Doctrines and Practices of the Ancient Church Relating to the Eucharist, Chapter 17
CHAP. XVII. The CONCLUSION. That the Doctrine of Tranſubſtantiation has given a new occaſion to the Enemies of Chriſtian Religion to blaſpheme. It is ſo great a ſtumbling-block to the Jews, that their Converſion is hopeleſs, whilſt this is believed by them to be the Common Faith of Chriſtians. That tho' the Church of Rome will not hearken to us, yet they may be provoked to emulation by the Jews themſelves, who have given a better account of Chriſt's Words of Inſtitution, and more agreeable to the Fathers, than this Church has; and raiſed unanſwerable Objections againſt its Doctrine.
HAving conſidered, in the foregoing Chapters, the Senſe of the Ancient Church about Matters relating to the Euchariſt, and Tranſubſtantiation, from their own Writings; and found that their Aſſertions are inconſiſtent with the Belief of the preſent Roman Church; and that their Practices are not to be reconciled thereunto. Having alſo made an Enquiry into the Ancient forms of Devotion, relating to the Euchariſt, remaining ſtill in this Church, and found them to ſpeak a Language, which has a Sence agreeing indeed with that of the Ancients, but no Sence at all, when the Doctrine of Tranſubſtantiation is ſuppoſed, and thoſe Prayers to be interpreted by it, &c.
I ſhall now, for a Concluſion, take a view alſo of the principal Enemies of the Chriſtian Faith; which will afford a convincing Evidence, that the Roman Doctrine is Novel, and a ſtranger to the Ancient Chriſtians.
It is ſufficiently known, that the Adverſaries of Chriſtianity took all the occaſions poſſible, and whatſoever gave them any colour to reproach the Faith and Worſhip of Chriſtians, and to make their Names odious. Nothing that looked ſtrange and abſurd in either, eſcaped, being taken notice of by ſuch as Celſus and Porphyry, Lucian and Julian, among the Heathens, and ſuch as Trypho among the Jews. They curiouſly examined and ſurveyed what they taught and practiſed, and whatſoever they thought to be fooliſh and incredible, they, with all their wit and cunning, endeavoured to expoſe it. So, they did with the Doctrines of the Trinity, the Eternal Generation of the Son of God, his Incarnation, his Crucifixion eſpecially, and our Reſurrection. Neither were they leſs praying into the Chriſtian Myſteries and Worſhip, which they could not be ignorant of, there being ſo many Deſerters and Apoſtates in thoſe Times of Perſecution, who were well acquainted with them; and by threatnings and fear of torment if there were any thing ſecret were likely to betray them. Not to inſiſt upon this, that the great Traducer of Chriſtians, I mean Julian, was himſelf once initiated in their Myſteries, and ſo could not be Ignorant of what any of them were; and has in particular laught at their Baptiſm, that Chriſtians ſhould fanſy a purgation thereby from Great Crimes.
Yet, after all this, they took no occaſion from the Euchariſt to traduce them; tho, if Chriſtians then had given that adoration to it, that is now paid in the Roman Church, and if they had declared, either for a Corporal Preſence, or an oral Manducation of him that was their God, they had the fruitfulleſt Subject in the World given them, both to turn off all the Objections of the Chriſtians againſt themſelves, for worſhipping ſenſeleſs and inanimate things; and alſo to lay the moſt plauſible Charge of folly and madneſs againſt them, which their great Orator *Cicero, l. 3. de Nat. Deorum. Ecquem tam amentem eſſe putas, qui illud quo veſcatur, Deum credat eſſe?had pronounced, before Chriſtianity was a Religion in the World. Can any Man be ſuppoſed ſo mad, to believe that to be a God which he eats?
