three more out of S. Austin who seems to speak Prophetically (g) De Vnit Eccles c. 10. His dictis mox ascendit in coelum praemunire voluit aures nostras adversus eos qui procedentibus temporibus exsurrecturos esse praedixerat dicturos Ecce hic Christus ecce illic Quibus nec crederemus admonuit Nec ulla nobis excusatio est si crediderimus contra vocem Pastoris nostri tam claram tam apertam tam manifestam c. Having said thus he ascended into Heaven and would precaution us against those that he foretold would arise in succeeding Ages and say Lo here is Christ or lo there whom he warned us not to believe And we shall have no Excuse if we shall believe them against this so clear open and manifest Voice of our Pastor c. And in his Book against Faustus (h) Lib. 20. cap. 11. Secundùm praesentiam corporalem simul in Sole in Luna in Cruce esse non posset he says That Christ according to his Corporal Presence cannot be at the same time in the Sun and in the Moon and on the Cross Lastly in another Tract (i) Tract 30. in Joan. Sursum est Dominus sed etiam hic est veritas Dominus Corpus enim Domini in quo resurrexit uno loco esse oportet the Printed Copies absurdly read potest veritas ejus ubique diffusa est Our Lord is above yet also Truth the Lord is here For the Body of our Lord in which he arose must be in one Place his Truth is diffused every where Neither do the rest of the Fathers differ from his Doctrine but give their full Consent to it Anastasius Nicaenus (k) In Collect. adv Severianos in Bibl. Patr. Tom. 4. Impossibile est cogitare corpus sine loco sine aliis extra quae esse non potest c. It is impossible to imagine a Body without a Place and other things without which it cannot be c. Didymus Alexandr (l) De Spiritu S. lib. 1. Ipse Spiritus S. si unus de creaturis esset saltem circumscriptam haberet substantiam sicut universae quae factae sunt Spiritus autem cùm in pluribus sit non habet substantiam circumscriptam proves the Holy Ghost to be God because he is in more Places than one The Holy Ghost himself if he were one of the Creatures would at least have a circumscribed or bounded Substance as all things have that are made But the Holy Spirit seeing he is in more than one has not a bounded Substance And afterwards he says That the Holy Ghost was present with the Apostles tho' dispersed to the ends of the Earth and adds Angelica virtus ab hoc prorsus aliena The Power of Angels is altogether a Stranger to this Theodoret (m) In Genes qu. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 makes this a Consequence from Angels being of a determinate Substance That then they require a Place to be in For only the Divinity says he as being undetermined is not in a Place And elsewhere (n) Dialog 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 speaking of Christ's Body after the Resurrection he says Still it is a Body having its former Circumscription Cyril of Alexandria (o) De S. Trinit Dial. 2. disputing against those that thought the Son was begotten of the Substance of the Father by a division of his Substance 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 says If the Divine Nature did admit of Section and Division then you conceive of it as a Body and if so then it must be in a Place and in Magnitude and Quantity and if endued with Quantity it could not avoid being circumscribed Fulgentius (p) Ad Trasimund lib. 2. c. 7. Quod aliquo circumscribitur fine necesse est ut loco teneatur aut tempore also That which is circumscribed by any End or Bound must be contained in a Place or in Time. And again (q) Ib. c. 18. Si verum est corpus Christi loco utique oportet contineri The printed Copies read potest contineri without Sense speaking of Christ's Body If the Body of Christ be a true one it must be contained in a Place S. Greg. Nazianzen (r) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Orat. 34. makes it impossible for one Body to be in divers So do's Damascen (s) De Fide Orth. l. 1. c. 4. make it impossible that one Body should pass thro' another unless there be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that which divides and that which is divided Claud. Mamertus (t) De Statu Animae l. 2. c. 3. Nihil illocale corporeum omne illocale incorporeum quoque est Nothing illocal is corporeal every thing illocal is also incorporeal And again (u) Ibid. lib. 1. c. 18. Hinc patet omne corpus totum simul tangi non posse nec in uno loco esse quamlibet minimum totum posse Illic non habet inferiora sua ubi habet superiora sua nec illic dextra ubi sinistra nec anteriora illic ubi posteriora It is plain that no Body can be touched wholly together nor can the least Whole you can imagine be in one Place that is in one Point And he instances in a Grain of Poppy or the least part of it That it has not its lower Parts there where it has its upper Parts nor its right-hand Parts there where its left-hand Parts are nor its Parts before there where it has its Parts behind S. Hilary (x) In Psal 124. Spiritus namque est omnia penetrans continens Non enim secundùm nos corporalis est ut cùm alicubi adsit absit aliunde c. speaking of Christ as God says He is a Spirit penetrating and containing all things For according to us he is not corporeal so that when he is present in one Place he should be absent from another c. And elsewhere (y) Lib. 8. de Trinitate Homo aut aliquid ei simile cùm alicubi erit tum alibi non erit quia illud quod est illic continetur ubi fuerit infirma ad id natura ejus ut ubique sit qui insistens alicubi sit A Man or any thing like him when he is in a Place any where cannot then be elsewhere because that which is there is contained where it is and he that is placed any where his Nature is uncapable to be every where So also Nazianzen (z) Orat. 51. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 A Vessel of the capacity of one Measure will not contain two Measures nor the Place that will hold one Body can receive two or more Bodies into it Again (a) Paulo post 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a little after This is the Nature of Intellectual Beings that incorporeally and indivisibly they mingle with one another and with Bodies And elsewhere (b) Orat. 37. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he proves the Deity
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.
Tho' the Body of Christ in the Sacrament has all its Quantity and Colour and other sensible Qualities yet as it is in the Sacrament it is neither there visibly nor quantitatively * Quantum ad situm extensionem ejus ad locum as to its situs and extension unto Place 4. Tho' the Body of Christ be in it self greater than a Consecrated Host yet according to the Esse Being it has there it is whole in that Host nor only whole in the whole consecrated Host but also whole in every part thereof 5. If those Accidents of the Consecrated Host be corrupted and it should happen that of them Worms or any other Animal be generated there is a great Miracle in their Generation For either the Materia prima is created anew out of which the substantial Form of those Animals is produced as many Divines now think or according to S. Thomas which seems to be a greater Miracle The Quantity that was of the Consecrated Host supplies the place of the Materia prima and in it is produced the substantial Form of those Animals which are generated from thence 6. The very Conversion of Bread and Wine into the Body and Blood of Christ which is properly called by Divines Transubstantiation is a great Miracle for such a Transmutation is found in no other thing and is besides all the Order and Course of Nature and can be made by no Created Power but by God's Omnipotency alone 7. The Manner by which such Transubstantiation is made is not without a Miracle for it is made by the Words of Consecration pronounced rightly and as it ought by a Priest Therefore as naturally supposing the last disposition in Matter to produce the Form of Fire the Form of Fire is infallibly produced in that Matter So the Words of Consecration being pronounced by the Priest Christ himself is infallibly in that Consecrated Host 8. After Consecration the whole Substance of Bread and Wine ceasing to be yet their Accidents do not cease but remain Neither do they remain inhering in any other Subject but per se existunt exist by themselves which is truly besides and above the Nature of Accidents whose esse as the Schools say is inesse because they can neither be produced nor remain naturally without a Subject 9. Lastly Those Accidents of the Consecrated Host tho' without the Substance of Bread and Wine yet have the same natural Virtue which Bread and Wine had before Consecration viz. the Virtue of nourishing encreasing and strengthning the Body of the Person that receives it when yet Nutrition is made by conversion of the Substance of the Food into the Substance of the Living Creature By reason of which Miracles he says the Church sings thus in the Hymn for Corpus-Christi day Quod non capis Quod non vides Animosa firmat fides praeter rerum ordinem Etsi sensus deficit Ad firmandum cor sincerum Sola fides sufficit Praestat fides supplementum sensuum defectui That is What never yet was understood Nor ever seen by any Creature A confident Belief makes good Tho' cross to all the Laws of Nature Tho' Sense will not be brought t' allow it A Heart sincere may be secure And waving all its Scruples sure Since Faith alone 's enough to do it For Faith supplies the Senses want And makes good Measure where that 's scant As for the Fathers they are so far from consenting to this heap of Miracles in the Eucharist that we have reason to think as to some of them they never entred into their thoughts nor never troubled themselves about them and for the most of them tho' they are direct Consequences of Transubstantiation yet they are opposed and contradicted by the Fathers as shall be shewn in Particulars afterwards Here it shall suffice to say in general That the Fathers give us this as a Character of the old Hereticks to urge God's Omnipotency to countenance and give a colour to their Figments and absurd Opinions Thus Gr. Nazianzen says of the Apollinarians * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Orat. 51. That being pressed with these Reasonings they fly to this That to God it is possible And Tertullian when Praxeas also urged God's Omnipotency gives this excellent †Contr. Praxeam c. 10. Si tam abruptè in praesumptionibus nostris hâc sententiâ utamur quidvis de Deo confingere poterimus quasi fecerit quia facere potuerit Non autem quia omnia potest facere ideo credendum est illum fecisse etiam quod non fecerit sed an fecerit requirendum Answer to him If we may so abruptly use this Sentence viz. That to God all things are easie in our Presumptions we may then feign any thing we please of God as if he had done a thing because he was able to do it But because God can do all things we are not to believe he has done that which he has not done but we are to inquire whether he has done it or no. Thus Gr. Nyssen * Gr. Nyssen in Hexaemeron 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 asserts That the Will of God is the Measure of his Power And Clemens of Alexandria †Stromat l. 4. propè finem 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That God who is Omnipotent will effect nothing that is absurd And Origen ‖ L. 5. contr Cel◠〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 When we say That God can do all things we know how to understand all things not of such things as cannot exist and are unintelligible Obj. If any object That the Fathers often bring in Instances of Gods miraculous Power as St. Ambrose does in the Red Sea and the River Jordan and in the miraculous Conception of our Saviour c. to create Faith in Men as to the great Change that is wrought in the Eucharist Ans I answer True indeed But then it is to be remembred what shall hereafter be more fully declared that the Change there is not terminated upon the Substance of the Elements nor is God's Power shewn upon them to alter their Nature from what they were before so as to destroy them but it is an addition of Grace to their Nature and an advancement of them to produce wonderful Effects upon us in the use of them So that now the Element of Water in Baptism is no more a common thing but is employed by God to wash away our Sins to cleanse our Souls and to regenerate and renew us And in the Eucharist the Bread and Wine which in themselves are the Food of our Bodies are advanced to be a Means to communicate the Body and Blood of Christ to us for the nourishing and refreshing our Souls and to make us Partakers of the saving Effects of his Death and Passion which are only Miracles of God's Grace And the Fathers urge the forementioned Miracles in Nature to assure us of these Wonders of Divine Grace And this they do not only in the case of the Eucharist
