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
the Mass therefore Christ is not properly sacrific'd Mark what an absurdity in the Apostles judgment would follow thereupon If Christ should be offer'd by himself or others often more than once ver 26. then must he have often suffered But Christ hath suffer'd once and cannot suffer again Therefore he is not offer'd again by himself or by any Priest in the Mass as a proper and propitiatory Sacrifice for the quick and dead which our Adversaries affirm Yea if Christ were truly and properly sacrific'd in the Mass he must necessarily suffer death a thousand times over for sacrificing any living thing and such is Christ to God Ad verum sacrificium requiritur ut plane destruatur ipsa etiam substantia consumatur Bellar. lib. 1. de Missa cap. 2. implieth killing and taking away the life of what is sacrificed as the very name 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 noteth But I hope Romanists will not say they kill Christ in the Mass if they deny it then Christ is not there properly sacrific'd if they should attempt it the thing is impossible for Christ being now impassible and in a glorify'd State can die no more as we read Rom. 6.9 When then they distingush of sacrificing Christ in a bloudy and unbloudy manner and say they offer up and sacrifice him incruentè without bloudshed they yield the cause for all proper sacrificing implieth destruction as Bellarmine grants De Missa lib. 10. cap. ul or if it be a living thing the shedding the bloud is killing of what is sacrificed for without shedding of bloud there is no remission If by their sacrificing Christ in the Mass they meant only a representation to God or men of Christ's bloudy sacrifice of the Cross or a commemoration of his death termed 1 Cor. 11.26 a shewing and setting it forth visibly and sacramentally by eating of that Bread and drinking of that Cup we should not oppose them but Representation or Commemoration of Christ's death is one thing and proper Sacrificing his Body and Bloud really corporally and carnally as it was on the Cross is quite another As for Bellarmin's Reply that Christ is sacrific'd not under the likeness of a living thing but of Bread which hath no life and therefore there is no necessity he should be slain or kill'd in the Mass it signifies nothing For I ask Is the likeness of Bread onely offer'd up to God as a propitiatory Sacrifice or Christ himself his Body and Bloud Bellarmine placeth the essence of the Sacrifice of the Mass in the Priests manducation or eating and consumption not of the substance of Christ's Body but the Accidents or Appearance of Bread only de missa l. 1. c. â—â—â— But a true Sacrifice requireth a consumption of its substance as is above by him granted Ergo. who is a living Person yea liveth for ever If Bread onely 't is blasphemous to make it a propitiatory sacrifice for sin If Christ himself who is a living Person be truly and properly sacrific'd he must be truly and properly slain As for their usual pretence that Masses apply to us the Vertue and Merits of Christ's Passion I answer That the Sacrament of the Eucharist is abundantly sufficient thereunto and peculiarly instituted to that very purpose for the bread that we break is it not the Communion or communication of the Body of Christ and the Cup of blessing that we bless the Communion of the Bloud of Christ And what is the Communion or communication of Christ's Body and Bloud broken and shed for the remission of our sins but the communication or application of the Merits of both unto us in order thereunto So that the reiteration of Christs sacrifice of himself on the Cross is altogether unnecessary Nor Communion in one kind only As to the ninth Article of Pope Pius his Creed That is is not necessary to receive both Bread and Cup in the Holy Sacrament of Christ's Body and Bloud it is so plainly and almost palpably contrary to the institution example and command of Christ himself as also the Apostolical tradition of St. Paul that 't is a wonder how any Christians dare own any such Doctrine Take eat drink do this in remembrance of me so our Lord at the first institution of it Saint Paul repeats this Institution to the Corinthians commending it to the observation of the whole Church Laity as well as Clergy joineth eating of the Bread and drinking of the Cup together four several times in four Verses 1 Cor. 11.26 27 28 29. Layeth down an express