Old Test did eat the same spiritual meat with us because they ate it by Faith. Page 127 4 Consid They represent Christs Body as dead and that so it must be taken Ergo spiritually Page 128 Two remarkable sayings of S. Austin to prove all this Page 130 CHAP. XIII The Thirteenth Difference The Fathers assert that the Faithful only eat Christs Body and drink his Blood not the wicked the Ro. Church extends it to both Page 131 The Church of Rome will have not only the wicked but bruit Creatures to eat it Page 132 The Cautions of the Mass suppose this ibid. The Fathers will not allow the wicked to partake of Christs Body Page 133 Two remarkable Testimonies of St. Austin Page 136 CHAP. XIV The Fourteenth Difference The different practices and usages of the two Churches argue their different opinions about the Eucharist Page 137 Eight Instances of their differing practices given 1 Instance The Ancient Church excluded Catechumens Penitents c. from being present at the Mysteries enjoining all present to communicate ibid. In the Ro. Ch. any may be Spectators tho' none receive but the Priest Page 139 2 Inst The old practice was to give the Communion in both kinds Page 140 Transubstantiation made this practice cease 141. New devices for security against profaning Christs Blood. Page 142 No reason why the Fathers have not been as cautious in this as the Ro. Church but their different belief Page 143 3 Inst The Elevation of the Host that all may adore it the Roman practice Page 145 This not used in the first Ages at all when used afterwards not for Adoration Page 145 146 4. Inst The Rom. Church allows not the people to receive the Sacrament with their Hands but all is put by the Priest into their Mouths contrary to the Ancient Practice Page 147 5 Inst The Anc. Church used Glass Cups for the Wine which would be criminal now Page 148 6 Inst They mixed of old the Consecr Wine with Ink which would now be abhorr'd Page 149 7 Inst In the Reservation of the Eucharist Three differences herein consider'd 1 Difference The Anc. Church took no care to reserve what was not received in the Eucharist but the Ro. Church reserves all 151 c. 2 Differ What had been publickly received the Anc. Church allowed liberty to reserve privately 156. The present Ch. in no case allows such private reservation 157. 3. Differ They put what was so reserved to such uses of old as the Ro. Church would think profane Page 157 158 c. 8 Inst The infinite sollicitous caution to prevent accidents in the administration of the Sacrament their frights and strange expiations when they happen all unknown and strangers to the Ancient Church 160 c. Which is proved positively from the continued practice of Communicating Infants till Transubstantiation abolished it Page 165 This still a practice in the Eastern Churches that submit not to the Roman Church Page 167 CHAP. XV. The Fifteenth Difference About their Prayers in two particulars 1. That the old Prayers in the Canon of the Mass agree not with the Faith of the now Ro. Church Page 168 2. That their New Prayers to the Sacrament have no Example in the Anc. Church Page 175 CHAP. XVI The Sixteenth Difference That our ancient Saxon Church differ'd from the present Rom. Church in the Article of the corporal presence Page 182 c. The Saxon Easter-Sermon produc'd as a Testimony against them Page 183 184 c. Two Epistles of Elfric the Abbot declare against that Doctrine Page 187 188. A Remarkable Testimony also of Rabanus Archbishop of Mentz alledged Page 189 CHAP. XVII The Conclusion of the whole Shewing that Heathens and Jews reproached not the Ancient Christians about the Eucharist 191. Transubstantiation occasion'd new Calumnies from both 194. The Jew's Conversion seems to be hopeless whilst this is believed by them to be the common Faith of Christians 195. That the Jews have better explained Christs words of Institution agreed better with the Ancient Church in understanding the Sacrament in a figurative sense and have confuted Transubstantiation by unanswerable Arguments proved by Instances from p. 196. to the end Faults Escaped PAge 5. line 16. marg r. Serm. 5. p. 10. l. 7. marg r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 39. l. 11. r. supposes p. 53. l. 2. marg r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 68. l. 26. marg r. Serm. 5 p. 69. l. 10. r. thou art wholly changed in the inward Man Ibid. l. 12. marg r. totus in interiore homine mutatus es p. 73. l. 6. marg r. qui p. 98. l. 5. à fine r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 149. l. 26. r. Paten p. 152. l. 10. r. Evagrius p. 171. l. 23. r. that of Abel CHAP. I. The First Difference The Church of Rome is forced to assert a continued Series of Miracles to justifie her Doctrine of Transubstantiation But the Fathers never mention any Miracles in the Eucharist save only the Effects of God's powerful Grace working great Changes in us and advancing the Elements in the use of them thereunto without changing their Nature and Substance TO give the Reader a View of what Wonders are to be believed according to what the Trent Council has decreed concerning Transubstantiation we need go no further than to the Trent Catechism * Ad Parcchōs part 2. num 25. which tells us there are three most wonderful things which the Catholick Faith without any doubting believes and confesses are effected in this Sacrament by the Words of Consecration 1. That the true Body of Christ that same Body which was born of the Virgin and sits at the Right-hand of the Father is conteined in this Sacrament 2. That no Substance of the Elements remains in it tho' nothing may seem more strange and remote from our Senses 3. What is easily collected from both That the Accidents which are seen with our Eyes or are perceived by our other Senses are without any Subject in which they subsist in a strange manner not to be explained So that all the Accidents of Bread and Wine may be seen which yet inhere in no Substance but subsist by themselves since the Substance of the Bread and Wine are so changed into the very Body and Blood of our Lord that the Substance of Bread and Wine cease wholly to be But others of the Romish Writers have made a larger and more particular Enumeration of the Miracles wrought in the Eucharist which no Created Power can effect but God's Omnipotency alone I 'le give them in the Words of the Jesuite Pererius * In Joan. c. 6. Disp 16. num 48. who reckons these Nine distinct Miracles 1. The same Christ remaining in Heaven not departing thence and without any local mutation is really and corporally in the Sacrament of the Eucharist 2. Nor is he thus there only in one consecrated Host but is together in all Hosts consecrated throughout the whole Earth 3.
