panis poculum sanguis sed quod in se mysterium corporis sanguinisque contineant Christs faithful ones receiving the Sacrament of his Body and Blood are rightly said to receive his Body and Blood. And he had said before Not that the Bread is properly his Body and the Cup his Blood but because they contain in them the mystery of his Body and Blood. Isidore (t) De Offic. Eccles l. 1. c. 18. Haec duo sunt visibilia sanctificata autem per Spiritum Sanctum in Sacramentum Divini Corporis transeunt speaking of the Bread and Wine says These two are visible but being sancrified by the Holy Spirit they pass into a Sacrament of his Divine Body They call them also Symbols Origen (u) Comm. in Matth. 15. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Having discoursed as we hear◠before of the Eucharist concludes thus Thu much may suffice concerning the Typical and symbo lical Body And distinguishes it from the word that was made Flesh which he calls true food Eusebius (x) Dem. Evang. l. 1. cap. 10. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Having received a command to celebrate the memory of this Sacrifice upon the Table by the Symbols of his Body and saving Blood according to the Ordinances of the N. Testament Theodoret (y) Comm. in 1 Cor. 13. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not only in the large Testimony produced out of him in the last Chapter calls the Bread and Wine the Symbols of Christs Body and Blood but says thus elsewhere In the most H. Baptism we see a type of the resurrection then we shall see the resurrection it self Now we see the Symbols of the Lords Body there we shall see the Lord himself They call them Signs S. Austin (z) Contr. Adimant c. 12. Non dubitavit Dominus dicere hoc est corpus meum cùm daret signum corporis sui Our Lord did not doubt to say This is my Body when he gave the sign of his Body S. Ambrose (a) De iis qui init c. 9. Ante benedictionem verborum Coelestium alia species nominatur post Consecrationem Corpus Christi significatur of the Bread. Before the Benediction of the Heavenly words another species is named after the Consecration the Body of Christ is signified S. Cyprian (b) Nec potest videri sanguis ejus quo redempti vivificati sumus esse in calice quùm vinum desit calici quo Christi sanguis ostenditur Epist ad Caecilium Neither can the Blood of Christ whereby we are redeemed and quickned be seen to be in the Cup when Wine is wanting in the Cup whereby the Blood of Christ is shown Speaking against those that used only Water Tertullian (c) L. 1. adv Marcion Nec panem reprobavit quo ipsum Corpus suum reptaesentat Neither did he reject Bread whereby he represents his own Body S. Jerome (d) In Matth. 26. Ut quomodo in praefiguratione ejus Melchisedec summi Dei sacerdos panem vinum offerens fecerat ipse quoque veritatem sui corporis sanguinis repraesentarer◠Christ says he took Bread that comforts mans heart and proceeded to the true Sacrament of the Passover That like as Melchisedeck the Priest of the High God had done when he offered Bread and Wine so he also might represent the truth of his Body and Blood. It 's a very trifling objection that our Adversaries make both to this and the former Testimony in Tertullian that the word repraesentare to represent signifies very often to exhibit a thing and make it present for tho' it should be granted it would not help their cause since they both say that it is Bread that represents his Body which therefore must remain since that which is not cannot act any thing but then I add that tho' in some Cases to represent is to exhibit yet never in the Case of Sacraments and Signs for their Essence consists in signification therefore their representation as Signs must be to denote and show rather something absent which they represent than to make it present They call them also Types Cyril of Jerus (e) Catech. Mystag 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He bids us receive the Bread and Wine with all certainty as the Body and Blood of Christ for in the Type of the Bread his Body is given to thee and in the type of Wine his Blood. Greg. Nazianzen (f) In Pasch Orat. 43. Ed. Basil Gr. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 We. shall receive the Passover now in a Type still tho' more clear than that of the old Law for the legal Passover I am beld to say it was an obscure Type of a Type but within a while we shall receive it more perfect and more pure S. Jerome (g) In Jerem. 31. upon those words of Jerem. 31. They shall flow unto the goodness of the Lord for Wheat and Wine and Oyl adds De quo conficitur panis Domini sanguinis ejus impletur typus benedictio sanctificationis ostenditur Of which is made the Lords Bread and the Type of his Blood is filled and the Blessing of Sanctification is shown Theodoret (h) Dialog 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 calls the Eucharist The venerable and saving Type of Christs Body Another name is Antitypes signifying the same with the former Author Constitutionum (i) Lib. 5. cap. 13. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 under the name of Clemens Roman Christ delivered to us the mysteries which are antitypes of his precious Body and Blood. Again (k) Lib. 7. c. 26. O our Father we give thee thanks for the precious Blood of Jesus Christ shed for us 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and for his precious Body of which we celebrate these Antitypes Eustathius of Antioch (l) In Proverb 9. citat in Cenc Nic. 2. Act. 6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 expounding those words Eat my Bread and Drink the Wine that I
have mingled says He speaks these things by Bread and Wine preaching the Antitypes of Christs Bodily Members Macarius (m) Homil. 27. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In the Church is offered Bread and Wine the Antitype of Christs Flesh and Blood. Greg. Nazianzen (n) Orat. 11. telling the story how his Sister Gorgonia was Cured of a desperate Malady 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. by applying the Sacrament mixed with tears to her Body he expresses it thus Whatsoever of the Antitypes of the precious Body and Blood of Christ her hand had treasured up c. Cyril of Jerus (o) Catech. Mystag 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 When they tast they are not required to tast Bread and Wine i. e. not these alone but the Antitype of Christs Body and Blood. Theodoret as we heard before (p) Dialog 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 calls the Divine Mysteries the Antitypes of the True Body of Christ And in another place (q) Recapit in fine Dialog 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he says If the Lords Flesh be changed into the Nature of the Divinity wherefore do they receive the Antitypes of his Body for the Type is superfluous you see Type and Antitype signify the same when the Truth is taken away Theodotus of Antioch (r) Citante Bulingero adv Casaub p. 166. says As the King himself and his Image are not two Kings neither are these two Bodies viz. The Body of Christ personally existing in the Heavens and the Bread the Antitype of it which is delivered in the Church by the Priests to the Faithful They call it a Figure Tertullian (s) Lib. 3. adv Maricion Tanem corpus suum appellans ut hinc etiam intelligas corporis sui figuram pani dedisse Calling Bread his Body that thou mayst thence understand that he gave to the Bread the Figure of his Body Again (t) Lib. 4. adv Marcion c. 40. Acceptum panem distributum discipulis corpus suum illum fecit hoc est corpus meum dicendo id est figura corporis mei The Bread which he took and distributed to his Disciples he made it his Body saying This is my Body that is the Figure of my Body Ephrem Syrus (u) Tract de nat dei curiosè non scrutanda Diligenter intuere quomodo in manibus panem accipiens benedixit fregit in figuram immaculati corporis sui calicemque in figuram pretiosi sanguinis sui benedixit deditque discipulis suis Diligently consider how Christ taking Bread in his hands blessed and brake it for a figure of his immaculate Body and also blessed and gave the Cup to his Disciples for a figure of his precious Blood. S. Austin (x) In Psal 3. Adhibuit Judam ad convivium in quo corporis sanguinis sui figuram discipulis commendavit tradidit He admitted Judas to the Banquet in which he commended and delivered to his Disciples the figure of his Body and Blood. Bede (y) In Psal 3. Nec à Sacratissimâ coena in quâ figuram Sacrosancti corporis sanguinisque suis discipulis tradidit ipsum sc Judam exclusit also says the same Neither did Christ exclude Judas from the most holy Supper in which he delivered to his Disciples the figure of his most holy Body and Blood. And elsewhere (z) In Luc. 22. Pro agni carne vel sanguine suae carnis sanguinisque Sacramentum in panis vini figurâ substituens ipsum se esle monstraret cui juravit Dominus Tu es sacerdos in aeternum secundùm Ordinem Melchisedec Christ instead of the Flesh or Blood of a Lamb substituting the Sacrament in the Figure of Bread and Wine showed that it was he to whom the Lord sware Thou art a Priest for ever after the Oâ—â—â— of Melchisedeck The words of the Ambrosian Office are very remarkable as they are set down by the Author of the Book of Sacraments under his name where he asks this Question (a) Lib. 4. de Sacram. c. 5. in initio Vis scire quia verbis coelestibus consecratur Accipe quae sint verba Dicit sacerdos Fac nobis inquit hanc oblationem ascriptam rationabilem acceptabilem quod est Figura corporis sanguinis Domini nostri Jesu Christi c. Wouldst thou know that the Eucharist is Consecrated by Heavenly words Hear then what the words are The Priest says Make this oblation to us allowable rational acceptable which is the Figure of the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ c. This Prayer thus expressed in this Office signifies more than all that can be cited against us out of these Books and indeed they were too plain to be continued when Transubstantiation was believed in the Roman Church and therefore in the present Canon of the Mass they are changed and instead of Figura Corporis they now read Fiat nobis Corpus c. Lastly The Fathers call the Bread and Wine in the Eucharist the Image of Christs Body Eusebius (b) Lib. 8. Demon. Evang. Christ says he delivered to his Disciples the Symbols of his Divine Oeconomy 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 requiring them to make an Image of his Body Gelasius (c) Tract de duabus Naturis 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 c. Surely the Image and similitude of the Body and Blood of Christ are celebrated in the action of the mysteries It is evidently therefore shown to us that we must think of our Lord Christ the same which we profess celebrate and take in his Image c. Procopius of Gaza (d) Comm. in 49 Genes expounding these words spoke◠〈◊〉 Juda His Eyes shall be red with Wine and his Teeth 〈…〉 Milk Gen. 49.12 he applies it to the Eucharis◠〈…〉 gladness which is obtain'd by the 〈…〉 first tasted and had his Disciples take and 〈…〉 Milk may signify the purity 〈…〉 food 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for he gave the â—â—â—ge of his 〈…〉 his Disciples no longer requiring the blâ—â—dy 〈◊〉 of the Law and by the white teeth be denoted the purity of the Bready by which yâ—â— are nourished Author Dialog adv Marcionitas inter opera Originis (e) Dialog 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If Christ as the Marcionists say was without Flesh and without Blood of what Flesh or of what Body or Blood did he give the Images and commanded his Disciples to make a remembrance of him by Synodus Constantinop an 754. (f) In Concil Nicen. 2. Act. 6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Fathers there call the Eucharist the true Image of Christ and say afterwards Christ commanded us to offer an Image a chosen matter to
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 that upon the Sign given all may fall down together and worship him S. Chrysostom (t) Loc. citat 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 calls it a contumely against him that invites one to Feast to be present and not to partake of it and asks Whether it had not been better for such a one to have been absent But the Council of Trent was of another mind and their Opinion is (u) Conc. Trid. Sess 22. c. 6. Non propterea Missas illas in quibus solus sacerdos Sacramentaliter communicat ut privatas illicitas damnare sed probare atque adeo commendare That those Masses in which the Priest communicates sacramentally alone are not to be condemned as private and unlawful but to be approved and commended And not content with this they thunder out an Anathema (x) Ibid. Can. 8. Si quis dixerit Missas in quibus solus sacerdos Sacramentaliter communicat illicitas esse adeoque abrogandas anathema sit against those that say and let S. Chrysostom look to himself that such Masses are unlawful and to be abrogated At these Masses the Novices and Catechumens may be present and no Deacon cries out to them to withdraw for tho' indeed they may not eat yet they may worship And the Penitents that were excluded while their Penance lasted from so much as seeing the Sacrament in the Ancient Church in this Church the oftner they come for this purpose the more welcome and by direction when publick Penance has been enjoined the Holy Altar has been the place chosen before which to perform it as their Annals (y) Annal. Japon ad An. 1579. tells us of one Sangunus a noted Courtier in Japan that for the expiation of a Crime came and fell down at the Altar in the Church of the Royal City and there before the Holy Sacrament claw'd his Back with Scourges so long as one of the Seven Penitential Psalms was recited These Practices tho' so contrary to one another are yet natural enough and well-suited to the Principles of each Church but then it is plain their Principles and Opinions concerning the Sacrament were widely different and that such things were never practised of old was not because Christians then wanted their Devotion but their Faith. 2. Instance A second practice of the Christian Church of old was giving the Communion in both kinds the Cup that is as well as the Bread tho' now by a Law of the Roman Church in the Council of Constance and Trent abolished That the ancient Practice was to deliver it in both Kinds has been often proved by Learned Men on our side and particularly by an excellent late Dicourse against the Bishop of Meaux (x) Discourse of the Communion in one kind in Answer to the Bishop of Meaux 's Treatise upon this Subject and has been also acknowledg'd by the Learned Men of the Roman Communion such as Cassander Wicelius Petavius c. Which makes it needless to insist further upon the proof of it We are sure it continued thus even to the Age when Transubstantion was established by the Lateran Council since we find a whole Army of Charles King of Sicily as the Historian (a) Apud Du Chisn Tom. 5. Hist Franc. p. 840. citante Dallaeo de cultib Latin. lib. 5. c. 12. Cum exercitus esset in procinctu Decanum Meldensem associatis sibi Monachis corpus sanguinem Christiregiis militibus dedisse tells us just before they went to the Fight against Manfred Ann. 1265. or 1266 as other Historians will have it all received the Body and Blood of Christ Aquinas agrees That it was the ancient Custom of the Church That all that communicated of the Body communicated also of the Blood (b) In Joan. 6. Propter periculum effusionis But for to prevent spilling the Blood he says in some Churches the practice is that the Priest alone communicates in the Blood and the rest in the Body of Christ We see then about what time this grand Sacrilege as P. Gelasius calls it (c) Speaking of some Persons that taking the Body abstained from the Cup of the Holy Blood says Aut integra Sacramenta percipiant aut ab integris arceantur quia divisio unius ejusdemque mysterii sine grandi Sacrilegio non potest pervenire Apud Gratian. decrit 3. part 2. dist of dividing one and the same Mystery made a more publick entry into the Church it was when Transubstantiation had been newly made an Article of Faith and it was very natural that this practice should within a while by easy steps be a Consequent of that For Transubstantiation makes Christ's Flesh and Blood the same which he took of the Virgin and which he had when he was crucified to be actually and corporally present in the Eucharist and that in a glorified State to which Divine Adoration is due this is apt to beget a profound Veneration and a mighty Concern lest any thing contumelious should happen to that which Men justly account so very precious Now it being certain that the Blood which is under the Species of Wine is subject to those Casualties by reason of its fluidity which the other Species is not so liable to and that in the glorified State the Body and Blood are inseparable and therefore that one Species viz. that of the Bread contains under it both the Body and Blood together what could be more agreeable to such Sentiments as these than that Men should willingly part with their Right in a Matter wherein they seem not to be much wrong'd being only deprived of a few Accidents of Wine when the Blood was secured to them to secure the Honour of their Saviour It is true indeed that the Stream of the contrary Custom made it difficult to remove that at once notwithstanding this danger of effusion of the Blood which they had been wont in all preceding Ages to receive therefore the Wits of Men being set on work by a new Transubstantiating Doctrine found out some new Devices practised first in the Cells of the Monks but afterwards about the time of Berengarius brought into the Churches to secure that dreadful Danger and yet not deprive the People of communicating in the Blood of Christ One was the Device of Intinction or steeping the Bread in the Wine and thus receiving both at once which as Card. Cusanus informs us (d) Epist 3.
