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 Infidels 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 de â—ensa Sect. 14. p. 220. Ahmad bin Edris ita scribit verba autem Isa sic 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 sanguimem 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 Messia 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 Dicu 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 Eortalitium
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 our 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 Methodius (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 necessariò 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 to affirm That the Essence of the Son consists in Subjection to the Father For says he how can Subjection be conceived to subsist by it self without existing in any thing else And afterwards If there be no Subject and nothing praeexists in which those things are went to be done how can they exist by themselves which are understood and defined in the
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 wholly 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 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 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 destroyed 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. Per hoc non sublimata sed abolita potius invenitur 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 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 transfusione humanitatis adjectae velut aucta videatur uses the same Phrases of Accession and Increase to the Deity and that by the transfusion of the Humanity added to it 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 Expressions in favour of Transubstantiation no not when the Word Nature or Substance is exprest in the Change. Tertullian (u) De Resur Carn c. 55. Si transfigurationem conversionem in transitum substantiae cujusque defendis ergo Saul in alium virum conversus de corpore suo excessit c. has dashed this out of countenance when he says to Marcion If thou defendest a Transfiguration and Conversion as far as the passing of the Substance of a
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 Ibid. 14. Imposs fol. eod 5. 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. Ibid. 15. Imposs fol. 135. 6. 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 Sets By WILLIAM CAVE D. D. Octavo An Answer to Mr. Serjeant's Sure Footing in Christianity concerning the Rule of Faith With some other Discourses By WILLIAM FALKNER D.D. 40. A Vindication of the Ordinations of the Church of England in Answer to a Paper written by one of the Church of Rome to prove the Nullity of our Orders By GILBERT BVRNET D. D. Octavo An Abridgment of the History of the Reformation of the Church of England By GILB BVRNET D. D. Octavo The APOLOGY of the Church of England and an Epistle to one Signior Scipio a Venetian Gentleman concerning the Council of Trent Written both in Latin by the Right Reverend Father in God JOHN JEWEL Lord Bishop of Salisbury Made English by a Person of Quality To which is added The Life of the said Bishop Collected and written by the same Hand Octavo The Life of WILLIAM BEDEL D. D. Bishop of Kilmore in Ireland Together with Certain Letters which passed betwixt him and James Waddesworth a late Pensioner of the Holy Inquisition of Sevil in Matters of Religion concerning the General Motives to the Roman Obedience Octavo The Decree made at ROME the Second of March 1679. condemning some Opinions of the Jesuits and other Casuists Quarto A Discourse concerning the Necessity of Reformation with respect to the Errors and Corruptions of the Church of Rome Quarto First and Second Parts A Discourse concerning the Celebration of Divine Service in an Unknown Tongue Quarto A Papist not Misrepresented by Protestants Being a Reply to the Reflections upon the Answer to A Papist Misrepresented and Represented Quarto An Exposition of the Doctrine of the Church of England in the several Articles proposed by the late BISHOP of CONDOâ— in his Exposition of the Doctrine of the Catholick Church Quarto A Defence of the Exposition of the Doctrine of the Church of England against the Exceptions of Monsieur de Meaux late Bishop of Condoâ— and his Vindicator 40. A CATECHISM explaining the Doctrine and Practâ—â—â— of the Church of Rome With an Answer thereunto By a Protestant of the Church of England 80. A Papist Represented and not Misrepresented being an Answer to the First Second Fifth and Sixth Sheets of the Second Part of the Papist Mispresented and Represented and for a further Vindication of the CATECHISM truly representing the Doctrines and Practices of the Church of Rome Quarto The Lay-Christian's Obligation to read the Holy Scriptures Quarto The Plain Man's Reply to the Catholick Missionaries 140. An Answer to THREE PAPERS lately printed concerning the Authority of the Catholick Church in Matters of Faith an the Reformation of the Church of England Quarto A Vindication of the Answer to THREE PAPERS concerning the Unity and Authority of the Catholick Church and the Reformation of the Church of England Quarto
Imprimatur Liber cui titulus A Full View of the Doctrines and Practices of the Ancient Church relating to the Eucharist c. H. Maurice Reverendissimo in Christo P. D. Wilhelmo Archiepiscopo Cant. Ã Sacris Octob. 6. 1687. A FULL VIEW OF THE Doctrines and Practices OF THE Ancient Church Relating to the EUCHARIST Wholly different from those of The Present ROMAN CHURCH And inconsistent with the Belief of TRANSUBSTANTIATION BEING A sufficient Confutation of Consensus Veterum Nubes Testium and other Late Collections of the Fathers pretending the contrary Rectum est Index sui Obliqui LONDON Printed for Richard Chiswell at the Rose and Crown in St. Paul s Church-yard MDCLXXXVIII A PREFACE to the READER THAT which is here offered to thy Perusal was occasioned by some late Pamphlets * Succession of Church and Sacraments Consensus Veterum Nubes Testium that appeared much about the same time in Print pretending by a Heap of Testimonies from the Fathers to prove as in some other Doctrines so particularly in that of the Corporal Presence and Transubstantiation That the Ancient Church and the present Roman are at a good Agreement It is very hard for Us to believe this and scarce credible that they themselves did so when we see so much Unsincerity in their Allegations such Deceit and contrived disguising the Sense of the Fathers in their Translations such late uncertain and supposititious Writings cited by them under the Venerable Names of Ancient Authors When the way that Procrustes took