to affirm That the Essence of the Son consists in Subjection to the Father For says he how can Subjection be conceived to subsist by it self without existing in any thing else And afterwards If there be no Subject and nothing praeexists in which those things are wont to be done how can they exist by themselves which are understood and defined in the Order of Accidents And elsewhere he says (l) Thesaur assert 31. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 To be Unbegotten is predicated of the Divine Essence as inseparable from it just as Colour is always predicated of every Body And in another place (m) Ibid. assert 16. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. disputing about the Eternity of the Son and how proceeding from the Father he is not separated from him he instances in Accidents that are inseparable from their Subjects We see says he Heat inseparably proceeding from Fire but it is the Fruit of the very Essence of Fire proceeding inseparably from it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as also Splendor is the Fruit of Light. For Light cannot subsist without Splendor nor Fire without Heat For what is begotten of them do's always adhere to such Substances Again in his Dialogues (n) De Trinitate Dial. 2. p. 451. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Trinity he asks Whether Black and White if they be not in their Subjects can subsist of themselves And the Answer is They cannot Claud. Mamertus (o) De Statu Animae l. 3. c. 3. In rebus corporeis subjectum est corpus color corporis in subjecto In incorporeis animus disciplina quae iâ—a sibi nexa sunt ut nec sine colore corpus nec sine disciplina rationalis sit animus Utrum nam probare valeamus manere quod in subjecto est ipso intereunte subjecto In corporeal things the Body is the Subject and the Colour of the Body in the Subject In incorporeal matters the Soul and Discipline are Instances which are so connected that the Body cannot be without Colour nor the Rational Soul without Discipline Can we ever prove that what is in the Subject abides when the Subject it self perishes Isidore Hispal (p) Originum lib. 2. cap. 26. Quantitas qualitas situs sine subjecto esse non possunt Quantity Quality and Situation can none of 'em be without a Subject Bertram (q) Contra Graec. l. 2. c. 7. in Tom. 2. Spicilegii D. Acherii proves against the Greeks That the Holy Ghost was not in Jesus Christ as in his Subject because says he the Holy Ghost is not an Accident that cannot subsist without its Subject These Testimonies of the Fathers may suffice to shew how they differ from the Church of Rome in this Point of Accidents being without a Subject which to them is so necessary a Doctrine that Transubstantiation cannot be believed without it and if the Fathers had believed Transubstantiation it is incredible that they should deny this Doctrine without so much as once excepting the Case of the Eucharist None can imagine how their Memory and Reflection should be so short especially when as we have heard they form their Arguments to prove the Eternity of the Son of God and the Personality of the Holy Ghost from the inseparability of Accidents from their Subject Nay one of them says (r) Orat. 5. contra Arianos inter Athanasii Opera That if God himself had Accidents they would exist in his Substance When therefore P. Innocent (s) De Myst Missae l. 4. c. 11. Est enim hic color sapor quantitas qualitas cùm nihil alterutro sit coloratum aut sapidum quantum aut quale asserts That in the Eucharist there is Colour and Taste and Quantity and Quality and yet nothing coloured or tasteful nothing of which Quantity or Quality are Affections This is plainly to confound the Nature of all things and to turn Accidents into Substances So that if for instance the Host should fall into the Mire and contract Dirt and Filth this Filth sticks in nothing or else Accidents are the Subject of it for it is confessed on all hands That Christ's Body cannot be soiled or made filthy Not to insist upon the Nonsense of his Assertion which is just as if one should talk of an Eclipse without either Sun or Moon or of an Horses Lameness without a Leg concerning which only Lameness can be affirmed CHAP. IV. The Fourth Difference The Church of Rome has brought in the Word SPECIES to signifie those Accidents without any Subject But the Fathers never take it in this Sense I Need only refer the Reader for the first part of this Assertion to the Thirteenth Session of the Council of Trent Canâ—n 2. 3. where the Word Species is so used And to what we heard before out of their Catechism of the Species of Bread and Wine subsisting without any Subject in which they are Every one knows this is their Customary Word to express Appearances of things by when nothing real is under them to support them But now we shall see this to be a strange and foreign usage of this Word which the Fathers know nothing of in their Sense but in stead of denoting Accidents by the Word Species which are in no Subject they use it commonly for the Substance the Nature the Matter of a thing the Subject it self that appears Not for Appearances without a Subject S. Ambrose often uses this Word Species but never in the Sense of the Romanists For which take these Instances S. Ambrose says (a) Serm. 21. Dominum rogatum ad Nuptias aquae substantiam in vini speciem commutasse That at the Marriage of Cana our Lord being requested did change the Substance of Water into the Species of Wine That is not into the Appearance of Wine but into real Wine that he changed it And in another place * Serm. 22. Speciem magis necessariam Nuptiis praestitit He provided for the Marriage a more necessary Species i. e. Wine more agreeable to a Marriage-Feast than Water In another Book (b) Officior lib. 2. cap. 28. Hic numerus captivorum hic ordo praestantior est quam species poculorum speaking of Holy Vessels which he broke for the Redemption of Captives he says This Number and Order of Captives far excels the Species of Cups i.e. all sorts of them Again elsewhere (c) De iis qui initiant cap. 9. Gravior est ferri species quam aquarum liquor The Species of Iron is heavier than the Liquor of Water i. e. the Substance of Iron S. Austin (d) In Joan. tract 11. Omnes in Moyse baptizati sunt in nube in mari Si ergo figura maris tantum valuit species baptismi quantum valebit They were all baptized into Moses in the Cloud and in the Sea. If therefore the Figure of the Sea availed so much how much will the Species of
efficut sanctificationem Quae est enim ratio ut hoc quod stomacho digeritur in secessum emittitur iterum in statum pristinum redeat cum nullus hoc unquam fieri asscruerit Nam quidam nuper de ipso Sacramento corporis sanguinis Domini non ritè sentientes dixerunt hoc ipsum corpus sanguinem Domini quod de Maria Virgine natum est in quo ipse Dominus passus est in Cruce resurrexit de sepulchro Idem esse quod sumitur de altari cui errori quantum potuimus ad Egilonem Abbatem scribentâ—s de corpore ipso quid verè credendum sit aperuimus Whether the Eucharist after it is consumed and sent into the Draught as other Meats are do's return again into its former Nature which it had before it was consecrated on the Altar This Question is superfluous when our Saviour himself has said in the Gospel Every thing that entreth into the Mouth goeth into the Belly and is cast out into the Draught The Sacrament of the Body and Blood is made up of things Visible and Corporeal but effects the Invisible Sanctification both of Body and Soul. And what reason is there that what is digested in the Stomach and sent into the Draught should return into its pristine State seeing none has ever asserted that this was done Some indeed of late not thinking rightly of the Sacrament of our Lord's Body and Blood have said which are the very words of Paschasius whom he opposes that the very Body and Blood of our Lord which was born of the Virgin Mary and in which our Lord suffered on the Cross and rose again out of the Grave is the same that is taken from the Altar which Error we having opposed as we were able writing to the Abbot Egilo and declared what ought truly to be believed concerning the Body it self That which he calls here an Error is an Article now of the Romish Faith which some Zealous Monk meeting withal and not enduring it should be condemned as an Error that the same Body which was born of the Virgin c. is the same that we receive at the Altar scraped out those words which I have inclosed between the Brackets and we may securely trust our Adversaries in this Matter who have skill enough to know what Assertions make for them and what against them CHAP. XVII The CONCLUSION That the Doctrine of Transubstantiation has given a new occasion to the Enemies of Christian Religion to blaspheme It is so great a stumbling-block to the Jews that their Conversion is hopeless whilst this is believed by them to be the Common Faith of Christians That tho' the Church of Rome will not hearken to us yet they may be provoked to emulation by the Jews themselves who have given a better account of Christ's Words of Institution and more agreeable to the Fathers than this Church has and raised unanswerable Objections against its Doctrine