12. ch he says Our Lord did not doubt to say This is my Body when He gave them a sign of his Body And why should he doubt If a man give his friend a purse of money He dos not doubt to say This is my Money although the Purse be only a sign of it If a purse be empty t is an empty sign But if it be full it then contains all that it signifies and what it represents is truly substantially present Bread in the Old Law was an empty sign of Christ's Body The outward form of Bread is still a sign of it but not an empty sign because it really contains the selfsame Body which it represents I take no notice of S. Austin's words in the 3. book of his Christian Doctrine where he saies Our Saviour * ch 16. seems to command a heinous wickedness ... therefore 't is a figure I take no notice of it because He dos not say it is an empty figure He only says our Saviours speech is figurative in opposition to the literal sense of the Capernaites that barbarous sense in which indeed it is a heinous crime to eat our Saviour's flesh * I also pass over Tertullian's words in his 4. book against Marcion * ch 40. This is my Body that is This figure of my Body I pass them over because the true sense amounts to no more than that This bread which in the Old Law was but a figure of my Body now in the New Law is my Body The obscurity of this great man is well enough known to all that are acquainted with him Nor can any who converse with him be ignorant that the figure Hyperbaton is often in his mouth In the same book ch 11. he says To a Parable will I open my mouth that is Similitude and in his book against Praxeas Christ is dead that is Anointed This is enough to shew the affected transposition of his words And for the sense it may be easily conjectur'd by the design of his book the principal end of which is to shew the correspondency betwixt the Old Law and the New to which purpose it was a very pertinent observation that the Form of Bread in the Old Law was an empty figure of what is fullfill'd in the New. In the same sense Tertullian says in his 1. book against Marcion that * ch 14. Christ by Bread represents his Body that is by the outward form of Bread He exhibits it substantially present So in his 4 book he says that * ch 22. God the Father represented Christ on Mount Thabor saying This is my Son. So likewise in his book of Prayer he says * ch 5. We pray for the representation that is the real presence of God's Kingdom And again speaking of the Day of judgment in his book concerning the Resurrection he says * ch 14. it cannot be without the representation that is the personal presence of all all Mankind They who delight in reading Tertullian may find a great deal more to this effect But this is enough to satisfie any rational man that my interpretation is not forc'd * Facundus of Hermian speaks in the same Dialect when in his 〈◊〉 for the defence of the Tria Capitula He says the Sacrament ... is call'd his Body Blood not that the Bread is properly his Body and the Cup his Blood but because they contain the mysteries of his Body Blood. He explicates there how signs are call'd by the names of what they signifie And argues that the Sacrament of Adoption may be call'd Adoption as the outward forms of bread wine are call'd the body blood of Christ The Argument is good because these outward forms of bread wine consider'd in themselves are only signs they are not properly the body of our Lord they are only call'd so because they are types and figures of it But that they are not empty signs the same Author tells us when he says in the same place that they are call'd so because they contain the mysteries of his body blood * If some of you perhaps still think it strange that such expressions as these should be made use of frequently by men who really believ'd this mystery For your farther satisfaction you may please to reflect that not only the Fathers of the first six Centuries but also our most eminent Authors who have written since the Condemnation of Berengarius who undoubtedly held Transubstantiation nevertheless use the very same phrase of speaking It would be tedious to run over many instances One out of S. Anselm will be enough to satisfie your curiosity About the end of the eleventh Century when by our English Reformers confession the Doctrine of Transubstantiation was fully settled establisht He writes thus in his Treatise De Sacramento Altaris That similitude of bread which upon the Altar appears to our corporeal eyes consider'd in it self is not the Body of our Lord. * Some people have such little souls they cannot raise their thoughts above their vulgar notions they are not much acquainted with those signs which signifie things present those signs which are not appointed to supply the defect of real presence but only to supply the want of visible appearance And therefore they will not allow that there are any such signs in the World. Say what you will they mind not what you say but tell you over over again that if the outward form of the Sacrament be a sign of his Body 't is certain his Body is not really and truly present Have but a little patience and I shall quickly clear this point My Speech and Motion are signs of Life Soul in me And must I believe a Sophister if any were so silly as