ART.

The Eutychians did make use of some expreffions, that XXVIII. were used by fome in the Church, which feemed to import that they did argue from the facrament, as Theodoret represents their objections. But to that he answers as we have seen, denying that any fuch fubftantial change was made. The defign of thofe Fathers was to prove, that things might be united together, and continue fo united, without a change of their fubftances, and that this was true in the two natures in the perfon of Chrift: and to make this more fenfible, they bring in the matter of the Sacrament, as a thing known and confeffed: for in their arguing upon it they do fuppofe it as a thing out of difpute.

Now, according to the Roman doctrine, this had been a very odd fort of an argument, to prove that Chrift's human nature was not fwallowed up of the divine; because the myfteries or elements in the facrament are changed into the fubftance of Christ's body, only they retain the outward appearances of bread and wine.

To this an Eutychian might readily have answered, that then the human nature might be believed to be deftroyed: and though Chrift had appeared in that likeness, he retained only the accidents of human nature; but that the human nature itself was deftroyed, as the bread and the wine were deftroyed in the eucharift.

This had been a very abfurd way of arguing in the Fathers, and had indeed delivered up the caufe to the Eutychians whereas thofe Fathers make it an argument against them, to prove, that notwithstanding an union of two beings, and fuch an union as did communicate a fanctification from the one to the other, yet the two natures might remain ftill diftinguifhed; and that it was fo in the eucharift: therefore it might be fo in the perfon of Chrift. This seems to be fo evident an indication of the doctrine of the whole Church in the fourth and fifth centuries, when fo many of the most eminent writers of those ages do urge it fo home as an argument in fo great a point, that we can scarce think it poffible for any man to confider it fully without being determined by it. And fo far we have confidered the authorities from the Fathers, to fhew that they believed that the substance of bread and wine did ftill remain in the facrament.

Another head of proof is, that they affirm, that our bodies are nourished by the facrament; which thews very plainly, that they had no notion of a change of fubftance

made in it.

Juftin Martyr calls the eucharift, That food by which our ART. flesh and blood, through its tranfmutation into them, are nou- XXVIII. rifbed.

Apol. 2.

Irenæus makes this an argument for the refurrection of our bodies, that they are fed by the body and blood of Chrift: When the cup and the bread receives the word of Lib. v. adv. God, it becomes the cucharift of the body and blood of Chrift, Hæref. c. 2. by which the fubftance of our flesh is increafed and fubfifts: and he adds, that the flesh is nourished by the body and blood of Christ, and is made his member.

Tertullian fays, The flefb is fed with the body and blood De Refur of Cbrift.

rect. c. 8.

Origen explains this very largely on thofe words of In Matt. c. Chrift, It is not that which enters within a man, that defiles 15. the man: he fays, if every thing that goes into the belly is caft into the draught, then that food which is fanctified by the word of God, and by prayer, goes alfo into the belly, as to that which is material in it, and goes from thence into the draught. And a little after he adds, It is not the matter of the bread, but the word that is pronounced over it, which profits him that eats it, in fuch a way as is not unworthy of the Lord.

The Bishops of Spain, in a council that fat at Toledo in Con. Tol. the feventh century, condemned those that began to con- 15. Can. 6. fecrate round wafers, and did not offer one entire loaf in the eucharift, and appointed, for fo much of the bread. as remained after the communion, that either it should be 'put in fome bag, or if it was needful to eat it up, that it might not opprefs the belly of him that took it with an overcharging burden, and that it might not go into the digeftion; they fancying that a leffer quantity made no digeftion, and produced no excrement.

In the ninth century both Rabanus Maurus and Heribald believed, that the facrament was fo digefted, that fome part of it turned to excrement; which was alfo held by divers writers of the Greek Church, whom their adverfaries called, by way of reproach, Stercoranifts. Others indeed of the ancients did think that no part of the facrament became excrement, but that it was fpread through the whole fubftance of the communicant, for the good of body and foul. Both Cyril of Jerufalem, St. Chryfoftom, Cyril. Caand John Damafcene, fell into this conceit; but ftill they tech. Meft. thought that it was changed into the fubftance of our bo- 5. Chrydies, and fo nourished them without any excrement com- in Euch. ing from any part of it.

foft. Hom.

To. v. Da

The Fathers do call the confecrated elements the fi- maf. lib. iv. gures, the Jigns, the fymbols, the types and antitypes, the fide, c. 14.

Gg

com

c. 40.

ART. commemoration, the reprefentation, the myfteries, and the fa XXVIII. craments of the body and blood; which does evidently demonftrate, that they could not think that they were the Lib. iv. adv. very fubftance of his body and blood. Tertullian, when Marcion. he is proving that Chrift had a true body, and was not a phantafm, argues thus, He made bread to be his body; faying, This is my body; that is, the figure of my body: from which he argues, that fince his body had that for its figure, it was a true body; for an empty thing, fuch as a phantafm is, cannot have a figure. It is from hence clear, that it was not then believed that Chrift's body was literally in the facrament; for otherwise the argument would have been much clearer and fhorter; Chrift has a true body, because we believe that the facrament is truly his body; than to go and prove it fo far about, as to say a phantafm has no figure: but the Sacrament is the figure of Christ's body, therefore it is no phantafm.

Comm. in
Pfal. iii.

St. Auftin fays, He commended and gave to bis Difciples the figure of his body and blood. And when the Manicheans objected to him, that blood is called in the Old Teftament the life or foul, contrary to what is faid in the New; he answers, that blood was not the foul or life, but only the fign of it; and that the fign fometimes bears the name of that of which it is the fign: fo fays he, Lib. cont. Chrift did not doubt to fay, This is my body, when he was giving the fign of his body. Now that had been a very bad argument, if the bread was truly the body of Chrift; it had proved that the fign must be one with the thing fignified.

