about this Mystery both according to the Old and New Testament that no doubting may disturb you concerning this Life-giving Banquet The Sermon goes on with an account of the Jewish Passover and the Application of those things to the Eucharist which I omit Christ before his suffering consecrated Bread P. 469. and distributed it to his Disciples saying thus Eat this Bread it is my Body and do this in remembrance of me Also he Consecrated Wine in a Cup and said Drink ye all of this This is my Blood which is shed for many for the Remission of Sins The Apostles did as Christ commanded they consecrated Bread and Wine for the Eucharist And to his memory also afterward every one of their Successors and all Christ's Priests According to Christ's Command by the Apostolical Benediction did consecrate Bread and Wine in his Name Now Men have often disputed P. 470. and do it still How that Bread which is prepared of Corn and is baked by the heat of Fire can be changed into Christ's Body and how that Wine which is pressed out of many Grapes by any blessing of it can be changed into our Lord's Blood Now to such Men I answer that some things are spoken of Christ by signification some others by a known thing It is a true thing and known that Christ was born of a Virgin and voluntarily suffered Death and was buried and this Day rose from the Dead He is called Bread and a Lamb and a Lion and otherwise by signification He is called Bread because he is our Life and the Life of Angels He is called a Lamb for his Innocency A Lion for his Strength whereby he overcame the strong Devil Yet notwithstanding according to true Nature Christ is neither Bread nor a Lamb nor a Lion. Wherefore then is that Holy Eucharist called Christ's Body or his Blood if it be not truly what it is called Truly the Bread and Wine which are consecrated by the Mass of the Priests show one thing outwardly to Mens Senses and another thing they declare inwardly to believing Minds Outwardly Bread and Wine are seen both in appearance and in tast yet they are truly after Consecration Christ's Body and Blood by a Spiritual Sacrament An Heathen Child is Baptized yet he altereth not his outward shape though he be changed within He is brought to the Font full of Sin through Adam's Disobedience but he is washed from all his Sins inwardly tho' he has not changed his outward Shape So also that Holy Font-Water which is called the Well-spring of Life is like in Nature in specie to other Waters and is subject to corruption but the Power of the Holy Ghost by the Priest's Blessing comes upon that corruptible Water and after that it can wash both Body and Soul from all Sins P. 471. by spiritual Power We see now in this one Creature two things that whereby according to true Nature it is corruptible Water and that whereby according to the Spiritual Mystery it has a saving Power So also if we look upon that Holy Eucharist according to a corporeal Sense then we see that it is a Creature corruptible and changeable but if we own a spiritual Power there then we understand that Life is in it and that it confers Immortality on those that tast it by Faith. There is a great difference betwixt the insible Vertue and Power of this Holy Eucharist and the visible appearance of its proper Nature By its Nature it is corruptible Bread and corruptible Wine and by the Virtue of the Divine Word it is truly the Body and Blood of Christ yet not corporally so but spiritually There is much differencce betwixt that Body which Christ suffer'd in and that Body which is consecrated for the Eucharist The Body that Chrivt suffer'd in was Born of the Flesh of Mary with Blood and Bones with Skin and Nerves animated by a rational Spirit in humane Members but his Spiritual Body which we call the Eucharist is collected from many grains of Corn without Blood and Bone without Member or Soul wherefore there is nothing in it to be understood Corporeally but all is to be understood Spiritually Whatsoever is in that Eucharist which restores Life to us this is from Spiritual Virtue and from Invisible Operation Therefore that Holy Eucharist is called a Sacrament because one thing is there seen and another thing understood that which is there seen has a bodily Nature that which we understand in it has a spiritual Virtue The Body of Christ that suffered Death P. 472. and rose from the Dead henceforth dies no more but is eternal and impassible That Eucharist is Temporary not Eternal it is corruptible and capable of division into minute Parts it is chewed with the Teeth and sent into the draught yet it will be true that according to spiritual Virtue it is whole in every part Many receive that Holy Body yet according to the spiritual Mystery it will be whole in every part Tho' some receive a lesser part of it yet there will not be more virtue in the greater part than in the lesser because it will be whole in all Men according to the invisible virtue This Sacrament is a Pledg and a Type the Body of