viz. The three branches are three days The seven Kine and seven ears of Corn are seven years The four great Beasts are four Kingdoms Thou art that Golden head The Seed is the word the Field is the World the Reapers are the Angels the Harvest is the end of the World the Rock is Christ c. Should we omit I say all these and many other instances of this familiar Trope it would be easie to produce many expressions of the like import with them For doth not the Scripture say of that same hair which by Ezekiel was burnt 5 Ezek. 5. and cut and bound up in his skirt this is Jerusalem And of that water which the three mighty men procured for David 2 Sam. 23. â—7 this is the Blood of the men that went in Jeopardy of their lives Have we not clear and pregnant instances of Sacramental Tropes in Scripture and in Jewish Writers doth not our Saviour call the Paschal-lamb the Passover doth not he say the Cup is the New Testament and was it not familiar with the Jewes to say of their unleavened Bread this is that Bread of affliction which our Fathers did eat and of the Lamb that it was Corpus Paschatis or the memorial of the Passover Buxt de Caena Dom §. 25. And is it therefore any absurdity to think Christ should affirm of Sacramental Bread designed to signifie and represent his Body broken for us and to conveigh the blessings he had purchased by the oblation of it on the Cross This is my Body Fifthly This Answer will render us unable to confute the Marcionites the Valentinians and the Manichaeans who thought Christs Body to be only the appearance of a Body and so denied the Article of his Incarnation and his real Passion This fond imagination the ancient Fathers did confute by Mediums which overthrows this answer and the whole Doctrine of Transubstantiation nor can it be sufficiently confuted by men of T. G's Principles 1 The ancient Fathers did confute it from this principle that we must certainly believe the evidence of Sence and that to doubt the certainty of what our sences apprehend is to endanger all Religion Tertullian discourseth thus a Non licet nobis in dubium sensesistos revorate ne in Ghristo de fide corum deliberetur Ne forte dicatur quod salso patris vocem audierit de ipso testificatum Recita Johannis testa ionem quod vidimus inquit quod audivimus quod manibus nostris palpavimus c. falsa utique testatlo si oculorum aurium manuum sensus natura mentitur de anima Cap. 17. B. C it is not lawful to doubt of our Sences least the same doubt be made concerning Christ least peradventure it should be said he was deceived when he heard the voice of his Father testifying concerning him Recite the Testimony of St. John what we have heard with our Ears and our Eyes have seen and our Hands have handled of the word of Life that declare we to you The Testimony verily is false if nature do deceive us in the Testimony of our Eyes and Ears and Hands And in his Book de Carne Christi he speaks thus b Sed qui carnem Christi putativam introduxit aeque potuit nativitatem quoque phantasma configere ut conceptus praegnatus partus Virginis Ipsrus exindeinfantis ordo 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 haberentur eosdem oculos eosdemque sensus fefellissent quos carnis opinio elusit cap. 1. He that doth introduce the Tenet of the Imaginary Flesh of Christ hath equal reason to introduce an imaginary Nativity and to assert the Conception Pregnance and the Virgins Birth and the whole Order of the Infant was Phantastical for they would only have deceived the same Eyes and Sences which were deceived by the opinion of his Flesh 2. They argue thus that if Christ had no real Flesh and if he did not suffer really the Sacrament cannot duely be stiled the Image Figure Symbol Type Similitude Memorial or Representation of his real Flesh c Acceptum panem distributum Discipulis corpus illum suum secit hoc est corpus meum dicendo id est figura Corporis mei Figura autem non suisset nisi veritatis esset Corpus Caeterum vacua res quod est phantasma figuram capere non possit Quid tune voluerit significasse panem satis declaravit corpus suum vocans panem Tertul. contra Marcionem l. 4. c. 40. Christ saith Tertullian said This is my Body i. e. the figure of my Body but it had been no figure unless the Body had been true for a Phantasme can have no figure But what he would have Bread to signifie he hath sufficiently declared calling Bread his Body and therefore thus he sums up his discourse d Panis calicis Sacrimento jam in Evangelio probavimus corporis sanguinis Dominici veritatem adversus phantasma Marcionis l. 5. c 8 against the Phantasme of Marcion We have proved the verity of Christs Body and Blood by the Sacrament of Bread and Wine And Maximus who flourished Anno Dom. 190. discourseth thus e Apud Orig. Dial. 3. part 2. If Christ as these Men say were without Body and Blood of what kind of Elesh or of what Body or of what kind of Blood did he give the Bread and Cup to be Images of when he commanded his Disciples by them to make a Commemoration of him Theodoret against the Eutichians disputeth thus f 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 4. p. 84 85. That the Flesh of Christ was not transformed into the nature of the Godhead because that Christians do participate of the Signs of his Body Now had this been the Doctrine of the Church of Christ that this blessed Sacrament contained his very Flesh and Blood they had much weakned their argument by those expressions for what is more convincing then this inference if Christians in the Sacrament do eat Christs real Flesh and Blood then must his Flesh and Blood be real if they do eat Christs real Body he had a real Body Secondly Why do they so absurdly and untruly set the Sacrament in opposition to Christs real Body as the Figure stands opposed to the Truth Thirdly why do they all expresly say the Bread and Wine are Types and Symbols and Remembrances of his Body and Blood and that of them he said This is my Body and my Blood seeing such Speeches cannot properly be true but must admit a Figure But Secondly These Hereticks can never be confuted by Men of T. G's Principles for hath the Roman Catholick one Text of Scripture to build his Dream upon so hath the Marcionite that passage of St. Paul which tells us that as in the Eucharist we have the shape of bread and yet no real bread so Christ was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the shape of Man and yet no Man as we have
That when the Encratitae held it unlawful to drink Wine the Fathers did confute them by this very Argument That Christ himself drank Wine and did appoint it to be received in the Sacrament Wherefore did he not drink Water after his Resurrection but Wine saith Chrysostom that he might pull up by the Roots another wicked Heresie for because there are some who in the Mysteries use Water declaring that when he delivered the Mysteries he delivered Wine and that when he rose and spread a Common Table without the Mysteries he used Wine he saith I will not drink of the fruit of the Vine Now the Vine produceth Wine not Water Chrysost Hom. in Mattheum 12. p. 511. l. 12. Edit Eton. g 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Clem. Alex. Paedag. l. 2. c. 2. p. 158. B. Ed. Paris 1641. Be ye sure saith Clemens to the Encratitae he also did drink Wine for he blessed Wine when he said take drink this is my Blood the Blood of the Vine but that the thing which had been Blessed was Wine he shewed again saying to his Disciples I will not drink of the fruit of this Vine till I drink it new with you in my Fathers Kingdom h Illud quod lex dicit quia sanguis est anima esse positum dicimus sicut alia multa paenè â—mnia Scripturarum illarum Sacramenta lignis â—guris N. B. plena sunt suthrae pradicationis quae jam per Donm â—â—strum Jesu dâ—clatate est Contr. Adiman Coy 12. Sic est enim sanguis anima quo modo Petta erat Christus sicut dicit Apostolus bibehant enim de spirituali sequence eos Petra Petra autem erat Christus Notum est autem filâ—s Israel Petra percussa bibisse aquam in cremo de quibus loquebatur Apostolus cum haec diceres nec tamen ait Petra significabat Châ—istum â—sed ait Petra erat Christus quz rursus ne Garnaliter accipererur spiritualem illam vocat Ib. Cap. 12. Now had not the Sacramental Cup been truly Wine this Argument would have been frivolous and vain Had not they held as the Church of England their answer must have been a contradiction to the Doctrine of the Church of Christ Secondly The Manichees to prove the contradiction betwixt the Gospel and the Law opposed to that saying of our Saviour that none was able to cause the Soul to perish that of Moses that the Blood was the Soul To this St. Austin answers those words may be expounded thus the Blood is that is it signifies the Soul this he confirms 1. by this general assertion that almost all the Sacraments of those Scriptures are full of signs and figures of the future Preaching which is now declared by Christ and I am apt to think they were such signs and figures as were not properly converted into what they signified Seconly this he illustrates by a double instance †So is Blood the Soul as the Rock was Christ they drank of the spiritual Rock that followed them and that Rock was Christ he said not the Rock signified Christ but the Rock was Christ 2. I may expound it thus saith he * Blood is the Soul that is it signifies the Soul because our Saviour did not doubt to say this is my body when he gave the sign of his body since then as the Rock is Christ and as the signs and figures of the Old Testament are what thâ—â— Typified in the New so is the Bread Christs Boâ—â— It is wonderfully evident that in St. Austin's Judgment it is Christs Body not by conversion into Christs real Body but by signification of it k Nam ex â—o quod sâ—riptum est sanguinem pecoris animam ejus esse possum interpretaâ—i preceptum illud in signo esse positum non enim Dominus dubitavit dicere hoc est corpus meum cum signum daret sui corporis bl yea by such signification as excludes Christs body from being corporally present under the accidents of Bread for else the Manichees might have replyed upon St. Austin and given him the baffle thus as the sign not only signified Christs real Body but contained it too so must the Blood not only signifie but really contain the Soul Therefore it is apparent that in St. Austin's time the words of Christ were so interpreted by the Orthodox as to exclude Transubstantiation and to confirm the exposition of the Protestants Thirdly The Nestorians and Eutichians asserted that Christs humane nature was absorpt and changed into the Deity this some of them affirmed to be done after his Resurrection and Ascension only but others that it was thus changed at his Conception whence they affirm that whilst he lived on Earth he had the form and shape of man but not his proper nature For Illustration and Confirmation of these Heresies they urge †〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ΟΡΘ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ΕΡΑ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ΟΡΘ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ΕΡΑ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ΟΡΘ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ΕΡΑ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ΟΡΘ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Theodoret. To. 4. Dial. 2. p. 84 85. the Doctrine of Transubstantiation and had the Bread and Wine by Consecration lost their natures had they been really changed into Christs Flesh and Blood no greater Confirmation of their Heresie no fitter illustration of their Tenet could be well imagined for thus the similitude would run First That as in the Eucharist there is only the outward shape and form of Bread and not the real substance even so in Christ there was the shape and form of Flesh but not the very nature Secondly Even as in the Eucharist the essential form and material substance of Bread and Wine are swallowed up and converted into the Body and blood of Christ so likewise after Christs ascension the humane nature is absorpt and converted into the Deity What is it therefore that the Fathers answer do they confess the thing and say Transubstantiation was the Tradition of the Church and was the Doctrine of the Scriptures but that no like Tradition nor evidence from Scripture can be produced in favour of the Doctrine of the Eutichians and Nestorians which is the only thing that can be answered by men of T. G's principles No they expresly say and that in words as plain full as any Protestant could use that this similitude doth overthrow the Doctrine it was brought to justisie * Certe imago similitudo corporis sanguinis Christi in actione Mysteriorum celebrantur satis ergo nobis evidenter ostenditur hoc nobis in ipso Christo Domino sentiendum quod in ejus imagine profitemur celebramus sumus Ut sicut in hance scilicet in divinam transeant Sacramenta Sancto Spiritu perficiente substantiam permanentes tamen in suae proprietate-naturae sic illud ipsum mysterium principale cujus nobis effâ—eientiam virtutemque veraciter representant Gelasius de duabus naturis in Christo contra Euthich
