of the Body and Bloud of Christ in the Sacrament that stout Roman Champion applies to his Transubstantiation and then crows over his Adversaries supposing that he hath utterly overthrown the Protestants cause whereas there is such a wide difference as may be called a great Gulf fixed betwixt the true or real Presence of Christ in the Lords Supper and the Transubstantiation of the Bread and Wine into his Body and Bloud This last is such a Prodigie as is neither taught by Scripture nor possible to be apprehended by faith it is repugnant to right reason and contrary to sense and is no where to be found in Ancient Writers But the other is agreeable to Scripture and to the Analogy of faith it is not against Reason although being spiritual it cannot be perceived by our bodily senses and it is back'd by the constant and unanimous Doctrine of the holy Fathers For it makes nothing against it that sometimes the same Fathers do speak of the Bread and Wine of the holy Eucharist as of the very Body and Bloud of Christ it being a manner of speech very proper and usual in speaking of Sacraments to give to the sign the name of the thing signified And however they explain themselves in other places when they frequently enough call the Sacramental Bread and Wine Types Symbols Figures and Signs of the Body and Bloud of Christ thereby declaring openly for us against the Maintainers of Transubstantiation For we may safely without any prejudice to our Tenet use those Expressions of the Ancients which the Papists think to be most favourable to them taking them in a Sacramental sense as they ought to be whereas the last mentioned that are against them none can use but by so doing he necessarily destroys the whole contrivance of Transubstantiation it being altogether inconsistent to say the Bread is substantially changed into the Body of Christ and the Bread is a Figure a Sign and a Representation of the Body of Christ For what hath lost its being can in no wise signifie or represent any other thing Neither was ever any thing said to represent and be the Figure and Sign of it self But this is more at large treated of in the Book it self Now having given an account of the occasion of writing and publishing this Discourse perhaps the Reader will expect that I should say something of its excellent Author But should I now undertake to speak but of the most memorable things that concern this great Man my thoughts would be overwhelmed with their multitude and I must be injurious both to him and my Readers being confined within the narrow limits of a Preface But what cannot be done here may be done somewhere else God willing This only I would not have the Reader to be ignorant of That this Learned man and as appears by this constant Professor and Defendor of the Protestant Religion was one of those who was most vehemently accused of Popery by the Presbyterians before the late Wars and for that reason bitterly persecuted by them and forced to forsake his Country whereby he secured himself from the violence of their Hands but not of their Tongues for still the good men kept up the noise of their clamorous Accusation even while he was writing this most substantial Treatise against Transubstantiation John Durel CHAP. I. 1. The Real that is true and not imaginary Presence of Christ in the Sacrament of the Lords Supper is proved by Scripture 2 and 3. Yet this favours not the Tenet of Transubstantiation being it is not to be understood grosly and carnally but spiritually and Sacramentally 4. The nature and use of the Sacraments 5. By means of the Elements of Bread and Wine Christ himself is spiritually eaten by the Faithful in the Sacrament 6. The eating and presence being spiritual are not destructive of the truth and substance of the thing 7. The manner of Presence is unsearchable and ought not to be presumptuously defined 1. THose words which our blessed Saviour used in the institution of the Blessed Sacrament of the Eucharist Mat. 26.26 Luk. 22.19 This is my body which is given for you This is my bloud which is shed for you for the remission of sins are held and acknowledged by the Universal Church to be most true and infallible And if any one dares oppose them or call in question Christs Veracity or the truth of his words or refuse to yield his sincere assent to them except he be allowed to make a meer figment or a bare figure of them * As G. Calixtus writes in some place of his learned Exercitations and before him M. Chemnitius in Exam. Con. Trid. atque in locis Theol. we cannot and ought not either excuse or suffer him in our Churches for we must embrace and hold for an undoubted truth whatever is taught by Divine Scripture And therefore we can as little doubt of what Christ saith Joh. 6.55 My flesh is meat indeed and my bloud is drink indeed which according to St. Paul are both given to us by the consecrated Elements For he calls the Bread the Communion of Christs Body 1 Cor. 10.16 and the Cup the Communion of his bloud 2. Hence it is most evident that the Bread and Wine which according to St. Paul are the Elements of the holy Eucharist are neither changed as to their substance nor vanisht nor reduc'd to nothing but are solemnly consecrated by the words of Christ that by them his blessed body and bloud may be communicated to us 3. And further it appears from the same words that the expression of Christ and the Apostle is to be understood in a Sacramental and mystick sense and that no gross and carnal presence of body and bloud can be maintained by them 4. And though the word Sacrament be no where used in Scripture to signifie the blessed Eucharist yet the Christian Church ever since its Primitive ages hath given it that name and always called the presence of Christs body and bloud therein Mystick and Sacramental Now a Sacramental expression doth without any inconvenience give to the sign the name of the thing signified Exod. 12.21 1 Cor. 10.3 4. And such is as well the usual way of speaking as the nature of Sacraments that not only the names but even the properties and effects of what they represent and exhibite are given to the outward Elements Hence as I said before the Bread is as clearly as positively called by the Apostle the Communion of the body of Christ 5. This also seems very plain that our Blessed Saviour's design was not so much to teach what the Elements of Bread and Wine are by nature and substance as what is their use and office and signification in this Mystery For the body and bloud of our Saviour are not only fitly represented by the Elements but also by vertue of his institution really offered to all by them and so eaten by the faithful Mystically and Sacramentally whence
the Roman Church Ibid. q. 45. art 14. Lastly Bell. de Euch. l. 3. c. 23. Bellarmine himself doth say That though he might bring Scripture clear enough to his thinking to prove Transubstantiation by to an easie man yet still it would be doubtful whether he had done it to purpose because some very acute and learned men as Scotus hold that it cannot be proved by Scripture Now in this Protestants desire no more but to be of the opinion of those learned and acute men 4. And indeed the words of institution would plainly make it appear to any man that would prefer truth to wrangling that it is with the Bread that the Lords Body is given as his Bloud with the Wine for Christ having taken blessed and broken the bread said This is my body and St. Paul than whom none could better understand the meaning of Christ explains it thus The bread which we break is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Communion or communication of the body of Christ that whereby his body is given and the Faithful are made partakers of it That it was bread which he reacht to them there was no need of any proof the receiver's senses sufficiently convinc'd them of it but that therewith his body was given none could have known had it not been declared by him who is the truth it self And though by the divine institution and the explication of the Apostle every faithful Communicant may be as certainly assured that he receives the Lords Body as if he knew that the Bread is substantially turned into it yet it doth not therefore follow that the Bread is so changed that its substance is quite done away so that there remains nothing present but the very natural Body of Christ made of bread For certain it is that the bread is not the Body of Christ any otherwise than as the Cup is the New Testament and two different consequences cannot be drawn from those two not different expressions Therefore as the Cup cannot be the New Testament but by a Sacramental figure no more can the Bread be the Body of Christ but in the same sense 5. As to what Bellarmine and other say That it is not possible the words of Christ can be true but by that conversion which the Church of Rome calls Transubstantiation that is so far from being so that if it were admitted it would first deny the Divine Omnipotency as though God were not able to make the Body of Christ present and truly to give it in the Sacrament whilst the substance of the Bread remains 2. It would be inconsistent with the Divine Benediction which preserves things in their proper being 3. It would be contrary to the true nature of a Sacrament which always consisteth of two parts And lastly It would in some manner destroy the true substance of the Body and Bloud of Christ which cannot be said to be made of Bread and Wine by a Priest without a most high presumption But the truth of the words of Christ remains constant and can be defended without overthrowing so many other great truths Suppose a Testator puts Deeds and Titles in the hand of his Heir with these words Take the House which I bequeath thee There is no man will think that those Writings and Parchments are that very House which is made of Wood or Stones and yet no man will say that the Testator spake falsly or obscurely Likewise our blessed Saviour having sanctified the Elements by his words and prayers gave them to his Disciples as Seals of the New Testament whereby they were as certainly secured of those rich and precious Legacies which he left to them as Children are of their Fathers Lands and Inheritance by Deeds and Instruments signed and delivered for that purpose 6. To the Sacred Records we may add the judgment of the Primitive Church For those Orthodox and holy Doctors of our holier Religion those great Lights of the Catholick Church do all clearly constantly and unanimously conspire in this That the presence of the Body of Christ in the Sacrament is only mystick and spiritual As for the entire annihilation of the substance of the Bread and the Wine or that new and strange Tenet of Transubstantiation they did not so much as hear or speak any thing of it Nay the constant stream of their Doctrine doth clearly run against it how great soever are the brags and pretences of the Papists to the contrary And if you will hear them one by one I shall bring some of their most noted passages only that our labour may not be endless by rehearsing all that they have said to our purpose on this subject 7. I shall begin with that holy and ancient Doctor Justin Martyr Just Mart. An. Dom. 144. who is one of the first after the Apostles times whose undoubted Writings are come to us What was believed at Rome and elsewhere in his time concerning this holy mystery may well be understood out of these his words After that the Bishop hath prayed