Christ is the Truth We keep this Pledg Sacramentally till we come to the Truth it self and then is the Pledg at an end It is indeed as we said before Christ's Body and his Blood but not Corporally but Spiritually Do not dispute how this can be effected but believe it firmly that so it is Here follow some idle Visions which that credulous Age were fond of but are nothing to the purpose and therefore I omit them Paul the Apostle speaketh of the old Israelites writing thus in his Epistle to the Faithful P. 473. All our Fore-fathers were baptized in the Cloud and in the Sea and all ate the same spiritual Meat and all drank the same spiritual Drink for they drank of that spiritual Rock and that Rock was Christ That Rock from whence the Water then flowed was not Christ in a Corporal Sense but it signified Christ who declared thus to the Faithful Whosoever thirsteth let him come to me and drink and from his belly shall flow living Water This he said of the Holy Ghost which they that Believed on him should receive The Apostle Paul said that the People of Israel ate the same spiritual Meat and drank the same Spiritual Drink because the heavenly Food that fed them for forty Years and that Water that flowed from the Rock signified Christ's Body and Blood which are now dayly offered in the Church of God. It was the same which we offer to day not corporally but spiritually We told you before that Christ consecrated Bread and Wine for the Eucharist before his Passion and said This is my Body and my Blood he had not yet suffered and yet he changed by his invisible Power that Bread into his Body and
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
be in truth spiritually eaten and spiritually drunk Where he makes this to be eating in Truth and the other but Sacramental So Macarius (k) Homil. 27. having called the Bread and Wine the Antitype of Christ's Flesh and Blood he adds 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 They which are Partakers of the visible Bread do spiritually eat the Flesh of the Lord. He should rather have said orally according to the Doctrine of our Adversaries S. Athanasius (l) Tract in illud Evang. Quicunque dixerit verbum contra filium hominis expounding those words What if ye see the Son of Man ascending where be was before It is the Spirit that quickneth the Flesh profiteth nothing c. adds 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He affirmed both of himself the Flesh and Spirit and made a difference betwixt the Spirit and the Flesh that not only believing that of him which was visible but what was invisible they might learn that those things which he spake were not carnal but spiritual 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For to how many could his Body have sufficed for Meat that it should be made the Food of the whole World But therefore he mentions the Son of Man's Ascension into Heaven that he might draw them from this corporal Conceit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and hereafter might learn that the Flesh he spake of was celestial Meat from above and spiritual Nourishment to be given by him c. It will suffice all the World if we follow Tertullian's (m) De Resurr c. 37. Quia sermo caro erat factus proinde in causam vitae appetendus devorandus auditu ruminandus intellectu fide digerendus Advice Since the Word was made Flesh he is to be long'd for that we may live to be devoured by Hearing to be chewed by Understanding and digested by Faith. It is an excellent Comment on this which Euebius gives us (n) Lib. 3. Eccl. Theol. c. 12. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 upon those words of John 6. The Flesh profits nothing c. Do not imagine that I speak of that Flesh I am encompassed withal as if you must eat that nor think that I command you to drink sensible and corporeal Blood But know that the very Words that I have spoken to you are Spirit and Life So that these very Words and Speeches of his are his Flesh and Blood whereof whoso is always Partaker being nourished as it were with beavenly Bread shall be a Partaker of heavenly Life Let not the hasty hearing of those things by me 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of Flesh and Blood trouble you for things senfibly heard profit nothing but it is the Spirit that quickneth them that can spiritually hear them S. Basil (o) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 says the same There is an intellectual Mouth of the inward Man whereby he is nourished who receives the Word of Life which is the Bread that descended from Heaven Facundus Hermian (p) Lib. 12. Defens 3. capit c. 1. takes this of eating Christ's Flesh to be a Mystery and that S. Peter when he answered Lord whither should we go thou hast the Words of Eternal Life did not then understnad it For says he Quod si mysterium intellexisset hoc potius diceret Domine cur abeamus non est cum credamus nos corporis sanguinis tui fide salvandos if he had understood the Mystery he should rather have said Lord there is no reason we should go away fince we believe we shall be saved by Faith in thy Body and Blood. He means his Death and Passion which is his Sense of eating Christ's Body and Blood. Theodorus Heracleot (q) Catena in Joan. 6.54 55. refers this eating Christ's Flesh to the sincere embracing the Oeconomy of his Incarnation These says he 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 upon the reasoning of their Minds by assenting to it as it were tasting the Doctrine do rationally or spiritually eat his Flesh and by Faith partake of his Blood. S. Chrysostom (r) Hom. 46. in Joan. