shed I have commended to you a Sacrament which being spiritually understood spiritualiter intellectum shall give you life What can possibly be said more plainly by any Protestant against Transubstantiation Our Adversaries answer That they did eat the very same body which they did see but not codem modo not in a mortal visible but in an invisible immortal and impassible manner Which Answer signifies nothing For altho not in the same manner yet they grant the very same body was really and substantially eaten by the Apostles which they saw present with them at the Table and that not in a spiritual and Sacramental but in a corporal carnal and substantial sense which perfectly contradicts what Saint Augustin there saith Ye shall not eat the body ye see c. Again I would gladly be resolv'd whether the Apostles did eat Christ's very body then present as mortal or immortal If as mortal and passible then they did eat it eodem modo after the same manner as it was there present and seen by them if as immortal how did then Christ's body really die upon the Cross And then it must be granted that Christ's body was immortal before his Resurrection or Ascension I will onely add that I be not too tedious his words in his Epistle to Boniface If Sacraments had not some similitude or likeness of those things of which they are Sacraments Ex hac similitudine plerumque etiam ipsarum rerum nomina accipiunt Compare Quaest in Levit. lib. 3. cap. 57. Sicut scriptum est septem spicae septem anni sunt Non enim dixit septem annos significant they would be no Sacraments From this similitude for the most part they receive the names of the things themselves they represent As then secundùm quendam modum after some manner the Sacrament of Christ's body is his body so the Sacrament of Faith is Faith. Thus I hope I have made it evident that the present Doctrine of Transubstantiation is no part of the Primitive and Catholick Faith which the Fathers in the five first Centuries after Christ owned not but refuted and condemn'd it I know very well that many things are objected against us out of the Fathers that Ignatius Justin Martyr and Irenaeus affirm that the Bread and Wine in the holy Eucharist is the Body flesh and bloud of Christ yea as Cyprian and Saint Ambrose declare That they are changed De coena Domini De Sacram. tho not in shew or Effigies yet in Nature that they remain what they were and are changed into another thing To all which in brief I answer That we question not the truth of him that said This is my Body We unfeignedly grant it is so secundum quendam modum as Augustin above Epist 23. in a true and sacramental tho not literal and proper sense We undoubtedly believe on Saint Paul's infallible Authority that the Rock in the Wilderness of which the Israelites drank was Christ he saith not as Saint Augustin somewhere observes it signify'd Christ but it was Christ yet no man is so simple as to understand those words not in a figurative and improper but a proper and literal sense Furthermore Petra erat Christus Non dixit Petra significat Christum c. Quaestiones in Levitic l. 3. c. 37. we grant with Cyprian that the Bread and Wine are not changed in outward shew yet in Nature taking the word Nature in a general sense as when we say a man becoming more kind and civil he is grown better natur'd In regard of common bread and wine they are chang'd and converted into an holy Sacrament wherein we have Communion with or real tho spitual communication of the body and bloud of Christ In like manner we subscribe to that of Ambrose That they remain what they are i.e. as to substance which directly overthrows Transubstantiation and yet are changed into other things as to use and quality When in and by the Resurrection a natural mortal and corruptible body is turned into a spiritual and immortal one we all grant the nature of it is changed yet no good Christian will deny but that it remains for substance the very same body I know also our Adversaries much urge the sayings of Hilary and Cyril of Alex. Lib 6. de Trin. in Concil Ephes That by vertue of the Eucharist Christ's body and blood is corporally and naturally united to us But this is impertinently alledg'd for they speak not of the Union of Christ's Body and Bloud to the outward Elements of Bread and Wine but to the souls and bodies of all faithful Communicants and to them onely who thereby become bone of his bone and flesh of his flesh In a word As the Fathers say Christ's Body is in us V. Ambrose de Sacram. l 4. c. 4. Augustin Tract 1. in Epist Joann Sicut Christus in nobis hic ita nos ibi in illo sumus so that our bodies are in him not onely by Faith and Charity but in very deed And if it be so that our substance is not turn'd into Christ's substance why should we think that the substance of the bread must be changed into the substance of Christ's body Or his body should be any more corporally in our body than our body is in his Lastly They vehemently press the sayings of Chrysostom and other of the Fathers in their popular Homilies who say Hom. 83. in Matth. Hom. 63. in Matth. Hom. 60. ad Populum Antiochen Hom. 45. in Joann Hom. 24. in 1. Epist ad Corinth Vid. Aug. in the holy Sacrament we see touch and eat Christ's body that our tongues are made red with