and blessed and the people said Amen those whom we call Deacons or Ministers give to every one of them that are present a portion of the Bread and Wine Apol. 2. ad Anton. prope finem and that food we call the Eucharist for we do not receive it as ordinary Bread and Wine They received it as bread yet not as common bread And a little after By this food digested our flesh and bloud are fed and we are taught that it is the Body and Bloud of Jesus Christ Therefore the substance of the Bread remains and remains corruptible food even after the Consecration which can in no wise be said of the immortal Body of Christ For the flesh of Christ is not turned into our flesh neither doth it nourish it as doth that food which is Sacramentally called the Flesh of Christ But the Flesh of Christ feeds our souls unto eternal life 8. After the same manner it is written by that holy Martyr Irenaeus Bishop much about the same time St. Iren. A.D. 160. The bread which is from the earth is no more common bread after the invocation of God upon it but is become the Eucharist consisting of two parts Lib. 4. Cont. Haeres c. 34. the one earthly and the other heavenly There would be nothing earthly if the substance of the bread were removed Again As the grain of wheat falling in the ground and dying riseth again much increased and then receiving the word of God becomes the Eucharist which is the Body and Bloud of Christ Lib. 5. c. 12. So likewise our bodies nourished by it laid in the ground and dissolved shall rise again in their time Again We are fed by the Creature Ibid. but it is he himself that gives it he hath ordained and appointed that Cup which is a Creature and his Bloud also and that Bread which is a Creature and also his Body And so when the Bread and the
consider that on this sacred Table is laid the Lamb of God which taketh away the sins of the world And receiving truly his precious Body and Bloudy let us believe these things to be the Pledges and Emblems of our Resurrection for we do not take much but only a little of the Elements that we may be mindful we do it not for Satiety but for Sanctification Now who is there even among the Maintainers of Transubstantiation that will understand this not much but a little of the Body of Christ Or who can believe that the Nicene Fathers would call his Body and Bloud Symbols in a proper sense When nothing can be an Image or a sign of it self And therefore though we are not to rest in the Elements minding nothing else for we should consider what is chiefest in the Sacrament that we have our hearts lifted up unto the Lord who is given together with the signs yet Elements they are and the earthly part of the Sacrament both the Bread and the Wine which destroys Transubstantiation 13. St. Athanasius famous in the time St. Athan. A. D. 330. and present in the Assembly of the Nicene Council a stout Champion of the Catholick Faith acknowledgeth none other but a spiritual Manducation of the Body of Christ in the Sacrament Our Lord saith he made a difference betwixt the Flesh and the Spirit In illud Evangelii Quicunque dixerit verbuâ—n c. in c. 6. St. Joh. qui manduâ— cat carnem meam c. that we might understand that what he said was not carnal but spiritual For how many men could his body have fed that the whole world should be nourished by it But therefore he mentioned his ascension into heaven that they might not take what he said in a corporal sense but might understand that his Flesh whereof he spake is a spiritual and heavenly food given by himself from on high 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for the words that I spake unto you they are spirit and they are life as if he should say My Body which is shewn and given for the world shall be given in food that it may be distributed spiritually to every one 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and preserve them all to the Resurrection to eternal life Cardinal Perron having nothing to answer to these words of this holy Father De Euch. L. 2. c. 1. ar 10. in a kind of despair rejects the whole Tractate and denies it to be Athanasius's which no body ever did before him there being no reason for it 14. Cyril St. Cyril of Hicr A D. 350. Bishop of Jerusalem of the same Age with St. Athanasius treating of the Chrisme wherewith they then anointed those that were Baptized speaks thus Take heed thou dost not think that this is a meer Oyntment only Chatech myst 3. For as the Bread of the Eucharist after the Invocation of the Holy Ghost is no longer ordinary Bread but is the Body of Christ so this holy Oyntment is no longer a bare common Oyntment after it is consecrated but is the gift or grace of Christ which by his Divine Nature and the coming of the Holy Ghost is made efficacious so that the Body is anointed with the Oyntment but the soul is sanctified by the holy and vivifying Spirit Can any thing more clear be said Either the Oyntment is transubstantiated by consecration ihto the spirit and grace of Christ or the Bread and Wine are not transubstantiated by Consecration into the Body and Bloud of Christ Therefore as the Oyntment retains still its substance and yet is not called a meer or common ointment but the Charisme or grace of Christ So the Bread and Wine remaining so as to their substance yet are not said to be only Bread and Wine common and ordinary but also the Body and Bloud of Christ Chatech Myst 4. Thy bodily Palate saith he tasteth one thing there and thy faith another Vnder the Type of Bread saith he the Body is given thee and the Bloud under the type of the Wine This Grodecius doth captiously and unfaithfully interpret under the appearances of Bread and Wine for those meer appearances or accidents subsisting without a subject never so much as entred into the mind of any of the Ancients 15. Much to the same purpose we have in the Anaphora or Liturgy attributed to St. Basil St. Basil A. D. 360. We have set before you the Type of the Body and Bloud of Christ which he calls the Bread of the Eucharist after the Consecration Lib. De Spir. Sanc. If it be the Type of the Body then certainly it cannot be the Body and nothing else For as we said before nothing can be the figure of it self no more than a man can be his own Son or Father There be also Prayers in that Liturgy That the Bread may become the Body of Christ for the remission of sins and life eternal to the receivers Now true it is that to the faithful the Element becomes a vivifying Body because they are truly partakers of the heavenly bread the Body of Christ but to others who either receive not or are not believers to them the Bread may be the Antitype but is not neither doth become the Body of Christ for without Faith Christ is never eaten Lib. de Bapt. as is gathered from the same Father 16. St. Gregory Nyssene St. Greg. Nyss A. D. 370. his Brother doth clearly declare what change is wrought in the Bread and Wine by Consecration saying As the Altar naturally is but common stone but being consecrated becomes an holy Table a spotless Altar so the bread of the Eucharist is at first ordinary Orat. de S. Baptis but being mysteriously sacrificed it is and is called the Body of Christ and is efficacious to great purposes and as the Priest yesterday a Lay-man by the Blessing of Ordination becomes a Doctor of Piety and a Steward of Mysteries and though not changed in body or shape yet is transformed and made better as to his soul by an invisible power and grace so also by the same consequence water being nothing but water of it self yet blest by a heavenly grace renews the man working a spiritual regeneration in him Now let the Assertors of Transubstantiation maintain that a Stone is substantiation changed into an Altar a man into a Priest the water in Baptism into an invisible grace or else that the Bread is not so changed into the Body of Christ For according to this Father there is the same consequence in them all 17 Likewise St. Ambrose explaining what manner of alteration is in the bread St Ambr. A D. 380. when in the Eucharist it becomes the Body of Christ saith L de Sacram 4. cap. 4. Thou hadst indeed a being but wert an old creature but being now Baptized or consecrated thou art become a new creature The same change that happens to man in Baptism happens to
change of Bread and Wine For all the Vouchers brought by the Papists speak only of an accidental mystical and moral nothing at all of a substantial change Transubstantiation is taken by its defenders for a material change of one substance into another we indeed allow a Transmutation of the Elements but as for a substantial one we vainly seek for it it is no where to be found 8. To the fourth head I refer what the Fathers say of our touching and seeing the Body of Christ Answer to the Testimonies of S Chry. Cyril Alex. and others and drinking his Bloud in the Sacrament and thereto I answer That we deny not but that some things Emphatical and even Hyperbolical have been said of the Sacrament by Chrysostome and some others and that those things may easily lead unwary men into error That was the ancient Fathers care as it is ours still to instruct the people not to look barely on the outward Elements but in them to eye with their minds the Body and Bloud of Christ and with their hearts lift up to feed on that heavenly meat For all the benefit of a Sacrament is lost if we look no farther than the Elements Hence it is that those holy men the better to teach this Lesson to their hearers and move their hearts more efficaciously spake of the Signs as if they had been the thing signified and like Orators said many things which will not bear a litteral sense nor a strict examen Such is this of an uncertain Author under the name of St. Cyprian Serm. de Coen Dom. We are close to the Cross we suck the bloud and we put our tongues in the very wounds of our Redeemer so that both outwardly and inwardly we are made red thereby Such is that of a Hom. in Encoen St. Chrysostome In the Sacrament the Bloud is drawn out of the side of Christ the b Hom. 82. in Mat. Tongue is made bloudy with that wonderful bloud Again c Lib. de Sacerd. 3. Thou seest thy Lord sacrificed and the crouding multitude round about sprinkled with his bloud he that sits above with the Father is at the same time in our hands d Hom. 51 83. in Mat. Thou dost see and touch and eat him e Hom. 24. 