of stretching Limbs or chopping them off to make all agree to his Bed who were to be laid in it is used to make the Ancient and the Present Church to agree a Consent thus procured can occasion but a short and a sorry Triumph Yet those Performances have been cry'd up and they are look'd upon as Storehouses and Repositories whence any Champion of theirs who enters the Lists may be furnish'd from the Fathers either with what is necessary for his own Defence or the assailing of an Adversary The Representer since that made great use of them in a brisk Attaque he made upon the Dublin Letter tho' the Success I believe did not answer his Expectation The Convert of Putney's Performance who in his Consensus Veterum made the largest Shew of Fathers on behalf of Transubstantiation has had a particular Consideration given it by his worthy Answerer * Veteres Vindicati And so all the other Testimonies in the rest of them that are of any seeming strength and moment have received Answers to them from other Hands particularly from the Learned Author of The Doctrine of the Trinity and Transubstantiation compared Part 1. If any thing after all seems to be wanting on our Part it is this That as our Adversaries have made a Shew of Fathers for I can give it no better name pretended to countenance their Doctrines of the Corporal Presence and Transubstantiation so we also ought to have our Collection of Testimonies from the Ancients made faithfully and impartially wherein their true Sense in these Matters may be clearly seen and viewed and thereby their Dissent from this Church appear plainly in those things that either constitute this Doctrine or are necessary Consequents of it And this is that which I have undertaken in the following Papers wherein as the Usefulness of the Design has encourag'd me to take some Pains so I shall think them well bestowed if the Reader will bring an honest and unprejudic'd Mind to the Perusal of them and suffer himself to be determin'd in his Opinions concerning this Controversie according to the Evidence of Truth here offered for his Conviction If the Differences which the annexed Contents of the Chapters give an Account of are of such a Nature and stand at such a wide Distance that it 's impossible ever to bring Transubstantiation to shake Hands with them as Friends and if the two Churches the Ancient and the Present Roman are really divided and disagreeing as I pretend to have demonstrated in those Points it will then I hope hereafter be ridiculous to talk confidently of a Consent of Fathers and of a Cloud of Witnesses on their Side But if I am herein mistaken I am so little tender of my Reputation compared with Truth that I heartily desire to be confuted and made a Convert for I am conscious to my self of no false Fathers I have cited for true ones of no disguising or perverting their Sense by an Ill Translation of their Words which I have therefore set down in their own Language of no imposing upon the Reader a Sense of my own making contrary to what I believe that they intended I have but one Request more to make to the unknown Author of a Book intituled Reason and Authority c. who mentioning the Defence of the Dublin Letter * Pag. 119. for which I have some reason to be concern'd says That the Authorities of the Fathers there urged are as he conceives in the Sense of them either mistaken or misapplied and that he shall endeavour to reconcile them to other Expressions of the Fathers and to that which he calls the Catholick Doctrine of Transubstantiation I humbly desire when he is about this Reconciling Work and his Hand is in that he would go on to reconcile also the Differences urged in the following Papers Which if he shall do to any purpose I promise to return the Complements he has pass'd upon that Defender with Interest and to alter my present Opinion of him upon his Performances in that Book Farewell THE CONTENTS OF THE CHAPTERS BEING A Summary of the DIFFERENCES betwixt the FAITH and PRACTICES of the Two Churches CHAP. I. The First Difference The Roman Church asserts perpetual Miracles in the Eucharist The Ancient Church owns none but those of God's Grace working Changes in us not in the Substance of the Elements Page 1 CHAP. II. The Second Difference They differ in determining what that Thing is which Christ calls My Body which the Ancient Church says is Bread but the Roman Church denies it 7 CHAP. III. The Third Difference The Roman Church believes That Accidents subsist in the Eucharist without any Subject This the Fathers deny 12 CHAP. IV The Fourth Difference The Roman Church uses the Word Species to signifie those self-subsisting Accidents the Fathers never take Species in this Sense 16 CHAP. V. The Fifth Difference The Fathers differ from this Church about the Properties of Bodies as 1. They assert That every organiz'd Body even that of Christ is visible and palpable 21 2. That every Body possesses a Place and is commensurate to it and cannot be in more Places than one nor be entire in one Part nor exist after the manner of a Spirit All which Transubstantiation denies Page 22 3. That it is impossible for one to dwell in himself or partake of ones self this inferring Penetration of Dimensions and that a greater Body may be contained in a
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 131 The Church of Rome will have not only the wicked but bruit Creatures to eat it 132 The Cautions of the Mass suppose this ibid. The Fathers will not allow the wicked to partake of Christs Body 133 Two remarkable Testimonies of St. Austin 136 CHAP. XIV The Fourteenth Difference The different practices and usages of the two-Churches argue their different opinions about the Eucharist 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 139 2 Inst The old practice was to give the Communion in both kinds 140 Transubstantiation made this practice cease 141. New devices for security against profaning Christs Blood. 142 No reason why the Fathers have not been as cautious in this as the Ro. Church but their different belief 143 3 Inst The Elevation of the Host that all may adore it the Roman practice 145 This not used in the first Ages at all when used afterwards not for Adoration 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 147 5 Inst The Anc. Church used Glass Cups for the Wine which would be criminal now 148 6 Inst They mixed of old the Consecr Wine with Ink which would now be abhorr'd 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 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 165 This still a practice in the Eastern Churches that submit not to the Roman Church 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 168 2. That their New Prayers to the Sacrament have no Example in the Anc. Church 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 182 c. The Saxon Easter-Sermon produc'd as a Testimony against them 183 184 c. Two Epistles of Elfric the Abbot declare against that Doctrine 187 188. A Remarkable Testimony also of Rabanus Archbishop of Mentz alledged 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 Parochos 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 Host 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 fitus and extension unto Place 4. Tho' the Body of Christ be in it self greater than a Consecrated Host yet according to the