his bloud even that bloud which did flow from his side on the Cross that what he suffer'd not on the Cross he suffers in the Sacrament viz. his body to be broken with our teeth Dost thou see Bread and Wine in the Sacrament Think it not In like manner Cyril of Jerus Mystag But such Hyperbolical expressions used by the Fathers to stir up devotion and preserve an high reverence of the Sacrament in the minds of their Hearers are not to be taken as our Adversaries well know in a strict literal and dogmatical sense No Papist according to his own principles can rationally hold that Christ's body is corporally pressed pierc'd or touch'd by mens teeth or that their tongues are dyed red with his bloud seeing they affirm that Christ's Body is there incruentè in an unbloudy manner insomuch that they acknowledge those words in Berengarius his Recantation tho drawn up by the Pope viz. That Christ's flesh in the Sacrament is sensually press'd or torn by mens teeth must be cautiously understood not of Christ's Body but of the outward Species or Elements onely Autor Glossae in Decret lest we fall into a worse Errour than that he retracted Secondly I answer That the Fathers use the like Rhetocal or Hyperbolical expressions in their popular Discourses concerning Baptism
the Aquarii who would not use Wine but Water onely in the holy Eucharist Epist 63. Vinum quo Christi sanguis ostenditur argueth in this manner Where there is no Wine in the Cup the bloud of Christ cannot be express'd for we see the bloud to be shown ostendi in the Wine And in his Comment upon the Lords Prayer he applies those words Give us this day our daily bread to the sacramental bread The same Cyprian declares in his Sermon of the Lords Supper what manner of body is in the Sacrament of the Eucharist when he saith Veracissimum sanctissimum creat corpus suum sanctificat De coena Dom. Who continually even to this present day doth create sanctifie and bless his Body distributing the same to godly Receivers Now it 's undeniable that Christ's very own proper body is not continually created sanctified or blessed The words of Athanasius are very remarkable Our Lord distinguisheth the Spirit from the Flesh Ad Serapion De Spir. S. In cap. 6. Joann V. Câ—prian de coena Dom. August de verbâ—s Apost Serm. 2. Tom. 10. spiritualiter intelligenda sunt nisi manducaveritis carnem c. Aug. Tract 27. in Joan. ubi plura that we might learn that the words he spake John 6. were not carnal but spiritual For to how many men was his body enough to eat that it should become the food of the whole World But therefore he mentions his Ascension into Heaven that he might draw us off from a corporal sense and thenceforward should understand his Flesh he spake of as heavenly and spiritual Food 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for the words I speak to you are spirit and life as if he had said my Body which is shown and given for the World is given for food that it may be spiritually 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 communicated to every one Cyril of Hierusalem saith under the Type 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of Bread Mystagog lib. 4. where he granteth that in John 6 c. Except ye eat is to be understood 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 spiritually Christs Body is given thee and under the Type of Wine his Bloud Nazianzen termeth the Bread and Wine 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 antitypes of Christs Body and Bloud In like manner Dionysius Areopag and Basil in his Liturgy But I must not forget Gregory Nyssen As saith he In Laudem Gorgoniae Orat. in Baptis the Altar is by Nature a common Stone but being consecrated to God's service is made an Holy Table and as the Eucharistical Bread is at first common Bread but when the Mystery i.e. Mystical Prayer of consecration hath sanctify'd it is called and is the Body of Christ As the Priest to day a common man by benediction is made a Teacher of Piety and nothing changed in body hath his soul transform'd by invisible Grace so the Water in Baptism when it 's nothing else but water by the heavenly blessing of Grace reneweth a man. Where it 's evident Gregory Nyssen alloweth no other Transubstantiation in the Eucharist than in Baptism the Ordination of a Priest or the Consecration of an Altar Chrysostom in his Epistle to Caesarius which is to be seen in the Florentine Library * Which is published since this Author wrote See the Exposition of the Doctrin of the Ch. of E. in answer to the Bishop of Meaux in Append. It is quoted by Damascen contra Acephalos Etiamsi Natura panis permansit Hom. 11. in Math. V. Athanas ad Serap de SS Comment in 1 Cor. 10. V. Chrysost Hom. 46. in Joan. Sicut mortis similitudinem sumpsisti ità etiam similitudinem pretiosi sanguinis De Sacramentis lib 4. cap. 5. Haec oblatio est figura corporis sanguinis Domini Ibid. Fide tangitur Christus non corpore as Peter Martyr a Florentine witnesseth as also in the University-Library at Oxford writeth after this manner Before the bread be sanctify'd we call it Bread but the divine Grace sanctifying it we call it the Lords Body altho the nature of bread remain These words directly overthrow Transubstantiation In another place the same Father discourses