only a Negative Argument I will therefore add a Positive one to demonstrate that the Ancients were far from these Scrupulosities and also that they came into the Church with Transubstantiation and not before viz. The Practice of Communicating Infants It is not my Business here to prove that this was the common Usage in the Church from the Times of S. Cyprian at least even to later Ages which has been done effectually by others (i) See Mr. Chillingworth 's Additional Treatises in 4 to and is acknowledged by our Adversaries Maldonate (k) Comm. in Joan. 6.53 the Jesuit owns that it continued in the Church for six hundred Years And Card. Perron (l) De loc August c. 10. grants That the Primitive Church gave the Eucharist to Infants as soon as they were baptized And that Charles the Great and Lewis the Pious both testify that this Custom remained in the West in their Age that is in the 9th Century in which they lived But it went down lower even to two Ages after Charles the Great For that Epistle of P. Paschal 2. which I mentioned in another Chapter given us by Baronius at the end of his last Tome Ad Ann. 1118. when that Pope died wherein he forbids Intinction of the Bread in the Wine and requires that the Bread and Wine should be taken separately gives us also this exception praeter in parvulis ac omnino infirmis qui panem absorbere non possunt that it may be allowed to little Children and those extreamly weak that cannot get down the Bread Which had been a needless provision for them if Infants had not then received the Sacrament This being then a certain and confessed thing that Infants received the Eucharist I refer it to the Conscience of any Romanist whether he can think the Ancients had any of their aforesaid Fears and nice Scrupulosities about the Accidents that might happen to the consecrated Elements which in that Practice could not be prevented it being impossible where sucking Children receive either Bread or Wine to hinder the happening of something which the Church of Rome will call highly dishonourable to the Sacrament For to instance in a Case which S. Cyprian (m) Lib. de Lapsis mentions of a Christian little Girl that by her Nurses Wickedness had receiv'd polluted Bread in an Idol's Temple and afterwards was brought by the Mother knowing nothing into the Church to receive the Communion He relates how the Child when its turn came to receive the Cup turned away its Face shut its Lips and refused the Cup. But the Deacon (n) Ibid. Perstitit Diaconus reluctanti licet de Sacramento Calicis insudit Tunc sequitur singultus vomitus in Corpore atque ore violato Eucharistia permanere non potuit persisted and though it strove against it did infuse into it of the Sacrament of the Cup. Then followed sighing and vomiting the Eucharist could not remain in a Body and Mouth that had been prophaned How would a Romanist start at the thoughts of pouring the Sacrament as this Deacon did who sure was a Zuinglian into the Mouth of a strugling Child But here is no mention of any concern about that or what happened upon it from whence it is natural to conclude that the Ancients in this common Case having none of this Church's Scruples and Fears that they had none of their Faith for they must have had more Caution if they had had their Opinion about the Eucharist It is also very observable to confirm what I have said that though we can trace the Custom of Communicating Infants as far as to the Age when the Transubstantiating Doctrine was set on foot and ready to be formed into an Article of Faith yet here we are at a full stop and can go no further for this begat such Scruples and Fears that made this quickly give place and vanish which had so many Hazards attending it and we hear no more of it since that in the Latin Church but other great Churches that have not made This an Article of their Faith still retain the old Custom though they err therein of Communicating Infants As the Greek Churches the Muscovites Armenians Habassins Jacobites c. concerning which see Dallée de Cultib Latin. l. 5. c. 4. Thomas à Jesu de Convers gentium l. 7. c. 5. c. 18. Ludolfi Histor Aethiop l. 3. c. 6. Sect. 37 38. Histor Jacobitarum Oxon. cap. 9. See also Father Simons Critical History of Religions concerning the Georgians cap. 5. p. 67 71. Nestorians p. 101. Cophties p. 114. Armenians c. 12. p. 128. CHAP. XV. The Fifteenth Difference The Old Prayers in the Canon of the Mass concerning the Sacrament agree not with the present Faith of the Roman Church And their New Prayers to the Sacrament have no countenance from the Ancient Church IT is to no purpose to enquire who was the Author of the Canon of the Mass when Wallafridus Strabo (o) De reb Ecclesiast cap. 22. Quis primus ordinaverit nobis ignotum est Auctum tamen fuisse non semel sed saepius ex partibus additis intelligimus who lived in the middle of the 9th Century tells us It was a thing to him unknown Seeing also he adds That it had been enlarged not only once but often it is as vain to ask after its Age. The same also the Abbot Berno (p) Berno Ab. Augiens de rebus ad Missam spectant c. 1. Attamen ipsum Canonem non unus solus composuit totum sed per tempora aliud alius interposuit vel adjecit says It was not one Man that composed the Canon all of it but at several times another interposed and added another thing And as they added so also I doubt not but they altered many things as we may guess by that remarkable Difference betwixt what the Author of the Book of Sacraments under the name of S. Ambrose (q) Lib. 4. de Sacram. cap. 5. Fac nobis hanc Oblationem adscriptam rationabilem acceptabilem Quod est Figura corporis sanguinis Domini nostri Jesu Christi Quam Oblationem tu Deus in omnibus quaefumus benedictam adscriptam c. facere digneris Vt nobis corpus sanguis fiat dilectissimi tui Filii D. N. J. Christi cites as the Prayer in his Time and what we now find in it speaking of the Oblation it was then Make this Oblation to us allowable rational acceptable Which is the Figure of the Body and Blood of Christ our Lord Which now is turned into this Prayer That the Oblation may be made to us the Body and Blood of thy dear Son our Lord. But yet to take the Canon as now it is we shall find the Prayers of it not capable of being reconciled with the present Faith of the Roman Church and with Transubstantiation To give some Instances Thus they pray in the Canon immediately after the words of Consecration
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
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
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.