Can. Mâ—ss Unde memores Domine nos servi tui sed plebs tua sancta ejusdeÌ„ Christi Filii tui D.N. tam beatae passionis necnon ab inferis resurrectionis sed in coelos gloriosae ascensionis Osserimus praclarae majestati tuae de tuis donis ac datis Hostiam param hostiam immaculatam Panem sanctum vitae aeternae Calicem salutis perpetuae Supra quae propitio ac sereno vultu respicere digneris accepta habere sicuti accepta habere dignatus eâ— 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 adinitte Per Christum D. N. Per quem haec omnia Domine semper bona creas sanctificas vivificas benedicis prastas 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 What we have taken with our Mouth Quod ore sumpsimus Domine pura mente capiamus de munere temporali fiat nobis remedium sempiternum 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 Eternâ—â— 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
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 Wine in a Cup and said Drink ye all of this This is my Blood which is shed for many for the Remission of Sins The Apostles did as Christ commanded they consecrated Bread and Wine for the Eucharist And to his memory also afterward every one of their Successors and all Christ's Priests According to Christ's Command by the Apostolical Benediction did consecrate Bread and Wine in his Name Now Men have often disputed P. 470. and do it still How that Bread which is prepared of Corn and is baked by the heat of Fire can be changed into Christ's Body and how that Wine which is pressed out of many Grapes by any blessing of it can be changed into our Lord's Blood Now to such Men I answer that some things are spoken of Christ by signification some others by a known thing It is a true thing and known that Christ was born of a Virgin and voluntarily suffered Death and was buried and this Day rose from the Dead He is called Bread and a Lamb and a Lion and otherwise by signification He is called Bread because he is our Life and the Life of Angels He is called a Lamb for his Innocency A Lion for his Strength whereby he overcame the strong Devil Yet notwithstanding according to true Nature Christ is neither Bread nor a Lamb nor a Lion. Wherefore then is that Holy Eucharist called Christ's Body or his Blood if it be not truly what it is called Truly the Bread and Wine which are consecrated by the Mass of the Priests show one thing outwardly to Mens Senses and another thing they declare inwardly to believing Minds Outwardly Bread and Wine are seen both in appearance and in tast yet they are truly after Consecration Christ's Body and Blood by a Spiritual Sacrament An Heathen Child is Baptized yet he altereth not his outward shape though he be changed within He is brought to the Font full of Sin through Adam's Disobedience but he is washed from all his Sins inwardly tho' he has not changed his outward Shape So also that Holy Font-Water which is called the Well-spring of Life is like in Nature in specie to other Waters and is subject to corruption but the Power of the Holy Ghost by the Priest's Blessing comes upon that corruptible Water and after that it can wash both Body and Soul from all Sins P. 471. by spiritual Power We see now in this one Creature two things that whereby according to true Nature it is corruptible Water and that whereby according to the Spiritual Mystery it has a saving Power So also if we look upon that Holy Eucharist according to a corporeal Sense then we see that it is a Creature corruptible and changeable but if we own a spiritual Power there then we understand that Life is in it and that it confers Immortality on those that tast it by Faith. There is a great difference betwixt the insible Vertue and Power of this Holy Eucharist and the visible appearance of its proper Nature By its Nature it is corruptible Bread and corruptible Wine and by the Virtue of the Divine Word it is truly the Body and Blood of Christ yet not corporally so but spiritually There is much differencce betwixt that Body which Christ suffer'd in and that Body which is consecrated for the Eucharist The Body that Chrivt suffer'd in was Born of the Flesh of Mary with Blood and Bones with Skin and Nerves animated by a rational Spirit in humane Members but his Spiritual Body which we call the Eucharist is collected from many grains of Corn without Blood and Bone without Member or Soul wherefore there is nothing in it to be understood Corporeally but all is to be understood Spiritually Whatsoever is in that Eucharist which restores Life to us this is from Spiritual Virtue and from Invisible Operation Therefore that Holy Eucharist is called a Sacrament because one thing is there seen and another thing understood that which is there seen has a bodily Nature that which we understand in it has a spiritual Virtue The Body of Christ that suffered Death P. 472. and rose from the Dead henceforth dies no more but is eternal and impassible That Eucharist is Temporary not Eternal it is corruptible and capable of division into minute Parts it is chewed with the Teeth and sent into the draught yet it will be true that according to spiritual Virtue it is whole in every part Many receive that Holy Body yet according to the spiritual Mystery it will be whole in every part Tho' some receive a lesser part of it yet there will not be more virtue in the greater part than in the lesser because it will be whole in all Men according to the invisible virtue This Sacrament is a Pledg and a Type the Body of Christ is the Truth We keep this Pledg Sacramentally till we come to the Truth it self and then is the Pledg at an end It is indeed as we said before Christ's Body and his Blood but not Corporally but Spiritually Do not dispute how this can be effected but believe it firmly that so it is Here follow some idle Visions which that credulous Age were fond of but are nothing to the purpose and therefore I omit them Paul the Apostle speaketh of the old Israelites writing thus in his Epistle to the Faithful P. 473. All our Fore-fathers were baptized in the Cloud and in the Sea and all ate the same spiritual Meat and all drank the same spiritual Drink for they drank of that spiritual Rock and that Rock was Christ That Rock from whence the Water then flowed was not Christ in a Corporal Sense but it signified Christ who declared thus to the Faithful Whosoever thirsteth let him come to me and drink and from his belly shall flow living Water This he said of the Holy Ghost which they that Believed on him should receive The Apostle Paul said that the People of Israel ate the same spiritual Meat and drank the same Spiritual Drink because the heavenly Food that fed them for forty Years and that Water that flowed from the Rock signified Christ's Body and Blood which are now dayly offered in the Church of God. It was the same which we offer to day not corporally but spiritually We told you before that Christ consecrated Bread and Wine for the Eucharist before his Passion and said This is my Body and my Blood he had not yet suffered and yet he changed by his invisible Power that Bread into his Body and
that Wine into his Blood as he did before in the Wilderness before he was born Man when he turned the heavenly Food into his Flesh and that Water flowing from the Rock into his Blood. P. 474. Many Persons ate of the Heavenly Food in the Desart and drank of the Spiritual Drink and yet as Christ said are dead Christ meant not that Death which no Man can avoid but he understood eternal Death which several of that People for their Unbelief had deserved Moses and Aaron and several others of the People that pleased God ate that heavenly Bread and did not die that everlasting Death tho' they died the common Death They saw that the heavenly Food was visible and Corruptible but they understood that visible thing spiritually and they tasted it spiritually Jesus said Whoso eateth my Flesh and drinketh my Blood hath Eternal Life He did not command them to eat that Body which he had assumed nor to drink that Blood which he shed for us but by that Speech he meant the Holy Eucharist which is Spiritually his Body and his Blood and whosoever tasteth this with a believing Heart shall have that Eternal Life Under the old Law the Faithful offered divers Sacrifices to God which had a future signification of the Body of Christ which he hath offered in Sacrifice to his heavenly Father for our Sins This Eucharist which is now consecrated at God's Altar is a Commemoration of the Body of Christ which he offered for us and of his Blood which he shed for us As he himself commanded Do this in remembrance of me Christ once suffered by himself but yet his Passion by the Sacrament of this Holy Eucharist is daily renewed at the Holy Mass Wherefore the Holy Mass is profitable very much both for the Living and also for the Dead as it hath been often declared c. The rest of the Sermon being of a moral and allegorical Nature I omit Besides this Sermon in Publick we have also two other Remains of Elfrike the Abbot in the Saxon Tongue * Published at the end of the foresaid Sermon printed by John Day Also in the Notes on Bede 's Eccl. Hist p. 332 333 334. which speak the very same Sense and deserve to be inserted as far as they concern this Argument of the Eucharist and the change made in it The first is an Epistle to Wulffine Bishop of Shyrburn in which is this Passage The Eucharist is not the Body of Christ corporally but spiritually not the Body in which he suffered but that Body when he consecrated Bread and Wine for the Eucharist the night before his Passion and said of the Bread he Blessed This is my Body and again of the Wine he blessed This is my Blood which is shed for many for the Remission of Sins Now then understand that the Lord who was able to change that Bread before his Passion into his Body and that Wine into his Blood Spiritually that the same Lord by the Hands of the Priests daily consecrates Bread and Wine for his Spiritual Body and for his Spiritual Blood. The second an Epistle of Elfricke to Wulfstane Arch-Bishop of York in which among other things against too long reserving the Eucharist he says thus Christ himself consecrated the Eucharist before his Passion Vid. p. 334. Hist Eccles Sax. Lat. Bedae he blessed Bread and brake it saying thus to his Apostles Eat this Bread it is my Body and again he blessed the Cup filled with Wine and spake thus to them Drink ye all of this it is my Blood of the New Testament which is shed for many for the Remission of Sins Our Lord who consecrated the Eucharist before his Passion and said that Bread was his Body and Wine truly his Blood he also daily consecrates by the Priests hands Bread for his Body and Wine for his Blood in a Spiritual Mystery as we read in Books Yet notwithstanding that Lively Bread is not the same Body in which Christ suffered nor that Holy Wine the Blood of our Saviour which was shed for us in bodily thing or sence in re corporali but in a Spiritual sence in ratione Spirituali That Bread indeed was his Body and also that Wine his Blood just as that heavenly Bread which we call Manna which fed God's People forty Years viz. was his Body and that clear Water was his Blood that then flowed from the Rock in the Wilderness As Paul writes in his Epistle They all ate the same spiritual Meat and drank the same spiritual Drink c. The Apostle that says what you have heard They all ate c. he do's not say corporally but spiritually Christ was not as yet born nor his Blood shed then it was the People of Israel did eat that Spiritual Meat and drank of that Rock neither was that Rock Christ Corporeally tho' he spake so The Sacraments of the Old Law were the same and did spiritually signify that Sacrament or Eucharist of our Saviour's Body which we now consecrate This Last Epistle Elfricke wrote first in the Latin Tongue to Wulfstane containing tho' not word for word yet the whole Sence of the English Epistle and that Paragraph of it which I have inclosed between two Brackets was look'd upon as so disagreeable to the present Faith of the Roman Church that some had rased them out of the Worcester Book but the same Latin Epistle being found in Exceter Church it was restored I was once about to have added some Citations here out of Bertram's Book de corpore sanguine Domini out of which many passages in the Saxon Sermon foregoing were taken But they are so many that I must have transcribed and the Book it self is small and so well worth the reading especially with the late Translation of it into English and a Learned Historical Dissertation before it giving a large account of the Difference betwixt his Opinion and that of Transubstantiation printed An 1686 that I shall rather refer the Reader to it where he may abundantly satisfy himself Instead of it I will only add one Testimony more out of Rabanus Arch-bishop of Mentz in an Epistle to Heribaldus * Epist ad Herib c. 33. de Eucharist Which we are beholden to the Learned Baluzius for giving it us entire in Appendice ad Reginonem p. 516. a Passage having been rased out of the Manuscript out of which it was first published Thus he says As for the Question you put Quod autem interrogastis utrum Eucharistia postquam consumitur in secessum emittitur more aliorum ciborum iterum redeat in naturam pristinam quam habuerat antequam in Altari consecraretur superflua est hujusmodi Quaestio cùm ipse Salvator dixerit in Evangelio Omne quod intrat in os in ventrem vadit in secessum emittitur Sacramentum Corporis Sanguinis ex rebus visibilibus corporalibus conficitur sed invisibilem tà m corporis quà m animae
be contained in a lesser which the Fathers deny Page 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 Page 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 Page 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 Page 40 A Place of S. Cyril of Jerusalem and another of S. Chrysostome explain'd Page 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 Page 44 2 Obs The Fathers in their manner of speaking concerning Christ's Body point at another thing than his Natural Body Page 46 3 Obs They speak of Christ's Body with Terms of Restriction and Diminution Page 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 Page 49 5 Obs What they call Christ's Body they say is without Life or Sense Page 51 6 Obs They speak of Divisions and Parts of it not to be affirmed of his Natural Body Page 52 7 Obs They speak of making Christ's Body differently from the Sense of the Roman Church Page 54 They affirm 1. That whatsoever is made was not before it was made Page 55 2. That Bread is made his Body and that it is made of Bread and Wine Page 55 56 They call it sometimes Mystical Bread sometimes Christ's Mystical Body Page 57 8 Obs They speak of Christ's Body as sanctified and sacrificed in the Eucharist which is only true of his Typical Body Page 58 The Natural Body of Christ cannot be sanctified nor sacrificed properly Page 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 Page 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 Page 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 Page 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 Page 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 Page 69 70 5 Assert They express as fully and in the same mannâ—r our substantial Change into Christ's Body as of the Bread into Christ's Body Page 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 Page 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 Page 77 78 3 Pos Whatsoever presence of Christ the Fathers speak of in the Eucharist they acknowledge the same in Baptism and as fully Page 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 Page 82 4 Pos They so consider the presence of Christs Body in the Eucharist as can no way agree to his glorified Body Page 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 Page 85 What foul play the Romanists have used with an Author that deny'd this Page 90 An Account of a late Learned Dissertation concerning Christs Body and Blood occasion'd by a doubt proposed to S. Austin Page 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 Page 93 Proved by their asserting that Christ offered the same oblation with Melchisedek Page 101 Fraction in the Eucharist can only agree to the Bread. Page 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 Page 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 Page 111 2 Rem That an Image Type c. must visibly demonstrate that of which it is an Image Type c. Page 112 3 Rem They make the Elements to be the Signs Symbols c. of Christ as absent Page 113 Some Passages out of the old Liturgy in Bertram's time Page 114 The Doctrine of the Christians of St. Thomas in the East-Indies confirming the same Page 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 Page 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 Page 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 Page 125 2 Consid They distinguish eating Christs true Body from the Sacramental Page 126 3 Consid They assert that the Fathers under the
establish the Mystery of his Sacrament For Wine both chears us and increases Blood and therefore very fitly the Blood of Christ is figured by it because whatsoever comes to us from him chears us with true Joy and increaseth all Good in us Rabanus Maurus (h) Comm. in Matth. 26. Quia panis confirmat corpus ideo corpus ille Christi 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 cur 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 Methedius (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 necessario 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
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 not fixing our Eyes only upon the things set before us 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. 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 INeed 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 1. 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 spiritualem 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 sit 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 sc Christo jubente corpus Christi sanguinem dicimus quod dum fit ex fructibus terrae sanctificatur fit Sacramentum operante invisibiliter Spiritu Dei. gives the same account By the command of Christ we call the Body and Blood of Christ that which being made of the fruits of the earth is sanctified and made a Sacrament by the invisible operation of the spirit of God. 2. Observ The Fathers oft-times in their very manner of speaking concerning the Body and Blood of Christ point at another thing than his Natural Body so that we need no Commentary upon their words to explain them for they carry at first hearing our sense and meaning in them and not that of the Romanists To give a few instances S. Cyprian (g) Epist 63. ad Caecilium Cùm dicat Christus ego sum vitis vera sanguis Christi non aqua est utique sed vinum Quomodo nec Corpus Domini potest esse farina sola aut aqua sola nisi utrumque adunatum fuerit copulatum panis unius compagine folldatum discoursing against those that Consecated and drank only Water in the Sacrament says When Christ says I am the true Vine the Blood of Christ it's plain is not Water but Wine So neither can the Lords Body be flour alone or water alone unless both of them be united and coupled and kneaded tegether into one Loaf Where no Body can doubt of S. Cyprian's meaning that by Christs Body he understands not his natural Body but the Sacrament of it And so the Council of Carthage (h) Pandect Canon p. 565. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 decreed against the Armenians who made use of Wine only in the Eucharist That nothing shall be offered but the Body and Blood of Christ as the Lord himself delivered it the phrase carries its sense in the face of it if they had said no more but they add that is Bread and Wine mixed with Water What can be more plain than that of Theodoret (i) Dialog 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. when he says That our Saviour changed the names and on his Body he put the name of the sign or symbol and on the sign the name of his Body A little before he shows how You know says he that God called his Body Bread and elsewhere he called his flesh Wheat 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 except a Corn of Wheat fall to the Earth and die Matth. 12. But in the delivery of the mysteries he called Bread his Body and that which is mixed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Blood. Is it not clear that neither in one case nor the other these sayings are to be understood properly but figuratively Especially when Theodoret before all I now have cited makes this comparison As after Consecration Ib. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we call the mystical fruit of the Vine the Lords blood so he Jacob called the Blood of the true Vine the Blood of the Grape Both the one and the other must be figuratively understood When S. Cyprian in the forecited Epistle (k) Epist 63. Hoc quis veretur ne per saporem vini redoleat sanguinem Christi says that some might make it an Objection that by partaking of the Communion early in the Morning they might be discovered to the Heathen Persecutors by the smell of the Wine he expresses it thus One fears this lest by tasting Wine he should smell of Christs Blood. S. Jerome has such another saying which cannot well be mistaken to express any other sense but ours when speaking of Virgins (l) Epist ad Eustochium Ebrietati sacrilegium copulantes aiunt absit ut ego me abstineam à sanguine Christi that were reproved for drinking Wine to excess he says they made this excuse joining sucrilege to their drunkenness and said God forbid that I should abstain from the Blood of Christ Either they said nothing to the purpose or they took that which they called the Blood of Christ for Wine properly Thus also S. Chrysostome (m) Epist 1. ad Innocent 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 speaking of the rudeness of the Souldiers in the Church says that in the tumult the most holy Blood of Christ was shed upon the Souldiers Cleths Which could be nothing but Sacramental Wine Leo the Great speaking of the Manichees that for fear of the Laws came to the Communion of the Catholicks and directing how to discover them he says (n) Serm. 4. de Quadrages Ita in Sacramentorum communione se temperant ut interdum tutiùs lateant Ore indigno Christi Corpus accipiunt sanguinem autem redemptionis nostrae haurire omninò declinant They so behave themselves in the Communion of the Sacraments that they may sometime be more safely concealed with an unworthy mouth they take the Body of Christ but altogether decline drinking the Blood of our redemption In the sense both of Leo and the Manichees the Body and Blood here must be taken figuratively for such bad men as they in the sense of the Antients could not eat or any way receive Christ's Body in a proper sense but being understood of the Type of it viz. of the Sacramental Bread that they would receive but not the Type of his Blood viz. the Wine because as S. Austin (o) De Heres 46. Vinum non bibunt dicentes fel esse principum tenebrarum observes they drink no Wine saying it is the Gall of the Prince of darkness They had no more prejudice against the Blood than the Body of Christ only they took it to be Wine which they abhorred 3. Observ The Fathers speak of Christ's Body and Blood in the Eucharist with such terms of restriction and diminution which plainly tell us that they understood it not of his substantial and natural Body but in a figurative sense Thus Origen (p) Contr. Celsum l 8. p. 399. Edit Cantabr 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 says That Bread in the Eucharist is made by Prayer a certain holy Body And S. Austin (q) In Psal 33. conc 2. Accepit in manus quod norunt fideles ipse se portabat quodammodo cùm diceret hoc est Corpus meum Christ took in his hands what the faithful understand and after a sort carried himself when he said This is my Body Bede (r) In Psal 33. Christus quodammodo ferebatur in manibus suis upon the same Psalm has the same term of restriction Christ after a sort was carried in his own hands S. Austin elsewhere (ſ) Epist 23. ad Bonifac. Secundum quendam modum Sacramentum Corporis Christi Corpus Christi est Sacramentum sanguinis Christs sanguis Christi est In a certain sense the Sacrament of the Body of Christ is Christ's Body and the Sacrament of the Blood of Christ is Christ's Blood. Just as at Easter we say this day Christ rose because it is a memorial of it