can be more what Freshman knows not that a true Syllogism hath but three terms and cannot possibly admit of more it being built on this foundation that quae conveniunt in aliquo tertio c. But he hath been so liberal as to afford us five of six and give us a conclusion from the premises which never was contained in them Let us put it into to better form and see if it have any strength or evidence thus then what ever is taken by the Roman Catholick for any object of his worship must be offirmed by the Roman Catholick to be But Bread in holy Eucharist is not affirmed by the Roman Catholike to be Ergo Bread in the holy Eucharist is not taken by the Roman Catholick for any object of his worship This Demonstration is so exceedingly convincing that we grant the whole For though we do unanimously judge that Papists in the Eucharist do worship Bread and so are guilty of Idolatry yet no man ever thought that they imagined they did worship Bread or take Bread for the object of that worship which they call Latria to shew the vanity and folly of this pretended Demonstration let us see what service it will do unto the Heathens what ever is taken for an object of Divine worship the understanding must affirm to be so for neither the Aegyptians had made the Sun the object of that worship nor yet the Israelites the Calf if their understanding had not first affirmed them to be so But Heathens do not in their minds affirm an evil Spirit or a Creature to be an object of Divine worship but do conceive the object of their worship to be God therefore the object of the Heathens worship is not an evil Spirit or a Creature but God This is that weighty Demonstration which our Author boasts of Having now fully answered all the exceptions of T. G. I will assume the confidence to say that notwithstanding all his out-cryes of a clear disparity and his malitious imputations of want of Reason and Conscience in the Dr. who asserts the contrary I have made it clearer than the light that he hath not been able to say one word which is not manifestly false or doth not equally excuse the †This conselâ—â—d by Gatherings in these words Audi in hosâ—in com adoratur Christus ad Deus non simplicitur sed ut existens fulâ— his speciebus cum igitur ibi non existat Christus sed Creatura pro Christo invenitur cui exhibetur Latria Idolatria est Idoloatre enim etiam hae errant ratione qui caelum puta aut aliquid aliud adorabant putantes se ibi adorare Deum quem animam mundi dicebant juxta Varronis Theologiam Cathar advers nova dogmain Cajetani T it de veneratione storump 134.135 Heathen and the Roman Catholick and consequently that the discourse of Dr. St. was strong and nervous and such as only Rats can answer and shall content my self with this one corollary that T. G. may be highly confident and boast of Demonstration when he vents nothing besides plain non-sense and apparent folly And now to put an issue to this proposition if men may properly be said to do and equitably may be charged with doing what they did not intend because their action in effect is that which they conceived it not to be as is apparent from a Thousand Scripture instances then may the Papist be equitably charged with Idolatry and properly affirmed to commit it provided the material object of his Latria should be only Bread although he doth not in the least intend to give the highest worship to Bread for since Idolatry is only Latria given to or terminated on the Creature and seeing Bread is most assuredly a Creature Latria terminated upon Bread can be no other than Idolatry but if men must be thought to do only what they intend then every action must be good provided it be well intended and Murther Theft Rebellions Perjuries Equivocations must be sacred actions provided they be done for the promotion of Gods glory and the propagation of the Roman saith which Doctrines thought they are taught and daily practised by the members of the Roman Church yet are they villanies too dangerous to be espoused by the English Papists To attribute by way of honour Prop. 2. §. 2. worship or respect that knowledge to a Creature which for any thing we know unto the contrary is only due to the Creator is to be guilty of Idolatry For first That which is not of Faith is Sin Rom. 14.23 what therefore is a sin because it attributeth to the Creature what may be due to the Creator only must be the sin of giving to the Creature what is due to God and so being an Act of Worship must be the sin of Idol Worship for as the man who doth assert what he conceives to be uncertain for a certain truth is by all Casuists esteemed a Lyar though what he doth assert should prove a truth because he doth assert that for a certain Truth which he conceives may be a Lye And as that Woman who performs the duties of a Wife to any person of whom she doubts that he is not her Husband is to be esteemed an Adulteress although he be indeed her Husband with whom she thus converseth because by doing of this Action whilst the doubt remaineth she doth that Action which for any thing she knows unto the contrary may be plain Adultery So he that performeth that honour to a Creature which he suspecteth only to be due to God must be pronounced guilty of Idolatry however he perform that Worship only which is due unto the Creature because by doing of it whilst any cause of doubt remaineth he shews an inclination to perform it to the Creature though it belonged not to him and in effect doth say I have just reason to suspect this Worship doth belong to God alone yet will I give it to a Creature Suppose the Bread when duely consecrated Prop 3. §. 3. were certainly converted into the Body of our Lord yet since according to the Doctrine of the Church of Rome this consecration often is and may be hindred by many secret defects which do not fall under the Cognisance of him that Worships a man may rationally doubt of every particular Host presented to his adoration that it is only Bread This a Carnettus quidem cum tale quid ab eo quaeretetur respondisse dicitur Merito dubitari de eo posse nec vel se vel alium quenquam teneri temerè credere aut salutem suam credendo in diserimen adducere quod vel ipse seilicet vel alius quis in individuo sacerdos vel hoc vel certo alio consecrationis suae rempore panem Transtubstantiando Christi corpus conficiat Sratui forsitan posse in genere atque indefinitè quod Transubstantiatio sit quod ab aliquo alicubi Sacerdore tale quid aliquando fieripossit Epistopus
Eliensis Respon ad Apol. Bel. pag. 7. Garnet openly confessed and therefore though they stande obliged to believe that the Bread is Transubstantiated some where or other at some time or other by some Priest or other yet they think no man is obliged to believe that any Priest now or at any one certain time does consecrate effectively And this concession is not very liberal if we consider what is acknowledged by Suarez b Multae sut causae propter quas potest accidere ut Christus non sit praesens ut si sacerdos non sit baptizatus vel non sit ritè ordinatus quod pendet ex multis aliis causis quibus ferè in infinitum progredi possumus ut ex parte materiae saepe accidit defectus Suarez in 3 Thom. qu. 79. Art 8. Disp 65.2 That we may almost infinitely proceed in the enumeration of the defects which will obstruct Christs presence in the Holy Sacrament For as we are informed by the Roman Missal if the c Si aliquid desit ex iis quae ad integritatem verborum in ipsâ consecratione requiruntur Verba autem consecrationis quae sunt forma hujus Sacramenti sunt haec hoc est enim corpus meum hic est enim calix sanguinis mei novi aeterni Testamenti misterium fidei qui pro vobis pro multis effundetur in remissionem peccatorum Si quis autem aliquid diminueret vel immutaret de forma consecrationis corporis sanguinis in ipsa verborum immutatione verba idem non significarent non Conficeret sacramentum Miss Rom. de Defec Miss p. 35. Priest happen to diminish or alter any of the words of Consecration so that the sense be varied or any word belonging to the form of Consecration be ontitted in all these cases Christ is not present in the Sacrament but it remaineth Bread now since the form of Consecration of the Cup containeth 11 words and so is the more subject to diminution or alteration seeing the Priest doth always speak the words of Consecration in a d Si quis dixerit Ecclesiae R. ritum quo submissa voce pars canonis verba consecrationis proseruntu◠damnandum esse aut lingua tantum vulgari missam celebrari debere anathema sit Concil Trid Sess 22. Can. 9. secret voice and not to be heard and in the Latine Tongue none of the People can be certain that he speaks the words of Consecration so fully and so regularly as to secure them from Worshipping a piece of Bread Secondly e Si panis non sit triticeus vel si triticeus sit admixtus granis alterius generis in tanta quan titate ut non maneat panis triticeus vel sit alioqui corruptus non conficitur Sacramentum ibid. pag. 34. If the Bread be corrupted or if it be not Wheaten-Bread then is it not converted into Christs Body and if the Wine be sowre or turned into Vinegar if it be made of unripe Grapes if it be mixt with so much Water as will corrupt the Wine then is it not converted into the Blood of Christ Now by what means the person that adores the Sacrament can be assured that the Bread and Wine is subject unto none of these defects it is not easie to conceive f Si vinum sit factum pe nitus acetum vel penitus putridum vel de uvis acerbis seu non maturis expessum vel admixtum tantum aquae ut vinum sit corruptum non conficitur Sacramentum ibid. Thirdly g Siquis non intendit conficere sed delusorie aliquid agere non consecrat quiarequiritur inten tio ibid. P. 35.36 If the Priest have uo intention to consecrate the Bread and Wine if in this matter he acts dilusorily if he be asecret Atheist a Moor a Jew in all these cases the person Worshiping must give Latria to a Creature if none of all this happen yet h Quicquid horum deficit scilicet mat eria debita for ma cum intentione ordo Sacerdotalis in conficiente non consicitur Sacramentum ib. p. 34. if the Consecrated Priest were not Baptized with due form of words or if the Person that Baptized him doth not intend to do as the Church doth if he be not a Priest which often happens saith Pope * In quaest quodlib quaest 3. Adrian and certainly falls out when he that doth Ordain him doth noth not intend to do so or faultreth by diminution of or by addition to the form of Ordination so that the sence is changed or made imperefct or lastly if the Bishop that Ordain'd this Priest that doth now Consecrate were not himself Ordained and Baptized with due matter form and intention or if this happened to any Priest to Bishop before him or any one in the same Line of Ordainers till you come unto St. Peter that is if this hath happen'd out in sixteen hundred years then will the Elements remain still Bread and Wine as wanting Consecration by a real Priest for Baptism and Ordination being necessary requisites to Priesthood he who by the defect of these is only a supposed Priest can give but a supposed Priesthood and they that do receive their Priesthood or do derive it from such as have received it from them can receive nothing but a shadow it being undeniably certain that the unsupplyable defect of any necessary antecedent doth cause a nullity in all those consequences which depend upon it So that no R. Catholick can be assured he doth not Worship Bread without he can have no assurance there being no necessity that they should be true From the consideration of all these defects it is exceeding evident That all that live in the Communion of the Church of Rome and daily practice the adoration of the Host are unavoidably subjected to the continual peril of Idolatry and have just reason to suspect although the Doctrine of Transubstantiation should in the general be certain that the material object of their Worship is but Bread and Wine On this Objection T. G. reflects with so much insolence and triumph as if it were the vainest scruple that a tongue could utter and had been managed by the Dr. with the greatest weakness And yet so little reason had he to be thus insolent and pert that by his first reply unto it he hath quite overthrown the Roman Cause and given all considering persons such a clear convincing motive to desert the Church of Rome that nothing can be more prevailing For thus he speaks The absurdness of the assertion that another mans defect and wickedness should make me incur the Crime of Idolatry whether I will or no might suffice to make any reasonable man depose so Chimerical a seruple This I confess is a most clear and certain truth that it is infinitely absurd to say I should be guilty of so great a Crime only by reason of anothers fault or wickedness But then it must
on the diseased Christians if then in all those Miracles we cannot find one instance which was not made apparent to the senses of mankind what reason have we to esteem this so Besides is not a Miracle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or a sign sure I am the Scripture often calls it so and is not every sign declared by St. * Signum est res praeter speciem quam ingerit sensibus aliud aliquid ex se faciens in cogitationem venire De Doctrina Christiana l. 2. c. 1. Austin to be something sensible whereby we do perceive what is not sensible what therefore is no object of the sence can be no sign or Miracle Secondly we cannot possibly obtain a greater evidence that any Revelation is Divine than is the evidence of sence whence it doth follow that we can have no reason to believe a Revelation more than we do our sences as T. G. asserts for all the certainty we have of any object of our Faith depends on our assurance that the deliverers of it were infallibly assisted by the Divine Wisdom in that delivery and is not this attested by the Miracles they wrought the Prophesies they delivered the Doctrine they taught and that by sence should any of them be questioned must not we recur unto the sences of the Primitive Christians to confirm them and must they not then be the ultimate foundation of our Faith and our Traditions must we not be surer of the proof than of the thing proved And consequently of the evidence of sense than that of Faith which deriveth from it if not why Secondly doth our Lord pronounce them rather Blessed who believe and have not seen 20 Joh. 29 than Thomas who first saw and felt and then believed is it not because they do it upon lesser though sufficient evidence and so their Faith is more illustrious and praise worthy Thirdly should it be otherwise how cometh it to pass that men are equally assured of what equally they see but have not the like fulness of perswasion in what they believe That being once assured of the objects of sence they can admit of no greater certainty whereas after all our boasts of a Plerophory of Faith we have still need to strive and labour to encrease it Since then the certainty of Faith is proved inferior to that of sence It is not possible we should have greater reason to believe a Revelation or any matter of our Faith than to believe our sences as T. G. suggests hence also it doth follow that we can have no greater reason to believe that these four words this is my body are contained in Scripture or that they do assert the Sacrament to be Christs Body than that assurance which the sences of all Christians do afford us that it remaineth Bread And Thirdly hence it follows that we can have no greater reason to profess the Christian Faith than we have to reject the Figment of Transubstantiation Answer 3. As for that vain pretence that Christ hath said this is his Body and therefore we stand bound to think that he doth work a Miracle to make it so although it be against the sence and reason of mankind that he should do it This will oblige us also to believe that by some other like prodigious Miracle before his Incarnation he was Transubstantiated into the Rock which ministred water to the Jews during their Travels in the Wilderness for of that it is expresly said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Cor. 10.4 or that Rock was Christ 2. This will oblige us to believe that Christ hath neither Flesh nor Blood because the Scripture doth assure us that Flesh and Blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of God 1 Cor. 15.50 which yet Christ Jesus doth inherit We unbelieving Protestants perhaps might think it strange that Christ should have neither Flesh nor Blood yet the Sacrament should be his very Flesh and Blood but as for you you know the danger of not believing God more than your sences and your reasons and therefore this and many thousand contradictions of like nature can be no reason why you should not embrace the Letter 3. This will oblige us to be Anthropomorphites and to confess that all the arguments which have been urged against that Tenet by the Church of Christ are vain and ineffectual for Scripture hath not only said that man was made after the likeness and similitude of God but also doth in very many places attribute unto him the parts and members of an humane body what then will you oppose against them sence and reason T. G. will give this answer for them that they well know the danger of not believing Holy Scripture more than their sences or their reason Will you confute them by a Text of Scripture which seems to contradict their Doctrine alas that which is often stiled Bread must not be thought to be so because Christ hath once said it is his body and can we be so vain as to imagine that one ambiguous passage 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which may be rendred God makes or searcheth God loves or seeks the Spirit 4 Joh. 24. should carry it against so many which more expresly do ascribe unto him the members of an humane body or shall we fly unto Tradition alas is it not that which is derived from the sences of those men which in the matter of Transubstantiation have been all constantly deceived and if their hearing be a sufficient ground of Faith against the Doctrine of the Anthropomorphites must not their eyes and tast and smell and feeling be as cogent against the Doctrine of Transubstantiation Fourthly This must oblige us to believe what is the greatest Blasphemy viz. That Christ by all the Miracles he wrought among them gave no sufficient motive to the Jews to own him for the true Messiah for all his Miracles were only motives to believe that Law should be abolished which God hath often said should last 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or for ever Doth nor he tell them that the things he had revealed belonged to them and to their Children for ever Deut. 29.29 Exod. 12.17 that they might do all the things of this Law Doth not he call the Passover an everlasting Statute Hath not he said the Law of their first fruits shall be a Statute for ever throughout their Generations 23 Lev. 14 And if you answer that this word Gnolam doth not alwayes signifie an infinite duration but is sometimes used for such duration as admits a period and so must not be urged against so great conviction of their sence and reason Will not this answer justifie the Protestants when they produce so many instances to shew that when a thing in Scripture is stiled this or that the meaning only is that it doth signifie what it is said to be for to omit those passages so often cited 40 Gen. 12. 41 Gen. 26. 7 Dan. 38. 8 Luk. 11. 13 Mat. 38 39.
