in several verses after making mention of that Consecrated Element calls it still Bread as often as you eat this Bread Whosoever shall eat this Bread c. In all which St. Paul doth but conform himself to the words of our Saviour which he relateth exactly as set down by St. Luke in the 22th chapter of his Gospel v. 19. And he took Bread and gave thanks and brake it and gave unto them saying This is my Body which is given for you this do in remembrance of me And when our Saviour himself thus declareth his words to be in a figurative sense after an usual and plain manner of speaking it is a disorder to run to a violent explication of them containing wonders surpassing humane understanding without any probable ground in the holy Text as the Papists do to maintain their doctrine with this or the like gloss This is my Body that is the thing contained under those Forms is by conversion and substantial transmutation my Body So as pretending to stick to the letter they only keep the sound of the words and to give them sense for their purpose they unaware produce a trope or something darker a paradox repugnant to all humane reasoning and nothing coherent with the context We agree all in calling the holy Eucharist a Sacrament why should we not then agree in taking the expressions touching it in a Sacramental way A Sacrament in common is a sign of a sacred thing Signum rei sacrae as Divines do ordinarily define it Why may not the Sacrament of Christ's Body be called a sign of his Body Why may not we understand that to be the meaning of Christ's words when taking the Bread he said This is my Body to wit this is the sign of my Body It being usual to call Sacramental signs by the name of the things signified by them As St. Augustine testifyeth Sicut ergo secundum quendam modum Sacramentum Corporis Christi Corpus Christi est Aug. to 2 ep 23. ad Bonifac saying Sacraments are signs which often do take the name of those things which they do signifie and represent And to our purpose addeth that after a certain manner the Sacrament of the Body of Christ is the Body of Christ So the Lamb being a sign of the Passover is called the Passover Mat. 26.17 Exo. 12.11 The Rock being a sign of Christ suffering for us is called Christ Vt Baptismus dicitur Sepulchrum sic hoc est Corpus meum Aug. con Faust li 20. c. 21 and the Rock was Christ 1 Cor. 10.4 and Baptism the sign of Christ's Burial is called Christ's Burial which St. Augustine applyeth to our purpose saying As Baptism is called Christ's Burial so is the Sacrament of the Body of Christ called his Body Besides Bellarmine Non enim Dominus dubitavit dicere hoc est corpus meum cum signum daret corporis sui Aug. to 6. cont Adaman cap. 12. and all other Romish Writers do confess being not able to deny it that the words of our Saviour touching the second part of this Sacrament to wit the Cup are sigurative This Cup is the New Testament of my Bloud Where they acknowledge a Trope in the word Cup or Calice taking it for that which is in the Cup. Why will not they likewise admit the former words relating to the Bread to be figurative Non negamus in verbo calix tropum esse Bellarm. de Euch. l. 1. c. 11. such pressing reasons moving to it and such terrible inconveniences attending their construction as hereto has been and after shall be further declared Now that the most Reverend Fathers of that happier Age taught by Christ and his Apostles were of our Opinion taking the words of our Saviour in a Figurative sense and the Eucharistical Bread a Type or Sign of his sacred Body is clearly seen by their Writings such as could escape the blots of the Roman Expurgatory Vererable Denis Areopagita was ignorant of Transubstantiation and so distinguished between the substantial signs and Christ signified by them saying By those Reverend signs and Symboles Christ is signified Dionis Areopagita Eccles hierar c. 2. I no Dionisiq cap hier 3 Eucharistiam vocat ant typon Belar li. 2. de Eu char c. 15. n. sed hoc and the faithful made partakes of him He calleth the Sacrament a Type even after Consecration as Bellarmin himself confesseth So that according to St. Denis the Elements of Bread and Wine in this Sacrament are Types and Symboles which is to say figures and signs of the Body and Blood of Christ though not bare signs but really exhibiting Christ and his Spiritual grace to the faithful duly disposed which being St. Denis his expression fully agreeth with the belief of the Church of England in this particular St. Chrisostom delivereth clearly the same Doctrine Chrisest epist ad ad Caesar coâ—tr haeres Apollinar saying that before the Pread is sanctified we name it Bread but the Divine Grace sanctifying it by the means of the Priest it is freed from the name of Bread but it is esteemed worthy to be called the Lords Body although the nature of Bread remains in it But St. Austin is most eminent in clearing this point where he bringeth in Christ thus speaking to his disciples Augâ— in Psa 98. you are