(b) Eccles Hist l. 6. c. 36. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 tells the story of the Presbyter that when Serapion was a dying sent him by a Boy a little bit of the Eucharist And Prosper (c) Dimidium temporis c. 6. Brevem portiunculam Corporis Dominici has a like story of a possessed Woman that received a short and small portion of our Lords Body And P. Pius I in an Epistle attributed to him and made use of by Bellarmine (d) De Euchar. l. 2. cap. 5. Si quid de sanguine Domini stillaverit in terram speaks of some of the Blood of Christ dropping and distilling on the ground and directs what is to be done in that case 7. Observ The Fathers speak of making the Body of Christ in the Eucharist in a sense quite different from that of the Romanists S. Jerome frequently uses the phrase of making Christs Body and speaking of the Presbyters that succeeded to the Apostles in one Epistle (e) Epist 1. ad Heliodor Qui Christi Corpus Sacro ore conficiunt he says they make the Body of Christ with their Holy Mouth And in another Epistle (f) Ad Evagrium Ad quorum preces Christi Corpus sanguisque conficitur says of them That upon their Prayers the Body and Blood of Christ is made Also in a third Epistle (g) Ad Fabiolam Sequester Dei hominum carnes agni sacro ore conficiens he describes a Priest to be one that mediates betwixt God and Men and one that makes the flesh of the Lamb with his holy mouth Here now they of the Church of Rome take care to advance the Priesthood tho' even with words of Blasphemy One crys out (h) Stella Clericorum Qui creavit me sine me creatur mediante me He that created me without me is created by my means So also Biel (i) In Canon Missae Lect. 4. Qui creavit me si fas est dicere dedit mihi creare se qui creavit me sine me creatur mediante me He that created me if I may be bold to say it has given me power to create himself and he that created me without me is created by my means Biel also in the same Lecture makes a comparison between the Priests and the Bl. Virgin and makes them to carry it from her in this matter She by pronouncing eight words Illa prolatis octo verbulis Ecce Ancilla Domini fiat mihi secundùm Verbum tuum semel concepit Dei filium mundi Redemptorem Isti à Domino consecrati quinque Verbis eundem Dei Virginisque filium advocant quotidie corporaliter Attendite O Sacerdotes in quo gradu dignitate sitis constituti Behold the Handmaid of the Lord c. Conceived once the Son of God and the Redeemer of the World. They viz. the Priests being consecrated by the Lord by speaking five words do call the same Son of God and the Virgin bodily before them every day And then crys out Consider O Priests in what high degree and dignity you are placed But now the Fathers they sufficiently explain themselves that this of making Christs Body cannot be understood of the natural and proper Body of Christ For First They lay it down as a Rule that whatsoever is made was not before it was made Thus Athenagoras (k) De resurrect 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 says That which is already is not made but that which is not Tertullian in like manner says (l) Lib. contr Hermog cap. 19. Nihil quod fieri habet sine initio est quin initium sit illi dum incipit fieri Nothing that has a fieri is without a beginning but it begins to be while it begins to be made Athanasius (m) Contr. Arian Orat. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It is the property of Creatures and works that they are said to exist out of non-entities and not to be before they are made Greg. Nyssen (n) Contr. Eunom l. 9. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If he made it he made that which was not at all S. Hilary (o) De Trin. l. 12. Omne quod fit antequam fiat non fuit Every thing that is made was not before it was made S. Ambrose (p) De Incarn l. 3. Quod fit incipit That which is made begins to be S. Austin (q) De moribus Manich. c. 7. Facere enim est quod omninò non erat To make is true of that which was not at all Cyril Alexand. (r) Thesaur Assert 20. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It cannot be that what already exists should be brought into being but what do's not exist Vigilius also (s) Lib. 3. cont Eutychen Fieri ejus soleat esse proprium qui nunquam ante substiterat To be made is the usual property of him who never subsisted before Cassianus also (t) Lib. 7. de incarn c. 2. Quae orta jam fuerint redire in id rursum non queant ut novâ creatione generentur Things already sprung up cannot return into that state that they should be generated by a new creation These sayings do very ill accord with the Doctrine of the Roman Church (u) Catechis ad Paroch de Eucharist n. 39. Sine ulla Domini nostri mutatione neque enim Christus aut generatur aut mutatur aut augescit which teaches that the Conversion in the Eucharist is made without any change in our Lord for neither is Christ generated or is changed or increased Secondly They so speak of making Christs Body that it cannot be understood of any other than his typical and mystical Body For the Fathers say That Bread is made his Body Tertullian (x) Cont. Maâ—c l. 4. c. 40. Acceptum panem distributum discipulis Corpus suum illum fecit hoc est Corpus meum dicendo Christ when he had taken Bread and distributed it to his Disciples made it his Body saying This is my Body Eusebius (y) Demonst Evang. lib. 8. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Christ commanded his Disciples speaking of the Symbols of the Divine Oeconomy delivered to them i. e. Bread and Wine to make the image of his Body Cyril of Jerus (z) Catech. Mystag 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 When the Invocation is over the Bread is made the Body of Christ and the Wine the Blood of Christ Greg. Nyssen (a) Orat. in Christi Baptisma 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 says At first the Bread is common Bread but after the mystery has consecrated it it is called and is made the Body of Christ S. Austin (b) Serm. de diversis 87. Non omnis panis sed accipiens benedictionem Christi fit Corpus Christi Canon Misse Quam oblationem tu Deus in omnibus quaesumus benedictam adscriptam ratam rationabilem acceptamque facere digneris ut nobis Corpus sanguis fiat dilectissimi tui filii Domini nostri
Dedication becomes an Holy Altar which the Priests only touch with Veneration And then adds the Instance of the Eucharist 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which at first is common Bread but after the Mystery has consecrated it it is called and becomes the Body of Christ So the mystical Oil and so the Wine before the Benediction are things of little worth but after the Sanctification of the Spirit each of them operates excellently So Ammonius (t) Catena in Joan. 3.5 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ibid. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 says The sensible Water is transelemented into a Divine Virtue for the Fathers make Changes in Baptism as well as the Eucharist and sanctifies those in whom it is Nay he affirms That the Water differs only from the Spirit in our manner of Conception for it is the same in Energy Cyril of Jerusalem (u) Catech. Mystag 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 calling the Flesh and Bread in the Feast of Idols defiled by the Invocation of impure Devils he illustrates it thus As the Bread and Wine of the Eucharist before the Invocation of the adored Trinity 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is bare Bread and Wine but after Invocation the Bread is made the Body of Christ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the Wine the Blood of Christ so also in the same manner those Meats of the Pomp of Satan in their own Nature being simple things yet by the Invocation of Devils they become impure That 's the Change here That those Meats are in Quality not in Substance made impure and so if the Comparison hold the Change in the other is That they are Hallowed Bread and Wine in Use and Efficacy different from what they were before The Author under Cyprian's Name (x) De Vnct. Chrysmat Inest Veritas signo Spiritus Sacramento speaking of Chrysin says Truth is in the Sign and the Spirit in the Sacrament Thus S. Ambrose (y) De iis qui init c. 9. in fine understands the Body of Christ for that Divine Substance and Presence of the Spirit which is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of Christ's Body In illo Sacramento Christus est quia corpus est Christi Non ergo corporalis esca sed spiritalis est Corpus enim Dei corpus est Spiritale Corpus Christi corpus est divini Spiritus quia Spiritus Christi sc est Christ is in that Sacrament because it is the Body of Christ It is not therefore Corporeal but Spiritual Food For the Body of God is a Spiritual Body The Body of Christ is the Body of the Divine Spirit not his natural Body because it is the Spirit of Christ. Here Corpus Dei is Corpus Spiritale that is Substantia Spiritalis Spiritus The Author under his Name (z) De Sacram. lib. 4. cap. 4. Quomodo potest qui panis est corpus esse Christi Consecratione Ergo ut tibi respondeam Non erat corpus Christi ante consecrationem sed post consecrationem dico tibi quod corpus est Christi Ipse dixit factum est ipse mandavit creatum est Tu ipse eras vetus creatura posteaquam consecratus es nova creatura esse coepisti c. How can that which is Bread be the Body of Christ By Consecration To answer thee therefore It was not the Body of Christ before Consecration but after Consecration I tell thee it is the Body of Christ. He said it and it was done he commanded and it was created Thou thy self wast an old Creature but after thou wast consecrated thou beganst to be a new Creature c. So that according to this Author as in Regeneration by Baptism Man changes his Nature so do's the Consecrated Bread in the Eucharist change its Nature Therefore it is no substantial Change because the other confessedly is not so Druthmarus (a) Comm. in Matth. 26. speaking of a Person taking a long Journey and leaving a Pledge behind him to remember him by Ita Deus praecipit agi à nobis transferens spiritualiter panem in corpus vinum in sanguinem ut per haec duo memoremus quae fecit pro nobis de corpore suo c. he adds Thus also God has commanded us to do spiritually changing the Bread into his Body and the Wine into his Blood that by these two things we may remember what he hath done for us with his Body and Blood c. 5 Assertion The Fathers express in the same manner and as fully our substantial Change into Christ's Body as of the Bread into Christ's Body Yet none will from such Expressions assert the former and there is the same reason not to do the latter Gr. Nyssen (b) Orat. Catech. cap. 37. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 As a little Leaven according to the Apostle likens the whole Mass to it self so the Body of Christ put to death by God coming into our Body do's change and convert the whole into it self And again 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a little after His immortal Body being in him that receives it changes the whole into its own Nature Cryil of Alexandria (c) In Joan. lib. 4. cap. 3. says He that receives me by a participation of my Flesh shall have Life in himself 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being wholly transelemented into me P. Leo Magn. (d) De Nat. Dom. Serm. 10. Christi caro de utero virginis sumpta nos sumus We are the Flesh of Christ taken from the Womb of the Virgin. And elsewhere (e) Id. de Passion Serm. 14. Non aliud agit Participatio corporis sanguinis Christi quà m ut in id quod sumimus transeamus Ipsum per omnia spiritu carne gestemus The Participation of the Body and Blood of Christ intends nothing else but that we should pass into that which we receive That we may carry him in all things both in Spirit and Flesh Not as Bellarmine and others pervert the Sense reading gustemus Again in another place (f) Epist 23. In illa mysticâ distributione spiritualis alimoniae hoc impertitur hoc sumitur ut accipientes virtutem coelestis cibi in carnem ipsius quia caro noitra factus est transeamus In that mystical Distribution of Spiritual Food this is bestowed on us this is taken that receiving the Virtue of the Celestial Meat we should pass into his Flesh who was made our Flesh See more Testimonies to this sense inthe Chapter following Position 3. CHAP. IX The Ninth Difference The Fathers differ from the Church of Rome in their Belief of Christ's Presence in the Eucharist The Church of Rome asserts the substantial Presence of Christ's Natural Body there but the Fathers deny it THe former is the Assertion of the Roman Church in the Trent Council in which an Anathema is pronounced (g) Conc. Trid. Sess 13. cap. 6. Can. 1. against such as deny That
factus est sacerdos in a ternum Christ by the mystery of Bread and Wine is made a Priest for over S. Chrysostom (c) Comment in Psal 110. vel 109. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Why did he say a Priest after the Order of Melchisedeck Even because of the mysteries because he also brought out Bread and Wine to Abraham Isidore of Sevil (d) In Genesin cap. 12. Non secundùm Aaron pecudum Victimas sed oblationem panis vini id est corporis sanguinis ejus Sacramentum in Sacrificium offeramus Let us not offer the Victims of Beasts according to Aaron but let us offer in Sacrifice the oblation of Bread and Wine that is the Sacrament of Christs Body and Blood. Bede (e) Hom. de 55. in Vigil S. Jo. Bapt. Redemptor noster ideo sacerdos esse dicitur secundùm Ordinem Melchisedec quia ablatis victimis legalibus idem sacrificii genus in mysterium sui corporis sanguinis in N. Testamento offerendum instituit Our Redeemer is therefore called a Priest after the Order of Melchisedeck because taking away the legal Sacrifices he instituted the same kind of Sacrifice viz. Bread and Wine should be offered under the N. Testament for the mystery of his Body and Blood. What the Scriptures acquaint us with that after the Blessing of the Bread Christ brake it and gave it to his Disciples is also insisted on by the Fathers as done in the Eucharist in order to the distributing of it to the receivers But Bellarmine says expresly (f) L. 1. de Missa c. 27. Nostra fractio non fit ad distribuendum sed ad certum mysterium significandum That our breaking is not made for distribution but to signify a certain mystery Therefore in the Roman Church that which they give in the Sacrament to the people is whole and not broken off from any other thing Wherein they differ from the Fathers for their Eucharist was what the Apostles call breaking of Bread Act. 2 46. and the Jesuit Lorinus upon that place observes that it was the manner of the Primitive Church Lorinus in Act. 2. v. 46. Panem unum conficere atque illum consecratum in tot partes frangere quot erant communicantes sicut Christus in coena fecit to make one Loaf and when they had consecrated it to break it into so many parts as there were Communicants as Christ also did in his Supper And thus as it is 1 Cor. 10.17 There is one Bread c. and we being many are one Body for we all partake of one Bread. This Fraction tho' the Fathers express it as if it were done to the proper Body of Christ yet they mean it only of the Bread that represents it and therefore that must remain for there is nothing else to be broken When therefore S. Chrysostome (g) Hom. 24. in 1 Cor. Tom. 3. Edit Savil. p. 397. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 says that upon the Cross a Bone of him was not broken but what Christ did not suffer upâ—n the Cross that he suffers in the oblation for thy sake and suffers himself to be broken that he may fill us all This cannot be meant of any thing but what represents his Body torn and rent viz. Bread. So S. Austin (h) Epist 59. Et ad distribuendum comminuitur speaks of that upon the Lords Table which is blessed and sanctified and broke in small pieces to be distributed Which can be only Bread. And this elsewhere (i) Epist 86. Sicut frangitur in Sacramento Corporis Christi he expresses more plainly Paul says he broke Bread that night as it is broken in the Sacrament of the Body of Christ Again (k) August apud Bedam in 1 Cor. 11. Manducemus Christum vivit manducatus quia surrexit occisus nec quando manducamus partes de illo facimus quidem in Sacramento id fit norunt fideles quemadmodum manducent carnem Christi unusquisque accipit partem c. S. Austin thus exhorts Let us eat Christ he lives tho' eaten for he arose tho' slain Neither when we eat him do we make parts of him so indeed we do in the Sacrament and the faithful know how they eat the Flesh of Christ there Every one takes a part c. This is a very remarkable Testimony because of the distinction he makes between Christ's proper Body and that in the Eucharist affirming quite different things of them as this of taking and eating a part which is only true of the Bread. For as for the true Body of Christ we are informed by another Chrysologus (l) Serm. 159. Non potest Christus edi dividi Integer à credentibus sumitur integer in ore cordis recipitur Christ cannot be eaten and divided He is taken whole of Believers he is received whole in the mouth of the heart I will conclude this Chapter with the sayings of three great persons among the Fathers who positively assert what I have been proving that the Bread and Wine remain in the Eucharist S. Chrysostom (m) Hom. 83. in Matth. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Who says expresly When our Lord delivered the mysteries he delivered Wine S. Austin (n) De Civ Dei lib. 17. cap. 5. Manducare panem est in N. Testamento sacrificium Christianorum To eat Bread is the Sacrifice of Christians in the N. Testament Fulgentius (o) De fide ad Petrum cap. 19. Christo nunc id est tempore N. Testamenti cum Patre Spiritu Sancto cum quibus una est illi Divinitas Sacrificium panis vini in fide charitate Sancta Ecclesia Catholica per universum orbem terrae offerre non cessat Now that is in the time of the N. Testament the Holy Catholick Church throughout the whole Earth do's not cease to offer in Faith and Charity the Sacrifice of Bread and Wine to Christ with the Father and H. Spirit who have one Divinity together with him CHAP. XI The Eleventh Difference The Fathers make the Bread and Wine to be the Sacrament Sign Figure Type Antitype Image c. of Christs Body and Blood. They of the Church of Rome make either the Accidents subsisting without a Subject or the Body of Christ latent under those Accidents to be the Sacrament Sign Figure c. and not the substance of Bread and Wine which they say is abolished Therefore they have no Sacrament such as the Fathers assert I Might give in here a very large Collection out of the Fathers calling the Bread and Wine by all those names above mention'd but to avoid tediousness I shall only select some few of them enow to prove the Truth of what I have asserted under the several heads S. Ambrose (p) De iis qui initiant c. 9. Vera utique caro Christi quae crucifixa est quae sepulta est verè ergo carnis illius est
once adore it For thus the Missal (*) Ritus celebr Missam cap. 8. Dicit hoc est enim Corpus meum Quibus prolatis celebrans Hostiam tenens inter pollices indices genuflexus eam adorat Tunc se erigens quantum commodè potest elevat in altum Hostiam intentis in eam oculis quod in Elevatione Calicis facit populo reverenter ostendit adorandam directs That when the Priest comes to the words of Consecration and has said This is my Body then holding the Host as he is directed he kneels down and adores it Then raising himself as high as he is able he lifts up the Host on high and fixing his Eyes upon it which he do's also in the Elevation of the Cup he shows the Host reverently to the People to be adored This is the present Practice which the Council of Trent (f) Sess 13. c. 5. Nullus dubitandi locus relinquitur quin omnes Christi fideles pro more in Ecclesia Catholica semper recepto latriae cultum qui vero Deo debetur huic sanctissimo Sacramento in veneratione adhibeant endeavours to countenance by telling us That there is no doubt but that all Christians according to the Custom always received in the Catholick Church ought to give the Worship of Latria which is supreme Worship to the most Holy Sacrament in their worship of it By which Sacrament as their best Interpreters explain it is meant Totum visibile Sacramentum all that is visible there together with Christ and is one entire Object consisting of Christ and the Species and must be together adored But whatsoever besides Christ who is invisible is visible there call it what you please is a Creature and I am sure the Ancient Church never practised the adoration of any such and it is strange impudence to talk of the Custom of the Catholick Church in this Matter Neither can it be shown by any good Testimonies of the Ancients that this their Elevation in order to Adoration was ever used by them No not so much as any Elevation for any purpose is mentioned by those Fathers who on set purpose have given an account of the Rites of communicating in the first Ages of the Church neither by Justin Martyr nor the Author of the Constitutions called Apostolical nor Cyril of Jerusalem nor the pretended Denis the Areopagite or any other before the Sixth Century A dilligent Searcher of Antiquity tells us (g) Dallaeus de relig cult object l. 2. c. 5. That he cannot find among all the Interpreters of Ecclesiastical Offices in the Latin Church the mention of any sort of Elevation before the Eleventh Century that is the Age of Innovation in the Faith about the Eucharist As for the Greeks of later date in them we may meet indeed with an Elevation of the Eucharist but for quite other purposes than Adoration One of the Ends of their Elevation is mentioned by Germanus Patriarch of Constantinople (h) In Tom. 2. Bibl. Pat. Gr. Lat. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which was to represent Christ lifted up upon the Cross and his Death upon it and the Resurrection it self Another reason they give is by the showing of this Food of the Saints to invite and call them to partake of it Which Nic. Cabasilas gives a full account of (i) In Expos Liturg. apud Bibl. Pat. Gr. Lat. Tom. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saying That after the Friest has been partaker of the sanctified Things he turns to the People and showing them the Holy Things i. e. the Bread and Wine calls those that are willing to communicate Or as he still more fully explains it The Life-giving Bread being received by the Priest and shown he calls those that are likely to receive it worthily saying Holy Things are for the Holy * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Behold the Bread of Life which ye see Run therefore you that are to partake of it but it is not for all but for him that is Holy c. It is certain then that the Roman Practice when for Adoration they elevate and show the Host is an Innovation and that it proceeded from the Novel Doctrines then set on foot in the church is highly probable not only because they commenced about the same time but also because their practice suits so exactly with and springs so freely from those Doctrines it being so natural when such a glorious Body as our Saviour's is believed to be made present where it was not before to be wholly taken up with thoughts of Adoration and Worship above any thing else as it is notoriously true in this Church where the main End of the Eucharist viz communicating in the Body and Blood of Christ is strangely neglected and they are more concerned in carrying the Sacrament in Processions in praying to it before their Altars in preparing splendid Tabernacles where it may repose decking and adorning the places of its Residence and the like than in engaging Men to receive it which was the main thing the Ancient Church designed that they might worthily partake of it and when this was not designed their way was wholly to conceal it 4. Instance Another Practice of the Roman Church different from that of the Ancient Church is that now the Communicants Hands are unimployed in receiving the Eucharist and all is put by the Priest into their mouths Their Hands indeed may bear a part in their Adoration and showing some Signs of that but otherwise they are useless For now since Christ's Body is believed to lie hid under the Species of Bread and Wine that is thought too sacred to be touched by the Hands of any but the Priests We may therefore conclude fairly that if the Fathers had not this care to forbid this touching by the Peoples Hands they had not this Faith of the Roman Church that the Natural Body of Christ is in the Eucharist since if this had been their Opinion in all probability their practice would have been the same Since that they had an equal concern for their Saviour's Honour cannot well be doubted of Now that they gave the Sacrament into the Peoples Hands for the space of eight hundred Years or more is clear by their Testimonies Of which I 'll mention only three or four out of an hundred that might be given Clemens of Alexandria (k) Stromat lib. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 says That when the Priests have divided the Eucharist they permit every one of the People to take a portion of it Tertullian (l) Lib. de Idol Cap. 7. Eas manus admovere Corpori Domini quae Daemoniis corpora conferunt reproaches the Christian Statuaries That they reached those hands to the Lord's Body which had made Bodies for Devils St. Ambrose (m) Apud Theodoret. Hist Ecclesiast Lib. 5. c. 19. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Story is a known one how he repelled Theodosius from the Holy Table after the slaughter he
