and Wine in order to their Communicating to us the Benefits and Virtue of our Saviour's Passion I will end this Corollary with that of Theodoret (2) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Theodoret. Dial. 1. p. 18. Edit Sirmond 1642. our Saviour honoured the Symbols and Signs the Consecrated Bread and Wine with the Titles of his Body and his Blood not by changing their NATURE at all but by adding GRACE to NATURE My fifth Corollary shall be That the Argument from the Eucharist used by the Fathers to prove the Verity of the two Natures in Christ doth evidently deny and reject any Transubstantiation This I shall demonstrate from particular Fathers most eminent in their times the first of which shall be the Great St. Chrysostom in his Epistle to Caesarius a Monk whom he was endeavouring to secure from Apollinarius his Heresie who denyed the Truth of the two Natures in Christ For the disproving of which false Doctrine among other Arguments He urges this from the Eucharist (1) Sicut enim antequam sanctificetur Panis Panem nominamus divinâ autem illum sanctificantè Gratiâ mediante Sacerdote liberatus est quidem Appellatione PANIS dignus autem habitus est Dominici Corporis APPELLATIONE etiaâ—si NATURA PANIS in ipso permansit non duo Corpora sed unum Corpus Filii praedicatur Sic hic Divina 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 id est inundante Corporis naturâ unum filium unam Personam utreque haec fecerunt Agnoscendum tamen inconfusam indivisibilem rationem non in unâ solum Naturâ sed in duobus perfectis D. Chrys Ep. ad Caes in the Appendix to the Defence of the Exposition c. p. 156. For as in the Eucharist before the Bread is Consecrated we call it Bread but after that by the mediation of the Priest the Divine Grace hath sanctified it it is no longer called Bread but is honoured with the name of our Lord's Body tho' the nature of Bread continue in it still and it doth not become two distinct Bodies but one Body of the Son of God even so here the Divine Nature being united to the humane or Body they together make up but one Son one Person But must however be acknowledged to remain without Confusion after an indivisible manner not in one NATURE but in TWO PERFECT NATURES The very same Argument doth Theodoret urge against the Eutychians whose Heresie was the same with that of Apollonarius as I have above put down his words at large from his second Dialogue against the Eutychian Heresie p. 70. One of your own Popes â—elasius I. against the same Hereticks sayes (2) Certe Sacramenta quae sumimus Corporis sanguinis Christi Divina Res est propter quod per eadem Divinae essicimur Consortes Naturae tamen esse non desinit SUBSTANTIA vel NATURA PANIS VINI certe IMAGO SIMILITUDO CORPORIS SANGUINIS Christi in Actione Mysteriorum celebrantur Satis ergo nobis evidenter ostendituâ— hoc nobis in ipso Christo Domino sentiendum quod in ejâ—s Imagine profitemur celebramus sumiâ—â—us ut sieâ—â— in hane scilicet in Divinam transeunt Sancto spiritu perâ—iciente Substantiam PERMANENTE tamen in suae rect suâ PROPRIETATE NATURA Sic illud ipsum Mysterium Principale cujus nobis efficientiam virtutémque veraciter REPRESENTANT ex quibus constat proprit PERMANENTIBUS Unum Christum quiae integrum verâ—mque Permantre demonstrant Gelasius Papa de duabus in Christo Naturis in Biblioth P Prum Parte 3. Tom. 5. p. 671. Edit Colon. 1618. Doubtless the SACRAMENTS of the Body and Blood of Christ which we receive are a Divine Thing in that they make us Partakers of the Divine Nature though the SUBSTANCE or NATURE of the BREAD and WINE doth still Remain and indeed the Image and Likeness of Christ's Body and Blood is celebrated in the Mysterious Action By this therefore we are plainly taught to think the same of our Lord Christ himself as we profess celebrate and receive in or by his IMAGE that as the Elements pass into a Divine Nature by the Operation of the Holy Ghost and yet continue to have their own Proper Nature so that principal Mystery the Incarnation the Virtue and efficacy of which the Consecrated Elements do truly Represent unto us doth as evidently demonstrate that there is One True and entire Christ consisting of two distinct Natures Ephrem or Ephramius the Patriarch of Antioch in the sixth Century urges the same Argument (3) Apud Photii Biblioth num 229. against the same Hereticks That which I gather from these evident places of these great Men is that as they held the humane Nature to continue entire after its Vnion with the Divine into the One Person of Christ so they held the true Substance of the Bread to continue after its Consecration into the Sacramental Body of Christ and that if they had not believed this they would never have used it as an Argument to prove the other These Places and this Argument are so convictive that I admire that any man can believe Transubstantiation that does but reade and consider them I know some of your Writers say that the Fathers by Substance and Nature here mean onely the outward Appearance and the bare Accidents But not to insist how we shall ever know any Author's sense in any one thing if men may take this Liberty not onely to make a word signifie what they please but the direct contrary to what it should and