in the Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist is contained truly really and Substantially the Body and Blood of Christ but shall say That he is in it only as in a Sign or Figure or Virtue And the Catechism ad Parochos (h) Part. 2. de Eucharist n. 25. says That the True Body of our Lord Christ the same that was born of the Virgin and sits in the Heavens at the Right-hand of the Father is contained in this Sacrament I will now shew that the Fathers advance such Positions as plainly contradict this Doctrine 1 Position The Fathers ever since Christ's departure and Ascension into Heaven look upon his Body as absent from Earth tho' in another sense he is still present All those Testimonies before produced under the Fifth Difference concerning Bodies being commensurate to Space and not being in more places than one and saying this of Christ's Body as well as of other Bodies are a Proof of this Position but besides those I will here add some further direct Proofs of it S. Ambrose thus (i) Com. in Luc. 24. Ascende nobis ut te sequamur mentibus quem oculis videre non possumus c. Ergo non supra terram nec in terra nec secundùm carnem quaerere te debemus si volumus invenire Nunc enim secundùm carnem non novimus Christum Maria quia quaerebat in terra tangere non potuit Stephanus tetigit quia quasivit in coelo Stephanus inter Judaeos vidit absentem Ascend speaking to Christ that we may follow thee with our Minds whom we cannot see with our Eyes S. Paul has taught us how we should follow thee and where we may find thee Seek those things that are above where Christ sits c. Therefore we ought not to seek thee upon Earth nor in the Earth nor according to the Flesh if we would find thee Mary could not touch him because she sought him on Earth Stephen touched him because he sought him in Heaven Stephen among the Jews saw him absent S. Austin is so copious in this Argument and his Testimonies so many that a good Choice of them is only necessary Thus he says (k) Serm. 140. de Tempore Ideo Dominus noster absentavit se corpore ab omni Ecclesia ascendit in coelum ut fides aedificetur si enim non nosti nisi quod vides ubi est fides Therefore our Lord absented himself from every Church and ascended into Heaven that our Faith may be edified for if thou knowest nothing but what thou seest where is Faith Again (l) Serm. 60. de Verb. Dom. Semper quidem Divinitate nobiscum est sed nisi corporaliter abiret à nobis semper ejus corpus carnaliter videremus nunquam spiritualiter crederemus Christ is always with us by his Divinity but unless he were corporally absent from us we should always carndly see his Body and should never spiritually believe This is a clear Testimony that Christ is absent as to his Natural Body and that if it were not so he would be visible to us still Again (m) Tract 50. in Joannem Loquebatur de praesentia corporis sui nam secundùm Majestatem suam secundùm Providentiam secundùm ineffabilem invisibilem Gratiam impletur quod ab eo dictum est Ecce ego vobiscum omnibus diebus c. Secundùm carnem vero quam assumpsit secundùm id quod de Virgine natus est c. non semper habebitis me vobiscum expounding those words The Poor ye have always with you but me ye have not always He spake this says he concerning the Presence of his Body For according to his Majesty according to his Providence according to his unspeakable and invisible Grace that is fulfilled which he said Behold I am always with you c. But according to the Flesh which he assumed according to what was born of the Virgin c. directly contrary to the Trent Catechism ye shall not have me always with you And in another place (n) Serm. 120. de diversis Secundùm praesentiam pulchritudinis divinitatis suae semper cum patre est secundùm praesentiam corporalem jam supra coelos ad dextram patris est secundùm praesentiam vero fidei in omnibus Christianis est According to the beautiful Presence of his Divinity he is always with the Father according to his corporal Presence he is now above the Heavens at the right hand of the Father he forgot to add and in the Holy Sacrament but according to the Presence of Faith so he is in all Christians What can be more plain than another Saying of his (o) Serm. 74. de diversis Credimus in eum jam sedentem ad dextram patris sed tamen quamdiu sumus in corpore peregrinamur ab co nec cum dubitantibus vel negantibus dicentibus Vbi est Deus tuus valemus oftendere We believe on him who sits now at the right hand of the Father but yet whilst we are in the Body we are absent as in a strange Country from him nor can we shew him to those that doubt to those that deny him and say Where is thy God If S. Austin had believed as the Roman Church do's the Corporal Presence of Christ in the Eucharist he could have pointed to him upon the Altar if any had asked Where is thy God Cyril of Alexandria (p) In Joan. 9.5 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 says Tho' Christ be absent from the World as to his Flesh yet he is present to those that are in him and to the whole Universe by his Divine and Ineffable Nature neither is he absent from any Creature nor distant from any but is every where present to all and fills the whole Universe And elsewhere (q) In Joan. 17.12 speaking of the Disciples who thought it a great loss to them that being taken up to Heaven he would now be absent according to his Flesh he says They ought not only to have respected and looked to his Fleshly Presence 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but to have understood that tho' he was separated from their Society according to the Flesh nor could be seen by their bodily Eyes yet that he was present and assistant always by the Power of his Divinity Fulgentius (r) Ad Trasimund l. 2. c. 17. Unus idemque secundùm humanam substantiam absens coelo cùm esset in terra derelinquens terram cum ascendisset in coelum Secundùm Divinam vero immensamque substantiam nec coelum dimittens cùm de coelo descendir nec terram deserens cùm ad coelum ascendit One and the same Christ according to his Humane Substance was absent from Heaven when he was upon Earth and left Earth when he ascended up to Heaven but according to his Divine and Immense Substance neither left Heaven when he descended from Heaven nor forsook Earth when he ascended into Heaven Again