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. upon those words It is the Spirit that quickneth the Flesh profiteth nothing reckons up some of those carnal Doubts that profit nothing as It is a carnal thing says he to doubt how Christ descended from Heaven and to imagine him to be the Son of Joseph and how he can give us his Flesh to eat All these are carnal which ought to be mystically and spiritually understood Cyril of Jerusalem (s) Catech. Mystag 4. says That the Jews for want of understanding spiritually Christ's words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 imagined that Christ exhorted them to devour his Flesh which is hard to be distinguish'd from the Roman Churches Oral Manducation This carnal Fancy might well make them shrink and cry out This is a hard Saying who can hear it For as S. Austin (t) Cont. advers Legis l. 2. c. 9. Horribilius videatur humanam carnem manducare quam perimere humanum sanguinem potare quam fundere well observes It seems more horrible to eat Humane Flesh than to kill it and to drink Mans Blood than to shed it Origen's (u) Prolog in Cantic Est materialis hujus hominis qui exterior appellatur cibus potusque naturae suae cognatus corporeus iste sc terrenus Similiter autem spiritualis hominis ipsius qui interior dicitur est proprius cibus ut panis ille vivus qui de caelo descendit c. Rerum vero proprietas unicuique discreta servatur corruptibili corruptibilia praebentur incorruptibili verò incorruptibilia proponuntur words for I see no good reason to question they are his are enough to convince effectually all such carnal Jews and Christians There is a Meat and Drink for this material and outward Man as we call him agreeable to his Nature viz. this corporeal and earthly Food There is likewise a proper Food for the spiritual or as we call it inward Man as that living Bread that came down from Heaven c. But the Property of things is reserved to each distinct and corruptible things are given to that which is corruptible and incorruptible things are proposed to that which is incorruptible Greg. Nyssen (x) Hom. 1. in Cantie 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. also well expresses it thus There is an Analogy betwixt the Motions and Operations of the Soul and the Senses of the Body c. Wine and Milk are judged of by the Taste 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but these being intellectual the Power of the Soul that apprehends them must be altogether intellectual S. Chrysostom (y) Homil. 26. in Matth. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 said well That Christ gave himself to us for a spiritual Feast and Banquet And Procopius Gazaeus (z) Comment in Exod. Coelestis seu divinus Agnus animarum solet esse cibus
purpose but I shall evidently prove that they do not understand this Change and Conversion in the Sense of Transubstantiation To give some Order to their Testimonies I shall not cite them in a heap but as Proofs of several Assertions of theirs which overthrow the Change by Transubstantiation 1 Assertion The Fathers make a difference betwixt the Change or Conversion of a Thing and its Abolition When they affirm the one they at the same time deny the other But Transubstantiation supposes the Elements as to the Matter and Substance of them to perish and to be destroyed when they are said to be changed You cannot well imagine that the Fathers if they thought of Miracles wrought in the Sacrament yet should ever dream of any such as had no agreement with all the Miracles that God ever wrought before They well knew and our Adversaries do not deny it that in all other Supernatural Changes there was only the introducing of a new Form the Materia substrata the common Matter remaining So it was when Moses's Rod was turned into a Serpent when the Waters were turned into Blood Lot's Wife into a Pillar of Salt the Wine in Cana of Galilee changed into Water in all these neither the old Matter was lost nor new Matter created The Fathers therefore laugh at any such Change where the Things changed utterly perish Tertullian (n) De Resurrect Carn c. 55. Quasi demutari sit in totum de pristino perire charges it as a great Absurdity against the Marcionites that according to them To be changed was to perish whelly and as to what they were before He has many smart Sayings against them