The Novelty of Popery Opposed to the Antiquity of True Christianity, Book 7 · Controversy 11 · Chapter 5
CHAP. 5. That the Fathers did not believe tranſubſtantiation, but believed that the ſubſtance of bread and wine remaineth after the conſecration.
THe word of Tranſubſtantiation is a monſter which the corruption of the laſt ages hath hatcht, bred, and reared up. It was eſtabliſht by an Article of Council in the year 1215. in the Council of Lateran under Innocent the III. For of the change of the ſubſtance of bread into the ſubſtance of Chriſts natural body, there is no trace in the Fathers of the fitſt ages, well underſtood, and faithfully alledged. For the tranſmutation of which Juſtin Martyr ſpeaks in the ſecond Apology, is not the tranſmutation of bread into the Lords body, but the tranſmutation of the ſymbolical and ſacramental body of Chriſt into our fleſh by the diſgeſtion of bread. Wherefore alſo Ireneus in the forealleadged place ſaith not only that our bodies are fed by it, but alſo that they get increaſe by the ſame.
Leo the I. Biſhop of Rome, in the twenty third Epiſtle to the Clergy of Conſtantinople, ſpeaks of a change which is done in the Lords Supper; not of the change of bread into the ſubſtance of Chriſts body, but of the believers into the fleſh of Chriſt.(a)Epiſt. 23. ad Clarum. In illa myſtica diſtributione ſpiritualis alimoniae hoc impartitur, hoc ſumitur, ut accipientes virtutem coeleſtis cibi in carnem ipſius qui car… noſtra factus eſt, tranſcamus. In the myſtical diſtribution of the ſpiritual meat, this is diſtributed, this is taken; that we receiving the vertue of the heavenly meat, be changed into the fleſh of him that was made our fleſh.
In the ſecond Dialogue of Theodoret it is ſaid indeed that the ſacred ſigns are changed by the conſecration, and become the body of Chriſt; but it is an Eutychian heretick that ſpeaks, who by a pretended tranſmutation of the bread and wine goeth about to eſtabliſh the tranſmutation of the humane nature of Chriſt into the divine, as we ſhall ſee hereafter.
We have already ſeen how Juſtin, Ireneus and Cyprian call bread and wine and fruits and creatures of God, that which is given and received in the Lords Supper.
Origen upon Matth. 15. ſpeaking of the Euchariſt,(b)Quod ſanctificatum per verbum Dei & per obſecrationem, non ſuapte natura, ſanctificat utentem; nam id ſi eſſet, ſanctificaret etiam illum qui comedit indigne, &c. That which is ſanctified by the word of God, and by prayer, doth not of its nature ſanctifie him that uſeth it; for if it were ſo, it would alſo ſanctifie him that uſeth it unworthily. And a little after.(c)Quod ſi quicquid ingreditur in os, in ventrem abit, & in ſeceſſum ejicitur, & ille cibus qui ſanctificatur per verbum Dei perque obſecrationem, juxta id quod habet materiale, in venrem abit, & in ſeceſſum ejicitur, &c. Et haec quidem de typico ſymbolicoque corpore. If all that entreth into the mouth, goeth into the belly, and is caſt out into the draught, this meat alſo which is ſanctified by the word of God and by prayer, as for that which is material in it, goes down into the belly and is caſt out into the draught. And a little after he makes this concluſion of his diſcourſe. Let this be ſaid of the typical and ſymbolical body. In this place of Origen, obſerve that he ſpeaks of the bread conſecrated and ſanctified by the word of God, that the ſaith that it ſanctifieth not of its nature, and that, as for the matter of it, it goes out into the draught; Things which cannot be attributed unto the true body of Chriſt, for it ſanctifieth of its nature, and is not caſt out into the draught. And cannot alſo be attributed to the accidents of bread, as roundneſs and whiteneſs; for theſe accidents are not the matter of bread, and are not ſent into the draught. This can be attributed to nothing but the bread which by Origen is called a ſymbolical and figurative body.
Of the truth of his teſtimony none can doubt ſeeing that it is in the Editions ſet out by our Adverſaries, and that the famous Sixtus Senenſis hath inſerted it whole in his Bibliotheca Sacra.