HAving considered in the foregoing Chapters the Sense of the Ancient Church about Matters relating to the Eucharist and Transubstantiation from their own Writings and found that their Assertions are inconsistent with the Belief of the present Roman Church and that their Practices are not to be reconciled thereunto Having also made an Enquiry into the Ancient forms of Devotion relating to the Eucharist remaining still in this Church and found them to speak a Language which has a Sence agreeing indeed with that of the Ancients but no Sence at all when the Doctrine of Transubstantiation is supposed and those Prayers to be interpreted by it c. I shall now for a Conclusion take a view also of the principal Enemies of the Christian Faith which will afford a convincing Evidence that the Roman Doctrine is Novel and a stranger to the Ancient Christians It is sufficiently known that the Adversaries of Christianity took all the occasions possible and whatsoever gave them any colour to reproach the Faith and Worship of Christians and to make their Names odious Nothing that looked strange and absurd in either escaped being taken notice of by such as Celsus and Porphyry Lucian and Julian among the Heathens and such as Trypho among the Jews They curiously examined and surveyed what they taught and practised and whatsoever they thought to be foolish and incredible they with all their wit and cunning endeavoured to expose it So they did with the Doctrines of the Trinity the Eternal Generation of the Son of God his Incarnation his Crucifixion especially and our Resurrection Neither were they less praying into the Christian Mysteries and Worship which they could not be ignorant of there being so many Deserters and Apostates in those Times of Persecution who were well acquainted with them and by threatnings and fear of torment if there were any thing secret were likely to betray them Not to insist upon this that the great Traducer of Christians I mean Julian was himself once initiated in their Mysteries and so could not be Ignorant of what any of them were and has in particular laught at their Baptism that Christians should fansy a purgation thereby from Great Crimes Yet after all this they took no occasion from the Eucharist to traduce them tho if Christians then had given that adoration to it that is now paid in the Roman Church and if they had declared either for a Corporal Presence or an oral Manducation of him that was their God they had the fruitfullest Subject in the World given them both to turn off all the Objections of the Christians against themselves for worshipping senseless and inanimate things and also to lay the most plausible Charge of folly and madness against them which their great Orator * Cicero l. 3. de Nat. Deorum Ecquem tam amentem esse putas qui illud quo vescatur Deum credat esse had pronounced before Christianity was a Religion in the World. Can any Man be supposed so mad to believe that to be a God which he eats A Learned Romanist †Rigaltius notis ad Tertal lib. 2. c. 5. ad Vxorem Se id facere in Eucharisticis suis testarentur affirms of the Ancient Christians That they did testify their eating the Flesh and drinking the Blood of their Lord God in their Discourses of the Eucharist Which is true indeed taking this eating and drinking in the Sacramental Sence we do and so their Adversaries must needs understand their meaning Otherwise without a Miracle to hinder it what he acknowledges in the same place could never be true (a) Ibid. Observandum vero inter tot probra convitia accusantium Christianos impietatis eò quod neque aras haberent neque sacrificarent interque tot fratrum perfidorum transfugia non extitisse qui Christianos criminarentur quod Dei ac Domini sui carnes ederent sanguinem potarent That among so many Reproaches of those that accused Christians of Impiety for not having Altars nor Sacrifices and
CAVE D. D. Octavo An Answer to Mr. Serjeant's Sure Fooring in Christianity concerning the Rule of Faith With some other Discourses By WILLIAM FALKNER D.D. 40. A Vindication of the Ordinations of the Church of England in Answer to a Paper written by one of the Church of Rome to prove the Nullity of our Orders By GILBERT BVRNET D. D. Octavo An Abridgment of the History of the Reformation of the Church of England By GILB BVRNET D. D. Octavo The APOLOGY of the Church of England and an Epistle to one Signior Scipio a Venetian Gentleman concerning the Council of Trent Written both in Latin by the Right Reverend Father in God JOHN JEWEL Lord Bishop of Salisbury Made English by a Person of Quality To which is added The Life of the said Bishop Collected and written by the same Hand Octavo The Life of WILLIAM BEDEL D. D. Bishop of Kilmore in Ireland Together with Certain Letters which passed betwixt him and James Waddesworth a late Pensioner of the Holy Inquisition of Sevil in Matters of Religion concerning the General Motives to the Roman Obedience Octavo The Decree made at ROME the Second of March 1679. condemning some Opinions of the Jesuits and other Casuists Quarto A Discourse concerning the Necessity of Reformation with respect to the Errors and Corruptions of the Church of Rome Quarto First and Second Parts A Discourse concerning the Celebration of Divine Service in an Unknown Tongue Quarto A Papist not Misrepresented by Protestants Being a Reply to the Reflections upon the Answer to A Papist Misrepresented and Represented Quarto An Exposition of the Doctrine of the Church of England in the several Articles proposed by the late BISHOP of CONDOM in his Exposition of the Doctrine of the Cathelick Church Quarto A Defence of the Exposition of the Doctrine of the Church of England against the Exceptions of Monsieur de Meaux late Bishop of Condom and his Vindicator 40. A CATECHISM explaining the Doctrine and Practices of the Church of Rome With an Answer thereunto By a Protestant of the Church of England 80. A Papist Represented and not Misrepresented being an Answer to the First Second Fifth and Sixth Sheets of the Second Part of the Papist Misrepresented and Represented and for a further Vindication of the CATECHISM truly representing the Doctrines and Practices of the Church of Rome Quarto The Lay-Christian's Obligation to read the Holy Scriptures Quarto The Plain Man's Reply to the Catholick Missionaries 240. An Answer to THREE PAPERS lately printed concerning the Authority of the Catholick Church in Matters of Faith and the Reformation of the Church of England Quarto A Vindication of the Answer to THREE PAPERS concerning the Unity and Authority of the Catholick Church and the Reformation of the Chursh of England Quarto Mr. Chillingwarth's Book called The Religion of Protestants a safe way to Salvation made more generally useful by omitting Personal Contests but inserting whatsoever concerns the common Cause of Protestants or defends the Church of England with an exact Table of Contents and an Addition of some genuine Pieces of Mr. Chillingworth's never before Printed viz. against the Insallibility of the Roman Church Trassubstantiation Tradition c. And an Account of what moved the Author to turn Papist with his Consutation of the said Motives The Pillar and Ground of Truth A Treatise shewing that the Roman Church falsly claims to be That Church and the Pillar of That Truth mentioned by S. Paul in his first Epistle to Timothy Chap. 3. Vers 15. 4º The Peoples Right to read the Holy Scripture Asserted 4o. A Short Summary of the principal Controversies between the Church of England and the Church of Rone being a Vindication of several Protestant Doctrines in Answer to a Late Pamphlet Intituled Protestancy destitute of Scripture Proofs 4o. Two Discourses Of Purgatory and Prayers for the Dead An Answer to a Late Pamphlet Intituled The Judgment and Doctrine of the Clergy of the Church of England concerning one Special Branch of the King's Prerogative viz. In dispensing with the Penal Laws 4o. The Notes of the Church as laid down by Cardinal Bellarmin examined and confuted 4o. With a Table to the Whole Preparation for Death Being a Letter sent to a young Gentlewoman in France in a dangerous Distemper of which she died By W. W. 12o. The Difference between the Church of England and the Church of Rome in opposition to a late Book Intituled At Agreement between the Church of England and Church of Rome A PRIVATE FRAYER to be used in Difficult Times A True Account of a Conference held about Religion at London Sept. 29 1687 between A. Pulton Jesuit and Tho. Tennison D. D. as also of that which led to it and followed after it 4o. The Vindication of A. Cressener Schoolmaster in Long-Acre from the Aspersions of A. Pulton Jesuit Schoolmaster in the Savoy together with some Account of his Discourse with Mr. Meredith A Discourse shewing that Protestants are on the safer Side notwithstanding the uncharitable Judgment of their Adversaries and that Their Religion is the surest Way to Heaven 4o. Six Conferences concerning the Eucharist wherein is shewed that the Doctrine of Transubstantiation overthrows the Prooss of Christian Religion A Discourse concerning the pretended Sacrament of Extreme Vnction with an account of the Occasions and Beginnings of it in the Western Church In Three Parts With a Letter to the Vindicator of the Bishop of Condom The Pamphlet entituled Speculum Ecclesiasticum or an Ecclesiastical Prospective-Glass considered in its False Reasonings and Quotations There are added by way of Preface two further Answers the First to the Desender of the Speculum the Second to the Half-sheet against the Six Conferences