Order of Accidents And elsewhere he says (l) Thesaur assert 31. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 To be Unbegotten is predicated of the Divine Essence as inseparable from it just as Colour is always predicated of every Body And in another place (m) Ibid. assert 16. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. disputing about the Eternity of the Son and how proceeding from the Father he is not separated from him he instances in Accidents that are inseparable from their Subjects We see says he Heat inseparably proceeding from Fire but it is the Fruit of the very Essence of Fire proceeding inseparably from it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as also Splendor is the Fruit of Light. For Light cannot subsist without Splendor nor Fire without Heat For what is begotten of them do's always adhere to such Substances Again in his Dialogues (n) De Trinitate Dial. 2. p. 451. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Trinity he asks Whether Black and White if they be not in their Subjects can subsist of themselves And the Answer is They cannot Claud. Mamertus (o) De Statu Animae l. 3. c. 3. In rebus corporeis subjectum est corpus color corporis in subjecto in incorporeis animus disciplina quae ita sibi nexa sunt ut nec sine colore corpus nec sine disciplina rationalis sit animus Utrum nam probare valeamus manere quod in subjecto est ipso intereunte subjecto In corporeal things the Body is the Subject and the Colour of the Body in the Subject In incorporeal matters the Soul and Discipline are Instances which are so connected that the Body cannot be without Colour nor the Rational Soul without Discipline Can we ever prove that what is in the Subject abides when the Subject it self perishes Isidore Hispal (p) Originum lib. 2. cap. 26. Quantitas qualitas situs sine subjecto esse non possunt Quantity Quality and Situation can none of 'em be without a Subject Bertram (q) Contra Graec. l. 2. c. 7. in Tom. 2. Spicilegii D. Acherii proves against the Greeks That the Holy Ghost was not in Jesus Christ as in his Subject because says he the Holy Ghost is not an Accident that cannot subsist without its Subject These Testimonies of the Fathers may suffice to shew how they differ from the Church of Rome in this Point of Accidents being without a Subject which to them is so necessary a Doctrine that Transubstantiation cannot be believed without it and if the Fathers had believed Transubstantiation it is incredible that they should deny this Doctrine without so much as once excepting the Case of the Eucharist None can imagine how their Memory and Reflection should be so short especially when as we have heard they form their Arguments to prove the Eternity of the Son of God and the Personality of the Holy Ghost from the inseparability of Accidents from their Subject Nay one of them says (r) Orat. 5. contra Arianos inter Athanasii Opera That if God himself had Accidents they would exist in his Substance When therefore P. Innocent (s) De Myst Missae l. 4. c. 11. Est enim hic color sapor quantitas qualitas cùm nihil alterutro sit coloratum aut sapidum quantum aut quale asserts That in the Eucharist there is Colour and Taste and Quantity and Quality and yet nothing coloured or tasteful nothing of which Quantity or Quality are Affections This is plainly to confound the Nature of all things and to turn Accidents into Substances So that if for instance the Host should fall into the Mire and contract Dirt and Filth this Filth sticks in nothing or else Accidents are the Subject of it for it is confessed on all hands That Christ's Body cannot be soiled or made filthy Not to insist upon the Nonsense of his Assertion which is just as if one should talk of an Eclipse without either Sun or Moon or of an Horses Lameness without a Leg concerning which only Lameness can be affirmed CHAP. IV. The Fourth Difference The Church of Rome has brought in the Word SPECIES to signifie those Accidents without any Subject But the Fathers never take it in this Sense I Need only refer the Reader for the first part of this Assertion to the Thirteenth Session of the Council of Trent Canon 2. 3. where the Word Species is so used And to what we heard before out of their Catechism of the Species of Bread and Wine subsisting without any Subject in which they are Every one knows this is their Customary Word to express Appearances of things by when nothing real is under them to support them But now we shall see this to be a strange and foreign usage of this Word which the Fathers know nothing of in their Sense but in stead of denoting Accidents by the Word Species which are in no Subject they use it commonly for the Substance the Nature the Matter of a thing the Subject it self that appears Not for Appearances without a Subject S. Ambrose often uses this Word Species but never in the Sense of the Romanists For which take these Instances S. Ambrose says (a) Serm. 21. Dominum rogatum ad Nuptias aquae substantiam in vini speciem commutasse That at the Marriage of Cana our Lord being requested did change the Substance of Water into the Species of Wine That is not into the Appearance of Wine but into real Wine that he changed it And in another place * Serm. 22. Speciem magis necessariam Nuptiis prastitit He provided for the Marriage a more necessary Species i. e. Wine more agreeable to a Marriage-Feast than Water In another Book (b) Officior lib. 2. cap. 28. Hic numerus captivorum hic ordo praestantior est quam species poculorum speaking of Holy Vessels which he broke for the Redemption of Captives he says This Number and Order of Captives far excels the Species of Cups i. e. all sorts of them Again elsewhere (c) De iis qui initiant cap. 9. Gravior est ferri species quam aquarum liquor The Species of Iron is heavier than the Liquor of Water i. e. the Substance of Iron S. Austin (d) In Joan. tract 11. Omnes in Moyse baptizati sunt in nube in mari Si ergo figura maris tantum valuit species baptismi quantum valebit They were all baptized into Moses in the Cloud and in the Sea. If therefore the Figure of the Sea availed so much how much will the Species of Baptism avail In another place (e) Serm. ad Infantes Ut sit species visibilis panis multa grana in unum consperguntur To make the visible Species of Bread many Grains are mixed together into one Again (f) Lib. 3. de Trinit cap. 4. Quod cùm per manus hominum ad illam visibilem speciem perducitur non sanctificatur
