Sacramentum It is the true Flesh of Christ that was buried therefore it viz. the Eucharist is truly the Sacrament of his flesh S. Austin (q) Serm. ad recen Batis Quomodo est panis corpus ejus calix vel quod habet calix sanguis ejus Ista fratres ideo dicuntur Sacramenta quia in iis aliud videtur aliud intelligitur How is the Bread his Body and the Cup or what the Cup contains his Blood These Brethren are therefore called Sacraments because in them we see one thing and understand another Again (r) In Psal 68. conc 1. Cùm veniret Dominus ad coenam qua commendavit Sacramentum corporis sanguinis sui When the Lord came to the Supper wherein he commended the Sacrament of his Body and Blood. Facundus (s) Defens 3. capit l. 9. Christi fideles Sacramentum corporis sanguinis ejus accipientes corpus sanguinem Christi rectè dicuntur accipere non quod propriè corpus ejus sit panis poculum sanguis sed quod in se mysterium corporis sanguinisque contineant Christs faithful ones receiving the Sacrament of his Body and Blood are rightly said to receive his Body and Blood. And he had said before Not that the Bread is properly his Body and the Cup his Blood but because they contain in them the mystery of his Body and Blood. Isidore (t) De Offic. Eccles l. 1. c. 18. Haec duo sunt visibilia sanctificata autem per Spiritum Sanctum in Sacramentum Divini Corporis transeunt speaking of the Bread and Wine says These two are visible but being sancrified by the Holy Spirit they pass into a Sacrament of his Divine Body They call them also Symbols Origen (u) Comm. in Matth. 15. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Having discoursed as we hear◠before of the Eucharist concludes thus Thu much may suffice concerning the Typical and symbo lical Body And distinguishes it from the word that was made Flesh which he calls true food Eusebius (x) Dem. Evang. l. 1. cap. 10. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Having received a command to celebrate the memory of this Sacrifice upon the Table by the Symbols of his Body and saving Blood according to the Ordinances of the N. Testament Theodoret (y) Comm. in 1 Cor. 13. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not only in the large Testimony produced out of him in the last Chapter calls the Bread and Wine the Symbols of Christs Body and Blood but says thus elsewhere In the most H. Baptism we see a type of the resurrection then we shall see the resurrection it self Now we see the Symbols of the Lords Body there we shall see the Lord himself They call them Signs S. Austin (z) Contr. Adimant c. 12. Non dubitavit Dominus dicere hoc est corpus meum cùm daret signum corporis sui Our Lord did not doubt to say This is my Body when he gave the sign of his Body S. Ambrose (a) De iis qui init c. 9. Ante benedictionem verborum Coelestium alia species nominatur post Consecrationem Corpus Christi significatur of the Bread. Before the Benediction of the Heavenly words another species is named after the Consecration the Body of Christ is signified S. Cyprian (b) Nec potest videri sanguis ejus quo redempti vivificati sumus esse in calice quùm vinum desit calici quo Christi sanguis ostenditur Epist ad Caecilium Neither can the Blood of Christ whereby we are redeemed and quickned be seen to be in the Cup when Wine is wanting in the Cup whereby the Blood of Christ is shown Speaking against those that used only Water Tertullian (c) L. 1. adv Marcion Nec panem reprobavit quo ipsum Corpus suum reptaesentat Neither did he reject Bread whereby he represents his own Body S. Jerome (d) In Matth. 26. Ut quomodo in praefiguratione ejus Melchisedec summi Dei sacerdos panem vinum offerens fecerat ipse quoque veritatem sui corporis sanguinis repraesentarer◠Christ says he took Bread that comforts mans heart and proceeded to the true Sacrament of the Passover That like as Melchisedeck the Priest of the High God had done when he offered Bread and Wine so he also might represent the truth of his Body and Blood. It 's a very trifling objection that our Adversaries make both to this and the former Testimony in Tertullian that the word repraesentare to represent signifies very often to exhibit a thing and make it present for tho' it should be granted it would not help their cause since they both say that it is Bread that represents his Body which therefore must remain since that which is not cannot act any thing but then I add that tho' in some Cases to represent is to exhibit yet never in the Case of Sacraments and Signs for their Essence consists in signification therefore their representation as Signs must be to denote and show rather something absent which they represent than to make it present They call them also Types Cyril of Jerus (e) Catech. Mystag 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He bids us receive the Bread and Wine with all certainty as the Body and Blood of Christ for in the Type of the Bread his Body is given to thee and in the type of Wine his Blood. Greg. Nazianzen (f) In Pasch Orat. 43. Ed. Basil Gr. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 We. shall receive the Passover now in a Type still tho' more clear than that of the old Law for the legal Passover I am beld to say it was an obscure Type of a Type but within a while we shall receive it more perfect and more pure S. Jerome (g) In Jerem. 31. upon those words of Jerem. 31. They shall flow unto the goodness of the Lord for Wheat and Wine and Oyl adds De quo conficitur panis Domini sanguinis ejus impletur typus benedictio sanctificationis ostenditur Of which is made the Lords Bread and the Type of his Blood is filled and the Blessing of Sanctification is shown Theodoret (h) Dialog 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 calls the Eucharist The venerable and saving Type of Christs Body Another name is Antitypes signifying the same with the former Author Constitutionum (i) Lib. 5. cap. 13. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 under the name of Clemens Roman Christ delivered to us the mysteries which are antitypes of his precious Body and Blood. Again (k) Lib. 7. c. 26. O our Father we give thee thanks for the precious Blood of Jesus Christ shed for us 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and for his precious Body of which we celebrate these Antitypes Eustathius of Antioch (l) In Proverb 9. citat in Cenc Nic. 2. Act. 6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 expounding those words Eat my Bread and Drink the Wine that I
Can. Mâ—ss Unde memores Domine nos servi tui sed plebs tua sancta ejusdeÌ„ Christi Filii tui D.N. tam beatae passionis necnon ab inferis resurrectionis sed in coelos gloriosae ascensionis Osserimus praclarae majestati tuae de tuis donis ac datis Hostiam param hostiam immaculatam Panem sanctum vitae aeternae Calicem salutis perpetuae Supra quae propitio ac sereno vultu respicere digneris accepta habere sicuti accepta habere dignatus eâ— munera pueri tui justi Abel sacrificium Patriarchae nostri Abrahae quod tibi obtulit summus Sacerdos tuus Melchisedeck sanctum Sacrificium immaculatam Hostiam Supplices te rogamus omnipotens Deus jube haec perferri per manus sancti Angeli tui in sublime Altare tuum in conspectu Majestatis tuae ut quotquot ex hac altaris participatione Sacrosanctum Filii tui corpus sanguinem sumpserimus omni benedictione coelesti gratia repleamur Per eundem J. Christum D. N. Nobis quoque peccatoribus partem aliquam societatem donare digneris cum tuis sanctis Apostolis intra quorum nos consortium non estimator meriti sed veniae quaesumus largitor adinitte Per Christum D. N. Per quem haec omnia Domine semper bona creas sanctificas vivificas benedicis prastas nobis Wherefore we O Lord thy Servants and yet thy Holy People being mindful as well of the Blessed Passion as also of the Resurrection from the Dead and of the glorious Ascension into Heaven of the same thy Son our Lord Jesus Christ do offer to thy most excellent Majesty out of thy own Donations and Gifts a pure Sacrifice an Immaculate Sacrifice the Holy Bread of Eternal Life and the Cup of Everlasting Salvation Vpon which Gifts vouchsafe to look with a propitious and serene Aspect and to accept them as thou didst vouchsafe to accept the Gifts of thy Child the Righteous Abel and the Sacrifice of our Patriarch Abraham and the Holy Sacrifice the immaculate Hostie which thy High Priest Melchisedeck did offer to thee Almighty God we humbly beseech thee command these things to be carried by the Hands of thy Holy Angel to thy High Altar before thy Majesty that as many of us as by this partaking of the Altar have received the most holy Body and Blood of thy Son may be filled with all Heavenly Benediction and Grace by the same Jesus Christ our Lord. Vouchsafe also to bestow on us Sinners some part and society with thy Holy Apostles c. into whose society we intreat thee to admit us not weighing our Merit but bestowing Pardon on us Through Christ our Lord. By whom O Lord thou dost always create sanctify quicken bless and bestow on us all these good things Immediately after all have communicated this follows What we have taken with our Mouth Quod ore sumpsimus Domine pura mente capiamus de munere temporali fiat nobis remedium sempiternum O Lord may we receive with a pure Heart and of a temporal Gift may it be made to us an Eternal Remedy While the Priest is washing his Thumbs and Fore-fingers over the Cup with Wine and Water and wiping of them he is bid to say Corpus tuum Domine quod sumpsi sanguis quem potavi adhereat visceribus meis praesta ut in me non remaneat scelerum macula quem pura sancta refecerunt Sacramenta Qui vivis c. Let thy Body O Lord which I have taken and thy Blood which I have drunk cleave to my Entrals and grant that the stain of my Crimes may not remain in me whom pure and Holy Sacraments have refreshed Who livest c. All these Prayers I have cited the Reader must remember are after Consecration upon which immediately according to the present Faith of the Roman Church the Substance of Bread and Wine is destroyed and nothing but the Species and Shadows of them remain and now Christ instead of them becomes present there in his Body and Soul and Divinity This is their Faith. But it is impossible to reconcile this to those foregoing Prayers For at the beginning of the Canon they pray * Supplices rogamus ac petimus uti accepta habeas benedicas haec dona haec munera haec sancta sacrificia illibata That God would accept and bless these Donations and Gifts these holy undefiled Sacrifices that is the Oblations of Bread and Wine which are no more than so till the words of Consecration After this as you heard they pray That this Oblation may be made to us the Body and Blood of thy dear Son Jesus Christ Which do not imply a change of Substances for those words fiat nobis be made to us may very well consist with the Oblations remaining in Substance what they were before only beging the Communication of the Virtue and Efficacy of Christ's Passion to themselves And that this is the sense of the Canon appears by those words after Consecration when they say We offer to thy Majesty a pure Sacrifice of thy Donations and Gifts Which words plainly suppose that they are in Nature what they were God's Creatures still not the appearance and shadow of them only But they call them now the Bread of Eternal Life and the Cup of Salvation because after they are blessed and made Sacraments they are not now to be look'd upon as bodily Food but as the Food of our Souls as representing that Body of Christ and his Passion which is the Bread of Eternâ—â— Life If they had understood nothing to remain now after consecration but Christ's Natural Body they would not have called this thy Gifts in the Plural Number but expressed it in the Singular thy Gift Neither can they refer to the remaining Accidents because they are no real Things and rather tell us what God has taken away the whole Substance of them than what he has given But then what follows puts it out of all doubt * Supra quae propitio ac sereno vultu respicere digneris Vpon which still in the Plural look propitiously If it had been Look upon us propitiously for the sake of Christ it had been well enough Or to desire of God to look upon these things propitiously which they offer if they mean as he that made the Prayer did that God would accept this Oblation of Bread and Wine as he did of Abel and Melchisedeck which latter was indeed Bread and Wine this had been very proper But to make that which we offer to be Christ himself as they that believe Transubstantiation must expound it and to desire God to look propitiously and benignly upon him when there can be no fear that he should ever be unacceptable to his Father nor none can be so foolish as to think that Christ stands in need of our recommendation to God for acceptance this sense