Imprimatur Liber cui titulus A Full View of the Doctrines and Practices of the Ancient Church relating to the Eucharist c. H. Maurice Reverndissimo in Christo P. D. Wilhelmo Archiepiscopo Cant. Ã Sacris Octob. 6. 1687. A FULL VIEW OF THE Doctrines and Practices OF THE Ancient Church Relating to the EUCHARIST Wholly different from those of The Present ROMAN CHURCH And inconsistent with the Belief of TRANSUBSTANTIATION BEING A sufficient Confutation of Consensus Veterum Nubes Testium and other Late Collections of the Fathers pretending the contrary Rectum est Index sui Obliqui LONDON Printed for Richard Chiswell at the Rose and Crown in St. Paul's Church-yard MDCLXXXVIII A PREFACE to the READER THAT which is here offered to thy Perusal was occasioned by some late Pamphlets * Succession of Church and Sacraments Consensus Veterum Nubes Testium that appeared much about the same time in Print pretending by a Heap of Testimonies from the Fathers to prove as in some other Doctrines so particularly in that of the Corporal Presence and Transubstantiation That the Ancient Church and the present Roman are at a good Agreement It is very hard for Us to believe this and scarce credible that they themselves did so when we see so much Unsincerity in their Allegations such Deceit and contrived disguising the Sense of the Fathers in their Translations such late uncertain and supposititious Writings cited by them under the Venerable Names of Ancient Authors When the way that Procrustes took of stretching Limbs or chopping them off to make all agree to his Bed who were to be laid in it is used to make the Ancient and the Present Church to agree a Consent thus procured can occasion but a short and a sorry Triumph Yet those Performances have been cry'd up and they are look'd upon as Storehouses and Repositories whence any Champion of theirs who enters the Lists may be furnish'd from the Fathers either with what is necessary for his own Defence or the assailing of an Adversary The Representer since that made great use of them in a brisk Attaque he made upon the Dublin Letter tho' the Success I believe did not answer his Expectation The Convert of Putney's Performance who in his Consensus Veterum made the largest Shew of Fathers on behalf of Transubstantiation has had a particular Consideration given it by his worthy Answerer * Veteres Vindicati And so all the other Testimonies in the rest of them that are of any seeming strength and moment have received Answers to them from other Hands particularly from the Learned Author of The Doctrine of the Trinity and Transubstantiation compared Part 1. If any thing after all seems to be wanting on our Part it is this That as our Adversaries have made a Shew of Fathers for I can give it no better name pretended to countenance their Doctrines of the Corporal Presence and Transubstantiation so we also ought to have our Collection of Testimonies from the Ancients made faithfully and impartially wherein their true Sense in these Matters may be clearly seen and viewed and thereby their Dissent from this Church appear plainly in those things that either constitute this Doctrine or are necessary Consequents of it And this is that which I have undertaken in the following Papers wherein as the Usefulness of the Design has encourag'd me to take some Pains so I shall think them well bestowed if the Reader will bring an honest and unprejudic'd Mind to the Perusal of them and suffer himself to be determin'd in his Opinions concerning this Controversie according to the Evidence of Truth here offered for his Conviction If the Differences which the annexed Contents of the Chapters give an Account of are of such a Nature and stand at such a wide Distance that it 's impossible ever to bring Transubstantiation to shake Hands with them as Friends and if the two Churches the Ancient and the Present Roman are really divided and disagreeing as I pretend to have demonstrated in those Points it will then I hope hereafter be ridiculous to talk confidently of a Consent of Fathers and of a Cloud of Witnesses on their Side But if I am herein mistaken I am so little tender of my Reputation compared with Truth that I heartily desire to be confuted and made a Convert for I am conscious to my self of no false Fathers I have cited for true ones of no disguising or perverting their Sense by an Ill Translation of their Words which I have therefore set down in their own Language of no imposing upon the Reader a Sense of my own making contrary to what I believe that they intended I have but one Request more to make to the unknown Author of a Book intituled Reason and Authority c. who mentioning the Defence of the Dublin Letter * Pag. 119. for which I have some reason to be concern'd says That the Authorities of the Fathers there urged are as he conceives in the Sense of them either mistaken or misapplied and that he shall endeavour to reconcile them to other Expressions of the Fathers and to that which he calls the Catholick Doctrine of Transubstantiation I humbly desire when he is about this Reconciling Work and his Hand is in that he would go on to reconcile also the Differences urged in the following Papers Which if he shall do to any purpose I promise to return the Complements he has pass'd upon that Defender with Interest and to alter my present Opinion of him upon his Performances in that Book Farewell THE CONTENTS OF THE CHAPTERS BEING A Summary of the DIFFERENCES betwixt the FAITH and PRACTICES of the Two Churches CHAP. I. The First Difference The Roman Church asserts perpetual Miracles in the Eucharist The Ancient Church owns none but those of God's Grace working Changes in us not in the Substance of the Elements Page 1 CHAP. II. The Second Difference They differ in determining what that Thing is which Christ calls My Body which the Ancient Church says is Bread but the Roman Church denies it Page 7 CHAP. III. The Third Difference The Roman Church believes That Accidents subsist in the Eucharist without any Subject This the Fathers deny Page 12 CHAP. IV The Fourth Difference The Roman Church uses the Word Species to signifie those self-subsisting Accidents the Fathers never take Species in this Sense Page 16 CHAP. V. The Fifth Difference The Fathers differ from this Church about the Properties of Bodies as 1. They assert That every organiz'd Body even that of Christ is visible and palpable Page 21 2. That every Body possesses a Place and is commensurate to it and cannot be in more Places than one nor be entire in one Part nor exist after the manner of a Spirit All which Transubstantiation denies Page 22 3. That it is impossible for one to dwell in himself or partake of ones self this inferring Penetration of Dimensions and that a greater Body may
it self Gelasius Caesarien (m) Citat à Theodoret. Dial. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Word was made Flesh not being it self changed but dwelling in us The Tabernacle is one thing and the Word is another the Temple is one thing and God that dwells in it another See also the like Saying in Methodius cited by Photius his Bibliotheca Cod. 234. pag. 920. ult Edit In a word the Fathers oppose all Penetration of Dimensions in Bodies and say (n) Author Libr. cui tit Celebres Opiniones de Anima c. 10. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That it is impossible for one Body to penetrate another Body And the same Author says (o) Ibid. cap. ult Sic dici posset in milii grano coelum contineri That if this were possible you might then say That Heaven it self might be contained in a Grain of Millet The Fathers argue against Marcion upon this Rule That whatsoever contains another thing is greater than that which is contained in it So do's Epiphanius (p) Haeres 42. sec 7. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So do's Tertullian (q) Contr. Marcion l. 1. c. 15. Irenaeus (r) Adv. Haer. l. 2. c. 1. has the same Rule and laughs at Marcion's God upon that account Greg. Nyssen (s) De Vita Mosis proves that the Deity has no Bounds by this Argument That otherwise what contains would be greater than the Deity contained therein Theophylus Antioch (t) Ad Autolycum l. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 says This is the Property of the Almighty and True God not only to be every where but to inspect and hear all things Neither is he contained in a Place for else the containing Place would be greater than himself for that which contains is greater than that which is contained in it I will conclude this Chapter with the remarkable Words of Fulgentius (u) De Fide ad Petr. c. 3. Unaquaeque res ita permaner sicut à Deo accepit ut esset alia quidem sic alia autem sic Neque enim sic datum est corporibus ut sint sicut spiritus acceperunt c. Every thing so remains as it has received of God that it should be one on this manner and another on that For it is not given to Bodies to exist after such a manner as is granted unto Spirits c. CHAP. VI. The Sixth Difference The Church of Rome suitably to the strange Doctrine it teaches about Christ's Body and Blood teaches us not to believe the Report our Senses make That the Substance of Bread and Wine remain in the Sacrament but to pass a contrary Judgment to what they inform us herein But the Fathers teach the contrary That we may securely relie upon the Evidence of our Senses as to any Body even as to the true Body of Christ THat the Church of Rome would not have us in this Matter to attend to the Evidence of Sense is needless to prove since nothing is more common than to hear them call upon us to distrust them and to believe against their Report Thus the Trent Catechism * Ad Paroch de Euchar. part 2. num 25. Nullam Elementorum substantiam remanere quamvis nihil magis à sensibus alienum remotum videri possit teaches us to believe That no Substance of the Elements remains in the Eucharist tho' nothing seems more strange and remote from our Senses than this And again †Ib. n. 46. Corpus sanguinem Domini ita sumimus ut tamen quod verè sit sensibus percipi non potest We so receive the Body and Blood of Christ that yet we cannot perceive by our Senses that it is truly so As for the Fathers they are Strangers to this Doctrine nor did they betray the Christian Cause in this manner by taking away all Certainty from the Testimony of our Senses They on the contrary proved the Truth of Christ's Body against the Valentinians the Marcionites and other Hereticks by this Argument which the Church of Rome rejects they made their Appeals frequently as S. John had done before them to what had been seen with Mens Eyes to what their Ears had heard and their Hands had handled without any suspicion of their being deceived Thus Irenaeus (a) Lib. 3. adv Haeres c. 20. Hoc autem illis occurrit qui dicunt eum putativè passum Si enim non verè passus est nulla gratia ei cùm nulla fuerit passio Et nos cùm incipiemus verè pati seducens videbitur adhortans nos vapulare alteram praebere maxillam si ipse illud non prior in veritate passus est Et quemadmodum illos seduxit ut videretur ipse hoc quod non erat nos seducit adhortans perferre ea quae ipse non pertulit This meets with them who say That Christ suffered only seemingly For if he did not truly suffer no Thanks are due to him when there was no Passion And when he shall begin truly to suffer he will seem a Seducer when he exhorts us to suffer Stripes and to turn the other Cheek if he first did not suffer this in truth And as he seduced them in seeming to be that which he was not so he seduces us whilst he exhorts us to suffer the things which he did not suffer Again (b) Id. lib. 5. cap. 1. citante Theodoreto Dial. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 These things were not done seemingly only but in reality of truth for if he appeared to be a Man when he was not so he neither did remain the Spirit of God which he truly was since a Spirit is invisible nor was there any Truth in him for he was not that which he appeared to be He thought it you see absurdity enough to say That Christ appeared what he was not But what absurdity can this be to them that say it is constantly so in the Sacrament where that appears so and so which is not so as the Bread and Wine according to them do's Again (c) Id. lib. 5. cap. 7. Quomodo igitur Christus in carnis substantia resurrexit ostendit discipulis figuram clavorum apertionem lateris haec autem sunt indicia carnis ejus quae surrexit à mortuis sic nos inquit suscitabit per virtutem suam As Christ therefore rose again in the Substance of our Flesh and shewed to his Disciples the Print of the Nails and the Opening of his Side and these are Indications of his Flesh which arose from the Dead so also he says he will raise us up by his Power Tertullian also argues thus against Marcion (d) De carne Christi c. 5. Maluit crede nasci quam aliqua ex parte mentiri quidem in semetipsum ut carnem gestaret sine ossibus duram sine musculis solidam sine sanguine cruentam sine tunica vestitam sine fame esurientem sine dentibus
Spurious Dionysius speaking of the Bread and Wine which he calls Holy Gifts says They are Symbols of things above that are more true So again (h) In Cap. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 elsewhere he says The things of the Old Law were a shadow those of the New Testament were an Image but the state of the World to come is the Truth Theodoret (i) In 1 Cor. 11.26 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 After his coming there will be no more need of Symbols or Signs when the Body it self appears I refer the Reader to the Testimonies produced before Chap. 10. Position 2. out of S. Austin Sedulius Primasius Bede c. I will conclude this Chapter with a passage or two out of the Prayers after the Sacrament in the Old Liturgy used in Bertram's time (k) V. Bertram de corp sang Christi prope finem p. 112. Edit ult Lat. Engl. We who have now received the Pledge of Eternal Life most humbly beseech thee to grant (l) Ut quod in imagine contingimus Sacramenti manifesta participatione sumamus That we may be manifestly made partakers of that which we here receive in the Image of the Sacrament And thus afterwards (m) Ibid. p. 114. Perficiant in nobis quaesumus Domine tua Sacramenta quod continent ut quae nunc specie gerimus rerum veritate capiamus in another Prayer Let thy Sacraments work in us ' O Lord we beseech thee those things which they contain that we may really be partakers of those things which now we celebrate in a Figure Bertram Comments upon these Prayers in such passages as these Whence it appears says he that this Body and Blood of Christ are the Pledge and Image of something to come which is now only represented but shall hereafter be plainly exhibited therefore it is one thing which is now celebrated and another which shall hereafter be manifested And afterwards p. 115. The Prayer says that these things are celebrated in a Figure not in Truth that is by way of similitude or representation not the manifestation of the thing it self Now the Figure and the Truth are very different things Therefore the Body and Blood of Christ which is celebrated in the Church differs from the Body and Blood of Christ which is glorified since the Resurrection c. We see how vast a difference there is between the mystery of Christs Body and Blood which the faithful now receive in the Church P. 117. and that Body which was born of the Virgin Mary which suffered rose again ascended into Heaven and sitteth at the right hand of the Father For this Body which we celebrate in our way to happiness must be spiritually received for Faith believes somewhat that it sees not and it spiritually feeds the Soul makes glad the heart and confers Eternal Life and Incorruption if we attend not to that which feeds the Body which is chew'd with our teeth and ground in pieces but to that which is spiritually received by Faith. But now that Body in which Christ suffered and rose again was his own proper Body which he assumed of the Virgin which might be seen and felt after his Refurrection c. It is very observable and a great confirmation of what has been said in this Chapter That the Ancient Christians of S. Thomas inhabiting the Mountains of Malabar in the East Indies agree with the Ancient Church in denying our Saviours Corporal Presence in the Sacrament of the Eucharist as appears from their Publick Offices and other Books mentioned in a Synod which was celebrated amongst them by Dom Aleixo de Menezes Archbishop of Goa in the Year 1599. In the fourteenth Decree of the third Action of the said Synod in which most of their Church Offices and other Books are Condemned for containing Doctrines contrary to the Roman Faith there is particular notice taken of their contradicting the Roman Faith in the point of Transubstantiation 1. The Book of Timothy the Patriarch is condemned for asserting through three Chapters that the true Body of Christ our Lord is not in the Sacrament of the Altar but only the Figure of his Body 2. The Book of Homilies is condemned which teacheth that the H. Eucharist is only the Image of Christ as the Image of a Man is distinguished from a real Man and that the Body of Christ is not there but in Heaven 3. The Book of the Exposition of the Gospels is condemn'd which teacheth that the Eucharist is only the Image of the Body of Christ and that his Body is in Heaven at the right Hand of the Father and not upon Earth 4. Their Breviary which they call Iludre and Gaza is condemn'd which teaches that the most H. Sacrament of the Eucharist is not the true Body of Christ Lastly The Office of the Burial of Priests is condemn'd where it is said that the most H. Sacrament of the Altar is no more but the virtue of Christ and not his true Body and Blood. This Synod was Printed in the University of Conimbra with the Licences of the Inquisition and Ordinary in the Year 1606. and is in the Possession of a Learned Person who gave me this account out of it CHAP. XII The Twelfth Difference The Fathers assert That Christ's Body is not eaten corporally and carnally but only spiritually But the Church of Rome teaches a Corporal