Homil. de Prodit Judae 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Christ lies before us slain In another place (l) In Epist ad Ephes Hom. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 While the Sacrifice is brought forth and Christ the Lord's Sheep is slain And elsewhere (m) Ad. Popul Antioch hom 15. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 What dost thou O Man Thou swearest upon the Holy Table and there thou killest thy Brother where Christ lies slain Again (n) Lib. 3. de Sacerdotio 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. he expresses it thus rhetorically When thou seest the Lord slain and lying and the Priest standing by the Sacrifice and praying and all the People purple-dyed in that precious Blood c. Again in another place (o) In Coemeter appel 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. speaking of the Priest standing before the Holy Table c. he adds When thou seest the Sheep viz. Christ slain and divided c. So also elsewhere (p) De Poenit. in Encoen 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 O wonderful The Mystical Table being prepared the Lamb of God slain for thee c. his Blood emptied into the Cup out of his immaculate Side for thy Purification dost thou not fear This slaying and dividing the Body of Christ this emptying the Blood out of his Veins he speaks of cannot be understood of any thing but of his Representative Body Neither can another Saying of his have any other sense (q) Hom. 51. in Matth. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 where telling us how Christ has given us leave to be filled with his holy Flesh he adds He has proposed himself before us slain So that if we eat his Flesh it must be his dead Body for so he is set before us to be eaten But that 's impossible But all this is easily understood in our way or rather as he himself has explained it when he says (r) Hom. 83. in Matth. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Mystery is the Passion and Cross of Christ With which agrees that of S. Austin (s) In Psal 21. Coenam suam dedit passionem suam dedit He gave his Supper he gave his Passion Or as he says in another place (t) Super Evang. lib. 2. qu. 38. Tamen passiones Domini in Sacramentis corporis sanguinis ejus suavitate lambunt devotissimâ comparing the Gentiles to those Dogs that lick'd Lazarus's Sores Yet says he they lick the Passions of our Lord in the Sacraments of his Body and Blood with a devout Sweetness The Reader will meet with further Testimonies to this purpose afterwards under the Head of Eating Christ's Body and drinking his Blood which according to the Fathers is to be done mystically and spiritually considered as slain and therefore his Presence must be such too For his Body is present just as it is eaten The Sum of all is this That according to the Fathers Christ is considered in the Sacrament as dead and slain and therefore can be only present there typically and by representation For so Card. Perron himself confesses (u) De locis Augustin cap. 3. Sacramentum non est realiter corpus Christi in actuali occisi mortui inanimati statu constitutum nec eâ ratione illud continet sed eatenus tantum repraesentat c. The Sacrament is not really the Body of Christ put in the actual state of one slain dead and without Life nor do's it contain it so but in that respect do's only represent it 5 Position That according to the Fathers the Presence of Christ's Body to us now is a Presence to our Faith and Minds a Presence of Union of Efficacy and Grace This is S. Austin's constant Doctrine I have cited a place out of him before where reckoning up the several Presences of Christ (x) Serm. 120. de diversis the Presence of his Divinity so he is with his Father his Corporal Presence so he says Secundùm praesentiam corporalem jam supra coelos ad dextram patris est he is now above the Heavens at the Right Hand of the Father and he knows but one more Secundùm vero praesentiam fidei in omnibus Christianis est which is the Presence of Faith by which he is in all Christians Thus also elsewhere (y) Serm. 12. de diversis In coelo quidem Christus est sed etiam in corde credentium Christ is in Heaven but he is also in the Hearts of Believers And again (z) In Evang. Joan. tract 50. Audeant teneant Respondet Quem tenebo absentem Quomodo in coelum manum mittam ut ibi sedentem teneam Fidem mitte tenuisti parentes tui tenuerunt carnem tu tene corde quoniam Christus absens etiam praesens est nisi praesens esset à nobis teneri non posset c. Corpus enim suum intulit coelo majestatem non abstulit mundo exhorting the Jews to hear and take hold on Christ he brings one in asking Whom shall I lay hold of one that is absent c. He answers Send forth thy Faith and thou hast hold of him Thy Fathers laid hold of him in his Flesh do thou hold him in thy Heart because Christ who is absent is also present for if he were not present he could not be held by us But still all is to be done by Faith for the Reason he gives He brought his Body into Heaven but his Majesty i. e. his Divinity was not withdrawn from the World. And afterwards (a) Ibid. propè finem Secundùm praesentiam majestatis semper habemus Christum secundùm praesentiam carnis rectè dictum est discipulis Me autem non semper habebitis Habuit illum Ecclesia secundùm praesentiam carnis paucis diebus modo fide tenet oculis non videt According to the Presence of his Majesty we always have Christ according to the Presence of his Flesh it was rightly said to his Disciples Me ye have not always The Church had him a few days according to his Fleshly Presence now it holds him by Faith and sees him not So again (b) In Ev. Joan. tract 106. Non rectè intelliguntur nisi hi quos in se credentes servare jam coeperat praesentia corporali quos relicturus fuerat absentia corporali ut eos cum patre servaret praesentia spiritali speaking of those whom he kept when he was with them he says These Words can be rightly understood of none but those who believing on him were begun to be kept by him by his Corporal Presence and whom he was about to leave by his Bodily Absence that he might keep them together with his Father by his Spiritual Presence Lastly S. Austin says (c) Expos in Epist Joan. tract 1. Dominus consolans nos qui ipsum jam in coelo sedentem manu contrectare non possumus sed fide contingere ait
