Declaration of their Church probably they would have been contented that those words at the Institution should have born such a construction as would not have shook the Reason of men so notoriously 2. If we frame notions of things just according to the clink of a Phrase we must needs entertain very strange apprehensions of our Saviour himself because he is usually called a Lamb a Lyon a Shepherd a Rock a Door a Way a Vine and the like 3. As Christ saith here This is my Body so in Job 6. he saith also that he is the Bread of life and that his Flesh is Meat and his Bloud Drink He speaks as plainty and positively in the one place as he doth in the other Now if men affirm that the bread is changed into Christs Flesh because Christ saith positively This is my Body they have equally the same reason to affirm that Christs Flesh is turned into Bread and his Bloud into Drink because he said as positively My Flesh is meat indeed and my Bloud Drink indeed A latitude must be allowed to be as to the sense of those expressions or else men must fall into a Labyrinth of absurdities and contradictions which they can never wind themselves out of by the help of any clue 4. If we observe what our Saviour said to the Capernaites upon the like occasion we cannot but conclude that his meaning at both times was mystical The story we have in the 6th of S. John verily verily saith our Lord except ye eat the Flesh of the Son of man and drink his bloud ye have no life in you vers 53. This seem'd a very Harsh expression because they conceived as the Romanists do now that Christ intended his Flesh should be torn in pieces with their Teeth and that his Natural bloud should be suckt out of his veins with their mouths The bare apprehension of this matter turn'd their stomachs so that they were scandaliz'd presently and fell off from him Therefore to rectifie their mistakes he expounded himself telling them that they were not to understand him in a literal and carnal sense no the words that I speak unto you they are Spirit and they are life vers 63. meaning that he spake Mystically and that they were to interpret So that place was understood by the Ancients his words after a Spiritual manner and of a Spiritual and Divine way of feeding upon him and so we feed upon Christ who laughd at the Doctrine of Transubstantiation and so all good Christians fed upon him for many hundreds of years before that Doctrine was dreamt of or thrown about to debauch and intoxicate the world CHAP. VIII The Doctrine of Transubstantion inconsistent with and contrary to the Doctrine of the Primitive Church Proved by five Observations touching the common sense of Christian in the most ancient times A short account of the Doctrine of the Church in succeeding Ages till the twelfth Century 3. 'T Is true the Papists are wont to crack of Tradition and Antiquity as if all the ancient Fathers of the Catholick Church were on their side And nothing hath prevailed more with ordinary people to turn or continue Papists than an opinion that Transubstantiation was all along the Faith of the Christian Church I confess I wonder much that common people will pretend to be judges in this case when they understand little of Greek or Latine much less have skill to tell which of the Books that are ascribed to the Fathers are Genuine and which are supposititious But alass they are taught by their leaders to believe any thing and to talk by Rote like a sort of men among our selves who are readily perswaded to act any thing that is for the Cause for the Cause for their darling and dearly beloved Cause though they venture their Necks and their very Souls for an evil cause sake Therefore to clear this matter fully we will once for all try the point by unquestionable authorities and examine particularly what the sense of the Christian Church was chiefly in the Primitive times and ex abundanti in the times following And I am fouly mistaken if we do not find upon the whole enquiry that Tradition which the Romanists brag of so much is plainly against them for above a thousand years In the prosecution of this thing I beg leave to go a little out of the common rode not to trouble my self with an endless fatigue of collecting a world of sentences out of the Fathers a course which tho it be proper enough for a Disputant yet may be liable to a great many Cavils I shall rather chuse to argue from some observations that may be made upon those Controversies the Ancient Church had with Infidels and Hereticks which will evidently shew the sense of the Ancient Christians as to the point under our hands for this is certain that we can never better learn the sense of the Ancient Church than out of their Disputations especially when they go upon the same grounds and use the same way of Argumentation 1. Now first it is easie to observe what the sense of the Ancient Church was as to the eating of Humane Flesh and the drinking of Bloud The Pagans were wont for a long time to throw this in the teeth of the Primitive Christians that they celebrated Thyestean banquets and stories ran about that at their sacred Assemblies they killed a Child and then junketed together upon the tragical dish The Christians granted that the feasting upon Humane Flesh and Bloud was a most Barbarous and Flagitious crime but they proved themselves Innocent they abominated the very thoughts of any such detestable practice and in all their Apologies they declared their utter Abhorrence thereof so Justin Martyr in the Age next to the Apostles then Tatian after him Athenagoras and Theophilus Justin Martyr 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2. Apolog. 