rious excuses; if we be allowed to be in our wits, and to understand Latin, or Greek, or common sense; unless the fathers must all be understood according to their new nonsense answers, which the primitive doctors were so far from understanding or thinking of, that besides that it is next to impudence to suppose they could mean them, their own doctors, in a few ages last past, did not know them, but opposed, and spake some things contrary, and many things divers from them I say, unless we have neither sense, nor reason, nor souls like other men, it is certain, that not one, nor two, but very many of the fathers, taught our doctrine most expressly in this article, and against theirs. And after all, whether the testimonies of the doctors be ancient, or modern, it is advantage to us, and inconvenient for them: for if it be ancient, it shows their doctrine not to be from the beginning; if it be modern, it does it more; for it declares plainly, the doctrine to be but of yesterday: now I am very certain, I can make it appear, not to have been the doctrine of the church, not of any church whose records we have, for above a thousand years together. 16. But now, in my entry upon the testimonies of fathers, I shall make my way the more plain and credible, if I premise the testimonies of some of the Roman doctors in this business. And the first I shall name, is Bellarmine himself, who was the most wary of giving advantage against himself; but yet he says, "Non esse mirandum," &c. "it is not to be wondered at, if St. Austin, Theodoret, and others of the ancients, spake some things, which, in show, seem to favour the heretics, when, even from Jodocus some things did fall, which by their adversaries were drawn to their cause."Now though he lessens the matter by 'quædam' and 'videantur,' and 'in speciem,' 'seemingly,' and 'in show' and 'some things,' yet it was as much as we could expect from him; with whom visibilitèr,' if it be on our side, must mean 'invisibilitèr,' and 'statuimus' must be abrogamus.'-But I rest not here: Alphonsus à Castro' says more: "De transubstantiatione panis in corpus Christi, rara est, in antiquis scriptoribus, mentio:" "The ancient writers seldom mention Lib. ii. Euch. c. 25. Sect. Hic verò. the change of the substance of bread into the body of Christ." -And yet these men would make us believe, that all the world is their own. But Scotus does directly deny the doctrine of conversion or transubstantiation to be ancient; so says Henriquez"." Ante concilium Lateranense, transubstantiatio non fuit dogma fidei;" so said Scotus himself, as Bellarmine cites him: and some of the fathers' of the society in England, in their prison affirmed, "Rem transubstantiationis patres ne attigisse quidem;" "That the fathers did not so much as touch the matter of transubstantiation :"and it was likely so, because Peter Lombard', whose design it was to collect the sentences of the fathers into heads of articles, found in them so nothing to the purpose of transubstantiation, that he professed he was not able to define, whether the conversion of the eucharistical bread were formal or substantial, or of another kind. "To some it seems to be substantial, saying, 'the substance is changed into the substance:""'Quibusdam,' et videtur,'' it seems,' — and that not to all neither, but to some; for his part, he knows not, whether they are right or wrong; therefore, in his days, the doctrine was not catholic. And, methinks, it was an odd saying of Vasquez, and much to this purpose; 'that as soon as ever the later schoolmen heard the name of transubstantiation, such a controversy did arise concerning the nature of it (he says not of the meaning of the word, but the nature of the thing), that by how much the more they did endeavour to extricate themselves, by so much the more they were entangled in difficulties.'-It seems that it was news to them to hear talk of it, and they were as much strangers to the nature of it, as to the name; it begat quarrels, and became a riddle, which they could not resolve; but, like Achelous's horn, sent forth a river of more difficulty to be waded through, than the horn was to be broken.. And amongst these schoolmen, Durandus maintained an heretical opinion (says Bellarmine"), saying, that the form of bread was changed into Christ's body but that the matter of bread remained still;'-by which also it is apparent, that then this " Sum. lib. viii. c. 23. * De Euch. lib. iii. c. 23. Sect. Unum tamen, y Discourse modest. p. 13. * Lib. iv. Sent. dist. 11. lit. a. In 3. Tho. to. 3. disput. 183. c. 1. n. 1. b Lib. iii. de Euch. c. 1. doctrine was but in the forge; it was once stamped upon at the Lateran council, but the form was rude, and it was fain to be cast again, and polished at Trent; the Jesuit order being the chief masters of the mint. But now I proceed to the trial of this topic. 17. I shall not need to arrest the reader with consideration of the pretension made by the Roman doctors, out of the passions of the apostles, which all men condemn for spurious and apocryphal; particularly the passion of St. Andrew,' said to be written by the priests and deacons of Achaia. For it is sufficient that they are so esteemed by Baronius, censured for such by Gelasius, by Philastrius and Innocentius; they were corrupted also by the Manichees by additions and detractions; and yet if they were genuine and uncorrupted, they say nothing, but what we profess: "Although the holy lamb, truly sacrificed, and his flesh eaten by the people, doth nevertheless persevere whole and alive;" for no man, that I know of, pretends that Christ is so eaten in the sacrament that he dies for it; for his flesh is eaten spiritually and by faith, and that is the most true manducation of Christ's body, the flesh of the holy Lamb: and this manducation 'breaks not a bone of him;' but then how he can be torn by the teeth of the communicants, and yet remain whole,' is a harder matter to tell: and therefore these words are very far from their sense; they are nearer to an objection: but I shall not be troubled with this any more; save that I shall observe that one White, of the Roman persuasion, quoting part of these words which Bellarmine, and from him the under-writers object: "Ego omnipotenti Deo omni die immaculatum agnum sacrifico," of these words in particular affirms, that, without all controversy, they are apocryphal. 