Adimant.

6. 12.

The whole ancient liturgies, and all the Greek Fathers do fo frequently ufe the words type, antitype, fign, and mystery, that this is not fo much as denied; it is their conftant ftyle. Now it is apparent that a thing cannot be the type and Symbol of itfelf. And though they had more frequent occafions to speak of the eucharift, than either of baptifm, or the chrifm; yet as they called the water and the oil, types and myfteries, fo they bestowed the fame defcriptions on the elements in the eucharist; and as they have many ftrong expreffions concerning the water and the oil, that cannot be literally understood; fo upon the fame grounds it will appear reasonable, to give the fame expofition to fome high expreffions, that they fell into concerning this facrament. Facundus has fome very full difcourfes to this purpose: he is proving that Chrift may be called the adopted Son of God, as well as he is truly bis Son; and that because he was baptized. The facrament of Chalced. adoption, that is, baptifm, may be called baptifm; as the fa

Defen.
Conc.

1. 9.

crament

crament of his body and blood, which is in the confecrated ART. bread and cup, is called his body and blood: not that the XXVIII. bread is properly his body, or the cup properly bis blood; but because they contain in them the mystery of his body and blood. St. Auftin fays, That facraments must have fome refemblance of thofe things of which they are the facraments: fo the facrament of the body of Chrift is after fome manner his body; and the facrament of his blood is after fome manner bis blood. And fpeaking of the eucharift as a facrifice of praife, he fays, The flesh and blood of this facrifice was promifed before Ep. 23. the coming of Chrift, by the facrifices that were the types of it. ad Bonifac. In the paffion the facrifice was truly offered; and after his afcenfion it is celebrated by the facrament of the remembrance of it. And when he fpeaks of the murmuring of the Jews, upon our Saviour's (peaking of giving his flesh to them, to eat it; he adds, They foolishly and carnally thought, Lib. xx. that he was to cut off fome parcels of his body, to be given to con. Fauft. them: but he fhews that there was a facrament bid there. in Pfal. And he thus paraphrafes that paffage, The words that Ixcviii. 5. bave spoken to you, they are fpirit and life: understand fpiritually that which I have faid; for it is not this body cubich you fee, that you are to eat, or to drink this blood which they ball bed, who crucify me. But I have recommended a facrament to you, which being spiritually understood, shall quicken you and though it be necessary that it be celebrated vifibly, yet it must be underflood invifibly.

C. 21.

Cor.

Sacram.

c. 5.

Primafius compares the facrament to a pledge, which a Comm. in dying man leaves to any one whom he loved. But that 1 Ep. ad which is more important than the quotation of any of the words of the Fathers is, that the author of the books of the facrament, which pafs under the name of St. Am- Lib. iv. de brofe, though it is generally agreed that thofe books were writ fome ages after his death, gives us the prayer of confecration, as it was ufed in his time: he calls it the beavenly words, and fets it down. The offices of the Church are a clearer evidence of the doctrine of that Church, than all the difcourfes that can be made by any doctor in it; the one is the language of the whole body, whereas the other are only the private reafonings of particular men: and, of all the parts of the office, the prayer of confecration is that which does moft certainly fet out to us the fenfe of that Church that ufed it. But that which makes this remark the more important is, that the prayer, as fet down by this pretended St. Ambrofe, is very near the fame with that which is now in the canon of the Mafs; only there is one very important variation, which will beft appear by fetting both down.

Gg 4

That

ART.

XXVIII.

That of St. Ambrofe is, Fac nobis banc oblationem, afcriptam, rationabilem, acceptabilem, quod eft figura corporis et fanguinis Domini noftri Jefu Chrifti, qui pridie quam pateretur, &c. That in the canon of the Mafs is, Quam oblationem tu Deus in omnibus quæ fumus benedictam, afcriptam, ratam, rationabilem, acceptabilemque facere digneris: ut nobis corpus et fanguis fiat dilectiffimi Filii tui Domini noftri Jefu Chrifti.

We do plainly fee fo great a refemblance of the latter to the former of thefe two prayers, that we may well conclude, that the one was begun in the other; but at the fame time we observe an effential difference. In the former this facrifice is called the figure of the body and blood of Chrift. Whereas in the latter it is prayed, that it may become to us the body and blood of Chrift. As long as the former was the prayer of confecration, it is not poffible for us to imagine, that the doctrine of the corporal prefence could be received; for that which was believed to be the true body and blood of Christ, could not be called, efpecially in fuch a part of the office, the figure of bis body and blood; and therefore the change that was made in this prayer was an evident proof of a change in the doctrine; and if we could tell in what age that was done, we might then upon greater certainty fix the time, in which this change was made, or at leaft in which the inconfiftency of that prayer with this doctrine was obferved.

I have now fet down a great variety of proofs reduced under different heads; from which it appears evidently that the Fathers did not believe this doctrine, but that they did affirm the contrary very exprefsly. This facrament continued to be fo long confidered as the figure or image of Chrift's body, that the feventh General Council, which met at Conftantinople in the year 754, and confifted of above three hundred and thirty Bifhops, when it condemned the worship of images, affirmed that this was the only image that we might lawfully have of Chrift; and that he had appointed us to offer this image of bis body, to wit, the fubftance of the bread. That was indeed contradicted with much confidence by the fecond Council of Nice, in which, in oppofition to what appears to this day in all the Greek liturgies, and the Greek Fathers, they do pofitively deny, that the facrament was ever called the image of Chrift; and they affirm it to be the trus body of Chrift.

In conclufion, I fhall next fhew how this doctrine crept into the Church; for this feems plaufible, that a doctrine

of