2. Tatian Orat. cont Graec. P. 162. Athenagor legat pro Christian P. 4. 35 36. c. Theophil ad Autol. lib. 3 P. 119. 126. Tertullian Apologet. cap. 9. Origen cont Cels l. 6. P. 302. Minut. Felix in Octavio the Patriarch of Antioch After these Tertullian after him Origen and after him Minutus Faelix For an hundred years together were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Theop. ad Autolyc the Primitive Christians busie in vindicating themselves from that Atheistical and Savage Practice as Theophilus calls it of eating mans flesh And to make this evidently appear the ancient Christians did appeal to their very Enemies who could not but know that some Christians were wont to refrain from all flesh whatsoever that none of them would taste of that which was strangled or which was destroyed Tantum ab Humano sanguine cavemus ut nec edulium pecorum in cibis sanguinem noverimus Minut. Felix P. 34. Denique inter tentament a Christianorum botulos cruore distentos admovetis certissimi scilicet illicitum esse penes illos c. Tertull. Apol. c.
Communicants do indeed receive Christs very Body and Bloud by receiving the Elements and that Christs Body and Bloud are verily tendred and offer'd even to the unworthy though they receive them not For were it not thus I would gladly understand how it cometh to pass that unworthy receiving brings upon a mans Soul some peculiar and extraordinary Guilt If it be a special sin as S. Pauls words argues it to be against the Body and Bloud of our Lord it must follow that the Body and Bloud of our Lord are there For a sin is of a peculiar nature and consideration when it is acted against an Object that is more peculiarly Interested and Concern'd so the sin against the Holy Ghost seems strictly and and properly to be a malicious resisting and reproaching of the Truth in spight of those Miracles which are wrought by the Holy Ghost for the Confirmation of the Truth A man is then said to be peculiarly guilty of the sin against the Holy Ghost because in the working of Miracles the Holy Ghost is concern'd and interested after a peculiar manner To this purpose it is observable that when our Saviour spoke of this sin it was after some Miracle that he had done and by occasion of the Jews reproaching it as if it had been done not by the Power and Spirit of God but by Beelzebub It was especially a sin against the Holy Ghost because in the Miracle the Holy Ghost was specially concern'd Even so here unworthy receiving makes a man guilty of a sin against our Lords Body and Bloud because his Body and Bloud are peculiarly Interested in the Sacrament Evil men strike at Christ then after a most sinful sort because his Body and Bloud are present there after a singular manner and therefore doth the sin bring an extraordinary guilt because it is the doing despight to the very Body and Bloud of Him who made himself an offering for us For these and the like reasons the Catholik Church of Christ hath in all ages believed a real presence of his Body and Bloud in the Sacrament nor do I know any one Doctrine of Christianity which hath come unto us with less Contradiction then this came down from the very days of the Apostles even to the times of Berengarius And so true is this that the Learned know well that the Ancients grounded their Faith of our real Union with Christ upon this Principle because his very Body and Bloud are really communicated to us by our receiving the Eucharist As they believed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 S. Chrys in 1 Cor. 10. 16. vide Iren. multos alios a Supernatural Union between the Natures in Christ so they believed a Mystical Union between all the Faithful and Christ and this they concluded because they believed a Sacramental Union between Christ and those Creatures of Bread and Wine whereby we receive Christ S. Hilary calls our Conjunction Hilar. de Trinit lib. 8. with Christ a Natural conjunction because as Our Nature was before united to his by his Incarnation so now his Nature is United to Ours by the Communion Our Church calls it the Communion of the Body and Bloud of the Lord in a marvellous Incorporation and S. Austin himself Homily of the Sacram 1. Part. used the same Expression and all the Ancients acknowledged this real Union to be wrought by means of that Real S. August Ep. ad Iren. Communion of our Saviours very Body and Bloud at and by the Holy Sacrament For the Opening now of this great Mystery I shall shew these Five things 1. That we are to distinguish between Christs Natural and his Spiritual Body 2. What is meant by his Spiritual Body 3. Why it is so called 4. That Christ hath a Spiritual Body indeed 5. That this Spiritual Body is received by us in the Sacrament 1. We are to distinguish Christs Spiritual from his Natural Body not as if he had two different Bodies but because that One and the same Body of his is to be considered after a different manner Now this is S. Pauls own distinction 1 Cor. 15. 