Old Test did eat the same spiritual meat with us because they ate it by Faith. Page 127 4 Consid They represent Christs Body as dead and that so it must be taken Ergo spiritually Page 128 Two remarkable sayings of S. Austin to prove all this Page 130 CHAP. XIII The Thirteenth Difference The Fathers assert that the Faithful only eat Christs Body and drink his Blood not the wicked the Ro. Church extends it to both Page 131 The Church of Rome will have not only the wicked but bruit Creatures to eat it Page 132 The Cautions of the Mass suppose this ibid. The Fathers will not allow the wicked to partake of Christs Body Page 133 Two remarkable Testimonies of St. Austin Page 136 CHAP. XIV The Fourteenth Difference The different practices and usages of the two Churches argue their different opinions about the Eucharist Page 137 Eight Instances of their differing practices given 1 Instance The Ancient Church excluded Catechumens Penitents c. from being present at the Mysteries enjoining all present to communicate ibid. In the Ro. Ch. any may be Spectators tho' none receive but the Priest Page 139 2 Inst The old practice was to give the Communion in both kinds Page 140 Transubstantiation made this practice cease 141. New devices for security against profaning Christs Blood. Page 142 No reason why the Fathers have not been as cautious in this as the Ro. Church but their different belief Page 143 3 Inst The Elevation of the Host that all may adore it the Roman practice Page 145 This not used in the first Ages at all when used afterwards not for Adoration Page 145 146 4. Inst The Rom. Church allows not the people to receive the Sacrament with their Hands but all is put by the Priest into their Mouths contrary to the Ancient Practice Page 147 5 Inst The Anc. Church used Glass Cups for the Wine which would be criminal now Page 148 6 Inst They mixed of old the Consecr Wine with Ink which would now be abhorr'd Page 149 7 Inst In the Reservation of the Eucharist Three differences herein consider'd 1 Difference The Anc. Church took no care to reserve what was not received in the Eucharist but the Ro. Church reserves all 151 c. 2 Differ What had been publickly received the Anc. Church allowed liberty to reserve privately 156. The present Ch. in no case allows such private reservation 157. 3. Differ They put what was so reserved to such uses of old as the Ro. Church would think profane Page 157 158 c. 8 Inst The infinite sollicitous caution to prevent accidents in the administration of the Sacrament their frights and strange expiations when they happen all unknown and strangers to the Ancient Church 160 c. Which is proved positively from the continued practice of Communicating Infants till Transubstantiation abolished it Page 165 This still a practice in the Eastern Churches that submit not to the Roman Church Page 167 CHAP. XV. The Fifteenth Difference About their Prayers in two particulars 1. That the old Prayers in the Canon of the Mass agree not with the Faith of the now Ro. Church Page 168 2. That their New Prayers to the Sacrament have no Example in the Anc. Church Page 175 CHAP. XVI The Sixteenth Difference That our ancient Saxon Church differ'd from the present Rom. Church in the Article of the corporal presence Page 182 c. The Saxon Easter-Sermon produc'd as a Testimony against them Page 183 184 c. Two Epistles of Elfric the Abbot declare against that Doctrine Page 187 188. A Remarkable Testimony also of Rabanus Archbishop of Mentz alledged Page 189 CHAP. XVII The Conclusion of the whole Shewing that Heathens and Jews reproached not the Ancient Christians about the Eucharist 191. Transubstantiation occasion'd new Calumnies from both 194. The Jew's Conversion seems to be hopeless whilst this is believed by them to be the common Faith of Christians 195. That the Jews have better explained Christs words of Institution agreed better with the Ancient Church in understanding the Sacrament in a figurative sense and have confuted Transubstantiation by unanswerable Arguments proved by Instances from p. 196. to the end Faults Escaped PAge 5. line 16. marg r. Serm. 5. p. 10. l. 7. marg r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 39. l. 11. r. supposes p. 53. l. 2. marg r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 68. l. 26. marg r. Serm. 5 p. 69. l. 10. r. thou art wholly changed in the inward Man Ibid. l. 12. marg r. totus in interiore homine mutatus es p. 73. l. 6. marg r. qui p. 98. l. 5. à fine r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 149. l. 26. r. Paten p. 152. l. 10. r. Evagrius p. 171. l. 23. r. that of Abel CHAP. I. The First Difference The Church of Rome is forced to assert a continued Series of Miracles to justifie her Doctrine of Transubstantiation But the Fathers never mention any Miracles in the Eucharist save only the Effects of God's powerful Grace working great Changes in us and advancing the Elements in the use of them thereunto without changing their Nature and Substance TO give the Reader a View of what Wonders are to be believed according to what the Trent Council has decreed concerning Transubstantiation we need go no further than to the Trent Catechism * Ad Parcchōs part 2. num 25. which tells us there are three most wonderful things which the Catholick Faith without any doubting believes and confesses are effected in this Sacrament by the Words of Consecration 1. That the true Body of Christ that same Body which was born of the Virgin and sits at the Right-hand of the Father is conteined in this Sacrament 2. That no Substance of the Elements remains in it tho' nothing may seem more strange and remote from our Senses 3. What is easily collected from both That the Accidents which are seen with our Eyes or are perceived by our other Senses are without any Subject in which they subsist in a strange manner not to be explained So that all the Accidents of Bread and Wine may be seen which yet inhere in no Substance but subsist by themselves since the Substance of the Bread and Wine are so changed into the very Body and Blood of our Lord that the Substance of Bread and Wine cease wholly to be But others of the Romish Writers have made a larger and more particular Enumeration of the Miracles wrought in the Eucharist which no Created Power can effect but God's Omnipotency alone I 'le give them in the Words of the Jesuite Pererius * In Joan. c. 6. Disp 16. num 48. who reckons these Nine distinct Miracles 1. The same Christ remaining in Heaven not departing thence and without any local mutation is really and corporally in the Sacrament of the Eucharist 2. Nor is he thus there only in one consecrated Host but is together in all Hosts consecrated throughout the whole Earth 3.
but of Baptism also where yet none assert any Conversion of the Substance of Water into any other thing Thus S. Ambrose * De in qui initiantur c. 9. ad finem Si ergo superveniens Spiritus S. in Virginem conceptionem operatus esf generationis munus implevit Non utique dubitandum est quod superveniens in fontem vel super eum qui baptismum consequitur veritatem regenerationis operetur Mary conceived by the Holy Ghost without the intervention of any Man as S. Matthew tells us She was found with Child of the Holy Ghost If then the Holy Spirit coming upon the Virgin made her to conceive c. we need not question but that the same Spirit coming upon the Water of Baptism or on him that is baptized do's produce true Regeneration And P. Leo Mag. †De Nativit Dom. Ser. 4. Christus dedit aquae quod dedit-Matri Virtus enim Altissimi obumbratio Spiritus S. quae fecit ut Maria pareret Salvatorem eadem facit ut regeneret unda credentem Christ gave to the Water what he gave to his Mother for the Power of the most High and the Overshadowing of the H. Spirit which caused Mary to bring forth our Saviour the same causes the Water to regenerate a Believer Excepting therefore these Wonders of God's Grace the Fathers knew no other Miracles in the Sacraments and these Wonders are common to both the Sacraments and not peculiar to one of them only This even Card. Cajetan * In 3. part q. 75. art 1. Non est disputandum de divina potentia ubi de Sacramentis tractatur Ibid. art 2. Stultum est ponere in hoc argumento quicquid Deus potest facere was so sensible of that he tells us We must not dispute concerning God's Power when we treat of Sacraments And again It is a fcolish thing to assert in this Argument whatsoever God can do He was not ignorant of what S. Austin had said long before †Lib. 3. de Trin. c. 10. Quia haec hominibus nota sunt quia per homines fiunt honorem tanquam religiosa possunt habere stuporem tanquam mira non possunt who speaking of Signs taken to signifie other things and instancing in the Bread taken and consumed in the Sacrament adds But because these things are known to men as being made by men they may have Honour given them for their relation to Religion but cannot raise Astonishment as Miracles or Wonders Which he could never have said if he had believed the Wonders and Miracles of Transubstantiation I 'le conclude this Head with another Saying of his * Lib. 3. cont Julian c. 3. Haec sunt sententiarum portenta vestrarum haec inopinata mysteria Dogmatum novorum haec paradoxa Pelagianorum haereticorum mirabiliora quà m Stoicorum Philosophorum Mira sunt quae dicitis nova sunt quae dicitis falsa sunt quae dicitis Mira stupemus nova cavemus falsa convincimus which may be as well applied to the absurd Paradoxes and Miracles which the Roman Church advances in this Case of the Eucharist as ever it was to those he there confutes about Baptism These are the Prodigies of your Opinions these are the uncouth Mysteries of New Dogma's these are the Paradoxes of Pelagian Hereticks more wonderful than those of the Stoick Philosophers The things you say are Wonderful the things you say are New the things you say are False We are amazed at your Wonders we are cautious against your Novelties and we confute your Falsities But this Difference being more general we go on to more particular ones CHAP. II. The Second Difference The Church of Rome differs from the Fathers in determining what that thing is which Christ calls MY BODY THE Trent Catechism (a) Ad Paroch part 2.37 §. Haec vero Si panis substantia remaneret nullo modo dici videretur Hoc est Corpus meum tho' it do's not determine what the word THIS refers to only telling us that it must demonstrate the whole Substance of the thing present yet it expresly denies that it refers to the Substance of Bread for it adds If the Substance of Bread remained it seems no way possible to be said that THIS IS MY BODY So Bellarmine confesses (b) De Euchar. l. 1. c. 1. sec Nonus that this Proposition This Bread is my Body must be taken figuratively that the Bread is the Body of Christ by way of signification or else it is plainly absurd and impossible And he acknowledges (c) Ib. lib. 2. cap. 9. §. Observandum that this Proposition The Wine is the Lord's Blood teaches that Wine is Blood by similitude and likeness And elsewhere (d) Lib. 3. cap. 19. It cannot be a true Proposition in which the Subject is supposed to be Bread and the Predicate the Body of Christ for Bread and Christ's Body are res diversissimae things most different And a little after If we might affirm disparata de disparatis different things of one another you might as well affirm and say that something is nothing and nothing something that Light is Darkness and Darkness Light that Christ is Belial and Belial Christ neither do's our Faith oblige us to defend those things that evidently imply a Contradiction So also Vasquez (e) Disp 180. cap. 9. n. 91. Si pronomen Hoc in illis verbis demonstraret panem fatemur etiam fore ut nulla conversio virtute illorum â—â—eri possit quia panis de quo enunciatur manere debet If the Pronoun THIS in Christ's Words pointed at the Bread then we confess it would follow that no Conversion could be made by virtue of these Words because the Bread of which it is affirmed sc that it is Christ's Body ought to remain Now that which the present Roman Church dare not affirm because if it be taken properly it is untrue absurd impossible as implying a Contradiction we shall now shew that the Fathers plainly affirm it who yet could not be ignorant of this Absurdity From whence it necessarily follows that they took the whole words THIS IS MY BODY figuratively as the Protestants do since they cannot be taken otherwise if Bread be affirmed to be Christ's Body as the Romanists confess Now that the Fathers affirmed that Bread is Christ's Body is certain by these following Testimonies S. Irenaeus (f) Adv. Haeres l. 5. c. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Our Lord confessed the Cup which is of the Creature to be his Blood and the Bread which is of the Creature he confirmed it to be his Body Clement of Alexandria (g) Paedag. lib. 2. c. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Our Lord blessed the Wine saying Take drink this is my Blood the Blood of the Grape For the Holy River of Gladness so he calls the Wine do's allegorically signifie the Word i. e. the Blood of the Word shed for many for the remission
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
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
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
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
Tho' the Body of Christ in the Sacrament has all its Quantity and Colour and other sensible Qualities yet as it is in the Sacrament it is neither there visibly nor quantitatively * Quantum ad situm extensionem ejus ad locum as to its situs and extension unto Place 4. Tho' the Body of Christ be in it self greater than a Consecrated Host yet according to the Esse Being it has there it is whole in that Host nor only whole in the whole consecrated Host but also whole in every part thereof 5. If those Accidents of the Consecrated Host be corrupted and it should happen that of them Worms or any other Animal be generated there is a great Miracle in their Generation For either the Materia prima is created anew out of which the substantial Form of those Animals is produced as many Divines now think or according to S. Thomas which seems to be a greater Miracle The Quantity that was of the Consecrated Host supplies the place of the Materia prima and in it is produced the substantial Form of those Animals which are generated from thence 6. The very Conversion of Bread and Wine into the Body and Blood of Christ which is properly called by Divines Transubstantiation is a great Miracle for such a Transmutation is found in no other thing and is besides all the Order and Course of Nature and can be made by no Created Power but by God's Omnipotency alone 7. The Manner by which such Transubstantiation is made is not without a Miracle for it is made by the Words of Consecration pronounced rightly and as it ought by a Priest Therefore as naturally supposing the last disposition in Matter to produce the Form of Fire the Form of Fire is infallibly produced in that Matter So the Words of Consecration being pronounced by the Priest Christ himself is infallibly in that Consecrated Host 8. After Consecration the whole Substance of Bread and Wine ceasing to be yet their Accidents do not cease but remain Neither do they remain inhering in any other Subject but per se existunt exist by themselves which is truly besides and above the Nature of Accidents whose esse as the Schools say is inesse because they can neither be produced nor remain naturally without a Subject 9. Lastly Those Accidents of the Consecrated Host tho' without the Substance of Bread and Wine yet have the same natural Virtue which Bread and Wine had before Consecration viz. the Virtue of nourishing encreasing and strengthning the Body of the Person that receives it when yet Nutrition is made by conversion of the Substance of the Food into the Substance of the Living Creature By reason of which Miracles he says the Church sings thus in the Hymn for Corpus-Christi day Quod non capis Quod non vides Animosa firmat fides praeter rerum ordinem Etsi sensus deficit Ad firmandum cor sincerum Sola fides sufficit Praestat fides supplementum sensuum defectui That is What never yet was understood Nor ever seen by any Creature A confident Belief makes good Tho' cross to all the Laws of Nature Tho' Sense will not be brought t' allow it A Heart sincere may be secure And waving all its Scruples sure Since Faith alone 's enough to do it For Faith supplies the Senses want And