Apostolical Canon Let a man examine himself c. What man An Apostle only or a consecrating Priest No. But any ordinary Christian capable of this Sacrament Well What is then to be done Let him eat of that bread as it is his necessary and indispensable duty to do but is that all No. For he addeth And let him whether Layman or Clerick whether Consecrator or not also drink of that Cup. For as often as ye Christians in general eat of this Bread and drink of this Cup ye shew forth as is your duty to do and which otherwise you do not the Lords death till he come Doth it not look like Antichristianism for Christ's Vicar to presume to alter Panis vinum ad essentiam sacramenti pertinent Bellarmin de Euchar lib. 40. cap. 60. v. Concil Trident. Panis vinum non tam essentiales quam integrales hujus sacramenti partes videntur Bellarmin de Euchar. lib. 4. cap. 22. Sine vino igitur sacramentum non integrè administratur mutilate or in any substantial part as the Cup in the Eucharist is acknowledg'd to be to abrogate his Lords Instituion and Command How dare any Christian divide asunder what Christ and Saint Paul have join'd together The receiving the Cup is as necessary to any Christian Clerick or Laick as the sacred Bread. By the same reason the Church of Rome forbids the Laity one they may both for both are equally commanded both are as necessary as either The Romish pretended Power to dispense with the Laws of God and to alter the institutions of Christ is alone a sufficient argument to discover how little they regard the Apostolical Doctrine or Primitive practice of the Church from which as we see they have manifestly departed In a word If the Pope and his Councils have power to alter and dispense with yea countermand Christ's express Laws and Institutions Sir Edward Sandys Europae Speculum but it is made as a learned Traveller observes a mere piece of humane Policy to be fram'd alter'd and modell'd at the wills and pleasures of men which directly tends to promote Atheism for which crime Italians are notorious Thus I hope I have made it evident to any unprejudic'd Person that the 9 Articles above-mention'd which Pope Pius not 200 years ago added to the old Nicene Creed as parts of the true Catholick Apostolick Faith without which no
worship He concludes This is the sincere Religion this is the Catholick Custome p. 251. In Confess sidei per Critopulum Patriarch 5. Ann. 1430. Sess 4. Veritas fidei Catholicae Caranza An. 1409. An. 1414. Respons de Privileg Patriarch Concord l. 2. c. 25. Supra cap. 20. p. 748. this is the Tradition of the Fathers c. The Greeks condemn giving Latria or Douleia to Images in their confession of Faith. The Popes Supremacy over Emperours Councils Bishops c. This was contradicted by the Council of Basil confirmed by Pope Nicolas who decreed that it was de fide a point of Faith that the Pope ought to be subject to a General Council Of the same opinion were the Councils of Pisa and Constance who deposed several Popes as Schismaticks and Hereticks for refusing to appear upon their Summons Balsamon a Greek Writer sheweth that the five Patriarchs were equal in honour and power and were all instead of one Head over the whole Church Cusanus the Cardinal confesseth that the eight first General Councils were all called by the Emperours and that the Canon of the Council of Chalcedon concerning the precedency of the Bishop of Constantinople before him of Alexandria notwithstanding Pope Leo's disclaiming it was in full force and Authority Card. Cusanus Concord l. 2. c. 20. Ad An. 1088. Sigonius de Regno Ital. l. 7. Sigebert termeth the Pope absolving Subjects from their Oath of Allegiance to their Princes Novelty and Heresie Otho the Emperour deposed Pope John and assumed his antient right of Nomination to the Popedom The Popes usurped Authority over the Emperour was wrote against by Mcrsilius Occam Gerson Dante 's Zabarella Cusanus Tostatus Apud Bellarmin de Concil l. 1. c. 140. In Sent. lib. 4. dist 12. art 5. Part 3. qu. 83. Art. 1. Alliaco Antoninus and many others The Sacrifice of Christ in the Mass was unknown to Pope Lumbard who saith The Sacrament is called a Sacrifice because it is the Memorial and representation of the true Sacrifice of Christ on the Cross Aquinas expresseth his sense after the same manner The Celebration of this Sacrament is an image and representation of the passion of Christ quae est vera immolatio which is a true Immolation or Sacrifice