evident that all the instances produced leave it uncertain whether St. Ambrose did intend a proper change of substance or only a change of qualities and vertues Secondly had Ambrose only given instances of a substantial change it would not hence have followed that he did intend to prove the Sacramental Symbols were so changed but only a majori to prove that he who was the Author of such substantial mutations could certainly effect that change which was but accidental Thus from the substantial conversion of water into Wine he proves u Credendum jam est ex hoc mortalem hominem in immortalitatem posse converti quando vilis substantia in pretiosam conversa est substantiam Serm. 19. we ought to think that God can change our mortal into a glorious and immortal body which change is only accidental and from x Si ergo inquit superveniens Spiritus Sanctus in virginem conceptionem operatus est generationis munus implevit non utique dubitandum est quod superveniens in fontem vel super eum qui Baptismum consequitur veritatem regeneratiouis cooperetur cap. 9. de his qui initiantur the supernatural production of our Lord by vertue of the holy Ghost he in this very Chapter proves we must not doubt but the same Spirit can Regenerate the Baptized person So that we see it is familiar with him to prove the possibility of accidental changes by examples of a change substantial Ob. St. Ambrose saith a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Act. Hom. 23. the Symbols are not what nature formed them but what the Benediction consecrated them Answ True because they are not only so but by this more excellent and Spiritual change obtain a name which is more excellent denominations being taken from the better Thus Chrysostom affirms That such is the power of Baptism that it doth not suffer men to be still Men. And Leo b De Pass Dom. Ser. 14. That the Baptized person is not the same-before and after Baptism And Epiphanius That when we are endowed with Temperance the Flesh it no more Flesh c 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Haeres 66. Whence yet it were ridiculous to argue that either Baptism or Teâ—perance offentially change either the flesh or nature of a Christian Ob. He affirms further That by this Benediction nature is changed Answ True but then that word not only in the Authors before mentioned but in St. d De Virg. l. 2. Haxamer l. 3. c. 2. Ambrose doth very often signisie only a change of quality and virtue For he affirms That Thecla changed the nature of the Beasts that were designed to devour her and that the Beasts themselves had changed their nature i.e. their fierceness and rapacity and in this very place he saith That the Nature of the water of the River Jordan was clearly changed because that it was driven back We must be told that Chrysostom doth say T. G. p. 303. that things that lye before us are not the works of humane power we only hold the the place of Ministers but he that Sanctifieth changeth them is Christ But then we must not know that in this very Homily the Consecrated Elements are stiled the Symbols of Christs Body In Mat. Hom. 82. p. 510. l. 36 and that disputing against Marcian and Valentinian who held Christ had no real Body he confutes and stops their mouth by saying That in the Blessed Sacrament we have the Symbol of that Body Whereas could he have truly said we have their real Flesh and Blood he had then spoken what would have more effectually confuted their absurd position 2. We must not know that in that very place he confutes the Heresie of the Encratitae P. 511. l. 10 15. by shewing That when our Lord delivered the Mysteries he delivered the Wine and that after his Resurrection he drank wine to verifie this saying I will no more drink of the Fruit of the Vine till I drink it new with you in my Fathers Kingdome Nor Thirdly That Christ in those Holy Mysteries doth give himself unto the Faithful but to none other P. 514. l. 28. But had we no such indications of the mind of Chrysostom the words themselves are very insignificative and unconcluding for that which Chrysostom affirmeth of the Eucharist that these things are not the works of humane power we Protestants acknowledge as knowing that it is no work of humane power to cause the virtue of the Holy Spirit to attend these Mysteries and to make that to be food of the Soul which naturally can only feed the Body He that thus Sanctifies and changeth these material Symbols must be God And hence St. Chrysostom informs us the case is just the same in Baptism That it is not an Angel who there moves the Water Hom. 35. in Joh In 1 ad Cor. Hom. 8. but that it is Lord of Angels 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 who works all things there That man doth nothing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but that it is the power of God that worketh all things And whereas he adds that it is he who Sanctifies these things and changeth them St. Cyril doth inform us Catech. Mystag 5. that whatsoever the Holy Spirit toucheth is Sanctified and Changed St. * Paedag. l. 3. c 2. In Cant. Hom 4. In Gen. Hom. 41. vid Albert de sacr Euch. l. 2. P. 545. Clemens That the Devil doth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i.e. transmute Women into Whores Nyssenus that Regeneration 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i.e. doth change us into the Sons of Light and of the day And Chrysostom himself informs us That to make the barren Womb to bear is an example of this Transmutation Such therefore we may rationally conceive that change to be of which St. Chrysostom here speaketh Gaudentius must tell us T. G. p. 306. That the Maker and Lord of natures who produceth Bread out of the Earth doth again of Bread because he can and hath promised to do it make his own Body and he who made Water of Wine maketh of Wine his own Blood But then we must not know Tract in Ex. 2. that in the same place he asserts That when our Saviour said This is my Body he gave to his Disciples Consecrated Bread and Wine Or that because our Saviour in the Gospel saith I am the true Vine he did sufficiently declare that all the Wine he offered in the figure of his Passion was his Blood or that we eat his Flesh when we receive his Doctrine which doth sufficiently confute the Roman Doctrine and shew the change of which Gaudentius speaks to be Spiritual and Mystical For if the Consecrated Signs be Bread and Wine they are not properly Christs Body if what is offered be a Figure of his Passion it is not the Truth For as Gandentius there telleth us figura non est veritas sed imitatio veritatis i.e. a figure is the imitation of the truth but
tenuisti Idem Tract 50. in Joh. T. eod p. 358 371. thou hast Christ present by faith and in the sign by the Sacrament of Baptism and the meat and drink of the Altar According to his carnal presence it is truly said to his Disciples me you shall not have alwayes how shall I send my hand to Heaven that I may hold him sitting there †send thy faith and thou dost hold him To conclude the Fathers po expresly say that Christ pronounced of the Bread this is my body and of the Wine this is my Blood which say the R. Doctors had our Lord affirmed we must have understood him figuratively and metaphorically For proof hereof B. Morton of the Mass l. 2. chap. 6. § 6 behold a Torrent of ancient Fathers pressing upon you Irenaeus Tertullian Origen Hierom Ambrose Agustine Cyril of Hierusalem Cyril of Alexandria Theodoret Gaudentius Cyprian Clemens of Alexandria and Isidore thirteen to the dozen whose sayings we may best know by their own Idiom and Tenure of speech 1. Accipiens panem corpus suum esse confitebatur Irenaeus l. 4. c. 57 The first noting Christ to have confessed Bread to have been his body The second Christ to have called Bread his body Third that Christs speech was spoken of Bread The fourth that that which he brake was Bread The fifth 2. Christus panem corpuâ— suum appellat Tertullianus adv Judeos that it was Bread which he brake The sixth that it was Bread of the Lord not Bread the Lord. The seventh that the words my Body were spoken of the Bread The eighth that Christ saith of the Bread this is my Body And the same Father as if he had studied to take away all scales of doubtfulness from the eyes of our minds 3 Nec matteria panis est sed super illum dâ—ctus sermo qui prodest non indigne comedent i. Orig in mat 15. illustrates the matter thus So saith he did Christ call his Body Bread as elsewhere he calleth his Flesh a grain of Wheat except the grain of Wheat die it bringeth forth no fruit The ninth that Christ gave to the Bread the name of his Body The tenth that Christ said of the consecrated Bread this is my 4 Nos audiamus panem quem fregit Dominus esse corpus servatoris Hieron Ep. ad Helvid Qu. 2. 5. Panem fractum tradidit disâ—lpulis suis dicens Accipite hoc c. Ambrose l. 4. de Sacrament cap. 5. 6. Judas manducavit panem Domini c. Augustinus Tract 59. in Joh. Cyril Hieros 7. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Catech Myst 4 p 528. 8. Cum ipse Christus sic affirmat ac dicat de pane Hoc est corput meum c. Cyril Alez Catech. 4 9. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Theod. Dial. 1. c. 8. 10. Gaudent tract de rat sacra Body The eleventh 11. Vinum fuisse quod sanguinem suum dixit Christus Cyprian Ep. 63. that it was Wine which he called his Blood The twelfth that he blessed Wine when he said drink and the last the Bread strengthning mans Body was therefore called the Body of Christ To these citations add that of Cyprian and †Theophilus the Lord calleth Bread his Body which is made up of many grains 12. Clem. Alex. Paedag l. 2. c. 3. and that of Tatian or †Ammonius having taken the Bread then afterward the cup of Wine and testified it to be his Body and Blood 13. Panis quia confirmat corpus ideo corpus Christi nuncupatur I st dor l. 1. de officiis cap. 8. be commanded them to eat and drink thereof Forasmuch as it was the memorial of his future Passion and Death That also of * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Dial. 1 T. 4 p 17 Theodoret that in the institution of the mysteries Christ called Bread his Body and that which was mixt his blood And as if this was beyond all dispute he puts this question to the Heretique * ΟΡΘ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 EPAN 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ΕΡΑΠId. ibid. knowest thou that God called Bread his proper Body and makes him answer yea I know it By all which passages a Dominus corpus suum punem vocat Ep. 76. and many more that might be cited it appeareth that in those elder times the words of the institution were no otherwise conceived than as if Christ had plainly said this Bread is my Body and this Wine is my Blood b In Evan l 1 p 152 L. 2. and therefore that they did as certainly conceive the sense and meaning of these words c Mox accepto pane deinde vini calice corpus esse suum ac sanguinem restatus manducare illos jussit c. Ammon Harmon Evang. T. 3. Biblioth Patr. p. 28. this is my Body to be Metaphorical and figurative as any Protestant now doth note also by the way that this sufficiently checks the clamors of T. G. against the Doctor for saying they believe Bread to be God for let him put what sense he can upon the Fathers words the same will justifie the words of Dr. Stilling fleet which being Written to a Protestant Lady were very proper and lyable to no exception since they import this only that the Romanist believes that to be a God which we believe is Bread and to one of that perswasion the Doctors argument is a most powerful disuasive from the embracing of the Roman faith but to proceed To all these Fathers we will adjoyn three Councils The first is that of Carthage held An. Dom. 397. by above Two hundred Bishops whereof St. Austin and Aurelius were two which thus decrees that a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Cod. Can. Eccles Afr. c. 37. in the Holy mysteries nothing be offered but only the body and blood of the Lord. as also the Lord commanded it that is the Bread and the Wine mingled with water The second is that of Trull whose judgment Balsamon relateth in these words b 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Bals. in Can. 40. Syn. Carthag p. 653. The 32 Canon of the Synod of Trull giveth an ordinance at large that the unbloody Sacrifice be made with Bread and Wine mingled with water because Bread is the figure of the Lords body and the Wine a figure of his blood c In Can. 40. Concil Carthag p. 426 427. Zonaras saith the same In the Seventh Council of Constantinople held An. Dom. 754. by Three hundred thirty eight Bishops the Bread is called d 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the holy Image of Christ and the true Image of his natural body and the Image of his flesh given by God And this was certainly the Doctrine of the Church of England about 650 years agoe witness the Homily appointed publickly to be read to the People upon Easter-day before they did receive the Sacrament where we have these words viz. * Aeifrick Saxon Homily v.