Old Test did eat the same spiritual meat with us because they ate it by Faith. Page 127 4 Consid They represent Christs Body as dead and that so it must be taken Ergo spiritually Page 128 Two remarkable sayings of S. Austin to prove all this Page 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 Page 131 The Church of Rome will have not only the wicked but bruit Creatures to eat it Page 132 The Cautions of the Mass suppose this ibid. The Fathers will not allow the wicked to partake of Christs Body Page 133 Two remarkable Testimonies of St. Austin Page 136 CHAP. XIV The Fourteenth Difference The different practices and usages of the two Churches argue their different opinions about the Eucharist Page 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 Page 139 2 Inst The old practice was to give the Communion in both kinds Page 140 Transubstantiation made this practice cease 141. New devices for security against profaning Christs Blood. Page 142 No reason why the Fathers have not been as cautious in this as the Ro. Church but their different belief Page 143 3 Inst The Elevation of the Host that all may adore it the Roman practice Page 145 This not used in the first Ages at all when used afterwards not for Adoration Page 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 Page 147 5 Inst The Anc. Church used Glass Cups for the Wine which would be criminal now Page 148 6 Inst They mixed of old the Consecr Wine with Ink which would now be abhorr'd Page 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 Page 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 Page 165 This still a practice in the Eastern Churches that submit not to the Roman Church Page 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 Page 168 2. That their New Prayers to the Sacrament have no Example in the Anc. Church Page 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 Page 182 c. The Saxon Easter-Sermon produc'd as a Testimony against them Page 183 184 c. Two Epistles of Elfric the Abbot declare against that Doctrine Page 187 188. A Remarkable Testimony also of Rabanus Archbishop of Mentz alledged Page 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 Parcchōs 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 Hosts 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 situs and extension unto Place 4. Tho' the Body of Christ be in it self greater than a Consecrated Host yet according to the Esse Being it has there it is whole in that Host nor only whole in the whole consecrated Host but also whole in every part thereof 5. If those Accidents of the Consecrated Host be corrupted and it should happen that of them Worms or any other Animal be generated there is a great Miracle in their Generation For either the Materia prima is created anew out of which the substantial Form of those Animals is produced as many Divines now think or according to S. Thomas which seems to be a greater Miracle The Quantity that was of the Consecrated Host supplies the place of the Materia prima and in it is produced the substantial Form of those Animals which are generated from thence 6. The very Conversion of Bread and Wine into the Body and Blood of Christ which is properly called by Divines Transubstantiation is a great Miracle for such a Transmutation is found in no other thing and is besides all the Order and Course of Nature and can be made by no Created Power but by God's Omnipotency alone 7. The Manner by which such Transubstantiation is made is not without a Miracle for it is made by the Words of Consecration pronounced rightly and as it ought by a Priest Therefore as naturally supposing the last disposition in Matter to produce the Form of Fire the Form of Fire is infallibly produced in that Matter So the Words of Consecration being pronounced by the Priest Christ himself is infallibly in that Consecrated Host 8. After Consecration the whole Substance of Bread and Wine ceasing to be yet their Accidents do not cease but remain Neither do they remain inhering in any other Subject but per se existunt exist by themselves which is truly besides and above the Nature of Accidents whose esse as the Schools say is inesse because they can neither be produced nor remain naturally without a Subject 9. Lastly Those Accidents of the Consecrated Host tho' without the Substance of Bread and Wine yet have the same natural Virtue which Bread and Wine had before Consecration viz. the Virtue of nourishing encreasing and strengthning the Body of the Person that receives it when yet Nutrition is made by conversion of the Substance of the Food into the Substance of the Living Creature By reason of which Miracles he says the Church sings thus in the Hymn for Corpus-Christi day Quod non capis Quod non vides Animosa firmat fides praeter rerum ordinem Etsi sensus deficit Ad firmandum cor sincerum Sola fides sufficit Praestat fides supplementum sensuum defectui That is What never yet was understood Nor ever seen by any Creature A confident Belief makes good Tho' cross to all the Laws of Nature Tho' Sense will not be brought t' allow it A Heart sincere may be secure And waving all its Scruples sure Since Faith alone 's enough to do it For Faith supplies the Senses want And makes good Measure where that 's scant As for the Fathers they are so far from consenting to this heap of Miracles in the Eucharist that we have reason to think as to some of them they never entred into their thoughts nor never troubled themselves about them and for the most of them tho' they are direct Consequences of Transubstantiation yet they are opposed and contradicted by the Fathers as shall be shewn in Particulars afterwards Here it shall suffice to say in general That the Fathers give us this as a Character of the old Hereticks to urge God's Omnipotency to countenance and give a colour to their Figments and absurd Opinions Thus Gr. Nazianzen says of the Apollinarians * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Orat. 51. That being pressed with these Reasonings they fly to this That to God it is possible And Tertullian when Praxeas also urged God's Omnipotency gives this excellent †Contr. Praxeam c. 10. Si tam abruptè in praesumptionibus nostris hâc sententiâ utamur quidvis de Deo confingere poterimus quasi fecerit quia facere potuerit Non autem quia omnia potest facere ideo credendum est illum fecisse etiam quod non fecerit sed an fecerit requirendum Answer to him If we may so abruptly use this Sentence viz. That to God all things are easie in our Presumptions we may then feign any thing we please of God as if he had done a thing because he was able to do it But because God can do all things we are not to believe he has done that which he has not done but we are to inquire whether he has done it or no. Thus Gr. Nyssen * Gr. Nyssen in Hexaemeron 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 asserts That the Will of God is the Measure of his Power And Clemens of Alexandria †Stromat l. 4. propè finem 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That God who is Omnipotent will effect nothing that is absurd And Origen ‖ L. 5. contr Cel◠〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 When we say That God can do all things we know how to understand all things not of such things as cannot exist and are unintelligible Obj. If any object That the Fathers often bring in Instances of Gods miraculous Power as St. Ambrose does in the Red Sea and the River Jordan and in the miraculous Conception of our Saviour c. to create Faith in Men as to the great Change that is wrought in the Eucharist Ans I answer True indeed But then it is to be remembred what shall hereafter be more fully declared that the Change there is not terminated upon the Substance of the Elements nor is God's Power shewn upon them to alter their Nature from what they were before so as to destroy them but it is an addition of Grace to their Nature and an advancement of them to produce wonderful Effects upon us in the use of them So that now the Element of Water in Baptism is no more a common thing but is employed by God to wash away our Sins to cleanse our Souls and to regenerate and renew us And in the Eucharist the Bread and Wine which in themselves are the Food of our Bodies are advanced to be a Means to communicate the Body and Blood of Christ to us for the nourishing and refreshing our Souls and to make us Partakers of the saving Effects of his Death and Passion which are only Miracles of God's Grace And the Fathers urge the forementioned Miracles in Nature to assure us of these Wonders of Divine Grace And this they do not only in the case of the Eucharist
Bread and Wine that is the Elements themselves but he changes them into the Vritue of his Flesh and Blood. To conclude this Head Bertram (t) Lib. de Corp. Sang. Christi Secundùm Speciem visibilem secundùm visibilem Creaturam secundùm creaturarum substantiam following the Sense of the Ancients uses these Phrases indifferently according to the visible Species and according to the visible Creature or according to the Substance of the Creatures Which are Modes of Speech which the present Roman Church will not allow of in the Eucharist For they tell us their plain Belief what Species are in a Sequence on Corpus-Christi day which explains it thus Sub diversis Speciebus Signis tantum non rebus Latent res eximiae Admirable things lie hid under the different Species which are only Signs and not Things CHAP. V. The Fifth Difference The Fathers differ from the Roman Church in their Assertions about the Nature and Properties of Bodies EVery one knows what the Sentiments of the Roman Church are herein and what they must necessarily assert believing Transubstantiation That a Body that is Organical as Christ's is may be invisible and impalpable commensurate to no Space That it may possess one Place so as to be in more at the same time That it may be entire in one Part and in one Point and may exist after the manner of a Spirit See Bellarmine de Eucharist lib. 1. cap. 2. reg 3. lib. 3. c. 7. The Council of Trent says (a) Sess 13. cap. 3. Totus Christus integer sub specie panis sub qualibet ejus speciei parte existit Whole and entire Christ is in the Eucharist under the Species of Bread and under every part of the Species of Bread. I shall now show That the Fathers assert quite contrary to all these Maxims of the Roman Church giving us a different Account of the Nature and Properties of Bodies and in the Particulars forenamed make no difference betwixt Christ's Body and ours 1 Assertion They assert That every Organiz'd Body not excepting the Body of Christ is visible and palpable Tertullian (b) De Resurrect c. 35. Corpus hominis non aliud intelligam quam quod videtur quod tenetur I understand nothing by the Body of a Man c. but what is seen and felt Methodius (c) Apud Photium Cod. 234. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 God is Incorporeal and therefore Invisible Eustathius Antioch (d) De Engastrimytho 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If he was Invisible without doubt he was Incorporeal Speaking of Samuel raised at Endor Didymus (e) Caten in Joan. 4.24 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If a thing be Invisible it presently follows that it is Incorporeal Greg. Nazianzen (f) Orat. 34. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If God be a Body what kind of Body and how an impalpable and invisible one This is not the Nature of Bodies And he cries out 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 O strange Licence to imagine thus Greg. Nyssen (g) De Opific hom cap. 24. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. says That is not a Body that wants Colour Figure Solidness Space Weight and the rest of its Attributes S. Austin (h) De Verb. Domini Ser. 60. Semper quidem Divinitate nobiscum est sed nisi corporaliter abiret à nobis semper ejus corpus carnaliter videremus speaking of our Lord says He is always with us by his Divinity but if he were not corporally absent from us we should always carnally see his Body Ephrem Antioch (i) Apud Photium Cod. 229. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 No Man of any sense can say That the Nature of that which is palpable and impalpable of that which is visible and that which is invisible is the same Altho' the Valentinians in Eulogius (k) Ibid. Cod. 230. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 say That the Nature of that which is visible and that which is invisible is the same And so did the Manichees Ibid. Vigilius (l) Lib. 4. contr Eutych Necesse erit ut caro sicut verbum si unius cum co est naturae increata sit invisibilis c. Sed carnem his conditionibus subjacere impossibile est speaking of the Lord's Body says It is necessary the Flesh as well as the Word if they be of one Nature be uncreated and invisible But it is impossible that Flesh should be the Subject of such Conditions Titus Bostrensis (m) Contr. Mâ—nich l. 2. Omne quod sub aspectum cadit cum sit corpus natura oppositum est inaspectabili incorporeo c. Every thing that falls under our Sight seeing it is a Body is in Nature opposite to that which is invisible and incorporeal Damascen (n) De Fide Orth. lib. 1. c. 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 How can that be a Body c which is impalpable and invisible Gregory the Great (o) Moral lib. 14. c. 33. Erit itaque subtilis quia incorruptibilis erit palpabilis quia non amittet essentiam veracis naturae speaking of a glorified Body says It will therefore be a subtile Body because it will be incorruptible and it will be palpable because it shall not lose the Essence of its true Nature Cyril of Alex. in his Explication of the third Anathema of the Ephesine Council (p) Tom. 3 Concil Labbe p. 817. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He is not a Stranger to that Body which he has united to himself which we say is capable to be felt and to be seen In fine The Church of Rome makes Christ's Body invisible tho' it be present the Fathers never make it so but because it is absent So Ammonius (q) Eaten in Joan. 16.10 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He was taken up into Heaven and became invisible unto Men. And the Author imperfecti Operis in Matthaeum (r) Homil. 53. Si sit praesens non creditur sed videtur cùm autem absens fuerit non videtur sed creditur dum timetur When he is present he is not believed but seen but when he is absent he is not seen but believed whilst he is feared 2 Assertion The Fathers assert That every Body is quantum and as it ahs Quantity possesses a Place or Space and is commensurate to it That a Body cannot be in more than one Place nor be intire in one Part nor exist after the manner of a Spirit All which are false if Transubstantiation be true S. Basil (s) Contr. Eunom l. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 makes that to be incorporeal whose Essence cannot be divided three ways or has not three Dimensions Greg. Nyssen (t) De Opific Hom. c. 24. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 says That if you take Quantity Solidness and other Properties from the Subject the whole Nature of the Body is dissolved c.
it self Gelasius Caesarien (m) Citat à Theodoret. Dial. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Word was made Flesh not being it self changed but dwelling in us The Tabernacle is one thing and the Word is another the Temple is one thing and God that dwells in it another See also the like Saying in Methodius cited by Photius his Bibliotheca Cod. 234. pag. 920. ult Edit In a word the Fathers oppose all Penetration of Dimensions in Bodies and 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 permaner 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
Taste of the Wine which he consecrated in memory of his Blood. Neither was Nature abused in his Apostles Faithful was their Sight and Hearing in the Mount faithful and true was the Taste of that Wine which was Water before at the Marriage in Galilee faithful was Thomas 's Touch who thereupon believed Recite John 's Testimony Recita Johannis testatimem Quod vidimus inquit quod audivimus oculis nostris vidimus manus nostrae contrectaverunt de sermone vitae Falsa utique testatio si oculorum aurium manuum sensus natura mentitur That which we have seen says he which we have heard which we have seen with our Eyes and our Hands have handled of the Word of Life This is all a false Testification if the Nature of the Sense of our Eyes and Ears and Hands is a Lie and a Cheat. And in the next Chapter (m) Cap. 18. Videtur intellectus duce uti sensu auctore principali fundamento nec sine illo veritates posse contingi The Understanding seems to use Sense as a Leader an Author and principal Foundation neither can Truths be laid hold of without it S. Austin teaches the same (n) De vera Relig. cap. 33. Ne ipsi quidem oculi fallunt non enim renunciare possunt animo nisi affectionem suam Si quis remum frangi in aqua opinatur cum inde aufertur integrari non habet malum internuncium sed malus est judex Nam ille pro natura sua non potuit aliter in aqua sentire nec aliter debuit Si enim aliud est aer aliud aqua justum est ut aliter in aere aliter in aqua sentiatur Quare oculus rectè videt ad hoc enim factus est ut tantum videat sed animus perverse judicat c. Doctrine Our Eyes do not deceive us for they can only report to the Mind how they are affected If one thinks that an Oar is broken in the Water and when it is taken out of the Water made whole again he has not a Bad Reporter but he is an ill Judge For the Eye according to its Nature neither could nor ought to perceive it otherwise while in the Water For if the Air is a different Medium from Water it must perceive it one ways in the Air and another ways in Water Therefore the Eye sees rightly for it was made only to see But the Mind judges amiss c. So also S. Hillary (o) In Psal 137. Tollit stultissimam eorum temeritatem qui frustrato falsóque corpore Dominum in carne visum esse contendunt ut eum Pater ementita veritate in habitu falsae carnis ostenderit non recordantes post resurrectionem corporis spiritum se videre credentibus Apostolis dictum esse Quid conturbati c. videte manus pedes meos quoniam ipse ego sum palpate videte quoniam spiritus carnem ossa non habet sicut me videtis habere He takes away their foolish Rashness who contend that our Lord was seen in the Flesh in a deceitful and false Body that the Father feigning Truth shewed him in the habit of false Flesh as the Romanists make Christ's Body to be shewn in habitu falsi panis not remembring what was said after his Resurrection to the Apostles that thought they saw a Spirit Why are ye troubled c. Behold my Hands and my Feet that it is I my self for a Spirit has not Flesh and Bones as ye see me have Epiphanius (p) Heres 42. is very large in arguing the Truth of Christ's Body from what was sensibly done to his Body and if he argues truly then what is sensibly done to the Bread in the Eucharist proves the Truth of Bread remaining and not only the Appearance of it He asks Marcion (q) Ibid. Refut 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 How could he be taken and crucified if according to thy saying he could not be handled For thou canst not define him to be a Phantôme whom thou confessest to fall under the Touch. Again (r) Ibid. Refut 10. 11. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he argues That Christ had a true Body because he went into the Pharisee's House and sat down That which sits down is a bulky Body And when the Woman washed his Feet with her Tears 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he adds Not the Feet of a Phantôme And kissed them perceiving his Body by her Touch. And What Feet did she kiss but the Feet made up of Flesh and Bones and other Parts So again (s) Ibid. Refut 14. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Woman that touched Christ and was healed she did not touch Air but something Humane that might be touched Again (t) Ib. Refut 16. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 An Imaginary thing or Wind or a Spirit or Phantôme admits neither of Burial nor a Resurrection But why may not a Phantôme as well be buried and raised as Accidents be broken and distributed when no Bread remains Again he observes (u) Refut 65. from that of his kneeling down and praying That all this was done 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because his Disciples saw him and he was found to his Disciples under their Touch. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So also concerning Christ's Crucifixion he observes (x) Ibid. Refut 71. That the piercing his Hands and Feet with Nails and handling of them to do it could not be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an imagination or shew But if the Church of Rome say true he is out for it is only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and a Phantôme when I chew and fasten my Teeth in the Host there being no Substance that I bite He afterwards (y) Ibid. Refut 77. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 challenges Marcion from that Expression He was known in breaking of Bread. How says he was this breaking of Bread performed was it by a Phantôme or from a Body (z) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 bulky and really acting it Here I may well observe That if the very breaking of Bread argues a true Body that did perform that thing how much more forcible is our Question to the Romanists What means the mention of Bread broken in the Eucharist as Christ is said to break Bread if nothing be broken at all but only in shew and appearance Epiphanius also elsewhere (a) Haeres 64. sec 36. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 says when Christ shewed to them Moses and Elias in the Mount He did not present an Image or a Phantôme as intending to deceive his Apostles but shew'd what they were really Athanasius (b) Orat. 2. de Ascen Christi says Christ did both eat Meat and permitted his Body to be touched by his Disciples that not only their Eyes but also their Fingers might be brought in for Witnesses of the Truth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so removing all suspicion of a Phantôme or Ghostly