factus est sacerdos in a ternum Christ by the mystery of Bread and Wine is made a Priest for over S. Chrysostom (c) Comment in Psal 110. vel 109. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Why did he say a Priest after the Order of Melchisedeck Even because of the mysteries because he also brought out Bread and Wine to Abraham Isidore of Sevil (d) In Genesin cap. 12. Non secundùm Aaron pecudum Victimas sed oblationem panis vini id est corporis sanguinis ejus Sacramentum in Sacrificium offeramus Let us not offer the Victims of Beasts according to Aaron but let us offer in Sacrifice the oblation of Bread and Wine that is the Sacrament of Christs Body and Blood. Bede (e) Hom. de 55. in Vigil S. Jo. Bapt. Redemptor noster ideo sacerdos esse dicitur secundùm Ordinem Melchisedec quia ablatis victimis legalibus idem sacrificii genus in mysterium sui corporis sanguinis in N. Testamento offerendum instituit Our Redeemer is therefore called a Priest after the Order of Melchisedeck because taking away the legal Sacrifices he instituted the same kind of Sacrifice viz. Bread and Wine should be offered under the N. Testament for the mystery of his Body and Blood. What the Scriptures acquaint us with that after the Blessing of the Bread Christ brake it and gave it to his Disciples is also insisted on by the Fathers as done in the Eucharist in order to the distributing of it to the receivers But Bellarmine says expresly (f) L. 1. de Missa c. 27. Nostra fractio non fit ad distribuendum sed ad certum mysterium significandum That our breaking is not made for distribution but to signify a certain mystery Therefore in the Roman Church that which they give in the Sacrament to the people is whole and not broken off from any other thing Wherein they differ from the Fathers for their Eucharist was what the Apostles call breaking of Bread Act. 2 46. and the Jesuit Lorinus upon that place observes that it was the manner of the Primitive Church Lorinus in Act. 2. v. 46. Panem unum conficere atque illum consecratum in tot partes frangere quot erant communicantes sicut Christus in coena fecit to make one Loaf and when they had consecrated it to break it into so many parts as there were Communicants as Christ also did in his Supper And thus as it is 1 Cor. 10.17 There is one Bread c. and we being many are one Body for we all partake of one Bread. This Fraction tho' the Fathers express it as if it were done to the proper Body of Christ yet they mean it only of the Bread that represents it and therefore that must remain for there is nothing else to be broken When therefore S. Chrysostome (g) Hom. 24. in 1 Cor. Tom. 3. Edit Savil. p. 397. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 says that upon the Cross a Bone of him was not broken but what Christ did not suffer upâ—n the Cross that he suffers in the oblation for thy sake and suffers himself to be broken that he may fill us all This cannot be meant of any thing but what represents his Body torn and rent viz. Bread. So S. Austin (h) Epist 59. Et ad distribuendum comminuitur speaks of that upon the Lords Table which is blessed and sanctified and broke in small pieces to be distributed Which can be only Bread. And this elsewhere (i) Epist 86. Sicut frangitur in Sacramento Corporis Christi he expresses more plainly Paul says he broke Bread that night as it is broken in the Sacrament of the Body of Christ Again (k) August apud Bedam in 1 Cor. 11. Manducemus Christum vivit manducatus quia surrexit occisus nec quando manducamus partes de illo facimus quidem in Sacramento id fit norunt fideles quemadmodum manducent carnem Christi unusquisque accipit partem c. S. Austin thus exhorts Let us eat Christ he lives tho' eaten for he arose tho' slain Neither when we eat him do we make parts of him so indeed we do in the Sacrament and the faithful know how they eat the Flesh of Christ there Every one takes a part c. This is a very remarkable Testimony because of the distinction he makes between Christ's proper Body and that in the Eucharist affirming quite different things of them as this of taking and eating a part which is only true of the Bread. For as for the true Body of Christ we are informed by another Chrysologus (l) Serm. 159. Non potest Christus edi dividi Integer à credentibus sumitur integer in ore cordis recipitur Christ cannot be eaten and divided He is taken whole of Believers he is received whole in the mouth of the heart I will conclude this Chapter with the sayings of three great persons among the Fathers who positively assert what I have been proving that the Bread and Wine remain in the Eucharist S. Chrysostom (m) Hom. 83. in Matth. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Who says expresly When our Lord delivered the mysteries he delivered Wine S. Austin (n) De Civ Dei lib. 17. cap. 5. Manducare panem est in N. Testamento sacrificium Christianorum To eat Bread is the Sacrifice of Christians in the N. Testament Fulgentius (o) De fide ad Petrum cap. 19. Christo nunc id est tempore N. Testamenti cum Patre Spiritu Sancto cum quibus una est illi Divinitas Sacrificium panis vini in fide charitate Sancta Ecclesia Catholica per universum orbem terrae offerre non cessat Now that is in the time of the N. Testament the Holy Catholick Church throughout the whole Earth do's not cease to offer in Faith and Charity the Sacrifice of Bread and Wine to Christ with the Father and H. Spirit who have one Divinity together with him CHAP. XI The Eleventh Difference The Fathers make the Bread and Wine to be the Sacrament Sign Figure Type Antitype Image c. of Christs Body and Blood. They of the Church of Rome make either the Accidents subsisting without a Subject or the Body of Christ latent under those Accidents to be the Sacrament Sign Figure c. and not the substance of Bread and Wine which they say is abolished Therefore they have no Sacrament such as the Fathers assert I Might give in here a very large Collection out of the Fathers calling the Bread and Wine by all those names above mention'd but to avoid tediousness I shall only select some few of them enow to prove the Truth of what I have asserted under the several heads S. Ambrose (p) De iis qui initiant c. 9. Vera utique caro Christi quae crucifixa est quae sepulta est verè ergo carnis illius est
