the which is contained not the true body of Christ, but the mystery of the body) to private uses; how much more offence is it to abuse and defile the vessels of our body?" These be the words of Chrysostom: but, I trow, that here many foul shifts are devised to defeat this place. "The author," saith one, "is suspected." I answer, but in this place never fault was found with him unto these our days. And whether the author were John Chrysostom himself, the archbishop of Constantinople, or no, that is not the matter: for of all it is granted, that he was a writer of that age, and a man of learning. So that it is manifest, that this which he writeth was the received opinion of learned men in his days: or else, undoubtedly in such a matter his saying should have been impugned of some that wrote in his time, or near unto the same. Gardiner to "Nay," saith another, "if this solution will not serve, the 198th obwe may say, that Chrysostom did not speak of the ves-jection. sels of the Lord's cup, or such as were then used at the Lord's table, but of the vessels used in the temple in the old law." This answer will serve no more than the other. For here Chrysostom speaketh of such vessels, wherein was that which was called the body of Christ, although it was not the true body (saith he) of Christ, but the mystery of Christ's body. Now of the vessels of the old law, the writers do use no such manner of phrase; for their sacrifices were not called Christ's body for then Christ was not, but in shadows and figures, and not by the sacrament of his body revealed. Erasmus, which was a man that could understand the words and sense of the writers, although he would not be seen to speak against this error of transubstantiation, because he durst not, yet in this time declareth plainly, that this saying of the writer is none otherwise to be understanded. the same "Yet can I," saith the third Papist, "find out a fine and Gardiner in subtle solution for this place, and grant all that yet is said, place. both allowing here the writer, and also that he meant of the vessels of the Lord's table. For (saith he) the body of Christ is not contained in them, at the Lord's table, as in a place, but as in a mystery." Is not this a pretty shift, and a mystical solution? But, by the same solution, then Christ's body is not in the Lord's table, nor in the priest's hands, nor in [RIDLEY.] 3 in Cæsarium the pix and so he is here no where. For they will not say, that he is either here or there, as in a place. This answer pleaseth so well the maker, that he himself (after he had played with it a little while, and sheweth the fineness of his wit and eloquence therein) is content to give it over and say, "But it is not to be thought, that Chrysostom would speak after this fineness or subtlety:" and therefore he returneth again unto the second answer for his sheet anchor, which is sufficiently confuted before. Another short place of Chrysostom I will rehearse, which (if any indifference may be heard) in plain terms setteth Chrysostom forth the truth of this matter. "Before the bread," saith Monachum. Chrysostom, writing ad Cæsarium monachum, "be hallowed, we call it bread: but, the grace of God sanctifying it by the means of the priests, it is delivered now from the name of bread, and esteemed worthy to be called Christ's body, although the nature of bread tarry in it still." These be Chrysostom's words, wherein I pray you, what can be said or thought more plain against this error of transubstantiaGardiner to tion, than to declare, that the bread abideth so still? And jection. yet this so plain a place some are not ashamed thus shame the 201st ob fully to elude, saying: "We grant the nature of bread remaineth still thus, for that it may be seen, felt, and tasted; and yet the corporeal substance of the bread therefore is gone, lest two bodies should be confused together, and Christ should be thought impanate." What contrariety and falsehood is in this answer, the simple man may easily perceive. Is not this a plain contrariety, to grant that the nature of bread remaineth so still, that it may be seen, felt, and tasted, and yet to say, the corporeal substance is gone, to avoid the absurdity of Christ's impanation? And what manifest falsehood is this, to say or mean that, if the bread should remain still, then [Sicut enim antequam sanctificetur panis, Panem nominamus, divina autem illum sanctificante gratiâ, mediante Sacerdote, liberatus est quidem appellatione panis, dignus autem habitus est dominici corporis appellatione, etiamsi natura panis in eo permansit. S. Chrysostomi Op. Ep. ad Cæsarium Monachum. Ed. Ben. Par. vol. iii. p. 744.-1717. ED.] [See note B. at the end of the volume. ED.] must follow the inconveniency of impanation? As though the very bread could not be a sacrament of Christ's body (as water is of baptism), except Christ should unite the nature of bread to his nature, in unity of person, and make of the bread God. Now let us hear Theodoretus, which is the last of the Theodoret. three Greek authors. He writeth in his Dialogue contra Dial. 1. Eutychen thus: "He that called his natural body corn and bread, and also named himself a vine tree ; even he, the same, hath honoured the symbols (that is, the sacramental signs) with the names of his body and blood, not changing indeed the nature itself, but adding grace unto the nature.” What can be more plainly said than this, that this old writer saith? That although the sacraments bear the name of the body and blood of Christ, yet is not their nature changed, but abideth still. And where is then the Papists' transubstantiation? The same writer, in the second dialogue of the same Dial. 2. work against the aforesaid heretic Eutyches, writeth yet more plainly against this error of transubstantiation, if any thing can be said to be more plain. For he maketh the heretic to speak thus against