44. There is a Natural or Animal Body and there is a Spiritual Body The Apostle there treats of that Exalted state our bodies shall be in after the Resurrection how they shall be delivered from all Mortality and Corruption and shall be the everlasting Temples of the Divine Spirit and shall shine with light like the Stars and shall be like Angelical Substances and Spirits in Comparison and all this because our Saviour is risen and gone before us into heaven and there remaines in a Glorious Body as 't is called Philip. 3. 21. Now this Body of Christ may be considered either in respect of its own Natural Substance as it consisteth of Flesh Bones and Bloud and other Constituent and Perfective parts of humane nature and in this sense no man can partake of the Lords Body Or else it may be considered with respect to his Divinity as that is united to it as it is clothed with infinite Majestie as it is replenisht with the Presence and energy of the God-head as it casteth live Influences upon his Church by virtue of the God-head dwelling in it and filleth all things with Spiritual rayes and emanations of his Grace In this respect our Lord is called a Quickning Spirit 1 Cor. 15. 45. the first man Adam was made a living soul the last Adam was made a Quickning Spirit because he giveth life to every Humble and Obedient heart here below and through his Humane Nature dispenseth to every one the Vertues of his Passion and in this respect every good Christian participates of Christs Body that is of the Spiritualities of his glorious Body The Ancient Christians acknowledged and insisted much upon this distinction between the Natural and the Spiritual body of Christ confessing the one to be in the Sacrament but not the other There is Saith Clemens Alexandrinus a Twofold 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Clem. Alex. Paedag. l. 2. in mitio Blond of our Lord there is his Fleshly Bloud whereby we were redeemed from destruction and there is his Spiritual Bloud whereby we are now Anointed and this is to drink the Bloud of Jesus to be made partakers of our Lords Incorruption In like manner Origen Shewing that even in the New Testament there is a letter which killeth if men do not understand that which is said after a Spiritual Si enim secundum liberam sequaris hoc ipsum quod dictum est nisi manducaveretis carnem mean biberitis Sanguinem meum occider haec litera Orig. in Lev. 10. Homilt manner instanceth in that Phrase of eating Christs Flesh and drinking his Bloud for saith he if you understand this according to the sound and clink of the Expression it is a killing letter S. Jerome also tells us that the Bloud and Flesh of Christ is to be Duplicitur verè sanguis Christi caro intelligitur
the same heresies and even he draws one of his Arguments from the blessed Eucharist likewse and he is as Positive as can be that the Body of Christ meaning the Symbolical Body as Origen In Photii Biblioth cod 229. called it that is the Bread which is received by the Faithful doth not depart out of its sensible Substance and Nature and yet remaines undivided from the Spiritual Grace and to clear his meaning fully he shews in the very next words that the Elements in the Eucharist are no more changed than the water is in Baptism which Remaineth still water after Sanctification Thus these four Great men S. Chrysostome Theodoret Gelasius and Ephraim delivered the Sense of the Catholick Church in their times and if you add them to the forementioned Fathers who lived in the Primitive times before them it will be manifest beyond exception that for above 500 years together after Christ the Christian Doctors did no more believe the Elements in the Sacrament to be Transubstantiated into Christ's Flesh and Bloud than they did believe the Manhood of Christ himself to be Transubstantiated into his God-head or his God-head to be abolisht and turned into his Humanity Now the sense of Christians in those ages ought to satisfie the minds of Christians in these for certainly the faith of Christ was never more clearly more Learnedly more solidly maintained than in the first five Centuries and one reason of it as I conceive was this because Heresies of all sorts were then so very thick and Numerous the Providence of God permitting it so to be that the zeal of good men might be exercised continually whereby it came to pass that the Doctors of the Church were industrious and learned and the true faith was throughly sifted and establisht for so it is ever that as evil manners in the State are the occasion of good Laws so evil Doctrines in the Church are the occasion of Sound and Excellent Definitions I do not wonder if in the following ages we have not such great Plenty of witnesses to appeal to They were times wherein learning did much Decay and mens Industry and zeal were much abated for want of those Incentives which had formerly been like goads in the sides of the holy Fathers and I remember what Boniface the Martyr said of the times he lived in that whereas Golden Priests were formerly forced to use wooden Chalices Then wooden Priests did use Chalices of Gold And yet we may well be Astonisht at their Monstrous confidence who tell us that Transubstantiation was believed in those declining times If it had been so indeed the Argument