alwayes doth This is to make the whole Argument of these several Greatest Men of a Pope himself and him perhaps as learned as ever sat in the Chair and as Infallible perfect Foolery and direct Sophistry to give up their Cause as well as their Arguments unto the Hereticks their Enemies while they make these Learned Fathers to prove that Christ had not the Appearance onely which none of the Eutychians did deny him but a true humane Nature by the Example of a Thing which had not the true Nature of Bread but the bare Appearance of it without any Substance Certainly such men do not consider what great wrong they doe to these Fathers in making their Arguments so very weak and impertinent Had They then believed Transubstantiation it had been perfect Madness in Them to use the Eucharist for an Argument against the Hereticks since the Hereticks would most easily have retorted it and shewn out of their own mouths that as upon Consecration the Substance of the Bread is gone and nothing but the appearance of Bread remains so upon the Vnion of the two Natures the humane was absorpt or to borrow a word of you for the Eutychians transubstantiated into the Divine and onely the Appearance of flesh remained and this the Fathers could never have disproved if they themselves had held that the Appearance of a Thing as to Colour Dimension Smell Tast c. might subsist without the
he took our flesh upon him so no more need was there that the Bread should be transubstantiated to become his Sacramental Body and Blood. Nay St. Justin directly supposes the contrary when he makes the Eucharist to be Bread tho' not received then as common Bread and proves it too when he says * Which words you suppress in your translation Was you afraid we should conclude from them that Just Mart. did not think the Accidents did subsist in the Eucharist without the Substance But let that pass that by this consecrated nourishment the Body and Blood of Christ our Bodies our Flesh and Blood are nourished which I am sure your learned men will grant to be impious to say of the natural very Body and Blood of Christ and impossible if no substance but that be there So that it is evident that by the Body and Blood of Christ in this passage must be meant Christ his Symbolical Body and Blood or the Sign or Figure of his Natural Body and Blood the substance as well as accidents of the Elements remaining As to the reason you add that Justin should have told the Emperor if he meant no more by it that by the Flesh and Blood of Christ he intended only the Signs of them since it was he knew objected to the Christians his Brethren that in the Mysteries of their Religion they did eat mans flesh I do retort it upon you and challenge you to shew where they ever pleaded guilty or where they ever made any Apology for or distinction about their eating our Saviours Natural Flesh and Blood tho' they abstained from the Blood of every thing else as any one that is but little conversant in the first Antiquity knows they constantly pleaded against the so often objected dapes Thyesteas upon this point b Nihil rationabilius ut quia nos jam similitudinem mortis ejus in Baptismo accepimus similitudinem quoque carnis ejus sumamus similitudine pretiosi sanguinis potemur ita ut veritas non desit in Sacramento ridiculum nullum fit Paganis quod cruorem occisi hominis bibamus Aug. apud Grat. de Consecr Dist 2. Sect. utrum p. 1958. Edit Taur St. Austin as quoted by Gratian is so express both against your reason and your opinion that I cannot omit it here he sayes Nothing is more reasonable than that as we have received the similitude of his to wit Christs death in Baptism so we should also receive the likeness of his Flesh and drink the likeness of his Pretious Blood that so neither may Truth be wanting in the Sacrament nor Pagans have an occasion of ridiculing us for drinking the Blood of one that was slain Which it seems Pagans would then have done had the Christians then talked of drinking literally Christs Natural Blood and the Jews and Mahometans do now do since some Christians took up an Opinion and talked of doing it in a literal sense witness that severe Observation and Reflexion of Averroes upon them sufficiently known Your first place from St. Irenaeus is not exactly translated eum panem in quo gratiae actae sint c. is not barely that Bread in the Eucharist is the Body of Christ but that that Bread which hath been consecrated is the Body of his Lord. This passage is so far from being for that it is directly against you that Bread which hath been consecrated is demonstration that he looked upon it as to the substance to be Bread still here you were forced to shew us a little of your Legerdemain or else I am sure this Chapter of Irenaeus had been secure enough from your quoting it there being that in the middle of this passage which you have slily left out which is perfect demonstration against Transubstantiation b Quomodo autem rursus dicunt carnem in corruptionem devenire non percipere vitam quae à corpore Domini sangaine alitur Iren. l. 4. c. 34. while St. Irenaeus argues for the immortality of our bodies from their having been nourished by the Body and Blood of Christ and as much against you is your next passage from