Wherefore Cardinal du Perron, after he hath made ſome ſhew of doubting of the truth of this teſtimony, yet ſaith that he will not touch that ſtring, but extends his oratory upon Invectives againſt Origen, and ſets forth h s errors at large, ſaying that the alleadged place, is a particular whimſey of the spirit of Origen, which he forgeth againſt the common doctrine of the Church. And upon theſe words of Origen that the bread conſecrated by prayer, is caſt out into the draught, he crieth out(d)In his book againſt du Pleſſis, p. 222. Shut up your eares, Chriſtians; as if theſe words were read with the eares. I acknowledge indeed that Origen with his many excellent vertues, and his rare doctrine, had many errours. But I may ſay alſo that never any mans writings were more narrowly ſcanned, or paſt through a more rigid and violent cenſure then thoſe of Origen ſuffered,(e)Vide Socrat. lib. 6. cap. 12. by thoſe that lived after him, eſpecially by Ephiphanius, Hierom, and Theophilus of Alexandria, out of their animoſity againſt Ruffinus and John of Jeruſalem, who were Origeniſts. Wherefore the name of Origen is ſo far from weakening the authority of that place, that it rather increaſe…h the ſtrength of it and addeth weight to it. For if Origen writing ſo, had taught againſt the belief of the Orthodox Church, ſo many exact and partial examiners would not have omitted it. Yet none of the Antients reproved him for ſpeaking ſo. For not only Auſtin, a meek and impartial man, and Theodoret, who have made a deſcription of the errours of Origen, but even Epiphanius and Hierom, the enemies of Origen, never put that among his errors that his doctrine about the Euchariſt was not ſound. The ſilence of the enemies of Origens memory is in this point a manifeſt and publick approbation of his doctrine.
Here the Cardinal raiſeth his ſtyle, and brings forth out of a Paſchal Epiſtle of Theophilus Patriarch of Alexandria the condemnation of Origen upon the point of the Euchariſt. For (ſaith he) Theophilus condemns him for teaching that the Holy Ghoſt ſets not inanimate things on work, and worketh neither in them, nor by them. And upon that alleadgeth thus the words of Theophilus (f)Non recogitat aquas in Baptiſmate myſticas adventis Sancti Spiritas conſecrari, pane …que Dominicum quo Salvatoris corpus oſtenditur, & quem frangimus in ſanctificationem noſtri, & ſacrum calicem, quae in menſa collocantur, & utique in anima ſunt, per invocationem & adventum Sancti Spiritus ſanctificari.Origen conſidereth not that the myſtical waters in the Baptiſm are conſecrated by the comming of the Holy Ghoſt; And that the bread of the Lord by which [oſtenditur] is ſhewed or repreſented the body of the Saviour, and which we break for our ſanctification, and the cup, which are ſet upon the table, theſe things being inanimate, are ſanctified by the invocation and comming of the Holy Ghoſt. I know not where the Cardinals mind was wandering when he muſtered up theſe uſeleſs proofs, yea ſuch as are againſt him. Theophilus doth not find fault with Origen for denying the Tranſubſtantiation of the bread, nor for ſaying that the bread of the Lords Supper, as for the matter, goes to the draught, and ſanctifieth not by its nature; nor for calling the conſecrated bread a ſymbolical and figurative body; But for ſaying that God imployeth not inanimate things and ſanctifieth them not. May not God ſanctifie inanimate, things without tranſubſtantiating them? Doth he not ſanctifie the water of Baptiſm, though it remain water ſtill? Doth Theophilus reprove Origen for not believing that the water of Baptiſm is tranſubſtantiated? Certainly the Cardinal takes here his meaſures amiſs. Yea he brings an authority of Theophilus which ſaith expreſly that the bread of the Lord ſheweth or repreſenteth the body of Chriſt. But who was that Theophilus? (g)Vide …ocratem l. 6. c. 2. & 7, & 9. & 12. Et Sozomenum. l. 8. c. 2. 12. 13. 14.One of the moſt perverſe and corrupt Biſhops of all the antient ages. A man acting ſometimes againſt, ſometimes for the Anthropomorphites, a perſecutor of Chryſoſtom, and the cauſe of his death. A man without faith and without conſcience. But let us come to other witneſſes.
Theodoret in the firſt Dialogue intituled the Immutable, diſputeth againſt an Eutychian who maintained that the humane nature of the Saviour was changed by a ſubſtantial change into the divine nature, and defended his errour with the example of the pretended tranſmutation of the bread of the Euchariſt into the ſubſtance of the Lords body. Theodoret anſwereth him thus.(h)foreign. The Lord who had called meat and bread that which is naturally his body, and who again called himſelf a vine, honoured the viſible ſigns with the appellation of his body and blood, having not changed their nature, but having added grace unto nature. So many words, ſo many proofs. It was much ſaid already that God had honoured the ſignes, even the bread and the wine with the name of his body. But he ſaith more, affi…ming that the Lord hath not changed the nature of theſe ſigns, which is fighting directly againſt tranſubſtantiation. We muſt remember that the diſpute betwixt the heretick and Theodoret was about the change made in the ſubſtance, that M. du Perron may not ſay that by the nature the accidents only are underſtood.
The heretick did not ſpeak of accidents, but maintained by the example of the change made in the Euchariſt, that the ſubſtance of the human nature of Chriſt by vertue of the incarnation had been changed into the ſubſtance of the divi…e nature. It had been unreaſonable for Theodret to affirm againſt that heretick that the accidents were not changed, ſeeing that the queſtion is of the change in the ſubſtance.