tam apertam tam manifestam c. Having said thus he ascended into Heaven and would precaution us against those that he foretold would arise in succeeding Ages and say Lo here is Christ or lo there whom he warned us not to believe And we shall have no Excuse if we shall believe them against this so clear open and manifest Voice of our Pastor c. And in his Book against Faustus (h) Lib. 20. cap. 11. Secundùm praesentiam corporalem simul in Sole in Luna in Cruce esse non posset he says That Christ according to his Corporal Presence cannot be at the same time in the Sun and in the Moon and on the Cross Lastly in another Tract (i) Tract 30. in Joan. Sursum est Dominus sed etiam hic est veritas Dominus Corpus enim Domini in quo resurrexit uno loco esse oportet the Printed Copies absurdly read potest veritas ejus ubique diffusa est Our Lord is above yet also Truth the Lord is here For the Body of our Lord in which he arose must be in one Place his Truth is diffused every where Neither do the rest of the Fathers differ from his Doctrine but give their full Consent to it Anastasius Nicaenus (k) In Collect. adv Severianos in Bibl. Patr. Tom. 4. Impossibile est cogitare corpus sine loco sine aliis extra quae esse non potest c. It is impossible to imagine a Body without a Place and other things without which it cannot be c. Didymus Alexandr (l) De Spiritu S. lib. 1. Ipse Spiritus S. si unus de creaturis esset saltem circumscriptam haberet substantiam sicut universae quae factae sunt Spiritus autem cùm in pluribus sit non habet substantiam circumscriptam proves the Holy Ghost to be God because he is in more Places than one The Holy Ghost himself if he were one of the Creatures would at least have a circumscribed or bounded Substance as all things have that are made But the Holy Spirit seeing he is in more than one has not a bounded Substance And afterwards he says That the Holy Ghost was present with the Apostles tho' dispersed to the ends of the Earth and adds Angelica virtus ab hoc prorsus aliena The Power of Angels is altogether a Stranger to this Theodoret (m) In Genes qu. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 makes this a Consequence from Angels being of a determinate Substance That then they require a Place to be in For only the Divinity says he as being undetermined is not in a Place And elsewhere (n) Dialog 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 speaking of Christ's Body after the Resurrection he says Still it is a Body having its former Circumscription Cyril of Alexandria (o) De S. Trinit Dial. 2. disputing against those that thought the Son was begotten of the Substance of the Father by a division of his Substance 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 says If the Divine Nature did admit of Section and Division then you conceive of it as a Body and if so then it must be in a Place and in Magnitude and Quantity and if endued with Quantity it could not avoid being circumscribed Fulgentius (p) Ad Trasimund lib. 2. c. 7. Quod aliquo circumscribitur fine necesse est ut loco teneatur aut tempore also That which is circumscribed by any End or Bound must be contained in a Place or in Time. And again (q) Io. c. 18. Si verum est corpus Christi loco utique oportet contineri The printed Copies read potest contineri without Sense speaking of Christ's Body If the Body of Christ be a true one it must be contained in a Place S. Greg. Nazianzen (r) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Orat. 34. makes it impossible for one Body to be in divers So do's Damascen (s) De Fide Orth. l. 1. c. 4. make it impossible that one Body should pass thro' another unless there be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that which divides and that which is divided Claud. Mamertus (t) De Statu Animae l. 2. c. 3. Nihil illocale corporeum omne illocale incorporeum quoque est Nothing illocal is corporeal every thing illocal is also incorporeal And again (u) Ibid. lib. 1. c. 18. Hinc patet omne corpus totum simul tangi non posse nec in uno loco esse quamlibet minimum totum posse Illic non habet inferiora sua ubi habet superiora sua nec illic dextra ubi sinistra nec anteriora illic ubi posteriora It is plain that no Body can be touched wholly together nor can the least Whole you can imagine be in one Place that is in one Point And he instances in a Grain of Poppy or the least part of it That it has not its lower Parts there where it has its upper Parts nor its right-hand Parts there where its left-hand Parts are nor its Parts before there where it has its Parts behind S. Hilary (x) In Psal 124. Spiritus namque est omnia penetâ—ans continens Non enim secundùm nos corporalis est ut cùm alicubi adsit absit aliunde c. speaking of Christ as God says He is a Spirit penetrating and containing all things For according to us he is not corporeal so that when he is present in one Place he should be absent from another c. And elsewhere (y) Lib. 8. de Trinitate Homo aut aliquid ei simile cùm alicubi erit tum alibi non erit quia illud quod est illic continctur ubi fuerit infirma ad id natura ejus ut ubique sit qui insistâ—us alicubi sit A Man or any thing like him when he is in a Place any where cannot then be elsewhere because that which is there is contained where it is and he that is placed any where his Nature is uncapable to be every where So also Nazianzen (z) Orat. 51. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 A Vessel of the capacity of one Measure will not contain two Measures nor the Place that will hold one Body can receive two or more Bodies into it Again (a) Paulo post 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a little after This is the Nature of Intellectual Beings that incorporeally and indivisibly they mingle with one another and with Bodies And elsewhere (b) Orat. 37. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he proves the Deity of the Holy Ghost because he penetrates all intellectual pure and most subtile Spirits as the Angels and also Apostles and Prophets at the same time when they are not in the same places but dispersed severally which shews that the Holy Spirit is uncircumscribed S. Basil uses the same Argument (c) De Spir. S. cap. 14. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. to prove the same Every one of the other Powers we believe
