« PreviousContinue »
that what he gave them was Bread and Wine, but they faw likewise as plainly that it was not his Body which was given, but his Body which gave that which was given; not his body broken and his bloud Shed, because they faw him alive at that very time and beheld his body whole and unpierc'd; and therefore they could not understand these words literally : If they did, can we imagine that the Difciples, who upon all other occafions were fo full of questions and objections, should make no difficulty of this matter? nor fo much as ask our Saviour, how can these things be? that they should not tell him, we fee this to be Bread and that to be Wine, and we see thy Body to be distinct from both; we fee thy Body not broken, and thy Bloud not shed.
From all which it must needs be very evident, to any man that will impartially confider things, how little reason there is to understand those words of our Saviour, this is my body, and this is my bloud, in the fense of Tranfubftantiation; nay on the contrary, that there is very great reafon and an evident neceffity to understand them otherwife. I proceed to fhew,
2ly. That this Doctrine is not grounded upon the perpetual belief of the Chriftian Church, which the Church of Rome vainly pretends as an evidence that the Church did always understand and interpret our Saviour's words in this sense.
To manifeft the groundlefnefs of this pretence, I fhall, 1. fhew by plain teftimony of the Fathers in feveral Ages, that this Doctrine was not the belief of the ancient Chriftian Church. 2. I fhall fhew the time and occasion of its coming in, and by what degrees it grew up and was establish'd in the Roman Church. 3. I fhall anfwer their great pretended Demonstration that this always was and must have
been the constant belief of the Chriftian Church. 1. I fhall fhew by plain Teftimonies of the Fathers in feveral Ages, for above five hundred years after Christ, that this Doctrine was not the belief of the ancient Chriftian Church. I deny not but that the Fathers do, and that with great reafon, very much magnify the wonderfull mystery and efficacy of this Sacrament, and frequently fpeak of a great Supernatural change made by the divine benediction; which we also readily acknowledge. They fay indeed, that the Elements of Bread and Wine do by the divine bleffing become to us the Body and Bloud of Chrift: But they likewise say that the names of the things fignified are given to the Signs; that the Bread and Wine do ftill remain in their proper nature and fubftance, and that they are turn'd into the substance of our Bodies; that the Body of Christ in the Sacrament is not his natural Body, but the fign and figure of it; not that Body which was crucified, nor that Bloud which was thed upon the Crofs; and that it is impious to understand the eating of the flesh of the Son of man and drinking his bloud literally all which are directly oppofite to the Doctrine of Tranfubftantiation and utterly inconfiftent with it. I will felect but fome few Testimonies of many which I might bring to this purpose.
I begin with Juftin Martyr, who fays exprefsly, that our bloud and Flesh are nourished by the conver- *Apól.2.p.98. · fion of that food which we receive in the Eucharift: Edit. Parif... But that cannot be the natural body and bloud of Chrift, for no man will fay that that is converted into the nourishment of our bodies.
The Second is *Irenæus, who speaking of this Sa- * lib. 4. c. 344 ·· crament fays, that the bread which is from the earth receiving the divine invocation is now no longer common bread, but the Eucharift (or Sacrament) confifting of
two things, the one earthly, the other heavenly. He fays it is no longer common bread, but after invocation or confecration it becomes the Sacrament, that is, bread fanctified, confifting of two things an earthly and a heavenly; the earthly thing is bread, and the heavenly is the divine bleffing which by the invoca* lib. 5. c. 2. tion or confecration is added to it. And elsewhere he hath this paffage, when therefore the cup that is mix'd (that is, of Wine and Water) and the bread that is broken receives the word of God, it becomes the Eucharift of the bloud and body of Christ, of which the fubftance of our flesh is increafed and confifts: but if that which we receive in the Sacrament do nourish our bodies, it must be bread and wine, and not the natural body and bloud of Chrift. There is another remarkable Teftimony of Irenæus, which though it be not now extant in those works of his which remain, yet hath *Comment. in been preferv'd by * Oecumenius, and it is this; when (fays he) the Greeks had taken fome Servants, of the Chriftian Catechumeni (that is, fuch as had not been admitted to the Sacrament) and afterwards urged them by violence to tell them fome of the fecrets of the Chriftians, thefe Servants having nothing to say that might gratify thofe who offered violence to them, except onely that they had heard from their Mafters that the divine Communion was the bloud and body of Christ, they thinking that it was really bloud and flesh, declar'd as much to thofe that questioned them. The Greeks taking this as if it were really done by the Chriftians, difcovered it to others of the Greeks; who hereupon put Sanctus and Blandina to the torture to make them confefs it. To whom Blandina boldly answered, How would they endure to do this, who by way of exercife (or abftinence) do not eat that flesh which may lawfully be eaten? By which it appears that this which they would have
charg'd upon Chriftians, as if they had literally eaten the flesh and bloud of Chrift in the Sacrament, was a falfe accufation which thefe Martyrs denied, faying they were fo far from that that they for their part did not eat any flesh at all.
