given together with the Water And a litle after Being says he about to descend into the Water do not attend to the simpleness of the Water And yet for all this he never intended to deny it to be true Water Gelasius Cyzic (o) Diatypos c. 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 We are not to consider our Baptism with sensitive but with Intellectual Eyes Or as S. Austin says (p) Serm. 2. in Append. Sermon 40. à Sirmondo Editor Non debetis aquas illas oculis aestimare sed mente You ought not to make an Estimate of those Waters with your Eyes but with your Mind Thus also S. Ambrose (q) De his qui initiantur c. 3. Quod vidisti aquas utique sed non solas Levitas illic ministrantes summum Sacerdotem interrogantem consecrantem Primo omnium docuit te Apostolus non ea contemplanda nobis quae videntur sed quae non videntur c. Non ergo solis corporis tui oculis credas Magis videtur quod non videtur quia istud temporale illud aeternum aspicitur quod oculis non comprehenditur animo autem mente cernitur speaking of Baptism As to what thou hast seen to wit the Waters and not those alone but Levites there ministring and the Bishop asking Questions and Consecrating First of all the Apostle has taught thee That we are not to look upon the things that are seen but on the things that are not seen c. Do not therefore only believe thy bodily Eyes That is rather seen which is not seen because that is Temporal this is Eternal which is not comprehended by our Eyes but is seen by our Mind and Understanding S. Chrysostom (r) In Joan. Hom. 24. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 speaking also of Baptism thus breaks out Let us believe God's Affirmation for this is more faithful than our Sight for our Sight often is deceived that is impossible to fall to the Ground It is so frequent an Expression of S. Chrysostome That God's Word is more to be credited than our Eyes that he applies it not only to the Sacraments but even to the Case of Alms giving For thus he says (s) Hom. 89. in Matth. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Let us be so affected when we give Alms to the Poor as if we gave them to Christ himself For his Words are more sure than our Sight Therefore when thou seest a poor Man remember the Words whereby Christ signified that he himself is fed For tho' what is seen is not Christ yet under this shape he receives thy Alms and asks it Ans 3. The Fathers in the matter of Signs and Sacraments therefore call upon us not to listen to our Senses and credit them because in such Cases they would have us to consider things beyond and above their information such as relate to their Use and Efficacy these being spiritual things signified by what is visible wherein they place the Mystery and which Sense can neither discover nor judge of S. Austin has a Rule (t) De Doctr. Christ l. 2. c. 1. De signis disserens hoc dico ne quis in eis attendat quod sunt sed potius quod signa sunt id est quod significant Signum est enim res praeter speciem quam ingerit sensibus aliud aliquid ex se faciens in cogitationem venire in this Case I say this treating of Signs in which none ought to attend to what they are but rather that they are Signs that is that they signifie For a Sign is a thing which besides what appears affecting the Senses do's of it self make somewhat else to come into our thoughts So also Origen (u) In Joan. tom 18. ad finem 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 describes a Sign to be a Note of another thing besides that which the Sense gives testimony to But none has so fully declared this Matter and answered the former Objection as S. Chrysostome in the place forecited whose Words deserve to be set down at large (x) In 1 Cor. Hom. 7. Edit Savil. Tom. 3. p. 280. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Where treating of Baptism the Eucharist and other Mysteries after he has told us as we heard before what a Mystery is viz. When we do not meerly believe what we see but see one thing and believe another he goes on thus I and an Infidel are diversly affected with them I hear that Christ was crucified I presently admire his Benignity He hears the same and he counts it Infirmity I hear that he was made a Servant and I admire his Care He when he hears the same counts it Infamy And so he goes on with his Death and Resurrection and the different Judgment is made of them and proceeds to speak of the Sacraments 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. The Infidel hearing of the Laver of Baptism esteems it simply Water but I do not look meerly upon what I see but regard the cleansing of the Soul by the Spirit He thinks that my Body only is washed but I believe that my Soul is made clean and holy I reckon the Burial Resurrection Sanctification Righteousness Redemption Adoption of Sons the Inheritance the Kingdom of Heaven the Supply of the Spirit For I do not judge of the things that appear by my Sight 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but by the Eyes of my Mind I hear of the Body of Christ I understand what is said one way an Infidel another Which he further illustrates admirably thus As Children looking upon Books know not the Power of Letters understand not what they look upon nay even to a grown Man that is unlearned it will be the same when a Man of Skill will find out much hidden Virtue Lives and Histories contained therein And if one of no skill receive a Letter he will judge it only to be Paper and Ink but he that has Skill hears an absent Person speak 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and discourses with him and speaks what he pleases to him again by his Letters Just thus it is in a Mystery Unbelievers hearing seem not to hear but the Believers being taught Skill by the Spirit perceive the Power of the hidden things This Discourse of S. Chrysostome's explains a Place of S. Cyril of Jerusalem (y) Catech. 4. Mystag 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. and teaches us how to understand it where speaking of the Eucharist he says Do not consider it as bare Bread and Wine for it is the Body and Blood of Christ according to our Lord's Affirmation And altho Sense suggests this to thee let Faith confirm thee Do not judge of the Matter by thy Taste but by Faith be undoubtedly persuaded that thou art honoured with the Body and Blood of Christ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And afterwards Being fully persuaded that the visible Bread is not Bread tho' the Taste perceive it such but the Body of Christ and the visible Wine is
can never be agreeable to the Prayer Therefore the most Ancient of all the spurious Liturgies I mean that attributed to Clemens in his Constitutions (r) Lib. 8. c. 12. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. has given us the true sense of it We offer to thee this Bread and this Cup and we beseech thee to look favourably upon these Gifts set before thee O God who standest in need of nothing and be well pleased with them for the honour of thy Christ c. Would it not run finely to pray that God would be well pleased with Christ for the honour of his Christ But besides the Petition that God would look propitiously upon them it follows in the Canon That God would accept them as he did the Gifts of Abel and Abraham and Melchisedeck How unagreeable is this if Christ himself be understood here to make the Comparison for acceptance betwixt a Lamb and a Calf or Bread and Wine and Christ the Son of God with whom he was always highly pleased But then what follows still entangles Matters more in the Church of Rome's Sense The Prayer That God would command these things to be carried by the hands of his Holy Angel to the High Altar above For how can the Body of Christ be carried by Angels to Heaven which never left it since his Ascension but is always there Besides the High Altar above in the Sense of the Ancients is Christ himself And Remigius of Auxerre tells us (s) De celebrat Missae in Bibl. Pat. 2dae Edit Tom. 6. p. 1164. In Coelo rapitur ministerio Angelorum consociandum corpori Christi That S. Gregory's Opinion of the Sacrament was That it was snatched into Heaven by Angels to be joined to the Body of Christ there But then in the sense of Transubstantiation what absurd stuff is here to pray that Christ's Body may be joined to his own Body So that there can be no sense in the Prayer but ours to understand it of the Elements offered devoutly first at this Altar below which by being blessed become Christ's Representative Body and obtain acceptance above through his Intercession there And thus it is fully explained by the Author of the Constitutions (t) Lib. 8. c. 13. in initio 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Let us entreat God through his Christ for the Gift offered to the Lord God that the good God by the mediation of his Christ would receive it to his Coelestial Altar for a sweet smelling Savour To put the Matter further out of all doubt it is observable that the Liturgies that go under the name of S. James and S. Mark do both of them mention the acceptance of the Gifts of Abel and Abraham and the admitting them to the Celestial Altar before the reciting the words of the Institution or Consecration as the Roman Church calls them by which they say the Change is made That the Liturgy of S. Chrysostom prays That God would receive the Oblations proposed to his Supercelestial Altar almost in the same words both before and after Consecration and that he look'd upon them to be the same in substance that they were before plainly appears by an expression after all where he prays (u) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That the Lord would make an equal division of the proposed Gifts to every one for good according to every Man 's particular need Which cannot be understood of Christ's proper Body but of the consecrated Bread and Wine which cannot admit of shares or Portions equal or unequal Lastly That S. Basil's Liturgy also before the Consecration prays That the Oblations may be carried unto the supercelestial Altar and be accepted as the Gifts of Abel Noah Abraham c. And to shew that even after the words of Institution he did not believe them to be other things than they were before he still calls them the Antitypes (x) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. of the Body and Blood of Christ and prays That the Spirit may come upon us and upon the Gifts proposed to bless and sanctify them and to make this Bread the venerable Body of our Lord God and Saviour Jesus Christ and this Cup his Blood the Spirit working the change And afterwards the Priest prays (y) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That by reason of his Sins he would not divert the Grace of his Holy Spirit from the proposed Gifts A needless fear if the Gifts were already Christ's Body that the Spirit should be hindred from coming upon that where all the Fulness of the God-head dwells bodily by any Man's Sins The next Passage of the Canon increases still the difficulty to them that believe Transubstantiation When it says Through Jesus Christ our Lord by whom O Lord thou dost always create sanctify quicken bless and bestow all these good things on us If there be no good thing remaining in the Eucharist besides Christ when these words are said What Sense or Truth is there in them Can Christ or his Body that already exists be created anew and be always created Can that be always sanctified that was never common Or is he to be raised and quickned anew daily that once being so raised can die no more c. But that which makes the Absurdity of this Interpretation the greater is that they say that all this is done to Christ by Christ himself as if God by Christ did create Christ and by Christ did bless and quicken and sanctify Christ which none but he that is forsaken of common Sense can affirm The old Interpreters of the Canon made other work of it and supposed that the Creatures offered to God remained Creatures still for thus the forecited Remigius (z) In Bibl. Patr. Tom. 6. p. 1165. Per Christum Deus Pater haec omnia non solum in exordio creavit condendo sed etiam semper creat praeparando reparando bona quia omnia à Deo creata valdè bona creata suis conspectibus oblata sanctificat ut quae erant simplex creatura fiant Sacramenta vivificat ut sint mysteria vitae Benedicit quia omni benedictione coelesti gratiâ accumulat Praestat nobis per eundem secum sanctificantem qui de corpore suo sanguine suo nobis tam salubrem dedit refectionem comments upon them God the Father not only in the beginning created all these things by Christ but also always creates them by preparing and repairing them Good because all things created by Good are very good He sanctifies those things so created and offered in his sight when the things that were a simple Creature are made Sacraments he quickens them so that they become Mysteries of Life He blesses them because he heaps all Celestial Benediction and Grace on them He bestows them on us by the same Christ sanctifying them with him who has given to us so wholsom a repast from his Body and Blood. What can be also
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