A little before, he had ſaid,(i)foreign. Our Lord hath made an exchange of names, and hath given to his body the name of the ſign [namely when he ſaid I am the bread] and to the ſign the name of his body, namely when he ſaith, This is my body. Nothing can be more clear and expre…s.
In the ſecond Dialogue intituled the Inconfounded, The divine myſteries are (k)foreign.ſignes of the true body. By ſpeaking ſo, he ſaith clearly enough that the divine myſteries are not the true body.
A little after, the Eutychian having ſaid that(l)foreign, &c. as the ſignes of the body and blood of the Lord are other before the invocation of the Prieſt, but that after the invocation they are changed, ſo the Lords body after the aſſumption is changed into the divine ſubſtance, which is the language of the Roman Church of our dayes. Theodoret anſwereth him; Thou art taken by the net which thou haſt woven; For even after the conſecration, myſtical ſigns change not their own nature; for they remain in all their; firſt ſubſtance figure & form, and are viſible and to be handled as before. But they are underſtood to be the things which they were made, and are believed and venerated as made that which they are believed to be
To theſe words of Theodoret which are moſt urgent againſt the Roman Church, namely that the myſtical ſignes after the conſecration do not change nature but remain in their firſt ſubſtance:(m)In his book againſt du Pleſſis pag. 537. M. du Perron anſwereth in a way more to be admired then praiſed. For arming his wonted ignorance in Greek with boldneſs, he giveth to the words of Theodoret a new interpretation, rej…cti…g that of Gentianus Hervetus, followed by Bellarmin, by Gregorius of Valentia, and generally by all our adverſaries that have written of this queſtion. Theodoret ſai…h that the myſtical ſignes after the conſecration do not change narure. foreign, that is, (as our Adverſaries tranſlate) manent enim in priore ſubſtantia & figura & forma. But the Cardinal, the worſt Grecian of them all, tranſlateth, for they remain in the figure and form of the firſt ſubſtance. Can any thing be deviſed more abſurd and more repugnant to the Greek? To tranſlate as he doth, there ſhould be in the Greek, foreign. Beſides he contradicteth Theodoret, makes all his reaſoning ridiculous, and makes him anſwer out of purpoſe. For, as I ſaid, the diſpute was about the change in the ſubſtance, the heretick proving by the example of the tranſmutation of the bread into the ſubſtance of the body of Chriſt, the tranſmutation pretended by the Eutychians of the humane nature into the ſubſtance of the divine nature. Theodoret to contradict them, ſaith not that the accidents, the figure and the outward form of bread remain, but that the ſubſtance of bread remains after the conſecration. It being the queſtion to ſhew that after the incarnation the ſubſtance of the fleſh of Chriſt remaineth, Theodoret ſhould ſpeak againſt reaſon and againſt himſelf, if, to ſhew that, he alleadged that the ſubſtance of the bread being changed, the accidents and the outward ſhew remain. That would have been pleading directly the Eutychians cauſe, who ſaid that the ſubſtance of Chriſts fleſh being changed, the accidents and the outward appearance remain. But the Cardinal, that he may have the honour to ſay ſome new thing, will have the Reader to believe that he underſtood the Fathers better then any, and rejecteth the interpretation of all the men of his Church that writ before him.
The ſame Theodoret in the third Dialogue intituled the Impaſſibile, diſputeth thus againſt the Eutychians.(n)foreign. If the fleſh of Chriſt was transformed into the nature of the Godhead, to what purpoſe do [Chriſtians] participate to the ſigns of his body? For the figure is in vain when the truth is aboliſht.
The ſame reaſon Tertullian uſeth againſt the Marcionites in ch. 40. book 4. againſt Marcion. (o)Acceptum panem & diſtribubutum corpus ſuum fecit dicend…, Hoc eſt corpus meum, id eſt figura corporis mei. Figura autem non fuiſſet niſi veritatis eſſet corpus.Chriſt having taken bread and diſtributed it to his Diſciples, made it his body, ſaying, This is my body, that is, the figure of my body. Now there would have been no figure, had he not been a true body. He means that no figures and no repreſentations are made of things that are not.