not to eat this Body which you see or to Drink that Bloud which my crucifiers shall powr forth I have commended to you a Sacrament which being spiritually understood shall quicken you Contra Adamantium cap 12. And again he saith that Christ brought them to a banket in which he commended to his Disciples the figure of his Body and lood For he did not doubt to say This is my Body Contra â—â—austum Manichaeum when he gave the sign of his Body And in another place he saith that which by all men is called a Sacrifice is the sign of the true Sacrafice in which the flesh of Christ after his assumption is celebrated by the Sacrament of remembrance Theodoret is more emphatical upon this subject saying Theodoreus Dialog 2 c. 24. Christ honoured the Symboles and the Signs which are seen with the title of his Body and Blood not changing the nature but to nature adding grace For neither do the mistical signs recede from their nature for they abide in their proper substance figure and form and may be seen and touched c. I will conclude these testimonies with one that haply may carry more weight if not deemed Infallible I mean of Pope Pelagius speaking thus Pelagius Papa de duabus naturis contra Eurichem Nestori um vide Picherel in dissert de missa expositione verborum institutionis caenae Domini Pag. 14. Truly the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ which we receive is a Divine thing for that by it we are made partakers of the Divine nature and yet it ceases not to be the substance or
to whom they spake or is it impossible that the malice of the Jews would not or the simplicity of the Disciples could notunderstand the heighth and mysterious sense of the words of our Lord viz. that the Elements of Bread and Wine consecrated and taken in a Sacramental way in remembrance of his Death and Passion should feed to life everlasting the Faithful taking them with due preparation as Protestants do understand in conformity with the Fathers of the Primitive Church before related but that rather they understood them of a corporal and fleshy eating of his Body as Papists do and so represented Difficulties which reason dictated against the like expression such as we did in the beginning of this Discourse You say he did not correct such understanding but he did apparently replying to the Objection of his Disciples so 6.63 It is the spirit that quickneth the flesh profiteth nothing The words that I speak unto you they are spirit and they are life Wherewith he draweth them from an apprehension of a corporal eating to that of spiritual feeding conducing to the everlasting life of their souls His reply to the Jews signifies they understood him as we do of a spiritual eating and miraculous operation which they would not believe and so he repeateth the same doctrine to them with the commination annexed that if they did not eat his flesh they should not have life in them Worship of Images As to the third point of worshiping Images it is clearly prohibited by God in the second precept of the Decalogue Exod. 20.4.5 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven Image thou shalt not bow down thy self to them This Precept they have put out of their Catechism to give place to their own of worshipping of Images with the same honour due to the persons represented by them and consequently the Image of God and Christ with latria of the Virgin Mary with hyperdulia of Saints with dulia according to the graduation they express This to be the general Tenent with them Azor declareth in these words Constans est Theologorum sententia imagines eodem â—â—nore 〈◊〉 honorari câ—li quo colituâ— id cujus est image Azâ—r instit mor. 〈◊〉 1. l 9 c. 6. It is the constant judgment of Divines that the Image is to be honoured and worshipped with the same honour and worship wherewith that is worshipped whereof it is an Image Nay they will have us believe that God did ordain so much in the first commandment and so contradicted himself prohibiting in the second commandment what he commanded in the first Lau Vaux in his Catechism to to this Question Who breaketh the first commandment of God by irreverence of God giveth this Answer they that do not give due reverence to God and his Saints or their reliques and Images What reverence they pretend due to Images Decissione casuum conscientiae p 1. l. 2. c. 2. sect tâ—nult Vet. dâ—gma Theto 5. l 15. c. 3. s 1â— c. 14 s 8. Jacobus de Graffijs declares fully according to what has been said before But Dionysius Petavius one of their most warrantable Antiquaries telleth us that for the four first Centuries and farther there was little or no use of Images in the Temples or Oratories of Christians and such as was Pope Gregory declareth it was only for Historical use for information of the unlearned not to worship them and so writing to Serenus Bishop of Marsile who brake down the Images that were in his Church Gre. regist li 7. Epâ—s 2â—9 ad Serenum seeing the people worshipping them saith thus We