Imprimatur Liber cui titulus A Full View of the Doctrines and Practices of the Ancient Church relating to the Eucharist c. H. Maurice Reverndissimo in Christo P. D. Wilhelmo Archiepiscopo Cant. Ã Sacris Octob. 6. 1687. A FULL VIEW OF THE Doctrines and Practices OF THE Ancient Church Relating to the EUCHARIST Wholly different from those of The Present ROMAN CHURCH And inconsistent with the Belief of TRANSUBSTANTIATION BEING A sufficient Confutation of Consensus Veterum Nubes Testium and other Late Collections of the Fathers pretending the contrary Rectum est Index sui Obliqui LONDON Printed for Richard Chiswell at the Rose and Crown in St. Paul's Church-yard MDCLXXXVIII A PREFACE to the READER THAT which is here offered to thy Perusal was occasioned by some late Pamphlets * Succession of Church and Sacraments Consensus Veterum Nubes Testium that appeared much about the same time in Print pretending by a Heap of Testimonies from the Fathers to prove as in some other Doctrines so particularly in that of the Corporal Presence and Transubstantiation That the Ancient Church and the present Roman are at a good Agreement It is very hard for Us to believe this and scarce credible that they themselves did so when we see so much Unsincerity in their Allegations such Deceit and contrived disguising the Sense of the Fathers in their Translations such late uncertain and supposititious Writings cited by them under the Venerable Names of Ancient Authors When the way that Procrustes took of stretching Limbs or chopping them off to make all agree to his Bed who were to be laid in it is used to make the Ancient and the Present Church to agree a Consent thus procured can occasion but a short and a sorry Triumph Yet those Performances have been cry'd up and they are look'd upon as Storehouses and Repositories whence any Champion of theirs who enters the Lists may be furnish'd from the Fathers either with what is necessary for his own Defence or the assailing of an Adversary The Representer since that made great use of them in a brisk Attaque he made upon the Dublin Letter tho' the Success I believe did not answer his Expectation The Convert of Putney's Performance who in his Consensus Veterum made the largest Shew of Fathers on behalf of Transubstantiation has had a particular Consideration given it by his worthy Answerer * Veteres Vindicati And so all the other Testimonies in the rest of them that are of any seeming strength and moment have received Answers to them from other Hands particularly from the Learned Author of The Doctrine of the Trinity and Transubstantiation compared Part 1. If any thing after all seems to be wanting on our Part it is this That as our Adversaries have made a Shew of Fathers for I can give it no better name pretended to countenance their Doctrines of the Corporal Presence and Transubstantiation so we also ought to have our Collection of Testimonies from the Ancients made faithfully and impartially wherein their true Sense in these Matters may be clearly seen and viewed and thereby their Dissent from this Church appear plainly in those things that either constitute this Doctrine or are necessary Consequents of it And this is that which I have undertaken in the following Papers wherein as the Usefulness of the Design has encourag'd me to take some Pains so I shall think them well bestowed if the Reader will bring an honest and unprejudic'd Mind to the Perusal of them and suffer himself to be determin'd in his Opinions concerning this Controversie according to the Evidence of Truth here offered for his Conviction If the Differences which the annexed Contents of the Chapters give an Account of are of such a Nature and stand at such a wide Distance that it 's impossible ever to bring Transubstantiation to shake Hands with them as Friends and if the two Churches the Ancient and the Present Roman are really divided and disagreeing as I pretend to have demonstrated in those Points it will then I hope hereafter be ridiculous to talk confidently of a Consent of Fathers and of a Cloud of Witnesses on their Side But if I am herein mistaken I am so little tender of my Reputation compared with Truth that I heartily desire to be confuted and made a Convert for I am conscious to my self of no false Fathers I have cited for true ones of no disguising or perverting their Sense by an Ill Translation of their Words which I have therefore set down in their own Language of no imposing upon the Reader a Sense of my own making contrary to what I believe that they intended I have but one Request more to make to the unknown Author of a Book intituled Reason and Authority c. who mentioning the Defence of the Dublin Letter * Pag. 119. for which I have some reason to be concern'd says That the Authorities of the Fathers there urged are as he conceives in the Sense of them either mistaken or misapplied and that he shall endeavour to reconcile them to other Expressions of the Fathers and to that which he calls the Catholick Doctrine of Transubstantiation I humbly desire when he is about this Reconciling Work and his Hand is in that he would go on to reconcile also the Differences urged in the following Papers Which if he shall do to any purpose I promise to return the Complements he has pass'd upon that Defender with Interest and to alter my present Opinion of him upon his Performances in that Book Farewell THE CONTENTS OF THE CHAPTERS BEING A Summary of the DIFFERENCES betwixt the FAITH and PRACTICES of the Two Churches CHAP. I. The First Difference The Roman Church asserts perpetual Miracles in the Eucharist The Ancient Church owns none but those of God's Grace working Changes in us not in the Substance of the Elements Page 1 CHAP. II. The Second Difference They differ in determining what that Thing is which Christ calls My Body which the Ancient Church says is Bread but the Roman Church denies it Page 7 CHAP. III. The Third Difference The Roman Church believes That Accidents subsist in the Eucharist without any Subject This the Fathers deny Page 12 CHAP. IV The Fourth Difference The Roman Church uses the Word Species to signifie those self-subsisting Accidents the Fathers never take Species in this Sense Page 16 CHAP. V. The Fifth Difference The Fathers differ from this Church about the Properties of Bodies as 1. They assert That every organiz'd Body even that of Christ is visible and palpable Page 21 2. That every Body possesses a Place and is commensurate to it and cannot be in more Places than one nor be entire in one Part nor exist after the manner of a Spirit All which Transubstantiation denies Page 22 3. That it is impossible for one to dwell in himself or partake of ones self this inferring Penetration of Dimensions and that a greater Body may
of Sins Tertullian (h) Adv. Judaeos c. 21. Panem corpus suum appellans Calling Bread his Body Speaking of Christ And against Marcion (i) Idem adv Marcion lib. 3. cap. 19. Panem corpus suum appellans ut hinc eum intelligas corporis sui figuram pani dedisse c. he says the same Calling Bread his Body that thou mayst know that he gave to Bread the Figure of his Body c. And in the next Book (k) Lib. 4. advers Marc. c. 40. Acceptum panem distributum Discipulis corpus suum illum fecit Hoc est corpus meum dicendo id est figura corporis mei The Bread that he took and distributed to his Disciples he made it his Body saying This is my Body that is the Figure of my Body S. Cyprian (l) Epist 76. ad Magnum Quando Dominus corpus suum panem vocat de multorum granorum adunatione congestum c. When our Lord called the Bread which is made up of many united Grains his Body c. Tatianus Syrus (m) Harmon in Bibl. Patrum 1624. Tom. 7. Accepto pane deinde vini calice corpus esse suum ac sanguinem testatus c. Christ taking the Bread and after that the Cup of Wine testified that they were his Body and Blood c. Origen (n) Hom. 35. in Matth. Paâ—â— isce quem Dominus corpus suum esse fatetur That Bread which our Lord confessed to be his Body Eusebius (o) Demonstr Evang. lib. 8. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Christ appointed them or delivered to them to make use of Bread for a Symbol of his Body Cyril of Jerusalem (p) Catech. Mystag 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 When Christ affirms and says of the Bread This is my Body who will dare to doubt further of it S. Jerome (q) Epist ad Hedibiam Nos audiamus panem quem fregit Dominus deditque discipulis suis esse corpus Salvatoris c. Let us hear that the Bread which our Lord brake and gave to his Disciples is the Body of our Saviour Which he explains further elsewhere (r) Comm. in 26. Matt. Quomodo in praefiguratione ejus Melchisedek panâ—m vinum offerens fecerat ipse quoque veritatem sui corporis sanguinis repraesentaret That as Melchisedek prefiguring him had done when he offered Bread and Wine so he also represented the Truth of his Body and Blood. S. Chrysostom (s) In 1 Cor. Hom. 24. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 What is the Bread The Body of Christ What do they become that receive it The Body of Christ Not many Bodies but one Body S. Austin (t) Serm. ad recens baptizat apud Fulgentium Bedam c. Quod fides vestra postulat instruenda Panis est corpus Christi Calix sanguis Christi What your Faith is to be instructed in is That the Bread is the Body of Christ and the Cup the Blood of Christ And elsewhere (u) Contr. Adimantum c. 12. Non dubitavit Dominus dicere Hoc est corpus meum cum daret signum corporis sui Our Lord doubted not to affirm This is my Body when he gave the Sign of his Body Gaudentius (x) In Exod. tract 2. Cùm panem consecratum vinum discipulis suis porrigeret Dominus sic ait Hoc est corpus meam When our Lord reached the Consecrated Bread and Wine to his Disciples he said thus This is my Body Cyril of Alexandria (y) In Jâ—an 20.26 27. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Christ when he had broken the Bread as it is written distributed it saying This is my Body Theophilus Antioch (z) Com. in Matth. 26. or the Author under his Name upon the Gospels soeaks just S. Cyprian's Language When Jesus said This is my Body he called the Bread his Body which is made up of many Grains by which he would represent the People c. Theodoret (a) In Dialog 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. In the delivery of the Mysteries he called the Bread his Body and that which is mixed Wine and Water in the Cup Blood. And afterwards He honoured the visible Symbols with the appellation of his Body and Blood c. Facundus Hermian (b) In Defens 3. capit lib. 9. c. ult Ipse Dominus benedictum panem calicem quem discipulis tradidit corpus sanguinem suum vocavit Our Lord himself called the Blessed Bread and Cup which he delivered to the Disciples his Body and Blood. Maxentius (c) Dialog 2. c. 13. Sed panis ille quem universa Ecclesia in memoriam Dominicae passionis participat corpus ejus speaking of the Church that is called Christ's Body adds Also the Bread which the whole Church partakes of in memory of the Lord's Passion is his Body Isidore of Sevil (d) Originum lib. 6. cap. 19. Hoc eo jubente corpus Christi sanguinem dicimus quod dum fit ex fructibus terrae sanctificatur fit Sacramentum operante invisibiliter Spiritu Dei. says We call this by his Command the Body and Blood of Christ which being made of the Fruits of the Earth is sanctified and made a Sacrament by the invisible Operation of the Spirit of God. Bede (e) Comm. in Marc. 14. Quia panis corpus confirmat vinum vero sanguinem operatur in carne hic ad corpus Christi mysticè illud refertur ad sanguinem Christ said to his Disciples This is my Body c. because Bread strengthens the Body and Wine produces Blood in the Flesh This relates mystically to Christ's Body and That to his Blood. The Seventh General Council at Constantinople (f) Extat in Conc. Nicen. 2. Art. 6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 after reciting the Words of the Institution This is my Body after his taking and blessing and breaking it adds Behold the Image of his Life-giving Body made preciously and honourably And afterwards It pleased him that the Bread of the Sacrament being the true Figure of his natural Flesh should be made a Divine Body being sanctified by the coming of the Holy Ghost upon it c. Druthmarus (g) Comm. in Matth. 26. Hoc est corpus meum id est in Sacramento Quia inter omnes vitae alimonias cibus panis vinum valent ad confirmandam recreandam nostram infirmitatem recte per haec duo mysterium sui Sacramenti confirmare placuit Vinum namque laetificat sanguinem auget idcirco non inconvenienter sanguis Christi per hoc figuratur quoniam quicquid nobis ab ipso venit laetificat laetitiâ verâ anget omne bonum nostrum This is my Body that is to say in a Sacrament Because among all things that are the Food of Life Bread and Wine serve to strengthen and refresh our Weaknesses it is with great Reason that he would in these two things