to affirm That the Essence of the Son consists in Subjection to the Father For says he how can Subjection be conceived to subsist by it self without existing in any thing else And afterwards If there be no Subject and nothing praeexists in which those things are wont to be done how can they exist by themselves which are understood and defined in the Order of Accidents And elsewhere he says (l) Thesaur assert 31. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 To be Unbegotten is predicated of the Divine Essence as inseparable from it just as Colour is always predicated of every Body And in another place (m) Ibid. assert 16. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. disputing about the Eternity of the Son and how proceeding from the Father he is not separated from him he instances in Accidents that are inseparable from their Subjects We see says he Heat inseparably proceeding from Fire but it is the Fruit of the very Essence of Fire proceeding inseparably from it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as also Splendor is the Fruit of Light. For Light cannot subsist without Splendor nor Fire without Heat For what is begotten of them do's always adhere to such Substances Again in his Dialogues (n) De Trinitate Dial. 2. p. 451. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Trinity he asks Whether Black and White if they be not in their Subjects can subsist of themselves And the Answer is They cannot Claud. Mamertus (o) De Statu Animae l. 3. c. 3. In rebus corporeis subjectum est corpus color corporis in subjecto In incorporeis animus disciplina quae iâ—a sibi nexa sunt ut nec sine colore corpus nec sine disciplina rationalis sit animus Utrum nam probare valeamus manere quod in subjecto est ipso intereunte subjecto In corporeal things the Body is the Subject and the Colour of the Body in the Subject In incorporeal matters the Soul and Discipline are Instances which are so connected that the Body cannot be without Colour nor the Rational Soul without Discipline Can we ever prove that what is in the Subject abides when the Subject it self perishes Isidore Hispal (p) Originum lib. 2. cap. 26. Quantitas qualitas situs sine subjecto esse non possunt Quantity Quality and Situation can none of 'em be without a Subject Bertram (q) Contra Graec. l. 2. c. 7. in Tom. 2. Spicilegii D. Acherii proves against the Greeks That the Holy Ghost was not in Jesus Christ as in his Subject because says he the Holy Ghost is not an Accident that cannot subsist without its Subject These Testimonies of the Fathers may suffice to shew how they differ from the Church of Rome in this Point of Accidents being without a Subject which to them is so necessary a Doctrine that Transubstantiation cannot be believed without it and if the Fathers had believed Transubstantiation it is incredible that they should deny this Doctrine without so much as once excepting the Case of the Eucharist None can imagine how their Memory and Reflection should be so short especially when as we have heard they form their Arguments to prove the Eternity of the Son of God and the Personality of the Holy Ghost from the inseparability of Accidents from their Subject Nay one of them says (r) Orat. 5. contra Arianos inter Athanasii Opera That if God himself had Accidents they would exist in his Substance When therefore P. Innocent (s) De Myst Missae l. 4. c. 11. Est enim hic color sapor quantitas qualitas cùm nihil alterutro sit coloratum aut sapidum quantum aut quale asserts That in the Eucharist there is Colour and Taste and Quantity and Quality and yet nothing coloured or tasteful nothing of which Quantity or Quality are Affections This is plainly to confound the Nature of all things and to turn Accidents into Substances So that if for instance the Host should fall into the Mire and contract Dirt and Filth this Filth sticks in nothing or else Accidents are the Subject of it for it is confessed on all hands That Christ's Body cannot be soiled or made filthy Not to insist upon the Nonsense of his Assertion which is just as if one should talk of an Eclipse without either Sun or Moon or of an Horses Lameness without a Leg concerning which only Lameness can be affirmed CHAP. IV. The Fourth Difference The Church of Rome has brought in the Word SPECIES to signifie those Accidents without any Subject But the Fathers never take it in this Sense I Need only refer the Reader for the first part of this Assertion to the Thirteenth Session of the Council of Trent Canâ—n 2. 3. where the Word Species is so used And to what we heard before out of their Catechism of the Species of Bread and Wine subsisting without any Subject in which they are Every one knows this is their Customary Word to express Appearances of things by when nothing real is under them to support them But now we shall see this to be a strange and foreign usage of this Word which the Fathers know nothing of in their Sense but in stead of denoting Accidents by the Word Species which are in no Subject they use it commonly for the Substance the Nature the Matter of a thing the Subject it self that appears Not for Appearances without a Subject S. Ambrose often uses this Word Species but never in the Sense of the Romanists For which take these Instances S. Ambrose says (a) Serm. 21. Dominum rogatum ad Nuptias aquae substantiam in vini speciem commutasse That at the Marriage of Cana our Lord being requested did change the Substance of Water into the Species of Wine That is not into the Appearance of Wine but into real Wine that he changed it And in another place * Serm. 22. Speciem magis necessariam Nuptiis praestitit He provided for the Marriage a more necessary Species i. e. Wine more agreeable to a Marriage-Feast than Water In another Book (b) Officior lib. 2. cap. 28. Hic numerus captivorum hic ordo praestantior est quam species poculorum speaking of Holy Vessels which he broke for the Redemption of Captives he says This Number and Order of Captives far excels the Species of Cups i.e. all sorts of them Again elsewhere (c) De iis qui initiant cap. 9. Gravior est ferri species quam aquarum liquor The Species of Iron is heavier than the Liquor of Water i. e. the Substance of Iron S. Austin (d) In Joan. tract 11. Omnes in Moyse baptizati sunt in nube in mari Si ergo figura maris tantum valuit species baptismi quantum valebit They were all baptized into Moses in the Cloud and in the Sea. If therefore the Figure of the Sea availed so much how much will the Species of
Expressions in favour of Transubstantiation no not when the Word Nature or Substance is exprest in the Change. Tertullian (u) De Resur Carn c. 55. Si transfigurationem conversionem in transiâ—um substantiae cujusque defendis ergo Saul in alium virum conversus de corpore suo excessit c. has dashed this out of countenance when he says to Marcion If thou defendest a Transfiguration and Conversion as far as the passing of the Substance of a thing into another then Saul who was turned into another Man went out of his Body c. Again It 's possible to be changed says he Ibid. Ita in resurrectionis eventum mutari converti reformari licebit cum salute substantiae to be converted and reformed into what shall happen at the Resurrection and yet the Substance be preserved But this will more fully appear by the Axioms the Fathers lay down and by the Instances they give Their Axioms are such as these Cyril of Alexandr (x) Thesaur Assert 20. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For a thing to be made do's not always signifie a change of Nature Cyril of Jerus (y) Catech. Mystag 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Whatsoever the Holy Spirit touches that is always sanctified and changed S. Jerome (z) In cap. 43. Ezekiel Per ignem Spiritus sancti omnia quae cogitamus loquimur ac facimus in spiritualem substantiam convertuntur By the Fire of the Holy Spirit all that we think speak and act are changed into a Spiritual Substance If these Sayings be strictly scann'd they will amount to no more than a producing new Vertues and Qualities which were not before Their Instances also shew the same 1. Of Miraculous Changes in Nature S. Ambrose (a) In Hexem l. 3. c. 2. Discant naturam posse converti quando petra aquas fluxit ferrum aquae supernatavit Let them learn that Nature may be converted when the Rock flowed out Waters and Iron swam above Water Again (b) Lib. de iis qui initiant c. 9. Nonne claret naturam vel maritimorum fluctuum vel fluvialis cursus esse mutatam Misit Moyses lignum in aquam amaritudinem suam aquarum natura deposuit Mifit etiam Elisaeus lignum in aquam ferrum natavit utique hoc praeter naturam factum esse cognoscimus speaking of Changes in the Red Sea and Jordan when the Waters stood on an heap Is it not clear says he that the Nature of the Sea-waves and the Rivers Current was changed Moses threw Wood into the Water and the Nature of the Waters lost its Bitterness Elisha also threw Wood into the Water and Iron swam and this we know was done besides Nature Epiphanius (c) Haeres 64. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 says The Hand of Moses was changed into Snow S. Chrysostome (d) In Psal 10. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 speaking of the Babylonian Furnace says The Elements forgetting their proper Nature were changed to become profitable to them and the very Beasts were no longer Beasts nor the Furnace a Furnace 2. Of the Change by the Fall. S. Austin says (e) In Psal 68. Conc. 1. Per iniquitatem homo lapsus est à substantâ in qua factus est By Sin Man fell from the Substance in which he was made 3. Of the Change by Regeneration Gr. Nyssen (f) In Cantic Hom. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 says That by the Discipline of Christ Men are changed into a Nature that is more Divine And again (g) In Cantic Hom. 9. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Having divested themselves of Flesh and Blood and being changed into a Spiritual Nature Macarius (h) Hom. 44. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 says Our Souls must be altered and changed from their present Condition into another Condition and into a Divine Nature Cyril of Alexandria (i) De S. Trin. Dial. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 speaks of Regeneration as that which transmutes and changes us into the Son of God. 4. Of the Change in the Incarnation of Christ and the Resurrection Gr. Nyssen (k) Contr. Eunom l. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 speaking of Christ whom he calls our First-fruits says That by his mixing with God he is changed into a Divine Nature And again (l) Ibid. l. 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he uses this Phrase of Christ's Flesh That this is also changed into the Deity Chrysologus (m) Serm. 45 Deus in hominem convertitur of the Incarnation God is changed into Man. The Author under the Name of Eusebius Emissenus (n) Hom. de Pasch 3. Quid est Virga in Serpentem Deus in hominem commutatus asks What is the Rod turned into a Serpent He answers God changed into Man. Tertullian (o) Demutati in atomo crimus in Angelicam substantiam Contr. Marc. l. 3. c. ult speaking of the Resurrection We shall be changed in a moment into an Angelical Substance S. Hilary's (p) In Psal 138. Demutatio terrenorum corporum in spiritualem aethereamque naturam Phrase of it is A Change of Earthly Bodies into a Spiritual and Ethereal Nature Macarius (q) Hom. 34. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 speaking of the Saints They are all changed into a Divine Nature Chrysologus (r) Serm. 45. Veniat veniat ut carnem reparet animam innovet ipsam naturam in coelestem commutet substantiam speaking of Christ Let him come let him come to repair our Flesh make our Souls new change our Nature into a Celestial Substance Cyril of Alexand. says (s) Orat. in Resurr Christi 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 At the Resurrection there will be another kind of Life and a Change of our very Nature S. Austin (t) Serm. 12. de 40. à Sirmond Edit Caro mortalis convertitur in corpus Angeli Ille qui potens fuit mutare aquam in vinum potens est mutare foenum in aurum de carne facere Angelum Si de sordibus fecit hominem de homine non faciet Angelum says Our mertal Fesh is converted into the Body of an Angel. He that could change Water into Wine is able to change Hay so he calls our Bodies that are Grass into Gold and of Flesh make an Angel. If he made of Filth a Man can he not make of Man an Angel And elsewhere (u) Cont. Adimant c. 12. Cùm induerit incorruptionem immortalitatem jam non caro sanguis erit sed in corpus coeleste mutabitur speaking of our Bodies When it shall put on Incorruption and Immortality now it will be no longer Flesh and Blood but be changed into a celestial Body Cassian (x) De Incarn l. 3. c. 3. Natura carnis in spiritualem est translata substantiam speaking of Christ's Flesh after the Resurrection The Nature of his Flesh is changed into a spiritual Substance 5. Of the Change in Baptism S.