A Learned Romaniſt †Rigaltius notis ad Tertal. lib. 2. c. 5. ad Ʋxorem. Se id facere in Euchariſticis ſuis teſtarentur.affirms, of the Ancient Chriſtians, That they did teſtify their eating the Fleſh, and drinking the Blood of their Lord God in their Diſcourſes of the Euchariſt. Which is true indeed, taking this eating and drinking in the Sacramental Sence we do; and ſo their Adverſaries muſt needs underſtand their meaning. Otherwiſe (without a Miracle to hinder it) what he acknowledges in the ſame place, could never be true, (a)Ibid. Obſervandum vero, inter tot probra & convitia accuſantium Chriſtianos impietatis, eò quod ne que aras haberent ne que ſacrificarent, inter que tot fratrum perfidorum transfugia, non extitiſſe qui Chriſtianos criminarentur, quod Dei ac Domini ſui carnes ederent, ſanguinem potarent.That among ſo many Reproaches of thoſe that accuſed Chriſtians of Impiety, for not having Altars nor Sacrifices, 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 abſ que 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. At que ſic Chriſtiani atrociores ſunt in Chriſtum quàm 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. foreign.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. foreign;
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 foreign, 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, ne que os eloqui, ne que 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, foreign, to provoke the Jews to Emulation; ſo it may not be as proper, to propoſe the Example of the Jews themſelves to the Romaniſts, to provoke their Emulation, whom they may ſee better explaining (as blind as they are) Chriſt's words of Inſtitution; and agreeing better with the Ancient Church in the matter of the Euchariſt, than themſelves; and raiſing ſuch Arguments and Objections againſt the Tranſubſtantiating Doctrine, as can never, to any purpoſe, be anſwered.
The Inſtances of this are very remarkable, in a Book called Fortalitium Fidei contra Judeos, &c. printed An. 1494. but written, as the Author himſelf tells us (fol. 61.) in the Year 1458. where he gives us the Arguments of a Jew againſt Tranſubſtantiation; ſome of which I ſhall out of him faithfully tranſlate.
The Jew (g)Vid. l. 3. conſid. 6. ſol. 130 impoſſibl. 10.begins with Chriſt's words of Inſtitution, and ſhows, that they cannot be interpreted otherwiſe than figuratively, and ſignificatively, as the Fathers, we have heard, have aſſerted.
1. Vos Chriſtiani dicitis, &c. Ye Chriſtians ſay in that Sacrament (of the Euchariſt) there is really the Body and Blood of Chriſt. This is impoſſible. Becauſe when your Chriſt, ſhowing the Bread, ſaid, This is my Body, he ſpake ſignificatively, and not really; as if he had ſaid, this is the Sign or Figure of my Body. After which way of ſpeaking, Paul ſaid, 1 Cor. 10. The Rock was Chriſt; that is, a Figure of Chriſt. And it appears evidently, that this was the Intention of your Chriſt, becauſe when he had diſcourſed about the eating his Body, and drinking his Blood, to lay the offence that roſe upon it among the Diſciples, he ſays, as it were, expounding himſelf, The words that I have ſpoken to you are Spirit and Life: denoting, that what he had ſaid, was to be underſtood, not according to the Letter, but according to the Spiritual Sence. And when Chriſt ſaid, This is my Body, holding Bread in his Hands, he meant, that that Bread was his Body (in potentia propinqua) in a near poſſibility, viz. after he had eaten it, for then it would be turned into his. Body, or into his Fleſh; and ſo likewiſe the Wine. And after this manner we Jews do, on the day of Unleavened Bread; for we take unleavened Bread in memory of that time, when our Fathers were brought out of the Land of Egypt, and were not permitted to ſtay ſo long there, as whilſt the Bread might be leavened, that was the Bread of the Paſſover; and we ſay; This is the Bread which our Fathers ate, though that be not preſent, ſince it is paſt and gone; and ſo this unleavened Bread, minds us of the Bread of Egypt, and this Bread is not that; ſo is that Bread of which the Sacrifice of the Altar is made. It is ſufficient for Chriſtians to ſay, that it is in memory of that Bread of Chriſt, though this Bread be not that. And becauſe it was impoſſible that one Bit of his Fleſh ſhould be preſerved in memory of him, he commanded, that that Bread ſhould be made, and that Wine, which was his Fleſh and Blood in the next remove to come into act; as we Jews do, (and Chriſt borrowed his Phraſes and the Elements from their Supper) at the Paſſover with the unleavened Bread, as we ſaid before. When therefore your Chriſt at the Table took Bread, and the Cup, and gave them to his Diſciples, he did not bid them believe that the Bread and Wine were turned into his Body and Blood, but that as often as they did that, they ſhould do it in remembrance of him, viz. in memory of that paſt Bread: and if you Chriſtians did underſtand it ſo, no impoſſibility would follow; but to ſay the contrary, as you aſſert, is to ſay an impoſſible thing, and againſt the intention of your Chriſt, as we have ſhow'd.