to tell me Therefore I am a dead man because it is the nature of all signs to exclude the real presence of what they signifie The form of a Serpent in Paradise was in some manner a sign of the Evil Spirit that tempted Eve and was not this Evil Spirit really truly present The form of a Dove appearing at our Saviour's Baptism the forms of fiery tongues appearing on the day of Pentecost represented the Holy Ghost And will you say the Holy Ghost was never really present neither one time nor other The human forms which in the old Testament the Angels usually assumed represented the Angels And were those Angels never truly substantially present Such instances as these I may presume our Adversaries do not well consider if they did they never would conclude that the Fathers denied the mystery of Transubstantiation because they call the outward form a type a sign or figure * Besides this mighty difficulty which I now have clearly satisfied There remains one more which is that according to the Doctrine of the Fathers the Substance of bread remains after Consecration Here I must needs confess they charge us home And if they can perform what
Our Saviour dos not say This is Wine S. Paul dos not contradict our Saviour nor dos our Saviour contradict himself Why then do they call it bread and wine The Answer is obvious Not because it was bread wine then but because it was bread wine before Nothing is more familiar in Scripture than this way of speaking S. Iohn in the 9. ch of his Ghospel relating the miraculous cure of the man that was born blind tells us in the 7. v. He went his way washt came seeing and yet afterwards in the 17. v. he calls him blind and tells us what they say to the blind man again Why dos the Scripture call him blind after his sight was restord The reason is not because he was blind then but because he was blind before Turn to the 7. ch of S. Luke and in the 22. v. you 'l read these words of our Saviour The blind see the lame walk the deaf hear he says they see and yet he calls them blind he says they walk yet he calls them lame he says they hear yet he calls them deaf Why dos he call them blind lame deaf when he himself bears witness that they see walk hear The Answer lies before you He calls them so not because they were so then but because they were so before In the 2. ch of S. Iohn the substantial change of water into wine was much the same as Transubstantiation therefore the example is fitter for the purpose In the 9 v. you read that the Ruler of the Feast tasted the water that was made wine You cannot but observe how plainly the Scripture says it was made wine and at the same time plainly calls it water Will any man deny this miracle and say it was not really truly wine because the Scripture calls it water after it was made wine No no 't is clear that when the miracle was done the Scripture calls it water not because it was water then but because it was water before Read the 7. ch of Exodus you 'l find in the 10. v. Aaron cast down his rod before Pharaoh it became a Serpent in the 11. v. The Magicians of Egypt also did in like manner in the 12. v. They cast down every man his rod but Aaron's rod swallowd up their rods Pause here one moment The Scripture plainly tells us that these rods were all chang'd into Serpents and yet after the change the Scripture calls them rods not because they were rods then but because they were rods before If any of our Adversaries have a mind to say these rods were not chang'd into Serpents that Christ never chang'd water into wine that when he told S. Iohn's disciples the blind see the lame walk the deaf hear he sent them back to their master with so many lies in their mouths if they have a mind to say our Saviour never cur'd the man born blind then they may have the same pretence to magnifie this trifling argument But if they are the men which I would willingly believe they are if they are candid sincere if they submit their judgment fairly to the word of God as it is plainly written in their own translation of of the Bible they cannot but ingenuously confess that Transubstantiation is not any way repugnant to plain words of holy Scripture but that Scripture it self contutes the best of all their arguments which they produce against it I will not say t is ignorance but I am sure 't is either that or want of ingenuity which makes men argue that because there are some metaphors in Scripture Therefore the words of Consecration are a Metaphor or Figure No man denies but that we often meet with metaphors in Scripture but then either the common phrase of speaking evidently marks them out or else they are explaind by what fore-runs or follows the expression so explaind that no judicious Reader doubts the meaning of them When in the 6. of S. Iohn our Saviour says I am the bread of life He adds he that comes to me shall never hunger When in the 8. He says I am the light of the world He adds he that follows me shall have the light of life When in the 10. He says I am the door He adds by me if any man enter he shall be saved When in the 14. He says I am the way He adds no man comes to my Father but by me When in the 15. He says I am the Vine He adds he that abides in me brings forth much fruit So when S. Paul tells the Ephesians 