1 Cor. For I do not shew thee either Angels or Archangels but the Lord of them himself Again f Hom. 4. in Joh. 83. in Mat. He incorporates us with himself as if we were but the same thing he makes us his body indeed and suffers us not only to see but even to touch to eat him and to put our teeth in his flesh so that by that food which he gives us we become his flesh Such is that of St. Austin Let us give thanks Tract 21. in Joh. Epist 23. not only that we are made Christians but also made Christ Lastly such is that of B. Leo In that mystical distribution it is given us to be made his flesh Certainly if any man would wrangle and take advantage of these he might thereby maintain as well that we are Transubstantiated into Christ and Christs flesh into the Bread as that the Bread and Wine are Transubstantiated into his Body and Bloud But Protestants who scorn to play the Sophisters interpret these and the like passages of the Fathers with candour and ingenuity as it is most fitting they should For the expressions of Preachers which often have something of a Paradox must not be taken according to that harsher sound wherewith they at first strike the Auditors ears the Fathers spake not of any Transubstantiated bread but of the mystical and consecrated when they used those sorts of expressions and that for these Reasons 1. That they might extoll and amplifie the dignity of this Mystery which all true Christians acknowledge to be very great and peerless 2. That Communicants might not rest in the outward Elements but seriously consider the thing represented whereof they are most certainly made partakers if they be worthy Receivers 3. And lastly That they might approach so great a Mystery with the more zeal reverence and devotion And that those Hyperbolick expressions are thus to be understood the Fathers themselves teach clearly enough when they come to interpret them 9. Lastly Being the same holy Fathers who as the manner is to discourse of Sacraments speak sometimes of the Bread and Wine in the Lords Supper as if they were the very Body and Bloud of Christ do also very often call them Types Elements Signs the Figure of the Body and Bloud of Christ from hence it appears most manifestly that they were of the Protestants and not of the Papists opinion For we can without prejudice to what we believe of the Sacrament use those former expressions which the Papists believe do most favour them if they be understood as they ought to be Sacramentally But the latter none can use but he must thereby overthrow the groundless Doctrine of Transubstantiation these two the Bread is Transubstantiated into the Body and the Bread also is the Type the Sign the Figure of the body of Christ being wholly inconsistent For it is impossible that a thing that loseth its being should yet be the sign and representation of another neither can any thing be the Type and the Sign of it self 10. But if without admitting of a Sacramental sense the words be used too rigorously nothing but this will follow that the Bread and Wine are really and properly the very Body and Bloud of Christ which they themselves disown that hold Transubstantiation Therefore in this change it is not a newness of substance but of use and vertue that is produced which yet the Fathers acknowledged with us to be wonderful supernatural and proper only to Gods Omnipotency For that earthly and corruptible meat cannot become to us a spiritual and heavenly the Communion of the Body and Bloud of Christ without Gods especial power and operation And whereas it is far above Philosophy and Humane Reason that Christ from Heaven where alone he is locally should reach down to us the divine vertue of his Flesh so that we are made one body with him therefore it is as necessary as it is reasonable that the Fathers should tell us that we ought with singleness of heart to believe the Son of God when he saith This is my body and that we ought not to measure this high and holy Mystery by our narrow conceptions or by the course of nature For it is more acceptable to God with an humble simplicity of faith to reverence and embrace the words of Christ than to wrest them violently to a strange and improper sense and with curiosity and presumption to determine what exceeds the capacity of Men and Angels Thus much in general may suffice to answer those places of the Fathers which are usually brought in the behalf of Transubstantiation He that would have a larger refutation of those objections fetcht
Strasbourg did acknowledge nothing in the Lords Supper besides Bread and Wine To him Bucerus in the name of all the rest did freely answer That they all unanimously did condemn that error that neither they nor the Switzers ever believed or taught any such thing that none could expresly be charged with that Error except the Anabaptists And that he also had once been perswaded that Luther in his Writings attributed too much to the outward Symbols and maintained a grosser Vnion of Christ with the Bread than the Scriptures did allow as though Christ had been corporally present with it united into a natural substance with the Bread so that the wicked as well as the faithful were made partakers of grace by receiving the Element But that their own Doctrine and belief concerning that Sacrament was that the true Body and Bloud of Christ was truly presented given and received together with the visible signs of Bread and Wine by the operation of our Lord and by vertue of his institution according to the plain sound and sense of his words and that not only Zuinglius and Oecolampadius had so taught but they also in the publick Confessions of the Churches of the Vpper Germany and other Writings confest it so that the Controversie was rather about the manner of the presence or absence than about the presence or absence it self All which Bucer's Associates confirm after him He also adds That the Magistrates in their Churches had denounced very severe punishments to any that should deny the presence of the Body and Bloud of Christ in the Lords Supper Bucerus did also maintain this Doctrine of the blessed Sacrament in presence of the Landgrave of Hesse and Melancthon confessing That together with the Sacrament we truly and substantially receive the body of Christ Also That the Bread and Wine are conferring signs giving what they represent so that together with them the Body of Christ is given and received And to these he adds That the Body and Bread are not united in the mixture of their substance but in that the Sacrament gives what it promiseth that is the one is never without the other and so they agreeing on both parts that the Bread and Wine are not changed he holds such a Sacramental Vnion Luther having heard this declared also his opinion thus That he did not locally include the Body and Bloud of Christ with the Bread and Wine and unite them together by any natural connexion and that he did not make proper to the Sacraments that vertue whereby they brought Salvation to the Receivers but that he maintained only a Sacramental Vnion betwixt the Body of Christ and the Bread and betwixt his Bloud and the Wine and did teach that the power of confirming our Faith which he attributed to the Sacraments was not naturally inherent in the outward signs but proceeded from the operation of Christ and was given by his Spirit by his Words and by the Elements And finally in this manner he spake to all that were present If you believe and teach that in the Lords Supper the true Body and Bloud of Christ is given and received and not the Bread and Wine only and that this giving and receiving is real and not imaginary we are agreed and we own you for dear Brethren in the Lord. All this is set down at large in the twentieth Tome of Luthers Works and in the English Works of Bucer The French Confess 14. The next will be the Gallican Confession made at Paris in a National Synod and presented to King Charles IX at the Conference of Poissy Which speaks of the Sacrament on this wise Although Christ be in heaven where he is to remain until he come to judge the World yet we believe that by the secret and incomprehensible virtue of his Spirit he feeds and vivifies us by the substance of his Body and Bloud received by Faith Art 36. now we say that this is done in a spiritual manner not that we believe it to be a fancy and imagination instead of a truth and real effect but rather because that Mystery of our Vnion with Christ is of so sublime a nature that it is as much above the capacity of our senses as it is above the order of nature Item We believe that in the Lords Supper God gives us really that is truly and efficaciously whatever is represented by the Sacrament with the signs we joyn the true Possession and fruition of the thing by them offered to us And so that Bread and Wine which are given to us become our spiritual nourishment in that they make it in some manner visible to us that the Flesh of Christ is our food and his Bloud our drink Therefore those Fanaticks that reject these Signs and Symbols are by us rejected our blessed Saviour having said This is my body and this Cup is my bloud This Confession hath been subscribed by the Church of Geneva 15. The Envoyes from the French Churches to Worms made a declaration concerning that Mystery Legat. Eccl. Gall. conf 1555 much after the same manner We confess say they that in the Lords Supper besides the benefits of Christ the substance also of the Son of man his true body with his bloud shed for us are not only figuratively signified by Types and Symbols as memorials of things absent but also truly and certainly presented given and offered to be applied by signs that are not bare and destitute but on Gods part in regard of his offer and promise always undoubtedly accompanied with what they signifie whether they be offered to good or bad Christians 16. Now follows the Belgick Confession Belg. Conf. Art 35. which professeth it to be most certain that Christ doth really effect in us what is figured by the signs although it be above the capacity of our reason to understand which way the operations of the Holy Ghost being always occult and incomprehensible 17. The more ancient Confession of the Switzers Helvet Confess prior made by common consent at Basil and approved by all the Helvetick-Protestant Churches hath it Ch. 21. That while the Faithful eat the bread and drink the cup of the Lord they by the operation of Christ working by the Holy Spirit receive the Body and Bloud of our Lord and thereby are fed unto Eternal life But notwithstanding that they affirm that this food is spiritual yet they afterwards conclude That by spiritual food they understand not imaginary but the very body of Christ which was given for us 18. And the latter Confession of the Switzers Helvet Conf. posterior writ and Printed in 1566. affirms as expresly the true presence of Christs body in the Eucharist thus Outwardly the bread is offered by the Minister and the words of Christ heard Take eat this is my Body drink ye all of this this is my Bloud Therefore the Faithful receive what Christs Minister gives and drink of the Lords Cup And at the same