Among our Adverſaries thoſe that go more roundly to work, blame Theodoret openly. We heard before how he is condemned by the Jeſuit Gregory de Valentia, in the Preface of the Roman Edition prefixed before the Dialogues of Theodoret. Our Cardinal alſo taunts him, and ſpeaks contemptuouſly of him in theſe words.(p)Againſt Du Pleſſis pag. 451. Though Theodoret, having ſome remnant of the leaven of Neſtorianiſm, which he was accuſed to favour, ſhould ſpeak of the Euchariſt (which was one of the chief arguments whereby the doctrine of Neſtorius was impugned) leſs really and reverently then it might be wiſht, the wonder were not very great. This is an unjuſt brand put upon that excellent man. His books purge him of that blame, in which there is not one ſpot of Neſtorianiſm. So far he is from it, that in the Catalogue which he hath made of Hereticks he puts Neſtorius, and impugneth Neſtorianiſm with all his power. Yet the Cardinal being prone to have a better opinion of Theodoret, goeth about to excuſe him, ſaying, he ſpake thus obſcurely, becauſe he might not be underſtood by the Catechumens. This Cardinal alwaies takes things in the contrary ſenſe. In the ſecond Dialogue Theoderet, being asked by the Heretick,(q)foreign. How doſt thou call the gift which is preſented before the Prieſts invocation? anſwereth, We muſt not ſpeak clearly, for perhaps ſome are here that are not yet initiated, that is, ſome Catechumens: whereupon the heretick ſaith, Let then the anſwer be in enigmatical terms. Wherefore Theodoret, that he may not ſpeak clearly, anſwereth, that this gift which is offered is meat made up with ſuch ſeeds, inſtead of ſaying It is bread. Thereby it appeareth that he ſpake obſcurely, for fear that ſaying plainly that it was bread, he ſhould make the meat contemptible which was laid upon the ſacred table. But the Cardinal takes this in the quite contrary ſenſe, that Theodoret did not ſpeak of this Sacrament in terms high enough, and would not diſcover that high myſtery of Tranſubſtantiation before Catechumens.
We have a book of Pope Gelaſius (for the title ſaith ſo much) againſt Neſtorius and Eutyches, where this ſentence is found;(r)Certe Sacramenta quae ſumimus corporis & ſanguinis Chriſti, divina res eſt, propter quod & per eadem divinae efficimur conſortes naturae. Et tamen eſſe non deſinit ſubſtantia vel natura panis & vini. Et certe imago & ſimilitudo corporis & ſanguinis Chriſti in actione myſteriorum celebrantur. Truly the Sacraments which we take of the body and blood of Chriſt, are a divine thing; wherefore alſo by them we are made conſorts of the divine nature, and yet it ceaſeth not to be the ſubſtance or nature of bread and wine. And indeed the image and the likeneſs of the body and blood of Chriſt, are celebrated in the action of myſteries. Our Adverſaries receive this authority, and admit it as true and not falſified, and have inſerted this book in Bibliotheca Patrum. But they diſpute who is this Gelaſius, whether it was Pope Gelaſius, as the title of the book ſaith, and as it appeareth by Fulgentius who tranſcribes many paſſages out of it in his anſwer to the queſtions of Ferrandus Diaconus, eſpecially in the anſwer to the ſecond queſtion. Or whether it be Gelaſius Biſhop of Ceſarea of whom Hierom ſpeaks in his Catalogue of Eccleſiaſtical writers, as Bellarmin and Gregorius de Valentia are of opinion. Or whether it be Gelaſius Cyricenus, as Baronius holds; which are all antient Authors approved by the Roman Church.(s)Lib. de Tranſub. cap. 7. Sect. quod ſi Neque Gelaſius ille fuit author ſatis clarus; Non igitur nobis debent pancorum ejuſmodi teſtimonia praejudicare. Gregorius de Valentia ſpeaks of that Author with contempt, ſaying, That Gelaſius was not an Author famous enough; wherefore ſuch teſtimonies of ſome few Authors of that ſort, howſoever they may be expounded, can bear us no prejudice, ſeeing that we have a cloud of other moſt grave witneſſes for the truth of tranſubſtantiation.
(t)In the book of the Euchariſt againſt M. du Pleſſis pag. 563.Cardinal du Perron hath beſtowed upon this only place of Gelaſius four and thirty great pages, and upon the three fore-alleadged texts of Theodoret threeſcore and two; making the Readers miſerable that ſeek the truth by thoſe wayes. For whereas there are about fifty controverſies between us and the Roman Church, upon the only queſtion of the real preſence, a thouſand places may be alleadged out of the Fathers. Upon each of which texts if a great book muſt be made, when ſhall we have a deciſion but of one queſtion? This is the fruit of not being content with Scripture, which decides a queſtion in one word, becauſe it is God that ſpeaks. The worſt is, that thoſe thirty four pages are imployed about nothing. For after he hath quarrelled with that book of Gelaſius about things that concern not the queſtion in hand, in the end he returns to the common anſwer, that when Gelaſius ſaid that the nature and ſubſtance of bread and wine remain, by the ſubſtance the accidents muſt be underſtood, that is, the colour, the figure, and the taſte of bread, yet without bread. Where is conſcience? Yea where is common ſenſe? Theſe men would make beaſts of us, or ſtudy to be ſuch themſelves. For who ever heard that the ſubſtance is an accident? A thing far from all reaſon, eſpecially in this diſpute of Gelaſius againſt the Eutychians, who maintained that the ſubſtance of Chriſts body was changed into the ſubſtance of the Godhead. For the queſtion was not about the change of accidents. Had not Gelaſius been out of his ſenſe, if he had granted to the Eutychians the tranſubſtantiation of the ſubſtance of bread, and affirmed only that the accidents of bread, the colour, the figure and the taſte remain in the Euchariſt? Had he not thereby yielded the bucklers to the Eutychians? who ſaid the ſame thing of the incarnation, by which they affirmed that the ſubſtance of Chriſts body is changed into the Godhead, although the outward ſhew of the body remained, uſing the example of the Euchariſt to confirm their error.