makes good Measure where that 's scant As for the Fathers they are so far from consenting to this heap of Miracles in the Eucharist that we have reason to think as to some of them they never entred into their thoughts nor never troubled themselves about them and for the most of them tho' they are direct Consequences of Transubstantiation yet they are opposed and contradicted by the Fathers as shall be shewn in Particulars afterwards Here it shall suffice to say in general That the Fathers give us this as a Character of the old Hereticks to urge God's Omnipotency to countenance and give a colour to their Figments and absurd Opinions Thus Gr. Nazianzen says of the Apollinarians * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Orat. 51. That being pressed with these Reasonings they fly to this That to God it is possible And Tertullian when Praxeas also urged God's Omnipotency gives this excellent †Contr. Praxeam c. 10. Si tam abruptè in praesumptionibus nostris hâc sententiâ utamur quidvis de Deo confingere poterimus quasi fecerit quia facere potuerit Non autem quia omnia potest facere ideo credendum est illum fecisse etiam quod non fecerit sed an fecerit requirendum Answer to him If we may so abruptly use this Sentence viz. That to God all things are easie in our Presumptions we may then feign any thing we please of God as if he had done a thing because he was able to do it But because God can do all things we are not to believe he has done that which he has not done but we are to inquire whether he has done it or no. Thus Gr. Nyssen * Gr. Nyssen in Hexaemeron 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 asserts That the Will of God is the Measure of his Power And Clemens of Alexandria †Stromat l. 4. propè finem 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That God who is Omnipotent will effect nothing that is absurd And Origen ‖ L. 5. contr Cel◠〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 When we say That God can do all things we know how to understand all things not of such things as cannot exist and are unintelligible Obj. If any object That the Fathers often bring in Instances of Gods miraculous Power as St. Ambrose does in the Red Sea and the River Jordan and in the miraculous Conception of our Saviour c. to create Faith in Men as to the great Change that is wrought in the Eucharist Ans I answer True indeed But then it is to be remembred what shall hereafter be more fully declared that the Change there is not terminated upon the Substance of the Elements nor is God's Power shewn upon them to alter their Nature from what they were before so as to destroy them but it is an addition of Grace to their Nature and an advancement of them to produce wonderful Effects upon us in the use of them So that now the Element of Water in Baptism is no more a common thing but is employed by God to wash away our Sins to cleanse our Souls and to regenerate and renew us And in the Eucharist the Bread and Wine which in themselves are the Food of our Bodies are advanced to be a Means to communicate the Body and Blood of Christ to us for the nourishing and refreshing our Souls and to make us Partakers of the saving Effects of his Death and Passion which are only Miracles of God's Grace And the Fathers urge the forementioned Miracles in Nature to assure us of these Wonders of Divine Grace And this they do not only in the case of the Eucharist
establish the Mystery of his Sacrament For Wine both chears us and increases Blood and therefore very fitly the Blood of Christ is figured by it because whatsoever comes to us from him chears us with true Joy and increaseth all Good in us Rabanus Maurus (h) Comm. in Matth. 26. Quia panis confirmat corpus ideo corpus ille Christi congruenter nuncupatur vinum autem quia sanguinem operatur in carne ideo ad sanguinem Christi refertur explaining the Words of Institution says Because Bread strengthens the Body therefore it is fitly called the Body of Christ and Wine because it produces Blood in our Flesh is therefore referred to the Blood of Christ In the Aethiopick Churches (i) Ludolphi Aethiop Hist l. 3. c. 5 n. 56. Hic panis est corpus meum they use this Phrase which the Church of Rome is so shy of This Bread is my Body Bertram (k) De Corp. Sang. Dom. pag. 40. late Eng. Lat. Translation Non putamus ullum fidelium dubitare panem illum fuisse corpus Christi effectum quod Discipulis donans dicit Hoc est corpus meum c. I am confident no Christian doubts but that Bread was made the Body of Christ which he gave to his Discples saying This is my Body c. And he there shews that this is made by the same change whereby the Manna and the Water of the Rock in the Wilderness were turned into his Body and Blood. To conclude this Head It is plain that there is a general Consent of Fathers on the Protestant Side in this Particular That the Bread and Wine are Christ's Body and Blood. And it is the more remarkable because they give us this Sense when they are explaining Christ's Words and in their Commentaries upon the Gospels where the Words of Institution are recorded CHAP. III. The Third Difference The Church of Rome believes That Accidents in the Eucharist subsist without a Subject but the Fathers say the contrary That Accidents cannot subsist without a Subject and yet never except the Eucharist THe Catechism of the Trent Council * Ad Parochos part 2. de Euchar. n. 25. says That the Accidents which are either seen with cur Eyes or perceived by our other Senses are without any Subject by a wonderful manner and such as cannot be explained They grant that we may see all the Accidents of Bread and Wine but that they inhere in no Substance but sustain themselves And afterwards †Ibid. n. 44. §. Tertium restat discourse thus The Species of Bread and Wine subsist in this Sacrament without any Subject in which they are For since the Body and Blood of Christ is truly in this Sacrament so that no Substance of Bread and Wine remains because those Accidents cannot be inherent in the Body and Blood of Christ it remains that the Accidents sustain themselves above all Order of Nature being upheld by nothing else besides And this they say was the perpetual constant Doctrine of the Catholick Church How false this Assertion is we shall now shew from the Testimonies of the Fathers Irenaeus (a) Lib. 2. c. 14. Non potest intelligi aqua sine humectatione neque ignis sine calore neque lapis sine duritia Unita enim sunt invicem haec alterum ab altero separari non potest sed semper coexistere We cannot understand Water without Moisture nor Fire without Heat nor a Stone without Hardness For these are united one to another one cannot be separated from the other but must always coexist Athanasius (b) Orat. 5. contra Arianos 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or the Author against the Arians in his Works asserts That every Quality is in a Substance Isidore Peleusiota (c) Lib. 2. Epist 72. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 says That Quality cannot be without Substance Methedius (d) Apud Photium Codic 232. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Quality cannot be separated as to its Subsistence from Matter And a little before he says This is the most impossible of all things S. Basil * Epist 43. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If by your reasoning you can distinguish Figure from a Body yet Nature admits no such Difference but one must be understood in conjunction with the other Greg. Nazianzen (e) Orat. 37. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 proves the Holy Ghost not to be a Quality because then it must be in a Subject For says he either it do's subsist by it self or is of the same kind with those which are called Accidents which are in another This would be ill reasoning if Transubstantiation were true for the Holy Ghost might be a Quality and yet be in no Subject as well as the Colour and Taste of Bread may be in the Eucharist without Bread or any other Substance in which it is Gr. Nyssen (f) De Opificio Homin c. 24. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 affirms That as that is not a Body to which Colour and Figure and Solidness and Space and Heaviness and other Properties are wanting so as he adds where those aforesaid do concur they produce a Bodily Subsistence S. Austin (g) Soliloq lib. 2. c. 12. Monstruosum enim à veritate alienissimum est ut id quod non esset nisi in ipso sc subjecto esset etiam cùm ipsum non fuerit posse esse It is monstrous and at the furthest distance from Truth that what would not be at all unless it were in a Subject yet should be able to exist when the Subject ceases to be This is a Saying with a witness to confute Transubstantiation where there is the Appearance and Figure Taste and Weight of Bread and yet no Substance of Bread is there Again he says (h) Ibid. cap 13. Omne quod in subjecto est si semper manet ipsum etiam subjectum maneat semper necesse est Every thing that is in a Subject and always remains it is necessary that the Subject also should always remain Again * De Immortal Anim. cap. 5. Mutato subjecto omne quod in subjecto est necessario mutari Et cap. 8. Quod per se non est si deseratur ab eo per quod est profectò non erit elsewhere When the Subject is changed every thing that is in the Subject is necessarily changed And again That which exists not by it self if it be forsaken of that by which it exists undoubtedly will not be at all Also in another place (i) Epist 57. ad Dardanum Tolle ipsa corpora qualitatibus corporum non erit ubi sint ideo necesse est ut non sint Take away Bodies from their Qualities and there will nothing remain where those Qualities should be and therefore it follows necessarily that they will not be at all Cyril of Alexandria (k) In Joan. lib. 4. cap. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 teaches the same copiously He calls it Madness
to affirm That the Essence of the Son consists in Subjection to the Father For says he how can Subjection be conceived to subsist by it self without existing in any thing else And afterwards If there be no Subject and nothing praeexists in which those things are wont to be done how can they exist by themselves which are understood and defined in the Order of Accidents And elsewhere he says (l) Thesaur assert 31. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 To be Unbegotten is predicated of the Divine Essence as inseparable from it just as Colour is always predicated of every Body And in another place (m) Ibid. assert 16. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. disputing about the Eternity of the Son and how proceeding from the Father he is not separated from him he instances in Accidents that are inseparable from their Subjects We see says he Heat inseparably proceeding from Fire but it is the Fruit of the very Essence of Fire proceeding inseparably from it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as also Splendor is the Fruit of Light. For Light cannot subsist without Splendor nor Fire without Heat For what is begotten of them do's always adhere to such Substances Again in his Dialogues (n) De Trinitate Dial. 2. p. 451. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Trinity he asks Whether Black and White if they be not in their Subjects can subsist of themselves And the Answer is They cannot Claud. Mamertus (o) De Statu Animae l. 3. c. 3. In rebus corporeis subjectum est corpus color corporis in subjecto In incorporeis animus disciplina quae iâ—a sibi nexa sunt ut nec sine colore corpus nec sine disciplina rationalis sit animus Utrum nam probare valeamus manere quod in subjecto est ipso intereunte subjecto In corporeal things the Body is the Subject and the Colour of the Body in the Subject In incorporeal matters the Soul and Discipline are Instances which are so connected that the Body cannot be without Colour nor the Rational Soul without Discipline Can we ever prove that what is in the Subject abides when the Subject it self perishes Isidore Hispal (p) Originum lib. 2. cap. 26. Quantitas qualitas situs sine subjecto esse non possunt Quantity Quality and Situation can none of 'em be without a Subject Bertram (q) Contra Graec. l. 2. c. 7. in Tom. 2. Spicilegii D. Acherii proves against the Greeks That the Holy Ghost was not in Jesus Christ as in his Subject because says he the Holy Ghost is not an Accident that cannot subsist without its Subject These Testimonies of the Fathers may suffice to shew how they differ from the Church of Rome in this Point of Accidents being without a Subject which to them is so necessary a Doctrine that Transubstantiation cannot be believed without it and if the Fathers had believed Transubstantiation it is incredible that they should deny this Doctrine without so much as once excepting the Case of the Eucharist None can imagine how their Memory and Reflection should be so short especially when as we have heard they form their Arguments to prove the Eternity of the Son of God and the Personality of the Holy Ghost from the inseparability of Accidents from their Subject Nay one of them says (r) Orat. 5. contra Arianos inter Athanasii Opera That if God himself had Accidents they would exist in his Substance When therefore P. Innocent (s) De Myst Missae l. 4. c. 11. Est enim hic color sapor quantitas qualitas cùm nihil alterutro sit coloratum aut sapidum quantum aut quale asserts That in the Eucharist there is Colour and Taste and Quantity and Quality and yet nothing coloured or tasteful nothing of which Quantity or Quality are Affections This is plainly to confound the Nature of all things and to turn Accidents into Substances So that if for instance the Host should fall into the Mire and contract Dirt and Filth this Filth sticks in nothing or else Accidents are the Subject of it for it is confessed on all hands That Christ's Body cannot be soiled or made filthy Not to insist upon the Nonsense of his Assertion which is just as if one should talk of an Eclipse without either Sun or Moon or of an Horses Lameness without a Leg concerning which only Lameness can be affirmed CHAP. IV. The Fourth Difference The Church of Rome has brought in the Word SPECIES to signifie those Accidents without any Subject But the Fathers never take it in this Sense I Need only refer the Reader for the first part of this Assertion to the Thirteenth Session of the Council of Trent Canâ—n 2. 3. where the Word Species is so used And to what we heard before out of their Catechism of the Species of Bread and Wine subsisting without any Subject in which they are Every one knows this is their Customary Word to express Appearances of things by when nothing real is under them to support them But now we shall see this to be a strange and foreign usage of this Word which the Fathers know nothing of in their Sense but in stead of denoting Accidents by the Word Species which are in no Subject they use it commonly for the Substance the Nature the Matter of a thing the Subject it self that appears Not for Appearances without a Subject S. Ambrose often uses this Word Species but never in the Sense of the Romanists For which take these Instances S. Ambrose says (a) Serm. 21. Dominum rogatum ad Nuptias aquae substantiam in vini speciem commutasse That at the Marriage of Cana our Lord being requested did change the Substance of Water into the Species of Wine That is not into the Appearance of Wine but into real Wine that he changed it And in another place * Serm. 22. Speciem magis necessariam Nuptiis praestitit He provided for the Marriage a more necessary Species i. e. Wine more agreeable to a Marriage-Feast than Water In another Book (b) Officior lib. 2. cap. 28. Hic numerus captivorum hic ordo praestantior est quam species poculorum speaking of Holy Vessels which he broke for the Redemption of Captives he says This Number and Order of Captives far excels the Species of Cups i.e. all sorts of them Again elsewhere (c) De iis qui initiant cap. 9. Gravior est ferri species quam aquarum liquor The Species of Iron is heavier than the Liquor of Water i. e. the Substance of Iron S. Austin (d) In Joan. tract 11. Omnes in Moyse baptizati sunt in nube in mari Si ergo figura maris tantum valuit species baptismi quantum valebit They were all baptized into Moses in the Cloud and in the Sea. If therefore the Figure of the Sea availed so much how much will the Species of