him that defendeth the true doctrine, whom he calleth Orthodoxus: "As the sacraments of the body and blood of our Lord are one thing before the invocation, and after the invocation they be changed, and are made another; so likewise the Lord's body (saith the [ Ο γὰρ δὴ τὸ φύσει σῶμα σῖτον καὶ ἄρτον προσαγορεύσας, καὶ αὖ πάλιν ἑαυτὸν ἄμπελον ὀνομάσας, οὗτος τα δρώμενα σύμβολα τῇ τοῦ σώματος καὶ αἵματος προσηγορία τετίμηκεν, οὐ τὴν φύσιν μεταβαλῶν, ἀλλὰ τὴν χάριν τῇ φύσει προστεθεικώς. Theod. Dial. 1. Op. Ed. Par. 1642, tom. iv. p. 18. En.] [* Εραν. Ὥσπερ τοίνυν τὰ σύμβολα τοῦ δεσποτικοῦ σώματός τε καὶ αἵματος ἄλλα μέν εἰσι πρὸ τῆς ἱερατικῆς ἐπικλήσεως, μετὰ δέ γε τὴν ἐπίκλησιν μεταβάλλεται καὶ ἕτερα γίνεται· οὕτω τὸ δεσποτικὸν σῶμα, μετὰ τὴν ἀνάληψιν, εἰς τὴν οὐσίαν μετεβλήθη τὴν θείαν. Ορθόδοξος. Τάλως αἷς ὕφηνες ἄρκυσιν· οὐδὲ γὰρ, μετὰ τὸν ἁγιασε μὸν, τὰ μυστικά σύμβολα τῆς οἰκείας ἐξίσταται φύσεως· μένει γὰρ ἐπὶ τῆς προτέρας οὐσίας καὶ τοῦ σχήματος καὶ τοῦ εἴδους, καὶ ὁρατά ἐστι καὶ ἑπτὰ, οἷα καὶ πρότερον ἦν. Theod. Dial. 2. Op. Ed. Par. 1642, tom. iv. p. 85. ED.] a sea-fish eth as it were heretic) is, after the assumption or ascension into heaven, turned into the substance of God:" the heretic meaning thereby, that Christ, after his ascension, remaineth no more a man. To this Orthodoxus answereth thus, and saith to the heretic "Thou art taken (saith he) in thine own snare; for those mystical symbols or sacraments, after the sanctification, do not go out of their own nature, but they tarry and abide still in their substance, figure, and shape; yea, and are sensibly seen, and groped to be the same as they were before, &c." At these words the Papists do startle; and, to say the truth, these words be so plain, so full, and so clear, that they cannot tell what to say: but yet they will not cease The cuttle is to go about to play the cuttles, and to cast their colours which cast- over them, that the truth, which is so plainly told, should an ink about not have place. "This author wrote" (say they) "before by making the determination of the church." As who would say, whatblack escap- soever that wicked man Innocentius, the Pope of Rome, Plin. lib. ix. determined in his congregations with his monks and friars, that must needs be (for so Duns saith) holden for an article, and of the substance of our faith. her, and so the water eth taking. cap. 4. So answered Convocation House. Some do charge this author, that he was suspected to be man in the a Nestorian: which thing, in Chalcedon council, was tried, and proved to be false. But the foulest shift of all, and yet the best that they can find in this matter, when none other will serve, is to say, that Theodoret understandeth by the word substance accidents, and not substance indeed. This gloss is like a gloss of a lawyer upon a decree, the text whereof beginneth thus: Statuimus, that is, "we decree." The gloss of the lawyer (after many other pretty shifts there set forth, which he thinketh will not well serve to his purpose), therefore at the last, to clear the matter, he saith thus: "after the mind of one lawyer, vel dic" (saith he) "statuimus, id est, abrogamus'," that is, as expounded, Distinc. 4. "we do decree, that is, we do abrogate or disannul." Is not this a worthy and goodly gloss? Who will not say, but he is worthy in the law to be retained of counsel, that can gloss so well, and find in a matter of difficulty such cap. Statuimus. [The words "vel dic" do not occur in the passage. Decreta Gratiani. Ed. Par. 1585, p. 14. ED.] fine shifts? And gloss of the law. yet this is the law, or at the least the And therefore who can tell what peril a man may incur to speak against it; except he were a lawyer indeed, which can keep himself out of the briers, what wind soever may blow? Hitherto ye have heard the writers of the Greek church, not all what they do say, for that were a labour too great for to gather, and too tedious for the reader, but one or two places of every one. The which how plain, and how full and clear they be against the error of transubstantiation, I refer it to the judgment of the indifferent reader. And now I will likewise rehearse the sayings of other three old ancient writers of the Latin Church, and so make an end. lib. iv. cap. And first I will begin with Tertullian; whom Cyprian, the Tertullian. holy martyr, so highly esteemed, that, whensoever he would have his book, he was wont to say, "Give me the master." This old writer, in his fourth book against Marcion, the heretic, saith thus: "Jesus made the bread, which he took and distributed to his disciples, his body, saying, This is my body that is to say (saith Tertullian), a figure of my body." In this place it is plain that, after Tertullian's exposition, Adv. Marc. Christ meant not, by calling the bread his body and the 40. wine his blood, that either the bread was his natural body or the wine his natural blood: but he called them his body and blood, because he would institute them to be unto us sacraments, that is, holy tokens and signs of his body and of his blood; that, by them remembering and firmly believing the benefits procured to us by his body, which was torn and crucified for us, and of (by) his blood which was shed for us upon the cross, and so with thanks receiving these holy sacraments according to Christ's institution, (we) might by the same be spiritually nourished and fed to the increase of all godliness in us here in our pilgrimage and journey, wherein we walk unto everlasting life. This was undoubtedly Christ our Saviour's mind, and this is Tertullian's exposition. The wrangling, that the Papists do make to elude this saying of Tertullian, is so far out of frame, that it even [Acceptum panem et distributum discipulis corpus suum illum fecit, "hoc est corpus meum" dicendo: id est, figura corporis mei. Tertul. Adv. Mar. lib. rv. c. 40. Op. Ed. Par. 1641, p. 571. ED.] |