Ephrem Patriarch of Antioch ſpeaks thus.(u)Ex Bibliotheca Photii pag. 415. Edit. Auguſtanae. foreign, &c. The body of Chriſt which the believers receive, loſeth not his ſenſible ſubſtance, and is not ſeparated from the intelligible grace. Baptiſm alſo being altogether ſpiritual only keeps the propriety of this ſenſible ſubſtance which is water, and loſeth not that which it was. This is one of the moſt expreſs places to this purpoſe. For firſt it ſheweth in what ſenſe the Fathers call the bread the body of Chriſt. Alſo it ſaith poſitively that this body doth not loſe its ſenſible ſubſtance, that is, the ſubſtance of bread. And to give more light, it brings the example of Baptiſm, teaching us that as the ſanctified water yet remains water, likewiſe that body which is given in the Sacrament, yet remains bread.
To this join that notable teſtimony of Facundus which we alleadged before, That we call the body and blood of Chriſt that which is the Sacrament of his body in the conſecrated bread and cup. (x)Facundus lib. 9. cap. 5. p. 404. Non quod propriè corpus ejus ſit panis, & poculum ſanguis, ſed quod myſterium corporis ejus ſanguiniſque contineant.Not that the bread is phoperly his body and the cup his blood, but becauſe they contain the myſtery of his body and blood.
Chryſoſtom is fervent in amplifications and hyperbolical words, ſo far as to ſay that we make the Altar red with blood, that we ſet our teeth in Chriſts fleſh, that we hugg him with our embraces, that ſpiritual fire floweth from the ſacred table; that there we receive fire reacht with tongs by a Seraphin. That we are mingled and kneaded with Chriſt; that we embrace his Croſs, and put our fingers in his wounds. That Chriſt ſuffereth in the Euchariſt. That his bones are broken in it. And that Chriſt drunk his own blood. Words which being litterally taken, ſhould be abſurd, even in the judgement of our Adverſaries. And the Cardinal who ſets forth the teſtimonies of the Fathers with ſo much oſtentation, could not beleive them. But let us hear Chryſoſtom ſpeak, when he is out of his fits of exſtatical oratory. He ſaith in the 83. Homily upon Matthew, (y)foreign.When the Lord gave this Sacrament, he gave wine. And in the Homily upon Pſalm 22. Divine wiſdom hath prepared this Table for his ſervants and handmaids in their preſence, that every day he might ſhew us bread and wine according to the order of Melchiſedeck, in the likeneſs of the body and blood of Chriſt. And upon the Epiſtle to the Hebrews, Hom. 17.(z)foreign, &c. Do not we offer every day? We offer indeed, but by making the remembrance of his death. And that is one, not many. How is it one and not many? Becauſe it was once only offered within the holieſt of holies: And this is a figure of the ſame. And a little after,(a)foreign. We offer not another victim as the High-Prieſt, but we make ſtill the ſame. Or rather we make the commemoration of this ſacrifice.
In the imperfect work upon Matthew aſcribed to Chryſoſtom, theſe words are found in the II. Homily, where it is ſpoken of King Balthazar puniſhed for putting the holy veſſels to a prophane uſe,(b)Si ergo haec vaſa ſanctificata ad privatos uſus tranſferre ſit 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? If it be ſo dangerous to tranſport to private uſes ſacred veſſels, in which the true body of Chriſt is not, but the myſterie of his body is contained, how much more the veſſels of our bodies, which God hath prepared for his own habitation? Note that he ſaith not, the true body of Chriſt was not, but is not contained in the ſacred veſſels, that one may not think that he ſpeaks only of the veſſels of Balthazar. For upon the example of Balthazar, he takes occaſion to give a general rule. In vain they ſay that this book was corrupted by the Arians, and that ſome clauſes in it favour Arianiſm. For the Arians never diſſented from the Orthodox about the point of the real preſence. How much this place is diſpleaſing to our Adverſaries, they have ſhewed it in the laſt Editions, where under colour of repurging this book from Arianiſm, they have clipt this paſſage, and cut off theſe words, In quibus non eſt verum corpus Chriſti, ſed myſterium corporis ejus continetur. In which the true body of Chriſt is not, but the myſterie of his body is contained; In the Edition of Paris, Printed for Odet Petit. in Saint James-ſtreet at the Golden Lilly, the inſcription ſaith openly, that the work in that Edition is repurged from the corruption of Arians. Among which corruptions theſe goodly expurgators have put this paſſage, as ſavouring of hereſie, as if denying tranſubſtantiation were Arianiſm.