time by the power of Christ working by the Holy Ghost are fed by the flesh and bloud of our Lord unto eternal life c. Again Christ is not absent from his Church celebrating his holy Supper The Sun in heaven being distant from us is nevertheless present by his efficacy how much more shall Christ the Sun of righteousness who is bodily in heaven absent from us be spiritually present to us by his life-giving virtue and as he declared in his last Supper he would be present Joh. 14.15 16. Whence it follows that we have no Communion without Christ Now to this Confession not only the Reformed Switzers did subscribe but also the Churches of Hungary Pannonia or Transilvania Poland and Lithuania which follow neither the Augustan nor Bohemian Confessions It was subscribed also by the Churches of Scotland and Geneva 19. Lastly Let us hear the renowned Declaration of the Reformed Churches of Poland Conf. Thorun made in the Assembly of Thorâ—n whereby they profess that as to what concerns the Sacrament of the Eucharist they assent to that opinion which in the Augustan Confession in the Bohemian and that of Sendom is confirmed by Scripture Then afterwards in another Declaration they explain their own Mind thus saying 1. That the Sacrament consisteth of earthly things as Bread and Wine and things heavenly as the Body and Bloud of our Lord both of which though in a different manner yet most truly and really are given together at the same time earthly things in an earthly corporal and natural way heavenly things in a mystick spiritual and heavenly manner 2. Hence they infer That the Bread and Wine are and are said to be with truth the very Body and Bloud of Christ not substantially indeed that is not corporally but Sacramentally and Mystically by vertue of the Sacramental Vnion which consisteth not in a bare signification or obligation only but also in a real exhibition and communication of both parts earthly and heavenly together at once though in a different manner 3. In that sense they affirm with the Ancients That the Bread and Wine are changed into the Body and Bloud of Christ not in nature and substance but in use and efficacy in which respect the sacred Elements are not called what they are to sense but what they are believed and received by faith grounded on the Promise 4. They deny to believe the signs to be bare inefficacious and empty but rather such as truly give what they seal and signifie being efficacious instruments and most certain means whereby the Body and Bloud of Christ and so Christ himself with all his benefits is set forth and offered to all Communicants but conferred and given to true Believers and by them received as the saving and vivifying food of their Souls 5. They deny not the true presence of the body and bloud of Christ in the Lords Supper but only the Corporal manner of his Presence They believe a Mystical Vnion betwixt Christ and us and that not imaginary but most true real and efficacious 6. Thence they conclude That not only the vertue efficacy operation or benefits of Christ are communicated to us but more especially the very substance of his Body and Bloud so that he abides in us and we in him 20. Now because great is the fame of Calvin who subscribed the Augustan Confession and that of the Switzers let us hear what he writ and believed concerning this sacred Mystery His words in his Institutions and elsewhere are such so conformable to the stile and mind of the Ancient Fathers that no Catholick Protestant would wish to use any other Comm. on 1 Cor. I understand saith he what is to be understood by the words of Christ that he doth not only offer us the benefits of his Death and Resurrection but his very body wherein he died and rose again I assert that the body of Christ is really as the usual expression is that is truly given to us in the Sacrament to be the saving food of our souls Instit Book 4. Ch. 17. Also in another place Item That word cannot lie neither can it mock us and except one presumes to call God a deceiver he will never dare to say that the Symbols are empty and that Christ is not in them Therefore if by the breaking of the bread our Saviour doth represent the participation of his body it is not to be doubted but that he truly gives and confers it If it be true that the visible sign is given us to seal the gift of an invisible thing we must firmly believe that receiving the signs of the body we also certainly receive the body it self Setting aside all absurdities I do willingly admit all those terms that can most strongly express the true and substantial Communication of the Body and Bloud of Christ granted to the Faithful with the Symbols of the Lords Supper and that not as if they received only by the force of their imagination or an act of their minds but really so as to be fed thereby unto Eternal life Again Treat of the Lords Supper We must therefore confess that the inward substance of the Sacrament is joyned with the visible sign so that as the Bread is put into our hand the Body of Christ is also given to us This certainly if there were nothing else should abundantly satisfie us that we understand that Christ in his Holy Supper gives us the true and proper substance of his Body and Bloud that it being wholly ours we may be made partakers of all his benefits and graces Again The Son of God offers daily to us in the holy Sacrament the same body which he once offered in sacrifice to his Father that it may be our spiritual food In these he asserts as clearly as any one can the true Real and substantial Presence and Communication of the Body of Christ but how he undertakes not to determine Inst B. 4. Ch. 17. Num. 32. If any one saith he ask me concerning the manner I will not be ashamed to confess that it is a secret too high for my reason to comprehend or my tongue to express or to speak more properly I rather feel than understand it Therefore without disputing I embrace the truth of God and confidently repose on it He declares that his Flesh is the food and his Bloud the drink of my Soul And my Soul I offer to him to be fed by such nourishment He bids me take eat and drink his Body and Bloud which in his holy Supper he offers me under the Symbols of Bread and Wine I make no scruple but he doth reach them to me and I receive them All these are Calvins own words 21. I was the more willing to be long in transcribing these things at large out of publick Confessions of Churches and the best of Authors that it might the better appear how injuriously Protestant Divines are calumniated by others unacquainted with their opinions
as though by these words Spiritually and Sacramentally they did not acknowledge a true and well-understood real Presence and Communication of the Body and Bloud of Christ in the Blessed Sacrament whereas on the contrary they do professedly own it in terms as express as any can be used CHAP. III. 1. What the Papists do understand by Christ being spiritually present in the Sacrament 2. What St. Bernard understood by it 3. What the Protestants 4. Faith doth not cause but suppose the presence of Christ 5. The Union betwixt the Body of Christ and the Bread is Sacramental 1. HAving now by what I have said put it out of doubt that the Protestants believe a spiritual and true presence of Christ in the Sacrament which is the reason that according to the example of the Fathers they use so frequently the term spiritual in this subject it may not be amiss to consider in the next place how the Roman Church understands that same word Now they make it to signifie That Christ is not present in the Sacrament Bell. De Euch l. 1. c ◠§. 3. Reg. sequ either after that manner which is natural to corporal things or that wherein his own body subsists in heaven but according to the manner of Existence proper to Spirits whole and entire in each part of the Host And though by himself he be neither seen toucht nor moved yet in respect of the Species or accidents joyned with him he may be said to be seen toucht and moved And so the accidents being moved Ibid. Part. 1. the body of Christ is truly moved accidentally as the Soul truly changeth place with the Body so that we truly and properly say that the body of Christ is removed lifted up and set down put on the Patent or on the Altar and carried from hand to mouth and from the mouth to the stomach as Berengarius was forced to acknowledge in the Roman Council under Pope Nicholas Ibid. § 5. Reg. that the Body of Christ was sensually toucht by the hands and broken and chewed by the teeth of the Priest But all this and much more to the same effect was never delivered to us either by holy Scripture or the ancient Fathers And if Souls or Spirits could be present as here Bellarmine teacheth yet it would be absurd to say that bodies could be so likewise it being inconsistent with their nature 2. Indeed Bellarmine confesseth with St Bernard St. Bern. Serm de S. Martin That Christ in the Sacrament is not given to us carnally but spiritually and would to God he had rested here and not outgone the holy Scriptures and the Doctrine of the Fathers For endeavouring with Pope Innocent III. and the Council of Trent to determine the manner of the presence and Manducation of Christs body with more nicety than was fitting he thereby foolishly overthrew all that he had wisely said before denied what he had affirmed and opposed his own Opinion His fear was lest his Adversaries should apply that word spiritually not so much to express the manner of presence as to exclude the very substance of the Body and Bloud of Christ therefore saith he upon that account it is not safe to use too muck that of St. Bernard The body of Christ is not Corporally in the Sacrament without adding presently the above-mentioned explanation How much do we comply with humane pride and curiosity which would seem to understand all things Where is the danger And what doth he fear as long as all they that believe the Gospel own the true nature the real and substantial presence of the body of Christ in the Sacrament using that Explication of St. Bernard concerning the manner which he himself for the too great evidence of truth durst not but admit And why doth he own that the manner is spiritual not carnal and then require a carnal presence as to the manner it self As for us we all openly profess with St. Bernard that the presence of the body of Christ in the Sacrament is spiritual and therefore true and real and with the same Bernard and all the Ancients we deny that the Body of Christ is carnally either present or given The thing we willingly admit but humbly and religiously forbear to enquire into the manner 3. We believe a Presence and Union of Christ with our soul and body which we know not how to call better than Sacramental that is effected by eating that while we eat and drink the consecrated Bread and Wine we eat and drink therewithal the Body and Bloud of Christ not in a corporal manner but some other way incomprehensible known only to God which we call spiritual for if with St. Bernard the Fathers a man goes no further we do not find fault with a general explication of the manner but with the presumption and self-conceitedness of those who boldly and curiously inquire what is a spiritual presence as presuming that they can understand the manner of acting of Gods holy Spirit We contrariwise confess with the Fathers that this manner of presence is unaccountable and past finding out not to be searcht and pried into by Reason but believed by Faith And if it seems impossible that the flesh of Christ should descend and come to be our food through so great a distance we must remember how much the power of the holy Spirit exceeds our sense and our apprehensions and how absurd it would be to undertake to measure his Immensity by our weakness and narrow capacity and so make our Faith to conceive and believe what our Reason cannot comprehend 4. Yet our Faith doth not cause or make that Presence but apprehends it as most truly and really effected by the word of Christ And the Faith whereby we are said to eat the flesh of Christ is not that only whereby we believe that he died for our sins for this Faith is required and supposed to precede the Sacramental Manducation but more properly that whereby we believe those words of Christ This is my Body Aug. super Joh. Tract 25. which was St. Austins meaning when he said Why dost thou prepare thy stomach and thy teeth Believe and thou hast eaten For in this Mystical eating by the wonderful power of the Holy Ghost we do invisibly receive the substance of Christs Body and Bloud as much as if we should eat and drink both visibly 5. The result of all this is That the Body and Bloud of Christ are Sacramentally united to the Bread and Wine so that Christ is truly given to the Faithful and yet is not to be here considered with sense or worldly reason but by Faith resting on the words of the Gospel Now it is said that the Body and Bloud of Christ are joyned to the Bread and Wine because that in the celebration of the holy Eucharist the Flesh is given together with the Bread and the Bloud together with the Wine All that remains is That we should with faith