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 permanet 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 edentem sine lingua loquentem ut phantasma auribus fuerit sermo ejus per imaginem vocis Believe it he chose rather to be born which Marcion thought absurd than in any respect to lie and that against himself so as to carry Flesh about him hard without Bones solid without Muscles bloody without Blood cloathed without a Garment craving Food without Hunger eating without Teeth speaking without a Tongue so that his Speech was a Phantasm to Mens Ears
Lord slain and lying and the Priest standing by the Sacrifice and praying and all the People purple-dyed in that precious Blood c. Again in another place (o) In Coemeter appel 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. speaking of the Priest standing before the Holy Table c. he adds When thou seest the Sheep viz. Christ slain and divided c. So also elsewhere (p) De Poenit in Encoen 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 O wonderful The Mystical Table being prepared the Lamb of God slain for thee c. his Blood emptied into the Cup out of his immaculate Side for thy Purification dost thou not fear This slaying and dividing the Body of Christ this emptying the Blood out of his Veins he speaks of cannot be understood of any thing but of his Representative Body Neither can another Saying of his have any other sense (q) Hom. 51. in Matth. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 where telling us how Christ has given us leave to be filled with his holy Flesh he adds He has proposed himself before us slain So that if we eat his Flesh it must be his dead Body for so he is set before us to be eaten But that 's impossible But all this is easily understood in our way or rather as he himself has explained it when he says (r) Hom. 83. in Matth. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Mystery is the Passion and Cross of Christ With which agrees that of S. Austin (s) In Psal 21. Coenam suam dedit passionem suam dedit He gave his Supper he gave his Passion Or as he says in another place (t) Super Evang. lib. 2. qu. 38. Tamen passiones Domini in Sacramentis corporis sanguinis ejus suavitate lambunt devotissimâ comparing the Gentiles to those Dogs that lick'd Lazarus's Sores Yet says he they lick the Passions of our Lord in the Sacraments of his Body and Blood with a devout Sweetness The Reader will meet with further Testimonies to this purpose afterwards under the Head of Eating Christ's Body and drinking his Blood which according to the Fathers is to be done mystically and spiritually considered as slain and therefore his Presence must be such too For his Body is present just as it is eaten The Sum of all is this That according to the Fathers Christ is considered in the Sacrament as dead and slain and therefore can be only present there typically and by representation For so Card. Perron himself confesses (u) De locis Augustin cap. 3. Sacramentum non est realiter corpus Christi in actuali occisi mortui inanimati statu constitutum nec eâ ratione illud continet sed eatenus tantum repraesentat c. The Sacrament is not really the Body of Christ put in the actual state of one slain dead and without Life nor do's it contain it so but in that respect do's only represent it 5 Position That according to the Fathers the Presence of Christ's Body to us now is a Presence to our Faith and Minds a Presence of Union of Efficacy and Grace This is S. Austin's constant Doctrine I have cited a place out of him before where reckoning up the several Presences of Christ (x) Serm. 120. de diversis the Presence of his Divinity so he is with his Father his Corporal Presence so he says Secundùm praesentiam corporalem jam supra coelos ad dextram patris est Secundùm vero praesentiam fidei in omnibus Christianis est he is now above the Heavens at the Right Hand of the Father and he knows but one more which is the Presence of Faith by which he is in all Christians Thus also elsewhere (y) Serm. 12. de diversis In coelo quidem Christus est sed etiam in corde credentium Christ is in Heaven but he is also in the Hearts of Believers And again (z) In Evang. Joan. tract 50. Audeant teneant Respondet Quem tenebo absentem Quomodo in coelum manum mittam ut ibi sedentem teneam Fidem mitte tenuisti parentes tui tenuerunt carnem tu tene corde quoniam Christus absens etiam praesens est nisi praesens esset à nobis teneri non posset c. Corpus enim suum intulit coelo majestatem non abstulit mundo exhorting the Jews to hear and take hold on Christ he brings one in asking Whom shall I lay hold of one that is absent c. He answers Send forth thy Faith and thou hast hold of him Thy Fathers laid hold of him in his Flesh do thou hold him in thy Heart because Christ who is absent is also present for if he were not present he could not be held by us But still all is to be done by Faith for the Reason he gives He brought his Body into Heaven but his Majesty i. e. his Divinity was not withdrawn from the World. And afterwards (a) Ibid. propè finem Secundùm praesentiam majestatis semper habemus Christum secundùm praesentiam carnis rectè dictum est discipulis Me autem non semper habebitis Habuit illum Ecclesia secundùm praesentiam carnis paucis diebus modo fide tenet oculis non videt According to the Presence of his Majesty we always have Christ according to the Presence of his Flesh it was rightly said to his Disciples Me ye have not always The Church had him a few days according to his Fleshly Presence now it holds him by Faith and sees him not So again (b) In Ev. Joan. tract 106. Non rectè intelliguntur nisi hi quos in se credentes servare jam coeperat praesentia corporali quos relicturus fuerat absentia corporali ut eos cum patre servaret praesentia spiritali speaking of those whom he kept when he was with them he says These Words can be rightly understood of none but those who believing on him were begun to be kept by him by his Corporal Presence and whom he was about to leave by his Bodily Absence that he might keep them together with his Father by his Spiritual Presence Lastly S. Austin says (c) Expos in Epist Joan. tract 1. Dominus consolans nos qui ipsum jam in coelo sedentem manu contrectare non possumus sed fide contingere ait 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
