A Defense of the Catholic Faith, Book 2 · Article 11
ARTICLE XI. Of Tranſubſtantiation.
THe King of great Britaine doth recken Tranſubſtantiation alſo among the Nouelties brought into the Church ſince the firſt fiue hundred yeares after Chriſt.
Againſt this Coeffeteau alleadgeth onelyonly foure places out of the Fathers, whereof the two firſt are falſe and ſuppoſitious, the third is fraudulently maimed and mangled, and the fourth is miſ-vnderſtood.
The firſt is taken out of the Catechiſmes of Cyril of Ieruſalem, which we formerly proued not to be Cyrils, foreign.but made by one Iohn of Ieruſalem, who liued ſome foure hundred yeares after, when the ſuperſtition of Reliques was in force, which made him ſay in the fourth Catechiſme, that the wood of the Croſſe was then ſo growne and multiplied, that in a manner the whole earth was filled with it.
The ſecond place is out of the booke de caena Domini, falſly aſcribed 10 S. Cyprian, as are alſo all the Treatiſes. De Cardinalib. operibus; whereof this is one, to which there is prefixed a Prologue, wherein the Author ſaith that he hath ſuppreſſed his name: by which it appeareth, that the Authour of this Treatiſe is vnknowne; yet might this booke bee purpoſely alleadged had it beene written by any auncient Authour that had liued within the firſt foure or fiue hundred yeares, but the ſtile teſtifies, that it is newly forged, witneſſe theſe wordes: Diſtributꝰ non demembratur incorporatus non iniuriatur This is the worke of ſome prentice Frier, that meant to wrong Priſcian.
The third place is out of S. Ambroſe in the ninth Chapter concerning thoſe that are newly inſtructed in the Myſteries, where Ambroſe ſayth, that the benediction chaungeth the nature of the Sacrament, and that it is not that which nature hath made, but what the bleſſing hath conſecrated: And to ſhew that in this action there is a ſupernaturall worke, he brings the example of Airons rod turned into a Serpent: ſo farre doth Coeffeteau alleadge S. Ambroſe, but hee doth malitiouſly omit many examples following; by which it appeareth that S. Ambroſe did not thinke, that that which was to be admired in this Sacrament, was the Tranſubſtantiation of the bread. For he addeth alſo theſe examples, that Moſes deuided the redde Sea: that the Riuer Iordan turned his courſe: that water iſſued out of the Rocke: that the bitter waters of Mara were made ſweete: that Elizeus made Iron to ſwimme vponupon the water; which were all workes of God, whrein there was no tranſubſtantiation; & which declare that he beleeued not that the bread became the body of Chriſt, ſo as it was no more bread in ſubſtance: which did plainly appeare, for that in the words following comparing theſe miracles of the Prophets, wherein God changed the nature of things,Non minus eſt nouas res rebus dare quam mutare naturas. with the change that is wrought in the Sacrament, he ſaith, That it is no leſſe to adde ſome new things vntounto things, then to change the nature of things. Auerring plainely thereby that the bread hath receiued ſome new thing, without loſing the nature of bread. And we may not thinke it ſtrange if he ſay that the bread remaining bread, hath changed it nature. For ſo a bit of Waxe becomming the Kings ſeale changeth it nature without Tranſubſtantiation, and is not any more commonly called Waxe, euen as the common bread becommeth holy in the Sacrament,Ʋera vti que caro Chriſti quae crucifixa quae ſepulta eſt. Ʋerè ergo carnis illius Sacramentum eſt. Ipſe clamat Dominus Ieſus, Hoc est corpus meū. Ante benedictionem verborum cael…ſtium alia ſpecies nominatur, poſt conſecrationem corpꝰ Chriſti ſignificatur. and by this conſecration is often called the body of Chriſt. Therefore he further addeth, It was the true fleſh of Chriſt which hath beene crucified, and buried. This then is as truely the holy ſigne of the fleſh. The Lord himſelfe crieth aloud, this is my body: before the bleſsing of the heauenly wordes, another kinde is named, after the bleſsing the body of Chriſt is ſignified.