be contained in a lesser which the Fathers deny Page 29 CHAP. VI. The Sixth Difference The Roman Church teaches us to disbelieve the Report of our Senses which tell us That Bread and Wine remain in the Eucharist The Fathers urge this Evidence even with relation to Christ's true Body Page 31 Object The Fathers call upon us not to believe our Senses in the Case of the Eucharist Answ 1. The Fathers appeal to our Senses in this Case Page 39 2. They call upon Men not to regard their Information in Matters wherein none question the Truth of their Information ibid. 3. The true Reason why the Fathers call us off from listning to our Senses is to make us regard and attend to things beyond their Information Page 40 A Place of S. Cyril of Jerusalem and another of S. Chrysostome explain'd Page 42 CHAP. VII The Seventh Difference When the Fathers call the Eucharist Christ's Body and Blood the Roman Church understands it of Christs Natural Body but the Fathers mean it commonly of the Bread and Wine Several Observables from the Fathers to explain and prove this as 1 Obs They tell us of their studiously concealing the Mysteries from some Persons Page 44 2 Obs The Fathers in their manner of speaking concerning Christ's Body point at another thing than his Natural Body Page 46 3 Obs They speak of Christ's Body with Terms of Restriction and Diminution Page 48 4 Obs They give us Reasons why it is call'd Christ's Body which none do for calling things by their Proper Names from its Resemblance and Representation Page 49 5 Obs What they call Christ's Body they say is without Life or Sense Page 51 6 Obs They speak of Divisions and Parts of it not to be affirmed of his Natural Body Page 52 7 Obs They speak of making Christ's Body differently from the Sense of the Roman Church Page 54 They affirm 1. That whatsoever is made was not before it was made Page 55 2. That Bread is made his Body and that it is made of Bread and Wine Page 55 56 They call it sometimes Mystical Bread sometimes Christ's Mystical Body Page 57 8 Obs They speak of Christ's Body as sanctified and sacrificed in the Eucharist which is only true of his Typical Body Page 58 The Natural Body of Christ cannot be sanctified nor sacrificed properly Page 59 CHAP. VIII The Eighth Difference When the Fathers mention a Change and Conversion in the Eucharist the Roman Church understands such a Change as abolishes the Substance of Bread and Wine The Fathers never understand it so Page 62 Several Assertions of the Fathers to explain this 1 Assert They distinguish between the Conversion of a thing and its abolishing ibid. 2 Assert When they speak of a Conversion into what was before they suppose an Accession and Augmentation of that into which the Change is made Page 63 3 Assert The Fathers use the same Terms of Conversion Passing into Becoming another thing c. in other Cases besides that of the Eucharist wherein all confess no Change of Substances is made Page 65 Some Axioms of the Fathers to this purpose ibid. Their Instances of such Changes given in Nature in Regeneration in Christ's Incarnation our Resurrection in Baptism wherein the Change however exprest can be only in Qualities Page 65 66 67 4 Assert The Fathers by a Change in the Eucharist mean either a Change into a Sacrament or that of Efficacy and Virtue by infusing and adding Grace Page 69 70 5 Assert They express as fully and in the same mannâ—r our substantial Change into Christ's Body as of the Bread into Christ's Body Page 72 CHAP. IX The Ninth Difference The Roman Church asserts a substantial Presence of Christ's Natural Body in the Eucharist which the Fathers deny Page 74 Several Positions of the Fathers to this purpose 1 Pos The Fathers look upon Christ's Body as absent from Earth since his Ascension tho' in another sense he is present still ibid. 2 Pos They distinguish the presence of Christs Body from the Sacrament of it which they make to be a memorial of him as gone away Page 77 78 3 Pos Whatsoever presence of Christ the Fathers speak of in the Eucharist they acknowledge the same in Baptism and as fully Page 79 80 They speak of those Waters as turned into Blood of our being Baptized in Blood and yet neither they nor any else dream'd of Transubstantiation Page 82 4 Pos They so consider the presence of Christs Body in the Eucharist as can no way agree to his glorified Body Page 83 5 Pos According to them the Presence of Christs Body to us now is a presence to our Faith a presence of Union Efficacy and Grace Page 85 What foul play the Romanists have used with an Author that deny'd this Page 90 An Account of a late Learned Dissertation concerning Christs Body and Blood occasion'd by a doubt proposed to S. Austin Page 91 CHAP. X. The Tenth Difference The Fathers assert positively that the substance of Bread and Wine remain after Consecration which the R. Church denies Page 93 Proved by their asserting that Christ offered the same oblation with Melchisedek Page 101 Fraction in the Eucharist can only agree to the Bread. Page 103 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 which Transubstantiation contradicts Page 105 Instances of the particulars Their calling it a Sacrament ibid. Signs 106. Types 107. Antitypes ibid. A Figure 108. Image 110. Further Remarks of the Fathers confirming the Argument as 1 Remark They say an Image Figure c. cannot be the thing it self Page 111 2 Rem That an Image Type c. must visibly demonstrate that of which it is an Image Type c. Page 112 3 Rem They make the Elements to be the Signs Symbols c. of Christ as absent Page 113 Some Passages out of the old Liturgy in Bertram's time Page 114 The Doctrine of the Christians of St. Thomas in the East-Indies confirming the same Page 115 CHAP. XII The Twelfth Difference The Fathers assert that Christs Body is not eaten Corporally and Carnally but only spiritually Whereas the Rom. Church teaches a Corporal Eating of Christs Body Page 116 Berengarius's Recantation supposes this in the most literal sense ibid. Tho' this sense was opposed afterwards 117. Yet all Rom. agree that Christs Natural Body is taken into ours 118. How long they assert it makes its stay there ibid. Horrid Cases how resolved 119. What the Fathers call understanding things Carnally 120. That they opposed the literal and carnal eating of Christ's Body Page 121 122 123. Considerations proving they did not so understand it 1 Consid They say we partake of Christs Body in Baptism which can be only spiritually Page 125 2 Consid They distinguish eating Christs true Body from the Sacramental Page 126 3 Consid They assert that the Fathers under the
Baptism avail In another place (e) Serm. ad Infantes Ut sit species visibilis panis multa grana in unum consperguntur To make the visible Species of Bread many Grains are mixed together into one Again (f) Lib. 3. de Trinit cap. 4. Quod cùm per manus hominum ad illam visibilem speciem perducitur non sanctificatur ut sit tam magnum Sacramentum nisi operante invisibiliter Spiritu Dei c. speaking of the Bread in the Sacrament he says When by Mens Hands it is brought to that visible Species i. e. to the Substance of Bread it is not sanctified so as to become so great a Sacrament without the invisible Operation of the Spirit of God. So elsewhere (g) In Joan. tract 26. Omnes eundem spiritualem potum biberunt aliud illi aliud nos sed specie visibili quidem tamen hoc idem significante virtute spirituali They all drank of the same spiritual Drink they one thing and we another but tho' another as to the visible Species yet as to the Spiritual Virtue signifying this same thing Where the Visible Species it 's plain denotes Water to the Jews and Wine to us not the Accidents only And in another Tractate (h) Tract 45. in Joan. Videte fide manente signa variata Ibi petra Christus nobis Christus quod in altari Dei ponitur illi pro magno Sacramento ejusdem Christi biberunt aquam profluentem de petra nos quid bibamus norunt fideles si speciem visibilem intendas aliud est si intelligibilem significationem eundem potum spiritualem biberunt to the same sense speaking of the Jews Behold the Signs are varied Faith remaining the same To them the Rock was Christ to us that which is placed on the Altar is Christ They drank the Water flowing from the Rock for a great Sacrament of the same Christ what we drink the Faithful know If you regard the Visible Species it is another thing but if the intelligible Signification they drank the same spiritual Drink And so in another Book (i) Lib. 3. de Trinit cap. 10. Cùm autem suscipitur aliquando in Angelo demonstratur aliquando in ea Specie quae non est quod Angelus quamvis per Angelum disposita ministretur speaking of things assumed to signifie matters to us he says When it is assumed sometimes it is shewn in an Angel sometimes in that Species which is not what an Angel is tho' it is ordered and disposed by an Angel's Ministry And his next Instance of such things is ipsum Corpus a Body it self So Gaudentius (k) In Exod. tract 2. Rectè etiam vini specie tum sanguis ejus exprimitur quia cùm ipse in Evangelio dicit Ego sum Vitis vera satis declarat sanguinem suum esse omne vinum quod in figura passionis ejus offertur Also by the Species of Wine his Blood is then rightly expressed for when he says in the Gospel I am the true Vine he fully declares That all the Wine that is offered for a Figure of his Passion is his Blood. Arnobius jun. (l) In Psal 104. Succurrit non solum cis speciem frumenti sed vini olei administrans Our Lord succours them not only by affording them the Species of Corn but also of Wine and Oyl Where the Word Species to be sure relates to the Substance and the thing it self not to the Accidents of Corn and Wine and Oyl Sedulius (m) Lib. 2. Operis Paschal speaking of the Offerings of the Wise Men that came to Christ says Ipsae etiam ut possent Species ostendere Christum Aurea nascenti fuderunt munera Regi Thura dedere Deo Myrrham tribuere Sepulchre That is They point to Christ even by the Gifts they bring Gold they present unto him as a King Incense as God Myrrh for his Burying The things they present are you see his Species Salvian's words are plain (n) Lib. 1. de Gub. Dei. p. 21. Edit Baluz Adde medicatas aquas veldatas vel immutatas Speciem servantes Naturam relinquentes Add says he those healed Waters either given or changed which preserved their Species and relinquish'd their Nature Here Species is taken for the Substance remaining and Nature for the Qualities of the Water that were changed Walafridus Strabo (o) De Rebus Eccles cap. 16. Corporis sanguinis sui Sacramenta panis vini substantia Discipulis tradidit Nihil ergo congruentiùs his Speciebus ad significandam capitis membrorum unitatem potuit inveniri shewing how Christ in the Last Supper delivered to his Disciples the Sacraments of his Body and Blood in the Substance of Bread and Wine adds Nothing more agreeable than these Species could be found to signifie the Unity of the Head and Members Rupertus Abbas (p) De Offic. lib. 2. cap. 9. In illum in quo fides non est praeter visibiles Species panis vini nihil de Sacrificio pervenit Nothing of the Sacrifice enters into him that has no Faith besides the visible Species of Bread and Wine No one ever thought but that the Wicked partak'd as much of the outward Elements as the Faithful but he says a little before That when the Priest distributes the Sacrifice to be eaten by the Faithful the Bread and Wine is consumed and passes away Therefore by the visible Species he means the Bread and Wine which the Wicked only partake of It has been largely proved by Salmasius (q) Simplicius Verinus de Transubst p. 230 c. That in the Civil Law and the Theodosian Code the word Species is used for things there spoke of as Species annonariae for all sorts of Corn Species publicae for Goods brought to the several Ports Species vini frumenti olei for Wine Corn and Oyl and not the Accidents of them It is not to be expected that any thing should be cited out of Greek Authors whose this Word is not and yet it is observable That even among them the Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that answers to the Latin Word Species is taken in the Sense of the Latin Fathers and not in that of the present Church of Rome To give only two Instances The Author under the Name of Dionysius the Areopagite (r) Eccles Hierarch cap. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 speaking of Christ's Incarnation uses the Phrase of Assuming our Species which his Scoliast Maximus thus explains 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 When he had assumed our Species or Nature not meerly an Appearance of our Nature Theophylact (s) In Marc. 14. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Because says he Bread and Wine are things familiar to us and we could not endure but should abhor to see Flesh and Blood set before us therefore Christ the Lover of Men condescending to us preserves the Species of
Bread and Wine that is the Elements themselves but he changes them into the Vritue of his Flesh and Blood. To conclude this Head Bertram (t) Lib. de Corp. Sang. Christi Secundùm Speciem visibilem secundùm visibilem Creaturam secundùm creaturarum substantiam following the Sense of the Ancients uses these Phrases indifferently according to the visible Species and according to the visible Creature or according to the Substance of the Creatures Which are Modes of Speech which the present Roman Church will not allow of in the Eucharist For they tell us their plain Belief what Species are in a Sequence on Corpus-Christi day which explains it thus Sub diversis Speciebus Signis tantum non rebus Latent res eximiae Admirable things lie hid under the different Species which are only Signs and not Things CHAP. V. The Fifth Difference The Fathers differ from the Roman Church in their Assertions about the Nature and Properties of Bodies EVery one knows what the Sentiments of the Roman Church are herein and what they must necessarily assert believing Transubstantiation That a Body that is Organical as Christ's is may be invisible and impalpable commensurate to no Space That it may possess one Place so as to be in more at the same time That it may be entire in one Part and in one Point and may exist after the manner of a Spirit See Bellarmine de Eucharist lib. 1. cap. 2. reg 3. lib. 3. c. 7. The Council of Trent says (a) Sess 13. cap. 3. Totus Christus integer sub specie panis sub qualibet ejus speciei parte existit Whole and entire Christ is in the Eucharist under the Species of Bread and under every part of the Species of Bread. I shall now show That the Fathers assert quite contrary to all these Maxims of the Roman Church giving us a different Account of the Nature and Properties of Bodies and in the Particulars forenamed make no difference betwixt Christ's Body and ours 1 Assertion They assert That every Organiz'd Body not excepting the Body of Christ is visible and palpable Tertullian (b) De Resurrect c. 35. Corpus hominis non aliud intelligam quam quod videtur quod tenetur I understand nothing by the Body of a Man c. but what is seen and felt Methodius (c) Apud Photium Cod. 234. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 God is Incorporeal and therefore Invisible Eustathius Antioch (d) De Engastrimytho 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If he was Invisible without doubt he was Incorporeal Speaking of Samuel raised at Endor Didymus (e) Caten in Joan. 4.24 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If a thing be Invisible it presently follows that it is Incorporeal Greg. Nazianzen (f) Orat. 34. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If God be a Body what kind of Body and how an impalpable and invisible one This is not the Nature of Bodies And he cries out 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 O strange Licence to imagine thus Greg. Nyssen (g) De Opific hom cap. 24. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. says That is not a Body that wants Colour Figure Solidness Space Weight and the rest of its Attributes S. Austin (h) De Verb. Domini Ser. 60. Semper quidem Divinitate nobiscum est sed nisi corporaliter abiret à nobis semper ejus corpus carnaliter videremus speaking of our Lord says He is always with us by his Divinity but if he were not corporally absent from us we should always carnally see his Body Ephrem Antioch (i) Apud Photium Cod. 229. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 No Man of any sense can say That the Nature of that which is palpable and impalpable of that which is visible and that which is invisible is the same Altho' the Valentinians in Eulogius (k) Ibid. Cod. 230. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 say That the Nature of that which is visible and that which is invisible is the same And so did the Manichees Ibid. Vigilius (l) Lib. 4. contr Eutych Necesse erit ut caro sicut verbum si unius cum co est naturae increata sit invisibilis c. Sed carnem his conditionibus subjacere impossibile est speaking of the Lord's Body says It is necessary the Flesh as well as the Word if they be of one Nature be uncreated and invisible But it is impossible that Flesh should be the Subject of such Conditions Titus Bostrensis (m) Contr. Mâ—nich l. 2. Omne quod sub aspectum cadit cum sit corpus natura oppositum est inaspectabili incorporeo c. Every thing that falls under our Sight seeing it is a Body is in Nature opposite to that which is invisible and incorporeal Damascen (n) De Fide Orth. lib. 1. c. 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 How can that be a Body c which is impalpable and invisible Gregory the Great (o) Moral lib. 14. c. 33. Erit itaque subtilis quia incorruptibilis erit palpabilis quia non amittet essentiam veracis naturae speaking of a glorified Body says It will therefore be a subtile Body because it will be incorruptible and it will be palpable because it shall not lose the Essence of its true Nature Cyril of Alex. in his Explication of the third Anathema of the Ephesine Council (p) Tom. 3 Concil Labbe p. 817. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He is not a Stranger to that Body which he has united to himself which we say is capable to be felt and to be seen In fine The Church of Rome makes Christ's Body invisible tho' it be present the Fathers never make it so but because it is absent So Ammonius (q) Eaten in Joan. 16.10 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He was taken up into Heaven and became invisible unto Men. And the Author imperfecti Operis in Matthaeum (r) Homil. 53. Si sit praesens non creditur sed videtur cùm autem absens fuerit non videtur sed creditur dum timetur When he is present he is not believed but seen but when he is absent he is not seen but believed whilst he is feared 2 Assertion The Fathers assert That every Body is quantum and as it ahs Quantity possesses a Place or Space and is commensurate to it That a Body cannot be in more than one Place nor be intire in one Part nor exist after the manner of a Spirit All which are false if Transubstantiation be true S. Basil (s) Contr. Eunom l. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 makes that to be incorporeal whose Essence cannot be divided three ways or has not three Dimensions Greg. Nyssen (t) De Opific Hom. c. 24. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 says That if you take Quantity Solidness and other Properties from the Subject the whole Nature of the Body is dissolved c.