tradidit mihique sirmavit scilicet Panem vinum quae in altari ponuntur post consecrationem non solum Sacramentum sed etiam verum corpus D. N. J. Christi esse sensualiter non solum Sacramento sed in veritate manibus Sacerdotum tractari frangi fidelium dentibus atteri jurans per S. homousion Trinitatem per haec sacrosancta Christi Evangelia Eos vero qui contra hanc fidem venerint cum dogmatibus sectatoribus suis aeterno anathemate dignos esse pronuncio c. unworthy Deacon c. knowing the true Catholick and Apostolick Faith do anathematize all Heresie especially that for which I have hitherto been defamed which endeavours to maintain that the Bread and Wine placed on the Altar after Consecration are only a Sacrament or Sign and not the true Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ and cannot save only in the Sign be handled or broken by the Priest's Hands or be ground by the Teeth of the Faithful But I agree with the Holy Roman Church and the Apostolick Seat and do with my Mouth and from my Heart profess That I hold the same Faith concerning the Sacraments of the Lords Table which our Lord and Venerable Pope Nicholas and this Holy Synod by Evangelical and Apostolical Authority has delivered to me to hold and confirmed to me viz. That the Bread and Wine which are placed on the Altar after Consecration are not only a Sacrament but also the true Body of our Lord Jesus Christ and is sensibly not only in the Sign and Sacrament but in truth handled and broken by the Priests Hands and ground by the Teeth of the Faithful Swearing this by the Holy and Co-essential Trinity and by the most Holy Gospels of Christ And as for those that oppose this Faith I judge them with their Opinions and Followers worthy of an eternal Anathema c. This we may look upon as the Belief of that Church then and this to be the manner of eating the Body of Christ since as Bellarmine well obferves (o) De Sacr-Euchar l. 3. c. 21. Nec coguntur ulli abjurare anathematizare sententias dubias sed eas tantùm quae damnantur ab Ecclesia tanquam haereses exploratae None are compelled to abjure and anathematize dubious Opinions but only such as are condemned by the Church as known Heresies But however Infallible this Pope and that General Council were this way of eating Christ's Body by tearing it with the Teeth was quickly opposed as a late Learned Preface to the Determination of Joh. Parisiensis shews at large Peter Lombard could not digest it (p) Sentent lib. 4. dist 12 Fractio partes quae ibi videntur fieri in Sacramento fiunt i. e. in visibili specie Ideoque illa Berengarii verba ita distinguenda sunt ut sensualiter non modo in Sacramento sed in veritate dicatur corpus Christi tractari manibus Sacerdotum Frangi verò atteri dentibus verè quidem sed in Sacramento tantum For tho' the Pope and Council defined That both the handling and also the breaking and tearing with the Teeth of Christ's Body were not only in the Sign and Sacrament but in Truth performed he makes a distinction and in express words cited in the Margin says That Christ's Body is handled indeed not only in Sacrament but in Truth but that it is broken and torn with the Teeth truly indeed but yet only in Sacrament That is in the visible Species as he before explains that Phrase Directly contrary to Berengarius's Recantation The words also of Job Semeca the Author of the Gloss upon the Canon-Law (q) Gloss apud Gratian. de Consecr Dist 2. c Ego Berengarius Nisi sanè intelligas verba Berengarii in majorem incides Haeresin quam ipse habuit ideo omnia referas ad species ipsas nam de Christi corpore partes non facimus are very bold against it Unless you understand the words of Berengarius in a sound sense and there can be no other the words are so plain but what must contradict it you will fall into a greater Heresie than he was guilty of and therefore you must refer all to the Species that 's directly contrary to the Pope and Council for we do not make Parts of Christ's Body In fine all the great Writers especially the Jesuits have forsaken this Definition as not to be maintained and this Eating in the most proper sense is wholly discarded and we are told (r) De Sacr. Euchar. l. 1. c. 11. Ad rationem manducationis non est necessaria attritio sed satis est sumptio transmissio ab ore ad stomachum per instrumenta humana naturalia i. e. linguam palatum by Bellarmine That grinding with the Teeth is not necessarily required to Eating but it suffices that it be taken in and transmitted from the Mouth into the Stomach by humane and natural Instruments viz. the Tongue and Palate This way in plainer terms is swallowing the Body of Christ without chewing And indeed without this Descent of it into the Body there could no Account be given of that Prayer in the Roman Missal (s) Corpus tuum Domine quod sumpsi sanguis quem potavi adhaereat visceribus meis Lord let thy Body which I have taken and thy Blood which I have drunk cleave unto my Entrals They have also determined how long this Sacred Body makes its stay there Aquinas whom they all now follow says (t) In 3. part quaest 76 art 6. ad 3. Corpus Christi remanet in hoc Sacramento quousque species sacramentales manent Quibus cessantibus desinit esse corpus Christi sub eis The Body of Christ remains in this Sacrament so long as the Sacramental Species remain When they cease to be the Body of Christ ceases to be under them Thus also Domin Soto (u) In 4. dist 12. qu. 1. art 3. Est indubiè tenendum quod corpus sc Christi descendit in stomachum Cùm digestio fiat in stomacho illic desinunt esse species atque adeo corpus quare non descendit in ventrem We ought undoubtedly to hold That Christ's Body descends into the Stomach Since Digestion is made in the Stomach there the Species cease to be and so also Christ's Body and therefore will not descend into the Draught But now comes a scurvy Case that will force out the whole Truth Suppose by reason of any Disease the Species should descend further than the Stomach as in a Flux when there is no Digestion of the Species nor time to do it in the Stomach but they are presently carried downward whole or else brought up immediately as in case of sudden Vomiting This also is resolved by the same Principles So the last-named Author (x) Soto ibid. Sed si ob aliquem morbum species descenderent consequenter ipsum corpus descenderet emitteretur Pudor