5. ch 30. v. We are members of his body of his flesh of his bones He explicared it in the 23. v. that this Body which Christ is the Head and Saviour of is the Church And when he mentions flesh bones he only carries on the metaphor by a mysterious allusion to the 2. of Genesis because as Eve's Body drew its Being from the side of the first Adam when he slept in Paradise so also the Church derives the grace which animates it from the side the flesh bones of the last Adam when he slept his mortal sleep upon the Cross The verse which follows leads directly to the place and gives us word for word the 24. v. of the 2. of Genesis that we may evidently know the Sense and Ground of the Comparison In the same manner no less care is taken in the 1. to the Cor. 10. ch 4. v. to explicate these words That Rock was Christ S. Paul seems to write with as much caution as if he had forseen how much these words would be abused by those who now compare them with the words of Consecration Lest any man might think that when he said that rock was Christ he took the word rock in the literal sense he plainly says he speaks of spiritual meat spiritual drink he says in the same verse they drank of that spiritual rock which followd them and that rock that is that spiritual rock was Christ What could a man say more to acquaint the world with the true meaning of his words give us an assurance that it is not literal but only figurative metaphorical Some people are willing to believe that because Christ's body blood are only metaphorically broken shed for us in the Sacrament therefore they are not really his body blood As if because one word is figurative in a sentence therefore all the rest must be so too meerly for keeping it company or as if we were oblig'd to believe that because Christ's sitting at the right hand of his Father is a meer metaphor therefore he did not really ascend to Heaven When in S. Luke in the 1 Cor. we read these words This Cup is the New Testament in my Blood the Cup is one metaphor the Testament is another but hence it dos not follow that the blood of Christ is meerly metaphorical For in the common
Iohn 6. ch writes Jesus the Son of Joseph S. Luke 3. ch explains it Jesus being as was supposed the Son of Joseph Our Saviour frequently invites the thirsty to him promises them living water S. Iohn in the 7. ch explains it He spoke this of the spirit which they who believd on him should receive But these words which we read in all of them are not explain'd by any one of them From whence 't is easy to inferr that all these sacred Pen-men never understood our Adversaries figurative sense They literally understood it as we do believd it as they understood it writ as they believ'd it S. Mark 4. ch 34. v. says of our Saviour that when they were alone He expounded all things to his Disciples If then our Saviour us'd a Figure when he said This is my Body 't is certain that when they were alone at least he expounded this figure to them Perhaps the four Evangelists the Apostle knew well enough this exposition but forgot to write it This will not serve the turn Our Saviour promis'd them their memory should ever be assisted by his holy Spirit In the 14. ch of S. Iohn * v. 26. the Holy Ghost says he shall bring all things into your remembrance whatsoever I have said unto you Perhaps they every one thought of it when they writ but did not think it worth the writing But if our Adversaries well consider the sixth Article of Reformation which tells us all things necessary to Salvation are contain'd in Scripture they will scarce find room for this reply because this exposition would have been so necessary to prevent the Idolatry which they accuse us of consequently necessary to Salvation Since therefore this Interpretation never could have been forgot if ever they had known it Since it could not be omitted if they had remember'd it it follows clearly that this explication was never known amongst them but only is a new invention of the modern Reformation directly contradictory to Scripture I cannot but admire when I reflect how thick a mist mens passions and prejudices raise before their eyes And this is undoubtedly the reason why so many able men of the reforming Party study Transubstantiation in Scripture search with diligence great appearance of sincerity yet never find it If they were equal impartial judges of the Texts which lie before them they soon would see how grievously they are mistaken in the true intent meaning of them By the example of this instance they would judge the rest acknowledge the injustice of the Reformation return home joyfully to their old Mother-Church full of admiration of God's mercy to them * 1. Pet. 2.9 shew forth the praises of Him who call'd them out of darkness into his wonderfull light which guides us through this vale of misery to the everlasting joys of Heaven Amen A SERMON Preacht before the KING AT WORCESTER August 24. 