AN ANSWER TO SOME Testimonies produced by T. B. FROM THE FATHERS OF THE Six First Centuries, FOR TRANSUBSTANTIATION. §. I. HATI may proceed more clearly in examining. those Testimonies, which T. B. hath Collected out of the Fathers, as he pretends, against the Doctrin of the Church of England, and for that Doctrin of the Church of Rome, deliver'd in the 13th Seff. c. 4. of the Trent Council. I fhall 1. Premife the true State of the Controverfy between us, that it may more plainly appear what is for us, and what againft us. 2. Lay down fome Rules by which I think and fuppofe T. B will alfo judge it reasonable, to examine the Father's Teftimonies.. And then. 3.-Pro Ign. ep. ad T. B. §. I. Bellarm. de fages that affirm nothing of the fubftance of the Elements receding from the Accidents, amount not to the Proof of Tranfubftantiation, which fuppofes Accidents without their Subject. 6. Hyperbolical and Catechriftical strains of Oratory in fome Homilies of the Fathers, which in a strict literal Sense are not true even in the Judgment of a Romanist, are no good Proots of Tranfubftantiation, or indeed of any Doctrin whatsoever. Espe cially 7. Lastly, When the fame Fathers in other Tracts, wherein their Bufinefs is to deliver Doctrins dogmatically and plainly for Inftruction, without fuch Rhetorical Schemes, they lay down plain Pofitions inconfiftent with Transubstantiation. S. 5. (3.) These Propofitions are very reasonable, and according to them I proceed to a more particular Examination of T. B's Teftimonies out of the Fathers in the fame Order, wherein he cites them. §. 6. (1.) He begins with Ignatius, concerning fome Hereticks, that received not Eucharifts or Oblations, because they confefs not the Eucharift to be the Flesh of Chrift. The Hereticks he means, were the Followers of Simon and Menander, who denied the reality of Christ's Flesh, and for that Reafon admitted not the Eucharift. And what is this to Tran substantiation, that fome Hereticks, because they did not believe that Chrift was really Incarnate, would not admit the Eucharist, the Symboles whereof reprefented and fuppofed a real Incarnation? Herefie is prolifick of Herefie, and their Dif-belief of the Incarnation made them reject the Eucharift, left they should be forced to confefs the Flesh of Chrift. For if they allowed the Symboles of a true Body, they would be obliged to grant a true Body, fince a meer Phantome can have no Sign or Symbole. Thus your Gardinal Bellarmine anfwers for us, Left the Calvinifts (fays Euchar. 1. 1. he) fhould Glory of the Antiquity of their Opinion, it is to be observc. 1. p. 400. ed, that those ancient Hereticks did not fo much oppofe the Eucharift as the Mystery of the Incarnation. For therefore (as Ignatius fhews in the fame place) they denied the Eucharift to be the Flesh of the Lord, because they denied the Lord to have Flesh. If then in the Judgment of your Cardinal thefe Hereticks were no Calvinifts, Ignatius in condemning them, neither condemns Calvinists, nor countenances Tranfubftantiators: What we teach, that theElements are Sacramental Signs of Chrift's Body, is as inconfiftent with the Sentiments of thofe Hereticks as Transubstantiation, fince fuch Figures of a Body (as Tertullian argues against the Marcionites) prove the Reality of Chrift's Flefh, and that it was no no Phantome, which can have no Figure. I may add, That Theodoret, out of whose third Dialogue this Paflage of Ignatius is reftored (which was not to be found in former Editions of Ignatius) hath plainly declared against the Eutychians (as I have formerly obferved) that the Symboles after Confecration recede not from their own Nature, but remain in their former Subftance. And he must have a very mean Opinion of Theodoret's Judgment, who can think he imagined this Paffage of Ignatius inconfiftent with his own Opinion; which wou'd have been to have helped the Hereticks inftead of confuting them. To conclude, examine this Teftimony by the latter part of my fifth Rule, and fhew us where Ignatius fays a Word of the changing of the Substance of the Bread into the Subftance of Chrift's Body : Which is the Doctrin of the Trent Council, and what T. B. was to prove. §. 7. (2.) Justin Martyr is produced next, whofe Words in T. B. §. 2. his fecond Apology to Antoninus I have confulted, and find them to run thus. For we do not receive these as common Bread or common Drink, but as Jefus Chrift our Saviour, being made Flesh by the Word of God, had both Flesh and Blood for our Salvation, fo alfo we are taught that the Food, which hath been (evxagisneioav) fanctified by the Prayer of his Word, by which (is to agree with Tgopus) our Blood and Flesh by change are nourished, is both the Flesh and Blood of the Incarnate Jefus. This I undertake to be a faithful and full Tranflation of this Paffage of Justin Martyr, which cannot be affirmed of T. B's. And concerning it I have thefe Remarks to make, which muft convince T. B. if he be convincible, that it makes nothing for Transubstantiation. §. 8. 1. Whereas T. B. produces this as a clear Evidence for Tranfubftantiation, I defire him to confider, that it is cited out of a Writing of that Father's, directed to an Heathen Emperor, and then to tell me how it is confiftent with what he affirms of the Primitive Fathers Care to conceal this Mystery from the Heathens. For if that be fo, we may conclude Justin was not fuch a Blab as here on purpose to divulge the Matter. And well we may, for §. 9. 2. He fays, We do not receive these as common Bread or common Drink. Therefore Bread and Drink, tho' not Common but Sacramental. Concerning which, take the Words of Ireneus as a very proper Comment on them. The Bread, Jays he, Iren. 1. 