Crucifixion these consider the presence of his Glorified Body and his Divinity there and are taken up with adoration more than any thing else That they will not abate every day you are present when the Host is shown for that end But as for the other the receiving of the Eucharist they are satisfied if it be done but once a Year The Ancients look'd upon it as an Invitation to a Table where the Sacrament was to be their Meal but here you are called to look upon the King present and sitting in state and chiefly to take care that upon the Sign given all may fall down together and worship him S. Chrysostom (t) Loc. citat 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 calls it a contumely against him that invites one to Feast to be present and not to partake of it and asks Whether it had not been better for such a one to have been absent But the Council of Trent was of another mind and their Opinion is (u) Conc. Trid. Sess 22. c. 6. Non propterea Missas illas in quibus solus sacerdos Sacramentaliter communicat ut privatas illicitas damnare sed probare atque adeo commendare That those Masses in which the Priest communicates sacramentally alone are not to be condemned as private and unlawful but to be approved and commended And not content with this they thunder out an Anathema (x) Ibid. Can. 8. Si quis dixerit Missas in quibus solus sacerdos Sacramentaliter communicat illicitas esse adeoque abrogandas anathema sit against those that say and let S. Chrysostom look to himself that such Masses are unlawful and to be abrogated At these Masses the Novices and Catechumens may be present and no Deacon cries out to them to withdraw for tho' indeed they may not eat yet they may worship And the Penitents that were excluded while their Penance lasted from so much as seeing the Sacrament in the Ancient Church in this Church the oftner they come for this purpose the more welcome and by direction when publick Penance has been enjoined the Holy Altar has been the place chosen before which to perform it as their Annals (y) Annal. Japon ad An. 1579. tells us of one Sangunus a noted Courtier in Japan that for the expiation of a Crime came and fell down at the Altar in the Church of the Royal City and there before the Holy Sacrament claw'd his Back with Scourges so long as one of the Seven Penitential Psalms was recited These Practices tho' so contrary to one another are yet natural enough and well-suited to the Principles of each Church but then it is plain their Principles and Opinions concerning the Sacrament were widely different and that such things were never practised of old was not because Christians then wanted their Devotion but their Faith. 2. Instance A second practice of the Christian Church of old was giving the Communion in both kinds the Cup that is as well as the Bread tho' now by a Law of the Roman Church in the Council of Constance and Trent abolished That the ancient Practice was to deliver it in both Kinds has been often proved by Learned Men on our side and particularly by an excellent late Dicourse against the Bishop of Meaux (x) Discourse of the Communion in one kind in Answer to the Bishop of Meaux 's Treatise upon this Subject and has been also acknowledg'd by the Learned Men of the Roman Communion such as Cassander Wicelius Petavius c. Which makes it needless to insist further upon the proof of it We are sure it continued thus even to the Age when Transubstantion was established by the Lateran Council since we find a whole Army of Charles King of Sicily as the Historian (a) Apud Du Chisn Tom. 5. Hist Franc. p. 840. citante Dallaeo de cultib Latin. lib. 5. c. 12. Cum exercitus esset in procinctu Decanum Meldensem associatis sibi Monachis corpus sanguinem Christiregiis militibus dedisse tells us just before they went to the Fight against Manfred Ann. 1265. or 1266 as other Historians will have it all received the Body and Blood of Christ Aquinas agrees That it was the ancient Custom of the Church That all that communicated of the Body communicated also of the Blood (b) In Joan. 6. Propter periculum effusionis But for to prevent spilling the Blood he says in some Churches the practice is that the Priest alone communicates in the Blood and the rest in the Body of Christ We see then about what time this grand Sacrilege as P. Gelasius calls it (c) Speaking of some Persons that taking the Body abstained from the Cup of the Holy Blood says Aut integra Sacramenta percipiant aut ab integris arceantur quia divisio unius ejusdemque mysterii sine grandi Sacrilegio non potest pervenire Apud Gratian. decrit 3. part 2. dist of dividing one and the same Mystery made a more publick entry into the Church it was when Transubstantiation had been newly made an Article of Faith and it was very natural that this practice should within a while by easy steps be a Consequent of that For Transubstantiation makes Christ's Flesh and Blood the same which he took of the Virgin and which he had when he was crucified to be actually and corporally present in the Eucharist and that in a glorified State to which Divine Adoration is due this is apt to beget a profound Veneration and a mighty Concern lest any thing contumelious should happen to that which Men justly account so very precious Now it being certain that the Blood which is under the Species of Wine is subject to those Casualties by reason of its fluidity which the other Species is not so liable to and that in the glorified State the Body and Blood are inseparable and therefore that one Species viz. that of the Bread contains under it both the Body and Blood together what could be more agreeable to such Sentiments as these than that Men should willingly part with their Right in a Matter wherein they seem not to be much wrong'd being only deprived of a few Accidents of Wine when the Blood was secured to them to secure the Honour of their Saviour It is true indeed that the Stream of the contrary Custom made it difficult to remove that at once notwithstanding this danger of effusion of the Blood which they had been wont in all preceding Ages to receive therefore the Wits of Men being set on work by a new Transubstantiating Doctrine found out some new Devices practised first in the Cells of the Monks but afterwards about the time of Berengarius brought into the Churches to secure that dreadful Danger and yet not deprive the People of communicating in the Blood of Christ One was the Device of Intinction or steeping the Bread in the Wine and thus receiving both at once which as Card. Cusanus informs us (d) Epist 3.