1687. Interroga Majores tuos dicent tibi Ask thy Elders They will tell thee Deut. 32.7 T Is now no less than six thirty years Most Sacred MAJESTY since our City of Worcester has been honour'd with the Presence of our King. Our Loyalty was then sufficiently try'd and now it is aboundantly rewarded ward Our Loyalty which then was so well known to all the world invited your Royal Brother to this Refuge And we employ'd our best endeavours to preserve his sacred Person But 't was too great an Honour for us The Almighty took it wholly to himself and by a surprising miracle of Providence afterwards granted to our earnest Prayers what He before denied to our unfortunate Arms. As we have never forfeited the credit of our Loyalty we hope your MAJESTY is well assured we shall be always ready to expose our lives fortunes in your MAJESTY's service It is not in the power of Subjects to give their Prince a more convincing assurance that they always will be Loyal than that they always have been so I only wish with all my heart that we had ever been as Loyal to the Church as to the State and that we had as zealously opposed the Reformation of our Faith as we withstood the Alteration of our Government When I first appear'd in this Place I made it my business to prove that according to principles of Natural Philosophy the Mystery of Transubstantiation is neither contrary to Sense nor Reason In my second Sermon I endeavour'd to shew it is so far from being contrary to Holy Writ that no judicious Reader who is free from prejudice can understand Scripture without it And this being my third appearance where it is expected I should finish what I have begun I now undertake to prove it is so far from being contrary to the purer faith of the first Ages that for the first eight Centuries the Fathers universally believ'd it Remember the days of old says Moses Consider the years of many generations Ask thy Fathers they will shew thee thy Elders they will tell thee My time is short considering the work I have before me But yet I hope it will not be accounted losse of time to spend one moment on my knees in begging the assistance of my Saviour and desiring his Virgin-Mother with all the Blessed Spirits to accompany my prayers upon Earth with theirs in Heaven FIRST PART * Before I enter upon our proofs of Transubstantiation it will be worth observing how almost all our Adversaries are mistaken upon a groundless supposition that if they can find expressions in the Fathers which import that the Sacrament is a type a sign a figure They need not seek any farther The question is already decided The Fathers never believ'd the mystery of Transubstantiation Now I must needs conless if we denied the Sacrament to be a type a sign or figure we ought to stand corrected Or if all this were inconsistent with the mystery of Transubstantiation we ought to own our Fathers Belief was contrary to ours But if in both these points our Adversaries are mistaken we must beg their pardon if we still persever in our ancient Faith. * If they would only consider the difference betwixt the inward substance the outward form betwixt the infide the outside of the Sacrament They would easily reconcile the different expressions which they meet with in the Fathers writings When the Fathens were intent upon the outward form They call it a type a sign a figure They say it is not his Body Blood but that it signifies it represents it contains it * S. Austin in his 23. epistle to Bonifacius says the Sacrament of the Body of Christ is in some manner Christ's Body .... as the Sacrament of Faith is Faith. The parity is good betwixt the outward form of bread and Baptism in this respect that both are signs Only this difference there is the first contains what it signifies the other dos not So in his book against Adimantus
operations of a Man. But mang learned men who read Gelasius and Theodoret want either skill or patience to understand them They find these words the substance of bread remains and are so much transported with the joyfull news of any thing that looks but like an argument against the Old Religion they have undertaken to reform they do not well consider what the word may signifie but willingly suppose the Sense is just the same as they would have it set their hearts at rest and look no farther * I have now sufficiently examin'd what the Fathers say concerning the outward form of the Sacrament what they mean by calling it a type a sign or figure what they understand when they call it the substance or nature of bread I now come close to the main point of the Question What they have taught constantly believ'd during the first eight Centuries concerning the inward substance of the Sacrament Whether they believ'd it was the substance of bread wine or the substance of Christ's body blood SECOND PART Paschasius Rathertus a French Monk Native of Soisson in Picardy wrote a book in the year 831. de Corpore Sanguine Domini at the request of one of his Scholars call'd Placidius an Abbot to whom he dedicated it He makes it his business to explain prove three points 1. that the body blood of Christ are truly and substantially present 2. that the substances of bread wine remain no longer after Consecration 3. that the body is the very same which was born of the Virgin suffer'd on the Cross rose from the Sepulcre He was the more willing to write this book because some people out of ignorance began to doubt of several truths relating to the Sacrament This I gather from an epistle of Paschasius to Frudegard where I find these words Although some people are out of ignorance mistaken