Eating a Descent of Christ's Natural Body into ours and understands the Eating of Christ's Body literally and carnally IF the Church of Rome declares its own Faith when it imposes the Profession of it upon another and makes one abjure the contrary under pain of Anathema then I am sure it was once with a witness for the eating of Christ's Body in the most literal and proper Sense when An. Dom. 1059. Pope Nicholas II. and the General Council of Lateran prescribed a Profession of it to Berengarius made him swear it and anathematize the contrary as it is set down by Lanfrank (n) De Eucharist Sacram. adv Berengar which because the Nubes Testium tho' it has set down two other Forms durst not give us I will therefore here transcribe out of him I Berengarius Ego Berengarius indignus Diaconus Ecclesiae S. Mauritii Andegavensis cognoscens veram Catholicam Apostolicam Fidem anathematizo omnem Haeresin praecipue eam de quâ hactenus infamatus sum quae astruere conatur panem vinum quae in altari ponuntur post consecrationem solummodo Sacramentum non verum corpus sanguinem Dom. nostri Jesu Christi esse nec posse sensualiter nisi in solo Sacramento manibus Sacerdotum tractari vel frangi aut fidelium dentibus atteri Consentio autem S. Romanae Ecclesiae Apostolicae sedi ore corde profiteor de Sacramentis Dominicae mensae eam fidem tenere quam Dominus Venerabilis Papa Nicholaus haee S. Synodus authoritate Evangelica Apostolica tenendam
among so many false Brethren that were Turn-coats yet there were none that made this an Accusation against them that they are the Flesh of their God and Lord and drank his Blood. We have this ingenuous confession of Bellarmine himself (*) De Eucharist l. 2. c. 12. Verè stulti haberi possemus si absque Verbo Dei crederemus veram Christi carnem ore corporali manducari That we might be accounted truly Fools if without the Word of God we believed the true Flesh of Christ to be eaten with the Mouth of our Bodies But whether with or without the Word of God they believed such a corporal eating of Christ's Flesh had been all one to the Heathens if they knew that this was their Belief and it would rather have strengthned their Reproach if they knew that they were bound thus to believe But then what he adds is very remarkable Nam id semper infideles stultissimum paradoxum aestimârunt ut notum est de Averroe aliis That Insidels always counted this a most foolish Paradox as appears from Averroes and others I believe indeed that they must always count this a foolish Paradox which Averroes charged Christians withal in that known Saying of his (b) Se Sectam Christianâ deteriorem aut ineptiorem nullam reperire quam qui sequuntur ii quem colunt Deum dentibus ipsi suis discerpunt ac devorant That he found no Sect worse or more foolish than the Christians who tear with their Teeth and devour that God whom they worship But why was not this cast always in the Teeth of Christians if this was always their professed Doctrine Was Celsus or Julian or Lucian less sagacious or less malicious than Averroes that not a word of this foolish Paradox was ever so much as hinted by them to the reproach of Christians then But the Cardinal has instanced the most unluckily in the World in naming only Averroes for this Calumny when all acknowledg that this Philosopher P. Innocent 3. who establish'd Transubstantiation lived in the same Age and some very learned Men prove from the Arabian Accounts that those two were Contemporaries And as for his aliis others I should be glad to see any named that urged what Averroes did to the Christians reproach before the days of Berengarius After that indeed we can meet with a Follower of Mahomet who as a Learned Man (c) Hottinger in Eucharistia dejexja Sect. 14. p. 220. Ahmed bin Edris ita scribit verba autem Isa fic Arabes Christum vocant super quo pax Qui edit carnem meam bibit sanguinem c. Christiani literaliter intelligunt Atque sic Christiani atrociores sunt in Christum quà m Judaei Illi enim Christum occisum reliquerunt hi carnem ejus edunt sangumem bibunt quod ipso teste experientia truculentius est gives us his words says thus Those words of Christ He that eateth my Flesh and drinketh my Blood he is in me and I in him c. Christians understand them literally and so Christians are more cruel against Christ than Jews for they left Christ when they had slain him but these eat his Flesh and drink his Blood which as experience testifies is more savage After the Roman Church's declaring for Transubstantiation though not before we meet with the Oppositions of Jews testifying their abhorrency (d) Ibid. Joseph Albo de Ikkarim lib. 3. cap. 25. Nam panis est corpus Dei ipsorum Aiunt enim corpus Jesu quod est in Coelis venire in Altare vestiri pane vino post pronunciata verba Hoc enim est Corpus meum à sacrificulo qualiscunque ille demum fuerit sive pius sive impius omnia fieri Corpus unum cum corpore Messiae c. Repugnant hic omnia Intelligibilibus primis ipsis etiam sensibus of a Doctrine which talks of a Sacrifice and makes Bread to be the Body of their God which he means in the sence of Transubstantiation by being turned into it and cloathed with its Accidents whose Body that is in Heaven comes upon the Altar and upon the pronouncing these words For this is my Body by the Priest whether good or wicked is all one all things are made one Body with the Body of the Messias c. Which things are all repugnant to the first Principles of Reason and to our very Senses themselves As he afterwards shows in several Instances And now we are told that it is a common Bye-word to reproach a Christian by among the Turks to call him Mange Dieu All these took their rise plainly from Transubstantiation and not from the Faith of the Ancient Church For if one of it (e) Theodoret. Interrog 55. in Genes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may speak for the rest the Old Christians agreed in the Abhorrence and called it the extreamest stupidity to worship that which is eaten And again Id. qu. 11. in Levit. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 How can any one of a sound Mind call that a God which being offered to the True God is after wards eaten by him But now after all the saddest Consideration is that the Prejudices are so great against this and another Twin-Doctrine of the Roman Church about the worship of Images that a perpetual Stumbling-block seems to be laid before the Jews and it may be look'd upon as the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that which will always hinder and obstruct their Conversion whilst it is believed by them to be the common Sence and Faith of Christians and they have too great a Temptation to believe so when they have seen this Church which has got the most worldly Power into its hands persecuting not only Jews but Hereticks as they call all other Christians that deny this Doctrine to the Death for gainsaying it and when that Work will cease God only knows The Jews can never be supposed to get over this hard Chapter whilst they who call themselves the only Catholick Christians hold such things about the Body of Christ and remember that it is about a Body which as the forenamed Jos Albo (f) Ibid. Ista talia sunt quae mens non potest concipere neque os eloqui neque auris audire speaks No Man's Mind can conceive nor Tongue utter nor any Ear can hear He means by reason of their absurdity So that the Case of the Jews and their Conversion seems to be hopeless and desperate according to all humane guesses till there be a change wrought not in the substance of the Bread and Wine this Church dreams of but in the Romanist's Belief And though this also may seem upon many accounts to be as hopeless as the former yet for a Conclusion I will try whether as once the Great Apostle thought it a wise method Rom. 11.14 by the Example of the Gentiles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to provoke the Jews to Emulation so it may not be