ad Bohem. Non parva altercatio in principio mutationis illius prioris tamen universalis Ecclesia quia ita tempori congruebat populum cum intincto pane communicare permisit tho' it went not down without great contention at the first change from the old Practice yet the Universal Church complying with the Times permitted it But it was not long it was thus suffered for by a Decree of Pope Vrban 2. in the Council of Clermont and by an enforcement of it by his Successor P. Paschal 2. whose Epistle to Pontius Abbot of Cluny concerning this Matter Baronius has given us (e) Baronius Append. ad Tem. 12. ad An. 1118. this practice was abrogated A second Device also about the same time was brought into play Of sucking the Consecrated Wine through little Pipes or Canes called Pugillares like Quills concerning which Cassander de communione sub utraque gives us an account and that some of them were to be seen in his Time. And indeed this seems to be a sufficient security to the danger of Effusion and also prevents that great Offence of any drops of Blood sticking to the Beards of People when they drank out of the Cup and yet even this would not satisfy nor any thing else be a sufficient Caution against the prophanation of the Blood but only debarring the People wholly of it Yet this way is still used by the Pope himself and I think he has the sole privilege to do it who in that which is called the Missa Papalis when he himself celebrates and communicates he sucks part of the Blood through a golden Quill * Cum pontifex Corpus Christi sumpserit Episcopus Cardinalis porrigit ti calamum quem Papa ponit in Calice in manibus Diaconi existente Sanguinis partem sugit Sacrarum Cerimon lib. 2. cap. de Missa Majori Papa personaliter celebrante But neither do's he always thus communicate for their Book of Sacred Ceremonies acquaints us ** Ibid. cap. Si Papa in nocte Nativitatis personaliter celebrat Non sugit sangainem cum calamo sed more communi That when He celebrates personally on the Night of the Nativity of our Lord that all things are observed that are described in the Papal Mass except that he communicates at the Altar alone and not in his eminent and high Seat and do's not suck the Blood with a Quill but takes it after the common manner But now after all what account can we give of the Ancient Fathers they apprehended it necessary to receive in both Kinds in all their Publick Communions and so they practised Must we not then accuse them either of great Dulness or Indevotion either that they wanted Sagacity in not apprehending the imminent danger they in their way exposed the Blood of Christ to or that they were guilty of a strange carelesness and indifferency in not preventing it by any of those Methods which the Roman Church hath found out to do it Truly for my part I am inclined to have as great if not a greater opinion of them in both respects especially for their Devotion than I can have of the Roman Church and I am the more perswaded hereto because the Apostles themselves must come in to the side of the Ancient Church their practice being the same not to insist upon the Deference that ought to be paid to that Holy Spirit that we are sure acted them who if there had been any such real danger of prophanation by receiving in both kinds or ever was likely to be any such would not have failed to have given directions to them how they should avoid it and we cannot think the Apostles would not have set down those Directions to us in some of their Writings But they have not done it no not the Zealous St. Paul who yet says so much to the careless Corinthians about this Argument and tells them that they came together not for the better but the worse charges them with unworthy receiving and being thereby guilty of the Body and Blood of the Lord 1 Cor. 11. and that for this cause many were weak and sick among them and were judged of the Lord for their prophanations c. But this is none of the Charges against them nor does he direct them to any of the wise Methods of the Roman Church for preventing this Danger tho' he says What he received of the Lord he delivered to them There is nothing then remains but that we assign the true Cause of this different Practice which can be none other but the Roman Churches innovating in their Faith about the Sacrament and altering so their Opinions about the Body and Blood of Christ in the Eucharist that they require a different Conduct for their Devotion so that neither the Practice of the Primitive Fathers nor the Rules of the Apostles will suit and agree with their Perswasions and Apprehensions But now the Faith of the Ancient Church in this Matter was such as neither requires nor can admit of any Alteration like what the Church of Rome has made in communicating the People only in one Kind For as I have before proved they look'd upon this Sacrament not as an actual Exhibition and Presentation of the Natural and Glorified Body of our Saviour which they believed to be absent and contained in the Heavens but as a Representation of his Crucified Body where his Blood was separated from his Body and poured out of his Veins and that not only the Elements but the Sacramental Actions of breaking the Bread and pouring out the Wine and our eating and drinking were instituted to shew forth this painful Death of our Lord and the shedding of his most precious Blood for the Remission of Sins By the presence of his glorified Body there as the Roman Church believes this cannot be done no breaking nor no parts to be made of that nor no separation of Blood as out of the Body But all can be done in the Representative Body of Christ which is the Eucharist all the Ends of the Institution can be there fully effected and the Sacrifice on the Cross in this Image of it made present to our Faith and to our Minds and set livelily before us and by the Effects of this upon our Hearts while we partake of the Elements through the powerful Grace of God's Holy Spirit we may be prepared to receive all the Blessed Fruits and Benefits of his Passion According to these Perswasions it 's plain there can be no abatement of communicating in the Cup because without that there is no representation of a Crucified Body for the distinct partaking of the Blood not as supposed to be contained and received in the other Species is that which alone shows as I said before the separation that was then made of his Body and Blood. 3. Instance Another Practice of the Roman Church differing from the Ancient is The Elevation of the Eucharist that all present may at
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
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