Baptism avail In another place (e) Serm. ad Infantes Ut sit species visibilis panis multa grana in unum consperguntur To make the visible Species of Bread many Grains are mixed together into one Again (f) Lib. 3. de Trinit cap. 4. Quod cùm per manus hominum ad illam visibilem speciem perducitur non sanctificatur ut sit tam magnum Sacramentum nisi operante invisibiliter Spiritu Dei c. speaking of the Bread in the Sacrament he says When by Mens Hands it is brought to that visible Species i. e. to the Substance of Bread it is not sanctified so as to become so great a Sacrament without the invisible Operation of the Spirit of God. So elsewhere (g) In Joan. tract 26. Omnes eundem spiritualem potum biberunt aliud illi aliud nos sed specie visibili quidem tamen hoc idem significante virtute spirituali They all drank of the same spiritual Drink they one thing and we another but tho' another as to the visible Species yet as to the Spiritual Virtue signifying this same thing Where the Visible Species it 's plain denotes Water to the Jews and Wine to us not the Accidents only And in another Tractate (h) Tract 45. in Joan. Videte fide manente signa variata Ibi petra Christus nobis Christus quod in altari Dei 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 to the same sense speaking of the Jews Behold the Signs are varied Faith remaining the same To them the Rock was Christ to us that which is placed on the Altar is Christ They drank the Water flowing from the Rock for a great Sacrament of the same Christ what we drink the Faithful know If you regard the Visible Species it is another thing but if the intelligible Signification they drank the same spiritual Drink And so in another Book (i) Lib. 3. de Trinit cap. 10. Cùm autem suscipitur aliquando in Angelo demonstratur aliquando in ea Specie quae non est quod Angelus quamvis per Angelum disposita ministretur speaking of things assumed to signifie matters to us he says When it is assumed sometimes it is shewn in an Angel sometimes in that Species which is not what an Angel is tho' it is ordered and disposed by an Angel's Ministry And his next Instance of such things is ipsum Corpus a Body it self So Gaudentius (k) In Exod. tract 2. Rectè etiam vini specie tum sanguis ejus exprimitur quia cùm ipse in Evangelio dicit Ego sum Vitis vera satis declarat sanguinem suum esse omne vinum quod in figura passionis ejus offertur Also by the Species of Wine his Blood is then rightly expressed for when he says in the Gospel I am the true Vine he fully declares That all the Wine that is offered for a Figure of his Passion is his Blood. Arnobius jun. (l) In Psal 104. Succurrit non solum cis speciem frumenti sed vini olei administrans Our Lord succours them not only by affording them the Species of Corn but also of Wine and Oyl Where the Word Species to be sure relates to the Substance and the thing it self not to the Accidents of Corn and Wine and Oyl Sedulius (m) Lib. 2. Operis Paschal speaking of the Offerings of the Wise Men that came to Christ says Ipsae etiam ut possent Species ostendere Christum Aurea nascenti fuderunt munera Regi Thura dedere Deo Myrrham tribuere Sepulchre That is They point to Christ even by the Gifts they bring Gold they present unto him as a King Incense as God Myrrh for his Burying The things they present are you see his Species Salvian's words are plain (n) Lib. 1. de Gub. Dei. p. 21. Edit Baluz Adde medicatas aquas veldatas vel immutatas Speciem servantes Naturam relinquentes Add says he those healed Waters either given or changed which preserved their Species and relinquish'd their Nature Here Species is taken for the Substance remaining and Nature for the Qualities of the Water that were changed Walafridus Strabo (o) De Rebus Eccles cap. 16. Corporis sanguinis sui Sacramenta panis vini substantia Discipulis tradidit Nihil ergo congruentiùs his Speciebus ad significandam capitis membrorum unitatem potuit inveniri shewing how Christ in the Last Supper delivered to his Disciples the Sacraments of his Body and Blood in the Substance of Bread and Wine adds Nothing more agreeable than these Species could be found to signifie the Unity of the Head and Members Rupertus Abbas (p) De Offic. lib. 2. cap. 9. In illum in quo fides non est praeter visibiles Species panis vini nihil de Sacrificio pervenit Nothing of the Sacrifice enters into him that has no Faith besides the visible Species of Bread and Wine No one ever thought but that the Wicked partak'd as much of the outward Elements as the Faithful but he says a little before That when the Priest distributes the Sacrifice to be eaten by the Faithful the Bread and Wine is consumed and passes away Therefore by the visible Species he means the Bread and Wine which the Wicked only partake of It has been largely proved by Salmasius (q) Simplicius Verinus de Transubst p. 230 c. That in the Civil Law and the Theodosian Code the word Species is used for things there spoke of as Species annonariae for all sorts of Corn Species publicae for Goods brought to the several Ports Species vini frumenti olei for Wine Corn and Oyl and not the Accidents of them It is not to be expected that any thing should be cited out of Greek Authors whose this Word is not and yet it is observable That even among them the Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that answers to the Latin Word Species is taken in the Sense of the Latin Fathers and not in that of the present Church of Rome To give only two Instances The Author under the Name of Dionysius the Areopagite (r) Eccles Hierarch cap. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 speaking of Christ's Incarnation uses the Phrase of Assuming our Species which his Scoliast Maximus thus explains 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 When he had assumed our Species or Nature not meerly an Appearance of our Nature Theophylact (s) In Marc. 14. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Because says he Bread and Wine are things familiar to us and we could not endure but should abhor to see Flesh and Blood set before us therefore Christ the Lover of Men condescending to us preserves the Species of
S. Chrysostome (t) Epist ad Caesarium Dignus habitus est Dominici Corporis appellatione says of the Consecrated Bread That it has no longer the name of Bread tho' the nature of it remains but is counted worthy to be called the Lord's Body Theoderet in like manner (u) Dialog 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He honoured the visible Symbols with the appellation of 〈◊〉 Body and Blood. Facundus Hermian (x) In defens 3. capit l. 9. Non quod propriè Corpus cjus sit panis poculum sanguis c. is most express We call says he the Sacrament of his Body and Blood which is in the Consecrated Bread and Cup his Body and Blood not that properly the Bread is his Body and the Cup his Blood c. So also is S. Chrysostome (y) In Gal. 5.17 Vol. 3. Savil p. 755. in another place where he shows that the word Flesh is not always taken for the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the nature and substance of the Body which is the only proper sense and he gives other instances which are improper 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as that flesh signifies a depraved will. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And adds two other improper senses in these words By the name of Flesh the Scripture is wont also to call the mysteries he adds also that it calls the Church so when it calls it the Body of Christ The very phrase of being wont to call shows that of which it is affirmed to be improperly so called as the phrase of being thought worthy of the name as we heard before argues the name not properly to agree to it 4. Observ The Fathers knowing that the Eucharist was not in a proper sense Christs Body give us several reasons why it is called his Body But no body uses to give a reason why he calls a thing by its proper name I shall not name all the reasons here but reserve some to another place when we consider the Sacrament as a Sign Figure Type Memorial c. 1. One reason they give is from its likeness and resemblance either in respect of what it consists of or from the likeness of its effects S. Austin's saying is remarkable (z) Epist 23. Si Sacramenta quandam similitudinem earum rerum non haberent quarum Sacramenta sunt omninò Sacramenta non essent Ex hac autem similitudine plerunque etiam ipâ—arum rerum nomina accipiunt If the Sacraments had not a resemblance of those things of which they are Sacraments they would not be Sacraments at all But from this resemblance they take commonly the name even of the things themselves which they resemble Bede also gives (a) In Cap. 6. Epist ad Roman Lib. 4. cap. 4. Fortê dicis speciem sanguinis non video Sed habet similitudinem Sicut enim mortis similitudinem sumpsisti ita etiam similitudinem pretiosi sanguinis bibis c. the same reason in his Commentary on the Romans The Author of the Book of Sacraments under S. Ambrose his name speaks thus Thou mayst say perhaps I do not see the substance of Blood. Well but it has its likeness For as thou hast received the likeness of his death so thou drinkest the likeness of his pretious Blood. S. Cyprian (b) Epist 76. ad Magnum Quando Dominus Corpus suum panem vocat de multorum granorum adunatione congestum populum nostrum quem portabat indicat adunatum quando sanguinem suum vinum appellat de botris atque acinis plurimis expressum atque in unum coactum gregem item nostrum significat commixtione adunatae multitudinis copulatam When Christ called Bread made up of many united grains of Corn his Body he shewed the unity of Christian people whom he bore and when he call'd Wine pressed out of many Grapes and put together his Blood he signified also the uniting of a multitude of the Christian flock together So Rabanus Maurus (c) De Instit Cleric c. 31. Propterea Dominus noster Corpus sanguinem suum in eis rebus commendavit quae ad unum aliquid rediguntur ex multis five granis five acinis Sanctorum Charitatis unitatem significaret Therefore our Lord commended his Body and Blood in those things which consisting of many Grains or Grapes are brought together into one whereby he might signify the unity of the Charity of Saints Others again from the likeness of its effects Thus Isidore of Sevil (d) De Offic. Eccles l. 1. cap. 18. Panis quia confirmat Corpus ideo Corpus Christi nuncupatur vinum autem quia sanguinem operatur in carne ideo ad sanguinem Christi refertur Bread because it strengthens the Body is therefore called the Body of Christ and Wine because it produces Blood in the Flesh is therefore referred to the Blood of Christ The same reason is also given by Rabanus Maurus in his Commentary upon the 26 Chap. of S. Matthew 2 Reason Another reason why they call the Eucharist Christs Body is because it supplies the place is instead of it is its representative its pledge and pawn Tertullian (e) Lib. 6. de Orat. Corpus ejus in pane censetur Hoc est corpus meum His Body is reputed to be in the Bread This is my Body S. Austin (f) Tract 45. in Joan. Videte fide manente signa variata Ibi Petra Christus nobis Christus quod in altari Dei ponitur See how the signs are varied Faith remaining the same There in the Wilderness the rock was Christ to us that which is placed on Gods Altar is Christ Again elsewhere more fully (g) De Civit. Dei l. 18. c. 48. Quodammodo omnia significantia videntur rerum quas significant sustinere personas sicut dictum est ab Apostolo Petra erat Christus quoniam Petra illa de qua hoc dictum est significabat utique Christum All things intended to signify seem in a sort to sustain the persons of those things which they signify as the Apostle says The Rock was Christ because that Rock of which this is spoken did signify Christ Cyril of Jerusalem (h) Catech. Mystag 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. says Wherefore with all assurance let us receive it viz. The Bread and Wine as the Body and Blood of Christ for in the type of Bread his Body is given thee and in the type of Wine his Blood. Proclus of Constantinople (i) Orat. 18. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Instead of the Manger let us venerate the Altar instead of the Infant let us embrace the Bread that is blessed by the Infant viz. Christ Victor Antiochen (k) In Marc. 14. Citante Bulingero adv Casaub 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 When the Lord said this is my Body this is my Blood it was fit that they who set forth the Bread should after giving of thanks reckon
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