nevertheless as yet no body openly contradicts this doctrine which all the World believes professes Our Adversaries take a great deal of pains to persuade us that Paschasius was the first broacher of this Doctrine from him they date the first Rise of it about the beginning of the IX Age although it did not take root nor was fully settled established till towards the end of the eleventh They add that this was the most likely time for the Enemy to sow his Tares when the Christian World was lull'd asleep in ignorance and superstition that the generality of people being quiet secure were ready to receive any thing that came in under a pretence of mystery in religion but the men most eminent for piety learning in that time made great resistance against it This is the Account which now is generally given by our modern Writers and particularly by the Author of a late Discourse against Transubstantiation T is easily said and the contrary is as easily prov'd Read Leo Allatius in his 3. book of the perpetual agreement betwixt East West and you will find Nicephorus Patriarch of Constantinople saying that the bread wine are not an image or a figure But that they are transmuted into the body blood of Christ Read Haymo Bishop of Halberstadt in his Treatise De Corpore Sanguine Domini you may find it in the 12. Tome of the Spicilegium his words are these We believe therefore and faithfully confess hold that the substance of bread wine by the operation of the Divine Virtue is substantially chang'd into another substance that is Body Blood ..... The tast of bread wine remains the figure the nature of the substances being wholly chang'd into the body blood of Christ Read Theodorus 〈◊〉 Abucara in the Bibliotheca Patrum printed at Lions you will find that in his 22. Opuscule he says The Holy Ghost descends by his Divinity changes the bread wine into the body blood of Christ I omit several others who lived in the same Age with Paschasius and all witness that the Church believd the mystery of Transubstantiation T is well known that the 3. part of Paschasius's doctrine occasion'd some disputes about the manner of speaking They allow'd the body to be the same in substance but not altogether the same because it is not in the same form it has no corporal motion or action in a word it is present in some respects after the manner of a spirit imperceptible to sense all in the whole all in every part This Spiritual presence of his body was much urg'd against Paschasius to prove the body is not absolutely the same But nevertheless if we do not preferr darkness before light we cannot but see that They who wrote against the third part did not write against the second and they who quarreld with his way of speaking did not deny the mystery of Transubstantiation as appears by the testimonies of his pretended Adversaries Amalarius in the 24. ch of his 3. book says We believe the simple nature of bread wine mixt with water to be chang'd into a reasonable nature to wit the body blood of Christ Rabanus Archbishop of Mentz in the 10. ch of his 7. book to Theotmarus De sacris ordinibus Who says he would ever have believ'd that bread could have been chang'd into flesh wine into blood unless our Saviour himself had said it who created bread wine all things out of nothing These men were also Authors of the same IX Age And after all these testimonies I leave you to judge whether the IX Age did not generally believe the mystery of Transubstantiation or whether Paschasius was the first that broacht it in the Western Church I do not insist upon the authority of Bertram either one way or other but however I shall give you a short account of him as much as may suffice to justifie my letting him alone The first question which he proposes in the beginning is * pag 1. whether the body of Christ be done in a mystery or in truth that is to say according to his own words whether it contain some secret thing or whether the bodily sight do outwardly behold whatsoever is done I have not hitherto met with any Author of the IX Age that ever said Our eye sees all that our faith believes but we are to suppose that some body said so or else that Bertram was mistaken He answers with a great deal of truth that * p. 5. it cannot be call'd a mystery wherein there is nothing covered with some veil removed from our bodily senses Outwardly says he the form of bread is set out but inwardly a thing far differing * p. 6. London-Edit 1687. which is not discern'd to be Christ's body by the carnal senses Afterward he compares this Sacrament with that of Baptism and finally in the 18. page he concludes Therefore the things that are seen things that are believ'd are not all one This was indeed a