Bread and Wine that is the Elements themselves but he changes them into the Vritue of his Flesh and Blood. To conclude this Head Bertram (t) Lib. de Corp. Sang. Christi Secundùm Speciem visibilem secundùm visibilem Creaturam secundùm creaturarum substantiam following the Sense of the Ancients uses these Phrases indifferently according to the visible Species and according to the visible Creature or according to the Substance of the Creatures Which are Modes of Speech which the present Roman Church will not allow of in the Eucharist For they tell us their plain Belief what Species are in a Sequence on Corpus-Christi day which explains it thus Sub diversis Speciebus Signis tantum non rebus Latent res eximiae Admirable things lie hid under the different Species which are only Signs and not Things CHAP. V. The Fifth Difference The Fathers differ from the Roman Church in their Assertions about the Nature and Properties of Bodies EVery one knows what the Sentiments of the Roman Church are herein and what they must necessarily assert believing Transubstantiation That a Body that is Organical as Christ's is may be invisible and impalpable commensurate to no Space That it may possess one Place so as to be in more at the same time That it may be entire in one Part and in one Point and may exist after the manner of a Spirit See Bellarmine de Eucharist lib. 1. cap. 2. reg 3. lib. 3. c. 7. The Council of Trent says (a) Sess 13. cap. 3. Totus Christus integer sub specie panis sub qualibet ejus speciei parte existit Whole and entire Christ is in the Eucharist under the Species of Bread and under every part of the Species of Bread. I shall now show That the Fathers assert quite contrary to all these Maxims of the Roman Church giving us a different Account of the Nature and Properties of Bodies and in the Particulars forenamed make no difference betwixt Christ's Body and ours 1 Assertion They assert That every Organiz'd Body not excepting the Body of Christ is visible and palpable Tertullian (b) De Resurrect c. 35. Corpus hominis non aliud intelligam quam quod videtur quod tenetur I understand nothing by the Body of a Man c. but what is seen and felt Methodius (c) Apud Photium Cod. 234. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 God is Incorporeal and therefore Invisible Eustathius Antioch (d) De Engastrimytho 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If he was Invisible without doubt he was Incorporeal Speaking of Samuel raised at Endor Didymus (e) Caten in Joan. 4.24 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If a thing be Invisible it presently follows that it is Incorporeal Greg. Nazianzen (f) Orat. 34. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If God be a Body what kind of Body and how an impalpable and invisible one This is not the Nature of Bodies And he cries out 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 O strange Licence to imagine thus Greg. Nyssen (g) De Opific hom cap. 24. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. says That is not a Body that wants Colour Figure Solidness Space Weight and the rest of its Attributes S. Austin (h) De Verb. Domini Ser. 60. Semper quidem Divinitate nobiscum est sed nisi corporaliter abiret à nobis semper ejus corpus carnaliter videremus speaking of our Lord says He is always with us by his Divinity but if he were not corporally absent from us we should always carnally see his Body Ephrem Antioch (i) Apud Photium Cod. 229. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 No Man of any sense can say That the Nature of that which is palpable and impalpable of that which is visible and that which is invisible is the same Altho' the Valentinians in Eulogius (k) Ibid. Cod. 230. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 say That the Nature of that which is visible and that which is invisible is the same And so did the Manichees Ibid. Vigilius (l) Lib. 4. contr Eutych Necesse erit ut caro sicut verbum si unius cum co est naturae increata sit invisibilis c. Sed carnem his conditionibus subjacere impossibile est speaking of the Lord's Body says It is necessary the Flesh as well as the Word if they be of one Nature be uncreated and invisible But it is impossible that Flesh should be the Subject of such Conditions Titus Bostrensis (m) Contr. Mâ—nich l. 2. Omne quod sub aspectum cadit cum sit corpus natura oppositum est inaspectabili incorporeo c. Every thing that falls under our Sight seeing it is a Body is in Nature opposite to that which is invisible and incorporeal Damascen (n) De Fide Orth. lib. 1. c. 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 How can that be a Body c which is impalpable and invisible Gregory the Great (o) Moral lib. 14. c. 33. Erit itaque subtilis quia incorruptibilis erit palpabilis quia non amittet essentiam veracis naturae speaking of a glorified Body says It will therefore be a subtile Body because it will be incorruptible and it will be palpable because it shall not lose the Essence of its true Nature Cyril of Alex. in his Explication of the third Anathema of the Ephesine Council (p) Tom. 3 Concil Labbe p. 817. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He is not a Stranger to that Body which he has united to himself which we say is capable to be felt and to be seen In fine The Church of Rome makes Christ's Body invisible tho' it be present the Fathers never make it so but because it is absent So Ammonius (q) Eaten in Joan. 16.10 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He was taken up into Heaven and became invisible unto Men. And the Author imperfecti Operis in Matthaeum (r) Homil. 53. Si sit praesens non creditur sed videtur cùm autem absens fuerit non videtur sed creditur dum timetur When he is present he is not believed but seen but when he is absent he is not seen but believed whilst he is feared 2 Assertion The Fathers assert That every Body is quantum and as it ahs Quantity possesses a Place or Space and is commensurate to it That a Body cannot be in more than one Place nor be intire in one Part nor exist after the manner of a Spirit All which are false if Transubstantiation be true S. Basil (s) Contr. Eunom l. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 makes that to be incorporeal whose Essence cannot be divided three ways or has not three Dimensions Greg. Nyssen (t) De Opific Hom. c. 24. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 says That if you take Quantity Solidness and other Properties from the Subject the whole Nature of the Body is dissolved c.
it self Gelasius Caesarien (m) Citat à Theodoret. Dial. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Word was made Flesh not being it self changed but dwelling in us The Tabernacle is one thing and the Word is another the Temple is one thing and God that dwells in it another See also the like Saying in Methodius cited by Photius his Bibliotheca Cod. 234. pag. 920. ult Edit In a word the Fathers oppose all Penetration of Dimensions in Bodies and say (n) Author Libr. cui tit Celebres Opiniones de Anima c. 10. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That it is impossible for one Body to penetrate another Body And the same Author says (o) Ibid. cap. ult Sic dici posset in milii grano coelum contineri That if this were possible you might then say That Heaven it self might be contained in a Grain of Millet The Fathers argue against Marcion upon this Rule That whatsoever contains another thing is greater than that which is contained in it So do's Epiphanius (p) Haeres 42. sec 7. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So do's Tertullian (q) Contr. Marcion l. 1. c. 15. Irenaeus (r) Adv. Haer. l. 2. c. 1. has the same Rule and laughs at Marcion's God upon that account Greg. Nyssen (s) De Vita Mosis proves that the Deity has no Bounds by this Argument That otherwise what contains would be greater than the Deity contained therein Theophylus Antioch (t) Ad Autolycum l. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 says This is the Property of the Almighty and True God not only to be every where but to inspect and hear all things Neither is he contained in a Place for else the containing Place would be greater than himself for that which contains is greater than that which is contained in it I will conclude this Chapter with the remarkable Words of Fulgentius (u) De Fide ad Petr. c. 3. Unaquaeque res ita permaner sicut à Deo accepit ut esset alia quidem sic alia autem sic Neque enim sic datum est corporibus ut sint sicut spiritus acceperunt c. Every thing so remains as it has received of God that it should be one on this manner and another on that For it is not given to Bodies to exist after such a manner as is granted unto Spirits c. CHAP. VI. The Sixth Difference The Church of Rome suitably to the strange Doctrine it teaches about Christ's Body and Blood teaches us not to believe the Report our Senses make That the Substance of Bread and Wine remain in the Sacrament but to pass a contrary Judgment to what they inform us herein But the Fathers teach the contrary That we may securely relie upon the Evidence of our Senses as to any Body even as to the true Body of Christ THat the Church of Rome would not have us in this Matter to attend to the Evidence of Sense is needless to prove since nothing is more common than to hear them call upon us to distrust them and to believe against their Report Thus the Trent Catechism * Ad Paroch de Euchar. part 2. num 25. Nullam Elementorum substantiam remanere quamvis nihil magis à sensibus alienum remotum videri possit teaches us to believe That no Substance of the Elements remains in the Eucharist tho' nothing seems more strange and remote from our Senses than this And again †Ib. n. 46. Corpus sanguinem Domini ita sumimus ut tamen quod verè sit sensibus percipi non potest We so receive the Body and Blood of Christ that yet we cannot perceive by our Senses that it is truly so As for the Fathers they are Strangers to this Doctrine nor did they betray the Christian Cause in this manner by taking away all Certainty from the Testimony of our Senses They on the contrary proved the Truth of Christ's Body against the Valentinians the Marcionites and other Hereticks by this Argument which the Church of Rome rejects they made their Appeals frequently as S. John had done before them to what had been seen with Mens Eyes to what their Ears had heard and their Hands had handled without any suspicion of their being deceived Thus Irenaeus (a) Lib. 3. adv Haeres c. 20. Hoc autem illis occurrit qui dicunt eum putativè passum Si enim non verè passus est nulla gratia ei cùm nulla fuerit passio Et nos cùm incipiemus verè pati seducens videbitur adhortans nos vapulare alteram praebere maxillam si ipse illud non prior in veritate passus est Et quemadmodum illos seduxit ut videretur ipse hoc quod non erat nos seducit adhortans perferre ea quae ipse non pertulit This meets with them who say That Christ suffered only seemingly For if he did not truly suffer no Thanks are due to him when there was no Passion And when he shall begin truly to suffer he will seem a Seducer when he exhorts us to suffer Stripes and to turn the other Cheek if he first did not suffer this in truth And as he seduced them in seeming to be that which he was not so he seduces us whilst he exhorts us to suffer the things which he did not suffer Again (b) Id. lib. 5. cap. 1. citante Theodoreto Dial. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 These things were not done seemingly only but in reality of truth for if he appeared to be a Man when he was not so he neither did remain the Spirit of God which he truly was since a Spirit is invisible nor was there any Truth in him for he was not that which he appeared to be He thought it you see absurdity enough to say That Christ appeared what he was not But what absurdity can this be to them that say it is constantly so in the Sacrament where that appears so and so which is not so as the Bread and Wine according to them do's Again (c) Id. lib. 5. cap. 7. Quomodo igitur Christus in carnis substantia resurrexit ostendit discipulis figuram clavorum apertionem lateris haec autem sunt indicia carnis ejus quae surrexit à mortuis sic nos inquit suscitabit per virtutem suam As Christ therefore rose again in the Substance of our Flesh and shewed to his Disciples the Print of the Nails and the Opening of his Side and these are Indications of his Flesh which arose from the Dead so also he says he will raise us up by his Power Tertullian also argues thus against Marcion (d) De carne Christi c. 5. Maluit crede nasci quam aliqua ex parte mentiri quidem in semetipsum ut carnem gestaret sine ossibus duram sine musculis solidam sine sanguine cruentam sine tunica vestitam sine fame esurientem sine dentibus
Taste of the Wine which he consecrated in memory of his Blood. Neither was Nature abused in his Apostles Faithful was their Sight and Hearing in the Mount faithful and true was the Taste of that Wine which was Water before at the Marriage in Galilee faithful was Thomas 's Touch who thereupon believed Recite John 's Testimony Recita Johannis testatimem Quod vidimus inquit quod audivimus oculis nostris vidimus manus nostrae contrectaverunt de sermone vitae Falsa utique testatio si oculorum aurium manuum sensus natura mentitur That which we have seen says he which we have heard which we have seen with our Eyes and our Hands have handled of the Word of Life This is all a false Testification if the Nature of the Sense of our Eyes and Ears and Hands is a Lie and a Cheat. And in the next Chapter (m) Cap. 18. Videtur intellectus duce uti sensu auctore principali fundamento nec sine illo veritates posse contingi The Understanding seems to use Sense as a Leader an Author and principal Foundation neither can Truths be laid hold of without it S. Austin teaches the same (n) De vera Relig. cap. 33. Ne ipsi quidem oculi fallunt non enim renunciare possunt animo nisi affectionem suam Si quis remum frangi in aqua opinatur cum inde aufertur integrari non habet malum internuncium sed malus est judex Nam ille pro natura sua non potuit aliter in aqua sentire nec aliter debuit Si enim aliud est aer aliud aqua justum est ut aliter in aere aliter in aqua sentiatur Quare oculus rectè videt ad hoc enim factus est ut tantum videat sed animus perverse judicat c. Doctrine Our Eyes do not deceive us for they can only report to the Mind how they are affected If one thinks that an Oar is broken in the Water and when it is taken out of the Water made whole again he has not a Bad Reporter but he is an ill Judge For the Eye according to its Nature neither could nor ought to perceive it otherwise while in the Water For if the Air is a different Medium from Water it must perceive it one ways in the Air and another ways in Water Therefore the Eye sees rightly for it was made only to see But the Mind judges amiss c. So also S. Hillary (o) In Psal 137. Tollit stultissimam eorum temeritatem qui frustrato falsóque corpore Dominum in carne visum esse contendunt ut eum Pater ementita veritate in habitu falsae carnis ostenderit non recordantes post resurrectionem corporis spiritum se videre credentibus Apostolis dictum esse Quid conturbati c. videte manus pedes meos quoniam ipse ego sum palpate videte quoniam spiritus carnem ossa non habet sicut me videtis habere He takes away their foolish Rashness who contend that our Lord was seen in the Flesh in a deceitful and false Body that the Father feigning Truth shewed him in the habit of false Flesh as the Romanists make Christ's Body to be shewn in habitu falsi panis not remembring what was said after his Resurrection to the Apostles that thought they saw a Spirit Why are ye troubled c. Behold my Hands and my Feet that it is I my self for a Spirit has not Flesh and Bones as ye see me have Epiphanius (p) Heres 42. is very large in arguing the Truth of Christ's Body from what was sensibly done to his Body and if he argues truly then what is sensibly done to the Bread in the Eucharist proves the Truth of Bread remaining and not only the Appearance of it He asks Marcion (q) Ibid. Refut 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 How could he be taken and crucified if according to thy saying he could not be handled For thou canst not define him to be a Phantôme whom thou confessest to fall under the Touch. Again (r) Ibid. Refut 10. 11. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he argues That Christ had a true Body because he went into the Pharisee's House and sat down That which sits down is a bulky Body And when the Woman washed his Feet with her Tears 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he adds Not the Feet of a Phantôme And kissed them perceiving his Body by her Touch. And What Feet did she kiss but the Feet made up of Flesh and Bones and other Parts So again (s) Ibid. Refut 14. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Woman that touched Christ and was healed she did not touch Air but something Humane that might be touched Again (t) Ib. Refut 16. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 An Imaginary thing or Wind or a Spirit or Phantôme admits neither of Burial nor a Resurrection But why may not a Phantôme as well be buried and raised as Accidents be broken and distributed when no Bread remains Again he observes (u) Refut 65. from that of his kneeling down and praying That all this was done 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because his Disciples saw him and he was found to his Disciples under their Touch. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So also concerning Christ's Crucifixion he observes (x) Ibid. Refut 71. That the piercing his Hands and Feet with Nails and handling of them to do it could not be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an imagination or shew But if the Church of Rome say true he is out for it is only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and a Phantôme when I chew and fasten my Teeth in the Host there being no Substance that I bite He afterwards (y) Ibid. Refut 77. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 challenges Marcion from that Expression He was known in breaking of Bread. How says he was this breaking of Bread performed was it by a Phantôme or from a Body (z) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 bulky and really acting it Here I may well observe That if the very breaking of Bread argues a true Body that did perform that thing how much more forcible is our Question to the Romanists What means the mention of Bread broken in the Eucharist as Christ is said to break Bread if nothing be broken at all but only in shew and appearance Epiphanius also elsewhere (a) Haeres 64. sec 36. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 says when Christ shewed to them Moses and Elias in the Mount He did not present an Image or a Phantôme as intending to deceive his Apostles but shew'd what they were really Athanasius (b) Orat. 2. de Ascen Christi says Christ did both eat Meat and permitted his Body to be touched by his Disciples that not only their Eyes but also their Fingers might be brought in for Witnesses of the Truth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so removing all suspicion of a Phantôme or Ghostly
Orig. Lib. 6. cap. 19. Eo sc Christo jubente corpus Christi sanguinem dicimus quod dum fit ex fructibus terrae sanctificatur fit Sacramentum operante invisibiliter Spiritu Dei. gives the same account By the command of Christ we call the Body and Blood of Christ that which being made of the fruits of the earth is sanctified and made a Sacrament by the invisible operation of the spirit of God. 2. Observ The Fathers oft-times in their very manner of speaking concerning the Body and Blood of Christ point at another thing than his Natural Body so that we need no Commentary upon their words to explain them for they carry at first hearing our sense and meaning in them and not that of the Romanists To give a few instances S. Cyprian (g) Epist 63. ad Caecilium Cùm dicat Christus ego sum vitis vera sanguis Christi non aqua est utique sed vinum Quomodo nec Corpus Domini potest esse farina sola aut aqua sola nisi utrumque adunatum fuerit copulatum panis unius compagine folldatum discoursing against those that Consecated and drank only Water in the Sacrament says When Christ says I am the true Vine the Blood of Christ it's plain is not Water but Wine So neither can the Lords Body be flour alone or water alone unless both of them be united and coupled and kneaded tegether into one Loaf Where no Body can doubt of S. Cyprian's meaning that by Christs Body he understands not his natural Body but the Sacrament of it And so the Council of Carthage (h) Pandect Canon p. 565. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 decreed against the Armenians who made use of Wine only in the Eucharist That nothing shall be offered but the Body and Blood of Christ as the Lord himself delivered it the phrase carries its sense in the face of it if they had said no more but they add that is Bread and Wine mixed with Water What can be more plain than that of Theodoret (i) Dialog 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. when he says That our Saviour changed the names and on his Body he put the name of the sign or symbol and on the sign the name of his Body A little before he shows how You know says he that God called his Body Bread and elsewhere he called his flesh Wheat 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 except a Corn of Wheat fall to the Earth and die Matth. 12. But in the delivery of the mysteries he called Bread his Body and that which is mixed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Blood. Is it not clear that neither in one case nor the other these sayings are to be understood properly but figuratively Especially when Theodoret before all I now have cited makes this comparison As after Consecration Ib. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we call the mystical fruit of the Vine the Lords blood so he Jacob called the Blood of the true Vine the Blood of the Grape Both the one and the other must be figuratively understood When S. Cyprian in the forecited Epistle (k) Epist 63. Hoc quis veretur ne per saporem vini redoleat sanguinem Christi says that some might make it an Objection that by partaking of the Communion early in the Morning they might be discovered to the Heathen Persecutors by the smell of the Wine he expresses it thus One fears this lest by tasting Wine he should smell of Christs Blood. S. Jerome has such another saying which cannot well be mistaken to express any other sense but ours when speaking of Virgins (l) Epist ad Eustochium Ebrietati sacrilegium copulantes aiunt absit ut ego me abstineam à sanguine Christi that were reproved for drinking Wine to excess he says they made this excuse joining sucrilege to their drunkenness and said God forbid that I should abstain from the Blood of Christ Either they said nothing to the purpose or they took that which they called the Blood of Christ for Wine properly Thus also S. Chrysostome (m) Epist 1. ad Innocent 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 speaking of the rudeness of the Souldiers in the Church says that in the tumult the most holy Blood of Christ was shed upon the Souldiers Cleths Which could be nothing but Sacramental Wine Leo the Great speaking of the Manichees that for fear of the Laws came to the Communion of the Catholicks and directing how to discover them he says (n) Serm. 4. de Quadrages Ita in Sacramentorum communione se temperant ut interdum tutiùs lateant Ore indigno Christi Corpus accipiunt sanguinem autem redemptionis nostrae haurire omninò declinant They so behave themselves in the Communion of the Sacraments that they may sometime be more safely concealed with an unworthy mouth they take the Body of Christ but altogether decline drinking the Blood of our redemption In the sense both of Leo and the Manichees the Body and Blood here must be taken figuratively for such bad men as they in the sense of the Antients could not eat or any way receive Christ's Body in a proper sense but being understood of the Type of it viz. of the Sacramental Bread that they would receive but not the Type of his Blood viz. the Wine because as S. Austin (o) De Heres 46. Vinum non bibunt dicentes fel esse principum tenebrarum observes they drink no Wine saying it is the Gall of the Prince of darkness They had no more prejudice against the Blood than the Body of Christ only they took it to be Wine which they abhorred 3. Observ The Fathers speak of Christ's Body and Blood in the Eucharist with such terms of restriction and diminution which plainly tell us that they understood it not of his substantial and natural Body but in a figurative sense Thus Origen (p) Contr. Celsum l 8. p. 399. Edit Cantabr 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 says That Bread in the Eucharist is made by Prayer a certain holy Body And S. Austin (q) In Psal 33. conc 2. Accepit in manus quod norunt fideles ipse se portabat quodammodo cùm diceret hoc est Corpus meum Christ took in his hands what the faithful understand and after a sort carried himself when he said This is my Body Bede (r) In Psal 33. Christus quodammodo ferebatur in manibus suis upon the same Psalm has the same term of restriction Christ after a sort was carried in his own hands S. Austin elsewhere (ſ) Epist 23. ad Bonifac. Secundum quendam modum Sacramentum Corporis Christi Corpus Christi est Sacramentum sanguinis Christs sanguis Christi est In a certain sense the Sacrament of the Body of Christ is Christ's Body and the Sacrament of the Blood of Christ is Christ's Blood. Just as at Easter we say this day Christ rose because it is a memorial of it
J. Christi c. Not all Bread but only that which receives Christ's blessing is made the Body of Christ Canon of the Mass Which Oblation O Almighty God we beseech thee vouchsafe to make blessed allowable firm rational and acceptable that it may be made to us the Body and Blood of thy most dear Son our Lord Jesus Christ c. Also the Fathers say still more expresly that the Body and Blood of Christ is made of Bread and Wine Thus the Author of the Book of Sacraments under S. Ambrose's name (c) Lib. 4. de Sacram. c. 4. Tu fortè dicis meus panis est usitatus sed panis iste panis est ante verba Sacramentorum ubi accesserit consecratio de pane fit caro Christi Perhaps thou wilt say My Bread is usual Bread but tho' that Bread be Bread before the Sacramental words yet upon Consecration of Bread is made the Flesh of Christ Gaudentius (d) In Exod. trac 2. Ipse naturarum Creator Dominus qui producit de terra panem de pane rursus qui poâ—est promisit efficit proprium corpus qui de aqua vinum fecit de vino sanguinem suum The Creator and Lord of nature himself who produces Bread out of the Earth of Bread again seeing he is oble and has promised it he makes his own Body and he that of Water made Wine made also of Wine his Blood. Now all this can be meant of nothing else but what we heard out of Eusebius before of the Image of his Body which he commanded his Disciples to make S. Jerome also explains it of the Sacramental Bread and Wine upon those words of the Prophet (e) In Jerem. 31.12 De quo conficitur panis Domini sanguinis ejus impletur typus benedictio Sanctificationis ostenditur They shall flow together to the goodness of the Lord for Wheat and for Wine and Oil. He adds Of which the Lords Bread is made and the type of his Blood is fulfilled and the blessing of sanctification is shown And in another place (f) In cap. 9. Zachar. De hoc tritico efficitur ille panis qui de Coelo descendit confortat cor hominis Of this Wheat the Bread that descended from Heaven is made and which strengthens the heart of man. Which must be understood of the Bread received in the Eucharist So Tertullian (g) Antea citat Corpus suum illum sc panem fecit hoc est Corpus meum dicendo id est Figura Corporis mei explains himself He made Bread his Body saying This is my Body That is the Figure of my Body And Leo Magn. (h) Epist 88. Nec licet Presbyteris nisi eo sc Episcopo jubente Sacramentum Corporis sanguinis Christi conficere Neither may the Presbyters without the Bishops Command make the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ S. Chrysostom (i) Hom. 29. in Genes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 speaking of Wine says By this the matter of the good things for our Salvation is perfected Where by those good things he plainly means the Wine in the Eucharist It is also very observable that the Fathers sometimes call this the mystical Bread and Wine and sometimes the mystical Body and Blood of Christ Thus S. Austin (k) Contr. Faust l. 20. c. 13. Noster panis calix certâ consecratione mysticus fit nobis non nascitur says Our Bread and Cup is made mystical to us by a certain consecration and does not grow so S. Chrysostom (l) De râ—surrect mort Hom. 33. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 thus The mystical Body and Blood is not made without the grace of the spirit When S. Ambrose (m) Lib de iis qui initiant c. 9. Hoc quod conficimus Corpus ex Virgine est Sacramentum illud quod accipis sermonâ— Christi conficitur Vera utique caro Christi quae crucifixa est quae sepulta est Verè ergo carâ—is illius Sacramentum est had said This Body which we make is of the Virgin. He explains this phrase by another before it viz. That Sacrament which thou receivest is made by the Word of Christ And also by another saying of his that follows It was true Flesh of Christ that was Crucified and buried it is therefore truly the Sacrament of his Flesh Where you see he distinguishes these two the Flesh of Christ Crucified and that in the Sacrament which is only mystically so Hesychius (n) In Levit. lib. 6. Corpore mystico non vescetur speaking of Jews Pagans and Hereticks says that the Soul in Society with them may not eat of the mystical Body that is of the Eucharist And elsewhere (o) Id. ibid. lib. 2. Christus bibens ipse Apostolis bibere dans sanguinem intelligibilem speaking of the Cup in the Sacrament uses this phrase Christ drinking himself and giving to the Apostles the intelligible Blood to drink Where intelligible Blood is the mystical Blood in the Eucharist according to his constant use of that word Procopius of Gaza (p) In Esa cap. 3. upon those words of the Prophet of Gods taking away the Staff of Bread and stay of Water and telling us that Christs Flesh is meat indeed and his Blood drink indeed which they that have not have not the strength of Bread and Water he adds there is another enlivening Bread also taken from the Jews 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. where he means the Eucharist distinguishing it from Christs proper Flesh and Blood. S. Ambrose (q) De benedict Patriarch c. 9. Hunc panem dedit Jesus Apostolis ut dividerent populo credentium hodieque dat nobis eum quem ipse quotidie sacerdos consecrat suis verbis Hic panis factus est esca Sanctorum Possumus ipsum Dominum accipere qui carnem suam nobis dedit sicut ipse ait Ego sum panis vitae makes the same distinction where speaking of the Benediction of Asser that his Bread was fat c. and that Asser signifies riches he adds Jesus gave this Bread to the Apostles that they should divide it among believing people and he now gives it to us being that which the Priest daily Consecrates with his words This Bread is made the food of Saints We may also understand thereby the Lord himself who gave his Flesh to us as he says I am the Bread of Life What can be more clear than that he distinguishes here between the Eucharistical Bread which he calls the Saints food and Christ himself the Bread of Life 8. Observ The Fathers speak of Christ's Body sanctified and sacrificed in the Eucharist which cannot be understood of any thing but his representative and Typical Body S. Austin (r) Epist 59. Quod in Domini mensa est benedicirur sanctificatur speaking of that which is upon the Lords Table which the Church of Rome will
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
Dedication becomes an Holy Altar which the Priests only touch with Veneration And then adds the Instance of the Eucharist 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which at first is common Bread but after the Mystery has consecrated it it is called and becomes the Body of Christ So the mystical Oil and so the Wine before the Benediction are things of little worth but after the Sanctification of the Spirit each of them operates excellently So Ammonius (t) Catena in Joan. 3.5 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ibid. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 says The sensible Water is transelemented into a Divine Virtue for the Fathers make Changes in Baptism as well as the Eucharist and sanctifies those in whom it is Nay he affirms That the Water differs only from the Spirit in our manner of Conception for it is the same in Energy Cyril of Jerusalem (u) Catech. Mystag 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 calling the Flesh and Bread in the Feast of Idols defiled by the Invocation of impure Devils he illustrates it thus As the Bread and Wine of the Eucharist before the Invocation of the adored Trinity 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is bare Bread and Wine but after Invocation the Bread is made the Body of Christ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the Wine the Blood of Christ so also in the same manner those Meats of the Pomp of Satan in their own Nature being simple things yet by the Invocation of Devils they become impure That 's the Change here That those Meats are in Quality not in Substance made impure and so if the Comparison hold the Change in the other is That they are Hallowed Bread and Wine in Use and Efficacy different from what they were before The Author under Cyprian's Name (x) De Vnct. Chrysmat Inest Veritas signo Spiritus Sacramento speaking of Chrysin says Truth is in the Sign and the Spirit in the Sacrament Thus S. Ambrose (y) De iis qui init c. 9. in fine understands the Body of Christ for that Divine Substance and Presence of the Spirit which is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of Christ's Body In illo Sacramento Christus est quia corpus est Christi Non ergo corporalis esca sed spiritalis est Corpus enim Dei corpus est Spiritale Corpus Christi corpus est divini Spiritus quia Spiritus Christi sc est Christ is in that Sacrament because it is the Body of Christ It is not therefore Corporeal but Spiritual Food For the Body of God is a Spiritual Body The Body of Christ is the Body of the Divine Spirit not his natural Body because it is the Spirit of Christ. Here Corpus Dei is Corpus Spiritale that is Substantia Spiritalis Spiritus The Author under his Name (z) De Sacram. lib. 4. cap. 4. Quomodo potest qui panis est corpus esse Christi Consecratione Ergo ut tibi respondeam Non erat corpus Christi ante consecrationem sed post consecrationem dico tibi quod corpus est Christi Ipse dixit factum est ipse mandavit creatum est Tu ipse eras vetus creatura posteaquam consecratus es nova creatura esse coepisti c. How can that which is Bread be the Body of Christ By Consecration To answer thee therefore It was not the Body of Christ before Consecration but after Consecration I tell thee it is the Body of Christ. He said it and it was done he commanded and it was created Thou thy self wast an old Creature but after thou wast consecrated thou beganst to be a new Creature c. So that according to this Author as in Regeneration by Baptism Man changes his Nature so do's the Consecrated Bread in the Eucharist change its Nature Therefore it is no substantial Change because the other confessedly is not so Druthmarus (a) Comm. in Matth. 26. speaking of a Person taking a long Journey and leaving a Pledge behind him to remember him by Ita Deus praecipit agi à nobis transferens spiritualiter panem in corpus vinum in sanguinem ut per haec duo memoremus quae fecit pro nobis de corpore suo c. he adds Thus also God has commanded us to do spiritually changing the Bread into his Body and the Wine into his Blood that by these two things we may remember what he hath done for us with his Body and Blood c. 5 Assertion The Fathers express in the same manner and as fully our substantial Change into Christ's Body as of the Bread into Christ's Body Yet none will from such Expressions assert the former and there is the same reason not to do the latter Gr. Nyssen (b) Orat. Catech. cap. 37. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 As a little Leaven according to the Apostle likens the whole Mass to it self so the Body of Christ put to death by God coming into our Body do's change and convert the whole into it self And again 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a little after His immortal Body being in him that receives it changes the whole into its own Nature Cryil of Alexandria (c) In Joan. lib. 4. cap. 3. says He that receives me by a participation of my Flesh shall have Life in himself 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being wholly transelemented into me P. Leo Magn. (d) De Nat. Dom. Serm. 10. Christi caro de utero virginis sumpta nos sumus We are the Flesh of Christ taken from the Womb of the Virgin. And elsewhere (e) Id. de Passion Serm. 14. Non aliud agit Participatio corporis sanguinis Christi quà m ut in id quod sumimus transeamus Ipsum per omnia spiritu carne gestemus The Participation of the Body and Blood of Christ intends nothing else but that we should pass into that which we receive That we may carry him in all things both in Spirit and Flesh Not as Bellarmine and others pervert the Sense reading gustemus Again in another place (f) Epist 23. In illa mysticâ distributione spiritualis alimoniae hoc impertitur hoc sumitur ut accipientes virtutem coelestis cibi in carnem ipsius quia caro noitra factus est transeamus In that mystical Distribution of Spiritual Food this is bestowed on us this is taken that receiving the Virtue of the Celestial Meat we should pass into his Flesh who was made our Flesh See more Testimonies to this sense inthe Chapter following Position 3. CHAP. IX The Ninth Difference The Fathers differ from the Church of Rome in their Belief of Christ's Presence in the Eucharist The Church of Rome asserts the substantial Presence of Christ's Natural Body there but the Fathers deny it THe former is the Assertion of the Roman Church in the Trent Council in which an Anathema is pronounced (g) Conc. Trid. Sess 13. cap. 6. Can. 1. against such as deny That
(s) Id. ibid. c. 18. Quomodo corporaliter ascendit in coelum in suis fidelibus praedicatur effe in terra si non est in illo divinitatis immensitas quae coelum implere possit terram How did he corporally ascend into Heaven and yet is said to be in the Faithful on Earth unless the Immensity of the Divinity be in him which can fill Heaven and Earth Yes a Romanist would have told him of another way That even his Body could be present in Heaven and Earth after the manner of a Spirit Vigilius Taps (t) Contr. Eutych l. 1. Hoc crat ire ad patrem recedere à nobis auferre de mundo naturam quam susceperat à nobis Nam vide miraculum vide utriusque proprietatis mysterium Dei filius secundùm humanitutem suam recessit à nobis secundùm divinitatem suam ait nobis Ecce vobiscum sum omniòus diebus c. Quos reliquit à quibus decessit humanitate sua non reliquit nec deseruit divinitate sua This was to go to the Father and recede from us to take from the World the Nature that he had taken from us For see the Miracle see the Mystery of both Natures distinct not a Word of the Mystery of a Body being in more places than one The Son of God according to his Humanity departed from us according to his Divinity he says to us Behold I am with you always c. Those whom he left and departed from by his Humanity he did not leave nor forsake by his Divinity Again (u) Id. ibid. l. 4. Quando in terra fuit non erat utique in coelo nunc quia in coelo est non est utique in terra c. Quia verbum ubique est caro autem ejus ubique non est apparet unum eundemque Christum utriusque esse naturae esse quidem ubique secundùm naturam divinitatis suae loco contineri secundùm naturam humanitatis suae Haec est Fides Confessio Catholica quam Apostoli tradiderunt Martyres roborarunt Fideles nunc usque custodiunt When Christ was on Earth he was not in Heaven and now because he is in Heaven he surely is not on Earth c. Because the Word is every where but his Flesh is not every where it appears plainly that one and the same Christ is of both Natures and that he is every where according to the Nature of his Divinity and contained in a Place according to the Nature of his Humanity which would be a bad Argument if his Body were in Heaven and in the Eucharist at the same time And then he concludes This is the Catholick Faith and Confession which the Apostles delivered the Martyrs confirmed and the Faithful now still keep and preserve Leo Magn. (x) Serm. 2. de Ascens Dom. Christus coram Discipulis elevatus in coelum corporalis praesentiae modum fecit Christ being raised up to Heaven in sight of his Disciples he put an end to his bodily Presence So he explains it that he was to remain at the Right-hand of his Father till he should come again to judge the Quick and Dead Bede (y) Com. in Marc. 13. Christus ad Patrem post resurrectionem victor ascendens Ecclesiam corporaliter reliquit quam tamen nunquam divinae praesidio praesentiae destituit manens in illa omnibus diebus usque ad consummationem seculi Christ ascending after his Resurrection into Heaven as a Conqueror left the Church as to his bodily Presence which yet he never left destitute of the security of his Divine Presence remaining in the Church always to the end of the World. This may abundantly suffice to prove the First Position 2 Position The Fathers distinguish the Presence of Christ's Body from the Sacrament of it which they make to be a Memorial and Pledge of Christ as gone away and absent S. Chrysostome (z) In 1 Cor. 11.29 expounding those words He that eateth and drinketh unworthily eateth and drinketh judgment and asking how that Table