The laſt place is out of S. Chryſoſtome, in his Sermon of the Dedication, where in his flouriſhing Diſcourſe after his manner, he heapes vp Hyperbolies, to enflame his Auditory. You which come (ſaith he) thinke not to receiue the Diuine body of a man, but that you receiue the very Seraphins of fire, with their tongues. And a little after, the ſpirituall fire ſtreameth downe from the table: Tranſported with the ſame zeale, he ſaith there, that the myſteries are conſumed by the ſubſtance of the body. And ſo in the fiue and fortieth Homily vponupon S. Iohn: We are mingled and knead with him, we faſten our teeth in his fleſh: All which are hyperbolicall phraſes, and ſuch as being hardly taken were abſurd in the very iudgement of our aduerſaries, which make the helpes of deuotion to couer Idolatry: for to know what is a Doctors opinion, we muſt not take his Oratorious Amplifications, nor Hyperbolical extaſies,Acceptum panē & diſtributum diſcipulis, corpus ſuum fecit dicendo hoc eſt corpus meum, id eſt figura corporis me i. Panem ſuum corpus appellans, vt & hinc iam eum intelligas corporis ſui ſiguram pani dediſſe. I lle cibus qui ſanctificatur per verbum Dei perque obſecrationem iuxta id quod habet materiale in ventrem abit & in ſeceſſum emittitur. but out of the places in which they aduiſedly and expreſly treate of this matter; of which you ſhall hauehave here ſome paſſages.
Tertullian in his fourth booke againſt Marcion, cap. 40. Ieſus Chriſt hauing taken bread, and diſtributed it to his Diſciples, he made it to be his body, ſaying, This is my body, that is, the figure of my body.
The ſame in his third booke againſt Marcion, cap. 19. God hath ſo reuealed it in the Goſpell, calling the bread his body, to the end that thereby thou mayeſt vnderſtand that he hath giuen to the bread to be a figure of his body.
Origen vponupon the fifteenth of Matthew: That meate which is ſanctified by the word of God and by prayer, as touching the matter, it goeth downe into the belly, and is caſt out into the draught, and doth not ſanctifie of its owne nature.
Cyprian in his third Epiſtle of the ſecond booke,Vinum fuit quod ſanguinem ſuum dixit. foreign, &c. Non dubitauit dicere Hoc eſt corpus m…um cum daret ſignum corporis ſui. Sicut ergo ſecundum quendam modum Sacramentum corporis Chriſti orpus Chriſti eſt, Sacramentum ſanguinis Chriſti ſanguis Chriſti eſt. Ita Sacramentum fidei fides eſt. Spiritualiter intelligitur quod locutus ſum, non hoc corpus quod videtis manducaturi eſtis, & bibituri illum ſanguinem quem fu…uri ſunt qui me crucifigent. Sacramentum a liquod vobis commendaui: Spiritualiter intellectum viuificabit vos. We find that the Cup which the Lord offered was mingled, and THAT WHICH HE CALLED HIS BLOVD WAS WINE.
Euſebius in the eighth booke of the Demonſtration of the Goſpell, chap. 1. towards the end; Ieſus Christ gaue to his Diſciples the ſignes of the diuine diſpenſation, commaunding them to celebrate the figure of his owne body. For ſeeing that he did now no longer receiue the ſacrifices of bloud, nor the ſlaughter of diuers beaſts ordained by Moſes, he hath taught vsus to vſe the bread for a ſigne of his body.
S. Auſtin againſt Adimantus, chap. 12. The Lord made no difficulty to ſay, This is my body, when he gaue the ſigne of his body. Where we ſee that he expoundeth this word Body, by ſigne of my body.
In his three and twentieth Epiſtle to Boniface, The holy ſigne of Chriſts body is after a ſort, the body of Chriſt: and the holy ſigne of the blood of Chriſt, is the blood of Christ; and ſo the holy ſigne of faith, (to wit, Baptiſme) is faith. Certainely Baptiſme is not tranſubſtantiated into faith, neyther the Sacrament then of the body of Chriſt, into the body of Chriſt. Now we muſt note that himſelfe in his tenth book of the Citie of God, and in the fift Epiſtle to Marcellius, declareth that this word ſacrament ſignifieth an holy ſigne.
VponUpon the ninety eight Pſalme, Vnderſtand that which I ſay ſpiritually; you ſhall not eate his body which you ſee, neyther ſhall you drinke the blood which my tormentors ſhall ſhedde, I hauehave recommended vntounto you an holy ſigne, which being ſpiritually vnderſtood, ſhal make you liue.