from it would have Signified nothing because there can be no Prescription against truth and the sense of some in latter ages ought not carry the cause against the general Judgement of the Primitive and best times But in good earnest upon the strictest search I can make I do not find any grounds for the credit of the present Romish Doctrine either in * Unus idemque secundum humanam substantiam absens caelo cum esset in terra dereliquens terram cum ascendisset in caelum Secundum divinam verò immensamque substantiam nec caelum dimittens cum de caelo descendit nec terram deserens cum ad caelum ascendit c. Fulgent ad Trasimud l. 2. c. 17. Fulgentius or in Christi sanguis non jam in manus infidelium sed in or a fidelium funditur Gregor apud Gratian. de Consec dist 2. c. 73. Mysterium est quod aliud videtur aliud intelligitur Quod videtur speciem habet corporalem quod intelligitur fructum babet spiritualem sed cum Mysterium sit unde corpus sanguis Christi dicitur Consulens ommipotens Deus infirmitati nostrae qui non habemus usum comedere carnem crudam Sanguinem bibere facit ut in pristina remaneant forma illa duo munera est in veritate Corpus Christe Sanguis Id. in Glossa ex Alcuino ibdi Gregory the Great who lived in the sixth Century or in * Christus in caelum ascendens discessit quidem carne sed presens est majestate c. Isid Hisp Sentent lib. 1. Sacrificium dictum quasi sacrum factum quia prece mystica consecratur in memoriam pro nobis Dominicae passionis Unde hoc eo jubente corpus Christi sanginem dicimus quod dum fit ex Fructibus terrae sanctificatur fit Sacramentum operante invisibiliter Spititu Dei Id. Origin lib. 6. c. 19. Isidore Hispalensis who flourisht in the seventh or in venerable Finitis veteris Paschae solenniis quae in commemorationem antiquae de Egypto liberation is agebantur transit in novum quod in suae redemptionis memoriam Ecclesia frequent are desiderat ut videlicet pro agni carne sanguine suae carnis sanguinisque Sacramentum in panis ac vini figura substituens c Beda in Luc. 22. Panis ac Vini Creatura in Sacramentum carnis sanguinis Christi ineffabili Spiritus sanctificatione transfertur sicque corpus sanguis illius non infidelium manibus ad perniciem ipsorum funditur occiditur sed fidelium ore sumitur asl salutem Id. Homil. de Sanctis Bede who was in the eighth Age no not in Damascen himself neither tho he be brought forth by the Romanists as a Champion on their side The Learned Arch Bishop Cranmer hath drawn up the sense of Damascen into this sum that the Bread and Wine are not so changed into the flesh and bloud of Christ that they be made one Nature but they remain still distinct in Nature so that the Bread in it self is not his flesh nor the Wine his blood but unto them that worthily eat and drink the bread and Wine to them the bread and Wine be his flesh and blood that is to say by things natural and which they be accustomed unto they be exalted unto things above Nature For the Sacramental bread and Wine are not bare and naked figures but so Pithy and effectuous that whosoever worthily eateth them eateth spiritually Christs flesh and blood Wherefore saith the Holy Martyr they that gather out of Damascen either the natural presence of Christs body in the Sacraments of bread and Wine or the Adoration of the outward and visible Sacrament or that after Consecration there remaineth no bread nor Wine nor other substance but only the substance of the body and Blood of Christ either they understand not Damascen or else of wilful frowardness they will not understand him which rather seemeth to be true by such collections as they have unjustly gathered and noted out of him For Damascen saith plainly that as a burning coal is not wood only but fire and wood joyned together so the bread of the Communion is not bread only but bread joyned to the Divinity He that desires further satisfaction as to this may peruse the whole vindication of Damascen in the
third book of the Arch-Bishops defence This I shall presume to say that Church Writers about Damascens time and Damascen himself spake for the most part as other of the Ancients did They spake to the same purpose and in many places to my apprehension very clearly and very agreeably to the sense of our own Church viz. of the real presence of Christs Spiritual body which in the next discourses I shall endeavour to explain tho possibly here and there we may light upon some few expressions which may seem somewhat harsh to such as do not rightly understand the Catholick Faith in this particular point Indeed Cardinal Bellarmine doth insinuate Bellarm. de Euchar. lib. 1. c. 1. that the Doctrine of Christs Corporal presence in the Sacrament was believed at the Second Council at Nice about the year of Christ 787. And herein the Jesuite is followed by some Divines of our own who have taken the insinuation from Bellarmine at the second hand and have thence concluded that the Doctrine of Transubstantiation had its rise at that Council that thereby the Practice of Image-Worship might be the better settled and supported But this is false and I cannot tell whether this error proceeds from inadvertency or from a willingness some have to disgrace the Catholick Church as if it had been guilty of such a foul mistake in those ancient times I am sure that upon