nor be drawn downward and creep but continually fly upward and look to the Sun of Righteousness and to have the Eye of his Mind quick-sighted For this is a Table for Eagles not for Jackdaws Gr. Nazianzen (o) Orat. 28. contr Maxim. speaking of his Adversaries says Will they drive me from the Altars I know another Altar 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whose Types the things now seen are upon which no Ax has been lift up no Iron Tool or other Instrument has been heard but is wholly a Work of the Mind 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and an Ascent by Contemplation Before this will I present my self on this will I offer acceptable things Sacrifice 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Oblation and Holocausts so much more excellent than the things now offered as Truth excels a Shadow If Christ's Body were corporally present it is not conceivable what better Oblation than that we could present no more than of what other Oblation this should be only a Type and Shadow Oecumenius (p) In Heb. 10. v. 22. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 upon those words Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of Faith says thus Seeing there remains nothing visible neither the Temple that is Heaven nor the High Priest that is Christ nor the Sacrifice that is his Body it remains that we have need of Faith. I shewed before that the Fathers never make Christ's Body invisible but only from its distance and absence And so it must be understood here that he and his Body the Priest and the Sacrifice are invisible being both in Heaven at that distance which makes Heaven it self and its Inhabitants invisible to us and therefore he recommends Faith which can only make them present to us Author imperfecti Operis in Matthaeum (q) Hom. 11. Si ergo vasa sanctificata ad privatos usus transferre sic periculosum est in quibus non est verum corpus Christi sed mysterium corporis ejus continetur quanto magis vasa corporis nostri quae sibi Deus ad habitaculum praeparavit non debemus locum dare Diabolo agendi in eis quod vult among the Works of Chrysostome in Latin has this Saying If therefore it be so dangerous a thing to turn the Sanctified Vessels to private Uses in which is not the true Body of Christ but only the Mystery of his Body is contained therein how much more as to the Vessels of our Body which God has prepared for himself to dwell in we ought not to give place to the Devil to act in them what he pleases One may trust an Adversary as to his Opinion of what makes against him These Words were look'd upon as so considerable an Objection that an Attempt to corrupt them was practised long ago The Learned Archbishop Usher in the Preface of his Answer to the Jesuit's Challenge has observ'd That those words in quibus non est verum corpus Christi sed mysterium corporis ejus continetur were left out wholly in an Edition at Antwerp 1537. and at Paris 1543. and in another at Paris apud Audoenum Parvum 1557. Dr. James in his Corruption of True Fathers p. 53. says Those words are found in all the ancient Copies at Oxford as Archbishop Usher says they were extant in the ancienter Editions as in 1487. And I my self have seen one Paris Edition even in the Year 1536. apud Claud. Chevallonium where those words are extant So that I conclude That the Antwerp Edition first mentioned apud Joan. Steelfium 1537. was the first that made the Alteration But then I further observe That in the large Paris Edition in Latin of S. Chrysostome 1588. which I have by me those words are inferted indeed in the Text but inclosed within two Brakets with this Note in the Margin Haec in quibusdam exemplaribus desunt which is very fine work when they themselves had omitted them in the forenamed Prints They have plaid the same Prank with the same Author in another of his Homilies viz. Hom. 19. whose Words were not favourable to the Real Presence of Christ's Body in the Eucharist The words are these Perhaps thou wilt object Sed forte dices quomodo dicere illum possum non esse Christianum quem video Christum confitentem altare habentem Sacrificium panis vini offerentem baptizantem c. How can I say that he is not a Christian whom I see confessing Christ having an Altar offering the Sacrifice of Bread and Wine baptizing c. In the Paris Edition apud Audoenum Parvum An. 1557. as Dr. James Notes those words Sacrificium panis vini are changed into these Sacrificium corporis sanguinis Christi The Paris Edition of 1588. before mentioned tho' it had more Conscience than to insert this Change into the Text yet so far complied with the Cheat as to put in the Margin aliàs Sacrificium corporis sanguinis Christi If this Trade had gone on successfully they might have had in time a Consent of Fathers on their side but it can never be without it I will conclude this Particular with one Observation more of what the Reader may find at large discoursed of in a late Learned Dissertation of Monsieur Allix (r) Dissert de Sanguine D. N. Jesu Christi ad Epist 146. S. Augustini Utrum nunc corpus Domini ossa sanguinem habeat upon occasion of an Epistle of S. Austin to Consentius who enquired of him Whether now the Body of Christ has Bones and Blood The very reading of that 146th Epistle of S. Austin wherein he plainly in his Answer to that Question betrays his doubting of it as well as in other of his Works his distinguishing betwixt Christ's having a true Body after his Resurrection and his having Flesh and Blood the Testimonies there of other of the Ancients especially of Origen and his Followers that seem plainly to make both the glorified Body of Christ and also of Believers to be of another Composition than that of proper Flesh and Blood these I say are a Demonstration that the Ancient Fathers did not believe any Presence of true Flesh and Blood to be now in the Eucharist Neither do I think the Answer given to this Dissertation by Monsieur Boileau Dean of Sens (s) Disquisit Theolog. de Sangu Corporis Christi post resurrectionem to be a satisfactory one in this Particular For tho' I should grant which yet I see not sufficiently cleared by him that generally the Fathers and S. Austin also did believe that Christ had a Body after the Resurrection of the same Substance tho' differing in Qualities from what he had before yet there are Three things that he has by no means said any thing material to in his Answer 1. That he has given no Account of S. Austin's studious declining to determine any thing in particular about the Blood of Christ when he had never so fair an occasion to
I have already produced three more of their mind who inclined to that which was afterwards a common errour so to defend the true Conversion of Bread that they granted the matter of the Element to remain as they saw it did in all other natural transmutations But we will try whether the rest of the Fathers did not also speak the same thing Justin Martyr (z) Dial. cum Tryph. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 speaking of the oblation of fine Flour for those that were cleansed from Leprosy says It was a type of the Bread of the Eucharist which our Lord J. Christ commanded us to make in memory of his passion What we make as was show'd cap. 8. observ 7. can be only Bread not Christs Body in a proper sense Again (a) Apol. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 telling us of the Bishops praying and giving thanks over the Elements he adds that the Deacons give to every one present leave to take of the Bread and Wine of the Eucharist That this was his sense appears further by another Character he gives of it in the same place 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when he calls it Food by which our Flesh and Blood by a change are nourished What he says in another place (b) Dial. cum Tryph. p. 345. Edit Paris 1615. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of Christians remembring their Lords Passion by their dry and wet food can agree only to Bread and Wine which therefore must be supposed to remain S. Irenaeus (c) L. 5. adv haeres c. 2. Ex quibus augetur consistit carnis nostrae substantia asserts with Justin that the Bread and Cup of the Eucharist is that by which the substance of our Flesh is nourished and consists In another place (d) Ibid. l. 4. c. 34. Carnem quae à corpore Domini sanguine alitur Quemadmodum qui est à terra panis percipiens invocationem Domini jam non communis panis est sed Eucharistia ex duabus rebus constans terrena coelesti c. he not only says that our Flesh is nourished by the Body and Blood of our Lord but adds As the Bread that is from the Earth perceiving the Lords Invocation is not now common Bread but the Eucharist consisting of two things an Earthly and an Heavenly c. Tho' not common Bread yet Bread still because else it would consist only of one thing viz. Christs Body and no earthly thing besides Origen (e) Comm. in Matth. 15. v. 15. p. 254. Edit Huet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If every thing that enters into the mouth gees into the Belly and is cast into the draught then also the food that is sanctified by the word of God and Prayer as to the material part of it which can be nothing but Bread goes into the Belly c. but in respect of the Prayer that is superadded it becomes profitable c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Nor is it the matter of the Bread but the word that is said over it that profits him that eats it not unworthily of the Lord. Cyprian (f) Epist ad Caecilium l. 2. Ep. 3. alias 63. Invenimus calicem mixtum fuisse quem Dominus obtulit vinum fuisse quod sanguinem suum dixit We have found that it was a mixed Cup which our Lord offered and that it was Wine which he called his Blood. Macarius (g) Homil. 27. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In the Church is offered Bread and Wine the Antitype of his Flesh and Blood and they that are partakers of the visible Bread do spiritually eat the Flesh of the Lord. Epiphanius (h) In Compend fidei 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in a place I before cited speaking of the Eucharist says that the Bread is food but the virtue that is in it is for begetting Life It do's not cease to be food tho' the quickening power is all from the grace and spirit of God in it S Ambrose (i) De Benedict Patriarch c. 9. Hunc panem dedit Apostolis ut dividerent populo credentium hodiéque dat nobis eum quum ipse quotidiè sacerdos consecrat suis verbis Hic panis factus est esca Sanctorum speaking of the Benediction of Assur Her Bread is fat c. says Christ gave this Bread to the Apostles to divide it among believing people and now he gives it to us whenas the Priest daily Consecrates with his words This Bread is made to be the food of Saints S. Austin (k) L. 3. de Trin. c. 4. Corpus Christi sanguinem dicimus illud tantum quod ex frugibus terrae acceptum prece mysticâ consecratum rite sumimus ad salutem spiritualem in memoriam pro nobis Dominicae Passionis quod cùm per manus hominum ad illam visibilem speciem perducitur non sanctificatur ut sit tam magnum Sacramentum nisi operante invisibiliter Spiritu Dei. We only call that the Body and Blood of Christ which being taken from the fruits of the Earth and Consecrated by mystical Prayer we rightly receive to our spiritual health in memory of our Lords Passion Which when it is by the hands of men brought to that visible substance is not sanctified to become so great a Sacrament unless the spirit of God invisibly operate Again (l) Idem Ibid. c. 10. Panis ad hoc factus in accipiendo Sacramento consumitur Bread made for this purpose is consumed in receiving the Sacrament But it is neither received nor consumed till it be Consecrated nor then but when eaten And again elsewhere (m) Serm. 9. de divers cap. 7. Eucharistia panis noster quotidianus est sed sic accipiamus illum ut non solum ventre sed mente reficiamur The Eucharist is our daily Bread but let us so receive it that we may not only have refreshment for our bellies but for our minds Upon this account it is that looking upon the Sacrament as a refreshing food to our Bodies as S. Austin here speaks the Ancients believed that by partaking of the Eucharist they Broke their Fasts this appears beyond all question in what Tertullian (n) Lib. de Orat. c. 14. ad finem Stationum diebus non putant plerique sacrificiorum orationibus interveniendum quod statio solvenda sit accepto corpore Dominico says who in resolving a doubt that troubled some minds what they should do when it happened that by a private vow they undertook a strict Fast which obliged them not to take any refreshment till Evening and this fell out upon a station day which was usually Wednesdays and Fridays when the Fast was ended at three a Clock by receiving the Communion Most think says he that on the station days they ought not to be present at the Prayers of the Sacrifices when the Eucharist was administred because the Fast was broken upon receiving the Lords Body Tertullian excepts not against this