S. Chrysostome (t) Epist ad Caesarium Dignus habitus est Dominici Corporis appellatione says of the Consecrated Bread That it has no longer the name of Bread tho' the nature of it remains but is counted worthy to be called the Lord's Body Theoderet in like manner (u) Dialog 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He honoured the visible Symbols with the appellation of 〈◊〉 Body and Blood. Facundus Hermian (x) In defens 3. capit l. 9. Non quod propriè Corpus cjus sit panis poculum sanguis c. is most express We call says he the Sacrament of his Body and Blood which is in the Consecrated Bread and Cup his Body and Blood not that properly the Bread is his Body and the Cup his Blood c. So also is S. Chrysostome (y) In Gal. 5.17 Vol. 3. Savil p. 755. in another place where he shows that the word Flesh is not always taken for the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the nature and substance of the Body which is the only proper sense and he gives other instances which are improper 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as that flesh signifies a depraved will. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And adds two other improper senses in these words By the name of Flesh the Scripture is wont also to call the mysteries he adds also that it calls the Church so when it calls it the Body of Christ The very phrase of being wont to call shows that of which it is affirmed to be improperly so called as the phrase of being thought worthy of the name as we heard before argues the name not properly to agree to it 4. Observ The Fathers knowing that the Eucharist was not in a proper sense Christs Body give us several reasons why it is called his Body But no body uses to give a reason why he calls a thing by its proper name I shall not name all the reasons here but reserve some to another place when we consider the Sacrament as a Sign Figure Type Memorial c. 1. One reason they give is from its likeness and resemblance either in respect of what it consists of or from the likeness of its effects S. Austin's saying is remarkable (z) Epist 23. Si Sacramenta quandam similitudinem earum rerum non haberent quarum Sacramenta sunt omninò Sacramenta non essent Ex hac autem similitudine plerunque etiam ipâ—arum rerum nomina accipiunt If the Sacraments had not a resemblance of those things of which they are Sacraments they would not be Sacraments at all But from this resemblance they take commonly the name even of the things themselves which they resemble Bede also gives (a) In Cap. 6. Epist ad Roman Lib. 4. cap. 4. Fortê dicis speciem sanguinis non video Sed habet similitudinem Sicut enim mortis similitudinem sumpsisti ita etiam similitudinem pretiosi sanguinis bibis c. the same reason in his Commentary on the Romans The Author of the Book of Sacraments under S. Ambrose his name speaks thus Thou mayst say perhaps I do not see the substance of Blood. Well but it has its likeness For as thou hast received the likeness of his death so thou drinkest the likeness of his pretious Blood. S. Cyprian (b) Epist 76. ad Magnum Quando Dominus Corpus suum panem vocat de multorum granorum adunatione congestum populum nostrum quem portabat indicat adunatum quando sanguinem suum vinum appellat de botris atque acinis plurimis expressum atque in unum coactum gregem item nostrum significat commixtione adunatae multitudinis copulatam When Christ called Bread made up of many united grains of Corn his Body he shewed the unity of Christian people whom he bore and when he call'd Wine pressed out of many Grapes and put together his Blood he signified also the uniting of a multitude of the Christian flock together So Rabanus Maurus (c) De Instit Cleric c. 31. Propterea Dominus noster Corpus sanguinem suum in eis rebus commendavit quae ad unum aliquid rediguntur ex multis five granis five acinis Sanctorum Charitatis unitatem significaret Therefore our Lord commended his Body and Blood in those things which consisting of many Grains or Grapes are brought together into one whereby he might signify the unity of the Charity of Saints Others again from the likeness of its effects Thus Isidore of Sevil (d) De Offic. Eccles l. 1. cap. 18. Panis quia confirmat Corpus ideo Corpus Christi nuncupatur vinum autem quia sanguinem operatur in carne ideo ad sanguinem Christi refertur Bread because it strengthens the Body is therefore called the Body of Christ and Wine because it produces Blood in the Flesh is therefore referred to the Blood of Christ The same reason is also given by Rabanus Maurus in his Commentary upon the 26 Chap. of S. Matthew 2 Reason Another reason why they call the Eucharist Christs Body is because it supplies the place is instead of it is its representative its pledge and pawn Tertullian (e) Lib. 6. de Orat. Corpus ejus in pane censetur Hoc est corpus meum His Body is reputed to be in the Bread This is my Body S. Austin (f) Tract 45. in Joan. Videte fide manente signa variata Ibi Petra Christus nobis Christus quod in altari Dei ponitur See how the signs are varied Faith remaining the same There in the Wilderness the rock was Christ to us that which is placed on Gods Altar is Christ Again elsewhere more fully (g) De Civit. Dei l. 18. c. 48. Quodammodo omnia significantia videntur rerum quas significant sustinere personas sicut dictum est ab Apostolo Petra erat Christus quoniam Petra illa de qua hoc dictum est significabat utique Christum All things intended to signify seem in a sort to sustain the persons of those things which they signify as the Apostle says The Rock was Christ because that Rock of which this is spoken did signify Christ Cyril of Jerusalem (h) Catech. Mystag 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. says Wherefore with all assurance let us receive it viz. The Bread and Wine as the Body and Blood of Christ for in the type of Bread his Body is given thee and in the type of Wine his Blood. Proclus of Constantinople (i) Orat. 18. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Instead of the Manger let us venerate the Altar instead of the Infant let us embrace the Bread that is blessed by the Infant viz. Christ Victor Antiochen (k) In Marc. 14. Citante Bulingero adv Casaub 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 When the Lord said this is my Body this is my Blood it was fit that they who set forth the Bread should after giving of thanks reckon
Chrysostome (y) In Acta Hom. 23. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Verily the Power of Baptism is great c. it do's not suffer Men to be any longer Men. Nazianzen (z) Ocat 40. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I am changed into Christ in Baptism Cyril of Alexandr (a) In Joan. 3.5 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 By the energy of the Spirit the sensible Water is changed into a kind of divine and unspeakable Power Again (b) Idem Epist ad Letorum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That they are transelemented by Regeneration through the Grace of the Laver of Baptism S. Austin (c) Cont. Crescon lib. 4. c. 54. Uno die tria alio quinque millia credentium in suum corpus conversa suscepit speaking of Baptized Converts to Christianity It received on one day Three on another Five thousand Believers converted into his Body Again (d) In Joan. tract 11. Unde rubet Baptismus nisi sanguine Christi consecratus elsewhere he asks How comes Baptism to be red but by being consecrated with the Blood of Christ Leo the Great (e) Scrm. 14. de Passione Susceptus à Christo Christum suscipiens non idem est post Lavacrum qui ante baptismum feit sed corpus regenerati sit caro crucifixi haec commutatio dextrae est excelsi c. He that is received by Christ and receives Christ is not the same Man after as before Baptism but the Body of the Regenerate Person becomes the Flesh of Christ crucified this is a Change by the Right hand of the most High c. And again (f) De Nativ Dom. Serm. 4. Christus dedit aquae quod dedit matri virtus enim altissimi obumbratio Spiritus S. quae fecit ut Maria pareret Salvatorem eadem facit ut regeneret unda credentem Christ gave to the Water what he gave to his Mother For the Virtue of the most High and the Overshadowing of the Holy Ghost which made Mary to bring forth a Saviour the same makes the Water to regenerate a Believer Where we may also note by the way That the mention of God's Omnipotence in the Case of Sacraments do's not infer a substantial Change made there since it do's not do it in Baptism and yet the Omnipotency of God is seen in working Changes there Zeno Verenens (g) Ad Neoph. post Baptism Serm. 2. Aqua nostra suscipit mortuos evomit vivos ex animalibus veros homines factos ex hominious in Angelos transituros Our Water receives the Dead and vomits forth the Living being made true Men of meer Animals such as are to pass from being Men into Angels c. He says this of Baptism which is not like common Water which receives the Living to the bottom and vomits forth the Dead Author sub nomine Eusebii Emisseni (h) Hom. 2. de Epiphan Mutantur subitò aquae homines postmodum muâ—aturae The Waters are suddenly changed which are afterwards to change Men viz. that are baptized in them Again (i) Id. Hom. 3. de Epiph. Homo per aquam baptismi licet à foris idem esse videatur intus tamen alter efficitur persona non contingitur natura mutatur A Man by the Water of Baptism tho' outwardly he seems the same yet inwardly he is made another Man. The Person is not touched and Nature is changed Again (k) Idem Hom. 5. de Pasch In exteriore nihil additum est totum in interiore mutatum est In illam primae originis dignitatem nativo candore mutatur ac per aquam Baptismi vel per ignem Spiritus S. aeterni illius panis corpus efficitur Nothing is added to what is outward and he is wholly changed in what is inward He is changed by a native Whiteness into the Dignity of his first Original and by the Water of Baptism or by the Fire of the Holy Spirit is made the Body of that eternal Bread. 4 Assertion The Change in the Eucharist which the Fathers so often mention is either a Change into a Sacrament or a Change of Efficacy and Virtue by infusion and addition of Grace What can be plainer as to the first than that of Isidore of Sevil (l) De Offic. Eccles l. 1. c. 18. Haec duo sent visibilia sanctificata autem per Spiritum S. in Sacramentum divini corporis transeunt Speaking of the Bread and Wine he says These two are visible but being sanctified by the Holy Spirit they pass into a Sacrament of his divine Body As for the Change of Virtue and Efficacy take these following Testimonies among many others Theodot us (m) Epitom ad fin Operum Clem. Alex. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Bread and Oil are sanctified by the Power of the Name not being the same they were according to appearance when taken but are changed powerfully into a Spiritual Virtue The like he says of the Water in Baptism That it not only retains the less that is the Substance of Water but also has Sanctification added to it Epiphanius also (n) In Compendio de Fide Eccles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 speaks the same Here in Christ the virtue of Bread and force of Water are strengthned not that the Bread is thus powerful to us but the Virtue of the Bread which Christ puts into it For Bread is indeed an Aliment but there is in it a Virtue to enliven us Cyril of Alexandr (o) Apud Victor Antioch Com. MS. in Marc. 14. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 God condescending to our Infirmities indues the Oblations set before us with a Virtue of Life and changes them into the Efficacy of his Flesh And in the fore-cited place of his Comment upon John (p) In Joan. 6.57 he says The least particle of the Eucharist mixing it self with our whole Body 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 fills it with its own Efficacy c. Theodoret (q) Dialog 1. tells those that partake of the Divine Mysteries That they must not consider the Nature of the Things seen but upon the change of Names 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 believe the change made by Grace And he adds That Christ honoured the visible Symbols with the Name of his Body and Blood 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not changing the Nature or Substance of them but adding Grace to Nature Theophylact (r) In cap 14. Marc. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 also says the same Our Lord preserves the Substance 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the same with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Theodoret of Bread and Wine but changes them into the Virtue of his Flesh and Blood. Greg. Nyssen (s) Orat. in Bapt. Christi speaking of the Privileges which Consecration advances things to instances first in the Water of Baptism and the great and marvellous Efficacy thereof and proceeds to that of an Altar which is at first but a common Stone but after