commend you that you have that zeal that nothing made with hands should be worshipped but yet we judge that you should not have broken those Images for Painting is therefore used in Churches that they which are unlearned may yet by sight read these things upon the walls which they cannot read in books therefore your brotherhood ought both to preserve the Images and restrain the people from worshipping them This difference betwixt making an Image and worshipping of it is confirmed by the example of the brazen Serpent Num. 21.9 2 Kin. 18.4 which God himself ordered to be made which when onely made and looked upon was a Medicine but when worshipped it became Poison and was destroyed Learned Vasques acknowledgeth that the worship of God by an Image is clearly prohibited in the second Commandment and not only the worship of an Idol saying that it is plain in Scripture Vasq in 3. p. dis 94. c. 3 that God did not only forbid that in the second Commandment which was unlawful by the Law of Nature as the worship of an Image for God but the worshipping of the true God by any similitude Nic. ph l. 8. c 53 Nicephorus Calixtus relating the Heresie of the Armenians and Jacobits says they made Images of the Father Son and Holy Ghost which he censures as a most absurd thing quod perquam absurdum est yet they do it in the Roman Church But S. Clement of Alexandria of Images in general declareth thus Li. 7. Hom. in paraen We have no Images in the world it is apparently forbidden to us to exercise that deceitful art for it is written thou shalt not make any similitude of any thing in Heaven above c. They confess it is sinful to worship an Image terminativè or in it self but pretend it lawful to worship it relative or for God or the Saints sake who is represented A strange way of serving God! to transgress his Commandment to please him Saul was reprehended and severely punished for this kind of officiousness when being commanded to destroy all that Amalek had he spared sheep and oxen to sacrifice to the Lord. But that fair pretext could not excuse his disobedience and what he thought religious devotion was declared to be no better than Idolatry Samuel intimating to him this fearful Verdict 1 Sam. 15.22 23. Hath the Lord as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices as in obeying the voice of the Lord behold to obey is better than sacrifice and to hearken than the fat of rams for Rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft and stubborness is as iniquity and Idolatry This being so when God is so clear and absolute in commanding not to bow down to Images adding to this Precept beyond others special expressions of jealousie and commination of severity against infringers of it how can bowing down to them be justified with colours of devotion or excused from rebellion or stubborness which is censured to be Idolatry Besides the worship of an Image terminativè and not relativè includes a contradiction the very essence of an Image including relation to another whereas nothing can be an Image of it self Wherefore the same precept that prohibits a terminative worship excludes a relative But whatsoever may be intended by these expressions how many of the commonalty take notice of that
nature of Bread and Wine And truly an Image and similitude of the Body and Bloud of Christ is celebrated in the Action of the mysteries I am to suppose it will be replyed for some exception must be conceived against evidences so clear and executive that these testimonies of the Fathers are not to be seen thus in their more corrected editions which I have reason to believe having seen the venerable writings of the most ancient and grave Fathers of the Church both Greek and Latine defaced with large blots wheresoever they were found opposite to the present Tenents and practice of the Roman Church according to the direction of the Roman Expurgatory They pretend that Protestants have inserted into the Books of the Fathers those clauses favouring their own Doctrine But who can believe that so many weighty Volumes making up great Libraries should be newly printed to receive those supplies that so many clear sentences concording with the context should be so artificially conveyed into the very heart and marrow of the Homilies of the Fathers The contrary is the more credible to me I having seen very ancient Libraries which never came under the hands of a Protestant expurged of such clauses and sentences according to the Rule of the Roman Expurgatory Besides this Scot. in 4. dis 11. q. 3. Ocham ib. q. 6. Biel lect 40 in Canon Missae Râ—ffens c. 1. o. 1. controv captiv Balil Scotus Ocham Biel Fisher Bishop of Rochester Bassolis Caietan Melchior Canus and others many eminent Schoolmen have affirmed that the doctrine of Transubstantiation is not expressed in the Canon of the Bible And certainly it was no Article of Faith before the Lateran Council declared it for such 1200. years after Christ as Scotus and others do affirm And even after