more need of Symbols or Signs when the Body it self appears I refer the Reader to the Testimonies produced before Chap. 10. Position 2. out of S. Austin Sedulius Primasius Bede c. I will conclude this Chapter with a passage or two out of the Prayers after the Sacrament in the Old Liturgy used in Bertram's time (k) V. Bertram de corp sang Christi prope finem p. 112. Edit ult Lat. Engl. We who have now received the Pledge of Eternal Life most humbly beseech thee to grant (l) Ut quod in imagine contingimus Sacramenti manifesta participatione sumamus That we may be manifestly made partakers of that which we here receive in the Image of the Sacrament And thus afterwards (m) Ibid. p. 114. Perficiant in nobis quaesumus Domine tua Sacramenta quod continent ut quae nunc specie gerimus rerum veritate capiamus in another Prayer Let thy Sacraments work in us O Lord we beseech thee those things which they contain that we may really be partakers of those things which now we celebrate in a Figure Bertram Comments upon these Prayers in such passages as these Whence it appears says he that this Body and Blood of Christ are the Pledge and Image of something to come which is now only represented but shall hereafter be plainly exhibited therefore it is one thing which is now celebrated and another which shall hereafter be manifested And afterwards p. 115. The Prayer says that these things are celebrated in a Figure not in Truth that is by way of similitude or representation not the manifestation of the thing it self Now the Figure and the Truth are very different things Therefore the Body and Blood of Christ which is celebrated in the Church differs from the Body and Blood of Christ which is glorified since the Resurrection c. Ps 117. We see how vast a difference there is between the mystery of Christs Body and Blood which the faithful now receive in the Church and that Body which was born of the Virgin Mary which suffered rose again ascended into Heaven and sitteth at the right hand of the Father For this Body which we celebrate in our way to happiness must be spiritually received for Faith believes somewhat that it sees not and it spiritually feeds the Soul makes glad the heart and confers Eternal Life and Incorruption if we attend not to that which feeds the Body which is chew'd with our teeth and ground in pieces but to that which is spiritually received by Faith. But now that Body in which Christ suffered and rose again was his own proper Body which he assumed of the Virgin which might be seen and felt after his Resurrection c. It is very observable and a great confirmation of what has been said in this Chapter That the Ancient Christians of S. Thomas inhabiting the Mountains of Malabar in the East Indies agree with the Ancient Church in denying our Saviours Corporal Presence in the Sacrament of the Eucharist as appears from their Publick Offices and other Books mentioned in a Synod which was celebrated amongst them by Dom Aleixo de Menezes Archbishop of Goa in the Year 1599. In the fourteenth Decree of the third Action of the said Synod in which most of their Church Offices and other Books are Condemned for containing Doctrines contrary to the Roman Faith there is particular notice taken of their contradicting the Roman Faith in the point of Transubstantiation 1. The Book of Timothy the Patriarch is condemned for asserting through three Chapters that the true Body of Christ our Lord is not in the Sacrament of the Altar but only the Figure of his Body 2. The Book of Homilies is condemned which teacheth that the H. Eucharist is only the Image of Christ as the Image of a Man is distinguished from a real Man and that the Body of Christ is not there but in Heaven 3. The Book of the Exposition of the Gospels is condemn'd which teacheth that the Eucharist is only the Image of the Body of Christ and that his Body is in Heaven at the right Hand of the Father and not upon Earth 4. Their Breviary which they call Iludre and Gaza is condemn'd which teaches that the most H. Sacrament of the Eucharist is not the true Body of Christ Lastly The Office of the Burial of Priests is condemn'd where it is said that the most H. Sacrament of the Altar is no more but the virtue of Christ and not his true Body and Blood. This Synod was Printed in the University of Conimbra with the Licences of the Inquisition and Ordinary in the Year 1606. and is in the Possession of a Learned Person who gave me this account out of it CHAP. XII The Twelfth Difference The Fathers assert That Christ's Body is not eaten corporally and carnally but only spiritually But the Church of Rome teaches a Corporal Eating a Descent of Christ's Natural Body into ours and understands the Eating of Christ's Body literally and carnally IF the Church of Rome declares its own Faith when it imposes the Profession of it upon another and makes one abjure the contrary under pain of Anathema then I am sure it was once with a witness for the eating of Christ's Body in the most literal and proper Sense when An. Dom. 1059. Pope Nicholas II. and the General Council of Lateran prescribed a Profession of it to Berengarius made him swear it and anathematize the contrary as it is set down by Lanfrank (n) De Eucharist Sacram. adv Berengar which because the Nubes Testium tho' it has set down two other Forms durst not give us I will therefore here transcribe out of him Ego Berengarius indignus Diaconus Ecclesiae S. Mauritii Andegavensis cognoscens veram Catholicam Apostolicam Fidem anathematizo omnem Haeresm praecipue eam de quâ hactenus infamatus sum quae astruere conatur panem vinum quae in altari ponuntur post consecrationem solummodo Sacramentum non verum corpus sanguinem Dom. nostri Jesu Christi esse nec posse sensualiter nisi in solo Sacramento manibus Sacerdotum tractari vel frangi aut fidelium dentibus atteri Consentio autem S. Romanae Ecclesiae Apostolicae sedi ore corde profiteor de Sacramentis Dominicae mensae eam fidem tenere quam Do minus Venerabilis Papa Nicholaus haec S. Synodus authoritate Evangelica Apostolica tenendam 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
of Christ was touched by a Sinners lips 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 desinit 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 consecrationem 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