him and as well translated by you for as that which is Bread from the Earth perceiving very wise Bread truly this same was the call of God or as I would say being consecrated now is not common Bread but the Eucharist consisting of two things one earthly i. e. the accidents and the other Spiritual so our bodies receiving the Eucharist are not now corruptible having the hope of the Resurrection What can be more plain against Transubstantiation than this place which still supposes it to be Bread when it sayes that after Consecration it is not common Bread had Irenaeus taught or believed a Transubstantiation here he must have said that after Consecration it is not Bread at all and not have talked of a terrestrial or corporeal thing or part in the Eucharist as well as a heavenly or spiritual but you say this earthly part is the accidents I would fain know what part of St. Irenaeus or the Ancients you learned this from I am sure you ought to be ashamed of talking at this ridiculous rate there is any Body scarce but knows that earthly and material or corporeal are Synonymous but you however contrary to all Reason and all Philosophy must be setting up material Accidents and you might as well have told us of incorporeal bodies and corporeal nothings as of earthly Accidents but such inconsistent ridiculous stuff will down it seems with a man that believes Transubstantiation Your talk about imposing a new signification upon the Bread and Wine is nothing to the purpose p. 31. since our Church makes the Elements not only to signifie but to communicate to us the Body and Blood of Christ after a spiritual and heavenly manner which thing requires an Omnipotent Power for the instituting it for such an effect and enduing it with such a virtue or power CHAP. XX. His several Proofs from Tertullian answered and his Falsification of that Author exposed TErtullian your next Author you have abused worse than St. Justin I must profess that when I first took your Book into my hand I did expect you would have had the prudence to have let him and Theodoret alone but it seems all the Fathers either are for Transubstantiation or you will make them so It is pleasant to see what shufling you make about your first quotation from him and how afraid you are of his p. 32. id est Figura Corporis mei that you durst not translate it and next how sillily or rather falsly you english nisi veritatis esset Corpus unless it had been the truth There needs nothing else to impeach your attempt of ignorance and a depraving Tertullian than the putting his own words together †Corpus suum illum fecit hoc est Corpus meum dicendo id est Figura Corporis mei Figura enim
reckons this that in the Church should be offered Bread and Wine Antitypes or Symbols of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ and that those which eat of this Visible Bread should spiritually eat the Flesh of the Lord. This passage is so convictive of it self that it needs not help to inforce it against all literal eating of Christ's Body and Blood and against Transubstantiation I need say nothing to your last Testimony from him nor shall onely that your Translation of this short passage is very silly and very false too Do you or your new Superiours look at it again and then deny it if you can CHAP. XXII Arguments for Transubstantiation from Gregory Nyssen and Cyril of Hierusalem answered and a ridiculous Mistake of Mr. Sclater's observed GRegory Nyssen's Testimonies are the next you do produce to prove a Transubstantiation p. 40. and do indeed promise more in order to it than any you have hitherto produced while they say that the sanctified Bread is changed into the Body of the Word of God. However that Gregory Nyssen meant no change of the substance of the Bread and Wine or that they were annihilated and the Body and Blood of Christ substituted into their place but meerly a change in their Vse Office and Virtue is past all question evident since in another place he illustrates this change of the Elements of Bread and Wine by and compares it to that of the Altar which I hope you do not believe Nam Altare hocsanctum cuiadsistimus lapis est naturâ communis sed quoniam Dei cultui consecratum Altare immaculatum est Panis item panis est initio communis sed ubi eum Mysterium sacrificaverit Corpus Christi fit dicitur Eadem item Verbi vis etiam Sacerdotem augustum honorandum facit novitate Benedictionis à communitate Vulgi sâ—gregatum cum nihil vel corpore vel formâ mutatus ille sit qui erat invisibili quadam vi ac gratiâ invisibilem animam in melius transformatam gerens Ac simili rationum consequeâ—tiâ etiam aqua cum nihil aliud sit quam aqua supernâ Gratiâ benedicente ei in eam quae mente percipitur hominem renovat regenerationem Greg. Nyss in Baptismum Christi Oratio p. 802 803. Edit Paris 1615. or any of your Party dare say that upon its being dedicated to the Service of God it undergoes any change of substance but meerly a change of use it being now separated to God's Service which before was of common use and for the most common Services He compares it to the change in a Priest which is not of the Substance of his Body when he is ordained but of his Soul onely by an invisible Grace which qualifies him for the