which is the Cause of so many good things 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and flows with Life should be made Cordemnation to any resolves it thus That this happens not from its own Nature 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but from the Purpose of him that approaches this Table For says he as Christ's Presence which brought those great and unspeakable Blessings to us did condemn those the more that did not receive it so also the Mysteries-make way for greater Punishments to these that unworhily partake of them A remarkable Testimony because we see he distinguishes the Presence of Christ from the Sacrament of it compares the one with the other and because of the Relation that the Mysteries have to Christ and that both are intended to convey great Blessings therefore they both when unworthily treated occasion greater Punishments S. Austin (a) Contr. Faust l. 20. c. 21. Hujus sacrificii caro sanguis ante adventum Christi per victimas similitudinum promittebatur in passione Christi per ipsam veritatem reddebatur post ascensum Christi per Sacramentum memoriae celebratur The Flesh and Blood of this Sacrifice before Christ's coming was promised by Victims of Resemblance in the Passion of Christ it was exhibited in the Truth it self after Christ's Ascension it is celebrated by the Sacrament of Remembrance Where you see the Sacrament of Remembrance is opposed to the Exhibition of the Truth Author Comm. in Epistolas Pauli inter Hieronymi Opera (b) In 1 Cor. 11. Hoc est benedicens etiam passurus ultimam nobis commemorationem five memoriam dereliquit Quemadmodum si quis peregrè proficiscens aliquod pignus ei quem diligit derelinquat ut quotiescunque illud viderit possit ejus beneficia amicitias memorari quod ille si perfecte dilexit sine ingenti desiderio non possit videre vel fletu upon those words He took Bread and after he had given thanks he brake it That is says he blessing us even when he was about to suffer he left his last Memorial with us Just as if one travelling into another Country should leave a Pledge with him whom he loved that whensoever he look'd upon it he might call to mind his Favours and Friendship which such a Person if he perfectly lov'd him could not behold without a great passion or weeping It will be very hard to reconcile this Pledge of Absence with such a constant Presence of his Body as the Church of Rome teaches even there where we are required to look upon that Pledge and remember our absent Friend Sedulius has the same Exposition of the Place almost in the same words Primasius also confirms it (c) In 1 Cor. 11. upon those words The same night that our Lord was betrayed he took Bread. He left says he Ultimam nobis commemorationem reliquit Salvator Deus
holy Baptism And tho' every one knows that Union supposes Presence and Nearness yet this is never made an Argument that Christ is present corporally in Baptism No more can such like Phrases used by him concerning the Eucharist be urged as a Proof of it S. Hilary (t) Lib. 8. de Trinit Nos verè Verbum cibo Dominico sumimus quomodo non naturaliter manere in nobis existimandus est c. Nos sub Mysterio verè carnem corporis sui sumimus per hoc unum erimus quia Pater in illo est ille in nobis Ut cùm ille in Patre per naturam Divinitatis esset nos contra in eo per corporalem Nativitatem ille rursum in nobis per Sacramentorum inesse mysterium crederetur speaks many things of our real Union with Christ in the Sacrament of the Eucharist We truly receive the Word in the Lord's Food how is he not then to be thought naturally to dwell in us We under the Mystery do truly take the Flesh of his Body and thereby shall be one because the Father is in him and be in us So that since he was in the Father by the Nature of the Divinity we on the contrary in him by Corporal Nativity and he might be believed again to be in us by the Mystery of the Sacraments But then it is observable that he do's not say these great things only of the Eucharist that by partaking of it we have a natural Union with Christ but he says we have the same by Faith by Regeneration and by Baptism (u) Ibid. Quomodo non naturalem in his intelligis unitatem qui per naturam unius fidei unum sunt Cessat in his assensûs unitas qui unum sunt in ejusdem regeneratione naturae Quid hic animorum concordia faciet cum per id unum sint quod uno Christo per naturam unius Baptismi induantur How dost thou not understand a natural Unity in those who are one by the nature of one Faith Again The Unity of Consent has no place in those who are one in the Regeneration of the same Nature Again What should Agreement of Wills do here when they are one by this that they are cloathed with one Christ by the Nature of one Baptism I 'le add but one Testimony more out of Fulgentius (x) De Bapt. Aethiop cap. ult Nec cuiquam aliquatenus ambigendum est tunc unumquemque fidelium corporis sanguinisque Dominici participem fieri quando in Baptismate membrum Christi efficitur but it is very home Neither need any one at all doubt that then every Believer is made Partaker of our Lord's Body and Blood when he is made a Member of Christ in Baptism And yet even this do's not infer a Substantial Presence of Christ in Baptism To make this Position still more full and cogent let me add That the Fathers so speak of the Waters of Baptism as if they were turned into Blood and we dyed in that Blood and baptized in Blood and yet all these neither prove the Presence of Christ's natural Body nor Transubstantiation there To name a few Testimonies S. Jerom (y) In Esa 1. Baptizemini in sanguine meo per lavacrum regenerationis upon those words Wash ye make ye clean says Be ye baptized in my Blood by the Laver of Regeneration Again (z) Baptizatus est in sanguine agni quem legebat In Esa 43. he says of the Eunuch He was baptized in the Blood of the Lamb whom he read of in the Prophet So S. Austin (a) In Joan. tract 11. Unde rubet Baptismus nisi sanguine Christi consecratus Whence comes Baptism to be red but because it is consecrated with Christ's Blood Prosper (b) De Promiss part 2. Baptismo sanguine Christi tinguntur They are dyed in the Blood of Christ in Baptism S. Chrysostome (c) Catech. ad illuminand 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 speaking to those that were to receive Baptism You shall be cloathed with the Purple Garment dyed in the Lord's Blood. Julius Firmicus (d) De Error Prof. Relig. c. 28. Quaere fontes ingenuos quaere puros liquores ut illic te post multas maculas cum Spiritu S. Christi sanguis incandidet Seek for the Noble Fountains enquire for the pure Waters that there after thy many Stains the Blood of Christ with the Holy Spirit may make thee White Caesarius (e) Hom. 5. Paschal Ingreditur anima vitales undas velut rubras sanguine Christi consecratas or the Author of the Paschal Homily The Soul enters the Waters of Life that are red as it were being consecrated by the Blood of Christ Isidore of Sevil (f) In Exod. c. 19. Quid Mare rubrum nisi Baptismum Christi sanguine consecratum What is the Red Sea but Baptism consecrated by the Blood of Christ And again (g) De vocat Gent. c. 23. Verus Israel ingreditur Mare rubrum baptismum scilicet Christi cruore signatum The true Israel enters the Red Sea to wit Baptism signed with the Blood of Christ And Primasius (h) In 1 Cor. 10. Mare rubrum significat Baptismum Christi sanguine decoratum The Red Sea signifies Baptism graced with the Blood of Christ 4. Position The Fathers so consider the Presence of Christ's Body in the Eucharist as can no way agree to the Presence of his natural and glorified Body there The Fathers as I have before proved see Chap. 7. Observ 4. Reason 2. look upon the Bread and Wine in the Eucharist as the Representative Body of Christ and thus Christ's Body is indeed present by that which is its Proxy or Pledge But this Presence in a proper sense is Absence and does suppose it I shall therefore here only insist upon one Consideration of Christ's Body there which can only agree to his Representative Body but not to the Natural and Glorified Body of Christ Viz. The Presence of Christ's Body in the Eucharist which the Fathers speak of is of his Body as crucified and slain and dead Now this cannot agree to his Natural Body which by our Adversaries Confession is impassible and invulnerable now it is glorified and cannot admit any separation of Parts which Crucifixion do's suppose nor die any more It is plain by the words of Institution that the Body of Christ there spoken of is his broken Body such as Crucifixon caused and his Blood is considered as shed and poured out of his Veins and separated from his Body which our Adversaries that speak of his Presence in the Sacrament do not believe But the Fathers did believe this and say so for which at the present in stead of all I need cite only S. Chrysostome (i) Hom. 21. in Act. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whose Phrase for the Eucharist is While this Death is perfected this tremendous Sacrifice these ineffable Mysteries Again (k)
reason but grants it and finds out such an expedient as would be counted ridiculous in the Roman Church where this of the Sacraments breaking the Fast is not believed which is to be present and to take the Sacrament and reserve it to be eaten at night By receiving the Lords Body Accepto corpore Dominico reservato ucrumque salvum est participatio Sacrificii executio officii says he and reserving it both is salved both the partaking of the Sacrifice i. e. of the Eucharist given at three a Clock and the execution of their duty he means of fasting till Evening according to their Vow and eating the Sacrament then and not before But to proceed with our Testimonies Hesychius (o) In Levit. l. 2. c. 8. Propterea carnes cum panibus comedi praecipiens ut nos intelligeremus illud ab eo mysterium dici quod simul panis caro est sicut Corpus Christi panis vivi qui de Coelo descendit God therefore commanded Flesh to be eaten with Bread that we might understand that that mystery viz. the Eucharist was spoken of by him which is both Bread and Flesh as the Body of Christ the living Bread that descended from Heaven It can be only Bread and Flesh in our way for in that of Transubstantiation it is only Flesh and no Bread. S. Austin (p) Lib. cont Donatist c. 6. De ipso pane de ipsa Dominica manu Judas Partem Petrus accepit tamen quae Societas quae consonantia quae pars Petri cum Juda Of the very Bread Judas and Peter both took a part and yet what Society what agreement what part has Peter with Judas Again (q) Id Tract in Joan. 26. Patres manducaverunt spiritualem utique eandem escam nam corporalem alteram quia illi Manna nos aliud omnes eundem potum spiritualem biberunt aliud illi aliud nos sed specie visibili quidem tamen hoc idem significante virtute spirituali The Fathers did eat the same spiritual meat with us but the corporal was different they did eat Manna we another thing he means Bread and they all drank the same spiritual drink they one thing we another another as to the visible substance but in spiritual virtue signifying the same thing And again elsewhere (r) Id. Tract 45. in Joan. Videte ergo fide manente signa variata Ibi Petra Christus nobis Christus quod in Altari ponitur illi pro magno Sacramento ejusdem Christi biberunt aquam profluentem de Petra nos quid bibamus norunt fideles Si speciem visibilem intendas aliud est si intelligibilem significationem eundem potum spiritualem biberunt Behold while Faith remains the same the signs are varied There in the Wilderness the Rock was Christ to us that which is placed on the Altar viz. Bread is Christ And they drank the Water that flowed from the Rock for a great Sacrament of the same Christ what we drink the faithful know viz. Wine if you regard the visible substance it is another thing if the spiritual signification they drank the same spiritual drink Again in another place (s) Tract 26. in Joan. Nam nos hodie accepimus visibilem cibum sed aliud est Sacramentum aliud est virtus Sacramenti We have received to day the visible food but the Sacrament is one thing and the virtue of the Sacrament is another That which he calls here cibus visibilis the visible food a little after S. Austin calls it visibile Sacramentum a visible Sacrament where he distinguishes this again from the Virtus Sacramenti the Virtue of the Sacrament so that the visible food and the visible Sacrament with him are the same I have already produced the Testimonies vid. chap. 8. Observ 5. where the Fathers make what is distributed in the Eucharist to be without Life or sense which can be true of nothing else but of the Bread and Wine So that unless we make them distribute what they had not consecrated the Bread and Wine must remain after Consecration The same is also evidently proved from another common assertion of the Fathers that Christ offered the same oblation with Melchisedek S. Cyprian (t) Lib. 2. Epist 3. Quis magis sacerdos Dei summi quam Dominus noster Jesus Christus qui Sacrificium Deo Patri obtulit obtulit hoc idem quod Mechisedec obtulerat id est panem vinum suum scilicet corpus sanguinem Who was more a Priest of the most High God than our Lord Jesus Christ who offered a Sacrifice to God the Father and offered this same that Melchisedeck had offered that is Bread and Wine to wit his Body and Blood Which indeed the Wine and Bread was by representation but if you understand this of proper Flesh and Blood offered in the Eucharist then it is not the same oblation with that of Melchisedeck Isidere Peleusiota (u) Lib. 1. Epist 431. ad Pallad 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Melchisedeck performed his sacred Office in Bread and Wine by which he foresignified the type of the divine mysteries Eusebius (x) Lib. 5. Dem. Evang. c. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Melchisedeck 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For as he Melchisedeck being a Priest of the Gentiles never seems to have made use of Bodily Sacrifices but blessed Abraham only in Bread and Wine After the same manner also first our Lord and Saviour himself then all the Priests that derive from him performing in all Nations their spiritual function according to the Ecclesiastical Sanctions by Bread and Wine do express the mysteries of his Body and saving Blood Melchisedeck having foreseen these things by a divine spirit and having used before these images of future things S. Jerome (y) Epist ad Evagrium Melchisedec pane vino simplici puroque sacrificio Christi dedicaverit Sacramentum Melchisedeck by Bread and Wine which is a simple and a pure Sacrifice did dedicate Christs Sacrament S. Austin (z) Epist 95. Melchisedec prolato Sacramento coenae Dominicae novit aeternum ejus sacerdotium figurare Melchisedeck bringing forth the Sacrament of the Lords Supper i. e. Bread and Wine knew how to figure Christs Eternal Priesthood Again (a) L. 17. de civit Dei c. 17. Ex eo quod jam nusquam est Sacerdotium Sacrificium secundum ordinem Aaron ubique offertur sub sacerdote Christo quod protulit Melchisedec quando benedixit Abraham upon those words Thou art a Priest for ever c. He adds Since now there is no where any Priesthood or Sacrifice according to the Order of Aaron and that is every where offered under Christ the Priest which Melchisedeck brought forth when he blessed Abraham In many other places S. Austin says the same Arnobius (b) In Psal 109. Christus per mysterium panis vini