ancient Fathers did pass as deep a censure on this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or God-eating as the Heathens did and looked upon it as an instance of the greatest madness and stupidity to Worship as a God what they did Eat and Sacrifice And upon all occasions did upbraid the Heathens for being so exceeding mad and stupid It must be infinitely certain that they neither did nor could conceive this Doctrine to be the mind of Christ or his Apostles or the received tradition of the Church of Christ If Christ when he administred this Sacrament did give to his Disciples his natural Body Arg. 3. §. 3. and his proper Blood then was his natural Body broken and his Blood actually poured out before his Passion for he administred this Sacrament before his Passion and what he then administred was if we may believe his words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i.e. his broken Body and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i.e. his blood shed or extravasated now since his body was then whole and not yet broken on the Cross for us seeing his Blood remained still in its proper Chanuels and neither Heart nor Hand were pierced to let it out and therefore what he did then administer could not in any natural and proper sence be stiled his body broken and his blood shed for us his words must necessarily be interpreted in such a Tropical and Sacramental sence as Protestants do plead for Add to this That if Christ gave his Body in the natural sence at the last Supper then it was either a Sacrifice propitiatory or it was not if it was not then it is not now and then their Dream of the Mass is vanished if it was propitiatory at the last Supper then God was reconciled to all the world and Mankind was redeemed before the Passion of our Blessed Saviour For Christ expresly saith that he then gave unto them his body which was given for us Luk. 22.19 Mat. 26.28 and his Blood shed for many for the remission of Sins which if we literally understand his future passion must be vain and needless so dreadful are the consequences of this portentous Doctrine If we may credit the Apostle Paul what we receive in the participation of the Holy Sacrament is Bread Arg. 4. §. 4. for after Consecration he so stiles it 1 Cor. 10.16 17. at the least five times The Bread which we break is it not the Communion of the Body of Christ for we are all partakers of this Bread Let a man examine himself 1 Cor. 11.28 and so let him eat of that Bread for as often as you eat this Bread and drink this Cup you shew the Lords Death c. Wherefore verse 26. whosoever shall eat this Bread and drink this Cup unworthily shall be guilty of the Body and Blood of Christ In which expressions it is five times said that what we eat and do partake of what is unto us the Communion of Christs Body and sheweth forth his Death and therefore what is Consecrated in this Holy Sacrament is still bread And is it not a wonder that one passage mentioned by our Saviour whilst he was alive and had his blood within his Veins should be esteemed sufficient to make us all believe that his whole body and so his hand was in his hand and that this Living Christ was also Dead and Sacrificed and that his blood was shed before he suffered on the Cross and also that the same Body which was whole before the Eyes of his Disciples was also broken for them and many thousand contradictions more and yet that what the Holy Ghost who knew the meaning of our Saviours words as well as any R. Catholick hath called so often Bread and seems to all our sences so to be should not be deemed sufficient to make us think it Bread If Christ had said This is my Body and the Holy Ghost had never said that it was Bread we might have had some reason to suspect our sences in this matter But when it is so oft in Scripture affirmed to be Bread and is but once affirmed to be the Body of our Lord and it is absolutely necessary that one of these two affirmations should be acknowledged to be Tropical that as great evidence as sence and reason can afford in any case whatsoever should be of no effect at all or have no influence to move or to instruct our Judgments how to pass sentence in this case but that it should be thought as rational all other circumstances being equal to determine against the greatest evidence of sence and highest reason as to determin according to the verdict of them both is most apparently absurd Add to this that the Apostles buisness in this place was to reprove those persons who prophaned this Sacrament 1 Cor. 11.26 27 28. and used it as Common Bread and so discerned not the Lords Body and to convince them of the greatness of the Sin committed by their unworthy eating of this Bread and therefore it concerned him the better to convince them of so great a Crime and to discover the vileness of this prophanation to have expresly told them That what they thus prophaned was the very Son of God that suffered for them this being a most signal aggravation of their guilt whereas to say so often that it was Bread was to extenuate the Crime and therefore we may rationally presume St. Paul would have exprest himself not as we Protestants are wont to do but according to the Judgment of the Roman Catholicks had he believed as they do God never wrought a miracle in confirmation of the Faith of any body Argum. 5. Sect. 5. but he still represented it unto their sences and made it apparent to their eyes ears feeling or their experience that he wrought it there is not one instance to be given to the contrary from Scripture or any humane Writer the Devil himself is not so impudent as to require his servants to believe he works a wonder without some cunning slight to cheat their sences and make them seem to see hear or tast what really they do not To this convincing evidence and demonstration T. G. returns this sorry answer P. 293. that such miracles as are done for the Conversion of unbelievers ought to be objects of our sence but this is not done upon such an account but for the Sanctification of those that believe already and for these it is enough that Christ hath said it is his body they know very well the danger of not believing him more than their sences Answer 1. We have in Scripture many instances of Miracles done not for the Conversion of unbelievers but for the benefit of those that did believe and such were all the standing Miracles that are recorded in the Book of Moses the Manna the water of Jealousie the Vrim and Thummim c. Such also were all the Miracles that the Apostles wrought
have been constrained to fly to a Trope if he had said this Bread is my Body this Wine is my Blood because this had been a predication of Disparates as they call it 2. That you may be assured that by denying it to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he only meant to say it was not Bread without the Grace of Christ and the assistance of his Spirit to conveigh the Blessings Christ hath purchased but did not mean that it was Bread converted into the real Body of our Lord He tells us the mutation is like to that of Ointment used in Baptism Be careful saith he that you do not think this is meer Oyntment Catech. Myst 3. p. 235. A. for as the Eucharistick Bread after the invocation of the Holy Ghost 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not yet meer Bread but Christs Body Even so that Holy Oyl as one may say is not after the Consecration meer and common Oyl but it is the Grace or Gift of Christ and is effective of the presence of the Holy Ghost It is not common Bread saith he it is therefore Bread it is Christs Body as the Ointment is the Grace of Christ but Grace it is not by Conversion for it remaineth Ointment still but by the Accession of Grace unto it and by the presence of the Spirit with it 3. He adds That when Christ said Catech. Myst 4. p. 287. c. except you eat my Flesh c. the Jews were scandalized as thinking that he had advised them to Sareophagy not understanding his words Spiritually This Eating of Christs Flesh must therefore be Spiritual and not Sarcophagy or Eating of Christs real Flesh which yet we cannot rationally deny if we do literally interpret that passage of St. John or with the Romanists conceive that what we in the Holy Sacrament do eat is that same Flesh of Christ which hung upon the Cross Lastly if both these Fathers had intended to assert that notwithstanding the Judgment of our Sences to the contrary we stand obliged to believe the Sacrament to be that very Flesh and Blood which Christ did offer on the Cross We have two others to oppose against them who do expresly argue that it remains still Bread and Wine because our sences judge it so to be o Quod ergo vidistis panis est Calix quod vobis etiam oeuli vestri renâ—â—tiant Aug. in Ser. de Sacr. apud Bedam in 1 Cor. 10. Ratranum de Corp. Sang. Domini vel in Serm. de verbis Domini ut citatur ab Algero l. 1. de Sacr. c. 5. That which you see saith St. Augustine is the Bread and the Cup which your very Eyes do declare unto you The Sacramental Signs do still retain their Essence and their Nature saith p 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Theod. Dial 2. c. 24. Theodoret And both our Eyes and Feeling tell us they are what they were before We conclude then with that of Chrysostom q Hom. 29. in Joh. by these Sences we exactly learn all things and we are conceived worthy of credit in teaching what we have received from the informations of our Eyes and Ears as not being guilty of fiction or falshood in those matters CHAP. IV. Contains 1. The judgment of Antiquity against Transubstantiation 2. An answer to T. G's allegations from the Fathers 3. The pretended Confessions of the Protestants 4. The Confessions of many Roman Catholiks that Transubstantiation is a novell upstart Doctrine 5. The Judgment of Antiquity declaring with unanimous consent that the Sacrament is but the Figure Type the Symbol or Memorial of Christs Blood and Body and not that self same Body which suffered on the Cross and that same Blood which he then shed as to the Nature and the Substance of them 6. A Corollary in vindication of the Dr. from the vain Cavils of T. G. HAving thus confirmed our Doctrine from Scripture Common Sence and Reason we might by infinite Demonstrations shew that it hath also the perpetual consent of all Antiquity Why else do they inform us That a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Justin Dial. 2. p. 28. A. Ed. Paris 1636. the substance of our Flesh is nourished and augmented by this Holy Sacrament is a truth so clear that b Species Sacramentales per candem rationem possunt converti in corpus humanum per quam possunt converti in Cineres vel in vermes ideo manifestum est quod nutriunt Aquin part 3. qu. 77. Act. 6. Roman Doctors do confess it and there needs nothing but experience for confirmation of it to any that dares question or dispute it For neither can the accidents augment or nourish nor can we without Blasphemy assert That Christs whole Body is properly converted into the substance of all those that do receive it Why do they tell us that albeit the Sacramental Signes do change their names after the Consecration yet do they still d Sacramenta quae sumimus corporis fanguinis Christi divina res est propter quod per eadem divinae consortes efficimur naturz tamen esâ—e non desuat substantia vel natura panis vini Gelas contra Eutychen 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ephrem apud Phot. Bib. Cod 229. retain their former Natures Why do they tell us That e August in pars 98. Decr. dist 2. consecr Can. de Haec of that Sacrifice which Christ did offer on the Cross we neither do nor may partake why do they say that bread is by our Saviour stiled his body f Quando Dominus corpus suum panem vocat de mul rum gâ—anorum adunatione congestum quando sanguinem suuâ—◠〈◊〉 appellat de botris atque acinis plurimis expressum in unum coactum gregem nostrum sâ—gnificat commixtione adunatae multitudinis copulatum Cyprian Ep. 76. § 4. p. 247. which is made up of many Cornes and that Wine his blood which is pressed out of many Grapes Why do they frequently pronounce that Christ affirmed of the bread this is my body and of the Wine c Et quoniam â—â—embra ejus sumus per creaturam nutrimur creatura avtem ipse nobis praestat solem suum oriri faclens pluens quemadmodum vulr eum calicem qui est Creaturae N. B. suum sarguinem quâ—effusus est ex quo nostra auget corpora Et eum panem qui est a creatâ—ura suum corpus confirmavâ—â— ex quo nostra auget corpora Quando ergo mixtes calix fractus panis percipit verbum Dei fit Eucharistia sargâ—inis corporis Christi ex quibus augetur consistit carnis nostre substartia Quomodolcarnem negabunt esse capacem â—onationis Dei qui est vita aterna quz sanguine corpore Christ nutritus Iren. l. 5. c. 2. Pd. Colon. 1625. this is my blood I might be endless in these Interrogatives but I shall only add three things First