and now its celebration dicitur is called the Immolation immolatio of Christ In Can. Missae Lect. 85. Loc. Treol l. 12. c. 12. p. 660. Biblioth l. 4. Concord c. 131. Decret part 3. de Consecrat dist 2. c. 48. Glossa in Grat. de Consecr See Canon of the Mass and Dr. Field in Append. Of the same judgement were Biel and Cornelius Muss a Bishop of note in the Council of Trent who as Canus and Sixtus Senensis relate openly denied that Christ instituted any proper Sacrifice of himself when he celebrated his Supper Jansenius acknowledgeth it can hardly be proved from Hoc facite Do this c. Instead of many more who might be added take the words of the Popes own Canon Law set out by Gregory XIII The sacramental Bread suo modo vocatur after its manner is called the Body of Christ when revera indeed it is the Sacrament of Christs Body and the immolation of his Flesh made by the Priest is termed his Passion death and crucifixion non rei veritate sed significante mysterio not in the truth of the thing but in a significant mystery The Gloss upon it is still more plain The Sacrament in regard it truly representeth Christs Flesh dicitur Christi corpus sed impropriè is called Christ's Body but improperly It is called Christs Body that is saith the Gloss significat it signifies it Communion in one kind The Ordo Romanus appointed the Wine allo to be consecrated De Observ Eccles c. 19. In 4. Dist 9. Prop. 6. Consult Art. 22. In 4. Sent. qu. 11. Mem. 3. V. Tapperum apud Cassandr de Commun sub utraque specie Ibid. qu. 31. that the people might fully communicate saith Micrologus Ovandus declares as also Cassander that it were better to grant the Cup to the people which was earnestly desired by the Emperours Ferdinand and Maximilian and under some good conditions permitted to the Bohemians Halensis a famous Schoolman granteth contrary to Bellarmine that it ought to be received under both kinds Which manner of receiving saith he Dominus tradidit our Lord delivered is majoris efficaciae of more efficacy and perfection Totus Christus non continetur sub utraquespecie 4. qu. 40. Aquin. in 6. Joann Alph. de Castro adv Haeres lib. 6. Serm. de Quadragess quoted by B. Juel as to Grace than to receive one onely Eccius Salmeron Lindanus Valentia Costerus Bellarmine Card. Bona confess that the Primitive Christians for many Ages yea say some for above one thousand years after Christ received the Sacrament in both kinds The custome of receiving in one kind had its first Original from the Manichean Hereticks as we learn from Pope Leo the Great P. Gelasius decrees That if they would not receive both they should be excluded from both Stephen Gardiner Bishop of Winchester in his Book called the Devil's Sophistry ascribes its first beginning to the private superstitious Devotion of some indiscreet persons Others as Costerus in Enchir. to the connivance or negligence of Church Governours In the Mass-book it self there are as Dr. Field observes some expressions which imply In Append. in lib. 3. In Miss de Sanct. that the people were receivers of both kinds as particularly those words Cibo potuque refecti being refreshed with meat and drink in a Prayer after the receiving the Communion Again Sacramenta quae sumpsimus Domini prosint nobis c. Let the Sacraments Lord we have received be profitable to us To these add those words Quotquot sacrosanctum corpus sanguinem Filii tui sumpserimus V. Consult p. 238. Art. 24. quoted by Cassander As many of us as have received the body and bloud of thy Son. Gerardus Lorichius and Ruardus Tapperus are for the peoples receiving in both kinds See Dr. Field's Appendix to his second Book where are many clear Testimonies I had almost forgot Invocation of Saints Bannes 22. qu. 1. Art. 10. Conclus 2. a late learned Schoolman agreeth with Protestants that it hath no express grounds in Scripture In like manner Eccius in Enchirid. c. 15. De Venerat SS Suarez in 3. Thomae qu. 3. disput Lib. 1. de Eccles trium c. 6. 42. Salmeron in 1 Tim. cap. 2. disp 8. Bellarmine himself although to make a shew he alledg places out of the old Testament granteth that there was no Invocation of Saints before Christs Ascension in regard the Saints were then in Limbo and not admitted to the sight of God. The same is affirmed of the Saints under the New Testament by many of the most antient Fathers V. Sixtum Senens lib. 6. Annotat. 345. In 4. Sent. qu. 3. Irenaeus Tertullian Chrysostome to wit that