given together with the Water And a litle after Being says he about to descend into the Water do not attend to the simpleness of the Water And yet for all this he never intended to deny it to be true Water Gelasius Cyzic (o) Diatypos c. 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 We are not to consider our Baptism with sensitive but with Intellectual Eyes Or as S. Austin says (p) Serm. 2. in Append. Sermon 40. à Sirmondo Editor 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. The Infidel hearing of the Laver of Baptism esteems it simply Water 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
have to be Christ's Natural Body says that it is blessed and sanctified And Gaudentius (s) In Exod. tract 19. Per singulas Ecclesiarum domos in mysterio panis vini reficit immolatus vivificat creditus consecrantes sanctificat consecratus speaking of Christ whom he compares to the Paschal Lamb says Through all the Houses of the Churches in the mystery of Bread and Wine being sacrificed he refreshes being believed on he quickens being 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 vâ—w 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 secundam expos Quotiens Pascha celebratur nunquid totiens Christus moritur Sed tamen anniversaria recordatio quafi 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 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 Gratiarum actio atque commemoratio est carnis Christi quam pro nobis obtulit there is a thanksgiving and a commemcration 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 the other But Transubstantiation supposes the Elements as to the Matter and Substance of them to perish and to be destroyed when they are said to be changed You cannot well imagine that the Fathers if they thought of Miracles wrought in the Sacrament yet should ever dream of any such as had no agreement with all the Miracles that God ever wrought before They well knew and our Adversaries do not deny it that in all other Supernatural Changes there was only the introducing of a new Form the Materia substrata the common Matter remaining So it was when Moses's Rod was turned into a Serpent when the Waters were turned into Blood Lot's Wife into a Pillar of Salt the Wine in Cana of Galilee changed into Water in all these neither the old Matter was lost nor new Matter created The Fathers therefore laugh at any such Change where the Things changed utterly perish Tertullian (n) De Resurrect Carn c. 55. Quasi demutari sit in totum de pristino perire charges it as a great Absurdity against the Marcionites that according to them To be changed was to perish whelly and as to what they were before He has many smart Sayings against them for denying the same Bodies to appear and rise at the Resurrection and urges that of 1 Cor. 15. shewing that there will be a Change not a Destruction of our Flesh For says he Aliud est demutatio aliud perditio Peribit autem demutata si non ipsa permanserit in demutatione quae exhibita fuerit in resurrectione A Change is one thing and Destruction is another But it will perish in the Change if that Flesh do not remain in the Change which shall be exhibited at the Resurrection As therefore that which is destreyed Quomodò ergo quod perditum est mutatum non est ita quod mutatum est perditum non est Perisse enim est in totum non esse quod fuerit mutatum esse aliter esse est Sed porrò dum aliter est id ipsum potest esse habet enim esse quod non perit mutationem enim passum est non perditionem is not changed so that which is changed is not destroyed For to perish is wholly not to be what it had been but to be changed is to be otherwise than it was Moreover by being otherwise the thing may still be for it has a Being which perishes not for it only suffered a Change not a Destruction Gelasius (o) De duabus Naturis also disputing against the Eutychians who thought that the Humanity was converted into the Divinity so that nothing of the other remained just as with them the Bread is converted into Christ's Body Nec videatur glorificata nostra conditio unione Deitatis sed potius esse consumpta si non eadem subsistit in gloria sed solâ existente Deitate humanitas illic esse jam destitit c. nothing of its Substance remaining says thus Neither do's our Condition by the Union of the Deity seem to be glorified but rather to be consumed if it do's not subsist the same in Glory but the Deity existing alone the Humanity now ceases to be there c. By this way Per hoc non sublimata sed abolita potius invenitur it will not be found to be sublimated but abolish'd The thing is so clear against Transubstantiation that Scotus (p) In 4. dist 11. art 1. sec ad propositum Dico proprie loquendo quod transubstantiatio non est mutatio confesses it I say properly speaking That Transubstantiation is not a Change. 2 Assertion When the Fathers speak of converting a thing into another thing that was before they suppose an Accession and an Augmentation made to that into which the Conversion is made Just as it is in Nourishment of our Bodies the Food converted into them makes an Increase of them Cyril of Alexandr (q) Epist 1. ad Succensum arguing against those Hereticks who thought the glorified Body of Christ was converted into his Divinity he says Thus we derogate from the Divinity 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as if it were made and as receiving something into it self which is not proper to its Nature And he makes this Conversion to be impossible upon this account Gelasius (r) De duabus Naturis Accesserit accreveritque Deitati uses the same Phrases of Accession and Increase to the Deity and that by the transfusion of the Humanity added to it transfusione humanitatis adjectae velut aucta videatur the Divinity would seem to be increased Thus the later Greeks thought it was in Christ's Body into which the Bread was changed Damascen (s) Epist ad Zachariam in Hom. de Corp. Sang. Domini speaking of the Body of Christ which we partake of I declare says he it cannot be said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 there are two Bodies of Jesus Christ there being but one alone For as the Child as soon as it is born is compleat but receives his growth from eating and drinking and tho' he grows thereby yet cannot be said to have two Bodies but only one so by greater reason the Bread and Wine by the Descent of the Holy Spirit are made one only Body and not two by the Augmentation of the Body of Christ Theophylact (t) In cap. 6. Joan. expresses it thus The Bread is changed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 into the Flesh of Christ by the ineffable Words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the mystical Benediction and coming of the Holy Spirit upon it No Man ought to be troubled in being obliged to believe that Bread becomes Flesh For when our Lord was conversant in Flesh and received his Nourishment from Bread this Bread he did eat was changed into his Body being made like to his holy Flesh 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and contributed to augment and sustain it after a humane manner And thus now is the Bread changed into our Lord's Flesh See more Testimonies of the following Greeks in Monsieur Claude's Catholick Doctrine of the Eucharist in answer to Monsieur Arnaud Lib. 3. cap. 13. pag. 228 229. in Fol. 3 Assertion and the most remarkable is this The Fathers use the same Terms of passing into being changed converted becoming another thing c. in other Cases besides the Eucharist wherein all agree there is no Change of Substances made Therefore there is no Argument can be drawn from such
Chrysostome (y) In Acta Hom. 23. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Verily the Power of Baptism is great c. it do's not suffer Men to be any longer Men. Nazianzen (z) Ocat 40. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I am changed into Christ in Baptism Cyril of Alexandr (a) In Joan. 3.5 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 By the energy of the Spirit the sensible Water is changed into a kind of divine and unspeakable Power Again (b) Idem Epist ad Letorum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That they are transelemented by Regeneration through the Grace of the Laver of Baptism S. Austin (c) Cont. Crescon lib. 4. c. 54. Uno die tria alio quinque millia credentium in suum corpus conversa suscepit speaking of Baptized Converts to Christianity It received on one day Three on another Five thousand Believers converted into his Body Again (d) In Joan. tract 11. Unde rubet Baptismus nisi sanguine Christi consecratus elsewhere he asks How comes Baptism to be red but by being consecrated with the Blood of Christ Leo the Great (e) Scrm. 14. de Passione Susceptus à Christo Christum suscipiens non idem est post Lavacrum qui ante baptismum feit sed corpus regenerati sit caro crucifixi haec commutatio dextrae est excelsi c. He that is received by Christ and receives Christ is not the same Man after as before Baptism but the Body of the Regenerate Person becomes the Flesh of Christ crucified this is a Change by the Right hand of the most High c. And again (f) De Nativ Dom. Serm. 4. Christus dedit aquae quod dedit matri virtus enim altissimi obumbratio Spiritus S. quae fecit ut Maria pareret Salvatorem eadem facit ut regeneret unda credentem Christ gave to the Water what he gave to his Mother For the Virtue of the most High and the Overshadowing of the Holy Ghost which made Mary to bring forth a Saviour the same makes the Water to regenerate a Believer Where we may also note by the way That the mention of God's Omnipotence in the Case of Sacraments do's not infer a substantial Change made there since it do's not do it in Baptism and yet the Omnipotency of God is seen in working Changes there Zeno Verenens (g) Ad Neoph. post Baptism Serm. 2. Aqua nostra suscipit mortuos evomit vivos ex animalibus veros homines factos ex hominious in Angelos transituros Our Water receives the Dead and vomits forth the Living being made true Men of meer Animals such as are to pass from being Men into Angels c. He says this of Baptism which is not like common Water which receives the Living to the bottom and vomits forth the Dead Author sub nomine Eusebii Emisseni (h) Hom. 2. de Epiphan Mutantur subitò aquae homines postmodum muâ—aturae The Waters are suddenly changed which are afterwards to change Men viz. that are baptized in them Again (i) Id. Hom. 3. de Epiph. Homo per aquam baptismi licet à foris idem esse videatur intus tamen alter efficitur persona non contingitur natura mutatur A Man by the Water of Baptism tho' outwardly he seems the same yet inwardly he is made another Man. The Person is not touched and Nature is changed Again (k) Idem Hom. 5. de Pasch In exteriore nihil additum est totum in interiore mutatum est In illam primae originis dignitatem nativo candore mutatur ac per aquam Baptismi vel per ignem Spiritus S. aeterni illius panis corpus efficitur Nothing is added to what is outward and he is wholly changed in what is inward He is changed by a native Whiteness into the Dignity of his first Original and by the Water of Baptism or by the Fire of the Holy Spirit is made the Body of that eternal Bread. 4 Assertion The Change in the Eucharist which the Fathers so often mention is either a Change into a Sacrament or a Change of Efficacy and Virtue by infusion and addition of Grace What can be plainer as to the first than that of Isidore of Sevil (l) De Offic. Eccles l. 1. c. 18. Haec duo sent visibilia sanctificata autem per Spiritum S. in Sacramentum divini corporis transeunt Speaking of the Bread and Wine he says These two are visible but being sanctified by the Holy Spirit they pass into a Sacrament of his divine Body As for the Change of Virtue and Efficacy take these following Testimonies among many others Theodot us (m) Epitom ad fin Operum Clem. Alex. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Bread and Oil are sanctified by the Power of the Name not being the same they were according to appearance when taken but are changed powerfully into a Spiritual Virtue The like he says of the Water in Baptism That it not only retains the less that is the Substance of Water but also has Sanctification added to it Epiphanius also (n) In Compendio de Fide Eccles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 speaks the same Here in Christ the virtue of Bread and force of Water are strengthned not that the Bread is thus powerful to us but the Virtue of the Bread which Christ puts into it For Bread is indeed an Aliment but there is in it a Virtue to enliven us Cyril of Alexandr (o) Apud Victor Antioch Com. MS. in Marc. 14. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 God condescending to our Infirmities indues the Oblations set before us with a Virtue of Life and changes them into the Efficacy of his Flesh And in the fore-cited place of his Comment upon John (p) In Joan. 6.57 he says The least particle of the Eucharist mixing it self with our whole Body 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 fills it with its own Efficacy c. Theodoret (q) Dialog 1. tells those that partake of the Divine Mysteries That they must not consider the Nature of the Things seen but upon the change of Names 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 believe the change made by Grace And he adds That Christ honoured the visible Symbols with the Name of his Body and Blood 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not changing the Nature or Substance of them but adding Grace to Nature Theophylact (r) In cap 14. Marc. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 also says the same Our Lord preserves the Substance 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the same with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Theodoret of Bread and Wine but changes them into the Virtue of his Flesh and Blood. Greg. Nyssen (s) Orat. in Bapt. Christi speaking of the Privileges which Consecration advances things to instances first in the Water of Baptism and the great and marvellous Efficacy thereof and proceeds to that of an Altar which is at first but a common Stone but after
holy Baptism And tho' every one knows that Union supposes Presence and Nearness yet this is never made an Argument that Christ is present corporally in Baptism No more can such like Phrases used by him concerning the Eucharist be urged as a Proof of it S. Hilary (t) Lib. 8. de Trinit Nos verè Verbum cibo Dominico sumimus quomodo non naturaliter manere in nobis existimandus est c. Nos sub Mysterio verè carnem corporis sui sumimus per hoc unum erimus quia Pater in illo est ille in nobis Ut cùm ille in Patre per naturam Divinitatis esset nos contra in eo per corporalem Nativitatem ille rursum in nobis per Sacramentorum inesse mysterium crederetur speaks many things of our real Union with Christ in the Sacrament of the Eucharist We truly receive the Word in the Lord's Food how is he not then to be thought naturally to dwell in us We under the Mystery do truly take the Flesh of his Body and thereby shall be one because the Father is in him and be in us So that since he was in the Father by the Nature of the Divinity we on the contrary in him by Corporal Nativity and he might be believed again to be in us by the Mystery of the Sacraments But then it is observable that he do's not say these great things only of the Eucharist that by partaking of it we have a natural Union with Christ but he says we have the same by Faith by Regeneration and by Baptism (u) Ibid. Quomodo non naturalem in his intelligis unitatem qui per naturam unius fidei unum sunt Cessat in his assensûs unitas qui unum sunt in ejusdem regeneratione naturae Quid hic animorum concordia faciet cum per id unum sint quod uno Christo per naturam unius Baptismi induantur How dost thou not understand a natural Unity in those who are one by the nature of one Faith Again The Unity of Consent has no place in those who are one in the Regeneration of the same Nature Again What should Agreement of Wills do here when they are one by this that they are cloathed with one Christ by the Nature of one Baptism I 'le add but one Testimony more out of Fulgentius (x) De Bapt. Aethiop cap. ult Nec cuiquam aliquatenus ambigendum est tunc unumquemque fidelium corporis sanguinisque Dominici participem fieri quando in Baptismate membrum Christi efficitur but it is very home Neither need any one at all doubt that then every Believer is made Partaker of our Lord's Body and Blood when he is made a Member of Christ in Baptism And yet even this do's not infer a Substantial Presence of Christ in Baptism To make this Position still more full and cogent let me add That the Fathers so speak of the Waters of Baptism as if they were turned into Blood and we dyed in that Blood and baptized in Blood and yet all these neither prove the Presence of Christ's natural Body nor Transubstantiation there To name a few Testimonies S. Jerom (y) In Esa 1. Baptizemini in sanguine meo per lavacrum regenerationis upon those words Wash ye make ye clean says Be ye baptized in my Blood by the Laver of Regeneration Again (z) Baptizatus est in sanguine agni quem legebat In Esa 43. he says of the Eunuch He was baptized in the Blood of the Lamb whom he read of in the Prophet So S. Austin (a) In Joan. tract 11. Unde rubet Baptismus nisi sanguine Christi consecratus Whence comes Baptism to be red but because it is consecrated with Christ's Blood Prosper (b) De Promiss part 2. Baptismo sanguine Christi tinguntur They are dyed in the Blood of Christ in Baptism S. Chrysostome (c) Catech. ad illuminand 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 speaking to those that were to receive Baptism You shall be cloathed with the Purple Garment dyed in the Lord's Blood. Julius Firmicus (d) De Error Prof. Relig. c. 28. Quaere fontes ingenuos quaere puros liquores ut illic te post multas maculas cum Spiritu S. Christi sanguis incandidet Seek for the Noble Fountains enquire for the pure Waters that there after thy many Stains the Blood of Christ with the Holy Spirit may make thee White Caesarius (e) Hom. 5. Paschal Ingreditur anima vitales undas velut rubras sanguine Christi consecratas or the Author of the Paschal Homily The Soul enters the Waters of Life that are red as it were being consecrated by the Blood of Christ Isidore of Sevil (f) In Exod. c. 19. Quid Mare rubrum nisi Baptismum Christi sanguine consecratum What is the Red Sea but Baptism consecrated by the Blood of Christ And again (g) De vocat Gent. c. 23. Verus Israel ingreditur Mare rubrum baptismum scilicet Christi cruore signatum The true Israel enters the Red Sea to wit Baptism signed with the Blood of Christ And Primasius (h) In 1 Cor. 10. Mare rubrum significat Baptismum Christi sanguine decoratum The Red Sea signifies Baptism graced with the Blood of Christ 4. Position The Fathers so consider the Presence of Christ's Body in the Eucharist as can no way agree to the Presence of his natural and glorified Body there The Fathers as I have before proved see Chap. 7. Observ 4. Reason 2. look upon the Bread and Wine in the Eucharist as the Representative Body of Christ and thus Christ's Body is indeed present by that which is its Proxy or Pledge But this Presence in a proper sense is Absence and does suppose it I shall therefore here only insist upon one Consideration of Christ's Body there which can only agree to his Representative Body but not to the Natural and Glorified Body of Christ Viz. The Presence of Christ's Body in the Eucharist which the Fathers speak of is of his Body as crucified and slain and dead Now this cannot agree to his Natural Body which by our Adversaries Confession is impassible and invulnerable now it is glorified and cannot admit any separation of Parts which Crucifixion do's suppose nor die any more It is plain by the words of Institution that the Body of Christ there spoken of is his broken Body such as Crucifixon caused and his Blood is considered as shed and poured out of his Veins and separated from his Body which our Adversaries that speak of his Presence in the Sacrament do not believe But the Fathers did believe this and say so for which at the present in stead of all I need cite only S. Chrysostome (i) Hom. 21. in Act. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whose Phrase for the Eucharist is While this Death is perfected this tremendous Sacrifice these ineffable Mysteries Again (k)