Peter Martyr hath taken out of a Manuſcript of the Florentine Library, this paſſage of an Epiſtle of John Chryſoſtom to Ceſarius a Monk, which alſo is found in Bibliotheca Patrum, Printed at Cullen, Anno 1618. in Tome 8. inſerted in a book againſt the Severians.(c)Sicut enim antequam ſanctificetur panis, panem nominamus: Divina autem illum ſanctificante gratia, mediante ſacerdote, liberatus quidem eſt ab appellatione panis, dignus autem habitus eſt Dominici corporis appellatione, etiamſi natura panis in eo permanſit. Before the bread be ſanctified we call it bread, but the divine grace ſanctifying the ſame by the Prieſts means, it is indeed delivered from the name of bread, and thought worthy to be called the Lords body, although the nature of bread remain in it. The Jeſuite Gregorius de Valentia in the ſeventh Chapter of the book of Tranſubſtantiation,(d)Ad teſtimonium illius Johannis Conſtantinopolitani, &c. Falſiſſimum eſt quod ille Johannes fuerit D. Johannes Chryſoſtomus, &c. Turrianus apertè convincit fuiſſe Johannem illum, non autem Chryſoſtomum. ſaith that this paſſage is not of John Chryſoſtom, but of another John of Conſtantinople; Which he ſaith after the Jeſuite Turrianus. This I ſay to anſwer Cardinal du Perron, who by a long diſcourſe labours to evince that this place is not of Chryſoſtom; for it is all one to us whoſe it is, ſince our very Adverſaries aſcribe it to an antient Author.
How many teſtimonies of Fathers could we bring, which call that which is received in the Sacrament, bread, wine, meale, fruits created from the earth? And that not only before, but even after the conſecration?
Juſtine Martyr in the ſecond Apology, They that among us are called Deacons, give to every one bread, and wine, and water, upon which graces have been ſaid.
Tertullian in the third book againſt Marcion, chap. 19.(e)Panem ſuum cerpus appellans, ut & hinc jam eum intelligas corporis ſui figuram pan dediſſe. He hath called bread his body, that thereby alſo thou mayſt underſtand that he hath given to bread to be the figure of his body.
Ireneus in the third book chap. 34.(f)Quomodo conſtabit eis eum panem in quo gratiae actae ſunt, corpus eſſe Domini ſui? &c. How ſhould they know that the bread over which graces were ſaid, is the Lords body?
Juſtin in the Dialogue againſt Triphon. (g)foreign, &c.It appeareth in this Prophecy concerning the bread which our Lord Chriſt gave us in memory of his Incarnation.
Ignatius in the 76. Epiſtle to the Philadelphians, foreign. One bread is broken to all.
Cyprian in the 76. Epiſtle,(h)Dominus corpus ſuum panem vocat de multorum granorum adunatione congeſtum. The Lord calleth his body the bread made up with the conjunction of many grains.
Dionyſius ſirnamed Areopagite, in the book of Eccleſiaſtical Hierarchy, chap. 3.(i)foreign. He layeth open that which is celebrated by the ſigns holily ſet forth; for having uncovered the bread which was covered and whole, and having broken it in many pieces, and diſtributed the cup which is one, he doth figuratively multiply the unity.
Baſil in the 27. chap. of the book of the Holy Ghoſt.(k)foreign. Which of the Saints hath left us in writing the words of invocation when the bread of the Euchariſt and the cup of bleſſing are ſhewed?
In the firſt Tome of the Councils we have an Epiſtle of Julius the firſt Biſhop of Rome, which ſaith, That(l)Chriſtus in inſtitutione & commendatione Eccleſiaſtici ſacrificii panem & vinum diſcipulis ſuis dedit, in quibus corpus & ſanguinem ſuum commendavit. Chriſt in the inſtitution and recommendation of the Eccleſiaſtical Sacrifice, hath given bread and wine to his Diſciples, in which he hath recommended his body and his blood. Obſerve that he ſaith, not only that the Lord gave bread and wine to his Diſciples, but alſo that he diſtinguiſheth the bread and wine from the body of Chriſt.