The next is Tertullian, who proves against Marcion the Heretique that the Body of our Saviour was not a mere phantafm and appearance, but a real Body, because the Sacrament is a figure and image of his Body; and if there be an image of his body he must have a real body, otherwife the Sacrament would be an image of an image. His words are thefe, the bread Adverf. which our Saviour took and diftributed to his Difciples Marcionen. be made his own body, faying this is my body, that is, Edit. Rigalt. the image or figure of my body. But it could not have been Paris. 1634. the figure of his body, if there had not been a true and real body. And arguing against the Scepticks who denied the certainty of fenfe he useth this Argument: That if we question our fenfes we may doubt whether our Bleffed Saviour were not deceived in what he heard, and faw, and touched. *He might (fays he) be de-* lib. de Aniceived in the voice from heaven, in the fmell of the oint- ma, p. 319. ment with which he was anointed against his burial; and in the taste of the wine which he confecrated in remembrance of his bloud. So that it feems we are to trust our senses, even in the matter of the Sacrament; and if that be true, the Doctrine of Transubstantiation is certainly falfe.
Origen in his * Comment on Matth. 15, speaking of * Edit. Hu the Sacrament hath this paffage, That food which is fanctified by the word of God and prayer, as to that of it which is material, goeth into the belly and is caft out intò the draught, which none furely will fay of the Body of Chrift. And afterwards he adds by way of explication, it is not the matter of the bread, but the word
*. Cap. 10.
* Ep. 63.
which is fpoken over it, which profiteth him that worthily eateth the Lord; and this (he fays) he had spoken concerning the typical and Symbolical body. So that the matter of bread remaineth in the Sacrament, and this Origen calls the typical and Symbolical body of Chrift and it is not the natural body of Chrift which is there eaten, for the food eaten in the Sacrament, as to that of it which is material, goeth into the belly and is caft out into the draught. This teftimony is fo very plain in the Cause that Sextus Senenfis fufpects this place of Origen was depraved by the Heretiques. Cardinal Perron is contented to allow it to be Origen's, but rejects his teftimony because he was accufed of Herefie by fome of the Fathers, and fays he talks like a Heretique in this place. So that with much ado this testimony is yielded to us. The fame Father in hist Homilies upon Leviticus fpeaks thus, There is alfo in the New Teftament a letter which kills him who doth not Spiritually understand those things which are faid; for if we take according to the Letter that which is faid, EXCEPT TE EAT MY FLESH AND DRINK MY BLOUD, this Letter kills. And this alfo is a killing Testimony, and not to be answered but in Cardinal Perron's way, by faying he talks like a Heretique.
St. Cyprian hath a whole Epistle *to Cecilius, against those who gave the Communion in Water onely without Wine wingled with it; and his main argument against them is this, that the bloud of Chrift with which we are redeemed and quickned cannot seem to be in the Cup when there is no Wine in the Cup by which the Bloud of Chrift is reprefented and afterwards he fays, that contrary to the Evangelical and Apoftolical Doctrine water was in Some places offer'd (or given) in the Lord's Cup, which (fays he) alone cannot exprefs (or reprefent) the bloud of Christ. And lastly he tells us, that by water the people