Dedication becomes an Holy Altar which the Priests only touch with Veneration And then adds the Instance of the Eucharist 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which at first is common Bread but after the Mystery has consecrated it it is called and becomes the Body of Christ So the mystical Oil and so the Wine before the Benediction are things of little worth but after the Sanctification of the Spirit each of them operates excellently So Ammonius (t) Catena in Joan. 3.5 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ibid. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 says The sensible Water is transelemented into a Divine Virtue for the Fathers make Changes in Baptism as well as the Eucharist and sanctifies those in whom it is Nay he affirms That the Water differs only from the Spirit in our manner of Conception for it is the same in Energy Cyril of Jerusalem (u) Catech. Mystag 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 calling the Flesh and Bread in the Feast of Idols defiled by the Invocation of impure Devils he illustrates it thus As the Bread and Wine of the Eucharist before the Invocation of the adored Trinity 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is bare Bread and Wine but after Invocation the Bread is made the Body of Christ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the Wine the Blood of Christ so also in the same manner those Meats of the Pomp of Satan in their own Nature being simple things yet by the Invocation of Devils they become impure That 's the Change here That those Meats are in Quality not in Substance made impure and so if the Comparison hold the Change in the other is That they are Hallowed Bread and Wine in Use and Efficacy different from what they were before The Author under Cyprian's Name (x) De Vnct. Chrysmat Inest Veritas signo Spiritus Sacramento speaking of Chrysin says Truth is in the Sign and the Spirit in the Sacrament Thus S. Ambrose (y) De iis qui init c. 9. in fine understands the Body of Christ for that Divine Substance and Presence of the Spirit which is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of Christ's Body In illo Sacramento Christus est quia corpus est Christi Non ergo corporalis esca sed spiritalis est Corpus enim Dei corpus est Spiritale Corpus Christi corpus est divini Spiritus quia Spiritus Christi sc est Christ is in that Sacrament because it is the Body of Christ It is not therefore Corporeal but Spiritual Food For the Body of God is a Spiritual Body The Body of Christ is the Body of the Divine Spirit not his natural Body because it is the Spirit of Christ. Here Corpus Dei is Corpus Spiritale that is Substantia Spiritalis Spiritus The Author under his Name (z) De Sacram. lib. 4. cap. 4. Quomodo potest qui panis est corpus esse Christi Consecratione Ergo ut tibi respondeam Non erat corpus Christi ante consecrationem sed post consecrationem dico tibi quod corpus est Christi Ipse dixit factum est ipse mandavit creatum est Tu ipse eras vetus creatura posteaquam consecratus es nova creatura esse coepisti c. How can that which is Bread be the Body of Christ By Consecration To answer thee therefore It was not the Body of Christ before Consecration but after Consecration I tell thee it is the Body of Christ. He said it and it was done he commanded and it was created Thou thy self wast an old Creature but after thou wast consecrated thou beganst to be a new Creature c. So that according to this Author as in Regeneration by Baptism Man changes his Nature so do's the Consecrated Bread in the Eucharist change its Nature Therefore it is no substantial Change because the other confessedly is not so Druthmarus (a) Comm. in Matth. 26. speaking of a Person taking a long Journey and leaving a Pledge behind him to remember him by Ita Deus praecipit agi à nobis transferens spiritualiter panem in corpus vinum in sanguinem ut per haec duo memoremus quae fecit pro nobis de corpore suo c. he adds Thus also God has commanded us to do spiritually changing the Bread into his Body and the Wine into his Blood that by these two things we may remember what he hath done for us with his Body and Blood c. 5 Assertion The Fathers express in the same manner and as fully our substantial Change into Christ's Body as of the Bread into Christ's Body Yet none will from such Expressions assert the former and there is the same reason not to do the latter Gr. Nyssen (b) Orat. Catech. cap. 37. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 As a little Leaven according to the Apostle likens the whole Mass to it self so the Body of Christ put to death by God coming into our Body do's change and convert the whole into it self And again 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a little after His immortal Body being in him that receives it changes the whole into its own Nature Cryil of Alexandria (c) In Joan. lib. 4. cap. 3. says He that receives me by a participation of my Flesh shall have Life in himself 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being wholly transelemented into me P. Leo Magn. (d) De Nat. Dom. Serm. 10. Christi caro de utero virginis sumpta nos sumus We are the Flesh of Christ taken from the Womb of the Virgin. And elsewhere (e) Id. de Passion Serm. 14. Non aliud agit Participatio corporis sanguinis Christi quà m ut in id quod sumimus transeamus Ipsum per omnia spiritu carne gestemus The Participation of the Body and Blood of Christ intends nothing else but that we should pass into that which we receive That we may carry him in all things both in Spirit and Flesh Not as Bellarmine and others pervert the Sense reading gustemus Again in another place (f) Epist 23. In illa mysticâ distributione spiritualis alimoniae hoc impertitur hoc sumitur ut accipientes virtutem coelestis cibi in carnem ipsius quia caro noitra factus est transeamus In that mystical Distribution of Spiritual Food this is bestowed on us this is taken that receiving the Virtue of the Celestial Meat we should pass into his Flesh who was made our Flesh See more Testimonies to this sense inthe Chapter following Position 3. CHAP. IX The Ninth Difference The Fathers differ from the Church of Rome in their Belief of Christ's Presence in the Eucharist The Church of Rome asserts the substantial Presence of Christ's Natural Body there but the Fathers deny it THe former is the Assertion of the Roman Church in the Trent Council in which an Anathema is pronounced (g) Conc. Trid. Sess 13. cap. 6. Can. 1. against such as deny That
(s) Id. ibid. c. 18. Quomodo corporaliter ascendit in coelum in suis fidelibus praedicatur effe in terra si non est in illo divinitatis immensitas quae coelum implere possit terram How did he corporally ascend into Heaven and yet is said to be in the Faithful on Earth unless the Immensity of the Divinity be in him which can fill Heaven and Earth Yes a Romanist would have told him of another way That even his Body could be present in Heaven and Earth after the manner of a Spirit Vigilius Taps (t) Contr. Eutych l. 1. Hoc crat ire ad patrem recedere à nobis auferre de mundo naturam quam susceperat à nobis Nam vide miraculum vide utriusque proprietatis mysterium Dei filius secundùm humanitutem suam recessit à nobis secundùm divinitatem suam ait nobis Ecce vobiscum sum omniòus diebus c. Quos reliquit à quibus decessit humanitate sua non reliquit nec deseruit divinitate sua This was to go to the Father and recede from us to take from the World the Nature that he had taken from us For see the Miracle see the Mystery of both Natures distinct not a Word of the Mystery of a Body being in more places than one The Son of God according to his Humanity departed from us according to his Divinity he says to us Behold I am with you always c. Those whom he left and departed from by his Humanity he did not leave nor forsake by his Divinity Again (u) Id. ibid. l. 4. Quando in terra fuit non erat utique in coelo nunc quia in coelo est non est utique in terra c. Quia verbum ubique est caro autem ejus ubique non est apparet unum eundemque Christum utriusque esse naturae esse quidem ubique secundùm naturam divinitatis suae loco contineri secundùm naturam humanitatis suae Haec est Fides Confessio Catholica quam Apostoli tradiderunt Martyres roborarunt Fideles nunc usque custodiunt When Christ was on Earth he was not in Heaven and now because he is in Heaven he surely is not on Earth c. Because the Word is every where but his Flesh is not every where it appears plainly that one and the same Christ is of both Natures and that he is every where according to the Nature of his Divinity and contained in a Place according to the Nature of his Humanity which would be a bad Argument if his Body were in Heaven and in the Eucharist at the same time And then he concludes This is the Catholick Faith and Confession which the Apostles delivered the Martyrs confirmed and the Faithful now still keep and preserve Leo Magn. (x) Serm. 2. de Ascens Dom. Christus coram Discipulis elevatus in coelum corporalis praesentiae modum fecit Christ being raised up to Heaven in sight of his Disciples he put an end to his bodily Presence So he explains it that he was to remain at the Right-hand of his Father till he should come again to judge the Quick and Dead Bede (y) Com. in Marc. 13. Christus ad Patrem post resurrectionem victor ascendens Ecclesiam corporaliter reliquit quam tamen nunquam divinae praesidio praesentiae destituit manens in illa omnibus diebus usque ad consummationem seculi Christ ascending after his Resurrection into Heaven as a Conqueror left the Church as to his bodily Presence which yet he never left destitute of the security of his Divine Presence remaining in the Church always to the end of the World. This may abundantly suffice to prove the First Position 2 Position The Fathers distinguish the Presence of Christ's Body from the Sacrament of it which they make to be a Memorial and Pledge of Christ as gone away and absent S. Chrysostome (z) In 1 Cor. 11.29 expounding those words He that eateth and drinketh unworthily eateth and drinketh judgment and asking how that Table which is the Cause of so many good things 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and flows with Life should be made Cordemnation to any resolves it thus That this happens not from its own Nature 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but from the Purpose of him that approaches this Table For says he as Christ's Presence which brought those great and unspeakable Blessings to us did condemn those the more that did not receive it so also the Mysteries-make way for greater Punishments to these that unworhily partake of them A remarkable Testimony because we see he distinguishes the Presence of Christ from the Sacrament of it compares the one with the other and because of the Relation that the Mysteries have to Christ and that both are intended to convey great Blessings therefore they both when unworthily treated occasion greater Punishments S. Austin (a) Contr. Faust l. 20. c. 21. Hujus sacrificii caro sanguis ante adventum Christi per victimas similitudinum promittebatur in passione Christi per ipsam veritatem reddebatur post ascensum Christi per Sacramentum memoriae celebratur The Flesh and Blood of this Sacrifice before Christ's coming was promised by Victims of Resemblance in the Passion of Christ it was exhibited in the Truth it self after Christ's Ascension it is celebrated by the Sacrament of Remembrance Where you see the Sacrament of Remembrance is opposed to the Exhibition of the Truth Author Comm. in Epistolas Pauli inter Hieronymi Opera (b) In 1 Cor. 11. Hoc est benedicens etiam passurus ultimam nobis commemorationem five memoriam dereliquit Quemadmodum si quis peregrè proficiscens aliquod pignus ei quem diligit derelinquat ut quotiescunque illud viderit possit ejus beneficia amicitias memorari quod ille si perfecte dilexit sine ingenti desiderio non possit videre vel fletu upon those words He took Bread and after he had given thanks he brake it That is says he blessing us even when he was about to suffer he left his last Memorial with us Just as if one travelling into another Country should leave a Pledge with him whom he loved that whensoever he look'd upon it he might call to mind his Favours and Friendship which such a Person if he perfectly lov'd him could not behold without a great passion or weeping It will be very hard to reconcile this Pledge of Absence with such a constant Presence of his Body as the Church of Rome teaches even there where we are required to look upon that Pledge and remember our absent Friend Sedulius has the same Exposition of the Place almost in the same words Primasius also confirms it (c) In 1 Cor. 11. upon those words The same night that our Lord was betrayed he took Bread. He left says he Ultimam nobis commemorationem reliquit Salvator Deus
exemplum dedit ut quotiescunque hoc facimus in mente habeamus quod Christus pro nobis omnibus mortuus est Ideo nobis dicitur Corpus Christi ut cùm hoc recordati fuerimus non simus ingrati gratiae ejus quemadmodum si quis moriens relinquat ei quem diligit aliquod pignus quod ille post mortem ejus quandocunque viderit nunquid potest lacrymas continere si eum perfectè dilexerit upon those words The same night that our Lord was betrayed he took Bread. He left says he to us his last Memorial God our Saviour gave us an Example that as often as we do this we may call to mind that Christ has died for us all Therefore we call it Christ's Body that when we remember this we may not be unthankful for his Grace As if one that was a dying should leave some Pledge to one whom he loved which he after his death when ever he look'd upon could not contain his Tears if he perfectly loved him Bede (d) In Proverb lib. 1. c. 3. Sicut in medio Paradisi lignum vitae positum testatur Moses ita per Sapientiam Dei viz. Christi vivificatur Ecclesia cujus nunc Sacramentis carnis sanguinis pignus vitae accipit in futuro praesenti beatificabitur aspectu has also given us the same Account As says he Moses witnesses that the Tree of Life was placed in the midst of Paradise so by the Wisdom of God to wit of Christ the Church has Life given it in whose Sacraments of his Flesh and Blood she now receives the Pledge of Life and hereafter shall be made happy in a present Sight of him Where you see he distinguishes this Pledge from his present Aspect hereafter Gaudentius (e) In Exod. tract 2. Vere illud est haereditarium munus Testamenti ejus novi quod-quod nobis ea nocte qua tradebatur crucifigendus tanquam pignus suae praesentiae dereliquit Hoc illud est viaticum nostri itineris quo in hac via vitae alimur ac nutrimur donec ad ipsum pergamus de hoc seculo recedentes calls the Eucharist that hereditary Gift of his New Testament which on the night that he was delivered to be crucified he left with us as a Pledge of his Presence This is the Prevision of our Journey by which we are fed and nourished in this way of Life till removing from this World we go to him Still we see it is a Pledge of Absence 3 Position Whatsoever Presence of Christ the Fathers speak of in the Eucharist they acknowledge the same in Baptism and in as full Expressions So that if we will follow the Fathers we may as well assert a Substantial Presence of Christ's Body in Baptism as in the Eucharist But this on all hands is denied Gaudentius (f) Tract 2. in Exod. in fine Quem Sacramentis suis inesse credimus in the Place last cited speaking of our Lord Jesus says We believe him to be in his Sacraments He had spoke of both Sacraments before and his words may well be understood of both I am sure other Fathers give their full consent to it S. Basil (g) De Baptism lib. 1. cap. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 speaking of the Excellency of Christ's Baptism and the supereminent Glory of it says That Christ the Son of God has determined it That one greater than the Temple and greater than Solomon is here So Gr. Nazianzen (h) Orat. 40. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Behold one greater than the Temple is here to them that perfectly consider S. Ambrose (i) Apol. David c. 12. Christe in tuis te invenio Sacramentis speaking of Baptism says O Christ I find thee in thy Sacraments And again (k) De his qui initiant c. 2. Crede illic esse Divinitatis praesentiam Believe that there is the Presence of the Divinity So afterwards (l) Ibid. cap. 5. Crede adesse Dominum Jesum invocatum precibus Sacerdotum Believe that the Lord Jesus is present being invoked by the Prayers of the Priests S. Austin (m) In Joan. tract 50. Habes Christum in praesenti per fidem in praesenti per signum Christi in praesenti per baptismatis Sacramentum in praesenti per altaris cibum potum upon those words The poor ye have always with you but me ye have not always discourses thus concerning having Christ now Now thou hast Christ by Faith now thou hast him by the Sign of Christ now by the Sacrament of Baptism now by the Meat and Drink of the Altar Here you see he makes no difference of having Christ at present these several ways he mentions S. Chrysostome (n) Hom. 51. in Matth. Lat. Graec. Savil. Hom. 50. pag. 322. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. As when thou art baptized it is not he viz. the Priest that baptizes thee but it is God that holds thy Head by his invisible Power and neither Angel nor Archangel nor any other dare approach and touch thee c. The same Father * Id. Epist ad Colos Hom. 6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 thus speaks of one to be baptized Thou shalt presently embrace our Lord himself be mingled with his Body be incorporated into that Body which is seated above whither the Devil cannot approach So the Author of the Commentaries upon S. Mark (o) Inter Opera Chrysost Hom. 14. Vos qui accepturi estis Baptismum primum tenete pedes Salvatoris lavate lachrymis crine tergite c. speaks to those that are to be baptized as if Christ were present You that are to receive Baptism first lay fast hold on the Feet of your Saviour wash them with your Tears wipe them with your Hair c. Marcus the Hermite (p) De Baptism 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 speaking of a baptized Person says Upon his Baptism he has Christ lying hid in him S. Chrysostome again (q) In Gal. 3. v. 27. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If Christ be the Son of God and thou hast put him on viz. in Baptism having the Son in thy self and being made like to him thou art brought into one Kindred and Nature Again elsewhere (r) In Ephes 5. v. 30. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 speaking of Christ's partaking of our Flesh and Blood he says He communicated with us not we with him How then are we of his Flesh and of his Bones He means this That as he was begotten by the Holy Ghost without the concurrence of Man so are we regenerate in Baptism 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 As therefore the Son of God was of our Nature so are we also of his Substance and as he had us in himself so also we have him in our selves And all this is by Baptism Cyril of Alexandr (s) Tom. 6. in Collectan 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 says of the Soul That it is conjoined perfectly to Christ by
holy Baptism And tho' every one knows that Union supposes Presence and Nearness yet this is never made an Argument that Christ is present corporally in Baptism No more can such like Phrases used by him concerning the Eucharist be urged as a Proof of it S. Hilary (t) Lib. 8. de Trinit Nos verè Verbum cibo Dominico sumimus quomodo non naturaliter manere in nobis existimandus est c. Nos sub Mysterio verè carnem corporis sui sumimus per hoc unum erimus quia Pater in illo est ille in nobis Ut cùm ille in Patre per naturam Divinitatis esset nos contra in eo per corporalem Nativitatem ille rursum in nobis per Sacramentorum inesse mysterium crederetur speaks many things of our real Union with Christ in the Sacrament of the Eucharist We truly receive the Word in the Lord's Food how is he not then to be thought naturally to dwell in us We under the Mystery do truly take the Flesh of his Body and thereby shall be one because the Father is in him and be in us So that since he was in the Father by the Nature of the Divinity we on the contrary in him by Corporal Nativity and he might be believed again to be in us by the Mystery of the Sacraments But then it is observable that he do's not say these great things only of the Eucharist that by partaking of it we have a natural Union with Christ but he says we have the same by Faith by Regeneration and by Baptism (u) Ibid. Quomodo non naturalem in his intelligis unitatem qui per naturam unius fidei unum sunt Cessat in his assensûs unitas qui unum sunt in ejusdem regeneratione naturae Quid hic animorum concordia faciet cum per id unum sint quod uno Christo per naturam unius Baptismi induantur How dost thou not understand a natural Unity in those who are one by the nature of one Faith Again The Unity of Consent has no place in those who are one in the Regeneration of the same Nature Again What should Agreement of Wills do here when they are one by this that they are cloathed with one Christ by the Nature of one Baptism I 'le add but one Testimony more out of Fulgentius (x) De Bapt. Aethiop cap. ult Nec cuiquam aliquatenus ambigendum est tunc unumquemque fidelium corporis sanguinisque Dominici participem fieri quando in Baptismate membrum Christi efficitur but it is very home Neither need any one at all doubt that then every Believer is made Partaker of our Lord's Body and Blood when he is made a Member of Christ in Baptism And yet even this do's not infer a Substantial Presence of Christ in Baptism To make this Position still more full and cogent let me add That the Fathers so speak of the Waters of Baptism as if they were turned into Blood and we dyed in that Blood and baptized in Blood and yet all these neither prove the Presence of Christ's natural Body nor Transubstantiation there To name a few Testimonies S. Jerom (y) In Esa 1. Baptizemini in sanguine meo per lavacrum regenerationis upon those words Wash ye make ye clean says Be ye baptized in my Blood by the Laver of Regeneration Again (z) Baptizatus est in sanguine agni quem legebat In Esa 43. he says of the Eunuch He was baptized in the Blood of the Lamb whom he read of in the Prophet So S. Austin (a) In Joan. tract 11. Unde rubet Baptismus nisi sanguine Christi consecratus Whence comes Baptism to be red but because it is consecrated with Christ's Blood Prosper (b) De Promiss part 2. Baptismo sanguine Christi tinguntur They are dyed in the Blood of Christ in Baptism S. Chrysostome (c) Catech. ad illuminand 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 speaking to those that were to receive Baptism You shall be cloathed with the Purple Garment dyed in the Lord's Blood. Julius Firmicus (d) De Error Prof. Relig. c. 28. Quaere fontes ingenuos quaere puros liquores ut illic te post multas maculas cum Spiritu S. Christi sanguis incandidet Seek for the Noble Fountains enquire for the pure Waters that there after thy many Stains the Blood of Christ with the Holy Spirit may make thee White Caesarius (e) Hom. 5. Paschal Ingreditur anima vitales undas velut rubras sanguine Christi consecratas or the Author of the Paschal Homily The Soul enters the Waters of Life that are red as it were being consecrated by the Blood of Christ Isidore of Sevil (f) In Exod. c. 19. Quid Mare rubrum nisi Baptismum Christi sanguine consecratum What is the Red Sea but Baptism consecrated by the Blood of Christ And again (g) De vocat Gent. c. 23. Verus Israel ingreditur Mare rubrum baptismum scilicet Christi cruore signatum The true Israel enters the Red Sea to wit Baptism signed with the Blood of Christ And Primasius (h) In 1 Cor. 10. Mare rubrum significat Baptismum Christi sanguine decoratum The Red Sea signifies Baptism graced with the Blood of Christ 4. Position The Fathers so consider the Presence of Christ's Body in the Eucharist as can no way agree to the Presence of his natural and glorified Body there The Fathers as I have before proved see Chap. 7. Observ 4. Reason 2. look upon the Bread and Wine in the Eucharist as the Representative Body of Christ and thus Christ's Body is indeed present by that which is its Proxy or Pledge But this Presence in a proper sense is Absence and does suppose it I shall therefore here only insist upon one Consideration of Christ's Body there which can only agree to his Representative Body but not to the Natural and Glorified Body of Christ Viz. The Presence of Christ's Body in the Eucharist which the Fathers speak of is of his Body as crucified and slain and dead Now this cannot agree to his Natural Body which by our Adversaries Confession is impassible and invulnerable now it is glorified and cannot admit any separation of Parts which Crucifixion do's suppose nor die any more It is plain by the words of Institution that the Body of Christ there spoken of is his broken Body such as Crucifixon caused and his Blood is considered as shed and poured out of his Veins and separated from his Body which our Adversaries that speak of his Presence in the Sacrament do not believe But the Fathers did believe this and say so for which at the present in stead of all I need cite only S. Chrysostome (i) Hom. 21. in Act. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whose Phrase for the Eucharist is While this Death is perfected this tremendous Sacrifice these ineffable Mysteries Again (k)
do it but waves this always even where he seems as he do's in his Retractations to determine for his having palpable Flesh and Bones 2. Why S. Austin should ever at all doubt or hesitate about this Matter of Christ's Blood after his Resurrection is unconceivable if he with the rest of the Fathers had such a constant Belief of its Presence in the Eucharist as the Romanists affirm 3. That tho' the Fathers use the Argument of the Eucharist to prove the Truth of Christ's Body yet none ever urged Origen or his Followers with an Argument from thence to confute their Opinions differing from the pretended common Sentiments about the Body and Blood of Christ by what lay so plainly before them of his Body and Blood being in the Eucharist if they had believed it But I refer the Reader to Monsieur Allix his Dissertation before-named wherein he may find abundant Satisfaction in these Matters and also will see how sadly the Romanists are put to it to answer the Difficulties about the Blood of Christ which they pretend to shew in so many Churches and is produced in such Quantities that may well cause a new Doubt Whether if his Resurrection-Body have any Blood in it we must not suppose it to be of a new Creation since what was in his Body when he died cannot suffice to furnish more Blood if so much as their Vials and Glasses are filled withal CHAP. X. The Tenth Difference The Fathers assert positively that the substance of the Elements remain after Consecration that Bread and Wine are taken eaten and drunk in the Sacrament which all that believe Transubstantiation must deny WE have seen before that the Fathers say plainly that it was Bread which Christ called his Body when he blessed it Now we shall see that the Fathers are as positive that after Consecration and the change made by it yet still the Bread and Wine remains I begin with that famous Testimony of S. Chrysostome against the Apollinarians produced first by P. Martyr by some of our Adversaries charged upon him as his Forgery because it was so full against them by others shifted off to another John of Constantinople and denied to be S. Chrysostome's but vindicated for his See Append. to the Defence of the Exposition of the Doctrine of the Church of England p. 142 143 c. by the Learned Bigotius who had transcribed it out of the Florentine Library of S. Mark 's Monastery and prepared it for the Press in his Edition of Palladius then suppressed by some Doctors of the Sorbonne and the printed leaves taken out of the Book but now lately recovered and published to their shame◠A passage of which the subject of this great contest I shall here set down Christ is both God and Man God Deus homo Christus Deus propter impassibilitatem Homo propter Passionem Unus Filius unus Dominus idem ipse proculdubus unitarum naturarum unam dominationem unam potestatem possidens etiamsi non consubstantiales existunt unaquaeque in commixtam proprietatis conservat agnitionem propter hec quod inconfusa sunt duo dico Sicut enim antequam sanctificetur Panis Panem nominamus divina autem illum Sanctificante gratiâ mediante sacerdote liberatus est quidem appellatione panis dignus autem habitus est dominici corporis appellatione etiamsi natura panis in ipso permansit non duo corpora sed unum corpus filii praedicatur Sic hic Divinâ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 id est inundante corporis naturâ unum filium unam personam utraque haec fecerunt Agnoscondum tamen inconfusam indivisibilem rationem non in unâ solùm natura sed in dimbus perfectis for that he is impassible Man for that he suffered One Son one Lord he the same without doubt having one Dominion one power of two united natures not that these natures are consubstantial seeing each of them do's retain without confusion its own properties and being two are inconfused in him For as in the Eucharist before the Bread is consecrated we call it Bread but when the grace of God by the Priest has consecrated it it has no longer the name of Bread but is counted worthy to be called the Lords Body altho' the nature of Bread remains in it and we do not say there are two Bodies but one Body of the Son. So here the divine nature being joined to the humane Body they both together make one Son one Person but yet they must be acknowledged to remain without confusion and after an indivisible manner not in one nature only but in two perfect natures Another remarkable Testimony is in Theodoret's Dialogues some part of which I hope the Reader will not think it tedious to be inserted here since by observing the thread of his Discourse he will see his undoubted sense to be that the substance of the Bread and Wine remain in the Eucharist and the change is by addition not annihilation and I will add his Greek where it is needful Orthodoxus Dial. 1 Do you not know that God called his Body Bread Erannistes I know it Orth. Elsewhere also he calleth his Flesh Wheat Eran. I know that also Unless a Corn of Wheat fall into the ground and die c. Orth. But in the delivery of the mysteries he called the Bread his Body and that which is mixed viz. Wine and Water in the Cup Blood. Eran. He did so call them Orth. But that which is his Body by nature 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is also to be called his Body and his Blood viz. by nature Blood. Eran. It is confess'd Orth. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But our Saviour changed the names and on his Body he imposed the name of the symbol or sign and on the symbol he put the name of his body And so having called himself a Vine he called the Symbol Blood. Eran. Very right But I have a mind to know the reason of this change of names Orth. The scope is manifest to those that are initiated in Divine things 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For he would have those that participate the divine mysteries not to attend to the nature of those things that are seen but upon the changing of the names to believe the change that is made by grace For he that called his Body that is so by nature Wheat and Bread 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and again termed himself a Vine he honoured the visible Symbols with the appellation of his Body and Blood not altering nature but to nature adding grace Proceed we now to the next Dialogue Orth. Dial. 2 The mystical Symbols offered to God by the Priests pray tell me what are they signs of Eran. Of the Lords Body and Blood. Orth. Of his Body truly or not truly such Era. Of that which is truly his Body Orth. Very right For there must be an original of an Image 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for Painters
imitate nature and draw the Images of visible things Era. True. Orth. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If then the divine mysteries are Antitypes of a true Body then the Lords Body is a true Body still not changed into the nature of the Deity but filled with Divine Glory Era. You have seasonably brought in the Discourse of the Divine Mysteries for thereby I will shew that the Lords Body is changed into another Nature Answer therefore my Question Orth. I will. Era. What call you the Gift that is offered before the Priests Invocation Orth. I may not openly declare it for perhaps some here present may not be initiated Era. Answer then Aenigmatically Orth. I call it the food that is made of a certain grain Era. How call you the other Symbol Orth. By a common name that signifies a kind of drink Era. But how do you call it after Consecration Orth. The Body of Christ and the Blood of Christ Era. And do you believe you partake the Body and Blood of Christ Orth. Yes I believe it Era. As then the Symbols of Christs Body and Blood are one thing before the Priests Invocation but after the Invocation are changed and become another thing so the Lords Body after his Assumption is changed into a Divine Essence Orth. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 You are caught in a Net of your own weaving For after sanctification the mystical Symbols do not depart from their own nature for they remain still in their former substance and figure and form and may be seen and touched just as before But they are understood to be that which they are made and are believed and venerated as being those things they are believed to be How shamefully Mr. Sclater has attempted to pervert these last words of Theodoret he has been told sufficiently by his Answerer The next Testimony is of Gelasius (t) De duābus naturis in Christo Certè Sacramenta quae sumimus corporis sanguinis Christi divina res est propter quod per eadem divinae efficimur consortes naturae tamen esse non definit substantia vel natura panis vini certè Imago similitudo corporis sanguinis Christi in actione mysteriorum celebrantur Satis ergo nobis evidenter ostenditur hoc nobis in ipso Christo Domino sentiendum quod in ejus imagine profitemur celebramus sumimus ut sicut in hanc sc in Divinam transeunt Spiritu S. perficiente substantiam permanente ramen in suae proprietate naturae sic illud ipsum mysterium principale cujus nobis efficientiam Virtutemque veraciter repraesentant ex quibus constat propriè permanentibus unum Christum quia integrum verumque permanere Bishop of Rome The Sacraments of the Body and Blood of Christ which we take are surely a divine thing for which reason we become by them partakers of the Divine nature and yet the substance or nature of Bread and Wine do's not cease to be and indeed the Image and likeness of the Body and Blood of Christ are celebrated in the action of the mysteries therefore it appears plainly enough to us that we ought to think that of our Lord which we profess and celebrate and receive in his image that as they viz. the Elements pass into that Divine substance the H. Spirit effecting it their nature still remaining in its own property so that principal mystery whose efficiency and virtue these the Elements truly represent to us remains one entire and true Christ those things of which he is compounded viz. the two natures remaining in their properties Ephrem Antiochenus (u) Apud Photii Biblioth cod 229. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 treating of the two Natures which he calls palpable and impalpable visible and invisible united in Christ adds Thus the Body of Christ which is received by the faithful do's not depart from its sensible substance and yet remains unseparated from the intellectual grace So Baptism becoming wholly spiritual and one it preserves its own sensible substance I mean Water and do's not lose what it is made to be Our Adversaries to testify the respect they have for the Fathers when they do not speak as they would have them they try to make them speak so as no Body shall understand their true sense And as the Putney Convert did by Theodoret so the Jesuit Andr. Schottus not for want of skill but honesty has dealt with this of Ephrem making it by his translation obscure or rather unintelligible nonsense For the first words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he translates sensibilis essentiae non cognoscitur it is not known of a sensible nature and the other expression about Baptism 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he turns it thus Hocque substantiae sensibilis proprium est per aquam inquam servat And this is the property of sensible substance it keeps I say by Water A good Man cannot take more pains to find out Truth than this Man do's that it may be lost The next Testimony is of Facundus (x) Lib. 9. defens 3. capit cap. 5. Sacramentum adoptionis suscipere dignatus est Christus quando circumcisus est quando baptizatus est potest Sacramentum adoptionis adoptio nuncupari sicut Sacramentum corporis sanguinis ejus quod est in pane poculo consecrato corpus ejus sanguinem dicimus non quod propriè corpus ejus sit panis poculum sanguis sed quod in se mysterium corporis sanguinisque contineant Hinc ipse Dominus benedictum panem calicem quem discipulis tradidit corpus sanguinem suum vocavit the African Bishop Christ vouchsafed to receive the Sacrament of Adoption both when he was Circumcised and when he was Baptized and the Sacrament of Adoption may be called Adoption just as we call the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ which is in the Consecrated Bread and Cup his Body and Blood. Not that properly Bread is his Body and the Cup his Blood but because they contain in them the mystery of his Body and Blood. Hence it is that our Lord himself called the Bread and Cup he blessed and gave to his Disciples his Body and Blood. Nothing can be more positive than these five Testimonies that the Bread and Wine remain in their substance after Consecration And I cannot but here add the remarkable Confession of an Adversary concerning two of them For thus Card. Alan (y) De Euchar. Sacram. l. 1. c. 35. De duobus Gelasio Theodoreto facilè mihi persuadeo eos solos esse ex omni Antiquitate qui inclinaverunt in communem posteà multorum errorem ut ita defenderent veram conversionem panis ut materiam Elementi sicut in caeteris naturalibus transmutationibus fieri videbant relictam esse concederent c. says Concerning these two Gelasius and Theodoret I readily persuade my self that they are the only persons in all Antiquity tho'
but of Baptism also where yet none assert any Conversion of the Substance of Water into any other thing Thus S. Ambrose * De in qui initiantur c. 9. ad finem Si ergo superveniens Spiritus S. in Virginem conceptionem operatus esf generationis munus implevit Non utique dubitandum est quod superveniens in fontem vel super eum qui baptismum consequitur veritatem regenerationis operetur Mary conceived by the Holy Ghost without the intervention of any Man as S. Matthew tells us She was found with Child of the Holy Ghost If then the Holy Spirit coming upon the Virgin made her to conceive c. we need not question but that the same Spirit coming upon the Water of Baptism or on him that is baptized do's produce true Regeneration And P. Leo Mag. †De Nativit Dom. Ser. 4. Christus dedit aquae quod dedit-Matri Virtus enim Altissimi obumbratio Spiritus S. quae fecit ut Maria pareret Salvatorem eadem facit ut regeneret unda credentem Christ gave to the Water what he gave to his Mother for the Power of the most High and the Overshadowing of the H. Spirit which caused Mary to bring forth our Saviour the same causes the Water to regenerate a Believer Excepting therefore these Wonders of God's Grace the Fathers knew no other Miracles in the Sacraments and these Wonders are common to both the Sacraments and not peculiar to one of them only This even Card. Cajetan * In 3. part q. 75. art 1. Non est disputandum de divina potentia ubi de Sacramentis tractatur Ibid. art 2. Stultum est ponere in hoc argumento quicquid Deus potest facere was so sensible of that he tells us We must not dispute concerning God's Power when we treat of Sacraments And again It is a fcolish thing to assert in this Argument whatsoever God can do He was not ignorant of what S. Austin had said long before †Lib. 3. de Trin. c. 10. Quia haec hominibus nota sunt quia per homines fiunt honorem tanquam religiosa possunt habere stuporem tanquam mira non possunt who speaking of Signs taken to signifie other things and instancing in the Bread taken and consumed in the Sacrament adds But because these things are known to men as being made by men they may have Honour given them for their relation to Religion but cannot raise Astonishment as Miracles or Wonders Which he could never have said if he had believed the Wonders and Miracles of Transubstantiation I 'le conclude this Head with another Saying of his * Lib. 3. cont Julian c. 3. Haec sunt sententiarum portenta vestrarum haec inopinata mysteria Dogmatum novorum haec paradoxa Pelagianorum haereticorum mirabiliora quà m Stoicorum Philosophorum Mira sunt quae dicitis nova sunt quae dicitis falsa sunt quae dicitis Mira stupemus nova cavemus falsa convincimus which may be as well applied to the absurd Paradoxes and Miracles which the Roman Church advances in this Case of the Eucharist as ever it was to those he there confutes about Baptism These are the Prodigies of your Opinions these are the uncouth Mysteries of New Dogma's these are the Paradoxes of Pelagian Hereticks more wonderful than those of the Stoick Philosophers The things you say are Wonderful the things you say are New the things you say are False We are amazed at your Wonders we are cautious against your Novelties and we confute your Falsities But this Difference being more general we go on to more particular ones CHAP. II. The Second Difference The Church of Rome differs from the Fathers in determining what that thing is which Christ calls MY BODY THE Trent Catechism (a) Ad Paroch part 2.37 §. Haec vero Si panis substantia remaneret nullo modo dici videretur Hoc est Corpus meum tho' it do's not determine what the word THIS refers to only telling us that it must demonstrate the whole Substance of the thing present yet it expresly denies that it refers to the Substance of Bread for it adds If the Substance of Bread remained it seems no way possible to be said that THIS IS MY BODY So Bellarmine confesses (b) De Euchar. l. 1. c. 1. sec Nonus that this Proposition This Bread is my Body must be taken figuratively that the Bread is the Body of Christ by way of signification or else it is plainly absurd and impossible And he acknowledges (c) Ib. lib. 2. cap. 9. §. Observandum that this Proposition The Wine is the Lord's Blood teaches that Wine is Blood by similitude and likeness And elsewhere (d) Lib. 3. cap. 19. It cannot be a true Proposition in which the Subject is supposed to be Bread and the Predicate the Body of Christ for Bread and Christ's Body are res diversissimae things most different And a little after If we might affirm disparata de disparatis different things of one another you might as well affirm and say that something is nothing and nothing something that Light is Darkness and Darkness Light that Christ is Belial and Belial Christ neither do's our Faith oblige us to defend those things that evidently imply a Contradiction So also Vasquez (e) Disp 180. cap. 9. n. 91. Si pronomen Hoc in illis verbis demonstraret panem fatemur etiam fore ut nulla conversio virtute illorum â—â—eri possit quia panis de quo enunciatur manere debet If the Pronoun THIS in Christ's Words pointed at the Bread then we confess it would follow that no Conversion could be made by virtue of these Words because the Bread of which it is affirmed sc that it is Christ's Body ought to remain Now that which the present Roman Church dare not affirm because if it be taken properly it is untrue absurd impossible as implying a Contradiction we shall now shew that the Fathers plainly affirm it who yet could not be ignorant of this Absurdity From whence it necessarily follows that they took the whole words THIS IS MY BODY figuratively as the Protestants do since they cannot be taken otherwise if Bread be affirmed to be Christ's Body as the Romanists confess Now that the Fathers affirmed that Bread is Christ's Body is certain by these following Testimonies S. Irenaeus (f) Adv. Haeres l. 5. c. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Our Lord confessed the Cup which is of the Creature to be his Blood and the Bread which is of the Creature he confirmed it to be his Body Clement of Alexandria (g) Paedag. lib. 2. c. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Our Lord blessed the Wine saying Take drink this is my Blood the Blood of the Grape For the Holy River of Gladness so he calls the Wine do's allegorically signifie the Word i. e. the Blood of the Word shed for many for the remission