Himſelfe in his third booke and ſixteene Chapter of Chriſtian doctrine,Niſi manducauerit is carnē filij hominis, & non biberitis eius ſanguinem—facinus vel flagitium videtur iubere Figura eſt ergo, praecipions paſſioni dominicae eſſe communicandum & ſuauiter atque vtiliter recondendum in memoria quod pro nobis caro eius crucifixa & vulnerata ſit. foreign, &c. Except you eate (ſaith Chriſt) the fleſh of the Sonne of man, and drinke his blood, you ſhall hauehave no life in you. It ſeemeth that he commaundeth a wickedneſſe. It is then a figure: which commaundeth vsus to communicate of the Paſsion of our Lord, and quietly and profitably to lay vp in our memories that his fleſh was wounded and crucified for vsus. Obſerue how he expoundeth this Figure, to wit, that to eate the fleſh of the Sonne of man, is to communicate of his Paſſion, and to ruminate and meditate thereon carefully in our memories.
Theodoret in his firſt Dialogue, intituled Immoueable, fol. 8. of the Romane Edition, The Lord hath giuen to the ſigne the name of his body What can a man ſay more expreſly? And a little after, He hath called the ſigne his blood.
A little after, Ieſus Chriſt hath honoured viſible ſignes with the Appellation of his body, not hauing changed their nature, but hauing added grace to nature. So many wordes, ſo many flaſhes of lightning.
In the ſecond Dialogue, the Eutychien Heretique agreeth with Coeffeteau, and maintaineth the Tran…ubſtantiation of the bread into fleſh. But Theodoret doth reprehend him thus: The Myſticall ſignes doe not change their nature after the conſecration: for they remaine in their first ſubſtance and forme and figure: and are viſible and to be handled, as before, but they are vnderſtood to bee the things which they are made: and are beleeued and reuerenced as being become that which they are beleeued to be.
Gelaſius aboue all is excellent in his booke of the two natures:Et tamen eſſe non deſimit ſubſtantia vel natura panis & vini & cert è imago & ſi…itudo corporis & ſanguinis Chriſti in actione myſteriorum celebrantur Certainly the Sacraments of the body and blood of Chriſt which we receiue, are a diuine thing, and therfore alſo by them we are made partakers of the Diuine nature: and yet notwithſtanding, the Subſtance and nature of the bread, and of that wine doth not let to remaine. And ſurely the Image and ſemblance of the body and blood of Christ are celebrated in the action of myſteries.
What more? Let vsus heare the Canoniſts of the Church of Rome in a Gloſſe more auncient then the Tranſubſtantiation,Caeleſte Sacramentum quod verè repraeſentat carnem Chriſti dicitur corpus Chriſti ſed impropriè, vnde dicitur ſuo modo non rei veritate ſed ſignificante myſterio vt ſenſus ſit, vocatus Chriſti corpus, id eſt ſignificatur Sicut caeleſtis panis qui Chriſti caro eſt ſuo modo vocatur corpus Chriſti, cum revera ſit Sacramentum corporis Chriſti ill us videlicet quod viſibile, &c. couched in admirable formall termes, vponupon the Canon Hoc est, in the ſecond Diſtinction of the Conſecration, thus ſpeaketh the Gloſſe: The heauenly Sacrament which truely repreſenteth the fleſh of Chriſt, is called the body of Chriſt: but improperly, and therefore it is ſo called after a ſort, and not according to the verity of the thing it ſelfe, but by a ſignificant myſterie: ſo that the ſenſe is this; it is called the body of Christ, that is to ſay, the body of Chriſt is ſignified thereby.
The ſame Text of the Canon, drawne out of S. Auſtin, is no leſſe direct to the purpoſe: The heauenly bread, which is, the fleſh of Chriſt is after it manner of ſpeaking called the body of Chriſt, albeit in truth it be a holy ſigne of the body of Chriſt, to wit of him who is viſible, palpable, mortall, hanged on the Croſſe.