illi Quia vidisti credidisti beati qui non viderunt credunt Our Lord comforting us who now that he sits in Heaven cannot handle him but only touch him by Faith says to Thomas Because thou hast seen thou hast believed blessed are they that have not seen and believe S. Cyril of Alexandria agrees perfectly with this Doctrine (d) In Joan. 13.33 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. and knows no other Presence of Christ now but what is Spiritual and Divine since he ascended to the Father and left the World. For they that judge aright and are of a confirmed Faith must be persuaded that tho' Christ he absent from us in the Flesh having undertaken a long Journey to God and the Father that yet he compasses all things by his Divine Power and is present to them that love him c. And again (e) Ibid. in v. 36. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It seemed to them intolerable to be separated from Christ tho' he was always present with them by the Power and Efficacy of the Spirit Elsewhere (f) In Joan. 14.27 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he lays it down as a Rule That Christ's Spirit dwelling in the Saints supplies the Presence and Power of Christ in his absence And many more Places I might name out of him Their Sense is well exprest in that short Saying of the Author under S. Cyprian's (g) De Vnct. Chrysmat Inest veritas signo Spiritus Sacramento Name which I 'le again repeat Truth is in the Sign and the Spirit in the Sacrament S. Ambrose (h) De Spir. Sanct. l. 1. c. 10. propè finem knows of no other Presence of Christ now but what makes the Father to be present with him too and that is the Presence of the Spirit and of Grace His Words are very remarkable The Spirit then so comes Sic ergo venit Spiritus quemadmodum venit Pater dixit enim Filius Ego Pater veniemus mansionem apud eum faciemus Nunquid corporaliter Pater venit Sic ergo Spiritus venit in quo cum venit Patris Filii plena praesentia est Paulò post Probavimus igitur unam praesentiam esse unam gratiam esse Patris Filii Spiritus Sancti quae tam coelestis divina est ut pro ea gratias agat Patri Filius c. as the Father comes For the Son said I and my Father will come and make our abode with him What do's the Father come corporally And the same may be ask'd too of the Son by what follows The Spirit so comes as that in him when he comes is the full Presence of the Father and the Son. A little after We have therefore proved that there is one Presence and that there is one Grace which explains what the Presence is of the Father Son and Holy Ghost which is so Celestial and Divine that the Son gives thanks to the Father for it c. Bede (i) Hom. aest de temp feria 6. Pasch observing how many times Christ appeared to his Disciples after his Resurrection says Hac ergo frequentia corporalis suae manifestationis ostendere vosuit Dominus ut diximus in omni loco se bonorum desideriis divinitùs esse praesentem Apparuit namque ad monumentum lugentibus aderit nobis absentiae ejus recordatione salubriter contristatis Apparuit in fractione panis his qui se peregrinum esse putantes ad hospitium vocaverunt aderit nobis cùm peregrinis pauperibus quaecunque possumus bona libenter impendimus Aderit nobis in fractione panis cùm Sacramenta corporis ejus videlicet panis vivi casta simplici conscientia sumimus He designed to shew by these frequent Appearances that he would be spiritually or divinely present in all Places at the Desire of the Faithful He appear'd to the Women that wept at the Sepulcher he will be likewise present with us when we grieve at the remembrance of his absence He appear'd whilst they broke Bread to those who taking him for a Stranger gave him entertainment he will be likewise with us whilst we liberally receive the Poor and Strangers He will be likewise with us in the Fraction of Bread when we receive the Sacraments of his Body which is the Living Bread with a pure and chaste Heart All this speaks only the Presence of his Divinity and no other For as Alcuinus (k) In Joan. lib. 6. cap. 35. Et idem ipse Christus homo Deus Ergo ibat per id quod homo erat manebat per id quod Deus erat Ibat per id quod in uno loco erat manebat per id quod ubique Deus erat says The same Christ who is Man is likewise God he left them as to his Manhood but remained with them as to his Godhead He went away with reference to that by which he is but in one place N. B. yet tarried with them by his Divinity which is every where All Liturgies when the Eucharist is celebrated call aloud 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Sursum corda Lift up your Hearts The meaning of which we are told by S. Austin (l) De bono Persev l. 2. c. 13. Quod ergo in Sacramentis fidelium dicitur ut sursum corda habeamus ad Dominum munus est Domini ut ascendat quae sursum sunt sapiat ubi Christus est in dextra Dei sedens non quae super terram c. What therefore is said in the Sacraments of the Faithful that we should lift up our Hearts to the Lord it is a Gift of the Lord. And he explains it That by the Divine Aid the Soul is helped to ascend and set its Affections upon things above where Christ is sitting at God's right Hand and not upon things on the Earth S. Jerom's Words (m) Ad Hedybiam qu. 2. Ascendamus cum Domino coenaculum magnum stratum mundatum accipiamus ab eo sursum calicem N. Testamenti ibique cum eo Pascha celebrantes inebriemur ab eo vino sobrietatis are very emphatical Let us with our Lord ascend the great upper Room prepared and made clean and receive from him above the Cup of the New Testament and there celebrating the Passover with him be inebriated by him with the Wine of Sobriety All you see is above and our Presence too with him there S. Chrysostome (n) Hom. 24. in 1 Cor. 10. speaking how we ought to approach to the tremendous Sacrifice with Concord and ardent Charity says From thence we become Eagles and so fly to Heaven it self For where the Carcase is thither will the Eagles come 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He calls his Body the Carcase because of his Death and he calls them Eagles shewing that he who comes to this Body ought to be sublime and have nothing common with Earth
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 Lord J. Christ commanded us to make in memory of his passion What we make as was show'd cap. 8. observ 7. can be only Bread not Christs Body in a proper sense Again (a) Apol. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 telling us of the Bishops praying and giving thanks over the Elements he adds that the Deacons give to every one present leave to take of the Bread and Wine of the Eucharist That this was his sense appears further by another Character he gives of it in the same place 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when he calls it Food by which our Flesh and Blood by a change are nourished What he says in another place (b) Dial. cum Tryph. p. 345. Edit Paris 1615. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of Christians remembring their Lords Passion by their dry and wet food can agree only to Bread and Wine which therefore must be supposed to remain S. Irenaeus (c) L. 5. adv haeres c. 2. Ex quibus augetur consistit carnis nostrae substantia asserts with Justin that the Bread and Cup of the Eucharist is that by which the substance of our Flesh is nourished and consists In another place (d) Ibid. l. 4. c. 34. Carnem quae à corpore Domini sanguine alitur Quemadmodum qui est à terra panis percipiens invocationem Domini jam non communis panis est sed Eucharistia ex duabus rebus constans terrena coelesti c. he not only says that our Flesh is nourished by the Body and Blood of our Lord but adds As the Bread that is from the Earth perceiving the Lords Invocation is not now common Bread but the Eucharist consisting of two things an Earthly and an Heavenly c. Tho' not common Bread yet Bread still because else it would consist only of one thing viz. Christs Body and no earthly thing besides Origen (e) Comm. in Matth. 15. v. 15. p. 254. Edit Huet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If every thing that enters into the mouth gees into the Belly and is cast into the draught then also the food that is sanctified by the word of God and Prayer as to the material part of it which can be nothing but Bread goes into the Belly c. but in respect of the Prayer that is superadded it becomes profitable c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Nor is it the matter of the Bread but the word that is said over it that profits him that eats it not unworthily of the Lord. Cyprian (f) Epist ad Caecilium l. 2. Ep. 3. alias 63. Invenimus calicem mixtum fuisse quem Dominus obtulit vinum fuisse quod sanguinem suum dixit We have found that it was a mixed Cup which our Lord offered and that it was Wine which he called his Blood. Macarius (g) Homil. 27. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In the Church is offered Bread and Wine the Antitype of his Flesh and Blood and they that are partakers of the visible Bread do spiritually eat the Flesh of the Lord. Epiphanius (h) In Compend fidei 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in a place I before cited speaking of the Eucharist says that the Bread is food but the virtue that is in it is for begetting Life It do's not cease to be food tho' the quickening power is all from the grace and spirit of God in it S Ambrose (i) De Benedict Patriarch c. 9. Hunc panem dedit Apostolis ut dividerent populo credentium hodiéque dat nobis eum quum ipse quotidiè sacerdos consecrat suis verbis Hic panis factus est esca Sanctorum speaking of the Benediction of Assur Her Bread is fat c. says Christ gave this Bread to the Apostles to divide it among believing people and now he gives it to us whenas the Priest daily Consecrates with his words This Bread is made to be the food of Saints S. Austin (k) L. 3. de Trin. c. 4. Corpus Christi sanguinem dicimus illud tantum quod ex frugibus terrae acceptum prece mysticâ consecratum rite sumimus ad salutem spiritualem in memoriam pro nobis Dominicae Passionis quod cùm per manus hominum ad illam visibilem speciem perducitur non sanctificatur ut sit tam magnum Sacramentum nisi operante invisibiliter Spiritu Dei. We only call that the Body and Blood of Christ which being taken from the fruits of the Earth and Consecrated by mystical Prayer we rightly receive to our spiritual health in memory of our Lords Passion Which when it is by the hands of men brought to that visible substance is not sanctified to become so great a Sacrament unless the spirit of God invisibly operate Again (l) Idem Ibid. c. 10. Panis ad hoc factus in accipiendo Sacramento consumitur Bread made for this purpose is consumed in receiving the Sacrament But it is neither received nor consumed till it be Consecrated nor then but when eaten And again elsewhere (m) Serm. 9. de divers cap. 7. Eucharistia panis noster quotidianus est sed sic accipiamus illum ut non solum ventre sed mente reficiamur The Eucharist is our daily Bread but let us so receive it that we may not only have refreshment for our bellies but for our minds Upon this account it is that looking upon the Sacrament as a refreshing food to our Bodies as S. Austin here speaks the Ancients believed that by partaking of the Eucharist they Broke their Fasts this appears beyond all question in what Tertullian (n) Lib. de Orat. c. 14. ad finem Stationum diebus non putant plerique sacrificiorum orationibus interveniendum quod statio solvenda sit accepto corpore Dominico says who in resolving a doubt that troubled some minds what they should do when it happened that by a private vow they undertook a strict Fast which obliged them not to take any refreshment till Evening and this fell out upon a station day which was usually Wednesdays and Fridays when the Fast was ended at three a Clock by receiving the Communion Most think says he that on the station days they ought not to be present at the Prayers of the Sacrifices when the Eucharist was administred because the Fast was broken upon receiving the Lords Body Tertullian excepts not against this
reason but grants it and finds out such an expedient as would be counted ridiculous in the Roman Church where this of the Sacraments breaking the Fast is not believed which is to be present and to take the Sacrament and reserve it to be eaten at night By receiving the Lords Body Accepto corpore Dominico reservato ucrumque salvum est participatio Sacrificii executio officii says he and reserving it both is salved both the partaking of the Sacrifice i. e. of the Eucharist given at three a Clock and the execution of their duty he means of fasting till Evening according to their Vow and eating the Sacrament then and not before But to proceed with our Testimonies Hesychius (o) In Levit. l. 2. c. 8. Propterea carnes cum panibus comedi praecipiens ut nos intelligeremus illud ab eo mysterium dici quod simul panis caro est sicut Corpus Christi panis vivi qui de Coelo descendit God therefore commanded Flesh to be eaten with Bread that we might understand that that mystery viz. the Eucharist was spoken of by him which is both Bread and Flesh as the Body of Christ the living Bread that descended from Heaven It can be only Bread and Flesh in our way for in that of Transubstantiation it is only Flesh and no Bread. S. Austin (p) Lib. cont Donatist c. 6. De ipso pane de ipsa Dominica manu Judas Partem Petrus accepit tamen quae Societas quae consonantia quae pars Petri cum Juda Of the very Bread Judas and Peter both took a part and yet what Society what agreement what part has Peter with Judas Again (q) Id Tract in Joan. 26. Patres manducaverunt spiritualem utique eandem escam nam corporalem alteram quia illi Manna nos aliud omnes eundem potum spiritualem biberunt aliud illi aliud nos sed specie visibili quidem tamen hoc idem significante virtute spirituali The Fathers did eat the same spiritual meat with us but the corporal was different they did eat Manna we another thing he means Bread and they all drank the same spiritual drink they one thing we another another as to the visible substance but in spiritual virtue signifying the same thing And again elsewhere (r) Id. Tract 45. in Joan. Videte ergo fide manente signa variata Ibi Petra Christus nobis Christus quod in Altari ponitur illi pro magno Sacramento ejusdem Christi biberunt aquam profluentem de Petra nos quid bibamus norunt fideles Si speciem visibilem intendas aliud est si intelligibilem significationem eundem potum spiritualem biberunt Behold while Faith remains the same the signs are varied There in the Wilderness the Rock was Christ to us that which is placed on the Altar viz. Bread is Christ And they drank the Water that flowed from the Rock for a great Sacrament of the same Christ what we drink the faithful know viz. Wine if you regard the visible substance it is another thing if the spiritual signification they drank the same spiritual drink Again in another place (s) Tract 26. in Joan. Nam nos hodie accepimus visibilem cibum sed aliud est Sacramentum aliud est virtus Sacramenti We have received to day the visible food but the Sacrament is one thing and the virtue of the Sacrament is another That which he calls here cibus visibilis the visible food a little after S. Austin calls it visibile Sacramentum a visible Sacrament where he distinguishes this again from the Virtus Sacramenti the Virtue of the Sacrament so that the visible food and the visible Sacrament with him are the same I have already produced the Testimonies vid. chap. 8. Observ 5. where the Fathers make what is distributed in the Eucharist to be without Life or sense which can be true of nothing else but of the Bread and Wine So that unless we make them distribute what they had not consecrated the Bread and Wine must remain after Consecration The same is also evidently proved from another common assertion of the Fathers that Christ offered the same oblation with Melchisedek S. Cyprian (t) Lib. 2. Epist 3. Quis magis sacerdos Dei summi quam Dominus noster Jesus Christus qui Sacrificium Deo Patri obtulit obtulit hoc idem quod Mechisedec obtulerat id est panem vinum suum scilicet corpus sanguinem Who was more a Priest of the most High God than our Lord Jesus Christ who offered a Sacrifice to God the Father and offered this same that Melchisedeck had offered that is Bread and Wine to wit his Body and Blood Which indeed the Wine and Bread was by representation but if you understand this of proper Flesh and Blood offered in the Eucharist then it is not the same oblation with that of Melchisedeck Isidere Peleusiota (u) Lib. 1. Epist 431. ad Pallad 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Melchisedeck performed his sacred Office in Bread and Wine by which he foresignified the type of the divine mysteries Eusebius (x) Lib. 5. Dem. Evang. c. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Melchisedeck 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For as he Melchisedeck being a Priest of the Gentiles never seems to have made use of Bodily Sacrifices but blessed Abraham only in Bread and Wine After the same manner also first our Lord and Saviour himself then all the Priests that derive from him performing in all Nations their spiritual function according to the Ecclesiastical Sanctions by Bread and Wine do express the mysteries of his Body and saving Blood Melchisedeck having foreseen these things by a divine spirit and having used before these images of future things S. Jerome (y) Epist ad Evagrium Melchisedec pane vino simplici puroque sacrificio Christi dedicaverit Sacramentum Melchisedeck by Bread and Wine which is a simple and a pure Sacrifice did dedicate Christs Sacrament S. Austin (z) Epist 95. Melchisedec prolato Sacramento coenae Dominicae novit aeternum ejus sacerdotium figurare Melchisedeck bringing forth the Sacrament of the Lords Supper i. e. Bread and Wine knew how to figure Christs Eternal Priesthood Again (a) L. 17. de civit Dei c. 17. Ex eo quod jam nusquam est Sacerdotium Sacrificium secundum ordinem Aaron ubique offertur sub sacerdote Christo quod protulit Melchisedec quando benedixit Abraham upon those words Thou art a Priest for ever c. He adds Since now there is no where any Priesthood or Sacrifice according to the Order of Aaron and that is every where offered under Christ the Priest which Melchisedeck brought forth when he blessed Abraham In many other places S. Austin says the same Arnobius (b) In Psal 109. Christus per mysterium panis vini
wit the substance of Bread not having an humane Figure lest Idolatry should be introduced And again It pleased him that the Bread of the Eucharist being the true Image of his natural Flesh should be made a Divine Body being sanctified by the coming of the Holy Ghest the Priest which makes the oblation intervening to make it holy which before was common He that would have more Testimonies of this kind may consult Monsieur Blondel in his Esclaircissements sur l' Eucharistie cap. 4. prop. 8. The Fathers also make two or three Remarks which add further strength to this Argument First Remark They not only make Bread and Wine to be the Image Type Figure c. of Christs Body Crucified but they also assert that an Image Figure c. cannot be the thing it self of which it is an Image and Figure Tertullian (g) Cont. Marcion l. 2 c. 9. Imago veritati non usquequaque adaequabitur aliud enim est secundùm veritatem esse aliud ipsam veritatem esse The Image cannot be every ways adequate to the Truth for it is one thing to be according to Truth another to be the Truth it self Athanasius (h) Contr. Hypocr Milet. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That which is like to another is not that thing it self to which it is like Hilary (i) De Synodis Neque enim sibi ipsi quisquam imago est Neither is any one an Image of himself S. Ambrose (k) De fide l. 1. cap. 4. Nemo potest sibi ipsi imago fuisse None can ever have been an Image of Himself Gr. Nyssen (l) De anima resurrect 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 An Image would be no longer such if it were altogether the same with that of which it is an Image S. Austin (m) De Trinit l. 7. c. 1. Quid absurdius quà m Imaginem ad se dici What can be more absurd than to be called an Image with respect to ones self Gaudentius (n) In Exod. tract 2. Figura non est veritas sed imitatio veritatis A Figure is not the Truth but an imitation of the Truth Theodoret (o) In Dan. l. 2. c. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 An Image has the Figures and lines not the things themselves Cyril of Alexand. (p) In Amos cap. 6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 A Type is not the Truth but rather imports the similitude of the Truth Bertram (q) De corp sang Domini Pignus Imago alterius rei sunt id est non ad se sed ad aliud aspiciuu◠A pledge and an Image are of another thing that is they do not look to themselves but to something else This Epiphanius the Deacon (r) In Concil Nic. 2. Act. 6. in the second Council of Nice confesses and therefore is fain to deny that the Eucharist is the Image or Antitype of Christs Body 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For says he If the Eucharist be an Image of his Body it cannot be the Divine Body it self Damascen also (s) De Orth. fide l. 4. c. 14. who was one of the first Innovators in the matter of the Eucharist denies that the Bread and Wine are a Type or Figure of Christs Body and Blood but the very Body and Blood it self and that when the Antients call them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Antitypes they mean it is so before Consecration of the Elements not after which I have abundantly showed by foregoing Testimonies in this Chapter to be false and it is confessed by some of the Roman Authors themselves In a word the Fathers make a sign to be inferiour and to fall short of the thing signified thus S. Chrysostem (t) Hom. 8. in Epist ad Roman 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 says It is inferiour to it and so much the more as a sign is below the thing of which it is a sign So also S. Jerome as we heard before puts the Body and Blood of Christ in the Eucharist in the same rank as to veneration with holy Chalices Veils and other things that relate to the Passion of our Lord 2 Remark The Fathers assert that an Image and Type must visibly demonstrate that of which it is an Image Origen (u) Hom. 1. in Genes Qui viderit imaginem alicujus videt eum cujus imago est He that sees the Image of a person sees him of whom it is an Image Marcellus Anchyr apud Eusebium (x) Lib. 1. cont Marcel c. 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Images are demonstrative of those of whom they are Images so that by them he that is absent seems to appear Greg. Nyssen (y) In Cant. Hom. 15. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Original is plainly seen in the likeness of it Hilary (z) De Synodis Eum cujus Imago est necesse est ut imago demonstret It is necessary that an Image should demonstrate him of whom it is an Image Which plainly confutes those mens fancies in the Church of Rome (a) Bellarm. de Euchar. l. 2. cap. 15. who make Christ invisibly present in the Eucharist to be the sign of himself visibly suffering upon the Cross For as Greg. Nyssen (b) Lib. 1. cont Eunom 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 says How can a man form an Idea of a visible thing from an Invisible And Tertullian laughs at it as ridiculous when he says (c) Lib. de carne Christi c. 11. Nemo ostendere volens hominem cassidem ant personam introducit No one that intends to show a man brings in a Helmet or a Vizard Which we know hide him from our sight Irenaeus (d) L. 2. adv haeres c. 40. Typus secundùm materiam substantiam aliquoties à veritate diversus est Secundùm autem habitum lineamentum debet servare similitudinem similiter ostendere per praesentia ea quae non sunt praesentia says A Type is often different from the Truth according to the matter and substance of the Type but according to the habit and lineaments it ought to keep likeness and likewise by things present show those things that are not present 3. Remark The Fathers plainly make the Bread and Wine in the Eucharist to be Signs and Symbols of Christ as absent S. Ambrose (e) L. 1. de Offic. cap. 48. Hic umbra hic Imago illic veritas Umbra in Lege imago in Evangelio veritas in Coelestibus Here is the shadow here the Image there viz. in Heaven is the Truth The shadow is in the Law the Image in the Gospel the Truth in Heaven Again (f) In Psalm 38. Ascende ergo homo in coelum videbis illa quorum umbra hic erat vel Imago Ascend O Man into Heaven and thou shalt see those things of which there was here only a shadow or Image Maximus (g) In cap. 1. Hierarch Eccles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Interpreter of the