particular office of a Priest He compares it to the change of Water in Baptism which all the world will grant is not in the substance but in the virtue onely through the benediction of the divine Grace I could bring his Comparison of the change of the Bread and Wine in the Eucharist to that of Chrism but these I have brought I think are more than enough to prove that our Gregory Nyssen meant no other change of the Elements than a change of Vse of Office and of Virtue and that if your people are resolved that he shall mean a change of Substance we shall have Transubstantiations enough then the Water in Baptism is no Water though it seem such to all Senses but is transubstantiated into a divine Grace and you and I when we were ordained were really transubstantiated into the meer Office of a Priest and for all our eating and drinking are as meer Accidents as those in the Eucharist one thing I am puzled at and that is what the Stones of the Altar are transubstanced into These Sir as ridiculous as they be must be necessary Consequences of your making our Author teach Transubstantiation in the Eucharist and all the Arts of your whole Party cannot avoid them so that I suppose we have reason to deny you Gregory Nyssen his being a Teacher or Favourer of your Vpstart Doctrine I should before parting examine your translating Gregory Nyss but I am too much in hast to stay upon such wretched blundering onely one observation I must advertise the young Criticks of and that is that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which in all other authors signifies put to death in Greg. Nyss according to the sage Mr. Sclater signifies made immortal Cyril of Jerusalems Testimonies do promise at first view p. 40 41. as much or more than the last from Gregory Nyssen to prove all you intend them for to wit a Transubstantiation when they not onely say with Gregory Nyssen that the Bread and Wine after Consecration are made the Body and Blood of Christ but which is further that the Bread which is seen by us is not Bread although the tast perceive it to be Bread but the Body of Christ To which I answer first that St. Cyril is far from teaching Transubstantiation in these places since what he sayes first is not denyed by our Church that the Bread and Wine are made by Consecration the Body and Blood of Christ and are no longer common Bread and common Wine which very expressions sufficiently prove them to be as to their Substance Bread and Wine still tho' now hereby distinguished from common Bread and Wine And therefore upon this very ground Cyril advises his Catechumens to consider the Elements consecrated 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Cyr. Myst Catech. 4. p. 237. Edit Paris 1640. not as bare Bread and Wine which certainly proves them to be so as to their substance tho' their Senses suggested to them that they were nothing else than bare Elements but as our Lord said they were his Body and his Blood. So that we hence give a good account of that other expression that seems the more favourable to Transubstantiation about the visible Bread being not Bread but the Body of Christ which we are as ready now as Cyril was then to say is not Bread bare Bread after consecration but the Body of Christ inasmuch as it is now honoured with the Title of the Body of Christ since it is made by Consecration the Instrument to make us Partakers of the Body of Christ as St. Paul sayes 1 Cor. 10.16 and after him Cyril himself in this Catechism advises his Catechumens to receive with all assurance the consecrated Elements as the Body and Blood of Christ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Idem eodem loco upon this very reason because under the Type or Figure of Bread is given to the worthy Receiver the Body of Christ and under that of Wine is given his Blood. This Passage you or rather Grodecius for you do but translate him have endeavoured to make speak for you which is an easy thing to make any Authors do if you should serve them as you have done him for 1. you make
another place that our Lord gave to his Disciples at his Last Supper the Figure of his sacred Body and Blood. CHAP. XXV Some Corollaries against Transubstantiation HAving hitherto sufficiently answered all your pretended Proofs for Transubstantiation and shewn in part the Sense and Arguments of the Fathers against it instead of wearying my self or rather our Reader with any more of your Authors which you very irregularly place and which you your self will grant to be produced to no purpose if the former Primitive Fathers were of a contrary Faith about the Eucharist I shall here adjoyn a few Corollaries to vindicate the Faith of the Catholick and Apostolical Church of England against Transubstantiation and will make it apparently clear that her Doctrine and Faith herein is both Primitive and Orthodox and exactly the same with that of the Fathers of the Catholick Church My first Corollary shall be 1 Coroll That the Fathers gave such Titles to the Consecrated Elements of Bread and Wine as utterly exclude a Transubstantiation It was sufficiently common with them to call the Elements a Tertullian con Marcion l. 4. c. 40. Beda Comment in 3. Psalm the Figure b August de Doctr. Christi c. 