once adore it For thus the Missal (*) Ritus celebr Missam cap. 8. Dicit hoc est enim Corpus meum Quibus prolatis celebrans Hostiam tenens inter pollices indices genuflexus eam adorat Tunc se erigens quantum commodè potest elevat in altum Hostiam intentis in eam oculis quod in Elevatione Calicis facit populo reverenter ostendit adorandam directs That when the Priest comes to the words of Consecration and has said This is my Body then holding the Host as he is directed he kneels down and adores it Then raising himself as high as he is able he lifts up the Host on high and fixing his Eyes upon it which he do's also in the Elevation of the Cup he shows the Host reverently to the People to be adored This is the present Practice which the Council of Trent (f) Sess 13. c. 5. Nullus dubitandi locus relinquitur quin omnes Christi fideles pro more in Ecclesia Catholica semper recepto latriae cultum qui vero Deo debetur huic sanctissimo Sacramento in veneratione adhibeant endeavours to countenance by telling us That there is no doubt but that all Christians according to the Custom always received in the Catholick Church ought to give the Worship of Latria which is supreme Worship to the most Holy Sacrament in their worship of it By which Sacrament as their best Interpreters explain it is meant Totum visibile Sacramentum all that is visible there together with Christ and is one entire Object consisting of Christ and the Species and must be together adored But whatsoever besides Christ who is invisible is visible there call it what you please is a Creature and I am sure the Ancient Church never practised the adoration of any such and it is strange impudence to talk of the Custom of the Catholick Church in this Matter Neither can it be shown by any good Testimonies of the Ancients that this their Elevation in order to Adoration was ever used by them No not so much as any Elevation for any purpose is mentioned by those Fathers who on set purpose have given an account of the Rites of communicating in the first Ages of the Church neither by Justin Martyr nor the Author of the Constitutions called Apostolical nor Cyril of Jerusalem nor the pretended Denis the Areopagite or any other before the Sixth Century A dilligent Searcher of Antiquity tells us (g) Dallaeus de relig cult object l. 2. c. 5. That he cannot find among all the Interpreters of Ecclesiastical Offices in the Latin Church the mention of any sort of Elevation before the Eleventh Century that is the Age of Innovation in the Faith about the Eucharist As for the Greeks of later date in them we may meet indeed with an Elevation of the Eucharist but for quite other purposes than Adoration One of the Ends of their Elevation is mentioned by Germanus Patriarch of Constantinople (h) In Tom. 2. Bibl. Pat. Gr. Lat. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which was to represent Christ lifted up upon the Cross and his Death upon it and the Resurrection it self Another reason they give is by the showing of this Food of the Saints to invite and call them to partake of it Which Nic. Cabasilas gives a full account of (i) In Expos Liturg. apud Bibl. Pat. Gr. Lat. Tom. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saying That after the Friest has been partaker of the sanctified Things he turns to the People and showing them the Holy Things i. e. the Bread and Wine calls those that are willing to communicate Or as he still more fully explains it The Life-giving Bread being received by the Priest and shown he calls those that are likely to receive it worthily saying Holy Things are for the Holy * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Behold the Bread of Life which ye see Run therefore you that are to partake of it but it is not for all but for him that is Holy c. It is certain then that the Roman Practice when for Adoration they elevate and show the Host is an Innovation and that it proceeded from the Novel Doctrines then set on foot in the church is highly probable not only because they commenced about the same time but also because their practice suits so exactly with and springs so freely from those Doctrines it being so natural when such a glorious Body as our Saviour's is believed to be made present where it was not before to be wholly taken up with thoughts of Adoration and Worship above any thing else as it is notoriously true in this Church where the main End of the Eucharist viz communicating in the Body and Blood of Christ is strangely neglected and they are more concerned in carrying the Sacrament in Processions in praying to it before their Altars in preparing splendid Tabernacles where it may repose decking and adorning the places of its Residence and the like than in engaging Men to receive it which was the main thing the Ancient Church designed that they might worthily partake of it and when this was not designed their way was wholly to conceal it 4. Instance Another Practice of the Roman Church different from that of the Ancient Church is that now the Communicants Hands are unimployed in receiving the Eucharist and all is put by the Priest into their mouths Their Hands indeed may bear a part in their Adoration and showing some Signs of that but otherwise they are useless For now since Christ's Body is believed to lie hid under the Species of Bread and Wine that is thought too sacred to be touched by the Hands of any but the Priests We may therefore conclude fairly that if the Fathers had not this care to forbid this touching by the Peoples Hands they had not this Faith of the Roman Church that the Natural Body of Christ is in the Eucharist since if this had been their Opinion in all probability their practice would have been the same Since that they had an equal concern for their Saviour's Honour cannot well be doubted of Now that they gave the Sacrament into the Peoples Hands for the space of eight hundred Years or more is clear by their Testimonies Of which I 'll mention only three or four out of an hundred that might be given Clemens of Alexandria (k) Stromat lib. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 says That when the Priests have divided the Eucharist they permit every one of the People to take a portion of it Tertullian (l) Lib. de Idol Cap. 7. Eas manus admovere Corpori Domini quae Daemoniis corpora conferunt reproaches the Christian Statuaries That they reached those hands to the Lord's Body which had made Bodies for Devils St. Ambrose (m) Apud Theodoret. Hist Ecclesiast Lib. 5. c. 19. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Story is a known one how he repelled Theodosius from the Holy Table after the slaughter he
nobis Frumentum Electorum Misere nobis Vinum germinans Virgines Misere nobis Panis pinguis deliciae Regum Misere nobis Juge Sacrificium Misere nobis Oblatio munda Misere nobis Agnus absque macula Misere nobis Mensa purissima Misere nobis Angelorum Esca Misere nobis Manna absconditum Misere nobis Memoria mirabilium Dei Misere nobis Panis Supersubstantialis Misere nobis Verbum caro factum habitans in nobis Misere nobis Hostia Sancta Misere nobis Calix Benedictionis Misere nobis Mysterium fidei Miserere nobis Praecelsum venerabile Sacramentum Miserere nobis Sacrificium omnium Sanctissimum Miserere nobis Vere propitiatorium pro vivis defunctis Miserere nobis Coeleste Antidotum quo à peccatis praeservamur Miserere nobis Stupendum supra omnia miraculum Miserere nobis Sacratissima Dominicae passionis commemoratio Miserere nobis Donum transcendens omnem plenitudinem Miserere nobis Memoriale praecipuum divini amoris Miserere nobis Divinae affluentia largitatis Miserere nobis Sacrosanctum augustissimum mysterium Miserere nobis Pharmacum immortalitatis Miserere nobis Tremendum ac vivificum Sacramentum Miserere nobis Panis omnipoâ—â—â—tia verbi caro factus Miserere nobis Incruentum Sacrificium Miserere nobis Cibus conviva Miserere nobis Dulcissimum convivium cui assistunt Angeli ministrantes Miserere nobis Sacramentum Pietatis Miserere nobis Vinculum Charitatis Miserere nobis Offerens Oblatio Miserere nobis Spiritualis dulcedo in proprio fonte degustata Miserere nobis Refectio animarum Sanctarum Miserere nobis Viaticum in Domino morientium Miserere nobis Pignus futurae gloriae c. Miserere nobis The Litany of the Sacrament in the Manual aforesaid Living Bread that didst descend from Heaven Have mercy on us God hidden and my Saviour Have mercy on us Bread-Corn of the Elect Have mercy on us Wine budding forth Virgins Have mercy on us Fat Bread and the delight of Kings Have mercy on us Continual Sacrifice Have mercy on us Pure Oblation Have mercy on us Lamb without spot Have mercy on us Manual adds Table of Proposition Have mercy on us Most pure Table Have mercy on us Food of Angels Have mercy on us Hidden Manna Have mercy on us Memorial of God's wonderful Works Have mercy on us Supersubstantial Bread Have mercy on us Word made Flesh and dwelling in us Have mercy on us Holy Host Have mercy on us Chalice of Benediction Have mercy on us Mystery of Faith Have mercy on us Most high and venerable Sacrament Have mercy on us Sacrifice of all other most Holy Have mercy on us Truly propitiatory for the Quick and Dead Have mercy on us Heavenly Antidote whereby we are preserved from Sin Have mercy on us Miracle above all other astonishing Have mercy on us Most sacred Commemoration of our Lord's Death Have mercy on us Gift surpassing all Fulness Have mercy on us Chief Memorial of Divine Love Have mercy on us Abundance of Divine Bounty Have mercy on us Holy and most Majestical Mystery Have mercy on us Medicine of Immortality Have mercy on us Dreadful and Life-giving Sacrament Have mercy on us Bread by the Word's Omnipotence made Flesh Have mercy on us Unbloody Sacrifice Have mercy on us Meat and Guest Manual omits Have mercy on us Most sweet Banquet whereat the Ministring Angels attend Have mercy on us Sacrament of Piety Have mercy on us Bond of Charity Have mercy on us Offerer and Oblation Have mercy on us Spiritual sweetness tasted in its proper Fountain Have mercy on us Refection of Holy Souls Have mercy on us Viaticum of those who die in our Lord Have mercy on us Pledge of future Glory c. Have mercy on us This is enough to show into what strains of Devotion the present Roman Church now runs since Transubstantiation is an Article of its Faith. I deny not that these Prayers are very natural if that Doctrine were true and I would fain have a good Reason assigned why if this Doctrine was believed of old this was not the way of the Primitive Devotion