edentem sine lingua loquentem ut phantasma auribus fuerit sermo ejus per imaginem vocis Believe it he chose rather to be born which Marcion thought absurd than in any respect to lie and that against himself so as to carry Flesh about him hard without Bones solid without Muscles bloody without Blood cloathed without a Garment craving Food without Hunger eating without Teeth speaking without a Tongue so that his Speech was a Phantasm to Mens Ears by the Image only of a Voice Then he instances in Christ's shewing his Hands and Feet to his Disciples after his Resurrection Behold says he it is I my self for a Spirit has not Flesh and Bones But as he goes on Ecce fallit decipit circumvenit omnium oculos omnium sensus omnium accessus contactus Ergo jam Christum non de coelo deferre debueras sed de aliquo circulatorio coetu c. according to Marcion's Interpretation Behold he cozens and deceives and circumvents all Mens Eyes all Mens Senses all their Approaches and Touches Thou therefore shouldst not have brought down Christ from Heaven but from some Society of Juglers c. Again (e) Idem adv Marcion l. 3. c. 8. Jam nunc cùm mendacium deprehenditur Christi caro sequitur ut omnia quae per carnem Christi gesta sunt mendacio gesta sunt congressus contactus convictus ipsae quoque virtutes Ibid. An credam ei de interiore substantiae qui sit de exteriore frustratus Quomodo verax habebitur in occulto qui fallax repertus in aperto Now when the Flesh of Christ is found to be a Falsity it follows also That all the things done by the Flesh of Christ are falsly acted such as his meeting Persons his touching them his Conversation and even his Miracles themselves c. And when Marcion had instanced in the Appearances of Angels to Abraham and to Lot like Men meeting with them and eating and doing that they were commanded Tertullian answers (f) Ibid. c 9. Scito nec illud concedi tibi ut putativa fuerit in Angelis caro sed verae solidae substantiae humanae Know that this is not granted neither that those Angels had only seeming Flesh but of a true solid humane Substance He adds afterwards (g) Ibid. c. 10. Sufficit mihi hoc definire quod Deo congruit veritatem scilicet illius rci quam tribus testibus sensibus objecit visui tactui auditui It suffices me to define that which is agreeable to God viz. the truth of that thing which he has made the Object of three Senses that testifie it viz. Sight Touch and Hearing And again (h) Ibid. c. 11. Jam Deum tuum honoras fallaciae titulo si aliud se esse sciebat quam quod homines fecerat opinari Thou now honourest thy God with the Title of Fallaciousness if he knew himself to be another thing than what he made Men to believe he was And in his next Book against Marcion (i) Lib. 4. c. 18. Illius peccatricis feminae argumentum eò pertinebit ut cùm pedes Domini osculis figeret lacrymis inundaret crinibas detergeret unguento perduceret solidi corporis veritatem non phantasma inane tractaverit The Argument of the Woman that was a Sinner belongs to this to prove that when she kissed our Lord's Feet watred them with her Tears wiped them with her Hairs and anointed them she then handled the Truth of a solid Body and not an empty Phantôme Again in the last Chapter (k) Ibid. c. 43. Cur autem inspectui eorum manus pedes suos offert quae membra ex offibus constant si ossa non habebat Cur adjecit scitote quod ego sum quem scilicet corporeum retro noverant Why do's he offer to their inspection his Hands and his Feet which are Members consisting of Bones if he had no Bones Why did he add and know that it is I my self to wit whom they had known before to have had a Body May not we ask agreeably to this Reasoning of Tertullian Why do's Christ offer to our sight the Accidents of Bread and Wine if there be no Bread and Wine remaining in the Eucharist especially when what we see we knew to be Bread and Wine before But the most remarkable Testimony of Tertullian's is in his Book de Anima (l) De Anima cap. 17. where on set purpose he opposes the Academicks that would not have Men give credit to their Senses He urges-against them Nulla sensuum frustratio causâ caret quod si causae fallunt sensus per sensus opiniones jam nec in sensibus consituenda fallacia est qui causas sequuntur nec in opinionibus qui sensibus diriguntur sequentibus causas Quid agis Academia procacissima Totum vitae statum evertis omnem naturae ordinem turbas ipsius Dei providentiam excoecas qui cunctis operibus suis intelligendis incolendis dispensandis fruendisque fallaces mendaces Dominos praefecerit sensus c. That there is no Abuse of the Senses but has a Cause of it and if those Causes deceive the Senses and our Opinions by them the Fallacy is not to be charged upon our Senses that follow those Causes nor upon our Opinions that are directed by our Senses which follow those Causes And aftewards he cries out O thou malapert Academy what dost thou do in charging Deceit upon the Senses Thou overturnest the whole State of Life thou disturbest all the Order of Nature thou blindest the Providence of God himself who according to thee has set lying and deceitful Senses as Lords over all his Works for to understand inhabit dispense and enjoy them c. It is no ways lawful and fit to call those Senses in question Non licet non licet nobis in dubium sensus istos devocare ne in Christo de fide eorum deliberetur nè fortè dicatur quod falso Satanam prospectarit de coelo praecipitatum aut falso vocem Patris audierit de ipso testificatam aut deceptus sit cùm Petri socrum tetigit aut alium posteà unguenti spiritum senserit quod in sepulturam suam acceptavit alium poste à vini saporem quod in sanguinis sui memoriam consecravit Atqui nè in Apostolis quidem ejus ludificata natura est Fidelis fuit visus auditus in monte fidelis gustus vini illius licet aquae ante in nuptiis Galilaeae fidelis tactus exinde creduli Thomae lest we should doubt of their Credit even in Christ himself lest it should be said that he falsly saw Satan thrown down from Heaven or falsly heard his Fathers Voice testifying concerning him or was deceived when he touched Peter 's Wives Mother or perceived afterwards a different Scent of the Ointment which he accepted for his Burial and afterwards a different
Taste of the Wine which he consecrated in memory of his Blood. Neither was Nature abused in his Apostles Faithful was their Sight and Hearing in the Mount faithful and true was the Taste of that Wine which was Water before at the Marriage in Galilee faithful was Thomas 's Touch who thereupon believed Recite John 's Testimony Recita Johannis testatimem Quod vidimus inquit quod audivimus oculis nostris vidimus manus nostrae contrectaverunt de sermone vitae Falsa utique testatio si oculorum aurium manuum sensus natura mentitur That which we have seen says he which we have heard which we have seen with our Eyes and our Hands have handled of the Word of Life This is all a false Testification if the Nature of the Sense of our Eyes and Ears and Hands is a Lie and a Cheat. And in the next Chapter (m) Cap. 18. Videtur intellectus duce uti sensu auctore principali fundamento nec sine illo veritates posse contingi The Understanding seems to use Sense as a Leader an Author and principal Foundation neither can Truths be laid hold of without it S. Austin teaches the same (n) De vera Relig. cap. 33. Ne ipsi quidem oculi fallunt non enim renunciare possunt animo nisi affectionem suam Si quis remum frangi in aqua opinatur cum inde aufertur integrari non habet malum internuncium sed malus est judex Nam ille pro natura sua non potuit aliter in aqua sentire nec aliter debuit Si enim aliud est aer aliud aqua justum est ut aliter in aere aliter in aqua sentiatur Quare oculus rectè videt ad hoc enim factus est ut tantum videat sed animus perverse judicat c. Doctrine Our Eyes do not deceive us for they can only report to the Mind how they are affected If one thinks that an Oar is broken in the Water and when it is taken out of the Water made whole again he has not a Bad Reporter but he is an ill Judge For the Eye according to its Nature neither could nor ought to perceive it otherwise while in the Water For if the Air is a different Medium from Water it must perceive it one ways in the Air and another ways in Water Therefore the Eye sees rightly for it was made only to see But the Mind judges amiss c. So also S. Hillary (o) In Psal 137. Tollit stultissimam eorum temeritatem qui frustrato falsóque corpore Dominum in carne visum esse contendunt ut eum Pater ementita veritate in habitu falsae carnis ostenderit non recordantes post resurrectionem corporis spiritum se videre credentibus Apostolis dictum esse Quid conturbati c. videte manus pedes meos quoniam ipse ego sum palpate videte quoniam spiritus carnem ossa non habet sicut me videtis habere He takes away their foolish Rashness who contend that our Lord was seen in the Flesh in a deceitful and false Body that the Father feigning Truth shewed him in the habit of false Flesh as the Romanists make Christ's Body to be shewn in habitu falsi panis not remembring what was said after his Resurrection to the Apostles that thought they saw a Spirit Why are ye troubled c. Behold my Hands and my Feet that it is I my self for a Spirit has not Flesh and Bones as ye see me have Epiphanius (p) Heres 42. is very large in arguing the Truth of Christ's Body from what was sensibly done to his Body and if he argues truly then what is sensibly done to the Bread in the Eucharist proves the Truth of Bread remaining and not only the Appearance of it He asks Marcion (q) Ibid. Refut 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 How could he be taken and crucified if according to thy saying he could not be handled For thou canst not define him to be a Phantôme whom thou confessest to fall under the Touch. Again (r) Ibid. Refut 10. 11. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he argues That Christ had a true Body because he went into the Pharisee's House and sat down That which sits down is a bulky Body And when the Woman washed his Feet with her Tears 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he adds Not the Feet of a Phantôme And kissed them perceiving his Body by her Touch. And What Feet did she kiss but the Feet made up of Flesh and Bones and other Parts So again (s) Ibid. Refut 14. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Woman that touched Christ and was healed she did not touch Air but something Humane that might be touched Again (t) Ib. Refut 16. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 An Imaginary thing or Wind or a Spirit or Phantôme admits neither of Burial nor a Resurrection But why may not a Phantôme as well be buried and raised as Accidents be broken and distributed when no Bread remains Again he observes (u) Refut 65. from that of his kneeling down and praying That all this was done 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because his Disciples saw him and he was found to his Disciples under their Touch. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So also concerning Christ's Crucifixion he observes (x) Ibid. Refut 71. That the piercing his Hands and Feet with Nails and handling of them to do it could not be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an imagination or shew But if the Church of Rome say true he is out for it is only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and a Phantôme when I chew and fasten my Teeth in the Host there being no Substance that I bite He afterwards (y) Ibid. Refut 77. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 challenges Marcion from that Expression He was known in breaking of Bread. How says he was this breaking of Bread performed was it by a Phantôme or from a Body (z) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 bulky and really acting it Here I may well observe That if the very breaking of Bread argues a true Body that did perform that thing how much more forcible is our Question to the Romanists What means the mention of Bread broken in the Eucharist as Christ is said to break Bread if nothing be broken at all but only in shew and appearance Epiphanius also elsewhere (a) Haeres 64. sec 36. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 says when Christ shewed to them Moses and Elias in the Mount He did not present an Image or a Phantôme as intending to deceive his Apostles but shew'd what they were really Athanasius (b) Orat. 2. de Ascen Christi says Christ did both eat Meat and permitted his Body to be touched by his Disciples that not only their Eyes but also their Fingers might be brought in for Witnesses of the Truth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so removing all suspicion of a Phantôme or Ghostly