Adde hereunto the auncient cuſtomes, diametrally contrary to Tranſubſtantiation. TheaHierom. in 1. ad Corinth: cap: 11. auncient Chriſtians made a feaſt, in which they did eate the remaines of the Sacrament. It was alſo the cuſtome of many places to giuegive thoſe reſidues to little children, as*Euag. 4. lib. Hiſto…iae cap▪ 35 Niceph. lib. 17. cap. 25. Euagrius and Nicephorus doe witneſſe. In other places they burnt them, as Heſychius teacheth in his ſecond booke vponupon Leuiticus, chap. 8. They gaue the bread of the Sacrament into the peoplesbEuſeb. libr. 7. cap. 8 Auguſt. contra literas Petiliani lib. 9. cap. 30. handes, and ſometimes permitted them to carry it home. They did not make any eleuation of the Hoſt, neyther did the people adore it. They did not ſpeake in thoſe dayes of that concomitancy, which putteth the whole body of Chriſt into eueryevery drop of the Chalice. In ſtead of a little Wafer cake which now they lift vp, they couered the Table with bread and wine. To licke vp the drops which fall from the Chalice, to burne the Parings, and to put them vp for relicks, to ſeeke for the Hoſt in the vomitings, to celebrate the God-feaſt, or Corpus Chriſti day, and to carry God in proceſſion betweene two rowes of Tapeſtry, are cuſtomes of which we finde no tract or trace in the auncients: who doe neyther likewiſe ſpeake of accidents without ſubiect, of length without any thing that is long, or of roundneſſe and nothing round: no more then of a body without place, and of a body of Chriſt farre ſeparated from it ſelfe, higher and lower then it ſelfe: which alſo they affirme to be in this Sacrament▪ figure of it ſelfe, and to be with all his length in each part of the Hoſt, to hauehave a length without extent, to hauehave all his length in one point which hath no length at all. In a word, there is no mention of a thouſand ſuch like prodigious fancies, which now they beleeue in the Church of Rome with more reſpect then the Goſpell, out of which Coeffeteau without doubt would hauehave produced ſome proofes, if he had found any, rather then hauehave alleadged foure miſerable places of the Fathers, falſified and curtalled after his manner.
1 For if he had wel weighed the wordes of the Goſpell and of the Apoſtles, he ſhould hauehave found that Ieſus Chriſt tooke bread, and brake it. But the Church of Rome ſaith, that the Prieſt doth not breake bread.
2 Hee ſhould hauehave found that Ieſus Chriſt tooke bread, and gaue it to his Diſciples. But the Church of Rome holdeth, that the Prieſt doth not giuegive bread.
3 He ſhould hauehave found that Ieſus Chriſt giuing this bread, ſaid that that wch hee gaue was his body. But the Church of Rome doth not beleeue that the bread is the body of Chriſt, but doth thus expound theſe wordes: This is my body, that is, that which is vnderunder theſe formes, ſhall be tranſubſtantiated into my body. For it is certaine, that when Ieſus Chriſt ſaid This is my body, by the word This, he vnderſtood that which he gaue. Now the Goſpell doth witneſſe that he gaue bread: therefore theſe wordes, This is my body, doe ſignifie as much as This bread is my body. And ſo all the auncients doe expound them. Now in that the bread cannot be the body of our Lord in ſubſtance, it remaineth therefore that it be ſuch by way of Sacrament, and in the ſame ſenſe, as in the line following, the Cup is called the new Couenant, or the new Teſtament.
4 He ſhould alſo hauehave found, that this Sacrament is a commemoration of Ieſus Chriſt; It is not then Ieſus Chriſt himſelfe. For the remembrance of a thing, and that wherof it is the memoriall, are diuers things.
5 He ſhould hauehave found that S. Matthew and S. Marke, ſay that Ieſus dranke with his Diſciples of the fruite of the Vine: that is, of wine: it was then yet wine whilſt he dranke of it. For albeit there were two Cups, as appeareth by S. Luke; notwithſtanding S. Matthew and S. Marke cannot call the wine of a Cup of which they doe not ſpeake at all, Fruit of the Vine.
6 Hee ſhould further hauehave ſeene that Ieſus Chriſt maketh no eleuation of the Hoſt, neyther doe the Apoſtles adore it, but continue ſitting at the Table.
7 Hee might hauehave ſeene that. 1. Cor. 10. S. Paul doth giuegive vsus a Paraphraſe of the wordes This is my body. In theſe words, the bread which we breake, is the Communion of the body of Chriſt. But the Church of Rome waxing wroth and angrie againſt the Apoſtle, bites and ſnarles at eueryevery word of this clauſe.
Firſt, the Apoſtle ſaith that it is bread. The Church of Rome denieth that it is bread.
Secondly, he ſaith that we breake bread: on the other ſide, the Church of Rome ſaith, that there is no bread broken.
Thirdly, our aduerſaries being demaunded, what that bread is that is broken, they ſay it is the body of Chriſt; and yet the body of Chriſt cannot bee broken.
Fourthly, S. Paul ſaith, that this bread which wee breake, is the Communion of the body of Chriſt: whence it followeth againſt the Church of Rome, that the bread which is broken, is not the body of Chriſt, for the participation or communicating of meate, is not the meate it ſelfe.
Fiftly, it by this word Bread, we muſt vnderſtand the body of Chriſt, as our aduerſaries will hauehave it, it will follow, not onelyonly that the body of Chriſt is broken in the Sacrament, but alſo that S. Paul ſhold hauehave mocked vsus in ſaying, that, the bodie of Chriſt is the Communion of the body of Chriſt, words very ridiculous and which our aduerſaries beleeue not.