If they affirm that it was it lies upon them to produce the evidence But then let me tell them before-hand that we will not be shamm'd off with a Rhetorical Prosopopoeia of an Author under the name of S. Denis the Areopagite which has been the only thing I have seen alledged and as often answered whose Authority neither cannot be considerable to us who remember that he was first produced and shown to the World by Hereticks and rejected by the Orthodox CHAP. XVI The Sixteenth Difference Our Ancient Roman-Saxon Church differred from the present Roman Church in the Article of Transubstantiation and Corporal Presence THis is the Last Difference I shall mention tho' not the least but a very material consirmation of what I have been all along proving That there is no consenâ—â—f the Ancient Church with the present Roman Church in their Faith and Opinions about the Eucharist when we shall find that even our own Old English Church that had received most of its Instructions in Christianity from the Roman and in many other things agreed with what it now professes yet in this widely differ'd from it This plainly argues one of these two things either that the then Roman Church had not the Opinions of the present Church in these Matters and so did not propagate them to us which cannot be said when we remember the busy Disputes about these Matters in the 9th Century tho' they were not yet come to a determination or else that when the Roman Church warped and generally espoused a New Doctrine which the Ancient Fathers were strangers to we still kept our Ground and did not suffer our selves to be perverted but held to the Ancient Belief This is the Truth of our Case as appears by a noble Remain of an Easter Sermon about 700 Years old in the Saxon Tongue among other Catholick Homilies that were to be read yearly in the Church It was produced in the last Age in the Saxon with a Translation in our English Tongue printed by John Day it was fince put with the same Translation by Mr. Fox into his Martyrology * Vol. 2. p. 380. last Edition and has been set forth with a Latin Translation by the Learned Abr. Whelock in his Saxon Edition of Bede's Ecclesiastical History p. 462. printed at Cambridg 1644. out of which I shall transcribe as much as will serve to prove our Assertion softning the harshness of the Phrases of the last Age and expressing the sense in words more easily understood The Easter Sermon begins thus MEN Beloved you have been often discoursed to concerning our Saviour's Resurrection how he after his Passion on this Day rose powerfully from the Dead Now we shall by God's Grace explain something to you about the Holy Eucharist which this day we are bound to frequent and instruct your understanding
as proper to propose the Example of the Jews themselves to the Romanists to provoke their Emulation whom they may see better explaining as blind as they are Christ's words of Institution and agreeing better with the Ancient Church in the matter of the Eucharist than themselves and raising such Arguments and Objections against the Transubstantiating Doctrine as can never to any purpose be answered The Instances of this are very remarkable in a Book called Fortalitium Fidei contra Judeos c. printed An. 1494. but written as the Author himself tells us fol. 61. in the Year 1458. where he gives us the Arguments of a Jew against Transubstantiation some of which I shall out of him faithfully translate The Jew (g) Vid. l. 3. consid 6. sol 130 impossibl 10. begins with Christ's words of Institution and shows that they cannot be interpreted otherwise than figuratively and significatively as the Fathers we have heard have asserted 1. Vos Christiani dicitis c. Ye Christians say in that Sacrament of the Eucharist there is really the Body and Blood of Christ This is impossible Because when your Christ showing the Bread said This is my Body he spake significatively and not really as if he had said this is the Sign or Figure of my Body After which way of speaking Paul said 1 Cor. 10. The Rock was Christ that is a Figure of Christ And it appears evidently that this was the Intention of your Christ because when he had discoursed about the eating his Body and drinking his Blood to lay the offence that rose upon it among the Disciples he says as it were expounding himself The words that I have spoken to you are Spirit and Life denoting that what he had said was to be understood not according to the Letter but according to the Spiritual Sence And when Christ said This is my Body holding Bread in his Hands he meant that that Bread was his Body in potentia propinqua in a near possibility viz. after he had eaten it for then it would be turned into his Body or into his Flesh and so likewise the Wine And after this manner we Jews do on the day of Unleavened Bread for we take unleavened Bread in memory of that time when our Fathers were brought out of the Land of Egypt and were not permitted to stay so long there as whilst the Bread might be leavened that was the Bread of the Passover and we say This is the Bread which our Fathers ate though that be not present since it is past and gone and so this unleavened Bread minds us of the Bread of Egypt and this Bread is not that so is that Bread of which the Sacrifice of the Altar is made It is sufficient for Christians to say that it is in memory of that Bread of Christ though this Bread be not that And because it was impossible that one Bit of his Flesh should be preserved in memory of him he commanded that that Bread should be made and that Wine which was his Flesh and Blood in the next remove to come into act as we Jews do and Christ borrowed his Phrases and the Elements from their Supper at the Passover with the unleavened Bread as we said before When therefore your Christ at the Table took Bread and the Cup and gave them to his Disciples he did not bid them believe that the Bread and Wine were turned into his Body and Blood but that as often as they did that they should do it in remembrance of him viz. in memory of that past Bread and if you Christians did understand it so no impossibility would follow but to say the contrary as you assert is to say an impossible thing and against the intention of your Christ as we have show'd This is what the Jew urges with great reason But the Catholick Author makes a poor Answer to it and has nothing to say in effect but this That the Tradition of the Catholick Church concerning this Sacrament is true viz. That in this Sacrament there is really and not by way of Signification the True Body and True Blood of Christ 2. Whereas the Roman Church flies to Miracles in this case of Transubstantiation the Jew encounters that next of all thus You Christians say that the Body and Blood of Christ is in the Sacrament of the Altar by a Miracle Ibid. 11. Impossib p. 131. this I prove to be impossible Because if there were any Miracle in the case it would appear to the Eye as when Moses turned the Rod into a Serpent that was performed evidently to the Eye though Men knew not how it was done So also in the case of the Ark of the Covenant of Old mighty Miracles were wrought and those not only sensible Miracles but also publick and apparent to all the People insomuch that Infidels were terrifyed at the very report of such Miracles Men seeing before their Eyes the Divine Power brightly shining in Reverence of the Ark of his Covenant as appears in his Dividing the Waters of Jordan while the People of Israel passed over dry-shod the Waters on one side swelling like a Mountain and on the other flowing down as far as the dead Sea till the Priests with the Ark went over the Chanel of Jordan and then Jordan returned to its wonted course But the Kings of the Amorites and Canaanites hearing of so great and publick a Miracle were so confounded with the terror of God that no Spirit remained in them Josu c. 4. 5. and so I might instance in many other Evident Miracles which to avoid tediousness I omit And yet in that Ark neither God nor Christ was really contained but only the Tables of Stone containing the Precepts of the Decalogue and the Pot of Manna c. Exod. 16. and the Rod of Aaron that flourished in the House of Levi Numb 17. If therefore by the Ark that carried only the foresaid Bodies that were inanimate how sacred soever they were God wrought in Honour of it such evident far-spreading and publick Miracles how much more powerfully should they have been wrought by him if it were true that in your Sacrament of the Altar the true God or Christ were really contained whom you affirm that he ought to be worshipped and venerated infinitely above all Since therefore no such thing do's appear there to the Eye it follows that it is impossible for any Miracle to be done there since this is against the Nature of a Miracle The answer to this is so weak and so the rest are generally such an unintelligible School-jargon that I shall not tire the Reader with them But shall go on with the Jew 3. Ibid. 12. Impossib fol. 132. You Christians do assert that the true Body of Christ begins to be on the Altar This seems to be impossible For a thing begins to be where it was not before two ways Either by Local Motion or by the conversion of another thing into it as appears