4. which is from the Earth, receiving the Divine Invocation is not com- c. 34. mon Bread, but the Eucharist confifting of Two Things, an Earthly and an Heavenly. Sure then the Earthly part is not taken away, the Substance of the Elements is not annihilated to make room C. 12. for the Heavenly. For then there would be but one, not two Things in the Eucharift. To which add, that it is common for the Fathers to fay of Water in Baptifm, that it is not common Water, by which they fuppofe it to remain Water ftill, after it is confecrated into a Sacrament, and by Parity of Reafon the Bread confecrated, tho' not Common Bread, remains Bread still. I know fome Popish Authors fuppofe the Earthly part in Ireneus to be the Accidents; but as he fays no fuch Thing, fo that cannot be fuppofed of the Elements in Juftin Martyr, raised by Confecration above common Bread. For §. 10. 3. He affirms, That thofe Elements after Confecration, by Change nourish our Body and Blood. Now as T. B. I fuppofe will not fay, that our Body and Blood are nourished by the Subftance of Chrift's Body and Blood (which were to make himself and the Holy Father Stercorarians) fo I am fure bare Accidents deftitute of Subftance cannot increafe our Subftance, nor confeIrenæus 1. 5. quently nourish our Bodies. Irenaus affirms pofitively, That the Subftance of our Body is increas'd by the Bread and Wine, which are the Body and Blood of Chrift, and fure T. B. will not pretend that the Substance of our Body can be increas'd by bare Accidents: For he may as well pretend to feed an hungry Man by Words, or quench his Thirit by Mufick. So that it appears from these two laft Remarks, that according to my fifth Rule, this Teftimony proving no change in the Subftance of the Elements, but the contrary, can be no Proof of Tranfubftantiation. §. 11. 4. T. B. feems to lay a great Strefs on thofe Words, In the fame manner (ov Teror, which I render as) If then in the fame manner as Chrift is made Flefh, the Elements are made the Body and Blood of Chrift; it will follow, that there is an Hypoftatical Union in the Eucharift as well as in the Incarnation; Yea, and it will follow,That in the fame manner that the Elements are made the Body and Blood of Chrift, Chrift is made Flesh. Suppofe then that the Elements are made Chrift's Body and Blood by Tranfubftantiation, then it follows, That Chrift was alfo made Flesh by Tranfubftantiation. But if any fhould affirm, That Chrift at his Incarnation was Tranfubftantiated, I prefume T. B. would joyn with me in pronouncing him an Heretick. And confequently by my fourth Rule, this Testimony is no Proof of a Tranfubftantiation in the Eucharift. §. 12. 5. This then is the true Senfe of this Father, That as Christ was truly Incarnate, fo we are taught that the Elements confecrated by the Word, and ftill remaining in their own Na ture, ture, whereby our Flesh and Blood are nourished, is truly Chrift's Body and Blood, as to all the fpiritural Ufes of a Sacrament. Nor would this found ftrange in the Ears of Heathens (to whom this Apology is directed) who were wont to hear the Statues of their Gods called by the Names of their Gods themselves. §. 13. (3.) T. B. in the next place produces Two Teftimonies (as he pretends) out of St. Cyprian, tho' but one of them can justly pretend to fo venerable a Name. The first T. B. cites under the Title de Cana, whence I infer T. B. §. 3. that he never confulted the Author himfelf, but takes all upon Truft. For there is one piece entituled, de Cana, which, Du Pin, calls, A ridiculous and impertinent Book; and another de Cana Domini, and out of this latter I find, that the Passage cited by T. B. under the other Title, is taken. S. 14. Now this Book, De Cardinalibus Chrifti Operibus, in which the Tract de Coena Domini is a part, is by all Learned Pa pifts acknowledged not to be St. Cyprian's: And Du Pin, tells us, Du Pin vol. 1. That upon the Faith of feveral Manufcripts it hath been restored to p. 141. Arnoldus Bonævallis, Contemporary and Friend of St. Bernard, who addrefs'd it to Pope Adrian IV. Now if T. B. knew this (as he ought to have done before he produced his Teftimony for a piece of venerable Antiquity) I cannot but complain of his Difingenuity for bringing in a Teftimony out of the Twelfth Century next to Justin Martyr. But I have fo good an Opinion of T. B. that I am content rather to fuppofe him (as I had rather be accounted my felf) Ignorant than Difingenuous. However, taking this for an Author of the Twelfth Age, I will confider his Teftimony, and prove that he is no Friend to Tranfubftantiation by alledging fome other Pallages in the fame Tract, that Discountenance it, and then by folving the Arguments that feem to favour it in the Paffage alledg'd by T. B. S. 15. 1. He ftiles the confecrated Bread (Panis fubftantialis) fubftantial Bread, and therefore never dream'd that it was then only Phantaftical Bread, meer Accidents covering the Subftance of Chrift. Speaking afterward of Judas, he fays, As foon as his perfidious Mind touched the Holy Meat, and the fanctified Bread entered into his wicked Mouth, the Parricide's Soul could not bear the force of fo great a Sacrament, which Words intimate only a Sacramental Change in the confecrated Elements. Especially confidering that a little after he gives this Reafon why it is called Bread (Propter nutrimenti congruentiam) for its fitness to Nourish us: And adds, That common Bread being changed into Flesh and Blood, procures Life and Increase to our Bodies, and fo the weakness of our Faith, being helped by the ufual Effect of Things, is taught by H 2 a fen |