after this manner If it be so dangerous to apply to private uses these hallowed Vessels in the which is not the very true body of Christ but onely the Mystery of his Body is contain'd c. much more our bodies to sin Adding That we ought to climb up into Heaven when we receive the Communion if we would have the fruition of Christ's Body yea rather above the Heavens for saith he in another place Wheresoever the carcass is there will the Eagles be gather'd together The Lord is the Carcass because of his death and this is a Table for mounting Eagles not for pratling Jays I shall now add the words of St. Ambrose who discoursing of our Saviour's celebrating the holy Sacrament with his Disciples breaking bread and giving it to them saying Take eat this is my body c. adds As ye have received the similitude of my death so drink also the similitude of my precious bloud This oblation is the figure of the Body and Bloud of the Lord. In another place Christ is touch'd by Faith not bodily Let us now hear Theodoret's testimony Our Saviour saith he In Lucam lib. 6. cap. 8. So Saint Jerom in Psal 50. Dei tui corpus sanguinem mente continge cordis manu suscipe in the institution of the Eucharist chang'd the names not natures of things and applied that to his body which belonged to the symbol or sign of it and to the sign what appertain'd to his body which he did that such as partake of the divine Mysteries should not be attent on the nature of those things they see but by the change of names should believe that mutation which is made by Grace For he that is Christ that called what is by nature a Body Wheat or Bread the same honoured the signs or symbols with the names of his Body and Bloud not changing their Nature Dial. 1.8 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but adding Grace to Nature And when the Eutychian Heretick would hence draw an argument that as the signs of Christs Body and Bloud are one thing before Consecration another after it so our Lord's body after it's Union to his divine Person ceased to be in substance what it appeared and was chang'd into the divine Nature of the Godhead Theodoret replieth upon him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 You are taken in your own Net for the Mystical signs after Consecration recede not from their former nature but remain in their former substance form and appearance Mark. He saith not onely in their former form and appearance but in their substance also This is an irrefragable testimony against the Novel Doctrine of Transubstantiation I will add the words of Gelasius who was as some say Bishop of Rome but however one that liv'd towards the latter end of the fifth Century
His words are plain in his Book against Eutyches and Nestorius Lib. de duabus Christi Naturis The Sacraments we receive of Christs body and bloud are divine things by which we are made partakers of the divine Nature and yet the substance or nature of Bread and Wine ceaseth not And indeed the Image of the body and bloud of Christ in the sacramental participation is celebrated Tamen non definit esse substantia vel Natura panis vini Imago similitudo c. In ejus imagine profitemur celebramus sumimus Permanent tamen in sua proprietate We must therefore think that of Christ our Lord which we profess celebrate and take in his Image i.e. the Sacramental signs of his Body and Bloud that as these by the operation of the Holy Ghost pass into a divine substance and yet remain in the propriety of their own nature so that great mystery of the Incarnation whose Vertue they represent shew one whole true Christ consisting of two Natures properly remaining The same is affirmed by the Patriarch Ephraim in Photii Bibliotheca Cod. 229. I purposely conclude with Saint Augustin Tract 25. in Joan. Basil in Psal 33. saith the same Lib. 3. de Doctrin Christ cap 16. Flagitium jubere videtur Nolite parare fauces sed Cor. Nos non tangimus Christum sed credimus Augustin Serm. 33. in Lucam Devorandus auditu ruminandus intellectu side digerendus Tertul. de Resur who hath with the consent of the more Ancient Fathers deliver'd several things which utterly overthrow the present Roman Article of Faith Transubstantiation As first That Christ's Body or Flesh is not to be eaten in a proper carnal oral but figurative and spiritual sense not by the mouth of the body but by Faith the mouth of the Soul. For having laid it down as a general Rule that whensoever the Scripture seems to command any thing wicked or flagitious we must understand it as a figurative and improper form of speech he instanceth in those words Unless ye eat the Flesh of the Son of man c. Figura est ergo It is therefore saith he a figure requiring us to communicate in Christ's Passion sweetly and profitably remembring that his flesh was crucify'd and wounded for us The same is affirm'd by Cyprian de coena Domini As often as we do this in remembrance of him we whet not our teeth to bite but with a sincere Faith we break the holy Bread. Which is saith he Cibus non dentis aut ventris sed mentis meat not of the mouth or teeth but mind In like manner Cyril Catec Mystag 4. Ambrose de Sacramentis lib. 1. cap. 4. Idem Serm. 58. in Lucae cap. 10. v. 24. Besides others of the Fathers I shall not now mention Secondly He