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that to be made doth not continually import a change of nature and therefore that this passage of St. Ambrose cannot with any certainty be thus interpreted Secondly we must not know what follows in that very Chapter to explain these words and to confute the Doctrine of Transubstantiation viz. p Si tant a vis Sermone Domini Jesu ut inciperent esse quae non erant quanto magis operatorius est ut sint quae erant N. B. in aliud commutentur ibid. if there be so great force in Christs words that by it things begin to be that which before they were not how much more operative must it be to cause that things be what they were and yet be changed into another Which words are extant thus in all the Ancient Maniscripts and old Editions of St. Ambrose and are thus cited by Guitmund Yvo Algerus Gratian and Anselm and in the old Editions of Lanfrancus though in the late Editions of St. Ambrose they are corrupted and to abet this fraud Lanfraneus in a new Edition is produced affirming that some Copies did admit a diverse lection We must not know what also here he doth affirm That q Sed forte dicis speciem sanguinis non video Sed habet fimilitudinem sicut enim similitudinem mortis sumpsisti ita etiam smilitudinem pretion sanguinis bibis ut nullus horror cruoris sit pretium tamen operetur redemptionis ibid. as we do receive in Baptism the likeness of his death so in the holy Sacrament do we receive the likeness of his pretious blood Again we must be told St. Ambrose saith * T. G. p. 305 de Sacram. l. 6 c 1. That as our Lord Jesus Christ is the true Son of God not as men are by Grace but as the Son of the substance of his Father so it is his very true Flesh as him self hath said which we receive and his very true Blood which we drink But then we must not know what follows to explain this passage and to confirm our Doctrine viz. That r In similitudinem quidem accipls Sacramentum sed vere naturae gratiam virtutemque consequeris de Sacr l 1 c. 6. we receive this Sacrament in a Similitude but truly do obtain the grace and the vertue of the nature whence it is evident that it is therefore said to be Christs very Flesh and Blood because it doth convey the vertue of them which is more evident form that which follows to wit that Å¿ Quomodo discendit panis vivus de Caeso Resp quia idem Dominus noster Jesus Christus consors est divinitatis corporis to quia accipis Panem N. B. Divinae ejus substantiae in illo participaris alimento ibid. our Lord Christ being partaker of the Divinity and humane nature thou who receivest Bread dest in that nourishment partake of his Divinity And let it be observed that Ambrose doth indeed affirm that as Christ said that which we receive is truly Flesh and is true drink but he doth not affirm that we receive it truly and substantially and as when Christ declared that unless we eat the Flesh of the Son of Man c. That Flesh drink he spake of was true Flesh and drink but the receiving the eating and the drinking of it was Metaphorical so may it be here and hence * De Baptismo Aethiopum c. ult Cyril Glaphyr in Exod. l. 2. Fulgeutius and others tells us that we do eat it in our Baptisme and therefore as we are said to eat it there so also may we be conceived to eat it in the other Sacrament Lastly we must be told how the same Ambrose doth assert that the Word of Christ which of nothing could make that to be which was not can change those things which are into that which before they were not And yet that this mutation was not a change of nature but of signification and of the vertue of the Sacrament is evident from that vvhich follovvs in this Chapter viz. That * T. G. p. 304. Non corporealis esus sed spiritualis est ante benediction in verborum caelestium aliaâ—pecies nominatur post consecrationem corpus Christi significatur c. 9. de his qui initiantur it is not Corporal meat but Spiritual and that before the benediction it is named another kind but after Consecration it signifies Christs body or that elsevvhere he tells us that the power of God so operates to change them as that they still continue what they were before Nay this is also evident from the vvords cited by T. G. viz. That word of Christ which of nothing could make that to be which was not can it not change those things which are into those things which they were not For it is not a less matter to give new natures to things than to change their natures vvhere evident it is that this nevv nature given to the Sacramental Elements is opposed to the mutation of their nature and therefore it is evident that in the judgment of St. Ambrose this change was made not by mutation of the nature of Bread and Wine but by addition of a new nature to them i.e. by the addition of new qualities and vertues in which familiar acceptation of the word St. Peter tells us that by the promises of Christ we are all made partakers of the diuine nature And the Fathers frequently affirm that by faith and by the holy spirit we are changed into another nature and that after the Resurrection we shall thus be changed Or this kind * De Sacr. Euch. l. 2. p. 489.504 Albertinus hath collected above Thirty instances Ob. The change which is made in the nature of Bread is here illustrated by the examples of those miraculous changes T. G. p. 304. which were wrought by holy men of old in the natures of things as of Moses his Rod being turned into a Serpent the waters of Aegypt into Blood c. Answ But this c. conceals three instances produced by Ambrose which only signifie an accidental change viz. t Jordanus retrorsum conversus contra naturam in sui fontis revertltur exordium nonne claret naturam vel maritinotum fluctuum vel fluvialis cursus esse mutatam Marath fluvius amarissâ—mus erat ut sitiens populus bibere non posset Mifit Moses lignum in aquam amari tudinem suam aqua rum natura deposuit quam infusa subito gratia temperavit Sub Haeliseo propheta uni ex filiis prophetarum excussum est ferrum de securi statim mersum est Rogavir Helisaeum qui amisserit ferrum misit etiam Helisaeus lignum in aquam ferrum natavit utique hoc praetet naturam factum esse cognoscimus cap. 9. de his qui initiantur The sweetning of the waters of Marah the swimming of the Iron and the returning of the waters of the River Jordan Whence it is
supposed to be In fine P. 2â— to set before us the danger of nor believing Christ more then our sences and to make others know it as well as Roman Catholicks he promiseth to set before them the words of Epiphanius viz. We see the Sacrament is neither equal nor like unto the fleshly Image or the invisible Deity or the Characters of his Members for this is of a round form and insensible according to power And yet because he was pleased to say through Grace This is my Body every one believeth his saying For who believeth not that it is his very true Body falleth from Grace and Salvation Answ by this Translation of the words of Epiphanius we are like to see and others to know nothing but the detestable fraud and falshood of T. G. For Epiphanius doth not say as T. G. translates him That who believeth not that it is his very true Body falleth from Grace But his words are these a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Epiphanius Anch. p. 60 He that believeth not that Christ is true doth fall from Grace Now he that differs from another Church or Person in exposition of Christs words may yet believe that Christ is true in all his sayings as much as they from whom he differs Secondly had he considered well the context he would have found this passage is a strong argument against him For Epiphanius in this very Section affirmeth Man to be like God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i.e. in a similitude or figure but not according to nature for saith he men have not the Image of God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or equally and yet what God hath constituted we will not substract * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ib. for he is true who by his Grace hath given to man to be like unto him and we have many like examples and then immediately follows the example of the Eucharist Now the force of Epiphanius his argument consisting in this That we are like unto God after his Image but yet not according to nature even as the Sacramental Bread is like the Body of Christ it is plain that the Sacramental Symbols are the Body of Christ and his Blood 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to the Image or representment not according to nature Thridly St. Epiphanius affirms that Christ pronounced of Bread and Wine this is mine his words are these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ipsum panem Petav. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Now since that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or the things Christ took and blessed confessedly were Bread and Wine the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which doth answer to them must be so I might have added many other answers produced from these Fathers but I have chosen only to answer what the very places did suggest that so the Reader might perceive that T. G. either never read the places cited or else did chuse to cite them though he saw they held the contrary to that Doctrine for which he doth produce them and to convince the Reader that the Judgment of the Fathers must be clearly for us seeing the strongest passages the Romanists cite against us do confirm our Doctrine We have now done with his Fathers and briefly shall consider what he hath to â—ay from Protestants And thus he begins P. 299. That Transubstantiation was a Doctrine received in the Vniversal Church from the time of Berengarius that is 600 years ago is scarcely denied by any I know of Answ One of the Protestants you cite will be sufficient to help your ignorance I mean the Reverend Bishop Morton in the Treatise of the Mass Lib. 3. c. 2. §. 3 4. A.D. 1159 Where we have this confession of Peter Lumbard Master of the Sentences whether the conversion be substantial or not I am not able to determine And Scotus affirming a Si quaeratur qualis sit conversio viz. panis in Eucharistia an formalis an substantialis an alterius generis definire non sufficio Lomb. Sent. l. 4. Destruct 11. Lit. a. that the Article of Transubstantiation was no Doctrine of Faith before the Council of Lateran And Suarez saying that some School-men held that Transubstantiation was not very ancient Scotus to wit and Gabriel Biel among others And Erasmus that it was but lately determined in the Church And lastly Cardinal Perroon who did not look upon it as b Scotus dicit ante consilium Lateranense non fuisse dogma fidei Transubstantiationem Bellar. Lib. 3. de Euch. Cap. 23. ss sed tamen c In Synaxiserò definivit Ecclesia Transubsiantiationem diâ—iatis erat credere sub pane quocunque modo adesse verum CoÌ„rpus Christi Erasm in 1. Cor. 7. p. 373. a thing very commendable to oppugne the received Doctrine of the whole Church of Christ asserts Card. Perroon En. Sa. Hâ—rrang Autiâ—rs Estates p. 33 De Christ Eccles Suc câ—â—s p. 19 208. That if it had not been for the Council of Laterane it might be now lawful to oppugne it Pious and Learned Bishop Vsher shews out of ancient and authentick Records That after the times of Berengarius many continued even there where Satan had his Throne who privately employed both their Tongues and Pens in defence of the truth against the Doctrine of Transubstantiation Hamelman and Chemniitus are most impertinently cited T.G. p. 301. for they only do confess that St. Ignatius said what we all grant what doth not in the least confirm the Roman Doctrine as we have already proved p. 300. Perkins is also falsly and impertinently cited for he doth not affirm that this particular Heresie of Transubstantiation was spread over the whole world during the space of nine hundred years Nay he expresly doth assert That it was not concluded in the days of Lumbard Problem p. 155 156 nor then received as an Article of Faith and that for a whole thousand years the Church of Christ taught Sgiritual Manducation and that the Ancients did interpret the institution by a figure That the Centuriators do affirm of Origen T.G. p. 301. Cent. 3. p. 260. and of Tertullian p. 58. that they speak not commodiously of Transubstantiation is a notorious falshood what the Centuriators cite from Tertullian p. 58. is most expresly for the contrary and of Origen p. 260. they speak thus recte in Caena Domini sub pane vino sumi asserit corpus sanguinem Domini i.e. Origen rightly doth assert that in the Supper of the Lord under the bread and wine we take the body and blood of Christ What they cite out of Ambrose Cent. 4. p. 294. is from the Authour precationis primae Praepar ad Missam which is a spurious piece as they themselves have noted from Erasmus Erasmus non esse Ambrosii censuit The true Ambrosius is reckoned among the Fathers that maintained the pure Doctrine in this point p. 242. Of Hamphrey and Camerarius I can say nothing because I know not where to