all but is a Divine Food Which none has more admirably and fully spoke to than Origen (x) In Matth. c. 15. v. 15. p. 253. Ed. Huet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Who having said a great deal about Christs Typical and Symbolical Body which S. Austin called before the visible Sacrament he goes on thus Many things also might be said concerning that word which was made Flesh and the true Food which whosoever eats shall surely live for ever no wicked Man being capable of eating it For if it were possible that a wicked man continuing such should eat him that was made Flesh seeing he is the Word and the living Bread it would not have been written That whosoever eats this Bread shall live for ever This is that which Macarius (y) Homil. 14. discourses of so largely and piously Telling us that as a great rich Man having both Servants and Sons gives one sort of meat to the Servants 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and another to the Sons that he begot who being Heirs to their Father do eat with him So says he Christ the true Lord himself created all and nourishes the evil and unthankful but the Children begotten by him who are partakers of his grace and in whom the Lord is formed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. he feeds them with a peculiar refection and Food and Meat and Drink above and besides other men and gives himself to them that have Conversation with their Father as the Lord says He that eateth my Flesh and drinketh my Blood abides in me and I in him and shall not see death With whom S. Jerome (z) In c. 66. Esaiae Dum non sunt sancti corpore spiritu nec comedunt carnem Jesu neque bibunt sanguinem ejus de quo ipse loquitur Qui comedit carnem meam bibit sanguinem meum habet vitam aeternam agrees speaking of voluptuous men Not being holy in Body and Spirit they neither eat the Flesh of Jesus nor drink his Blood concerning which he says He that eateth my Flesh and drinketh my Blood hath Eternal Life S. Austin also (a) Contra Donatist post collat c. 6. De ipso pane de ipsa Dominica manu Judas partem Petrus accepit says Of that Bread and from our Lords own Hand both Judas and Peter took a part But then he (b) Tract 59. in Joan. Evang Illi manducabant Panem Dominum ille Panem Domini contra Dominum illi vitam ille poenam makes the distinction himself that Judas received only the Bread of the Lord when the other Disciples receiv'd the Bread that was the Lord. Which is directly contrary to Transubstantiation for according to that even such a one as Judas must eat the Lord and no Bread when this Father says that he ate the Bread and no Lord. Neither is S. Austin singular in this Phrase of the Bread of the Lord to signifie the real substance of that Element that is eaten in the Sacrament and not the proper Body of Christ For so S. Jerome uses it (c) In Jerem. c. 31. Confluent ad bona Domini super frumento de quo conficitur Panis Domini When he speaks of Corn of which the Bread of the Lord is made It is also very observable that as the Council of Trent as we heard before makes eating Christ Sacramentally and really to be the same and spiritual eating to be of another sort not real but one would think rather imaginary On the quite contrary the Fathers distinguish the sacramental eating from the real and make the spiritual and real eating to be the same and they will grant that a bad Man may eat Christ Sacramentally that is in sign but not really for so none but the faithful can do it For thus S. Austin (d) Serm. 2. de verb. Apost Tunc autem hoc erit id est Vita unicuique erit Corpus sanguis Christi si quod in Sacramento visibiliter sumitur in ipsa veritate spiritualiter manducetur spiritualiter bibatur Then will this be that is the Body and Blood of Christ will be Life to every one if that which is visibly taken in the Sacrament be in the Truth it self spiritually eaten and spiritually drank Which in another place (e) Tract 26. in Joan. Quod pertinet ad virtutem Sacramenti non quod pertinet ad visibile Sacramentum he expresses by the visible Sacrament and the virtue of the Sacrament Again most expresly (f) De Civit. Dei. l. 21. c. 25. Ipse dicens qui mandacat carnem meam bibit sanguinem meum in me manet ego in eo ostendit quid sit non Sacramento tenus sed revera Corpus Christi manducare sanguinem ejus bibere Christ saying He that eateth my Flesh and drinketh my Blood dwelleth in me and I in him shows what it is not sacramentally but really and in truth to eat Christs Body and drink his Blood. And therefore in the same Chapter (g) Ibid. Neque enim isti dicendi sunt manducare Corpus Christi quoniam nec in membris computandi sunt Christi speaking of wicked men he says Neither can they be said to eat the Body of Christ since they are not to be accounted Christs Members S. Austin again distinguishes the Sacramentum rei the Sacrament of the thing from the res Sacramenti the thing of which it is a Sacrament (h) Tract 26. in Joan. Hujus rei Sacramentum in Dominica Mensa praeparatur de Dominica Mensa sumitur quibusdam ad vitam quibusdam ad exitium Res vero ipsa cujus Sacramentum est omni homini ad vitam nulli ad exitium quicunque ejus particeps fuerit The Sacrament of this thing is prepared on the Lords Table and received from the Lords Table to some to Life and to others to destruction But the thing it self of which it is a Sacrament is for Life to every one that partakes of it and to none for destruction For as S. Chrysostom (i) Catena in Joh. 6.49 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 phrases it He that receives this Bread will be above dying I will conclude this Chapter with two remarkable places of St. Austin The first is cited by Prosper (k) Lib. Sentent ex August sententia mihi 341. vel 339. Escam vitae accipit aeternitatis poculum bibit qui in Christo manet cujus Christus habitator est Nam qui discordat à Christo nec carnem ejus manducat nec sanguinem bibit etiamsi tantae rei Sacramentum ad judicium suae praesumptionis quotidiè indifferenter accipiat who has gathered S. Austin's Sentences He receives the food of life and drinks the Cup of Eternity who abides in Christ and in whom Christ inhabits For he that disagrees with Christ neither eats his Flesh nor drinks his Blood altho' he takes
indifferently every day the Sacrament of so great a thing to the Condemnation of his presumption The other place is upon the sixth Chapter of S. John (l) Tract 27. in Joan. in initio Exposuit Christus modum attributionis hujus doni sui quomodo daret carnem suam manducare dicens Qui manducat carnem meam bibit sanguinem meum in me manet ego in illo Signum quia manducat bibit hoc est si manet manetur si habitat inhabitatur si haeret ut non deseratur Christ says he expounded the manner of his assignment and gift how he gave his Flesh to eat saying He that eateth my Flesh and drinketh my Blood dwelleth in me and I in him The sign that he eateth and drinketh is this if he abides in Christ and Christ in him if he dwells in him and is inhabited by him if he cleaves to him so as not to be forsaken by him And he concludes with this Exhortation (m) Ibid. propè finem Hoc ergo totum ad hoc nobis valeat dilectissimi ut carnem Christi sanguinem Christi non edamus tantum in Sacramento quod multi mali sed usque ad Spiritus participationem manducemus bibamus ut in Domini corpore tanquam membra maneamus ut ejus spiritu vegetemur c. Let all that has been said Beloved prevail thus far with us that we may not eat Christs Flesh and Blood in Sacrament or sign only but may eat and drink as far as to the participation of the Spirit that we may remain as Members in our Lords Body that we may be enlivened by his spirit c. CHAP. XIV The Fourteenth Difference Several Vsages and Practices of the Fathers relating to the Eucharist declare That they did not believe Transubstantiation or the Presence of Christ's Natural Body there whose contrary practices or forbearance of them in the Roman Church are the Consequences of that belief As also some things the present Roman Church practises because they believe Transubstantiation and the Corporal Presence and dare not neglect to practise so believing which yet the Ancient Church did forbear the practice of not knowing any obligation thereto which plainly argues their different Sentiments about the Eucharist in those Points IT is possible this Argument may have as good an effect to open Mens Eyes as any I have urged before tho' I think I have urged very cogent ones For tho' some Men have a Faculty eternally to wrangle about the Words and Sayings of others and to shift off an Argument of that kind yet they cannot so easily get rid of an Objection from Matter of Fact and a plain Practice I shall therefore try by several Instances of Usages and Forbearances in the cases above-named whether we may not see as clearly as if we had a Window into their Breasts that the Ancient Church and the present Church of Rome were of different Minds and Opinions in this Matter 1. Instance It was a part of the Discipline of the Ancient Church to exclude the uninitiated Catechumens the Energumeni acted by evil Spirits and Penitents from being present at the Mysteries and to enjoin all that were present to communicate It is so known a Case that the Deacons in the Churches cried aloud to bid such depart as I before named when they went to the Prayers of the Mass which was so called from this dismission of Catechumens Penitents c. that I shall not stay to prove it See the Constitutions attributed to Clemens l. 8. cap. 6 7 9 12. and S. Chrysostom Hom. 3. in Ep. ad Ephes By the same Laws of the Church those that remained after the exclusion of the rest were all to communicate whom the Author of the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy under the name of Dionysius the Areopagite (n) Hurarch Eccles c. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 calls Persons worthy to behold the Divine Mysteries and to communicate For this because it is not so universally acknowledged as the former I shall refer the Reader to the Second Canon of the Council of Antioch (o) Can. 2. Concil Antioch 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. which says That they which enter into the Church of God and hear the Holy Scriptures and do not communicate in Prayers with the People or turn away from receiving the Eucharist through any disorderliness are to be cast out of the Church till they confess their Sin and repent c. Which is the same in sense with that Canon (p) Canon Apostol 9. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is very ancient tho' not Apostolical as it pretends That all the Faithful that enter and hear the Scriptures and do not continue at Prayer and also at the Holy Communion are to be separated as those that bring disorder into the Church S. Chrysostom discharges a great deal of his Zeal as well as Eloquence against those Persons that were present at the Eucharist and did not communicate (q) Chrysost Hom. 3. in Ep. ad Ephes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In vain he tells them do's the Priest stand at the Altar when none participates in vain is the daily Sacrifice He minds them that the Cryer had said indeed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That those that were in penitence or penance should depart but thou says he art not of that number but of those that may participate i.e. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not being hindred by any Church-Censures as Penitents were and regardest it not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He says That the King at the Marriage-Supper did not ask Why didst thou sit down but why didst thou enter And adds That whosoever being present does not receive the Mysteries stands there too boldly and impudently The rest is well worthy the reading in that Homily Gregory the Great also tells us (r) Dialog l. 2. cap. 23. Si quis non communicat det locum it was the custom in his Time for a Deacon to cry aloud If any do not Communicate let him depart There must be no Spectators that is unless they were Communicants For as Justin Martyr (s) Apolog. 2. Of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 acquaints us it was the usage of his Time That the the Deacons reach to every one present of the consecrated Bread and Wine and Water that they may communicate If we now look upon the practice of the Roman Church we shall find all quite contrary There they may have as many Spectators as please to come when there is but one alone that receives the Eucharist I mean the Priest Any one that knew nothing of the Matter would conclude when he saw their Masses that they came thither about another Business ordinarily than to eat and drink in remembrance of their Saviour which was the only use that the Ancients understood of it They considered it as a Sacrament by Institution designed to represent Christ's Passion and