This is what the Jew urges with great reaſon. But the Catholick Author makes a poor Anſwer to it, and has nothing to ſay, in effect, but this, That the Tradition of the Catholick Church concerning this Sacrament is true. viz. That in this Sacrament there is really, and not by way of Signification, the True Body and True Blood of Chriſt.
2. Whereas the Roman Church flies to Miracles in this caſe of Tranſubſtantiation, the Jew encounters that next of all, thus.
You Chriſtians ſay that the Body and Blood of Chriſt is in the Sacrament of the Altar by a Miracle; Ibid. 11. Impoſſib. p. 131.this I prove to be impoſſible. Becauſe if there were any Miracle in the caſe, it would appear to the Eye; as when Moſes turned the Rod into a Serpent; that was performed evidently to the Eye, though Men knew not how it was done. So alſo in the caſe of the Ark of the Covenant of Old, mighty Miracles were wrought; and thoſe not only ſenſible Miracles, but alſo publick, and apparent to all the People; (inſomuch that Infidels were terrifyed at the very report of ſuch Miracles) Men ſeeing before their Eyes the Divine Power brightly ſhining in Reverence of the Ark of his Covenant, as appears in his Dividing the Waters of Jordan, while the People of Iſrael paſſed over dry-ſhod, the Waters on one ſide ſwelling like a Mountain, and on the other flowing down as far as the dead Sea, till the Prieſts with the Ark went over the Chanel of Jordan, and then Jordan returned to its wonted courſe. But the Kings of the Amorites and Canaanites hearing of ſo great and publick a Miracle, were ſo confounded with the terror of God, that no Spirit remained in them (Joſu. c. 4. & 5.) and ſo I might inſtance in many other Evident Miracles, which to avoid tediouſneſs, I omit. And yet in that Ark, neither God nor Chriſt was really contained, but only the Tables of Stone containing the Precepts of the Decalogue, and the Pot of Manna, &c. (Exod. 16.) and the Rod of Aaron that flouriſhed in the Houſe of Levi (Numb. 17.) If therefore by the Ark (that carried only the foreſaid Bodies that were inanimate, how ſacred ſoever they were) God wrought in Honour of it ſuch evident far-ſpreading and publick Miracles, how much more powerfully ſhould they have been wrought by him, if it were true, that in your Sacrament of the Altar the true God or Chriſt were really contained, whom you affirm that he ought to be worſhipped and venerated infinitely above all. Since therefore no ſuch thing do's appear there to the Eye, it follows that it is impoſſible for any Miracle to be done there, ſince this is againſt the Nature of a Miracle.
The anſwer to this is ſo weak, and ſo the reſt, are generally ſuch an unintelligible School-jargon, that I ſhall not tire, the Reader with them. But ſhall go on with the Jew.
3. Ibid. 12. Impoſſib. fol. 132.You Chriſtians do aſſert, that the true Body of Chriſt begins to be on the Altar. This ſeems to be impoſſible; For a thing begins to be where it was not before, two ways. Either by Local Motion, or by the converſion of another thing into it; as appears 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.