this declaration several of their chief Teachers continued affirming that Article not to be contained in Scripture Bassolis Caiâ—tan apâ—d Suar. to 3 Disp 46. sec 3. Caâ—us loâ— com l. 3. sun 2. especially â—assolis Caietan Melchior Canus and so they coined it of their own heads for they could not declare it to be revealed if it was not in Scripture Their doctrine of Transubstantiation and Corporal Presence of our Saviour in the Sacrament of the Altar being thus ill grounded consider how desperate is their resolution in giving to the consecrated wafer the Worship of Divinity nay greater than ever they give to the true undoubted God as is well known to such as have seen the sumptuous pomp of Spain and other Popish Countries in adoring the Consecrated Host Even standing to their own principles they can never be absolutely certain of Christ's Corporal Presence under those Forms of Bread That depending as themselves teach from the intention of the Priest consecrating and his due Ordination and this later again depending from the intention of the Bishop that ordained him and his legal Ordination and so upward of endless requisites impossible to be known certainly upon any occasion as Bellarmine Vega and all their Writers commonly do confess Bellar. li. 3. de justif c. 8. What blindness therefore is it to give Divine Worship to a thing they know not certainly to be more than a piece of bread Vega lib. 9. de justif c. 17. Some pressed with this Argument did answer that they were free from Idolatry in their practice herein because they believe that host to be God But upon this account the Egyptians worshipping the Sun for God and the Israelites adoring the Golden Calf believing it was the true God that brought them out of Egypt and the grossest Idolaters that ever were may plead for excuse from Idolatry alledging unwilful mistake To this again some of them reply that they do not barely suppose Christ to be really present under the Form of bread but that they know and believe it upon the same ground and motives upon which they believe that Christ is God and consequently to be adored Whereby certainly they give great advantage to the enemies of Christ's Divinity seeing they make the truth of these two things equal that is Bellar. de Christo l. 1. c. 4. the Divinity of Christ and Transubstantiation And of the untruth of this bold Assertion I will take learned Bellarmine for judge who when he proves the Divinity of Christ goes through nine several classes of Arguments of which six are wholly out of Scripture with uncontrollable strength and admirable clearness But being to prove Transubstantiation out of Scripture his only argument is from those words of our Saviour Matth. De Sacr. Euchar. l. 3. c. 19. 26. Take eat this is my body And finding that proof not clear enough appeals to the Authority of Councils and Fathers concluding the chapter thus Though in the words of the Lord there may be some obscurity or ambiguity that is taken away by the Councils and Fathers of the Church and so passes to that kind of proof But whatsoever be of Scripture for Transubstantiation it is intolerable boldness to say there is the same reason for the adoration of the Host as for Christ's Divinity it self whereas for the one we have a plain command in Scripture and for the other nothing like it St. Paul tells that all the Angels are commanded to worship the Son of God Heb. 1.6 and that at the name of Jesus every knee shall bow of things in Heaven Phi. 2.10 in Earth and under the Earth And St. John telleth from his Master's mouth that the Heavenly Father commanded that all men should honour the Son even as they do the Father Jo. 5.23 But where is the least intimation given that we are to worship Christ in the Sacramental Bread supposing him present there If you answer the general command extendeth to him where ever he is present I say you may upon that account as well worship him in the Sun and in the Moon and in any other bread for in all he is present as God I will conclude this Point with answering the argument I saw taken for the most weighty against our Doctrine hitherto declared of taking the Sacrament of the Altar for a commemoration of our Saviour and spiritual partaking of his blessed Body and Bloud for the food of our souls to life everlasting without any real transmutation of the substances That if the Jews did take his words in this sense they could not in reason strive among themselves saying John 5.52 How can this man give us his flesh to eat nor his Disciples say This is an hard saying who can hear it And Christ replying did not reprehend their misunderstanding his words but repeated his former doctrine saying Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man ye have no life in you This argument I once over-valued but considering it better I look upon it as a tacit censure of Christ's reply for non pertinent to satisfie the Objection of his Hearers Shall we pretend to understand their meaning better than Christ