18. Next to him is St. Ignatius, who is cited to have said something of this question, in his epistle' ad Smyrnenses; speaking of certain heretics, "They do not admit of eucharists, and oblations, because they do not confess the eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour, which flesh suffered for us:" They that do not confess it, let them be anathema: for sure it is, as sure as Christ is true: but' quomodo' is the ques S. Andreæ Annal. to. 1. A. Ep. 44. num. 4. d Diacosion Mart. fol. 3. tion, and of this St. Ignatius says nothing. But the understanding of these words perfectly, depends upon the story of that time. Concerning which, we learn out of Tertullian and Irenæus, that the Marcosians, the Valentinians, and Marcionites, who denied the incarnation of the Son of God, did nevertheless use the eucharistical symbols; though, I say, they denied Christ to have a body. Now because this usage of theirs did confute their grand heresy (for to what purpose should they celebrate the sacrament of Christ's body, if he had none?), therefore it is that St. Ignatius might say: "They did not admit the eucharist, because they did not confess it to be the flesh of Christ:' for though in practice they did admit it, yet, in theory, they denied it, because it could be nothing, as they handled the matter. For how could it be Christ's flesh sacramentally, if he had no flesh really? And, therefore, they did not admit the eucharist, as the church did, for, in no sense would they grant it to be the flesh of Christ; not the figure, not the sacrament of it; lest, admitting the figure, they should also confess the substance. But besides, if these words had been against us, it had signified nothing; because these words are not in St. Ignatius; they are in no Greek copy of him; but they are reported by Theodoret. But in these there is nothing else material, than what I have accounted: for I only took them in by the by, because they are great names, and are objected sometimes. But I shall descend to more material testimonies, and consider those objections that are incident to the mention of the several fathers; supposing that the others are invalid, upon the account of the premises; or, if they were not, yet they can but pass for single opinions, against which themselves, and others, are opposed at other times. 19. Tertullian is affirmative in that sense of the article, which we teach. "Acceptum panem et distributum discipulis suis, Christus corpus suum meum fecit, dicendo, Hoc est corpus,' i. e. figura corporis mei." He proves, against the Marcionites, that Christ had a true real body in his incarnation by this argument; because "in the sacrament he gave bread, as the figure of his body, saying, This is my body, that is, the figure of my body." Fisher, in his answer e Tertullian adv. Marcion. lib. iv. c. 40. 6 to the ninth question propounded by King James, and he from Cardinal Perron, says it is an vwéplarov, and answers to this place, that' Figura corporis mei,' refers, after Tertullian's odd manner of speaking, to 'Hoc,' and not to 'corpus meum,' which are the words immediately preceding, and so most proper for the relation: and that the sense is,-'This figure of my body is my body:' that is, this which was a figure in the Old Testament, is now a substance.'-To this I reply, 1. It must mean, this which is present, is my body, -not this figure of my body, which was in the Old Testament; but this, which we mean in the words of consecration;' and then it is no hyperbaton, which is to be supplied with 'quod erat,''This which was ;'-for the nature of a hyperbaton is, to make all right by a mere transposition of the words; as, ⚫ Christus mortuus est,' that is 'unctus;' place 'unctus' before 'mortuus,' and the sentence is perfect; but it is not so here: without the addition of two words, it cannot be; and if two words may be added, we may make what sense we please. But, 2. Suppose that figura corporis' does refer to 'hoc,'yet it is to be remembered that hoc,' in that place, is one of the words of the institution, or consecration; and then it can have no sense to evacuate the pressure of his words. 3. Suppose this reference of the words to be intended, then the sense will be; 'This figure of my body, is my body;' the consequent of which, is that which we contend for: that the 'same which is called 'his body, is the figure of his body:' the one is the subject; the other, the predicate: and then it affirms all that is pleaded for: as if we say, 'Hæc effigies est homo,' we mean 'it is the effigies of a man;' and so in this, This figure of my body, is my body,' by the rule of denominatives, signifies, 'This is the figure of my body.'—4. 'In the preceding words, Tertullian says, "the pascha was the type of his passion!" this pascha he desired to eat ; this pascha was not the lamb;-for he was betrayed the night before it was to be eaten: "professus se concupiscentiâ concupisse edere pascha ut suum (indignum enim ut quid alienum concupisceret Deus"), "he would eat the passover of his own,"→ figuram sanguinis sui salutaris implere concupiscebat," "he desired to fulfil the figure," that is, to produce the last of all the figures of his healing blood: now this was by eating the paschal lamb, that is, himself; for the other was not to be |