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
three more out of S. Austin who seems to speak Prophetically (g) De Vnit Eccles c. 10. His dictis mox ascendit in coelum praemunire voluit aures nostras adversus eos qui procedentibus temporibus exsurrecturos esse praedixerat dicturos Ecce hic Christus ecce illic Quibus nec crederemus admonuit Nec ulla nobis excusatio est si crediderimus contra vocem Pastoris nostri tam claram tam apertam tam manifestam c. Having said thus he ascended into Heaven and would precaution us against those that he foretold would arise in succeeding Ages and say Lo here is Christ or lo there whom he warned us not to believe And we shall have no Excuse if we shall believe them against this so clear open and manifest Voice of our Pastor c. And in his Book against Faustus (h) Lib. 20. cap. 11. Secundùm praesentiam corporalem simul in Sole in Luna in Cruce esse non posset he says That Christ according to his Corporal Presence cannot be at the same time in the Sun and in the Moon and on the Cross Lastly in another Tract (i) Tract 30. in Joan. Sursum est Dominus sed etiam hic est veritas Dominus Corpus enim Domini in quo resurrexit uno loco esse oportet the Printed Copies absurdly read potest veritas ejus ubique diffusa est Our Lord is above yet also Truth the Lord is here For the Body of our Lord in which he arose must be in one Place his Truth is diffused every where Neither do the rest of the Fathers differ from his Doctrine but give their full Consent to it Anastasius Nicaenus (k) In Collect. adv Severianos in Bibl. Patr. Tom. 4. Impossibile est cogitare corpus sine loco sine aliis extra quae esse non potest c. It is impossible to imagine a Body without a Place and other things without which it cannot be c. Didymus Alexandr (l) De Spiritu S. lib. 1. Ipse Spiritus S. si unus de creaturis esset saltem circumscriptam haberet substantiam sicut universae quae factae sunt Spiritus autem cùm in pluribus sit non habet substantiam circumscriptam proves the Holy Ghost to be God because he is in more Places than one The Holy Ghost himself if he were one of the Creatures would at least have a circumscribed or bounded Substance as all things have that are made But the Holy Spirit seeing he is in more than one has not a bounded Substance And afterwards he says That the Holy Ghost was present with the Apostles tho' dispersed to the ends of the Earth and adds Angelica virtus ab hoc prorsus aliena The Power of Angels is altogether a Stranger to this Theodoret (m) In Genes qu. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 makes this a Consequence from Angels being of a determinate Substance That then they require a Place to be in For only the Divinity says he as being undetermined is not in a Place And elsewhere (n) Dialog 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 speaking of Christ's Body after the Resurrection he says Still it is a Body having its former Circumscription Cyril of Alexandria (o) De S. Trinit Dial. 2. disputing against those that thought the Son was begotten of the Substance of the Father by a division of his Substance 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 says If the Divine Nature did admit of Section and Division then you conceive of it as a Body and if so then it must be in a Place and in Magnitude and Quantity and if endued with Quantity it could not avoid being circumscribed Fulgentius (p) Ad Trasimund lib. 2. c. 7. Quod aliquo circumscribitur fine necesse est ut loco teneatur aut tempore also That which is circumscribed by any End or Bound must be contained in a Place or in Time. And again (q) Ib. c. 18. Si verum est corpus Christi loco utique oportet contineri The printed Copies read potest contineri without Sense speaking of Christ's Body If the Body of Christ be a true one it must be contained in a Place S. Greg. Nazianzen (r) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Orat. 34. makes it impossible for one Body to be in divers So do's Damascen (s) De Fide Orth. l. 1. c. 4. make it impossible that one Body should pass thro' another unless there be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that which divides and that which is divided Claud. Mamertus (t) De Statu Animae l. 2. c. 3. Nihil illocale corporeum omne illocale incorporeum quoque est Nothing illocal is corporeal every thing illocal is also incorporeal And again (u) Ibid. lib. 1. c. 18. Hinc patet omne corpus totum simul tangi non posse nec in uno loco esse quamlibet minimum totum posse Illic non habet inferiora sua ubi habet superiora sua nec illic dextra ubi sinistra nec anteriora illic ubi posteriora It is plain that no Body can be touched wholly together nor can the least Whole you can imagine be in one Place that is in one Point And he instances in a Grain of Poppy or the least part of it That it has not its lower Parts there where it has its upper Parts nor its right-hand Parts there where its left-hand Parts are nor its Parts before there where it has its Parts behind S. Hilary (x) In Psal 124. Spiritus namque est omnia penetrans continens Non enim secundùm nos corporalis est ut cùm alicubi adsit absit aliunde c. speaking of Christ as God says He is a Spirit penetrating and containing all things For according to us he is not corporeal so that when he is present in one Place he should be absent from another c. And elsewhere (y) Lib. 8. de Trinitate Homo aut aliquid ei simile cùm alicubi erit tum alibi non erit quia illud quod est illic continetur ubi fuerit infirma ad id natura ejus ut ubique sit qui insistens alicubi sit A Man or any thing like him when he is in a Place any where cannot then be elsewhere because that which is there is contained where it is and he that is placed any where his Nature is uncapable to be every where So also Nazianzen (z) Orat. 51. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 A Vessel of the capacity of one Measure will not contain two Measures nor the Place that will hold one Body can receive two or more Bodies into it Again (a) Paulo post 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a little after This is the Nature of Intellectual Beings that incorporeally and indivisibly they mingle with one another and with Bodies And elsewhere (b) Orat. 37. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he proves the Deity
of the Holy Ghost because he penetrates all intellectual pure and most subtile Spirits as the Angels and also Apostles and Prophets at the same time when they are not in the same places but dispersed severally which shews that the Holy Spirit is uncircumscribed S. Basil uses the same Argument (c) De Spir. S. cap. 14. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. to prove the same Every one of the other Powers we believe to be in a circumscribed Place for the Angel that was present to Cornelius was not in the same place that he was in when he was present to Philip nor the Angel that talked with Zacharias at the Atar did at the same time fulfil his Station in Heaven But the Spirit we believe could at the same time act both in Abaccuk and in Daniel when he was in Babylon c. For the Spirit of the Lord filled the Universe Which is an ill Argument 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 if Christ's Body could be in more Places at the same time Arnobius (d) Lib. 6. contra Gentes In simulachris Dii habitant singuline in singulis toti an partiliter atque in membra divisi Nam neque unus Deus in compluribus potis est uno tempore inesse simulachris neque rursus in partes sectione interveniente divisus Constituamus enim decem millia simulachrorum toto esse in orbe Vulcani nunquid esse ut dixi decem omnibus in millibus potis est unus uno in tempore Non opinor Qua causa Quia quae sunt privata singulariaque naturâ multa fieri nequeunt simplicitatis suae integritate servata Si hoc fuerit sumptum posse unum in omnibus eodem tempore permanere aut Deorum unusquisque dicendus ita ipsum semet ab ipso se dividere ut ipse sit alter non aliquo discrimine separatus sed ipse idem alius quod quoniam recusar respuit aspernaturque natura aut innumeros dicendum est confitendumque esse Vulcanos si in cunctis volumus eum degere atque inesse simulachris aut crit in nullo quia esse divisus natura prohibetur in plurimis disputing against the Heathens who said that their Gods did inhabit their Statues whom yet they believed to be finite and bounded urges them thus The Gods that inhabit in Statues are they single Gods that are in single Statues whole or divided into several parts For one God finite as theirs were cannot be in many Statues at the same time nor again exist divided into Parts by being cut asunder For let us suppose that there are ten thousand Statues of Vulcan all the World over can one at one time be in all those ten thousand Statues I think not If you ask Why so Even because those things that are of a particular and singular Nature cannot be made many retaining the entireness of their simplicity Again If this be supposed that one Deity can dwell in them all at one time then you must either say of every God that he can divide himself from himself so as to be the same and another too not separated by any difference but that he shall be the very same and yet another which because Nature refuses and rejects you must say and confess That there are innumerable Vulcans if we will suppose him to be and to dwell in all his Statues or else that he is in none of them because Nature prohibits his division among many All this would be very ill Reasoning if he believed that which the Church of Rome does That all this which he disputes against is done in the Eucharist S. Ambrose (e) Lib. de Spir. S. c. 7. Cùm omnis creatura certis suae naturae sit circumscripta limitibus c. quomodo quis audeat creaturam appellare Spiritum S. qui non habeat circumscriptam determinatamque virtutem quia in omnibus ubique semper est quod utique Divinitatis Dominationis est proprium De quo hoc Angelo Scriptura dicit de qua Dominatione de qua Potestate Cujus invenimus Angeli virtutem per plurimos effe diffusam Quis ergo dubitet quin divinum sit quod infunditur simul pluribus nec videtur corporeum autem quod videtur à singulis tenetur Since every Creature is bounded within certain Limits of its Nature c. how dare any one call the Holy Ghost a Creature who has not a limited and determined Virtue For he is always in all things and in all places which is the Property of the Divinity and of Supreme Rule And afterwards mentioning that place of the Psalmist Whither shall I go from thy Spirit he adds Of what Angel do's the Scripture say thus of what Principality of what Power What Angel's Virtue do we find diffused among many Who can doubt then that to be Divine that is at once infused into more and is not seen and that to be Corporeal which is seen of every one and held by them Noâ—â—aâ—ian (f) Lib. de Trinitate Si homo tantummodo Christus quomodo adest ubique invocaturis cùm haec non hominis natura est sed Dei ut adesse in omni loco possit also proves the Deity of Christ by his Presence in every place If Christ be only Man how is be every where present with those that call upon him seeing this is not the Nature of Man but of God to be present in every place Author Quaest ad Antioch (g) Quaest 26. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 denies that Angels can be present in many places at once and adds That it's God's Property only to be found in two places and in the whole World at the same moment of time In consequence of this Doctrine of theirs about Bodies the Fathers in the last place assert 3 Assertion That is it impossible for one to dwell in himself or to partake of and have ones own Body in himself because whatsoever contains must be greater than that which is contained in it and there would be a Penetration of Dimensions which they deny Cyril of Alex. (h) De Trin. Dialog 6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 lays it down as a Rule that Nothing can partake of it self And elsewhere (i) Ibid. Dial. 5. 7. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Seeing nothing can partake of it self but this is with relation to another it is altogether necessary to affirm That that which partakes should be different in nature from that which is partaked of And again (k) Idem in Joan. lib. 2. c. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he says That to partake of ones self is absurd so much as to imagine it S. Chrysostom (l) Hom. 10. in Joan. citat à Theodoret. Dial. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 says He that dwells in the Tabernacle and the Tabernacle it self are not the same but one thing dwells in another thing for nothing dwells in