see them But we have great reason to suspect that they also are cited more Romano i.e. with great impertinence and falshood And I am certainly informed from Oxford that what is cited as from Vrsin is really the words of Vrsins Adversary Such ingenuity we meet with in the Citations of the Roman party Having produced these Testimonies of the Fathers which I have proved to be impertinent or spurious and these confessions of the Protestants which are insignificant or false or only such as do assert that Cyprian de Caena Domini Eusebius Emissenus and such spurious pieces seem to speak in favour of this Idle Dream He thus concludes that to deny what is confirmed by the Testimony of so many Ancient Fathers P. 308 309 and strengthned by the confession of our Brethren is most unreasonable But alas this flourish doth most assuredly confound the Church of Rome and evidently confutes that Doctrine it was intended to confirm For First it is confessed by many Doctors of the the Church of Rome that Transubstantiation is no ancient Doctrine viz. Peter Lombard Scotus Biel Erasmus and Peroon And Secondly a In Primitiva Ecclesia non erat de fide substantiam panis in co pus Christi converti Job Yribarn in 4 Sent. Dist 11. Q. 3. Disp 42. Sect. 1. That in the Primitive Church it was not any Article of Faith Thirdly b Scotus in 4 Distinct 11. Qâ—aest 3. s 1 â— Aâ—â—â—m That were it not for the authority and Determination of the Roman Church the words of Christ might more simply plainly and truly be understood and expounded Fourthly the Cardinal of c Distinct 4. Qu. 6. A. 2. Cambray adds that the opinion which holds the substance of bread not to remain doth not evidently follow of the Scripture nor to his seeming of the Churches determination Fifthly Your Secular d Discourse Modest p. 13. Priests affirm that it was concluded among the Fathers of the Society and what Catholick would not believe them that the Fathers have not so much as touched the point of Transubstantiation Sixthly It is no wonder saith e Antequam quaestio illa de Transubstantiatione in Ecclesia palam agitaretur minimè mirum est si unus aut alter aut etiam aliqui ex veteribus minus consideratè Rectè hâc de re senserint scripserint de Transub l. 2. c. 7. Gregory de Valentia if one or two or more of the Ancients have thought or written of this matter not so considerately and rightly And f Hinc discimus non essemirandum si Augustinus Theodoretus alii Veteres quaedam dixerint quae in specitem videntur favere haereticis L. 2. Euch. c. 25 p. 649. B. Bellarmin confesseth it is not to be wondred at if St. Austin Theodoret and other of the Ancients speak something which in show seems to favour the Hereticks The sayings of the ancient Fathers which interpret the words of Christ This is my Body in a figurative sence as much as any Protestant can do and which forced these Confessions from so many Cardinals Bishops Schoolmen Priests and Jesuites are these g Pane corpus suum representat l. 1. adv Marcion c. 14. by Bread Christ represents his Body saith Tertullian and again h Panem corpus suum appellat ut hinc jam eum intelligas corporis sui figuram pani dedisse L. 3. c. 19. Christ hath called Bread his Body that thereby thou mayest understand that he hath given to Bread the Figure of his Body And again i L. 4. c. 4 c. This is my Body that is the Figure of my Body St. k Ep. 63. §. 6. p. 175. Cyprian noteth That it was Wine even the Fruit of the Vine which the Lord saith was his Blood Our Lord saith St. l Paedag. l. 1. c. 6. p. 100 106. Clemens did bless Wine when he said Take drink this is my Blood and that it was Wine which was blessed be sheweth again saying I will no more drink of the Fruit of the Vine 2. Paedag. l. 1. c. 6. p. 100. 106. Our Lord in the Gospel of St. John doth otherwise expound Meat by Symbols when he saith Eat my Flesh and Drink my Blood an evident Symbol of Faith and the promises And again there is a donable Blood of the Lord Paed. l. 2. c. 2. one Carnal by which we are redeemed froim destruction and another Spiritual by which we are Anointed Origen speaks thus m Nec materia panis sed super illum dictus sermo est qui prodest non indigne Domino comedenti illum haee quidem de typico Symbolicoque corpore Orig. in Mat. 15. p. 17. Col. 1. B. It is not the matter of bread but the word spoken which profiteth him that doth not unworthily eat thereof and these things I speak of the Typical and Symbolical Body To the Fathers of the first three hundred years we will add the Testimonies of those that flourished in the 4th the first whereof shall be n Euseb l. 8. c. 1. Eusebius who saith ' That our Saviour delivered to his Disciples the Symbols of his Divine Dispensation commanding them to make the Image of his own Body and appointing them to use bread for the Symbol of his body And that o Euseb Demonst l. 1. c. 10 p. 27. we still celebrate upon the Lords Table the memory of his Sacrifice by the Symbols of his Body and Blood according to the Ordinances of the New Testament And lastly p Demoâ—ist l. 5. c. 3. p. 141. Our Saviour and Lord first and then all the Priests that have followed in all Nations celebrating the Spiritual Divine Service according to the Ordinances of the Church signifie unto us by the bread and wine the Mysteries of his body and blood q Serm. in illud quiounque dixerit verbum p. 979. Athanasius faith ' That Christ distinguished the Spirit from the Flesh that we might learn that the things he spake were not Carnal but Spiritual For how many men might his body have sufficed that it might be the food of the whole world it is as if he should have said that which is given for the world shall be given for meat that it may be Spiritually given to all In the Church saith r 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Macar Aegypt Hom 27 p. 164. Marcarius is offered bread and wine the Type of his Flesh and Blood and they which are partakers of the visible bread do Spiritually eat the Flesh of our Lord. Now we shall be partakers of the Passeover saith Å¿ Orat. 2 de Pasch To. 1. p. 692. Gregory Nazianzen but as yet in a Figure though more clear then in the Old Law For the Passover of the Law I will be bold to say it was but a more obscure figure of a figure Elsewhere he calls the Symbols the t In Epita Gorgon p. 187. Antitypes of the
Usher Answ to the Jesuits challenge p. 79. Much is betwixt the body Christ suffered in and the body that is hallowed to housel the body truly that Christ suffered in was born of the flesh of Mary with blood and with bone with skin and with sinews in humane limbs with a reasonable soul living and his spiritual body which we call the housel is gathered of many Corns without blood and bone without limb without Soul and therefore nothing is to be understood therein bodily but spiritually This mystery is a pledge and a figure Christs body is truth it self And again Christ hallowed Bread and Wine to housel before his suffering and said this is my body and my blood Yet he had not then suffered but so notwithstanding he turned through invisible vertue the Bread to his own body and that Wine to his blood as he before did in the Wilderness before that he was born to men when he turned that heavenly meat to his flesh and the flowing water from that stone to be his own blood The like matter also was delivered to the Clergy by the Bishops at their Synods out of two or three writings of the same Aefrick in the one one whereof directed to e Impress Lond. cum Homil. Paschali Ms. in Bibl. Bodl. Wulfsine Bishop of Shirburn we read thus That housel is Christs body not bodily but spiritually Not the body which he suffered in but the body of which he spake when he blessed Bread and Wine to housel the night before his suffering and said by the blessed Bread this is my body and again by the holy Wine this is my blood which is shed for many in forgiveness of sins In the other written to Wulfstane Archbishop of York thus The Lord which hallowed housel before his suffering and saith that the Bread was his own body and that the Wine was truly his blood halloweth daily by the hands of the Priest Bread to his body and Wine to his blood in spiritual mystery as we read in books And yet notwithstanding that lively Bread is not bodily so nor the self-same body that Christ suffered in nor that holy Wine is that Saviours blood which was shed for us in bodily thing but in spiritual understanding But now if T. G. should deny all this that is the testimony of almost all the Fathers of the Church and the confessions of so many Cardinals and Schoolmen and of the Fathers of the Society aforesaid to prove that Transubstantiation is a late upstart Doctrine and that the Scripture is to be interpreted according to the mind of Protestants to shew the unreasonableness of this denyal I would propose this case to his consideration and the Readers viz. in supposition that a controversie arise in this present age about the sense of a Law which was made 500 years past and that a considerable number of those who framed the novel exposition should confess that for the last Two hundred years the contrary to what they maintained was generally received in the Kingdom as the sense of the Law and should farther confess that the most eminent Lawyers of the former ages from the first enacting of the Law held the same with the latter Nor had there ever been any disagreement or opposition among them in that point whether it be not a sufficient proof that what they taught to be the sence of the Law was generally received as the sence and meaning of it from the beginning The Testimonies themselves of those antient Lawyers would be conviction enough how much more when strengthned by the confession of the adverse party it self Now if this be so in the delivery of the sense of a human Law where it happens very often that great Lawyers may be and often are of different judgments how much more in the delivery of a Divine Doctrine where the Pastors of the Church are bound to deliver what they received and the succeeding age is still bound to receive what they delivered surely if we add to this the confession of the very Adversaries themselves the proof as St. Ireneus saith must be true and without contradiction for if the Testimony of Ten Fathers and a few false impertinent confessions of our meanest Writers was by T.G. esteemed sufficient cause of this Triumphant flourish the Testimony of so many hundred Fathers of the Church and the confession of so many Cardinals and Schoolmen Jesuits and Fathers of the Roman party must be a demonstration of the truth of our assertion and exposition of the words of Christ sufficient to convince the obstinacy of this vain Apostate wherefore I shall conclude with that most pertinent exhortation of the learned Origen d Haec qui audire nesciâ— detorqueat ortasse avertaâ— auditum secundum illos qui â—â—icebant 〈…〉 bis carnem suam manducare sed vos Si fiâ—â—â— estis Ecclesiae si Evangelicis imbuti mysteriis si verbum caro fastum habitat in vobis agnoscite quia figurae sunt quae in divinis voluminibus scripta sunt ideo tanquam spirituales non tanquam carnales examinate intelligite quae dicuntur Si â—nim tanquam carnales ista suscipitis laedunt vâ—s non alunt-Est in N. Testamento litera quae occidit c. ut supra Orig. in Levit. c. 10. Hom 7. p. 87. If you be Sons of the Church if you are imbued with Gospel Mysteries and if the word made flesh doth dwell within you acknowledge these are figures which are written in the Sacred Volumns and therefore understand ye what is written as spiritual and not as carnal men for if as carnal you receive them they will hurt but will not nourish you There is in the New Testament a letter which killeth him that doth not spiritually understand it for if according to the letter you do follow that which is said except you eat the flesh c. the letter killeth Hence we may see the vanity of this assertion of T. G. That the definition of the present Church of Rome for that is most absurdly called the Church-Catholick p. 252. is ground sufficient to believe the Doctrine of Transubstantiation Whereas it is confessed by their most learned Writers that in primitiva Ecclesia non erat de fide i. e. this was not any Article of Faith delivered to her by the antient Church and that the e De Transubstantiatione panis in corpus Christi rara est in antiquis scriptoribusmentio Alphonsus a castro de Haer l 8. v indulgentia thing as well as name of transubstantiation is very rarely mentioned by the antient Fathers Nay they spake nothing of it And it is evident from the clear pregnant Testimonies and the concurrent judgment of many Hundred Fathers that the Church of Christ did generally hold the contrary to what the Church doth now define and held that exposition of our Saviours words was true and Genuine which they have now condemned as Heretical 2. How