looking into the Nicene Council 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Synod Nicen 2. Actione Sexta I cannot find any such matter They determined indeed that after Consecration the bread and Wine are rightly called the body and blood of Christ But why must this be meant of Christs Natural Body Why might they not intend his Spiritual body and his real Spiritual presence of which anon Do but observe the occasion of this their assertion and the thing will evidently appear The Council at Constantinople were against the bringing of Images into Churches for this reason among many others because Christ left no Image of himself but the Sacrament At this expression the Nicene Council afterwards took pet and would not endure such Language that the materials of the Sacrament are the Images of Christs body and blood for they supposed the meaning to be that they are bare Images naked and empty Figures without the presence of Christs body and blood and this they exploded as unsound and uncatholick Doctrine Here was the quarrel as to that point For whereas the Constantinopolitan Council had said that the Eucharist became a Divine body the Nicene Council accused them for contradicting themselves for said they if it be the Image of a Body it cannot be a Divine Body too They denied the Sacrament to be a bare Image they affirmed it to be not so much an Image as the very Body of Christ and that so it ought to be called but that they hold a corporal presence of Christs Natural flesh and blood in the Sacrament there is nothing in the whole History o that Council that constraineth us to believef and therefore the Doctrine of Transubstantiation had not its first rise then In the ninth Century Dum quidam fidelium corporis sanguinisque christi quod in Ecclesia quotidie celebratur Mysterium dicunt quod nulla sub figura nulla sub obvelatione fiat sed ipsius veritatis nuda manifestatione peragatur Quidam vero restantur quod haec sub mysterii figura contineantur aliud sit quod corporeis sensibus appareat aliud artem quod fides aspiciat non parva diversitas inter eos esse dignoscitur Bertram de Corp. Sang. Christ indeed some began to speak variously 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ibid. and doubtfully concerning the manner of Christs presence in the Sacrament which in a little time was the occasion of Bertrams writing his excellent book of the Body and Blood of Christ to Carolus Calvus then Emperor De Char. c. 11. But even in that Age Rabanus Maurus taught as the received Doctrine of the Church that it is unlawful as well as im impossible Nefas is his word to eat the body of Christ with our Teeth that Christ is in Heaven and ought to be there according to his flesh and that therefore he left us this Sacrament as the visible figure and character of his flesh and Blood He distinguisheth as many of the Ancients before him did between the Sacrament De institut Cleric lib. 1. c. 13. and the virtue of the Sacrament affirming the one to be eaten with the mouth and the Inward man to be satiated with the other so that though the Sacrament De Institut Cleric lib. 1. c. 31. it self turneth to our Bodily nourishment yet eternal life is obtained by the virtue of the Sacrament And whereas Paschasius Radbertus and his followers had now vended some new conceits which had a tendency towards the introduction of the Doctrine of Transubstantiation he wrote purposely against them as erronous conceits some of late says he being not rightly perswaded of the Sacrament of Christs Body and Bloud have affirmed it to be that very Body and Bloud of our Lord which was born of the virgin and wherein the Lord Suffered upon the Cross and rose again out of the Sepulchre De Euchar. 33. which error saith he we have exposed with the best of our skill in an Epistle to Egilo the Abbot That Epistle indeed is not now extant but the matter of fact is certain and the faith of that great man Rabanus was so well know to be utterly destructive of the Fancy of Transubstantiation that Waldensis in an Epistle to Pope Martin the 5th almost 600 years after had the confidence to censure Rabanus for an Heretick though he were no less then Archbishop of Mentz and for all sorts of learning had few in the Christian world that were his Match Haymo likewise affirmed that the Bread and Wine for so he call the Elements In 1. Cor. 11. after Consecration are replenished with the virtue of our Lords Divinity and so become his Body but this doth no more argue Transubstantiation then it argues that Christs Humane Nature is turned into his Divine Substance because that in him the fulness of the God-head dwelleth bodily Bertram was a very learned and judicious Divine in the same age and he in the Book I mentioned but now gives the Cause against the Romanists so fully and argues against Christ's Corporal presence in the Sacrament so strongly from the Nature and Notion of a Sacramant from sense from Scripture and from Tradition that the Knavish Compilers of the Spanish Index Expurgatorius had no way Bertram de corp ' Sang. Christi left them but to forbid the Use of the Book which to my sense was the same thing as if they had said we will damn all Authors or cut out their Tongues that we can find to Speak against us Behold the Honesty and Ingenuity of those who vaunt