in Fire which begins to be any where either because it is kindled there anew or is brought thither de novo But it is manifest that the true Body of Christ was not always on the Altar because the Christians assert that Christ ascended in his Body to Heaven It seems also impossible to be said that any thing here is converted anew into Christ's Body because nothing seems convertible into that which existed before since that into which another thing is turned by such a change begins to exist Now it is manifest that Christ's Body did praeexist seeing it was conceived in the Womb of Mary It seems therefore impossible that it should begin to be on the Altar anew by the Conversion of another thing into it In like manner neither by a change of Place because every thing that is locally moved do's so begin to be in one place that it ceases to be in that other in which it was before We must therefore say that when Christ begins to be on this Altar on which the Sacrament is perform'd he ceases to be in Heaven whither he ascended It is also plain that this Sacrament is in like manner celebrated on divers Altars Therefore it is impossible that the Body of Christ should begin to be there by a Local Motion 4. You Christians affirm Ibid. 13. Imposs fol. 134. that your Christ is whole in the Sacrament under the Species of Bread and Wine This I prove thus to be impossible Because never are the Parts of any Body contained in divers Places the Body it self remaining whole But now it is manifest that in this Sacrament the Bread and Wine are asunder in separate Places If therefore the Flesh of Christ be under the Species of Bread and his Blood under the Species of Wine it seems to follow that Christ do's not remain whole but that always when this Sacrament is celebrated his Blood is separated from his Body 5. Ibid. 14. Imposs fol. eod You Christians say that in that little Host the Body of Christ is contained This I prove to be impossible Because it is impossible that a greater Body should be included in the place of a lesser Body But it is manifest that the True Body of Christ is of a greater Quantity than the Bread that is offered on the Altar Therefore it seems impossible that the true Body of Christ should be whole and entire there where the Bread seems to be But if the whole be not there but only some part of it then the foresaid Inconvenience returns that always when this Sacrament is perform'd the Body of Christ is Differenced or separated by Parts I will only here set down what the Catholick Author replies to this after the unintelligible distinctions of the Schools and seems most to trust to even such wise Similitudes as these that the Soul is greater than the Body and yet is contained within it that a great Mountain is contained in the little Apple of the Eye and the greatest Bodies in a little Looking-glass and great Virtues in little precious Stones and in the Little Body of the Pope great Authority c. 6. Ibid. 15. Imposs fol. 135. The Jew says you Christians affirm that your Christ is in like manner on more Altars where Masses are celebrated This seems to be impossible because it is impossible for one Body to exist in more places than one But it is plain that this Sacrament is celebrated in more Places Therefore it seems impossible that the Body of Christ should be truly contained in this Sacrament Unless perhaps any should say that according to one part of it it is here and according to another Part elsewhere But from thence it would again follow that by the Celebration of this Sacrament the Body of Christ is divided into Parts when yet the Quantity of the Body of Christ seems not to suffice for the dividing so many Particles out of it as there are Places in which this Sacrament is performed 7. You Christians say that after Consecration Ibid. 16. Imposs fol. 136. all the Accidents of Bread and Wine are manifestly perceived in this Sacrament viz. the Colour Tast Smell Figure Quantity and Weight About which you cannot be deceived because Sense is not deceived about its proper Objects Now these Accidents as you assert cannot be in the Body of Christ as in their Subject Nor can they subsist by themselves seeing the Nature and Essence of an Accident is to be in another thing 7. Metaphys For Accidents seeing they are Forms cannot be individuated but by their Subject and if the Subject were taken away would be universal Forms It remains therefore that these Accidents are in their determinate Subjects viz. In the substance of Bread and Wine Wherefore there is there the substance of Bread and Wine and not the substance of Christ's Body for it seems impossible that two Bodies should be together in one place 8. The Jews say Ibid. 17. Imposs fol. 137. It is certain that if that Wine in your Sacrament were taken in great Quantity that it would heat the Body and intoxicate as before it was a Sacrament and also that the Bread would strengthen and nourish It seems also that if it be kept long and carelesly it will corrupt and it may be eaten of Mice the Bread and Wine also may be burnt and turned into Vapours all which cannot agree to the Body of Christ seeing your Faith declares it to be impassible It seems therefore impossible that the Body of Christ should be contained substantially in this Sacrament 9. The Jew says Ibid. 18. Imposs fol. 137. That you Christians break that Sacrament into Parts Therefore it is impossible that the Body of Christ should be there The Consequence is thus proved Because that Fraction which do's sensibly appear cannot be without a Subject For it seems to be absurd to say That the Subject of this Fraction is Christ's Body Therefore it is impossible Christ's Body should be there but only the Substance of Bread and Wine There is a great deal more of what the Jews say against this Doctrine in that Author but this is enough for the purposes I before mentioned and so I leave it to the Consciences of those concerned to show that even the Jews have better explained the words whereby Christ instituted this Sacrament than the Romanists have by making it a Figure of Christ's Body and not the Body it self spoken more agreeably to the Faith of the Ancient Church that did so and have confuted the Errors of this Church by Maximes consonant to the Sense and Reason of all Man-kind Which God grant they may be sensible of who have so manifestly swerved from them all that so their Words may never rise up in Judgment against them THE END Books lately printed for Richard Chiswell A Dissertation concerning the Government of the Ancient Church more particularly of the Encroachments of the Bishops of Rome upon other Sus. By WILLIAM