expresly affirmeth that wicked men in the Sacrament do not eat Christ's body or drink his bloud Tract 26. in Joan. Cyprian de coena saith the same Compare Aug. De Civit. Dei l. 21. c. 25. Of the Lord's Table saith he some receive to life others to damnation but the thing whereof it is a Sacrament every man receives to life none to death To eat that meat and to drink that drink our Saviour explaineth when he saith He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my bloud dwelleth in me whence he that dwelleth not in Christ proculdubio questionless neither eats nor drinks spiritually altho he carnally and visibly press with his teeth the Sacrament of Christ's body and bloud but rather eats and drinks the Sacrament of so great a thing to his own condemnation because being unclean he presumes to come to the Sacrament of Christ Whosoever eateth me shall live by me In another place Non dicitur qui manducat dignè sed qui manducat me Cajetan in locum He that is at discord with Christ or an enemy to Christ neither eateth his body nor drinketh his bloud altho he daily receive indifferently as if there were no difference betwixt that bread and common bread the Sacrament of so great a thing to the punishment of his own presumption Which is no more than what Origen had written long before him on Matth. 15. where he saith Sentent 339. Qui discordat à Christo non corpus ejus manducat c. V. Ambrose de tis qui myster initiantur cap. 9. If it were possible for any wicked man persevering such to eat the Word made flesh seeing he is the living bread it would not have been written Whosoever eateth this bread shall live for ever St. Hierom in Jerem. lib. 4. cap. 22. and also cap. 66. in Esai affirms the same saying That Hereticks do not eat the body or drink the bloud of Christ in the Sacrament because then they should have everlasting life Thirdly Saint Augustin expresly affirmeth In signis diversis cadem fides Aug. Tract 45. in Joan. ubi plura legas Lib. 20. cont Faustum c. 21. that our Fathers the Patriarchs and Prophets under the Law did eat the same spiritual meat and drink the same spiritual drink with us under the Gospel i.e. Christ for they drank of that Rock which follow'd them and that Rock St. Paul says was Christ Tract 26. on John. Contr. Faustum lib. 19. cap. 16. Whence it undeniably follows that the eating of Christ's flesh in an oral carnal manner is not necessary to salvation which before Christ's Incarnation was impossible as it is now unprofitable Fourthly Saint Augustin Epist ad Dardanum writeth Epist 57. Tolie à Corporibus locorum spatia nusquam erunt Christus ubique per id quod Deus est in coeâ—o autem per id quod homo est c. that Christ's body being a true humane body necessarily taketh up a space answerable to its quantity and saith That to deny a body to take up space is to deny it to be a true body And adds That the body of Christ is not every-where but in a certain determinate place Whereby he utterly overthrows the Doctrine of Transubstantiation the possibility of eating and chewing or which is all one the swallowing down whole Christ's body that it should be in a thousand places at once and should be contain'd whole under the least piece of Wafer Which is in effect to revive the Heresie of Marcion and the Manichees who denyed the verity of Christ's Body turning it into a Phantasm Non hee corpus quod videtis manducaturi estis Sacramentum vobis commendavi c. Compare Cyprian de unctione Chrismatis Christus tradidit Discipulis figuram corporis sui Augustin in Psalm 3. Non hoc corpus quod videtis manducaturi estis Sacramentum commendavi vobis quod spiritualiter intellectum vivificabitvos Epist 23. Sprite or Spirit But I cannot omit his words upon the 98th Psalm where he brings in our Saviour speaking thus to his Apostles Ye shall not eat this body ye see nor drink that bloud that my Crucifiers shall
in the body thinketh the more that the body so like its own body hath sense also The like we find in his 49th Epistle Who doubts that Idols want all sense yet when they are placed aloft in an honourable sublimity by the very likeness of living members although dead and without sense they affect our minds the veneration of a multitude being added thereunto which crazy and pestilent distempers the Scripture healeth saying They have eyes but see not Whether Images in Popish-Churches have not the very same influence and effect on ignorant and superstitious Women let impartial men and such as have travelled abroad amongst them determine The same Saint Austin quoteth and commendeth a saying of Varro De Civitat Dei Lib. 4. c. 9. 