Body and Bloud of Christ and that their substance still remaining they are Signs Types Resemblances and Pledges of them Images Figures Similitudes Representations and Samplers of them yet there was no cantrariety or diversity in the sense For they were not so Faithless as to believe that these are only naturall Elements or bare Signs and they were not of so gross and so dull an apprehension as not to distinguish betwixt the Sacramental and Mystick and the carnal and natural presence of Christ as it is now maintained by the Patrons of Transubstantiation For in this they understood no other change than that which is common to all Sacraments whereby the outward natural part is said to be changed into the inward and divine only because it represents it truly and efficaciously and makes all worthy Receivers partakers thereof and because by the vertue of the Holy Spirit and of Christ's holy institution the Elements obtain those divine Excellencies and Prerogatives which they cannot have of their own nature And this is it which was taught and believed for above a thousand years together by pious and learned Antiquity concerning this most holy Mystery 2. There are also some other things whereby we may understand that the Ancients did not belief Transubstantiation or that the presence of the Body and Bloud of Christ is so inseparably tyed to the accidents of Bread and Wine that Christ must needs be present as long as those accidents retain any resemblance of Bread and Wine even when they are not put to that use appointed by divine institution For it is certain that it was the custom of many of the Ancients to burn what remained of the Bread and Wine after the Comunion was ended Hesych l. 2. in Levit. cap. 8. A. D. 600. And who can believe that any Christian should dare or be willing to burn his Lord and Saviour Concil Argl. Spelm. tredecimus inter cos qui Bedae titulum praeferunt A D. 700. sub Edgaro Rege 38. Ibid A. D. 970. in Body and Bloud though it were never so much in his power Doubtless it would have been as horrid and detestable an action as was that of the perfidious Jews for Christians if they believed Transubstantiation to burn that very natural body which the Jews Crucified and which was born of the Virgin Mary Therefore those Christians who used anciently to burn those fragments of the Bread and remains of the Wine which were not spent in the celebration of the Sacrament were far enough from holding the present Faith and Doctrine of Rome The same appears further by the penalty threatned by the Canon to every Clergy-man by whose neglect a Mousse or any other Creature should eat the Sacrifice Conc. Arelat 3. Ci tat à Gratiano de Consecr dist 2. A. D. 640. that is the Consecrated Bread And who but an Idiot a man deprived of his reason could ever believe that the natural Body of Christ can be gnawed and even eaten by Rats or any brute Creatures This sorely perplext the first maintainers of Transubstantiation who would invent any thing rather than own it possible well knowing how abominable it is and how dishonourable to Christian Religion Yet this is not inconsistent with the now Roman Faith nay it necessarily follows from the Tenet of Transubstantiation that the Body of Christ may be in the belly of a Mouse a Alex. Ales lib. 4. q. 45. m. 1. art 2. q. 53. m. 3. Thom. in 3. q. 80. art 3. in 4. d 9. q. 2. under the accidents of Bread And the contrary opinion is not only disowned now by the Papists but under pain of Excommunication forbidden by the b Greg. XI in director Inquis p. 1. n. 15. p ◠q. 10. Pope ever to be owned so that they must believe as an Article of Faith c Vasq disp 195. in 3. c. 5. what is most abhorrent to Faith 3. But yet at last let us see what props these new builders pretend to borrow from Antiquity to uphold their Castle in the air Transubstantiation They use indeed to scrape together many Testimonies of the Fathers of the first and middle age whereby they would fain prove that those Fathers believed and taught the Transubstantiation of the Bread and Wine into the natural Body and Bloud of Christ just as the Roman Church at this day doth teach and believe We will therefore briefly examine them that it may yet more fully appear that Antiquity and all Fathers did not in the least favour the new Tenet of Transubstantiation but that that true Doctrin which I have set down in the begining of this book was constantly owned and preserved in the Church of Christ 4. Now almost all that they produce out of the Fathers will be conveniently reduced to certain heads that we may not be too tedious in answering each testimony by it self 5. To the first head belong those d Answer to the Allegations out of Iren. Orig. Cyril Hier. Gre. Naz. St. Hier. St. Austin and others that call the Eucharist the Body and Bloud of Christ But I answer those Fathers explain themselves in many places and interpret those their expressions in such a manner that they must be understood in a Mystick and spiritual sense in that Sacraments usually take the names of those things they represent because of that resemblance which they have with them e De Consecr dist 2. c sicut not by the reality of the thing but by the signification of the Mystery as we have shewn before out of St. Austin and others For no body can deny but that the things that are seen are signs and figures and those that are not seen the Body and Bloud of Christ And that therefore the nature of this mystery is such that when we receive the Bread and Wine we also together with them receive at the same time the body and Bloud of Christ which in the celebration of the holy Eucharist are as truly given as they are represented Hence came into the Church this manner of speaking the Consecrated Bread is Christs Body 6. We put in the second rank those places that say An Answer to the proofs out of St. Hier. Ep. ad Heliod 2. ad Evag. 85. St. Ambr. de iis qui init c. 9. c. that the Bishops and Priests make the body of Christ with the sacred words of their mouth as St. Hierom speaks in his Epistle to Heliodorus and St. Ambrose and others To this I say that at the prayer and blessing of the Priest the common Bread is made Sacramental bread which when broken and eaten is the Communion of the body of Christ and therefore may well be called so Sacramentally For the bread as I have often said before doth not only represent the body of our Lord but also being received we are truly made partakers of that precious body Ep. 85. ad Evig For so saith S. Hier.
from Antiquity may read Hospinianus his History of the Sacrament Lib. 2. 4. A Sect. 1. usque ad 13. and Antonius de Dominis in his Fifth Book of the Christian Commonwealth Chap. 6. and in his detection of the errors of Suarez Chap. 2. Answer to single testimony of Fathers Dial. 3. ex Ep. 5. Ignat 11. That place of Ignatius cited by Theodoret out of the Epistle to the Smyrnenses where now it is not to be found and objected by some of the Romish Faith That the Hereticks Simoniani and Menandriani would have no Eucharistical Oblations because they denied the Sacrament to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ makes nothing for Transubstantiation as Bellarmine himself confesseth De Euch. l. 1. c. 1.8.3 For saith he those Hereticks did not oppose the Sacrament of the Eucharist so much as the mystery of the Incarnation and therefore as Ignatius shews in that place they would deny that the Eucharist is the flesh of Christ that is Dial. 2. as Theodoret interprets it that the divine Mysteries of Bread and Wine should be the signs of a real Body of Christ truly existing because they would not own that Christ had taken flesh And so lest they should be forced to acknowledge the reality of the flesh of Christ they would wholly reject the Signs and Sacraments of it for the signs of the body being given the true body is given also because the substance and the type infer one another and a Phantasm or Illusion is not capable of a sign or representation 12. The words out of Justin Martyr Apol. 2. ad Ant imp whereby they would prove Transubstantiation do strongly disprove it For saith he as by the word of God our Saviour was incarnate so by the Prayers of Gods word the Eucharist is made whereby our bodies are nourished the Body and Bloud of Christ Now when Christ took humane flesh none could say without Heresie that he was Transubstantiated 13. Neither is that against the Protestants which is brought out of St. Cyprian Serm. de Coen Dom. though it be none of his of the bread changed not in appearance but in nature For he whoever it was took not the word nature in a strict sense or else he was contrary to Theodoret Gelasius and others above-mentioned who expresly deny that the bread should be thus changed But at large as nature is taken for use qualities and condition For by the infinite power of the Word the nature of the bread is so changed that what was before a bare Element becomes now a divine Sacrament but without any Transubstantiation as appears by what follows in the same period of the Humane and Divine Natures of Christ where the Manhood is not substantially changed into the Godhead except we will follow Eutyches the Heretick Bell l. 2. de Euch. c. 13. Cyril Hieros Catec my â—â—g 4 14. The words of Cyril as the Roman Doctors say are so clear for them that they admit of no evasion For saith he he that changed once the water into Wine is he not worthy to be believed that he changed the Wine into Bloud Therefore let us with all certainty receive the Body and Bloud of Christ for his Body under the appearance of the Bread and his Bloud under the appearance of the Wine are given to thee Sensu jam saepius dicto Indeed Protestants do freely grant and firmly believe that the Wine as hath often been said is changed into the Bloud of Christ but every change is not a Transubstantiation neither doth Cyril say that this change is like that of the water for then it would also appear to our senses but that he who changed the Water sensibly can also change the Wine Sacramentally will not be doubted by any As for what he calls the Appearances of Bread and Wine he doth not thereby exclude but rather include their substance and mean the Bread and Wine it self For so he intimates by what there follows Do not look on them as bare Bread and Wine as much as to say it is bread indeed but yet not bare bread but something besides But that this conversion of the Water into Wine makes nothing for Transubstantiation may be thus made to appear That Gods Omnipotency can change one substance into another none will deny and we see it done by Christ in the Town of Cana of Galilee when he changed the Water into Wine and it was a true and proper Transubstantiation But the Papists in the Lords Supper tell us of quite another change which if well considered cannot so much as be understood For the substance of the Bread is not changed into another that had no being but as they say the bread is changed into that body of Christ which really existed and had a being these many hundred years ever since the Incarnation Whereas that very Wine which Christ made of the Water was not in being before the change which he wrought Now it is easie for any to understand that he who created all things out of nothing can well make a new Wine of Water or any other thing but it is more than absurd that the body of Christ or any other substance already in being perfect and complete should be made a fresh of another substance when it really subsisted before Which they well understood who devised an adduction or bringing of the Body of Christ into the place of the Bread and that is as much as to deny Transubstantiation except it can be said that a man is Transubstantiated into another as often as he comes into his place which no man in his right wits can fancy Lib. â— de San. c. 4. de init Myst c. 9. 