de sepulchro Idea issi quod sumitur de altari cui errori quantum potuimus ad Egilonem Abbalem scriâ—â—â—â—â— de corpore ipso quid verè credendum sit aperuimus Whether the Eucharist after it is consumed and sent into the Draught as other Meats are do's return again into its former Nature which it had before it was consecrated on the Altar This Question is supersluous when our Saviour himself has said in the Gospel Every thing that entreth into the Mouth goeth into the Belly and is cast out into the Draught The Sacrament of the Body and Blood is made up of things Visible and Corporeal but effects the Invisible Sanctification both of Body and Soul. And what reason is there that what is digested in the Stomach and sent into the Draught shou'd return into its pristine State seeing none has ever asserted that this was done Some indeed of late not thinking rightly of the Sacrament of our Lord's Body and Blood have said which are the very words of Paschasius whom he opposes that the very Body and Blood of our Lord which was born of the Virgin Mary and in which our Lord suffered on the Cross and rose again out of the Grave is the same that is taken from the Altar which Error we having opposed as we were able writing to the Abbot Egilo and declared what ought truly to be believed concerning the Body it self That which he calls here an Error is an Article now of the Romish Faith which some Zealous Monk meeting withal and not enduring it should be condemned as an Error that the same Body which was born of the Virgin c. is the same that we receive at the Altar scraped out those words which I have inclosed between the Brackets and we may securely trust our Adversaries in this Matter who have skill enough to know what Assertions make for them and what against them CHAP. XVII The CONCLUSION That the Doctrine of Transubstantiation has given a new occasion to the Enemies of Christian Religion to blaspheme It is so great a stumbling-block to the Jews that their Conversion is hopeless whilst this is believed by them to be the Common Faith of Christians That tho' the Church of Rome will not hearken to us yet they may be provoked to emulation by the Jews themselves who have given a better account of Christ's Words of Institution and more agreeable to the Fathers than this Church has and raised unanswerable Objections against its Doctrine HAving considered in the foregoing Chapters the Sense of the Ancient Church about Matters relating to the Eucharist and Transubstantiation from their own Writings and found that their Assertions are inconsistent with the Belief of the present Roman Church and that their Practices are not to be reconciled thereunto Having also made an Enquiry into the Ancient forms of Devotion relating to the Eucharist remaining still in this Church and found them to speak a Language which has a Sence agreeing indeed with that of the Ancients but no Sence at all when the Doctrine of Transubstantiation is supposed and those Prayers to be interpreted by it c. I shall now for a Conclusion take a view also of the principal Enemies of the Christian Faith which will afford a convincing Evidence that the Roman Doctrine is Novel and a stranger to the Ancient Christians It is sufficiently known that the Adversaries of Christianity took all the occasions possible and whatsoever gave them any colour to reproach the Faith and Worship of Christians and to make their Names odious Nothing that looked strange and absurd in either escaped being taken notice of by such as Celsus and Porphyry Lucian and Julian among the Heathens and such as Trypho among the Jews They curiously examined and surveyed what they taught and practised and whatsoever they thought to be foolish and incredible they with all their wit and cunning endeavoured to expose it So they did with the Doctrines of the Trinity the Eternal Generation of the Son of God his Incarnation his Crucifixion especially and our Resurrection Neither were they less praying into the Christian Mysteries and Worship which they could not be ignorant of there being so many Deserters and Apostates in those Times of Persecution who were well acquainted with them and by threatnings and fear of torment if there were any thing secret were likely to betray them Not to insist upon this that the great Traducer of Christians I mean Julian was himself once initiated in their Mysteries and so could not be Ignorant of what any of them were and has in particular laught at their Baptism that Christians should fansy a purgation thereby from Great Crimes Yet after all this they took no occasion from the Eucharist to traduce them tho if Christians then had given that adoration to it that is now paid in the Roman Church and if they had declared either for a Corporal Presence or an oral Manducation of him that was their God they had the fruitfullest Subject in the World given them both to turn off all the Objections of the Christians against themselves for worshipping senseless and inanimate things and also to lay the most plausible Charge of folly and madness against them which their great Orator * Cicero l. 3. de Nat. Deorum Ecquem tam amentem esse putas qui illud quo vescatur Deum credat esse had pronounced before Christianity was a Religion in the World. Can any Man be supposed so mad to believe that to be a God which he eats A Learned Romanist †Rigaltius notis ad Tertal lib. 2. c. 5. ad Vxorem Se id facere in Eucharisticis suis testarentur affirms of the Ancient Christians That they did testify their eating the Flesh and drinking the Blood of their Lord God in their Discourses of the Eucharist Which is true indeed taking this eating and drinking in the Sacramental Sence we do and so their Adversaries must needs understand their meaning Otherwise without a Miracle to hinder it what be acknowledges in the same place could never be true (a) Ibid. Observandum vero inter tot probra convitia accusantium Christianos impietatis eò quod neque aras haberent neque sacrificarent interque tot fratrum perfidorum transfugia non extitisse qui Christianos criminarentur quod Dei ac Domini sui carnes ederent sanguinem potarent That among so many Reproaches of those that accused Christians of Impiety for not having Altars nor Sacrifices and among so many false Brethren that were Turn-coats yet there were none that made this an Accusation against them that they ate 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
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. Chrysinat Inest Veritas signo Spiritus Sacramento speaking of Chrysm 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 Christ is in that Sacrament 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 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 verus 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 Math. 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 Cyril 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 nostra 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 in the 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 in the Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist is contained truly really and Substantially the Body and Blood of Christ but shall say That he is in it only as in a Sign or Figure or Virtue And the Catechism ad Parochos (h) Part. 2. de Eucharist n. 25. says That the True Body of our Lord Christ the same that was born of the Virgin and sits in the Heavens at the Right-hand of the Father is contained in this Sacrament I will now