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. 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 obferves (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 species manent sicut substantia conversa mansisset Et si species incorruptae evomuntur vel egrediuntur est ibi vere corpus Christi agrees citing Paludanus in the case Therefore the Body and Blood of Christ remains so long in the Belly and Stomach or Vomit or any where else as the Species remain just as the converted Substance viz. Bread and Wine would have remained And if the Species are vomited up whole or go forth downwards there is truly the Body of Christ. And he tells us of S. Hugo Cluniac how he commended one Goderanus who by a strange fervor swallowed down the Particles of an Host which a Leper had vomited up with vile Spittle saying That S. Laurence his Gridiron was more tolerable If these Consequences seem horrid and detestable to the Reader the Doctrine from which they necessarily flow ought to be look'd upon much more so But now to return to the Fathers and their Sense of Eating the Body of Christ. It is evident to any that will impartially consult their Writings that they were perfect Strangers to all these Cases that are thus currently resolved in the Roman Church That Christ's Natural Body should enter into ours is too gross and carnal a Thought to be attributed to them and fits only the Imaginations of a Carnal Church and of those Capernaites who in the Sixth of S. John ask How can this Man give us his Flesh to eat Christ tells them That the Words he spoke to them were Spirit and Life And so the Fathers always understood the eating of Christ's Body and drinking his Blood not in a literal and proper but in a figurative and spiritual Sense as I shall now prove from their Writings Wherein it may not be amiss to take notice first What their Sense is about understanding things carnally and spiritually S. Chrysostome (z) Hom. 46. in Joan. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 asking this Question What is it to think or understand carnally He answers Simply to look upon the things proposed and to think of no more But we ought to view all Mysteries with our inward Eyes for this is spiritually to view them S. Austin (a) De Doctr. Christ l. 3. c. 5. Cùm figuratè dictum sic accipitur tanquam proprie dictum sit carnaliter sapitur gives the same account We have a carnal Taste when we take that which is figuratively spoken as if it were properly spoken And elsewhere (b) Serm. 44. de diversis Omnis figurata allegorica lectio vellocutio aliud videtur sonare carnaliter aliud insinuare spiritualiter Every figurative and allegorical Reading or Speech seems to sound one thing carnally and to insinuate another thing spiritually S. Austin (c) De Doctr. Christ l. 3. c. 16. Si praecepriva est locutio aut flagitium aut facinus yetans aut beneficentiam jubens non est figurata Si autem flagitium aut facinus videtur jubere aut utilitatem aut beneficentiam vetare figurata est Nisi manducaveritis carnem filii hominis c. facinus vel flagitium videtur jubere Figura ergo est praecipiens passioni Domini esse communicandum suaviter atque utiliter in memoria condendum quod caro ejus pronobis crucifixa vulnerata est further gives a Rule when to understand a thing literally and when to understand it figuratively and spiritually If the Speech be by way of command either forbidding a Crime or heinous Wickedness or bidding a beneficial or good thing to be done it is not figurative But if it seems to command a Crime or heinous Wickedness or forbid an useful and beneficial thing it is figurative And then he gives the Example of his Rule in those words of Christ Except ye eat the Flesh and drink the Blood of the Son of Man ye have no Life in you Now this says he seems to command a Crime or horrid thing therefore it is a Figure commanding us to communicate in the Passion of our Lord and sweetly and profitably to treasure up in our Memory that his Flesh was crucified and wounded for us Origen said the very same before him (d) Hom. 7. in Levitic non solùm in Veteri Testamento occidens Litera deprehenditur est in N. Testamento Litera quae occidit cum qui non spiritualiter quae dicuntur adverterit Si enim secundùm literam sequaris hoc ipsum quod dictum est Nisi manducaveritis carnem meam biberitis sanguinem meum occidit haec litera and gives the same Instance Not only in the Old Testament is found the killing Letter there is also in the New Testament a Letter that kills him who do's not spiritually consider what is said For if thou follow this according to the Letter which was said Unless ye eat my Flesh and drink my Blood this Letter kills And in another place (e) In Joan. Tom. 10. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 We are not to eat the Flesh of the Lamb as the Slaves of the Letter do c. To which he opposes those who receive the Spirituals of the Word Such as those whom S. Austin mentions (f) In Joan. tract 26. Quia visibilem cibum spiritaliter intellexerunt spiritaliter esurierunt spiritaliter gustaverunt ut spiritaliter satiarentur who pleased God and died not i. e. eternally Because they understood the visible Food Manna spiritually they hungred spiritually they tasted spiritually that they might spiritually be satisfied Or as he expresses it a little after (g) Ibid. Qui manducat intus non foris qui manducat in corde non qui premit dente He that eats inwardly not outwardly that eats in his Heart not he that presseth it with his Teeth And therefore elsewhere * Serm. 33. de Verb. Dom. Nolite parare fauces sed cor exhorts them Do not prepare your Jaws but your Heart This is what Clemens Alexandr (h) Strom. l. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 requires when he says That Christ when he broke the Bread set it before them that we may eat it rationally i. e. spiritually So S. Austin again (i) De Verb. Apost Serm. 2. Tunc vita unicuique erit corpus sanguis Christi si quod in sacramento visibiliter sumitur in ipsa veritate spiritualiter manducetur spiritualiter bibatur The Body and Blood of Christ will then be Life to every one if what is visibly taken in the Sacrament
The Celestial and Divine Lamb is wont to be the Food of Souls S. Austin (a) Tract 1. in Epist Joan. Ipsum jam in coelo sedentem manu contrectare non possumus sed fide contingere indeed tells us We cannot handle him who now sits in Heaven yet says he we may touch him by our Faith. For as he says elsewhere (b) Tract 26. in Evang. Joan. Non ad Christum ambulando currimus sed credeudo nec motu corporis sed voluntate cordis accedimus Sic se tangi voluit sic tangitur ab eis à quibus benè tangitur ascendens ad patrem manens cum patre aequalis patri We run to Christ not by walking but by believing nor do we approach him by the Motion of our Bodies but by the Will of our Hearts And afterwards Thus he would be touched and thus he is touched by all that rightly touch him ascending to the Father remaining with the Father equal to the Fath. r. 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 crat priùs certè vel tunc videbitis quia non co modo quo putatis 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 be 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 bear 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 Joah 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 sauguinem 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 tuâ—â— 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. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 verirate 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
4. Qu. 11. memb 2. art 2. sec 2. taking notice of the opinion of some that thought that as soon as the Body of Christ was touched by a Sinners lips Illud sentire erroneum est manifestè contra sanctos ideo communiter tenetur quod in hoc non est differentia inter justum injustum quia uterque ipsum verum corpus Christi sumit in Sacramento c. Unde concedendum quod mali sumunt rem Sacramenti quod est corpus Christi verum quod natum est de Virgine c. it withdrew it self says This is an errour and manifestly against the Saints and therefore it is held commonly that in this there is no difference betwixt the just and unjust for both of them receive the very Body of Christ in the Sacrament And a little after It must be granted that the wicked receive the thing which the Sacrament is a sign of which is Christs true Body born of the Virgin c. This ought not to seem a strange Doctrine to be held by those who say that brute Creatures may devour Christs Body Which is the current opinion So Aquinas (l) Loc. citat ad Tertium Dicendum quod etiamsi mus vel canis hostiam consecratam manducet substantia corporis Christi non definit esse sub speciebus quamdiu species illae manent We must say that altho' a Mouse or a Dog should eat a consecated Host yet the substance of Christs Body do's not cease to be under the species so long as the species remain Alensis (m) Ibid. sec 1. loco citat Si canis vel porcus deglutiret hostiam consecratam integram non video quare vel quomodo Corpus Domini non simul cum specie trajiceretur in ventrem canis vel porci is as positive and more plain If a Dog or a Hog should swallow a whole consecrated Host I see not why nor how the Body of our Lord would not together with the Species be conveyed into the Belly of that Dog or Hog It is also remarkable that among three Articles which P. Gregory XI an 1371. prohibited to be taught (n) See Pref. to the determ of Jo. Paris p. 32. Si hostia consecrata à mure corrodatur seu à bruto sumitur quod remanentibus speciebus sub iis definit esse Corpus Christi redit substantia Panis under pain of Excommunication which was also repeated by P. Clement VI. one of them was this If a Consecrated Host should be gnawed by a Mouse or taken by a Brute that then the species remaining the Body of Christ ceases to be under them and the substance of the Bread returns This he would not let pass for good Divinity Nor can it at this Day when this is one of the Cautions to be observed in the Celebrating of the Mass (o) De Defect Missae sec 10. n. 5. ante Missal Roman Si post confecrationem ceciderit musca aut aliquid ejusmodi fiat nausea Sacerdoti extrahat eam lavet cum vino finitâ Missa comburat combustio ac lotio hujusmodi in Sacrarium projiciatur Si autem non fuerit nausea nec ullum periculum timeat sumat cum sanguine That if a Fly or any such animal fall into the Chalice after Consecration if the Priest nauseats it then he must take it out and wash it with Wine and burn it when Mass is ended and the ashes and the wash be thrown into the H. Repository But if he do not nauseate to swallow it nor fears any danger let him take it down with the Blood. What is all this for but to tell us that they look upon it still to be Christs Blood and that its better it should be in the Belly of a Priest than of a Brute So also they give us another Case (p) Ibid. n. 14. Si Sacerdos evomat Eucharistiam si species integrae appareant reverenter sumantur nisi nausea fiat tunc enim species consecratae cautè separentur in aliquo loco sacro reponantur donec corrumpantur c. If a Priest should vomit up the Eucharist and the species appear entire they must be taken down reverently unless nauseated but in that case the Consecrated Species must be cautiously separated and put in some H. Place till they are corrupted c. But I beg the Readers Pardon for presenting him with such nauseous stuff God grant that they who thus unworthily represent their Saviour may have grace to repent that the thoughts of their hearts may be forgiven them As for the Fathers if by their plain words we can understand their sense they assert that only the Faithful and not the wicked eat the Body of Christ and drink his Blood in a proper sense S. Jerome (q) In Oseam c. 8. Cujus caro cibus credentium est calls the Flesh of Christ the food of Believers And Isidore of Sevil (r) In Genes c. 31. Caro ejus qui est esca Sanctorum Quam si quis manducaverit non morietur in aeternum that it is the meat of the Saints And he adds which makes it their food and of none else which if any one eat he shall not die eternally They therefore often call it the Bread of Life and Life it self S. Ambrose (s) In Psal 118. Serm. 18. Hic est panis vitae qui manducat vitam mori non potest quomodo enim morietur cui cibus vita est This is the Bread of Life he that eateth Life cannot die for how should he die whose Food is Life S. Austin says the same (t) Serm. de verb. Evangel apud Bedam in 1 Cor. 10. Quando Christus manducatur vita manducatur quando manducatur reficit When Christ is eaten Life is eaten When he is eaten he refreshes Again in another place (u) Serm. 44. de Diversis Filii Ecclesiae habent à rore coeli fertilitate terrae c. à fertilitate terrae omnia visibilia Sacramenta Visibile enim Sacramentum ad terram pertinet Haec omnia communia habent in Ecclesia boni mali Nam ipsi habent participant Sacramentis quod norunt fideles à tritico vino distinguishing the Portion of Saints and Sinners he makes the true Sons of the Church to partake both of the Dew of Heaven and the fatness of the Earth This fatness of the Earth he explains to be all visible Sacraments for they pertain to the Earth All these he says the good and bad in the Church have in common For the bad have and partake of the Sacraments and what the Faithful know made of Bread-Corn and Wine If then the visible Sacrament and that which has its original from Earth be all that evil men partake of to be sure they have nothing to do with Christ the Heavenly Bread or his Body which to use his Phrase do's not pertain to Earth at
all but is a Divine Food Which none has more admirably and fully spoke to than Origen (x) In Matth. c. 15. v. 15. p. 253. Ed. Huet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Who having said a great deal about Christs Typical and Symbolical Body which S. Austin called before the visible Sacrament he goes on thus Many things also might be said concerning that word which was made Flesh and the true Food which whosoever eats shall surely live for ever no wicked Man being capable of eating it For if it were possible that a wicked man continuing such should eat him that was made Flesh seeing he is the Word and the living Bread it would not have been written That whosoever eats this Bread shall live for ever This is that which Macarius (y) Homil. 14. discourses of so largely and piously Telling us that as a great rich Man having both Servants and Sons gives one sort of meat to the Servants 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and another to the Sons that he begot who being Heirs to their Father do eat with him So says he Christ the true Lord himself created all and nourishes the evil and unthankful but the Children begotten by him who are partakers of his grace and in whom the Lord is formed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. he feeds them with a peculiar refection and Food and Meat and Drink above and besides other men and gives himself to them that have Conversation with their Father as the Lord says He that eateth my Flesh and drinketh my Blood abides in me and I in him and shall not see death With whom S. Jerome (z) In c. 66. Esaiae Dum non sunt sancti corpore spiritu nec comedunt carnem Jesu neque bibunt sanguinem ejus de quo ipse loquitur Qui comedit carnem meam bibit sanguinem meum habet vitam aeternam agrees speaking of voluptuous men Not being holy in Body and Spirit they neither eat the Flesh of Jesus nor drink his Blood concerning which he says He that eateth my Flesh and drinketh my Blood hath Eternal Life S. Austin also (a) Contra Donatist post collat c. 6. De ipso pane de ipsa Dominica manu Judas partem Petrus accepit says Of that Bread and from our Lords own Hand both Judas and Peter took a part But then he (b) Tract 59. in Joan. Evang Illi manducabant Panem Dominum ille Panem Domini contra Dominum illi vitam ille poenam makes the distinction himself that Judas received only the Bread of the Lord when the other Disciples receiv'd the Bread that was the Lord. Which is directly contrary to Transubstantiation for according to that even such a one as Judas must eat the Lord and no Bread when this Father says that he ate the Bread and no Lord. Neither is S. Austin singular in this Phrase of the Bread of the Lord to signifie the real substance of that Element that is eaten in the Sacrament and not the proper Body of Christ For so S. Jerome uses it (c) In Jerem. c. 31. Confluent ad bona Domini super frumento de quo conficitur Panis Domini When he speaks of Corn of which the Bread of the Lord is made It is also very observable that as the Council of Trent as we heard before makes eating Christ Sacramentally and really to be the same and spiritual eating to be of another sort not real but one would think rather imaginary On the quite contrary the Fathers distinguish the sacramental eating from the real and make the spiritual and real eating to be the same and they will grant that a bad Man may eat Christ Sacramentally that is in sign but not really for so none but the faithful can do it For thus S. Austin (d) Serm. 2. de verb. Apost Tunc autem hoc erit id est Vita unicuique erit Corpus sanguis Christi si quod in Sacramento visibiliter sumitur in ipsa veritate spiritualiter manducetur spiritualiter bibatur Then will this be that is the Body and Blood of Christ will be Life to every one if that which is visibly taken in the Sacrament be in the Truth it self spiritually eaten and spiritually drank Which in another place (e) Tract 26. in Joan. Quod pertinet ad virtutem Sacramenti non quod pertinet ad visibile Sacramentum he expresses by the visible Sacrament and the virtue of the Sacrament Again most expresly (f) De Civit. Dei. l. 21. c. 25. Ipse dicens qui mandacat carnem meam bibit sanguinem meum in me manet ego in eo ostendit quid sit non Sacramento tenus sed revera Corpus Christi manducare sanguinem ejus bibere Christ saying He that eateth my Flesh and drinketh my Blood dwelleth in me and I in him shows what it is not sacramentally but really and in truth to eat Christs Body and drink his Blood. And therefore in the same Chapter (g) Ibid. Neque enim isti dicendi sunt manducare Corpus Christi quoniam nec in membris computandi sunt Christi speaking of wicked men he says Neither can they be said to eat the Body of Christ since they are not to be accounted Christs Members S. Austin again distinguishes the Sacramentum rei the Sacrament of the thing from the res Sacramenti the thing of which it is a Sacrament (h) Tract 26. in Joan. Hujus rei Sacramentum in Dominica Mensa praeparatur de Dominica Mensa sumitur quibusdam ad vitam quibusdam ad exitium Res vero ipsa cujus Sacramentum est omni homini ad vitam nulli ad exitium quicunque ejus particeps fuerit The Sacrament of this thing is prepared on the Lords Table and received from the Lords Table to some to Life and to others to destruction But the thing it self of which it is a Sacrament is for Life to every one that partakes of it and to none for destruction For as S. Chrysostom (i) Catena in Joh. 6.49 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 phrases it He that receives this Bread will be above dying I will conclude this Chapter with two remarkable places of St. Austin The first is cited by Prosper (k) Lib. Sentent ex August sententia mihi 341. vel 339. Escam vitae accipit aeternitatis poculum bibit qui in Christo manet cujus Christus habitator est Nam qui discordat à Christo nec carnem ejus manducat nec sanguinem bibit etiamsi tantae rei Sacramentum ad judicium suae praesumptionis quotidiè indifferenter accipiat who has gathered S. Austin's Sentences He receives the food of life and drinks the Cup of Eternity who abides in Christ and in whom Christ inhabits For he that disagrees with Christ neither eats his Flesh nor drinks his Blood altho' he takes
ad Bohem. Non parva altercatio in principio mutationis illius prioris tamen universalis Ecclesia quia ita tempori congruebat populum cum intincto pane communicare permisit tho' it went not down without great contention at the first change from the old Practice yet the Universal Church complying with the Times permitted it But it was not long it was thus suffered for by a Decree of Pope Vrban 2. in the Council of Clermont and by an enforcement of it by his Successor P. Paschal 2. whose Epistle to Pontius Abbot of Cluny concerning this Matter Baronius has given us (e) Baronius Append. ad Tem. 12. ad An. 1118. this practice was abrogated A second Device also about the same time was brought into play Of sucking the Consecrated Wine through little Pipes or Canes called Pugillares like Quills concerning which Cassander de communione sub utraque gives us an account and that some of them were to be seen in his Time. And indeed this seems to be a sufficient security to the danger of Effusion and also prevents that great Offence of any drops of Blood sticking to the Beards of People when they drank out of the Cup and yet even this would not satisfy nor any thing else be a sufficient Caution against the prophanation of the Blood but only debarring the People wholly of it Yet this way is still used by the Pope himself and I think he has the sole privilege to do it who in that which is called the Missa Papalis when he himself celebrates and communicates he sucks part of the Blood through a golden Quill * Cum pontifex Corpus Christi sumpserit Episcopus Cardinalis porrigit ti calamum quem Papa ponit in Calice in manibus Diaconi existente Sanguinis partem sugit Sacrarum Cerimon lib. 2. cap. de Missa Majori Papa personaliter celebrante But neither do's he always thus communicate for their Book of Sacred Ceremonies acquaints us ** Ibid. cap. Si Papa in nocte Nativitatis personaliter celebrat Non sugit sangainem cum calamo sed more communi That when He celebrates personally on the Night of the Nativity of our Lord that all things are observed that are described in the Papal Mass except that he communicates at the Altar alone and not in his eminent and high Seat and do's not suck the Blood with a Quill but takes it after the common manner But now after all what account can we give of the Ancient Fathers they apprehended it necessary to receive in both Kinds in all their Publick Communions and so they practised Must we not then accuse them either of great Dulness or Indevotion either that they wanted Sagacity in not apprehending the imminent danger they in their way exposed the Blood of Christ to or that they were guilty of a strange carelesness and indifferency in not preventing it by any of those Methods which the Roman Church hath found out to do it Truly for my part I am inclined to have as great if not a greater opinion of them in both respects especially for their Devotion than I can have of the Roman Church and I am the more perswaded hereto because the Apostles themselves must come in to the side of the Ancient Church their practice being the same not to insist upon the Deference that ought to be paid to that Holy Spirit that we are sure acted them who if there had been any such real danger of prophanation by receiving in both kinds or ever was likely to be any such would not have failed to have given directions to them how they should avoid it and we cannot think the Apostles would not have set down those Directions to us in some of their Writings But they have not done it no not the Zealous St. Paul who yet says so much to the careless Corinthians about this Argument and tells them that they came together not for the better but the worse charges them with unworthy receiving and being thereby guilty of the Body and Blood of the Lord 1 Cor. 11. and that for this cause many were weak and sick among them and were judged of the Lord for their prophanations c. But this is none of the Charges against them nor does he direct them to any of the wise Methods of the Roman Church for preventing this Danger tho' he says What he received of the Lord he delivered to them There is nothing then remains but that we assign the true Cause of this different Practice which can be none other but the Roman Churches innovating in their Faith about the Sacrament and altering so their Opinions about the Body and Blood of Christ in the Eucharist that they require a different Conduct for their Devotion so that neither the Practice of the Primitive Fathers nor the Rules of the Apostles will suit and agree with their Perswasions and Apprehensions But now the Faith of the Ancient Church in this Matter was such as neither requires nor can admit of any Alteration like what the Church of Rome has made in communicating the People only in one Kind For as I have before proved they look'd upon this Sacrament not as an actual Exhibition and Presentation of the Natural and Glorified Body of our Saviour which they believed to be absent and contained in the Heavens but as a Representation of his Crucified Body where his Blood was separated from his Body and poured out of his Veins and that not only the Elements but the Sacramental Actions of breaking the Bread and pouring out the Wine and our eating and drinking were instituted to shew forth this painful Death of our Lord and the shedding of his most precious Blood for the Remission of Sins By the presence of his glorified Body there as the Roman Church believes this cannot be done no breaking nor no parts to be made of that nor no separation of Blood as out of the Body But all can be done in the Representative Body of Christ which is the Eucharist all the Ends of the Institution can be there fully effected and the Sacrifice on the Cross in this Image of it made present to our Faith and to our Minds and set livelily before us and by the Effects of this upon our Hearts while we partake of the Elements through the powerful Grace of God's Holy Spirit we may be prepared to receive all the Blessed Fruits and Benefits of his Passion According to these Perswasions it 's plain there can be no abatement of communicating in the Cup because without that there is no representation of a Crucified Body for the distinct partaking of the Blood not as supposed to be contained and received in the other Species is that which alone shows as I said before the separation that was then made of his Body and Blood. 3. Instance Another Practice of the Roman Church differing from the Ancient is The Elevation of the Eucharist that all present may at