15. St. Ambrose said also that the nature is changed and indeed it is so for other is the nature of the Element and other that of the Sacrament neither do Protestants deny that the Element is changed by the blessing so that the bread being made sacred is no more that which nature formed but that which the Blessing consecrated and by consecrating changed Mean while St. Ambrose in that place doth not make the words or Blessing of Christ to have any other operation than to make that which was still to be and yet to be changed therefore the bread is not made the body of Christ by Transubstantiation but by a Sacramental change He adds That Sacrament which thou receivest is made by the word of Christ and if the word of Elias had so much power as to bring down fire from heaven shall not the words of Christ be efficacious enough to change the properties of the Elements Thou hast read of the Creation of all things that he said the word and it was done and shall not that word of Christ which made all out of nothing change that which is already into that which it was not Thou thy self wert but wert the old man but being baptized thou art now
nature and substance of the body of our blessed Saviour and that those words nature and substance ought not to be rejected because the Fathers used them in speaking of that Mystery Secondly He inquires whether those expressions truth nature and substance were used in this Mystery by the Ancients in their common acceptation or in a sense more particular and proper to the Sacraments Because we must not only observe what words they used but also what they meant to signifie and to teach by them And though with the Fathers he acknowledged a difference betwixt the body of Christ in its natural form of a humane body and that Mystick body present in the Sacrament yet he chose rather to put that difference in the manner of presence and exhibition than in the subject it self that is the real body and bloud of our Saviour being it is most certain that no other body is given to the faithful in the Sacrament than that which was by Christ given to death for their Redemption Lastly he affirms according to the unanimous consent of the Fathers that this matter must be understood in a spiritual sense banishing all grosser and more carnal thoughts 5. To Bishop Poinet succeeded in the same See the right Reverend Doctors T. Bilson and L. Andrews Prelates both of them throughly learned and great defenders of the Primitive Faith who made it most evident by their Printed Writings that the Faith and Doctrine of the Church of England is in all things agreeable to the holy Scriptures and the Divinity of the Ancient Fathers And as to what regards this Mystery the a Bils resp ad Card. Alan l. 4. first treats of it in his Answer to the Apology of Cardinal Alan and the b Andr. resp ad Apol Bel. c. 11. p. 11 last in his Answer to the Apology of Cardinal Bellarmine where you may find things worthy to be read and noted as follows Christ said this is my body in this the object we are agreed with you the manner only is controverted We hold by a firm belief that it is the body of Christ of the manner how it comes to be so there is not a word in the Gospel and because the Scripture is silent in this we justly disown it to be a matter of Faith We may indeed rank it among Tenets of the School but by no means among the Articles of our Christian Belief We like well of what Durandus is reported to have said We hear the Word and feel the motion we know not the manner and yet believe the Presence For we believe a Real Presence no less than you do We dare not be so bold as presumptuously to define any thing concerning the manner of a true Presence or rather we do not so much as trouble our selves with being inquisitive about it no more than in Baptism how the bloud of Christ washeth us or in the Incarnation of our Redeemer how the Divine and Humane Nature were united together We put it in the number of sacred things or Sacrifices the Eucharist it self being a Sacred Mystery whereof the remnants ought to be consumed with fire that is as the Fathers elegantly have it ador'd by faith but not searcht by reason Caus Ep. to Card. Perron 6. To the same sense speaks Is Causabon in the Epistle he wrote by order from King James to Cardinal Perron so doth also Hooker in his Ecclesiastical Polity Ep. Roff. praef ad loct Montac in Antid Art 13. Book 5. § 67. John Bishop of Rochester in his Book of the Power of the Pope R. Mountague Bishop of Norwich against Bullinger James Primate of Armach in his Answer to the Irish Jesuit Francis Bishop of Eli and William Laud Archbishop of Canterbury in their Answer to Fisher c In a Manuscript shortly to be Printed John Overall Bishop of Norwich and many others in the Church of England who never departed from the Faith and Doctrine of the ancient Catholick Fathers which is by Law established and with great care and veneration received and preserved in our Church 7. To these also we may justly add that famous Prelate Antonius de Domino Archbishop of Spalato a man well versed in the Sacred Writings and the Records of Antiquity who having left Italy when he could no longer remain in it either with quiet or safety by the advice of his intimate Friend Paulus Venetus took Sanctuary under the protection of King James of blessed memory in the bosome of the Church of England which he did faithfully follow in all Points and Articles of Religion But being daily vex'd with many affronts and injuries and wearied by the unjust persecutions of some sour and over-rigid men who bitterly declaimed every where against his life and actions he at last resolved to return into Italy with a safe conduct Before he departed he was by order from the King questioned by some Commissionated Bishops what he thought of the Religion and Church of England which for so many years he had owned and obeyed and what he would say of it in the Roman Court to this Query he gave in writing this memorable answer I am resolved even with the danger of my life to profess before the Pope himself that the Church of England is a true and Orthodox Church of Christ This he not only promised but faithfully performed for though soon after his departure there came a Book out of the Low Countries falsly bearing his name by whose title many were deceived even among the English and thereby moved to tax him with Apostacy and of being another Eubolius yet when he came to Rome where he was most kindly entertained in the Palace of Pope Gregory the Fifteenth who formerly had been his Fellow-student he could never be perswaded by the Jesuits and others who daily thronged upon him neither to subscribe the new devised-Tenets of the Council of Trent or to retract those Orthodox Books which he had Printed in England and Germany or to renounce the Communion of the Church of England in whose defence he constantly persisted to the very last But presently after the decease of Pope Gregory he was imprisoned by the Jesuits and Inquisitors in Castle St. Angelo where by being barbarously used and almost starved he soon got a mortal sickness and died in a few days though not without suspicion of being poysoned The day following his Corps was by the sentence of the Inquisition tyed to an infamous stake and there burnt to ashes for no other reason but that he refused to make abjuration of the Religion of the Church of England and subscribe some of the lately-made-Decrees of Trent which were prest upon him as Canons of the Catholick Faith I have taken occasion to insert this narration perhaps not known to many to make it appear that this Reverend Prelate who did great service to the Church of God may justly as I said before be reckoned amongst the Writers of the Church of England Let
the Bread in the Sacrament If the nature of man is not substantially altered by the new Birth no more is the bread by Consecration Man becomes by Baptism not what Nature made him but what Grace new-makes him Ibid. de init myst cap. 9. and the Bread becomes by Consecration not what it was by Nature but what the Blessing consecrates it to be For Nature made only a meer man and made only common bread but Regeneration of a meer man makes a holy man in whom Christ dwells spiritually And likewise the Consecration of common bread makes Mystick and Sacramental bread Yet this change doth not destroy Nature but to Nature adds Grace As is yet more plainly exprest by that holy Father in the fore-cited place Perhaps thou wilt say saith he this my bread is common bread De Sacr. l. 4. c. 4. it is bread indeed before the blessing of the Sacrament but when it is consecrated it becomes the Body of Christ This we are therefore to declare how can that which is bread be also the body of Christ By Consecration And Consecration is made by the words of our Lord that the venerable Sacrament may be perfected You see how efficacious is the word of Christ If there be then so great a power in the word of Christ to make the Bread and Wine to be what they were not how much greater is that power which still preserves them to be what they were and yet makes them to be what they were not Therefore that I may answer thee it was not the Body of Christ before the Consecration but now after the Consecration it is the Body of Christ he said the word and it was done thou thy self wert before but wert an old Creature after thou hast been consecrated in Baptism thou art become a new creature By these words St. Ambrose teacheth how we are to understand that the Bread is the Body of Christ to wit by such a change that the Bread and Wine do not cease to be what they were as to their substance for then they should not be what they were and yet by the Blessing become what before they were not For so they are said to remain as indeed they do what they were by nature that yet they are changed by grace that is they become assured Sacraments of the Body and Bloud of Christ and by that means certain pledges of our Justification and Redemption What is there can refute more expresly the dream of Transubstantiation 18. St. Chrysostome doth also clearly discard and reject this carnal Transubstantiation and eating of Christs Body St. Chrys A. D. 390. without eating the bread Hom. 45. in St. Joh. Sacraments saith he ought not to be contemplated and considered carnally but with the eyes of our souls that is spiritually for such is the nature of mysteries where observe the opposition betwixt carnally and spiritually which admits of no plea or reply again As in Baptism the spiritual power of Regeneration is given to the material water so also the immaterial gift of the Body and Bloud of Christ is not received by any sensible corporal action but by the spiritual discernment of our faith and of our hearts and minds Which is no more than this that sensible things are called by the name