Ephrem ſpeaks the ſame language:(m)Ephrem Ad eos qui filii Dei naturam ſcrutari volunt. Inſpice diligenter quomodo ſumens manibus panem benedicit, ac frangit in figuram immaculati corporis ſui, calicemque in figuram pretioſi ſanguinis ſui benedicit & tribuit diſcipulis ſuis. Conſider diligently how the Lord, having taken the bread in his hands, bleſt it and brake it, for a figure of his immaculate body, and bleſt the cup for a figure of his precious blood, and gave it to his Diſciples.
Thus alſo Hierom alledging Jovinian in the ſecond book,(n)In typo ſanguinis ſui non obtulit aquam ſed vinum. The Lord to give a figure of his blood, did not offer water but wine. And ſo Cyprian in the ſixty third Epiſtle,(o)Vinum fuit quod ſanguinem ſuum dixit. It was wine which the Lord called his blood. And in the ſame place, The body of Chriſt is not meal only.
Auſtin in the third book of the Trinity, ch. 10.(p)Panis ad hoc factus in accipiendo Sacramento conſumitur. Bread made purpoſely for that, is conſumed in receiving the Sacrament.
Fulgentius and Beda alledge theſe words of the ſame Father,(q)Fulg. l. de Baptiſmo Aethiopis moribundi. Beda in 1 Cor. 10. ex ſermone Auguſtini ad infantes. Quod ergo vidiſtis, panis eſt & calix, quod vobis etiam oculi veſtri renunciant. Quod autem fides veſtra poſtulat inſtruenda, panis eſt corpus Chriſti, &c. That which you ſee is bread and a cup, as alſo your eyes announce him unto you. But the inſtruction which your faith requireth, is, that bread is the body of Chriſt. In the ſame place he declareth what that body of Chriſt is.(r)Corpus Chriſti ſi vis intelligere, audi Apoſtolum dicentem fidelibus, Vos eſtis corpus Chriſti & membra, &c. If thou wilt (ſaith he) underſtand what the body of Chriſt is, Hear the Apoſtle ſaying to the believers: You are the body of Chriſt and his members. If then you are the body of Chriſt and his members, your myſterie is laid upon the Lords table. So far was that Father from believing the tranſubſtantiation of the bread into the natural body of Chriſt.
Cyrillus of Alexandria upon John 4. in the fourteenth chapter,(ſ)Credentibus diſcipulis fragmenta panis dedit, dicens, Accipite & Manducate, hoc eſt corpus meum. He gave to his believing Diſciples pieces of bread, ſaying, Take, eat, this is my body.
Gaudentius(t)Gaudent in Exod. Tractatu 2. de Paſchate, Recte enim vini ſpecie tum ſanguis ejus exprimitur, quia cum ipſe in Evangelio dicit, Ego ſum vitis, vera, ſatis declarat ſanguinem ſuum eſſe omne vinum quod in figura paſſionis ejus affertur. By the element of wine his blood is well expreſt; Becauſe where he ſaith in the Goſpel, I am the true vine, he declareth ſufficiently that his blood is all the wine which is offered in the figure of his Paſſion.
Neither do the Fathers only ſpeak ſo, but even the Canon of the Maſs; for it was made when tranſubſtantiation was not yet invented. Whoſo will conſider what the words of the Prieſt are after the Conſecration, ſhall eaſily acknowledge that they are prayers which were good ſometimes, when they were ſaid over bread and wine, and other gifts of the people laid upon the table, but that they are become abſurd and contrary to the Prieſts intention ever ſince they have been pronounced upon an hoſt, which they pretend to be the Lords body.
After the words of conſecration, the Prieſt offering the hoſt unto God, ſaith,(u)Supra quae propitio ac ſereno vultu reſpicere digneris, ut accepta habere dignatus munera pueri cui juſti Abel. Over which things be pleaſed to look with a propitious and ſerene face as thou wert pleaſed to accept the preſents of Abel thy juſt child. What doth he mean by theſe things? Can he underſtand Chriſt who is but one? And who ever called Chriſt theſe things? And how can they without offering an outrage to the Son of God, beſeech God that the ſacrifice of his only Son be as acceptable unto him, as once the ſacrifice of Abel was, who offered a beaſt? For obſerve that he compareth not the devotion of thoſe that offer, with the devotion of Abel, but that which the Prieſt offereth with the gifts which Abel offered.
The Prieſt addeth,(x)Supplices te rogamus Deus omnipotens, jube hac praeferri per manus ſancti Angeli tui in ſublime altare tuum. We beſeech thee Almighty God, command that theſe things be carried up by the hands of thy holy Angel into thy high Altar. This alſo cannot be applied unto Chriſt; for Chriſt needs not the mediation of Angels to be carried up or preſented to his Father. The Prieſt having thus prayed that the Angel ſhould carry up theſe things, why doth he not ſtay till the Angel carry them away, but eats them preſently after?