can we know what is the present judgment of the Church of Rome but by our eyes and ears since therefore one of her determinations is that all our senses in the Eucharist do actually deceive us how can we be infallibly assured of her judgment by what she hath declared to be fallacious CHAP. V. The CONTENTS The Host was not worshipped with Latria in in the primitive Church 1. Becâ—use we have no command in Scripture for this worship § 1. 2ly Because the Holy Scripture and the Fathers have spoken things extremely contradictory to this worship § 2. Thirdly Because the Antient Fathers have not informed us of this Worship § 3. Fourthly Because they have both said and practised many things which are very inconsistent with this Opinion that it ought thus to be Worshipped § 4. An Objection Answered § 5. The Instances produced by T. G. to prove this practise are considered § 6. THe Doctrine of Transubstantiation being overthrown Sect 1. the Adoration of the Host must fall together with it p 222. But since T. G. affirms That it was Vniversally practised and recommended by the Fathers of the primitive Church both Greek and Latine whereas it was not practised or commended by any single person for Eight hundred years after the coming of our Saviour We shall proceed to evidence the vanity and the absurdness of this practise and the unconscionable falshood of this bold assertion And 1. The commandment to Worship God alone is so express saith Bishop Taylor the distance betwixt God and what our senses represent as bread of Transubst p. 338. so vast the danger of Worshipping that which is not God or of not Worshipping that which is God is so formidable that it is infinitely to be presumed that if it had been intended that we should have Worshipped the Holy Sacrament the Holy Scripture would have call'd it God or Jesus Christ or have bidden us in express terms to have Adored it that either by the first as by a reason indicative or by the second as by a reason imperative we might have had sufficient warrant direct or consequent to have paid Divine Worship to it To strengthen and confirm this Argument it may deserve to be considered 1. That the Evangelists and the Apostle Paul are very punctual in the Relation of what our Saviour did or enjoyned in this Institution they all inform us that Christ commanded them to eat the Bread and drink the Cup which he had given to them and had he given them to be adored would they who mention things so obvious forget to tell us that either Christ intended they should be Adored or that they were Adored by them that which induced St. Paul to mention this Institution and to assert that he received it from our Lord was the irreverence of those that did participate 1 Cor. 11 18 28. and their want of preparation to receive those Holy Mysteries To cure this disease he tells them that the Holy Sacrament was Christs own Institution the charge he left behind him that very night in which he was beirayed and that the Institution was intended for the Commemoration of our Saviours death all which is proper to beget within us a greater Reverence and care in celebration of these holy mysteries but yet it cannot be denyed that this consideration viz. That what they thus irreverently treated was that very Son of God which suffered for them and that it was that Host which they and all good people did Worship for their God I say this one consideration would have been infinitely more proper and effectual to aggravate the sin of those who slighted it and irreverently behaved themselves at the participation of this Sacrament This therefore was omitted by St. Paul upon no other score but the absurdity and falshood of the thing Secondly consider with what expreseness the Scripture doth inform us that Christ is God true God God blessed for evermore and yet because his conversation in the World was in the habit and likeness of a Man and his Divinity was hid under the veil of humane flesh and because this Jesus was made subject to an ignominious and accursed death the Scripture thinks it not sufficient to ascribe unto him in 100 places the nature proprieties of God and to leave us upon Record a Mat. 2.11 8 2 9 18 15 25 20 20 28 9 17. examples of his Adoration by the wise Men of the East and by his own Disciples and by divers others I say the Scriptures think it not sufficient to have done all this and therefore they inform us that this is the decree of Heaven that to the name of Jesus every knee should bow Phil 2 10 Joh 5.23.1 Heb. 6. and that all should honour the Son even as they honour the Father and that when this first born came into the World Gods Angels were commanded to Adore him now it is evident the humane nature did not so much conceal the Deity as do the accidents of Bread for God sometimes did appear unto his Prophets in a human shape but never in the shape of Bread and Wine Christ while encompassed with our flesh gave signal demonstrations of his Divine perfections by Miracles and by declaring that he knew the thoughts of those with whom he did converse but in the Sacrament Christ giveth not the least appearance or demonstration of his presence He doth not rescue his most Sacred body from the Mouse or Rat or from the Sacriligious hands of Theives and Sorcerers Here then was greater reason to have told us as often that the Sacrament was God and was to be adored as they have told us Christ was God and was to be adored Since therefore we have no precept or example in the Holy Scripture for adoration of the Sacrament nor any information that the nature and properties of God do belong unto it seeing it is asserted of the Rock 1 Cor. 10.4 6 15.1 Pet. 2.4 and of the Church that they are Christ and of the Saints that they are made Partakers of the Divine nature but it is not once asserted of the Sacrament that it is Christ or that it partakes of his Divinity but only that it his body we have just reason to conclude that it neither was adored by Christs Disciples nor was intended so to be If that which Romanists adore were truly Christ Arg. 2. § 2. Brevint p. 72 one might safely aver what even to think were Blasphemy That neither Prophets nor Holy Fathers in their Speeches against Heathenish Gods either considered well what they said or ever thought well of their Saviour And First to begin with their Original when the Prophet Isaiah inveighs against them who worship Gods made by a Carpenter of a Tree which the worshipers had Planted and after hewen into pieces whereof one was to heat an Oven and the other to make a God Can any rational Man think that the Holy Ghost did foresee That
introduced Now who knows not that the substance of Bread is not a proper object of Latria and it that Christ God-man was properly contained in the Sacrament there could be no suspition of Idolatry in the adoration of it What I have thus discoursed I judge sufficient to convince the Reader that this was not the practice of the Ancient Church What T. G. offers to the contrary is §. 6. that St. Basil saith the words of invocation when the Eucharistical Bread was shewed T G. p. 222 223. are Apostoliâ—al Tradition Ergo the Host was worshiped with Latria St. Austins Mother assisted at the Altar from whence she knew the Holy Victim was disp aced Ergo the Host was Worshiped with Latria Optatus calls the Altar the Seat of the Body of our Lord. Ergo the Host was Worshiped with â—atria He might have added that Protestant do call the Sacrament the Blood and Body of our Lord they do uncover and shew it to the people they therefore do adore it with Latria These are the wretched Sophisms by which this universal practice is confirmed and they prove only this That the abettors of them do not renounce their sence and reason only when they do believe this Doctrine but also when they discourse on this unhappy Subject Thus when T. G. proceeds to tell us p. 224. That the practice of the Church was so notorious in this point of the Adoration of the Eucharist that the Heathens because they knew that the Christians made use of Bread and Wine in the Mysteries objected to them that they Worshiped Ceres and Bacchus Nothing is so notorious as is the weakness of this Inference For if this argument be valid the Heathens thought that Christians Worshiped Ceres and Bacchus because they used Bread and Wine in their Mysteries therefore all Christians Worshiped what seemed to be Bread and Wine this must be also valid the Heathens thought that the Jews did Worship Saturn because they met on Saturday August conâ—a Faust Mamich l. 20. c. 13. as the same Austin in the same place informs us therefore all Jews Worshiped Saturday 2. St. Austin saith and he himself confesseth that the Heathens thus conceived not because they Worshiped the likeness of Bread and Wine but because they used Bread and Wine in their Mysteries the bare use therefore not the Worship of these things was that which gave the rise to this absurd imagination as St. Austin deems it Like to this stuff is that of Chrysestom viz. That the whole order of heavenly Powers lift up their voice T G. p. 224. and the place round about the Altar is filled in honour of him that lyeth upon it And that of Nazianzen p. 222. affirming That Gorgonia went with Faith to the Altar and with a loud voice besought 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 him that was honoured upon it For who knows not that Christ is honoured at the Holy Table when by the invocation of his Holy name the Sacrament of his true Body and Blood is Consecrated and to his Glory is distributed to all the Faithfull who knows not that the honour done to that which represents and is the true memorial of our Blessed Lord is Honour done to him And therefore these expressions only signifie that Holy Angels and Good Christians do honour the memorials of Christs Body and this we Protestants do as truly but more safely then the Church of Rome witness the preparations made before we do receive them and the Reverence we use when we receive them and witness lastly our confession Eucharistiam ut signum utile divinitus institutum venerandam confitemur saith Albertinus And that Nazianzen could intend no more is clear from what he doth immediately subjoyn viz. In Epitaph Gorgon p. 187 That if his Sister could lay hold of any of the Antitypes of our Lords Blood and Body she presently bedewed them with her Tears What therefore lay upon the Altar was only the Antitype of Christs true Body This also was the mind of Chrysostom for he declares Epistol ad Caefar Monach. That before the Bread is Sanctified we name it Bread but the Divine Grace Sanctifying it by the means of the Priest it is sâ—eâ—d from the name of Bread and is esteemed worthy to be called the Lords Body although the nature of Bread remaineth in it To the words of Chrysostom p. 224. cited from Hom. 24. in Epist ad Corinth I answer That Chrysostom doth here exhort us to Worship Christs Body which we do he also saith we see this Body on the Altar Nay elsewhere he adds * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Aâ— Pop. Antâ—oc Hom. 15 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ib. Hom. 24 Vide Albert l. 2. at Sacr. Euch. p. 535 536. we see it slain and jugulated d In Mat. Hom. 82. And when the Hereticks do ask whence it is evident that Christ was Crucified we stop their mouths saith he by the consideration of these Mysteries for if Christ be not â—ead 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 what do these Symbols mean Christs Body therefore is seen upon the Altar not as to its substance for there according to the Roman Doctors its being is invisible but as to that Sacrament which represents his Body this then must be the mind of Chrysostom that Body which is really in Heaven and in the Altar is seen slain and jugulated in effigie do you adore Hitherto we have complained only of the want of reason in the citations following we have just reason to suspect his want of Conscience For with what Conscience could he offer this passage of f Theodoret in confirmation of this practise 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Dial. 2 p. 84.85 viz. The mystical symbols * Those words T. G. leaves out do not receed from their nature for they abide in their proper substance figure and from and may be seen and touched as they were before but they are understood to be what they are made and are believed and adored as being the things they are believed for can that be a Demonstration of this practise which is a most convincing demonstration that the supposition upon which the Romanist doth build this practise is absurd and false And that the Adoration of the Host would be the Adoration of what continues Bâ—ead as certainly as the humanity of Christ continues to retain its nature and its proper substance had not T. G. sufficient reason to leave our these words which are so clear a Condemnation of the Doctrine of Transubstantiation and consequently of the Adoration of the Host that their great Doctors are even forced to say that by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 substance Theodoret doth understand no substance out only accidents which are the opposite to substance And that by substance and nature he meaneth form and figure though in this very place he makes a clear distinction of substance both from form and figure and consequently that he grants unto the Heretick that