of those spiritual things which they seal and signifie But he speaks more plainly in his Epistle to Casarius where he teacheth that in this Mystery there is not in the bread a substantial but a Sacramental change according to the which the outward Elements take the name of what they represent and are changed in such a sort that they still retain their former natural substance In Ep. ad Caefar contra haeres Apol. The bread saith he is made worthy to be honoured with the name of the Flesh of Christ by the consecration of the Priest yet the Flesh retains the proprieties of its incorruptible nature as the bread doth its natural substance Before the bread be sanctified we call it bread but when it is consecrated by the divine grace it deserves to be called the Lords Body though the substance of the bread still remains When Bellarmine could not answer this testimony of that Great Doctor he thought it enough to deny that this Epistle is St. Chrysostoms a L. de Euch. 2. c 24. but both he and b In appar Chrys Possevin do vainly contend that it is not extant among the works of Chrysostom For besides that at Florence c Steph. Gard. Ep. Wiâ—t cont Pet Mart. Lib. â— de Euchar. and else where it was to be found among them it is cited in the Collections against the Severians which are in the version of Turrianus the Jesuit in the fourth Tome of Antiq. lectionum of Henry Canisius and in the end of the book of Joh. Damascenus against the Acephali I bring another Testimony out of the imperfect work on St. Matthew written either by St. Chrysostome or some other ancient Author a Book in this at least very Orthodox and not corrupted by the Arrians In these sanctified vessels saith he the true body of Christ is not contained but the Mystery of his Body 19. Which also hath been said by St. Austin above a thousand times S. Austin A.D. 400. but out of so many almost numberless places I shall chuse only three which are as the sum of all the rest In Psal 93. You are not to eat this Body which you see nor drink this Bloud which my Crucifiers shall shed I have left you a Sacrament which spiritually understood will vivifie you Thus St. Austin rehearsing the words of Christ again Epist 23. ad Bonif. If Sacraments had not some resemblance with those things whereof they are Sacraments they could not be Sacraments at all From this resemblance they often take the names of what they represent Therefore as the Sacrament of Christs body is in some sort his body so the Sacrament of Faith is faith also To the same sense is what he writes against Maximinus the Arrian We mind in the Sacraments Cont. Max. l. 3. c. 22. not what they are but what they shew for they are signs which are one thing and signifie another And in another place speaking of the Bread and Wine De Doctr. Christ cap. 7. Let no man look to what they are but to what they signifie for our Lord was pleased to say this is my Body when he gave the sign of his body This passage of St. Austin is so clear that it admits of no evasion nor no denial For if the Sacraments are one thing and signifie another then they are not so changed into what they signifie as that after that change they should be no more what they were The water is changed in baptism as the Bread and Wine in the Lords Supper but all that is changed is not presently abolished or Transubstantiated For as the water remains entire in Baptism so
after he was by some b Malms de gestis Rig. Angl. l. 2. Wal. Stra. 86â— De rebus Eccl. c. 16. others numbred among Holy Martyrs 33. Walafridus Strabo about the same time wrote on this manner Therefore in that Last Supper whereat Christ was with his Disciples before he was betrayed after the solemnities of the ancient Passeover he gave to his Disciples the Sacrament of his Body and Bloud in the substance of Bread and Wine and instructed us to pass from carnal to spiritual things from earthly to heavenly things and from shadows to the substance 34. As for the opinion of Bertram Bertram Priest and Abbot A. 860. otherwise called Ratramnus or Ratramus perhaps not rightly it is known enough by that Book which the Emperour Charles the Bald who loved and honoured him as all good men did for his great learning and piety commanded him to write concerning the Body and Bloud of our Lord. For when men began to be disturbed at the Book of Paschasius some saying one thing and some another the Emperour being moved by their disputes propounded himself two questions to Bertram 1. Whether what the Faithful eat in the Church be made the Body and Bloud of Christ in Figure and in Mystery 2. Or whether that natural body which was born of the Virgin Mary which suffered died and was buried and now sitteth on the right hand of God the Father be it self dayly received by the mouth of the Faithful in the Mystery of the Sacrament The first of these Bertram resolved Affirmatively the second Negatively and said that there was as great a difference betwixt those two bodies as betwixt the earnest and that whereof it is the earnest It is evident saith he that that Bread and Wine are figuratively the Body and Bloud of Christ Lib. de corp Sang Dom part 1. Ibid. Part. 2. According to the substance of the Elements they are after the Consecration what they were before For the Bread is not Christ substantially If this mystery be not done in a figure it cannot well be called a Mystery The Wine also which is made the Sacrament of the Bloud of Christ by the Consecration of the Priest shews one thing by its outward appearance and contains another inwardly For what is there visible in its outside but only the substance of the Wine These things are changed but not according to the material part and by this change they are not what they truly appear to be but are some thing else besides what is their proper being For they are made spiritually the Body and Bloud of Christ not that the Elements be two different things but in one respect they are as they appear Bread and Wine and in another the Body and Bloud of Christ Hence according to the visible Creature they feed the body but according to the vertue of a more excellent substance they nourish and sanctifie the souls of the Faithful Then having brought many Testimonies of holy Scripture and the ancient Fathers to confirm this he at last prevents that Calumny which the followers of Paschasius did then lay on the Orthodox as though they had taught that bare signs figures and shadows and not the Body and Bloud of Christ were given in the Sacrament Let it not be thought saith he because we say this that therefore the Body and Bloud of Christ are not received in the Mystery of the Sacrament where Faith apprehends what it believes and not what the eyes see for this meat and drink are spiritual feed the soul spiritually and entertain that life whose fulness is eternal For the question is not simply about the real truth or the thing signified being present without which it could not be a Mystery but about the false reality of things subsisting in imaginary appearances and about the Carnal Presence Index lib. prob in fine Concil Trid. Author Papae editus in Lit. B. 35. All this the Fathers of Trent and the Romish Inquisitors could not brook therefore they utterly condemned Bertram and put his Book in the Catalogue of those that are forbidden But the Professors of Doway judging this proceeding much too violent and therefore more like to hurt than to advance the Roman Cause went another and more cunning way to work and had the approbation of the Licencers of Books and the Authors of the Belgick Index expurgatorius Index expur Belg. jussu author Phil 2. Hisp Reg. atque Albani ducis concilio concinn p. 54. v. Bert. That Book of Bertram say they having been already Printed several times read by many and known to all by its being forbidden may be suffered and used after it is corrected for Bertram was a Catholick Priest and a Monk in the Monastery of Corbie esteemed and beloved by Charles the Bald. And being we bear with many errors in Ancient Catholick Authors and lessen and excuse them and by some cunning device behold the good mens fidelity often deny them and give a more commodious sense when they are objected to us in our disputes with our Adversaries we do not see why Bertram should not also be amended and used with the same Equity lest Hereticks cast us in the teeth that we burn and suppress those Records of Antiquity that make for them And as we also fear lest not only Hereticks but also stubborn Catholicks read the Book with the more greediness and cite it with the more confidence because it is forbidden and so it doth more harm by being prohibited than if it was left free What patch then will they sow to amend this in Bertram Those things that differ are not the same that Body of Christ which died and rose again and is become immortal dies no more being eternal and impassable But that which is celebrated in the Church is temporal not eternal is corruptible and not incorruptible To this last mentioned passage they give a very commodious sense namely that it should be understood of the corruptible species of the Sacrament or of the Sacrament it self and the use of it which will last no longer than this world If this will not do it may not be amiss to leave it all out to blot out visibly and write invisibly And this What the Creatures were in substance before the Consecration they are still the same after it must be understood according to the outward appearances that is the accidents of the Bread and Wine Though they confess that then Bertram knew nothing of those accidents subsisting without a substance and many other things which this latter age hath added out of the Scriptures with as great truth as subtilty How much easier had it been at one stroke to blot out the whole Book And so make short work with it as the Spanish Inquisitors did in their Index expurgat Index expur Hisp D. Gasp Quirogae Card Inquis gener in fine Let the whole Epistle Ausburg be blotted out cencerning the single life of the Clergy