for denying the same Bodies to appear and rise at the Resurrection and urges that of 1 Cor. 15. shewing that there will be a Change not a Destruction of our Flesh For says he Aliud est demutatio aliud perditio Peribit autem demutata si non ipsa permanserit in demutatione quae exhibita fuerit in resurrectione A Change is one thing and Destruction is another But it will perish in the Change if that Flesh do not remain in the Change which shall be exhibited at the Resurrection As therefore that which is destreyed Quomodò ergo quod perditum est mutatum non est ita quod mutatum est perditum non est Perisse enim est in totum non esse quod fuerit mutatum esse aliter esse est Sed porrò dum aliter est id ipsum potest esse habet enim esse quod non perit mutationem enim passum est non perditionem is not changed so that which is changed is not destroyed For to perish is wholly not to be what it had been but to be changed is to be otherwise than it was Moreover by being otherwise the thing may still be for it has a Being which perishes not for it only suffered a Change not a Destruction Gelasius (o) De duabus Naturis also disputing against the Eutychians who thought that the Humanity was converted into the Divinity so that nothing of the other remained just as with them the Bread is converted into Christ's Body Nec videatur glorificata nostra conditio unione Deitatis sed potius esse consumpta si non eadem subsistit in gloria sed solâ existente Deitate humanitas illic esse jam destitit c. nothing of its Substance remaining says thus Neither do's our Condition by the Union of the Deity seem to be glorified but rather to be consumed if it do's not subsist the same in Glory but the Deity existing alone the Humanity now ceases to be there c. By this way Per hoc non sublimata sed abolita potius invenitur it will not be found to be sublimated but abolish'd The thing is so clear against Transubstantiation that Scotus (p) In 4. dist 11. art 1. sec ad propositum Dico proprie loquendo quod transubstantiatio non est mutatio confesses it I say properly speaking That Transubstantiation is not a Change. 2 Assertion When the Fathers speak of converting a thing into another thing that was before they suppose an Accession and an Augmentation made to that into which the Conversion is made Just as it is in Nourishment of our Bodies the Food converted into them makes an Increase of them Cyril of Alexandr (q) Epist 1. ad Succensum arguing against those Hereticks who thought the glorified Body of Christ was converted into his Divinity he says Thus we derogate from the Divinity 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as if it were made and as receiving something into it self which is not proper to its Nature And he makes this Conversion to be impossible upon this account Gelasius (r) De duabus Naturis Accesserit accreveritque Deitati uses the same Phrases of Accession and Increase to the Deity and that by the transfusion of the Humanity added to it transfusione humanitatis adjectae velut aucta videatur the Divinity would seem to be increased Thus the later Greeks thought it was in Christ's Body into which the Bread was changed Damascen (s) Epist ad Zachariam in Hom. de Corp. Sang. Domini speaking of the Body of Christ which we partake of I declare says he it cannot be said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 there are two Bodies of Jesus Christ there being but one alone For as the Child as soon as it is born is compleat but receives his growth from eating and drinking and tho' he grows thereby yet cannot be said to have two Bodies but only one so by greater reason the Bread and Wine by the Descent of the Holy Spirit are made one only Body and not two by the Augmentation of the Body of Christ Theophylact (t) In cap. 6. Joan. expresses it thus The Bread is changed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 into the Flesh of Christ by the ineffable Words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the mystical Benediction and coming of the Holy Spirit upon it No Man ought to be troubled in being obliged to believe that Bread becomes Flesh For when our Lord was conversant in Flesh and received his Nourishment from Bread this Bread he did eat was changed into his Body being made like to his holy Flesh 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and contributed to augment and sustain it after a humane manner And thus now is the Bread changed into our Lord's Flesh See more Testimonies of the following Greeks in Monsieur Claude's Catholick Doctrine of the Eucharist in answer to Monsieur Arnaud Lib. 3. cap. 13. pag. 228 229. in Fol. 3 Assertion and the most remarkable is this The Fathers use the same Terms of passing into being changed converted becoming another thing c. in other Cases besides the Eucharist wherein all agree there is no Change of Substances made Therefore there is no Argument can be drawn from such
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.
