Reason VII. The judgement of the ancient Church. Theodoret saith,1 The same Christ, who called his natural body food and bread, who also called himself a vine, he vouchsafed the visible signs the name of his own body, not changing nature, but putting grace to nature, whereby he means consecration. And,2 The mystical signs after sanctification loose not their proper nature. For they remain in their first nature, and keep their first figure and form: and as before, ⟨p. 970⟩may be touched and seen: and that which they are made, is understood, believed, adored. Gelasius saith,3 Bread and wine pass into the substance of the body & blood of Christ, yet so as the substance or nature of bread and wine ceaseth not. And they are turned into the divine substance, yet the bread and wine remain still in the property of their nature. Lombard saith,4 If it be asked what conversion this is, whether formal, or substantial, or of an other kind, I am not able to define. And that the fathers held not transubstantiation, I prove it by sundry reasons. First, they used in former timesa to burn with fire that which remained after the administration of the Lords supper. Secondly by the sacramental union of the bread and wine with the body and blood of Christ, they used to confirm the personal union of the manhood of Christ with the godhead against heretics: which argument they would not have used, if they had believed a popish real presence. Thirdly it was a custom in Constantinople, that if many parts of the sacrament remained after the administration thereof was ended, that young children should be sent for from the school to eat them; who nevertheless were barred the Lords table.6 And this argues plainly that the Church in those days, took the bread after the administration was ended, for common bread. Again, it was once an order in the Roman Church, that the wine should be consecrated by dipping into it bread, which had been consecrated. 7But this order cannot stand with the real presence, in which the bread is turned both into the body and blood. Nicholaus Cabasilas saith, After he hath used some speech to the people, he erects their minds, and lifts their thoughts from earth and saith, Sursum corda, Let us lift up our hearts, let us think on things above, and not on things that are upon the earth.
Reason VII. The iudgement of the auncient Church. Theodoret saith,1 The same Christ, who called his naturall bodie foode and bread, who also called himselfe a vine, he vouchsafed the visible signes the name of his owne bodie, not chaunging nature, but putting grace to nature, whereby he meanes consecration. And,2 The mysticall signes after sanctification loose not their proper nature. For they remaine in their first nature, and keepe their first figure and forme: and as before, ⟨p. 970⟩may be touched and seene: and that which they are made, is vnderstood, beleeued, adored. Gelasius saith,3 Bread and wine passe into the substance of the bodie & blood of Christ, yet so as the substance or nature of bread and wine ceaseth not. And they are turned into the diuine substance, yet the bread and wine remaine still in the propertie of their nature. Lumbard saith,4 If it be asked what conuersion this is, whether formall, or substantiall, or of an other kind, I am not able to define. And that the fathers held not transubstantiatiō, I proue it by sundrie reasons. First, they vsed in former timesa to burne with fire that which remained after the administration of the Lords supper. Secondly by the sacramentall vnion of the bread and wine with the bodie and blood of Christ, they vsed to confirme the personall vnion of the manhood of Christ with the godhead against heretickes: which argument they would not haue vsed, if they had beleeued a popish reall presence. Thirdly it was a custome in Constantinople, that if many parts of the sacrament remained after the administration thereof was ended, that young children should be sent for from the schoole to eate them; who neuerthelesse were barred the Lords table.6 And this argues plainely that the Church in those daies, tooke the bread after the administration was ended, for common bread. Againe, it was once an order in the Romane Church, that the wine should be consecrated by dipping into it bread, which had beene consecrated. 7But this order cannot stand with the reall presence, in which the bread is turned both into the bodie and blood. Nicholaus Cabasilas saith, After he hath vsed some speech to the people, hee erects their mindes, and lifs their thoughts from earth and saith, Sursum corda, Let vs lift vp our hearts, let vs thinke on things aboue, and not on things that are vpon the earth.
- 1Dialog. 1. immutab.
- 2same dialog.
- 3Lib. de duab. nat. Christ.
- 4Li. 4. dist. 11.
- aHesych. lib. 2. c. 8. in Leviticum. Theodoret. dialog. 2.Hesych. lib. 2. c. 8. in Leuiticum. Theodoret. dialog. 2.
- 6Evang. l. 4. Niceph. l. 17 c. 25.Euang. l. 4. Niceph. l. 17 c. 25.
- 7Am•la. 2. l. de off. eccles. c. 12. & 15. Li. de expos. Liturg. c. 26.