whether they had the knowledge of our condition yea or not Sect. 4. Fourthly That the forementioned Fathers did often speak to their departed Friends as present although they did not think them so to be Sect. 5. Fifthly That the very same Authors do make the like addresses to insensate Creatures which makes it reasonable to look upon them as Rhetorical Apostrophe's ibid. Sixthly That there is great difference betwixt the practise which then began to be approved in some parts of the Christian World and the practise of the Church of Rome as V.G. 1. That no instance can be given of any Christian that put up mental Prayers unto them or dia ascribe unto them the knowledge of the heart 2. That they prayed unto them only upon supposition of their presence at their Tombs and Oratories Sect. 6. The Authors cited by T. G. are partly spurious or doubtful Sect. 7. Partly impertinent and such as use either Rhetorical Apostrophe's or only wishes Sect. 8. or such as only do ascribe unto them the worship of honour and affection but say not any thing which necessarily includeth Prayer Sect. 9. Or only do assert that they did pray with us and so did help us with their Prayers Sect. 10. Or that they did commend themselves unto their Prayers by desiâ—ing God that for their intercession he would be gracious Sect. 11. § 1. AND thus we have confirmed the truth of our assertion from the most pregnant Testimonies of the ancient Fathers of the four first Centuries We come now to consider what T.G. offers from the Fathers to prove the invocation of the Saints departed to have been the practice of the Primitive Church Unto which purpose he alledgeth some passages of Gregory Nazianzen and Nyssen St. Cyril and St. Ambrose Ruffinus St. Basil Chrysostome St. Austin to which we Answer 1. That all these Fathers lived in the declining times of the fourth Century or after the conclusion of it Bas M. A. 370. Nazian 379. Nissenus 380. Ambrose 374. Chrysost An. 398. Hierom. ob 420. Ruffinus 418. August 396. Cyril Alex. 412. Theodoret 423. Nor can one Item of such a practice be produced from any of the former Writers so that if all these Fathers did expresly say what T. G. doth contend they do it would be only this That the most ancient Fathers of the three first Centuries and to the middle of the fourth were in this matter perfect Protestants whereas some of the middle Fathers who lived in the declining Ages of the Church do seem to speak in favour of the Church of Rome Now in this case we say with Cyprian (a) Si in aliquo nutaverit vacillaverit veritas ad originem Dominicam Evangdicam Apostolicam traditionem revertamur inde surgat actus nestri ratiâ— unde ordo origo surrexit Ep. 74. Sect. 14. If verity doth warp or lean aside we must look back and return to Divine Evangelical and Apostolick Tradition and derive the order of our action from the original ground where it first began And with Tertullian (b) Ostendam hoc exigere veritatem cui nemo praescribere potesi non sputium temporum non patrocinia personarum non privilegium regionum ex his enim ferè consuetudo ab aliqua ignorantia vel simplieitate initium sortita in usam per successionem corroboratur ita adversus veritatem vindicatur sed Dominus noster Christus veritatem senon consuetudinem cognominavit siquidem semper Christus prior omnibus aeque veritas sempiterna antiqua res De Veland Virg. c. 1. If a custome proceeding from ignorance or simplicity be confirmed by use of succession and opposed against verity we must observe that neither space of time nor priviledge of persons may prescribe against truth for Christ is eternal and before all and in like sort verity is most ancient For who knoweth not that above 100 years before this time the practice of communicating Infants had obtained in the Church St. * De Lapsis Sect 7. 20. Cyprian makes mention of it twice the †l. 8. c. 13. Apostolick Constitutions declare that first the Priests communicated then Virgins after them Widows and then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or their little Infants In the same Century (c) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Apud Phot. in Bibl. 177 Theodorus Bishop of Mopsuestia in Sicily concludes against his Adversaries that Infants must be acknowledged to be guilty of sin because it was the custome to administer Christs Body to them for the Remission of Sin They also held that it was necessary to eternal life for Infants to receive this Sacrament When Christ saith If you eat not my flesh you shall not have life in you should I say that an Infant should have life who ends his life without that Sacrament So Austin Again (d) Dominum audiamus inquam non quidam hoc de Sacramento Iavacri dicentem sed de Sacramento Sanâ—â— monsae suae quo nemo ritè nisi Baptizatus accedit nisi manducaâ—â—â— t is carnem meam biberitis sanguinem meum non habebitis vitan 〈◊〉 vobis an verò quisquam etiam hoc dicere audebit quod ad parâ—â—â— los haec sententia non pertineat possinique sine participatione corpâ—â—â— hujus sanguin is in se habere vitam Tom. 7. l. 1. de peccat 〈◊〉 ritis remiss c. 20. Let us hear our Lord saith he speaking of the Sacrament of the holy Table whether none rightly comes but he that is baptized and then citing this place Vnless you eat my flesh c. he adds Dare any say that this sentence belongs not to Children but that they may without the participation oâ— the body and blood of Christ have life in themselves For this he also urgeth the Testimony of thâ— See of Rome for then this Doctrine 〈◊〉 well as Practice was received there (e) Ecce B. memoriae Innocentius Papa sine Baptismo Christi sine participatione Corporis Sanguinis Christi vitam non habere parvulos dicit To. 7. contra duas Ep. Pelag. l. 2. c. 4. p. 190. L. Si autem cedunt Pelagiani Apostolicae sedi vel potiùs ipsi Magistro Domino Apostolorum qui dicit non habitures vitam in seipsis nisi manducaverint carnem filii hominis c. quod nisi Baptizati non utâ—que possunt nempe aliquando fatebuntur parvulos non Baptizatos vitam habere non posse Epist ad Paulinum Ep. 106. p. 101. Behold saith he Pope Innocent of blessed memory declares that little ones cannot have life without Baptism and the participation of the Body and Blood of Christ And in his Epistle to Paulinus if the Pelagians saith he will yield to the Apostles Seat or rather to their Lord and Master saying that except we eat his flesh and drink his blood which the unbaptized cannot do we shall not have life they will at last confess that
unbaptized Infants cannot have it The Words of Innocentius are these (f) Haec enim ejus verba sunt Illud verò quod eos vestra fraternitas asserit praedicare parvulos aeternae vitae praemiis etiam sine Baptismatis Gratia posse donari perfatuum est risi enim manducaverint carnem filii hominis August contr duas Epist Pelag. l. 2. c 4. Whereas your Brotherhood asserts that the Pelagians say that Infants may be saved without Baptism this is a very fond opinion for unless they eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his Blood they have no life in them (g) Hinc constat Inncoentii primi sentententia quae 600 circiter annos in Ecclesia viguit quamque Augusitnus sectatus est Eucharistiam etiam Infantibus neceâ—sarium fuisse Concil Tom. 1. part 4. p. 624. Whence it is evident saith Binius that this was Pope Innocents opinion which also was maintained in the Church 600 years viz. that the participation of the Eucharist was necessary to Infants and what he thus confesseth is made good by * Dalle from the fourth inclusivè to the eleventh Century by the plain pregnant Testimonies of them that lived in those Times Who also doth abundantly consute that vain imagination of Mr. Cressy and Vasquezius that they conceived it necessary that Infants should partake Christs Body and his Blood not Sacramentally but Spiritually by such a participation as may be had in Baptism Lastly they also do affirm this Doctrine to be derived from (h) Optimè Funici Christiani Baptismum ipsum nihil a liud quam salutem Sacramentum Corporis Christi nihil aliud quam viâ—um vocant unde nisi ex Aatiqua ut existimo et Apostolica traditione qua Ecclesiae Christi insitum tenent praeter Baptismum participationem dominicae mensae non solum ad regnum Dei sed we ad salutem vitam aeternam posse quenquam hominum pervenire hoc enim scriptura testatur viz. Tit. 3.5 1 Petr. 3.21 John 6.51 53. si ergo ut tot tanta Divina testimonia concinunt nec salus nec vita aeâ—crna sine Baptâ—â—mâ— Corpore Sanguine Domini cuiquam speranda est frustra â—â—ne his promittitur parvulis Tom. 7. lib. 1. de peccat meritis c. c. 24. p. 144 D. E. Apostolical Tradition and deeply setled in the Churches of Christ as doth most evidently appear from that of Austin From an ancient and as I suppose Apostolical Tradition the Churches of Christ have this deeply setled in them that without Baptism and the participation of the Lords Supper no man can attain to the Kingdom of God nor yet to life eternal If therefore so many Testimonies Divine convince us that everlasting Life is not to be expected without Baptism and the Body and Blood of Christ 't is in vain to promise it to children without them And yet the Church of Rome hath laid aside this practise and determined against this Doctrine thus (i) Concil Trid. Sesi 21. Can. 4. Si quis dixerit Parvulis antequam ad annos discretionis pervenerint necessariam esse Eucharistiae communionem anathema sit Which must be thus interpreted If any Person now doth say what the whole Church of Christ did for 600 years together viz. That it is necessary for Infants to be partakers of the Eucharist let him be accursed I will not quarrel with them as Mr. Dalle doth for their intolerable irreverence to the ancient Fathers or for the Curse they have pronounced on the whole Church of Christ for many Ages but I will take the Boldness to infer that if they may condemn a practice far more ancient than was the Invocation of departed Saints a practice not opposed as that was by many Fathers of the Church upon its first encroachment when about A. D. 360. it began to creep into the Church a practice so deeply setled in all Christian Churches in St. Austins time when that of Invocation of Saints departed was but in the Embryo Lastly a practice proved from clear unanimous and numerous assertions of the learned Fathers Whereas what is produced for the other practice is obscure and contradictory to what in other places they deliver and fairly may admit another sense as you shall see hereafter I say if they may wholly lay aside this practice and may pronounce Anathema's against it I hope we also may refuse to practice this Invocation of the Saints departed provided that it were as ancient as the Times of Nazianzen Basil and St. Austin 2 Observe § 2. That though these Fathers cited by T. G. seem in some places to assert or use this invocation of the Saints departed in others they deny the Doctrine and disapprove the practice of it and this they do in Writings more assuredly Authentick and in words more clear and pregnant than are or can be brought to justifie it This I might easily make good by an induction of the places cited pro and con from all these Father but since T. G. hath singled out St. Austin p 431. as a man so clear and pregnant in this Point that whosoever shall deny St. Austin to have held such formal invocation to be the Worship due to Saints must shut his eyes and fight against the light of a noon-day truth Let any man peruse the places which are cited from that Father and say whether I have not reason to affirm this bold Assertion to be a manifest untruth The passages produced out of the genuine Works of Austin for Invocation are 1. Let Blessed Cyprian help us with his prayers T. G. p. 430. 2. We Christian People do with religious solemnity celebrate the memory of Martyrs both to excite us unto the imitation of them and that we may become partakers of their merits and may be helped by their prayers T. G. p. 433. 3. It is an injury to pray for a Martyr to whose prayers we ought to be commended T. G. p. 434. Against it we produce these Testimonies * Ipse Sacerdos est qui nunc ingressus in interiora Veli solus ibi ex his qui carnem gestaverunt interpellat pro nobis In Psalm 64. p 144. M. 1. Christ is the Priest who being now entred within the Vail only of all that have been made partakers of flesh makes intercession for us there †Si vero ita diceret hoc scripsi vobis ut non peccetis si quis peccaverit Mediatorem me habetis apud Patrem ego exoro pro peccatis vestris sicut Parmenianus quodam loco Mediatorem posuit Episcopum inter Populum Doum quis cum ferret bonorum atque fidelium Christianorum quis sicut Apostolum Christi non sicut Antichristum intueretur Contr. Epistol Parmen l. 2. c. 8. p. 7. L. Tom. septimo 2. If he i. e. St. John had said thus If any man sin you have me a Mediator with the Father I make intercession for your sins