7. Origen Dialog cont Marcion p. 116. Edit Wets the Sign c Basil Anaphora Cyril Hierosol Col. 4. Cat. Mys the Type d Greg. Naz. Orat. 118. Macarius Hom. 27. the antitype e August in Gratiano the Similitude f Theodoret. Dialog 2. and the Symbols of the Body and Blood of Christ g Tom. 6. Concil Edit Cossart and a whole Oecumenical Council of 338 Bishops at Constantinople A. D. 754. declare them to be the true and onely Image of our Saviour's Body and Blood. These Expressions and the like I argue to be utterly inconsistent with the Elements being Transubstantiated into the very Body and Blood of Christ since it is impossible any thing can be the Figure of a thing and the thing it self or the thing it self and yet but the figure of it he that will affirm this may without an absurdity say that the Sign of the King at a Tavern door is the King himself that the Picture of the Ship in St. Paul's Church-yard is as real a true Ship as any on the River and that the Image of the King in the Exchange is really King James 2d in his very Person In short if any thing be the Figure it cannot be the thing if it be the thing it self it cannot be the Figure of it since nothing can be the Figure of it self And therefore if Christ's Natural Body be really on the Altar that which is there cannot be the Figure of it But if as the Fathers almost unanimously speak that which is there be the Figure the Sign of it then consequently our Saviour's Natural Body it self is not This is so evident See Tertullian's 4th Book against Marcion ch 40th I think I need not say any more upon this Point I might very easily else have shewn that the Strength of one of Tertullian's Arguments for our Saviour his having a true substantial Body against Marcion depended wholly on the Eucharist its being the FIGURE of his Body but I will wave it and conclude this Corollary with that of Facundus h Et potest Sacramentum Adoptionis Adoptio nuncupari Sicut Sacramentum Corporis Sanguinis ejus quod est in Pane Poculo consecrato Corpus ejus Sanguinem dicimus Non quod propriè Corpus ejus sit Panis Poculum Sanguis Sed quod in se Mysterium Corporis ejus sanguinisque contineant Hinc ipse Dominus benedictum Panem Calicem quem Discipulis tradidit Corpus Sanguinem suum Vocavit Facund Herm. pro Defens 3. Capit. Con. Chalced. Lib. 9. c. 5. p. 404 405. Edit Sirmond 1629. Bishop of Hermiana in Africa the Sacrament of Adoption may be called by the name of Adoption as we call the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ the consecrated Elements of Bread and Wine his Body and his Blood not that the Bread is properly his Body or the Cup his Blood but because they contain the Mystery of his Body and Blood upon which very account it is that when our Lord delivered the consecrated Bread and Cup to his Disciples he called them his Body and his Blood. One thing I must not forget here that tho' these Fathers and the Church of England with them look upon the consecrated Elements as Signs and Figures onely yet they and we believe that by the Institution of Christ they are the Means of conveying all the Virtue and Benefits of our Saviour's crucifyed Body of communicating the Blood and Body of Christ unto every worthy Communicant This I could not omit to let you see the silliness of your foolish Cant up and down of meer Signs of what meer figures c. such Expressions were designed against the Church of England or what do they in your Book against her if they were I must tell you that they are sottishly ridiculous and most intolerable from a man who was I am sorry I can say it a Minister of the Church of England and therefore must so often have seen her Articles and so often have used her Communion-Service My Second Corollary is 2. Coroll That such things are attributed to the Sacramental Body and Blood of Christ by the Primitive Fathers as do altogether exclude their being transubstantiated into the Natural Body and Blood of Christ I instance in that of the Sacramental Body and Blood of Christ their being said to Nourish our Bodies That the consecrated Elements do nourish our Bodies is very apparent from a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Justin Apolog 2. St. Justin Martyr's saying that our flesh and blood are nourished by the consecrated Elements being changed into our Substance From b Quando ergo Calix Panis percipiunt â—erbum Dei fit Eucharistia Sanguinis Corporis Christi ex quibus augetur consistit Carnis nostrae Substantia S. Iren. c. Haer. l. 5. c. 18. Irenaeus and c Caro Corpore Sanguine Christi vescitur ut Anima de Deo saginetur Tert. de Resurrect c. 8. Tertullian that our Flesh is fed and nourished with the Body and Blood of Christ From d Ille Cibus qui sanctificatur per Verbum Dei perque obsecrationem juxta id quod babet materiale in ventrem abit in secessum ejicitur Orig. in 15 Matt. p. 27. Origen that the Eucharist as to its Material Part undergoes the common course of our common repasts From e Quia sicut visibilis Panis Vini substantia exteriorem nutrit inebriat hominem ita Verbum Dei qui est Panis Vivus participatione sui Fidelium recreat mentes Isidor Hispal apud Rathramni Lib. de Corp. Sang. D. p. 120. Edit Paris Boileau 1686. Isidore of Sevil that the Substance of the Visible Bread