Sixty, The worſt is, that the Church of Rome holdeth, that there is nothing broken in the Sacrament but the accidents, that is, the roundneſſe, colour, taſte, and length of the bread: and ſo ſhee blaſpemeth horribly, making the Apoſtle to ſay, that the breaking of colours, roundneſſe, and taſte of the bread, is the Communion of the body of Chriſt.
8 He ſhould hauehave found alſo 1. Cor. 11. that the Apoſtle ſaith thrice that we eate bread: and in the ſecond and the twentieth of the Acts, the Apoſtles came together to breake bread: where our aduerſaries are enforced to hauehave recourſe to ſtrange figures, and to make (which is contrary to the Order of time) S. Iohn interpreter of S Paul. Shifts and euaſions which we hauehave refuted in another place, and hauehave boulted this Diſpute to the very branne.
I ſuppoſe alſo, that if Coeffeteau had any good opinion of Ieſus Chriſt, he would hauehave preſumed of him, that being ſouerainly good, he wold not hauehave taken pleaſure, to deliuer the Inſtitution of this Sacrament in ambiguous terms: who wil beleeue, that he that is the light of the world ſhould be the cauſe of darkenes? whence commeth it then that our aduerſaries bring in a kind of Maſcarado into this holy banquet, when they introduce a douzen of figures & perplexed termes in the words of this Inſtitution? Figures which we hauehave handled and diſcuſſed in his place.In my Apology for the Lords Supper, ch. 12. And they who cannot endure that the bread ſhould be called the body of Chriſt, becauſe it is the Sacrament of the body of Chriſt,Epiſt. ad Bonifacium, 3. according as S. Auſtin ſaith, that the Sacraments take ordinarily the name of that which they ſignifie; yet themſelues in the wordes following (which is broken for you) admit a like figure, ſaying, that it is not the body that is broken, but the accidents and outward ſignes, and that that which agreeth to the ſigne, is attributed to the thing ſignified.
VVhoſoeuer ſhall weigh theſe things without paſsion, will not ſuffer himſelfe to be infolded in this groſſe error, which doth greatly abaſe the glory of our Sauiour, which maketh him to be ſwallowed vp of his enemies: which maketh Ieſus Chriſt to hauehave drunken his owne fleſh and bones: which ſaith that he may bee eaten of Mice and other vermine: which incloſeth him in filthy vomitings, which maketh the Prieſt ſometimes to complaine that they hauehave robbed him of his God; which giueth to a Prieſt, be hee neuer ſo vitious, more power then to the Virgine Mary and all the Saints and Angels, who being all put together in one, cannot make Ieſus Chriſt, ſeeing that he is already made, and cannot be produced a new, much leſſe in murmuring certaine words ouer the bread. VVhichWhich doth ouerthrow and aboliſh the humanity of our Sauiour, and by conſequent all our faith; giuing him a body without length: a body which being in diuers places farre a part is by conſequent farre ſeparated from it ſelfe: A body without poſition or ſituation of partes, ſeeing that they are all together vnderunder one onelyonly point, and in eueryevery little crumme of the Hoſt. Yea many contrary bodies, of which one is at the Table with his Diſciples, the other in the ſtomackes of his Diſciples. For the one body is infirme and weake, the other without infirmity: the one ſpreading his handes, the other not able to ſtirre them: the one ſpeaking and breathing, the other not able to ſpeake or to breath: the one ſweating in the Garden drops of blood, the other newly receiued into the ſtomacks of the Apoſtles, which did neyther ſweat nor ſuffer. Which of theſe two was our Sauiour? If hee bee but one, how is he contrary to himſelfe? For we hauehave ſhewed elſe where that the Diſtinction of diuers reſpects cannot be but when onething is compared to diuers things at one time, as when one and the ſame man is poore and rich, little and great, in compariſon of diuers perſons. But here they apply theſe diuers reſpects to the body of Ieſus Chriſt without comparing him to any other body, nay they oppoſe him to himſelfe.
That I may not further ſay, that this doctrine doth annihilate the body of our Lord, by being receiued into the ſtomacke: for when the formes are altered in the ſtomacke by the digeſtion, they ſay that the body of the Lord is no longer there, neyther yet is it come forth: it muſt follow then that eyther it is reduced to nothing, or changed into ſomething elſe. Both the one and the other, are alike blaſphemous.