them Hereticks who for the future should deny that the Body and Bloud of Christ are truly contained in the Sacrament of the Altar under the outward form of Bread and Wine the Bread being Transubstantiated into the Body and the Wine into the Bloud delivers them all of what office or dignity soever to the Secular Power q Ibid. to receive condign punishment that is to be burnt commands those that are suspected to be tried and examined and declares them infamous disabled from making a Will and incapable of any Office or Inheritance that should favour or entertain them and sets all other Christians against them Then he ordains r Ibid. that the Secular Powers shall be compelled by Ecclesiastick Censures publickly to swear that they will defend This Faith and endeavour utterly to destroy all whom the Church of Rome should note for Hereticks But saith he if the temporal Prince doth neglect this let him be excommunicated And if he slights to give satisfaction within a year let the soveraign Pontif be certified of it that he may absolve his Subjects from their allegiance and expose his Territories to be taken and enjoyed without any contradiction by any Catholicks Romans that destroy the Hereticks c. that is those who do not believe Transubstantiation Thus Innocent the Third by Excommunications and by Arms Rebellions by Tortures and by burning alive was pleased to establish his new Article of Faith Transubstantiation and the Court of Rome rejected by many 22. And truly had he not used such means they themselves who did cleave to the Church of Rome would not have embraced this Doctrine For it did not find such acceptance but that many notwithstanding did now and then oppose it Nay not only Transubstantiation but even the Church or rather the Court Of Rome which if we believe Chancellour Å¿ Gers de Concil gener Gerson was at this time wholly brutish and carnal without almost any sense of the things of God was rejected by many as it is well known For certain it is that Transubstantiation being once established there was a foundation laid to many Superstitions and Errors which could neither be suffered nor approved by those that feared God And among the Subscribers to Transubstantiation there grew a thicket of thorny and monstrous questions wherewith the Schoolmen were so busie that it may with great truth be affirmed that then came to light a Divinity concerning the holy Sacrament and the Adoration of it which was not only very new but very strange also and never heard of among the Fathers There grew also out of the same stock Illusions and false Miracles deceitful Dreams feined Visions and such like unchristian devices about the Corporal Presence of Christ as that some did see a Child in the Host some Flesh some Bloud any thing that could come into the idle fancies of idle and superstitious men t Thom. Walsing in hypod neustr ad An. 1218. One at the point of death durst not receive the Body of Christ because he could keep nothing in but as he drew nigh to adore it his Breast bare and his Arms open the Host leaping out of the Priests hand having made it self a passage entred of its own accord into the place where the dying mans heart lay hid and the hole being made up again without any thing of a scar the man lay down and then expired Another u Discip de Temp. Serm. 80. being ready to die begged that his side being washt and covered with a clean cloath the Body of Christ might be set on it Which being done the cloath by degrees gave place to the Body of Christ and soon after when that divine Body toucht the mans skin it penetrated to his very heart in the sight of all the by standers They also tell the Story or rather the Fable How that the Body of Christ for so they call the Consecrated Bread being set in a Bushel upon some Oats an Horse an Oxe and an Ass bowed their knees and adored their Lord in the Host These and such like Fictions were dayly invented without number by the Patrons of Transubstantiation and the impudence and boldness of coyning such Forgeries hath from them past upon their Successors This was observed by King James in the Writings of x Car Bellarm Apol. q. 132. Bellarmine himself who reports of a certain devout Mare that worshipped the Host kneeling knowing doubtless that by a due Consecration it was Transubstantiated Cesarius the Monk who lived soon after Innocent the Third is full of such Miracles and yet he hath a History which shews that in his time Transubstantiation was utterly unknown to a learned Priest Canon of a great Church At Colen saith he there was a Canon in full Orders called Peter when on a certain day another of the Canons was sick and about to receive the Sacrament in his presence the officiating Priest asked the sick man Dost thou believe that this is the true Body of the Lord which was born of the Virgin He made answer I believe it Peter hearing and observing their words was amazed at them Afterwards he coming alone to Everhardus the Professor of Divinity who had been also present at the Communion he asked him Did the Priest question the sick man aright He answered yes and whoever believes otherwise is an y For so it was decreed by Innocent 3 Heretick Then Peter weeping and smiting his breast cried out Woe is me wretched Priest How have I hitherto said Mass For to this hour I thought that the Bread and Wine after the Consecration were only a Sacrament that is the sign and representation of the Lords Body and Bloud 23. I have already touched it that together with the new Doctrine of Transubstantiation there sprung up new Sects of Friers which indeed in a short time increased beyond belief For now to the Order of Dominicans whom Innocent the Third had made his Inquisitors to kill and burn z Meaning those that deny Transubstantiation Hereticks was added the Order of begging Franciscans and the Augustine Eremits and the Carmelites were set up again From these came the Schoolmen as we now call them whose studies as studies were in that time were all imployed about Commencing Peter Lombard Master of the Sentences 24. These men tired their brains as we said about unheard of questions touching Transubstantiation such as pious ears would abhor to hear Alen. Alens l. 4. q. 53. m. 4. â— 1. For they ask 1. Whether that be the Body of Christ which sometimes appears in the form of Flesh or of a Child on the Altar and answer that they know not because such Apparitions happen often and are caused either by mens juggling or by the operation the Devil 2. Idem q. 45. m. 1. a. 2. Whether the Mice who sometimes feast upon the Hosts when they are not well shut up eat the Body of Christ it self Or if a Dog or
and let the whole Book of Bertram the Priest about the Body and Bloud of the Lord be supprest What is this but as Arnobius said against the Heathen Arnob. l 3 to intercept publick Records and fear the Testimony of the Truth For as for that which Sixtus Senensis and Possevin affirm Sixt. Sen. praef in Bibl. Sanc. Possev Prol. in Appa Saâ— That that Book of the Body and Bloud of the Lord was writ by Oecolampadius under the name of Bertram it is so great an untruth that a greater cannot be found 36. We are now come to the tenth Century wherein besides those many Sentences of Catholick Fathers against Innovaters in what concerns the Body and Bloud of Christ Herig Ab. A. D. 9â—0 collected by Herigerus Abbas Lobiensis we have also an ancient Easter Homily in Saxon English Hom. Pasc Angl. Sax. A. D. 990. impressa Lond MS. in publ Cant. Acad. Bib. which then used to be read publickly in our Churches out of which we may gather what was then the Doctrine received amongst us touching this Point of Religion but chiefly out of that part wherein are shewn many differences betwixt the natural Body of Christ and the Consecrated Host For thus it teacheth the people There is a great difference betwixt that body wherein Christ suffered and that wherein the Host is consecrated That Body wherein Christ suffered was born of the Virgin Mary consisting of bloud and bones skin and nerves humane members and a rational soul But his spiritual body which we call the Host is made of many united grains of corn and hath neither bloud nor bones neither members nor soul Afterwards The Body of Christ which once died and rose again shall die no more but remains eternal and impassible but this Host is temporal and corruptible divided into parts broken with the teeth and swallowed down into the stomach Lastly this Mystery is a pledge and a figure The body of Christ is that very truth What is seen is bread but what is spiritually understood is life There is also another Sermon of Bishop Wulfinus to the Clergy bearing the title of a Synod of Priests wherein the same opinion and Doctrine is explained in this manner Homil. Sacerd Synod impr Lond. cum Homil. Paschali That Host is the Body of Christ not corporally but spiritually not that Body wherein he suffered but that Body whereof he spake when he consecrated the Bread and Wine into an Host Which to this day in the Church of England we hold to be a Catholick truth 37. And so hitherto we have produced the agreeing Testimonies of Ancient Fathers for a thousand years after Christ and have transcribed them more at large to make it appear to every one that is not blind that the true Apostolick Doctrine of this Mystery hath been universally maintained for so long by all men some few excepted who more than eight hundred years after Christ presumed to dispute against the ancient Orthodox Doctrine of the manner of Christs Presence and of his being received in the Sacrament though they durst not positively determine any thing against it Now what more concerns this Point we refer to the next Chapter lest this should be too long CHAP. VI. Shews more at large that the Doctrine and Practice of the Primitive Church is inconsistent with Transubstantiation and Answers the Romish Objections vainly alleadged out of Antiquity Authors left out in the foregoing Chapter 1. MAny more Proofs out of Ancient Records might have been added to those we have hitherto brought for a thousand years but we desiring to be brief have omitted them in each Century As in the First After the holy Scriptures the Works of a Constit Ap. l. 6. c. 23. 29. Clemens 4Romanus commended by the Papists themselves and those of b Epist ad Philadel St. Ignatius Bishop of Antioch and Martyr are much against Transubstantiation In the Second likewise c Ad Aulol l. 2. St. Theophilus fourth Bishop of Antioch after Ignatius d Athenag legat pro Christ Athenagoras and e In Diatâ—es Tatianus Scholars to Justin Martyr In the Third f De Stro l. 1. de paedag l. 2. Clemens Alexandrinus Tutor to Origen and g In Octavio Minutius Felix a Christian Orator In the Fourth h De Dem. Evan. l. 1. c. 10. l. 8. c. 2. Eusebius Bishop of Cesarea i Juv. de Hist Evang l. 4. Juvencus a Spanish Priest k Mac. Hom. 37. Macarius Egyptius l In Mat. de Syn. St. Hilary Bishop of Poictiers m Contra Parm. l. 3. Optatus Bishop of Milevis n Hom. de Corp. Chr. Eusebius Emissenus o Orat. fun Gorg. Gregorius Nazianzenus p In Joh. l. 4. c. 14. Cyrillus Alexandrinus q In Ancorato Epiphanius Salaminensis r Contra Jovin in Jer. 31. in Mat. 26. St. Hierom Å¿ Epist Pasch 2. Theophilus Alexandrinus and t Gaud. in Exod 2. Gaudentius Bishop of Brixia In the Fifth u In Epist St Paul Sedulius a Scotch Priest x De Dogm Eccl. c. 25. Gennadius Massiliensis and y Homil. â— in Epiph. Faustus Bishop of Regium In the Sixth z De fide cap 16. Epist ad Ferrand Fulgentius Africanus a Com. in Mark 14. Victor Antiochenus b In Epist ad Cor. Primasius Bishop and c In Gen. â—9 Procopius Gazeus In the Seventh d In Levit. 1.6 Hesychius Priest in Jerusalem and e In Hierarch Dion Maximus Abbot of Constantinople In the Eighth f De fide Orthod Johannes Damascenus In the Ninth g De Cherub c. 6. Nicephorus the Patriarch and h In vita S. Remig. Hincmarus Archbishop of Rhemes Lastly in the Tenth i Epist ad Adeodat Fulbert Bishop of Chartres And to compleat all to these single Fathers we may add whole Councils of them as that of k An. 314. Can. 2. Ancyra of l A. codem Can. 13. Neocesarea and besides the first of m In Act. l. 2. Can. 30. Nice which I have mentioned that of n A. 364. Can. 25. Laodicea of o A. 397. Can. 24. Carthage of p A. 541. Can. 4. Orleans the fourth of q A. 633. Can. 17. Toledo that of r A. 675. Can. 2. Bracara the sixteenth of Å¿ A. 693. Can. 6. Toledo and that of t A. 691. Can. 32. Constantinople in Trullo Out of all these appears most certain that the infection of the Doctrine of Transubstantiation was not yet spread over the Christian world but that the sound Doctrine of the Body and Bloud of Christ and of their true yet spiritual not carnal Presence in the Eucharist with the Elements still the same in substance after Consecration was every where owned and maintained And though the Fathers used both ways of speaking that is that the Bread and Wine are the true