have mingled says He speaks these things by Bread and Wine preaching the Antitypes of Christs Bodily Members Macarius (m) Homil. 27. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In the Church is offered Bread and Wine the Antitype of Christs Flesh and Blood. Greg. Nazianzen (n) Orat. 11. telling the story how his Sister Gorgonia was Cured of a desperate Malady 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. by applying the Sacrament mixed with tears to her Body he expresses it thus Whatsoever of the Antitypes of the precious Body and Blood of Christ her hand had treasured up c. Cyril of Jerus (o) Catech. Mystag 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 When they tast they are not required to tast Bread and Wine i. e. not these alone but the Antitype of Christs Body and Blood. Theodoret as we heard before (p) Dialog 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 calls the Divine Mysteries the Antitypes of the True Body of Christ And in another place (q) Recapit in fine Dialog 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he says If the Lords Flesh be changed into the Nature of the Divinity wherefore do they receive the Antitypes of his Body for the Type is superfluous you see Type and Antitype signify the same when the Truth is taken away Theodotus of Antioch (r) Citante Bulingero adv Casaub p. 166. says As the King himself and his Image are not two Kings neither are these two Bodies viz. The Body of Christ personally existing in the Heavens and the Bread the Antitype of it which is delivered in the Church by the Priests to the Faithful They call it a Figure Tertullian (s) Lib. 3. adv Maricion Tanem corpus suum appellans ut hinc etiam intelligas corporis sui figuram pani dedisse Calling Bread his Body that thou mayst thence understand that he gave to the Bread the Figure of his Body Again (t) Lib. 4. adv Marcion c. 40. Acceptum panem distributum discipulis corpus suum illum fecit hoc est corpus meum dicendo id est figura corporis mei The Bread which he took and distributed to his Disciples he made it his Body saying This is my Body that is the Figure of my Body Ephrem Syrus (u) Tract de nat dei curiosè non scrutanda Diligenter intuere quomodo in manibus panem accipiens benedixit fregit in figuram immaculati corporis sui calicemque in figuram pretiosi sanguinis sui benedixit deditque discipulis suis Diligently consider how Christ taking Bread in his hands blessed and brake it for a figure of his immaculate Body and also blessed and gave the Cup to his Disciples for a figure of his precious Blood. S. Austin (x) In Psal 3. Adhibuit Judam ad convivium in quo corporis sanguinis sui figuram discipulis commendavit tradidit He admitted Judas to the Banquet in which he commended and delivered to his Disciples the figure of his Body and Blood. Bede (y) In Psal 3. Nec à Sacratissimâ coena in quâ figuram Sacrosancti corporis sanguinisque suis discipulis tradidit ipsum sc Judam exclusit also says the same Neither did Christ exclude Judas from the most holy Supper in which he delivered to his Disciples the figure of his most holy Body and Blood. And elsewhere (z) In Luc. 22. Pro agni carne vel sanguine suae carnis sanguinisque Sacramentum in panis vini figurâ substituens ipsum se esle monstraret cui juravit Dominus Tu es sacerdos in aeternum secundùm Ordinem Melchisedec Christ instead of the Flesh or Blood of a Lamb substituting the Sacrament in the Figure of Bread and Wine showed that it was he to whom the Lord sware Thou art a Priest for ever after the Oâ—â—â— of Melchisedeck The words of the Ambrosian Office are very remarkable as they are set down by the Author of the Book of Sacraments under his name where he asks this Question (a) Lib. 4. de Sacram. c. 5. in initio Vis scire quia verbis coelestibus consecratur Accipe quae sint verba Dicit sacerdos Fac nobis inquit hanc oblationem ascriptam rationabilem acceptabilem quod est Figura corporis sanguinis Domini nostri Jesu Christi c. Wouldst thou know that the Eucharist is Consecrated by Heavenly words Hear then what the words are The Priest says Make this oblation to us allowable rational acceptable which is the Figure of the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ c. This Prayer thus expressed in this Office signifies more than all that can be cited against us out of these Books and indeed they were too plain to be continued when Transubstantiation was believed in the Roman Church and therefore in the present Canon of the Mass they are changed and instead of Figura Corporis they now read Fiat nobis Corpus c. Lastly The Fathers call the Bread and Wine in the Eucharist the Image of Christs Body Eusebius (b) Lib. 8. Demon. Evang. Christ says he delivered to his Disciples the Symbols of his Divine Oeconomy 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 requiring them to make an Image of his Body Gelasius (c) Tract de duabus Naturis Certè Imago Similitudo corporis sanguinis Christi in actione mysteriorum celebrantur Satis ergo nobis evidenter ostenditur hoc nobis in ipso Christo Domino sentiendum quod in ejus imagine profitemur celebramus sumimus c. Surely the Image and similitude of the Body and Blood of Christ are celebrated in the action of the mysteries It is evidently therefore shown to us that we must think of our Lord Christ the same which we profess celebrate and take in his Image c. Procopius of Gaza (d) Comm. in 49 Genes expounding these words spoke◠〈◊〉 Juda His Eyes shall be red with Wine and his Teeth 〈…〉 Milk Gen. 49.12 he applies it to the Eucharis◠〈…〉 gladness which is obtain'd by the 〈…〉 first tasted and had his Disciples take and 〈…〉 Milk may signify the purity 〈…〉 food 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for he gave the â—â—â—ge of his 〈…〉 his Disciples no longer requiring the blâ—â—dy 〈◊〉 of the Law and by the white teeth be denoted the purity of the Bready by which yâ—â— are nourished Author Dialog adv Marcionitas inter opera Originis (e) Dialog 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If Christ as the Marcionists say was without Flesh and without Blood of what Flesh or of what Body or Blood did he give the Images and commanded his Disciples to make a remembrance of him by Synodus Constantinop an 754. (f) In Concil Nicen. 2. Act. 6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Fathers there call the Eucharist the true Image of Christ and say afterwards Christ commanded us to offer an Image a chosen matter to
be in truth spiritually eaten and spiritually drunk Where he makes this to be eating in Truth and the other but Sacramental So Macarius (k) Homil. 27. having called the Bread and Wine the Antitype of Christ's Flesh and Blood he adds 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 They which are Partakers of the visible Bread do spiritually eat the Flesh of the Lord. He should rather have said orally according to the Doctrine of our Adversaries S. Athanasius (l) Tract in illud Evang. Quicunque dixerit verbum contra filium hominis expounding those words What if ye see the Son of Man ascending where be was before It is the Spirit that quickneth the Flesh profiteth nothing c. adds 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He affirmed both of himself the Flesh and Spirit and made a difference betwixt the Spirit and the Flesh that not only believing that of him which was visible but what was invisible they might learn that those things which he spake were not carnal but spiritual 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For to how many could his Body have sufficed for Meat that it should be made the Food of the whole World But therefore he mentions the Son of Man's Ascension into Heaven that he might draw them from this corporal Conceit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and hereafter might learn that the Flesh he spake of was celestial Meat from above and spiritual Nourishment to be given by him c. It will suffice all the World if we follow Tertullian's (m) De Resurr c. 37. Quia sermo caro erat factus proinde in causam vitae appetendus devorandus auditu ruminandus intellectu fide digerendus Advice Since the Word was made Flesh he is to be long'd for that we may live to be devoured by Hearing to be chewed by Understanding and digested by Faith. It is an excellent Comment on this which Euebius gives us (n) Lib. 3. Eccl. Theol. c. 12. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 upon those words of John 6. The Flesh profits nothing c. Do not imagine that I speak of that Flesh I am encompassed withal as if you must eat that nor think that I command you to drink sensible and corporeal Blood But know that the very Words that I have spoken to you are Spirit and Life So that these very Words and Speeches of his are his Flesh and Blood whereof whoso is always Partaker being nourished as it were with beavenly Bread shall be a Partaker of heavenly Life Let not the hasty hearing of those things by me 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of Flesh and Blood trouble you for things senfibly heard profit nothing but it is the Spirit that quickneth them that can spiritually hear them S. Basil (o) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 says the same There is an intellectual Mouth of the inward Man whereby he is nourished who receives the Word of Life which is the Bread that descended from Heaven Facundus Hermian (p) Lib. 12. Defens 3. capit c. 1. takes this of eating Christ's Flesh to be a Mystery and that S. Peter when he answered Lord whither should we go thou hast the Words of Eternal Life did not then understnad it For says he Quod si mysterium intellexisset hoc potius diceret Domine cur abeamus non est cum credamus nos corporis sanguinis tui fide salvandos if he had understood the Mystery he should rather have said Lord there is no reason we should go away fince we believe we shall be saved by Faith in thy Body and Blood. He means his Death and Passion which is his Sense of eating Christ's Body and Blood. Theodorus Heracleot (q) Catena in Joan. 6.54 55. refers this eating Christ's Flesh to the sincere embracing the Oeconomy of his Incarnation These says he 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 upon the reasoning of their Minds by assenting to it as it were tasting the Doctrine do rationally or spiritually eat his Flesh and by Faith partake of his Blood. S. Chrysostom (r) Hom. 46. in Joan. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. upon those words It is the Spirit that quickneth the Flesh profiteth nothing reckons up some of those carnal Doubts that profit nothing as It is a carnal thing says he to doubt how Christ descended from Heaven and to imagine him to be the Son of Joseph and how he can give us his Flesh to eat All these are carnal which ought to be mystically and spiritually understood Cyril of Jerusalem (s) Catech. Mystag 4. says That the Jews for want of understanding spiritually Christ's words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 imagined that Christ exhorted them to devour his Flesh which is hard to be distinguish'd from the Roman Churches Oral Manducation This carnal Fancy might well make them shrink and cry out This is a hard Saying who can hear it For as S. Austin (t) Cont. advers Legis l. 2. c. 9. Horribilius videatur humanam carnem manducare quam perimere humanum sanguinem potare quam fundere well observes It seems more horrible to eat Humane Flesh than to kill it and to drink Mans Blood than to shed it Origen's (u) Prolog in Cantic Est materialis hujus hominis qui exterior appellatur cibus potusque naturae suae cognatus corporeus iste sc terrenus Similiter autem spiritualis hominis ipsius qui interior dicitur est proprius cibus ut panis ille vivus qui de caelo descendit c. Rerum vero proprietas unicuique discreta servatur corruptibili corruptibilia praebentur incorruptibili verò incorruptibilia proponuntur words for I see no good reason to question they are his are enough to convince effectually all such carnal Jews and Christians There is a Meat and Drink for this material and outward Man as we call him agreeable to his Nature viz. this corporeal and earthly Food There is likewise a proper Food for the spiritual or as we call it inward Man as that living Bread that came down from Heaven c. But the Property of things is reserved to each distinct and corruptible things are given to that which is corruptible and incorruptible things are proposed to that which is incorruptible Greg. Nyssen (x) Hom. 1. in Cantie 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. also well expresses it thus There is an Analogy betwixt the Motions and Operations of the Soul and the Senses of the Body c. Wine and Milk are judged of by the Taste 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but these being intellectual the Power of the Soul that apprehends them must be altogether intellectual S. Chrysostom (y) Homil. 26. in Matth. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 said well That Christ gave himself to us for a spiritual Feast and Banquet And Procopius Gazaeus (z) Comment in Exod. Coelestis seu divinus Agnus animarum solet esse cibus
once adore it For thus the Missal (*) Ritus celebr Missam cap. 8. Dicit hoc est enim Corpus meum Quibus prolatis celebrans Hostiam tenens inter pollices indices genuflexus eam adorat Tunc se erigens quantum commodè potest elevat in altum Hostiam intentis in eam oculis quod in Elevatione Calicis facit populo reverenter ostendit adorandam directs That when the Priest comes to the words of Consecration and has said This is my Body then holding the Host as he is directed he kneels down and adores it Then raising himself as high as he is able he lifts up the Host on high and fixing his Eyes upon it which he do's also in the Elevation of the Cup he shows the Host reverently to the People to be adored This is the present Practice which the Council of Trent (f) Sess 13. c. 5. Nullus dubitandi locus relinquitur quin omnes Christi fideles pro more in Ecclesia Catholica semper recepto latriae cultum qui vero Deo debetur huic sanctissimo Sacramento in veneratione adhibeant endeavours to countenance by telling us That there is no doubt but that all Christians according to the Custom always received in the Catholick Church ought to give the Worship of Latria which is supreme Worship to the most Holy Sacrament in their worship of it By which Sacrament as their best Interpreters explain it is meant Totum visibile Sacramentum all that is visible there together with Christ and is one entire Object consisting of Christ and the Species and must be together adored But whatsoever besides Christ who is invisible is visible there call it what you please is a Creature and I am sure the Ancient Church never practised the adoration of any such and it is strange impudence to talk of the Custom of the Catholick Church in this Matter Neither can it be shown by any good Testimonies of the Ancients that this their Elevation in order to Adoration was ever used by them No not so much as any Elevation for any purpose is mentioned by those Fathers who on set purpose have given an account of the Rites of communicating in the first Ages of the Church neither by Justin Martyr nor the Author of the Constitutions called Apostolical nor Cyril of Jerusalem nor the pretended Denis the Areopagite or any other before the Sixth Century A dilligent Searcher of Antiquity tells us (g) Dallaeus de relig cult object l. 2. c. 5. That he cannot find among all the Interpreters of Ecclesiastical Offices in the Latin Church the mention of any sort of Elevation before the Eleventh Century that is the Age of Innovation in the Faith about the Eucharist As for the Greeks of later date in them we may meet indeed with an Elevation of the Eucharist but for quite other purposes than Adoration One of the Ends of their Elevation is mentioned by Germanus Patriarch of Constantinople (h) In Tom. 2. Bibl. Pat. Gr. Lat. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which was to represent Christ lifted up upon the Cross and his Death upon it and the Resurrection it self Another reason they give is by the showing of this Food of the Saints to invite and call them to partake of it Which Nic. Cabasilas gives a full account of (i) In Expos Liturg. apud Bibl. Pat. Gr. Lat. Tom. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saying That after the Friest has been partaker of the sanctified Things he turns to the People and showing them the Holy Things i. e. the Bread and Wine calls those that are willing to communicate Or as he still more fully explains it The Life-giving Bread being received by the Priest and shown he calls those that are likely to receive it worthily saying Holy Things are for the Holy * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Behold the Bread of Life which ye see Run therefore you that are to partake of it but it is not for all but for him that is Holy c. It is certain then that the Roman Practice when for Adoration they elevate and show the Host is an Innovation and that it proceeded from the Novel Doctrines then set on foot in the church is highly probable not only because they commenced about the same time but also because their practice suits so exactly with and springs so freely from those Doctrines it being so natural when such a glorious Body as our Saviour's is believed to be made present where it was not before to be wholly taken up with thoughts of Adoration and Worship above any thing else as it is notoriously true in this Church where the main End of the Eucharist viz communicating in the Body and Blood of Christ is strangely neglected and they are more concerned in carrying the Sacrament in Processions in praying to it before their Altars in preparing splendid Tabernacles where it may repose decking and adorning the places of its Residence and the like than in engaging Men to receive it which was the main thing the Ancient Church designed that they might worthily partake of it and when this was not designed their way was wholly to conceal it 4. Instance Another Practice of the Roman Church different from that of the Ancient Church is that now the Communicants Hands are unimployed in receiving the Eucharist and all is put by the Priest into their mouths Their Hands indeed may bear a part in their Adoration and showing some Signs of that but otherwise they are useless For now since Christ's Body is believed to lie hid under the Species of Bread and Wine that is thought too sacred to be touched by the Hands of any but the Priests We may therefore conclude fairly that if the Fathers had not this care to forbid this touching by the Peoples Hands they had not this Faith of the Roman Church that the Natural Body of Christ is in the Eucharist since if this had been their Opinion in all probability their practice would have been the same Since that they had an equal concern for their Saviour's Honour cannot well be doubted of Now that they gave the Sacrament into the Peoples Hands for the space of eight hundred Years or more is clear by their Testimonies Of which I 'll mention only three or four out of an hundred that might be given Clemens of Alexandria (k) Stromat lib. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 says That when the Priests have divided the Eucharist they permit every one of the People to take a portion of it Tertullian (l) Lib. de Idol Cap. 7. Eas manus admovere Corpori Domini quae Daemoniis corpora conferunt reproaches the Christian Statuaries That they reached those hands to the Lord's Body which had made Bodies for Devils St. Ambrose (m) Apud Theodoret. Hist Ecclesiast Lib. 5. c. 19. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Story is a known one how he repelled Theodosius from the Holy Table after the slaughter he
only a Negative Argument I will therefore add a Positive one to demonstrate that the Ancients were far from these Scrupulosities and also that they came into the Church with Transubstantiation and not before viz. The Practice of Communicating Infants It is not my Business here to prove that this was the common Usage in the Church from the Times of S. Cyprian at least even to later Ages which has been done effectually by others (i) See Mr. Chillingworth 's Additional Treatises in 4 to and is acknowledged by our Adversaries Maldonate (k) Comm. in Joan. 6.53 the Jesuit owns that it continued in the Church for six hundred Years And Card. Perron (l) De loc August c. 10. grants That the Primitive Church gave the Eucharist to Infants as soon as they were baptized And that Charles the Great and Lewis the Pious both testify that this Custom remained in the West in their Age that is in the 9th Century in which they lived But it went down lower even to two Ages after Charles the Great For that Epistle of P. Paschal 2. which I mentioned in another Chapter given us by Baronius at the end of his last Tome Ad Ann. 1118. when that Pope died wherein he forbids Intinction of the Bread in the Wine and requires that the Bread and Wine should be taken separately gives us also this exception praeter in parvulis ac omnino infirmis qui panem absorbere non possunt that it may be allowed to little Children and those extreamly weak that cannot get down the Bread Which had been a needless provision for them if Infants had not then received the Sacrament This being then a certain and confessed thing that Infants received the Eucharist I refer it to the Conscience of any Romanist whether he can think the Ancients had any of their aforesaid Fears and nice Scrupulosities about the Accidents that might happen to the consecrated Elements which in that Practice could not be prevented it being impossible where sucking Children receive either Bread or Wine to hinder the happening of something which the Church of Rome will call highly dishonourable to the Sacrament For to instance in a Case which S. Cyprian (m) Lib. de Lapsis mentions of a Christian little Girl that by her Nurses Wickedness had receiv'd polluted Bread in an Idol's Temple and afterwards was brought by the Mother knowing nothing into the Church to receive the Communion He relates how the Child when its turn came to receive the Cup turned away its Face shut its Lips and refused the Cup. But the Deacon (n) Ibid. Perstitit Diaconus reluctanti licet de Sacramento Calicis insudit Tunc sequitur singultus vomitus in Corpore atque ore violato Eucharistia permanere non potuit persisted and though it strove against it did infuse into it of the Sacrament of the Cup. Then followed sighing and vomiting the Eucharist could not remain in a Body and Mouth that had been prophaned How would a Romanist start at the thoughts of pouring the Sacrament as this Deacon did who sure was a Zuinglian into the Mouth of a strugling Child But here is no mention of any concern about that or what happened upon it from whence it is natural to conclude that the Ancients in this common Case having none of this Church's Scruples and Fears that they had none of their Faith for they must have had more Caution if they had had their Opinion about the Eucharist It is also very observable to confirm what I have said that though we can trace the Custom of Communicating Infants as far as to the Age when the Transubstantiating Doctrine was set on foot and ready to be formed into an Article of Faith yet here we are at a full stop and can go no further for this begat such Scruples and Fears that made this quickly give place and vanish which had so many Hazards attending it and we hear no more of it since that in the Latin Church but other great Churches that have not made This an Article of their Faith still retain the old Custom though they err therein of Communicating Infants As the Greek Churches the Muscovites Armenians Habassins Jacobites c. concerning which see Dallée de Cultib Latin. l. 5. c. 4. Thomas à Jesu de Convers gentium l. 7. c. 5. c. 18. Ludolfi Histor Aethiop l. 3. c. 6. Sect. 37 38. Histor Jacobitarum Oxon. cap. 9. See also Father Simons Critical History of Religions concerning the Georgians cap. 5. p. 67 71. Nestorians p. 101. Cophties p. 114. Armenians c. 12. p. 128. CHAP. XV. The Fifteenth Difference The Old Prayers in the Canon of the Mass concerning the Sacrament agree not with the present Faith of the Roman Church And their New Prayers to the Sacrament have no countenance from the Ancient Church IT is to no purpose to enquire who was the Author of the Canon of the Mass when Wallafridus Strabo (o) De reb Ecclesiast cap. 22. Quis primus ordinaverit nobis ignotum est Auctum tamen fuisse non semel sed saepius ex partibus additis intelligimus who lived in the middle of the 9th Century tells us It was a thing to him unknown Seeing also he adds That it had been enlarged not only once but often it is as vain to ask after its Age. The same also the Abbot Berno (p) Berno Ab. Augiens de rebus ad Missam spectant c. 1. Attamen ipsum Canonem non unus solus composuit totum sed per tempora aliud alius interposuit vel adjecit says It was not one Man that composed the Canon all of it but at several times another interposed and added another thing And as they added so also I doubt not but they altered many things as we may guess by that remarkable Difference betwixt what the Author of the Book of Sacraments under the name of S. Ambrose (q) Lib. 4. de Sacram. cap. 5. Fac nobis hanc Oblationem adscriptam rationabilem acceptabilem Quod est Figura corporis sanguinis Domini nostri Jesu Christi Quam Oblationem tu Deus in omnibus quaefumus benedictam adscriptam c. facere digneris Vt nobis corpus sanguis fiat dilectissimi tui Filii D. N. J. Christi cites as the Prayer in his Time and what we now find in it speaking of the Oblation it was then Make this Oblation to us allowable rational acceptable Which is the Figure of the Body and Blood of Christ our Lord Which now is turned into this Prayer That the Oblation may be made to us the Body and Blood of thy dear Son our Lord. But yet to take the Canon as now it is we shall find the Prayers of it not capable of being reconciled with the present Faith of the Roman Church and with Transubstantiation To give some Instances Thus they pray in the Canon immediately after the words of Consecration
nobis Frumentum Electorum Misere nobis Vinum germinans Virgines Misere nobis Panis pinguis deliciae Regum Misere nobis Juge Sacrificium Misere nobis Oblatio munda Misere nobis Agnus absque macula Misere nobis Mensa purissima Misere nobis Angelorum Esca Misere nobis Manna absconditum Misere nobis Memoria mirabilium Dei Misere nobis Panis Supersubstantialis Misere nobis Verbum caro factum habitans in nobis Misere nobis Hostia Sancta Misere nobis Calix Benedictionis Misere nobis Mysterium fidei Miserere nobis Praecelsum venerabile Sacramentum Miserere nobis Sacrificium omnium Sanctissimum Miserere nobis Vere propitiatorium pro vivis defunctis Miserere nobis Coeleste Antidotum quo à peccatis praeservamur Miserere nobis Stupendum supra omnia miraculum Miserere nobis Sacratissima Dominicae passionis commemoratio Miserere nobis Donum transcendens omnem plenitudinem Miserere nobis Memoriale praecipuum divini amoris Miserere nobis Divinae affluentia largitatis Miserere nobis Sacrosanctum augustissimum mysterium Miserere nobis Pharmacum immortalitatis Miserere nobis Tremendum ac vivificum Sacramentum Miserere nobis Panis omnipoâ—â—â—tia verbi caro factus Miserere nobis Incruentum Sacrificium Miserere nobis Cibus conviva Miserere nobis Dulcissimum convivium cui assistunt Angeli ministrantes Miserere nobis Sacramentum Pietatis Miserere nobis Vinculum Charitatis Miserere nobis Offerens Oblatio Miserere nobis Spiritualis dulcedo in proprio fonte degustata Miserere nobis Refectio animarum Sanctarum Miserere nobis Viaticum in Domino morientium Miserere nobis Pignus futurae gloriae c. Miserere nobis The Litany of the Sacrament in the Manual aforesaid Living Bread that didst descend from Heaven Have mercy on us God hidden and my Saviour Have mercy on us Bread-Corn of the Elect Have mercy on us Wine budding forth Virgins Have mercy on us Fat Bread and the delight of Kings Have mercy on us Continual Sacrifice Have mercy on us Pure Oblation Have mercy on us Lamb without spot Have mercy on us Manual adds Table of Proposition Have mercy on us Most pure Table Have mercy on us Food of Angels Have mercy on us Hidden Manna Have mercy on us Memorial of God's wonderful Works Have mercy on us Supersubstantial Bread Have mercy on us Word made Flesh and dwelling in us Have mercy on us Holy Host Have mercy on us Chalice of Benediction Have mercy on us Mystery of Faith Have mercy on us Most high and venerable Sacrament Have mercy on us Sacrifice of all other most Holy Have mercy on us Truly propitiatory for the Quick and Dead Have mercy on us Heavenly Antidote whereby we are preserved from Sin Have mercy on us Miracle above all other astonishing Have mercy on us Most sacred Commemoration of our Lord's Death Have mercy on us Gift surpassing all Fulness Have mercy on us Chief Memorial of Divine Love Have mercy on us Abundance of Divine Bounty Have mercy on us Holy and most Majestical Mystery Have mercy on us Medicine of Immortality Have mercy on us Dreadful and Life-giving Sacrament Have mercy on us Bread by the Word's Omnipotence made Flesh Have mercy on us Unbloody Sacrifice Have mercy on us Meat and Guest Manual omits Have mercy on us Most sweet Banquet whereat the Ministring Angels attend Have mercy on us Sacrament of Piety Have mercy on us Bond of Charity Have mercy on us Offerer and Oblation Have mercy on us Spiritual sweetness tasted in its proper Fountain Have mercy on us Refection of Holy Souls Have mercy on us Viaticum of those who die in our Lord Have mercy on us Pledge of future Glory c. Have mercy on us This is enough to show into what strains of Devotion the present Roman Church now runs since Transubstantiation is an Article of its Faith. I deny not that these Prayers are very natural if that Doctrine were true and I would fain have a good Reason assigned why if this Doctrine was believed of old this was not the way of the Primitive Devotion If they affirm that it was it lies upon them to produce the evidence But then let me tell them before-hand that we will not be shamm'd off with a Rhetorical Prosopopoeia of an Author under the name of S. Denis the Areopagite which has been the only thing I have seen alledged and as often answered whose Authority neither cannot be considerable to us who remember that he was first produced and shown to the World by Hereticks and rejected by the Orthodox CHAP. XVI The Sixteenth Difference Our Ancient Roman-Saxon Church differred from the present Roman Church in the Article of Transubstantiation and Corporal Presence THis is the Last Difference I shall mention tho' not the least but a very material consirmation of what I have been all along proving That there is no consenâ—â—f the Ancient Church with the present Roman Church in their Faith and Opinions about the Eucharist when we shall find that even our own Old English Church that had received most of its Instructions in Christianity from the Roman and in many other things agreed with what it now professes yet in this widely differ'd from it This plainly argues one of these two things either that the then Roman Church had not the Opinions of the present Church in these Matters and so did not propagate them to us which cannot be said when we remember the busy Disputes about these Matters in the 9th Century tho' they were not yet come to a determination or else that when the Roman Church warped and generally espoused a New Doctrine which the Ancient Fathers were strangers to we still kept our Ground and did not suffer our selves to be perverted but held to the Ancient Belief This is the Truth of our Case as appears by a noble Remain of an Easter Sermon about 700 Years old in the Saxon Tongue among other Catholick Homilies that were to be read yearly in the Church It was produced in the last Age in the Saxon with a Translation in our English Tongue printed by John Day it was fince put with the same Translation by Mr. Fox into his Martyrology * Vol. 2. p. 380. last Edition and has been set forth with a Latin Translation by the Learned Abr. Whelock in his Saxon Edition of Bede's Ecclesiastical History p. 462. printed at Cambridg 1644. out of which I shall transcribe as much as will serve to prove our Assertion softning the harshness of the Phrases of the last Age and expressing the sense in words more easily understood The Easter Sermon begins thus MEN Beloved you have been often discoursed to concerning our Saviour's Resurrection how he after his Passion on this Day rose powerfully from the Dead Now we shall by God's Grace explain something to you about the Holy Eucharist which this day we are bound to frequent and instruct your understanding