that Man of God gave the Communion of the Lord's Body saying Go and lay this Body of our Lord upon his Breast and so bury him They did so and then he kept in his Grave and the Earth threw him out no more I know that there are several Canons of Councils made against this Practice as the 20th Canon of the Council of Carthage and the 83 Canon of the 6th General Council at Constantinople in Trullo upon which last Canon Zonaras observes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. That it was an ancient Custom to deliver the Lord's Body to Dead Bodies But then methinks it 's very observable that the reason why the Fathers prohibit it is not such a one as would be given in the Roman Church from the horrible Profanation and contumely in thus using the Lord's Body as it would be if it were truly and properly there and no Bread remaining But their Reason is from hence Because it is written Take and eat But dead Carcases can neither take nor eat But notwithstanding all these Prohibitions the old Custom continued afterwards for those that write the Lives of Saints and tell us of the translating of their Bodies from one place to another inform us that they have found pieces of the Eucharist uncorrupted lying in their Grave As Surius (y) Surius vit Othmar ad Nev. 16. Eas venerabiliter assumens sacro corpori apposuit tells us in the Life of Othmarus That when he came to be translated some Years after he was buried they found under his Head and about his Breast little pieces of Bread which were with much reverence laid by his Body again The like do's Amalarius (z) Di div Offic. l. 4. c. 41. Oblata super pectus Sanctum posita vestimento Sacerdotali indutum c. report citing Bede for it that the same was practised when S. Cutberd was buried his Head bound with a Napkin the Eucharist laid upon his Holy Breast with his Sacerdotal Habit upon him c. It is little less than a Demonstration that they that thus treated the Sacrament did not believe it contained a hidden Deity under the species of Bread and Wine for sure they would not then have thus used the Lord of Life and Glory to imprison him as it were and suffer him to lie buried with the putrid Carcases of the Dead 8. Instance The last Instance of differing Practices in the two Churches shall be In their over-sollicitousness to prevent any Accidents that might happen in the Administration of the Eucharist their Frights when any such thing do's happen and the Expiations required for negligence to purge such Crimes such as we have no foot-steps of in any of those cases in the Ancient Church As to the first of those Cases I have somewhat prevented my self in what I before have shown of their Devices of Intinction sucking the Sacrament through Pipes and which is worst of all out of this abundant caution denying the People the Cup. Here therefore I shall mention other Cautions such as those which tend to prevent any Fragments falling off from the Bread of the Eucharist that no Crumbs may have any dishonour done to them by being left unregarded but either may be received or reserved To this end they have altered the Ancient Custom of providing common Bread such as is of ordinary use for the Sacrament and required that it be unleavened because this is less apt to break into Crumbs and cleaves better together in its Parts And tho' they do not say that there is no Sacrament where leavened Bread is used yet the Missal (a) De defectibus c. 3. n. 3. Conficiens graviter peccat affirms That he that consecrates in this do's grievously Sin and herein they have raised since the days that Transubstantiation was forming into a Doctrine of Faith and maintained a great Controversy with the Greek Church which do's not use their Azyms no more than the Anclent Church did They have also invented about the same Time and still use those little round Wafers as they are commonly called which is that which they consecrate for the Bread of the Sacrament and take care hereby to prevent breaking into Crumbs for they never break them for distribution but put them whole into the Communicants Mouths whereas the Ancient Practice was to provide one whole Loaf of Substantial Bread and to divide this into parts and break it for to be distributed among them all But these Hostiolae little Hosts are brought to such a tenuity that they are the next door to what they call species having scarce any substance and deserve not properly the name of Bread as a learned Man (b) Vossius in Thes Theol. Disp 19. de S. Coenae Syusb has shown The very Missal Loc. citat n. 7. supposes that they may easily disappear and that a Wind may carry them away for that is one of the cases it mentions aut vento aut miraculo vel ab aliquo animali accepta It is easy to show that all this caution to prevent falling Crumbs is perfect nonsense according to their principles since the True Body of Christ cannot be broken or crumbled into Bits which is the only substance remaining the rest which they call Species being Mathematical Lines and Colours only and no matter under them a whole World of them can never make up a Crumb of Bread or any Fragment And yet these are they about which such superabundant Caution is used which are mentioned in the Missal To name a few When the Priest that celebrates do's communicate himself it is then only that he breaks the Host into three parts one of which he puts into the Cup and after he has taken the other two which are upon the Patin he is directed (c) Missal Ron. ritus celtor Missam c. 10. Sect. 4. to take the Patin to view the Corporal or Cloth spread under it to gather up the Fragments with the Patin if there be any on it and with his Thumb and Fore-finger of his right Hand to wipe the Patin carefully over the Chalice and also his Fingers lest any Fragments remain on them Then for the Hosts that are reserved to another time after the Priest has taken them off from the Corporal and put them into the Vessel appointed for them he is directed to mind carefully (d) Ibid. Sect. 15. lest any Fragment the lest imaginable remain upon the Corporal and if there be any carefully to put them into the Chalice When he has taken the Cup with the 3d Particle of the Host put into it (e) Ibid. Sect. 5. he must purify himfelf drinking some wine poured into the Cup by the Minister that attends then with Wine and Water must wash his Thumbs and Fore-fingers over the Cup and must wipe them with the Burificatory then he must drink off the Oblation wherein he washed and wipe his Mouth and the Chalice with the Purificatory Such-like also are the Cautions
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 begs That the Body and Blood of Christ may cleave to their Bowels or Entrals cannot be interpreted of his proper and natural Body since as the Romanists confess this Body can neither touch us nor be touched by us as it exists in the Sacrament much less can cleave or stick to our Bodies But the representative Body of Christ may and he that made this Petition first seems to tell us his own Sense tho' no very wise one that he would not have this Holy Food to pass through him as other Meats did and which many of the Ancients thought this also did but might remain and be consumed as S. Chrysostom's phrase is with the Substance of his Body Thus I think I have demonstrated sufficiently the first thing I asserted at the beginning of this Chapter That the old Prayers in the Canon of the Mass concerning the Sacrament agree not with the present Faith of the Roman Church I proceed now to shew the other thing That their New Prayers and Devotions to the Sacrament have no countenance from the Ancient Church I told the Reader before of their New Festival which the Missal calls the Feast and Solemnity of the Body of Christ They have suited all things answerably to it New Prayers New Hymns and their allowed Books of Devotion have an Office of the Blessed Sacrament for one day of the Week and a New Litany c. Which I shall give now some account of and tho' all of them are not direct Prayers to it yet they are such strains concerning it and in such a new Stile as has no old Example Missal Rom. in Solemn corporis Christi Oratio Deus qui nobis sub Sacramento mirabili passionis tuae memoriamreliquisti tribue quaesumus ita nos corporis sanguinis tui sacra Mysteria venerari ut redemptionis tuae fructum in nobis jugiter sentiamus Qui vivis c. Thus translated in the Manual of Godly Prayers O God which under the Admirable Sacrament hast left unto us the Memory of thy Passion grant we beseech thee that we may so worship the Sacred Mysteries of thy Body and Blood that continually we may feel in us the fruit of thy Redemption Who livest c. I believe the Ancient Church never thus prayed that by the worship of the Sacred Mysteries they might feel the Fruit of Christ's Redemption but that they might so receive the Sacred Mysteries c. for they laid the stress upon worthy receiving as this Church do's upon worshipping In an Office of the Venerable Sacrament printed at Colen 1591. they are still more particular Ibid. p. 72. ad completor Deus qui gloriosum corporis sanguinis tui mysterium nobiscum manere voluisti praesta quaesumus ita nos corporalem praesentiam tuam venerari in terris ut ejus visione gaudere mereamur in coelis Ibid. p. 44. ad primam Deus qui in passionis tuae memoriam panem vinum in corpus sanguinem tuum mirabiliter transmurasti concede propitius ut qui in venerabili Sacramento tuam praesentiam corporalem credimus ad contemplandam speciem tuae celsitudinis perducamur Qui vivis c. O God who wouldst have the glorious Mystery of thy Body and Blood to remain with us grant we pray thee that we may so worship thy corporal Presence on Earth that we may be worthy to enjoy the Vision of it in Heaven Who livest c. Qui vivis c. Again thus O God who in memory of thy Passion didst wonderfully change Bread and Wine into thy Body and Blood mercifully grant that we who believe thy Corporal Presence in the Venerable Sacrament may be brought to the beholding of the appearance of thy Highness Who livest c. Rithmus S. Thomae ad Sacram Eucharistiam Or a Rithm of Tho. Aquinas to the Holy Eucharist In Missal Rom. ad finem Orat. post Missum Adoro te devotè latens Deitas Quae sub his figuris vere latitas Tibi se cor meum totum subjicit Quia te contemplans totum deficit Visus tactus gustus in te fallitur Sed auditu solo tutò creditur Credo quicquid dixit Dei Filius Nil hoc verbo veritatis verius In cruce latebat sole Deitas At hic latet simul humanitas Ambo tamen credens atque confitens Peto quod petivit Latro penitens Plagas sicur Thomas non intueor Deum tamen meum te confiteor Fac me tibi semper magis credere In te spem habere te diligere O Memoriale Mortis Domini Panis vivus vitam praestans homini Praesta meae menti de te vivere Et te illi semper dulcè sapere c. I devoutly adore thee O latent Deity Who under these Figures truly liest hid My Heart submits it self wholly to thee For when it contemplates thee it wholly fails me Sight tast and touch is deceived in thee Hearing alone a Man may fasely trust Whatsoe'er the Son of God said I believe Nothing is truer than this Word of Truth The Deity only on the Cross was hid Here the Humanity also is conceal'd But both believing and confessâ—ng both I ask what the Repenting Thief desir'd I do not see as Thomas did thy Wounds Yet I acknowledg thee to be my God. O make me still more to believe in thee On thee to place my Hope and thee to love O thou Memorial of my dying Lord Thou living Bread and giving Life to Men Grant that my Soul on thee may ever live And thou to it mayst always sweetly tast c. Another Sequence of Tho. Aquinas which begins Lauda Sion Salvatorem In Missal Rom. in sesto Corp. Christi Docti Sacris institutis Panem vinum in salutis Consecramus hostiam Dogma datur Christianis Quod in carnem transit panis Et vinum in sanguinem Quod non capis quod non vides Animosa firmat fides Praeter rerum ordinem Sub diversis speciebus Signis tantum non rebus Latent res eximiae Caro cibus sanguis potus Manet tamen Christus totus Sub utrâque specie A sumente non concisus Non confractus non divisus Integer accipitur Sumit unus sumunt mille Quantum isti tantum ille Nec sumptus consumitur Sumunt boni sumunt mali Sorte tamen inequali Vitae vel interitus Mors est malis vita bonis Vide paris sumptionis Quà m sit dispar exitus Fracto demum Sacramento Ne vacilles sed memento Tantum esse sub fragmento Quantum toto tegitur Nulla
among so many false Brethren that were Turn-coats yet there were none that made this an Accusation against them that they are 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 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 Insidels 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 dejexja Sect. 14. p. 220. Ahmed bin Edris ita scribit verba autem Isa fic 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 sangumem 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 Messiae c. Repugnant hic omnia Intelligibilibus primis ipsis etiam sensibus of a Doctrine which talks of a Sacrifice and makes Bread to be the Body of their God which he means in the sence of Transubstantiation by being turned into it and cloathed with its Accidents whose Body that is in Heaven comes upon the Altar and upon the pronouncing these words For this is my Body by the Priest whether good or wicked is all one all things are made one Body with the Body of the Messias c. Which things are all repugnant to the first Principles of Reason and to our very Senses themselves As he afterwards shows in several Instances And now we are told that it is a common Bye-word to reproach a Christian by among the Turks to call him Mange Dieu 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 Fortalitium Fidei contra Judeos c. printed An. 1494. but written as the Author himself tells us fol. 61. in the Year 1458. where he gives us the Arguments of a Jew against Transubstantiation some of which I shall out of him faithfully translate The Jew (g) Vid. l. 3. consid 6. sol 130 impossibl 10. begins with Christ's words of Institution and shows that they cannot be interpreted otherwise than figuratively and significatively as the Fathers we have heard have asserted 1. Vos Christiani dicitis c. Ye Christians say in that Sacrament of the Eucharist there is really the Body and Blood of Christ This is impossible Because when your Christ showing the Bread said This is my Body he spake significatively and not really as if he had said this is the Sign or Figure of my Body After which way of speaking Paul said 1 Cor. 10. The Rock was Christ that is a Figure of Christ And it appears evidently that this was the Intention of your Christ because when he had discoursed about the eating his Body and drinking his Blood to lay the offence that rose upon it among the Disciples he says as it were expounding himself The words that I have spoken to you are Spirit and Life denoting that what he had said was to be understood not according to the Letter but according to the Spiritual Sence And when Christ said This is my Body holding Bread in his Hands he meant that that Bread was his Body in potentia propinqua in a near possibility viz. after he had eaten it for then it would be turned into his Body or into his Flesh and so likewise the Wine And after this manner we Jews do on the day of Unleavened Bread for we take unleavened Bread in memory of that time when our Fathers were brought out of the Land of Egypt and were not permitted to stay so long there as whilst the Bread might be leavened that was the Bread of the Passover and we say This is the Bread which our Fathers ate though that be not present since it is past and gone and so this unleavened Bread minds us of the Bread of Egypt and this Bread is not that so is that Bread of which the Sacrifice of the Altar is made It is sufficient for Christians to say that it is in memory of that Bread of Christ though this Bread be not that And because it was impossible that one Bit of his Flesh should be preserved in memory of him he commanded that that Bread should be made and that Wine which was his Flesh and Blood in the next remove to come into act as we Jews do and Christ borrowed his Phrases and the Elements from their Supper at the Passover with the unleavened Bread as we said before When therefore your Christ at the Table took Bread and the Cup and gave them to his Disciples he did not bid them believe that the Bread and Wine were turned into his Body and Blood but that as often as they did that they should do it in remembrance of him viz. in memory of that past Bread and if you Christians did understand it so no impossibility would follow but to say the contrary as you assert is to say an impossible thing and against the intention of your Christ as we have show'd This is what the Jew urges with great reason But the Catholick Author makes a poor Answer to it and has nothing to say in effect but this That the Tradition of the Catholick Church concerning this Sacrament is true viz. That in this Sacrament there is really and not by way of Signification the True Body and True Blood of Christ 2. Whereas the Roman Church flies to Miracles in this case of Transubstantiation the Jew encounters that next of all thus You Christians say that the Body and Blood of Christ is in the Sacrament of the Altar by a Miracle Ibid. 11. Impossib p. 131. this I prove to be impossible Because if there were any Miracle in the case it would appear to the Eye as when Moses turned the Rod into a Serpent that was performed evidently to the Eye though Men knew not how it was done So also in the case of the Ark of the Covenant of Old mighty Miracles were wrought and those not only sensible Miracles but also publick and apparent to all the People insomuch that Infidels were terrifyed at the very report of such Miracles Men seeing before their Eyes the Divine Power brightly shining in Reverence of the Ark of his Covenant as appears in his Dividing the Waters of Jordan while the People of Israel passed over dry-shod the Waters on one side swelling like a Mountain and on the other flowing down as far as the dead Sea till the Priests with the Ark went over the Chanel of Jordan and then Jordan returned to its wonted course But the Kings of the Amorites and Canaanites hearing of so great and publick a Miracle were so confounded with the terror of God that no Spirit remained in them Josu c. 4. 5. and so I might instance in many other Evident Miracles which to avoid tediousness I omit And yet in that Ark neither God nor Christ was really contained but only the Tables of Stone containing the Precepts of the Decalogue and the Pot of Manna c. Exod. 16. and the Rod of Aaron that flourished in the House of Levi Numb 17. If therefore by the Ark that carried only the foresaid Bodies that were inanimate how sacred soever they were God wrought in Honour of it such evident far-spreading and publick Miracles how much more powerfully should they have been wrought by him if it were true that in your Sacrament of the Altar the true God or Christ were really contained whom you affirm that he ought to be worshipped and venerated infinitely above all Since therefore no such thing do's appear there to the Eye it follows that it is impossible for any Miracle to be done there since this is against the Nature of a Miracle The answer to this is so weak and so the rest are generally such an unintelligible School-jargon that I shall not tire the Reader with them But shall go on with the Jew 3. Ibid. 12. Impossib fol. 132. You Christians do assert that the true Body of Christ begins to be on the Altar This seems to be impossible For a thing begins to be where it was not before two ways Either by Local Motion or by the conversion of another thing into it as appears
in Fire which begins to be any where either because it is kindled there anew or is brought thither de novo But it is manifest that the true Body of Christ was not always on the Altar because the Christians assert that Christ ascended in his Body to Heaven It seems also impossible to be said that any thing here is converted anew into Christ's Body because nothing seems convertible into that which existed before since that into which another 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 5. Ibid. 14. Imposs fol. eod 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. 6. Ibid. 15. Imposs fol. 135. 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 Sus. By WILLIAM