enim non debet esse in causa negandi veritatem If by reason of any Disease the Species should descend into the Draught he means the Body also it self would descend and be sent forth For Shame ought not to be a Reason for denying the Truth To which S. Antoninus (y) Part. 3. tit 13. cap. 6. sect 3. Igitur corpus Christi sanguis tamdiu manet in ventre stomacho vel vomitu quocunque alibi quamdiu species manent sicut substantia conversa mansisset Et si species incorruptae evomuntur vel egrediuntur est ibi vere corpus Christi agrees citing Paludanus in the case Therefore the Body and Blood of Christ remains so long in the Belly and Stomach or Vomit or any where else as the Species remain just as the converted Substance viz. Bread and Wine would have remained And if the Species are vomited up whole or go forth downwards there is truly the Body of Christ. And he tells us of S. Hugo Cluniac how he commended one Goderanus who by a strange fervor swallowed down the Particles of an Host which a Leper had vomited up with vile Spittle saying That S. Laurence his Gridiron was more tolerable If these Consequences seem horrid and detestable to the Reader the Doctrine from which they necessarily flow ought to be look'd upon much more so But now to return to the Fathers and their Sense of Eating the Body of Christ. It is evident to any that will impartially consult their Writings that they were perfect Strangers to all these Cases that are thus currently resolved in the Roman Church That Christ's Natural Body should enter into ours is too gross and carnal a Thought to be attributed to them and fits only the Imaginations of a Carnal Church and of those Capernaites who in the Sixth of S. John ask How can this Man give us his Flesh to eat Christ tells them That the Words he spoke to them were Spirit and Life And so the Fathers always understood the eating of Christ's Body and drinking his Blood not in a literal and proper but in a figurative and spiritual Sense as I shall now prove from their Writings Wherein it may not be amiss to take notice first What their Sense is about understanding things carnally and spiritually S. Chrysostome (z) Hom. 46. in Joan. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 asking this Question What is it to think or understand carnally He answers Simply to look upon the things proposed and to think of no more But we ought to view all Mysteries with our inward Eyes for this is spiritually to view them S. Austin (a) De Doctr. Christ l. 3. c. 5. Cùm figuratè dictum sic accipitur tanquam proprie dictum sit carnaliter sapitur gives the same account We have a carnal Taste when we take that which is figuratively spoken as if it were properly spoken And elsewhere (b) Serm. 44. de diversis Omnis figurata allegorica lectio vellocutio aliud videtur sonare carnaliter aliud insinuare spiritualiter Every figurative and allegorical Reading or Speech seems to sound one thing carnally and to insinuate another thing spiritually S. Austin (c) De Doctr. Christ l. 3. c. 16. Si praecepriva est locutio aut flagitium aut facinus yetans aut beneficentiam jubens non est figurata Si autem flagitium aut facinus videtur jubere aut utilitatem aut beneficentiam vetare figurata est Nisi manducaveritis carnem filii hominis c. facinus vel flagitium videtur jubere Figura ergo est praecipiens passioni Domini esse communicandum suaviter atque utiliter in memoria condendum quod caro ejus pronobis crucifixa vulnerata est further gives a Rule when to understand a thing literally and when to understand it figuratively and spiritually If the Speech be by way of command either forbidding a Crime or heinous Wickedness or bidding a beneficial or good thing to be done it is not figurative But if it seems to command a Crime or heinous Wickedness or forbid an useful and beneficial thing it is figurative And then he gives the Example of his Rule in those words of Christ Except ye eat the Flesh and drink the Blood of the Son of Man ye have no Life in you Now this says he seems to command a Crime or horrid thing therefore it is a Figure commanding us to communicate in the Passion of our Lord and sweetly and profitably to treasure up in our Memory that his Flesh was crucified and wounded for us Origen said the very same before him (d) Hom. 7. in Levitic non solùm in Veteri Testamento occidens Litera deprehenditur est in N. Testamento Litera quae occidit cum qui non spiritualiter quae dicuntur adverterit Si enim secundùm literam sequaris hoc ipsum quod dictum est Nisi manducaveritis carnem meam biberitis sanguinem meum occidit haec litera and gives the same Instance Not only in the Old Testament is found the killing Letter there is also in the New Testament a Letter that kills him who do's not spiritually consider what is said For if thou follow this according to the Letter which was said Unless ye eat my Flesh and drink my Blood this Letter kills And in another place (e) In Joan. Tom. 10. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 We are not to eat the Flesh of the Lamb as the Slaves of the Letter do c. To which he opposes those who receive the Spirituals of the Word Such as those whom S. Austin mentions (f) In Joan. tract 26. Quia visibilem cibum spiritaliter intellexerunt spiritaliter esurierunt spiritaliter gustaverunt ut spiritaliter satiarentur who pleased God and died not i. e. eternally Because they understood the visible Food Manna spiritually they hungred spiritually they tasted spiritually that they might spiritually be satisfied Or as he expresses it a little after (g) Ibid. Qui manducat intus non foris qui manducat in corde non qui premit dente He that eats inwardly not outwardly that eats in his Heart not he that presseth it with his Teeth And therefore elsewhere * Serm. 33. de Verb. Dom. Nolite parare fauces sed cor exhorts them Do not prepare your Jaws but your Heart This is what Clemens Alexandr (h) Strom. l. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 requires when he says That Christ when he broke the Bread set it before them that we may eat it rationally i. e. spiritually So S. Austin again (i) De Verb. Apost Serm. 2. Tunc vita unicuique erit corpus sanguis Christi si quod in sacramento visibiliter sumitur in ipsa veritate spiritualiter manducetur spiritualiter bibatur The Body and Blood of Christ will then be Life to every one if what is visibly taken in the Sacrament
as proper to propose the Example of the Jews themselves to the Romanists to provoke their Emulation whom they may see better explaining as blind as they are Christ's words of Institution and agreeing better with the Ancient Church in the matter of the Eucharist than themselves and raising such Arguments and Objections against the Transubstantiating Doctrine as can never to any purpose be answered The Instances of this are very remarkable in a Book called Fortalitium Fidei contra Judeos c. printed An. 1494. but written as the Author himself tells us fol. 61. in the Year 1458. where he gives us the Arguments of a Jew against Transubstantiation some of which I shall out of him faithfully translate The Jew (g) Vid. l. 3. consid 6. sol 130 impossibl 10. begins with Christ's words of Institution and shows that they cannot be interpreted otherwise than figuratively and significatively as the Fathers we have heard have asserted 1. Vos Christiani dicitis c. Ye Christians say in that Sacrament of the Eucharist there is really the Body and Blood of Christ This is impossible Because when your Christ showing the Bread said This is my Body he spake significatively and not really as if he had said this is the Sign or Figure of my Body After which way of speaking Paul said 1 Cor. 10. The Rock was Christ that is a Figure of Christ And it appears evidently that this was the Intention of your Christ because when he had discoursed about the eating his Body and drinking his Blood to lay the offence that rose upon it among the Disciples he says as it were expounding himself The words that I have spoken to you are Spirit and Life denoting that what he had said was to be understood not according to the Letter but according to the Spiritual Sence And when Christ said This is my Body holding Bread in his Hands he meant that that Bread was his Body in potentia propinqua in a near possibility viz. after he had eaten it for then it would be turned into his Body or into his Flesh and so likewise the Wine And after this manner we Jews do on the day of Unleavened Bread for we take unleavened Bread in memory of that time when our Fathers were brought out of the Land of Egypt and were not permitted to