shew that the Fathers advance such Positions as plainly contradict this Doctrine 1 Position The Fathers ever since Christ's departure and Ascension into Heaven look upon his Body as absent from Earth tho' in another sense he is still present All those Testimonies before produced under the Fifth Difference concerning Bodies being commensurate to Space and not being in more places than one and saying this of Christ's Body as well as of other Bodies are a Proof of this Position but besides those I will here add some further direct Proofs of it S. Ambrose thus (i) Com. in Luc. 24. Ascende nobis ut te sequamur mentibus quem oculis videre non possumus c. Ergo non supra terram nec in terra nec secundùm carnem quaerere te debemus si volumus invenire Nunc enim secundùm carnem non novimus Christum Maria quia quaerebat in terra tangere non potuit Stephanus tetigi◠quia quaesivit in coelo Stephanus inter Judaeos vidit absentem Ascend speaking to Christ that we may follow thee with our Minds whom we cannot see with our Eyes S. Paul has taught us how we should follow thee and where we may find thee Seek those things that are above where Christ sits c. Therefore we ought not to seek thee upon Earth nor in the Earth nor according to the Flesh if we would find thee Mary could not touch him because she sought him on Earth Stephen touched him because he sought him in Heaven Stephen among the Jews saw him absent S. Austin is so copious in this Argument and his Testimonies so many that a good Choice of them is only necessary Thus he says (k) Serm. 140. de Tempore Ideo Dominus noster absentavit se corpore ab omni Ecclesia ascendit in coelum ut fides aedificetur si enim non nòsti nisi quod vides ubi est fides Therefore our Lord absented himself from every Church and ascended into Heaven that our Faith may be edified for if thou knowest nothing but what thou seest where is Faith Again (l) Serm. 60. de Verb. Dom. Semper quidem Divinitate nobiscum est sed nisi corporaliter abiret à nobis semper ejus corpus carnaliter videremus nunquam spiritualiter crederemus Christ is always with us by his Divinity but unless he were corporally absent from us we should always carnally see his Body and should never spiritually believe This is a clear Testimony that Christ is absent as to his Natural Body and that if it were not so he would be visible to us still Again (m) Tract 50. in Joannem Loquebatur de praesentia corporis sui nam secundùm Majestatem suam secundùm Providentiam secundùm ineffabilem invisibilem Gratiam impletur quod ab eo dictum est Ecce ego vobiscum omnibus diebus c. Secundùm carnem vero quam assumpsit secundùm id quod de Virgine natus est c. non semper habebitis me vobiscum expounding those words The Poor ye have always with you but me ye have not always He spake this says he concerning the Presence of his Body For according to his Majesty according to his Providence according to his unspeakable and invisible Grace that is fulfilled which he said Behold I am always with you c. But according to the Flesh which he assumed according to what was born of the Virgin c. directly contrary to the Trent Catechism ye shall not have me always with you And in another place (n) Serm. 120. de diversis Secundùm praesentiam pulchritudinis divinitatis suae semper cum patre est secundùm praesentiam corporalem jam supra coelos ad dextram patris est secundùm praesentiam vero fidei in omnibus Christianis est According to the beautiful Presence of his Divinity he is always with the Father according to his corporal Presence he is now above the Heavens at the right hand of the Father he forgot to add and in the Holy Sacrament but according to the Presence of Faith so he is in all Christians What can be more plain than another Saying of his (o) Serm. 74. de diversis Credimus in eum jam sedentem ad dextram patris sed tamen quamdiu sumus in corpore peregrinamur ab eo nec eum dubitantibus vel negantibus dicentibus Vbi est Deus tuus valemus ostendere We believe on him who sits now at the right hand of the Father but yet whilst we are in the Body we are absent as in a strange Country from him nor can we shew him to those that doubt to those that deny him and say Where is thy God If S. Austin had believed as the Roman Church do's the Corporal Presence of Christ in the Eucharist he could have pointed to him upon the Altar if any had asked Where is thy God Cyril of Alexandria (p) In Joan. 9.5 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 says Tho' Christ be absent from the World as to his Flesh yet he is present to those that are in him and to the whole Universe by his Divine and Ineffable Nature neither is he absent from any Creature nor distant from any but is every where present to all and fills the whole Universe And elsewhere (q) In Joan. 17.12 speaking of the Disciples who thought it a great loss to them that being taken up to Heaven he would now be absent according to his Flesh he says They ought not only to have respected and looked to his Fleshly Presence 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but to have understood that tho' he was separated from their Society according to the Flesh nor could be seen by their bodily Eyes yet that he was present and assistant always by the Power of his Divinity Fulgentius (r) Ad Trasimund l. 2. c. 17. Unus idemque secundùm humanam substantiam absens coelo cùm esset in terra derelinquens terram cum ascendisset in coelum Secundùm Divinam vero immensamque substantiam nec coelum dimittens cùm de coelo descendit nec terram deserens cùm ad coelum ascendit One and the same Christ according to his Humane Substance was absent from Heaven when he was upon Earth and left Earth when he ascended up to Heaven but according to his Divine and Immense Substance neither left Heaven when he descended from Heaven nor forsook Earth when he ascended into Heaven Again (s) Id. ibid. c. 18. Quomodo corporaliter ascendit in coelum in sus fidelibus praedicatur esse in terra si non est in illo divinitatis immensitas quae coelum implere possit terram How did he corporally ascend into Heaven and yet is said to be in the Faithful on Earth unless the Immensity of the Divinity be in him which can fill Heaven and Earth Yes a Romanist would have told him of another way That even