31. that they who brought in Images for the People both took away the Fear of a Deity render'd base and contemptible by representations of wood and stone and added Error i. e. false and unworthy apprehensions of God. To all this it will I suppose be answered First That the Fathers inveigh against making Images of God or false Gods not Saints I reply 1. Some of them expresly condemn all Images 2. Do not Roman Catholicks though some of their own Writers condemn it make Images or Pictures of God the Father in the likeness of an old Man and of the Holy Ghost of a Dove True say they but we do it not to represent the nature of God but certain properties and actions appertaining to God I do not wonder they say they do not what cannot be done to wit to represent by an Image the infinite invisible and incomprehensible nature of God But herein they say what even the Heathens said of their Idols For Hermes Trismegistus quoted by Cyril Xenophon by Minutius Foelix Olympius by Sozomen confessed Hist Lib. 7. c. 15. that it is impossible to signifie the incorporeal God by a Body and that the form of God cannot be seen that invisible Spirits or heavenly Powers dwelt in those corporeal Images but they were not the Powers themselves It 's granted Ne facias nisi tibi Deus jusserit Tertul. de Idololat c. God and the Holy Ghost did appear in such likenesses what 's that to us We have an express command not to make to our selves any likeness of any thing in Heaven c. Is not God the Father with the Holy Ghost in Heaven Secondly They answer V. Concil Constant 6. Can 82. apud Caranzam that they give religious worship to Images not for themselves propter se but for the sake of the Persons they represent The Heathens as we have seen above said the very same If Romish worship of Images be lawful it will be difficult to condemn or convince the Heathens of Idolatry The Jews did not worship the Calf for it self but as a Representative of God. Lastly They affirm that they yield to Images a mean low and inferiour worship not what belongs to God onely I answer that as we have shewn above they give to the Images of God and Crucifixes the same Divine worship they yield unto God and Christ themselves To say they give Images Latria and yet an inferiour kind of such religious worship is to contradict themselves for all Latria as such is summus cultus the highest worship a creature can give if they give them an inferiour religious honour it is not Latria Art. 6 Concerning the Popes Supremacy I come now to the Capital Article of the Roman Catholick Faith The Popes Supremacy over all Emperors Kings Bishops Councils Churches and Christians throughout the World. Concerning the Fathers before the Nicene Council called above 300 years after Christ we need not make any strict enquiry seeing Aeneas Sylvius who was Pope himself afterwards confesseth Epist 288. that before this Council aliquis sed non magnus some but no great respect was given to the Roman Bishops in Clemens Romanus Ignatius Justin Martyr Tatianus Athenagoras I find no mention of any Supremacy in the Bishop of Rome Come we then to the Antient Father Irenaeus He in his third Book Cap. 12. quoting the words of the Church of Jerusalem ☞ Acts 22 23 25. saith These are the words of that Church from which every Church had its beginning If every Church V. Epist Concilii Constant 1. c. 9. Epist ad Damasum then the Roman How can she then be Mater Magistra the Mother and Mistris of all Churches as is now pretended by our Romanists This was that Irenaeus Bishop of Lyons in France who sharply reproved Victor Bishop of Rome for threatning or attempting at least to Excommunicate the Bishops and Churches of Asia Lib. 5. Hist Eccl. c. 15. for not observing Easter on the same day he did as Eusebius relateth At the same time lived Polyerates the renowned Bishop of Ephesus with whom many Catholick Bishops meeting in several Councils concurred who opposed Pope Victor's Sentence and professed he was not at all terrified with his threatned Excommunication but resolutely persisted in the Tradition and Custom received from his Predecessors particularly John the Evangelist as we find in Eusebius lib. 5. Hist c. 23. Hence it is evident that Polycrates as also Irenaeus did not look upon the Bishop of Rome as Prince and Sovereign Head of the Church or more infallible than any other Bishop It 's true Irenaeus had a great reverence for the Roman Church and testifieth to her honour that in his days the Apostolick Doctrine or Tradition remained pure and incorrupt which he opposed to the Heretical Novelties of the Valentinians But this no way proveth that she had Supreme Jurisdiction over all Churches But in regard it would be long as he saith to reckon up all Apostolical Churches as of Corinth Ephesus c. Lib. 3. cap. 3. to whom he giveth the same testimony of purity of doctrine he instances in Rome propter potentiorem principalitatem in regard of its more powerful principality known to all But these words plainly enough relate not to the Roman Church immediately as a Christian Church but to the City of Rome which at that time was the Imperial City and Head of the World. Alas What powerful Principality could the poor persecuted Church of Rome enjoy then living under Heathen Emperours It is not therefore meant strictly and properly of an Ecclesiastical but Civil Power and Principality of the City of Rome V. Concil Chalcedon infra Epist ad Roman in which the Church of Rome sojourned as St. Ignatius writeth to them whereby through concourse of all Nations it was rendred more conspicuous and honourable to the World. The words of Aeneas Sylvius before mentioned confirm the same In Clemens Alexandrinus I find nothing concerning this matter I will go on to Tertullian Run through saith he the Apostolical Churches If ye be near Achaia ye have Corinth if Macedonia Philippi and Thessalonica si Italiae adjaces habes Romam If ye live near Italy ye