stay so long there as whilst the Bread might be leavened that was the Bread of the Passover and we say This is the Bread which our Fathers ate though that be not present since it is past and gone and so this unleavened Bread minds us of the Bread of Egypt and this Bread is not that so is that Bread of which the Sacrifice of the Altar is made It is sufficient for Christians to say that it is in memory of that Bread of Christ though this Bread be not that And because it was impossible that one Bit of his Flesh should be preserved in memory of him he commanded that that Bread should be made and that Wine which was his Flesh and Blood in the next remove to come into act as we Jews do and Christ borrowed his Phrases and the Elements from their Supper at the Passover with the unleavened Bread as we said before When therefore your Christ at the Table took Bread and the Cup and gave them to his Disciples he did not bid them believe that the Bread and Wine were turned into his Body and Blood but that as often as they did that they should do it in remembrance of him viz. in memory of that past Bread and if you Christians did understand it so no impossibility would follow but to say the contrary as you assert is to say an impossible thing and against the intention of your Christ as we have show'd This is what the Jew urges with great reason But the Catholick Author makes a poor Answer to it and has nothing to say in effect but this That the Tradition of the Catholick Church concerning this Sacrament is true viz. That in this Sacrament there is really and not by way of Signification the True Body and True Blood of Christ 2. Whereas the Roman Church flies to Miracles in this case of Transubstantiation the Jew encounters that next of all thus You Christians say that the Body and Blood of Christ is in the Sacrament of the Altar by a Miracle Ibid. 11. Impossib p. 131. this I prove to be impossible Because if there were any Miracle in the case it would appear to the Eye as when Moses turned the Rod into a Serpent that was performed evidently to the Eye though Men knew not how it was done So also in the case of the Ark of the Covenant of Old mighty Miracles were wrought and those not only sensible Miracles but also publick and apparent to all the People insomuch that Infidels were terrifyed at the very report of such Miracles Men seeing before their Eyes the Divine Power brightly shining in Reverence of the Ark of his Covenant as appears in his Dividing the Waters of Jordan while the People of Israel passed over dry-shod the Waters on one side swelling like a Mountain and on the other flowing down as far as the dead Sea till the Priests with the Ark went over the Chanel of Jordan and then Jordan returned to its wonted course But the Kings of the Amorites and Canaanites hearing of so great and publick a Miracle were so confounded with the terror of God that no Spirit remained in them Josu c. 4. 5. and so I might instance in many other Evident Miracles which to avoid tediousness I omit And yet in that Ark neither God nor Christ was really contained but only the Tables of Stone containing the Precepts of the Decalogue and the Pot of Manna c. Exod. 16. and the Rod of Aaron that flourished in the House of Levi Numb 17. If therefore by the Ark that carried only the foresaid Bodies that were inanimate how sacred soever they were God wrought in Honour of it such evident far-spreading and publick Miracles how much more powerfully should they have been wrought by him if it were true that in your Sacrament of the Altar the true God or Christ were really contained whom you affirm that he ought to be worshipped and venerated infinitely above all Since therefore no such thing do's appear there to the Eye it follows that it is impossible for any Miracle to be done there since this is against the Nature of a Miracle The answer to this is so weak and so the rest are generally such an unintelligible School-jargon that I shall not tire the Reader with them But shall go on with the Jew 3. Ibid. 12. Impossib fol. 132. You Christians do assert that the true Body of Christ begins to be on the Altar This seems to be impossible For a thing begins to be where it was not before two ways Either by Local Motion or by the conversion of another thing into it as appears