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
among so many false Brethren that were Turn-coats yet there were none that made this an Accusation against them that they are the Flesh of their God and Lord and drank his Blood. We have this ingenuous confession of Bellarmine himself (*) De Eucharist l. 2. c. 12. Verè stulti haberi possemus si absque Verbo Dei crederemus veram Christi carnem ore corporali manducari That we might be accounted truly Fools if without the Word of God we believed the true Flesh of Christ to be eaten with the Mouth of our Bodies But whether with or without the Word of God they believed such a corporal eating of Christ's Flesh had been all one to the Heathens if they knew that this was their Belief and it would rather have strengthned their Reproach if they knew that they were bound thus to believe But then what he adds is very remarkable Nam id semper infideles stultissimum paradoxum aestimârunt ut notum est de Averroe aliis That Insidels always counted this a most foolish Paradox as appears from Averroes and others I believe indeed that they must always count this a foolish Paradox which Averroes charged Christians withal in that known Saying of his (b) Se Sectam Christianâ deteriorem aut ineptiorem nullam reperire quam qui sequuntur ii quem colunt Deum dentibus ipsi suis discerpunt ac devorant That he found no Sect worse or more foolish than the Christians who tear with their Teeth and devour that God whom they worship But why was not this cast always in the Teeth of Christians if this was always their professed Doctrine Was Celsus or Julian or Lucian less sagacious or less malicious than Averroes that not a word of this foolish Paradox was ever so much as hinted by them to the reproach of Christians then But the Cardinal has instanced the most unluckily in the World in naming only Averroes for this Calumny when all acknowledg that this Philosopher P. Innocent 3. who establish'd Transubstantiation lived in the same Age and some very learned Men prove from the Arabian Accounts that those two were Contemporaries And as for his aliis others I should be glad to see any named that urged what Averroes did to the Christians reproach before the days of Berengarius After that indeed we can meet with a Follower of Mahomet who as a Learned Man (c) Hottinger in Eucharistia dejexja Sect. 14. p. 220. Ahmed bin Edris ita scribit verba autem Isa fic Arabes Christum vocant super quo pax Qui edit carnem meam bibit sanguinem c. Christiani literaliter intelligunt Atque sic Christiani atrociores sunt in Christum quà m Judaei Illi enim Christum occisum reliquerunt hi carnem ejus edunt sangumem bibunt quod ipso teste experientia truculentius est gives us his words says thus Those words of Christ He that eateth my Flesh and drinketh my Blood he is in me and I in him c. Christians understand them literally and so Christians are more cruel against Christ than Jews for they left Christ when they had slain him but these eat his Flesh and drink his Blood which as experience testifies is more savage After the Roman Church's declaring for Transubstantiation though not before we meet with the Oppositions of Jews testifying their abhorrency (d) Ibid. Joseph Albo de Ikkarim lib. 3. cap. 25. Nam panis est corpus Dei ipsorum Aiunt enim corpus Jesu quod est in Coelis venire in Altare vestiri pane vino post pronunciata verba Hoc enim est Corpus meum à sacrificulo qualiscunque ille demum fuerit sive pius sive impius omnia fieri Corpus unum cum corpore Messiae c. Repugnant hic omnia Intelligibilibus primis ipsis etiam sensibus of a Doctrine which talks of a Sacrifice and makes Bread to be the Body of their God which he means in the sence of Transubstantiation by being turned into it and cloathed with its Accidents whose Body that is in Heaven comes upon the Altar and upon the pronouncing these words For this is my Body by the Priest whether good or wicked is all one all things are made one Body with the Body of the Messias c. Which things are all repugnant to the first Principles of Reason and to our very Senses themselves As he afterwards shows in several Instances And now we are told that it is a common Bye-word to reproach a Christian by among the Turks to call him Mange Dieu All these took their rise plainly from Transubstantiation and not from the Faith of the Ancient Church For if one of it (e) Theodoret. Interrog 55. in Genes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may speak for the rest the Old Christians agreed in the Abhorrence and called it the extreamest stupidity to worship that which is eaten And again Id. qu. 11. in Levit. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 How can any one of a sound Mind call that a God which being offered to the True God is after wards eaten by him But now after all the saddest Consideration is that the Prejudices are so great against this and another Twin-Doctrine of the Roman Church about the worship of Images that a perpetual Stumbling-block seems to be laid before the Jews and it may be look'd upon as the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that which will always hinder and obstruct their Conversion whilst it is believed by them to be the common Sence and Faith of Christians and they have too great a Temptation to believe so when they have seen this Church which has got the most worldly Power into its hands persecuting not only Jews but Hereticks as they call all other Christians that deny this Doctrine to the Death for gainsaying it and when that Work will cease God only knows The Jews can never be supposed to get over this hard Chapter whilst they who call themselves the only Catholick Christians hold such things about the Body of Christ and remember that it is about a Body which as the forenamed Jos Albo (f) Ibid. Ista talia sunt quae mens non potest concipere neque os eloqui neque auris audire speaks No Man's Mind can conceive nor Tongue utter nor any Ear can hear He means by reason of their absurdity So that the Case of the Jews and their Conversion seems to be hopeless and desperate according to all humane guesses till there be a change wrought not in the substance of the Bread and Wine this Church dreams of but in the Romanist's Belief And though this also may seem upon many accounts to be as hopeless as the former yet for a Conclusion I will try whether as once the Great Apostle thought it a wise method Rom. 11.14 by the Example of the Gentiles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to provoke the Jews to Emulation so it may not be
in Fire which begins to be any where either because it is kindled there anew or is brought thither de novo But it is manifest that the true Body of Christ was not always on the Altar because the Christians assert that Christ ascended in his Body to Heaven It seems also impossible to be said that any thing here is converted anew into Christ's Body because nothing seems convertible into that which existed before since that into which another thing is turned by such a change begins to exist Now it is manifest that Christ's Body did praeexist seeing it was conceived in the Womb of Mary It seems therefore impossible that it should begin to be on the Altar anew by the Conversion of another thing into it In like manner neither by a change of Place because every thing that is locally moved do's so begin to be in one place that it ceases to be in that other in which it was before We must therefore say that when Christ begins to be on this Altar on which the Sacrament is perform'd he ceases to be in Heaven whither he ascended It is also plain that this Sacrament is in like manner celebrated on divers Altars Therefore it is impossible that the Body of Christ should begin to be there by a Local Motion 4. You Christians affirm Ibid. 13. Imposs fol. 134. that your Christ is whole in the Sacrament under the Species of Bread and Wine This I prove thus to be impossible Because never are the Parts of any Body contained in divers Places the Body it self remaining whole But now it is manifest that in this Sacrament the Bread and Wine are asunder in separate Places If therefore the Flesh of Christ be under the Species of Bread and his Blood under the Species of Wine it seems to follow that Christ do's not remain whole but that always when this Sacrament is celebrated his Blood is separated from his Body 5. Ibid. 14. Imposs fol. eod You Christians say that in that little Host the Body of Christ is contained This I prove to be impossible Because it is impossible that a greater Body should be included in the place of a lesser Body But it is manifest that the True Body of Christ is of a greater Quantity than the Bread that is offered on the Altar Therefore it seems impossible that the true Body of Christ should be whole and entire there where the Bread seems to be But if the whole be not there but only some part of it then the foresaid Inconvenience returns that always when this Sacrament is perform'd the Body of Christ is Differenced or separated by Parts I will only here set down what the Catholick Author replies to this after the unintelligible distinctions of the Schools and seems most to trust to even such wise Similitudes as these that the Soul is greater than the Body and yet is contained within it that a great Mountain is contained in the little Apple of the Eye and the greatest Bodies in a little Looking-glass and great Virtues in little precious Stones and in the Little Body of the Pope great Authority c. 6. Ibid. 15. Imposs fol. 135. The Jew says you Christians affirm that your Christ is in like manner on more Altars where Masses are celebrated This seems to be impossible because it is impossible for one Body to exist in more places than one But it is plain that this Sacrament is celebrated in more Places Therefore it seems impossible that the Body of Christ should be truly contained in this Sacrament Unless perhaps any should say that according to one part of it it is here and according to another Part elsewhere But from thence it would again follow that by the Celebration of this Sacrament the Body of Christ is divided into Parts when yet the Quantity of the Body of Christ seems not to suffice for the dividing so many Particles out of it as there are Places in which this Sacrament is performed 7. You Christians say that after Consecration Ibid. 16. Imposs fol. 136. all the Accidents of Bread and Wine are manifestly perceived in this Sacrament viz. the Colour Tast Smell Figure Quantity and Weight About which you cannot be deceived because Sense is not deceived about its proper Objects Now these Accidents as you assert cannot be in the Body of Christ as in their Subject Nor can they subsist by themselves seeing the Nature and Essence of an Accident is to be in another thing 7. Metaphys For Accidents seeing they are Forms cannot be individuated but by their Subject and if the Subject were taken away would be universal Forms It remains therefore that these Accidents are in their determinate Subjects viz. In the substance of Bread and Wine Wherefore there is there the substance of Bread and Wine and not the substance of Christ's Body for it seems impossible that two Bodies should be together in one place 8. The Jews say Ibid. 17. Imposs fol. 137. It is certain that if that Wine in your Sacrament were taken in great Quantity that it would heat the Body and intoxicate as before it was a Sacrament and also that the Bread would strengthen and nourish It seems also that if it be kept long and carelesly it will corrupt and it may be eaten of Mice the Bread and Wine also may be burnt and turned into Vapours all which cannot agree to the Body of Christ seeing your Faith declares it to be impassible It seems therefore impossible that the Body of Christ should be contained substantially in this Sacrament 9. The Jew says Ibid. 18. Imposs fol. 137. That you Christians break that Sacrament into Parts Therefore it is impossible that the Body of Christ should be there The Consequence is thus proved Because that Fraction which do's sensibly appear cannot be without a Subject For it seems to be absurd to say That the Subject of this Fraction is Christ's Body Therefore it is impossible Christ's Body should be there but only the Substance of Bread and Wine There is a great deal more of what the Jews say against this Doctrine in that Author but this is enough for the purposes I before mentioned and so I leave it to the Consciences of those concerned to show that even the Jews have better explained the words whereby Christ instituted this Sacrament than the Romanists have by making it a Figure of Christ's Body and not the Body it self spoken more agreeably to the Faith of the Ancient Church that did so and have confuted the Errors of this Church by Maximes consonant to the Sense and Reason of all Man-kind Which God grant they may be sensible of who have so manifestly swerved from them all that so their Words may never rise up in Judgment against them THE END Books lately printed for Richard Chiswell A Dissertation concerning the Government of the Ancient Church more particularly of the Encroachments of the Bishops of Rome upon other Sus. By WILLIAM