The following words eſpecially are conſiderable. The Prieſt ſaith,(y)Per quem Domine haec omnia ſemper nobis bona creas, ſanctificas, viviſicas, benedicis. By Chriſt our Lord, by whom O Lord thou createſt alwayes all theſe goods unto us, thou ſanctifieſt, quickeneſt, and bleſſeſt them. Let them tell us what all theſe goods are. Is it Chriſt? But what reaſon to call Chriſt theſe goods? yea all theſe goods, as if there were great many of them. Beſides the Prieſt ſpeaks of goods which God createth alwayes, and which he quickeneth and ſanctifieth alwayes. Nothing of that is proper unto Chriſt. And that which is the ſtrangeſt of all, the Prieſt ſaith that God createth theſe goods alwayes by Jeſus Chriſt. Doth God create always Jeſus Chriſt by Jeſus Chriſt? Doth God quicken and bleſs Jeſus Chriſt by Jeſus Chriſt? But if by all theſe goods the Prieſt underſtands bread and wine, how unreaſonable is it to demonſtrate the bread and wine by ſaying theſe goods, when that bread and that wine are no more? and to call thoſe goods that which is brought to nothing? How unreaſonable is it to give thanks unto God for creating bread and wine, yea for creating that bread and that wine, which is no more when the hoſt is worſhipped, and when they pretend to ſacrifice the eternal Son of God? and to ſpeak of offering unto God bread and wine which are not, when the ſpirits of the people ſhould be bent to glorifie God, for redeeming us by the ſacrifice of the death of his Son.
The Reader who hath yet ſome liberty of judgement left, will conſider this, and bewail the miſery of our age, and the thick darkneſs which Satan hath caſt upon the clarity and ſimplicity of the Goſpel. For when we alledge the word of God, which alone ought to rule us, they turn it wholly into figures. So that when Scripture ſaith that we eat bread, and break bread, and that we drink the fruit of the vine, and that Chriſt in his humanity is no more in the world, and is gone, we muſt underſtand that it is not bread that we eat, that it is not bread that we break, that it is not the fruit of the vine that we drink; and that Chriſts body hath not left the world, but remains in it inviſibly.
Now to defend theſe interpretations, they have recourſe to the Fathers as infallible Judges: But when thoſe Fathers are produced which ſay that the ſubſtance of the bread remains after the conſecration, and affirm with the Apoſtle, that we eat and break bread, then they will create more figures, and the Fathers muſt be underſtood in a contrary ſenſe. For theſe Doctors by the ſubſtance will have us to underſtand the accidents, and by bread and wine the ſhew of bread and wine; And to diſtract or overwhelm the ſpirits that ſeek for inſtruction, they will make a great volume upon one only paſſage of a Father. O miſerable age! Why are mens ſpirits intangled in a labyrinth without iſſue, inſtead of reſting with ſimplicity of faith upon Chriſts inſtitution, by ſpeaking and doing as he did? For ſo we might be all agreed.
Here truth is ſo ſtrong, that it hath fetcht many confeſſions from the prime men among our Adverſaries, who acknowledge that there is nothing in Scripture that obliges us to believe Tranſubſtantiation; Which they ground only upon the Authority of the Roman Church. Cardinal Cajetan expounding theſe words, This is my body, ſaith, In the Goſpel nothing is found that obliges us to believe the converſion of bread into the body of Chriſt. (z)Cajet. in ſummam Thomae, part. 3. q. 75. Art. 1. Alterum quod Evangelium non explicavit, & expreſſe ab Eccleſia accepimus, ſcilicet converſionem panis in corpus Chriſti.The other point (ſaith he) namely the converſion of bread into the body of Chriſt, is not expounded in the Goſpel, but we have expreſly received it from the Church. Bellarmine alledgeth Scotus ſaying,(a)Bell. lib. 3. de Euch. c. 23. Sect. Non diſſimili. Scotus dicit non extare ullum locum Scripturae tam expreſſum ut ſine Eccleſiae declaratione evidenter cogat Tranſubſtantiationem admittere. Atque id non eſt omnino improbabile, &c. That there is no Text in Scripture ſo expreſs as to compell us evidently to believe tranſubſtantiation, if we had not the declaration of the Church. To whlch opinion Bellarmine joyns his own; for he adds, That which Scotus ſaith, is not altogether improbable. For although Scripture ſeem to us clear enough to convince a modeſt man, yet it may be doubted with good reaſon whether the thing be ſo, that moſt learned and moſt acute men, of whom Scotus is one, have been of a contrary opinion. In the ſame place he reproveth Scotus for ſaying that before the Council of Lateran held in the year 1225. Tranſubſtantiation was not an Article of faith. For he believeth, with others, that the Roman Church can make new Articles of faith. Melchior Canus ſaith the ſame as Cajetan and Scotus in the third book of Theological places, chap. 3.