mighty piece of business and one would think that eighteen pages were little enough to prove that things visible things invisible are not all one However the Answer is as wise as the Question dos not contradict the doctrine of Transubstantiation His comparison of Baptism though very unequal is tolerable enough and shews how in all Sacraments the inward virtue is distinguisht from the outward form But when he begins to take a ramble among * pag. 18. our Fathers that were under a Cloud when he inquires so seriously * pag. 19. how the grosseness of a very thick air could sanctifie the people and tells us how * pag. 20. the cloud gave out the cleanness of sanctification in respect that it contain'd invisibly the sanctisication of the Holy Ghost when he makes it an article of our faith * pag. 24. to believe firmly that in the Wilderness Christ made the Manna the Water of the Rock to become his own body blood as truly and as effectually as now he changes the bread wine when he goes on argues that * pag. 26. even as he could do the one a little before he sufferd so likewise he was able to do the other a great while before he was born finally when he tells us further-more that the Sacramental bread wine is as much turn'd into the body * pag. 68.69 blood of the believing people as into the body blood of Christ and proves it stoutly because where there is but one sanctification there must needs follow the like mystery When I consider what stuff this is and how he has put it together I begin to think t is no great matter either what he says or what he would say if he could speak Several learned Men have taken pains to excuse him to shew that all these instances were only intended to prove the difference betwixt the outward form inward substance of the Sacrament If this were all I confess he might mean well but He has expresst himself so very ill that for my part I do not think him worth quarreling for I am very well contented to leave him as I find him to let our Adversaries make the best they can of him If He pursued his notions too far and left the Church He was the first that ever did so in this matter and besides He wander'd by himself for no body in the IX Age follow'd him Let us now consider the VIII Age And we shall see the stream of Truth run clearer as we approach nigher the Fountain S. John Damascen in his Orthodox Faith 3. Book 14. chapter discourses thus The Body truly joyn'd to the Divinity is that which was born of the Virgin not that the Body He assum'd descends from heaven but the bread it self wine are chang'd into the Body Blood of God which if you ask How it can be done T is enough for you to hear it is done by the Holy Ghost .... Nothing says he is more clear and certain than that God's word is true and efficacious and omnipotent ..... After a wonderfull manner they are chang'd into the Body and Blood of Christ and are not two but one the same ... Neither are the Bread Wine a Figure of Christ's Body Blood but the Body it self of our Lord accompanied with his Divinity For our Lord himself said This is not a sign of my Body but my Body nor a sign of my Blood but my Blood. Hitherto ye have heard S. Iohn Damascen Pray what do ye think of him Do ye think that No body in the VIII Age believ'd the mystery of Transubstantiation Well but He was only one man. What say ye then if I produce 350. more I mean the 350. Bishops who sate in the VII general Council call'd in the 87. year of the VIII Age. * The Iconoclast Hereticks would not allow any relative worship and therefore refus'd all worship of any images but the Eucharist All other images of Christs Humanity subsisting by themselves were as they fancied false images and favour'd the Heresie of Nestorius who gave his Humanity a proper subsistence by it self But the outward form of the Sacrament not being a thing subsistent by it self but supported by the invisible substance Person of Christ was a true image and might not only be retain'd but ador'd So clear it is that the Iconoclasts did not deny Transubstantiation but because they believ'd it therefore they allow'd the adoration of the Eucharist They say indeed the Sacramental bread must not be figur'd in the shape of a human body for fear of introducing Idolatry but they only fear'd the introducing of other Image-worship given to other pictures of our Saviour which do not really contain Him. However they did not speak their mind so plain but that the Council doubted of their meaning supposing that by the word image they understood an empty sign the Bishops quarreld with the seeming contradiction of their terms calling the Eucharist sometimes an Image sometimes his Body And argued against them that if it be an empty image it cannot be this Divine Body Read the VI. Action and you will find the Judgment of the whole Council deliverd plainly in these words None of the Trompets of the Holy Ghost the holy Apostles and our illustrious Fathers did ever call our unbloody Sacrifice ... an image of his Body Neither did they learn of our Lord so to say confess ... He did not say Take eat the image of my Body .... The bread wine before they are sanctified are call'd Types but after their sanctification they are properly call'd the Body Blood of Christ They are so are believ'd to be so These are the words of 350. Bishops who all with one voice declare They firmly believe that what was bread before is after consecration properly Christ's body not only an image of it And this is all we understand by Transubstantiation So much for the VIII Age. I come now to the 3. next Ages the V. the VI. and VII And because the Reforming Party is willing to believe S. Austin favours them we will begin with S. Austin I am not ignorant that in his Writings upon the Ghospel of S. John he copiously dilates upon the figurative sense and that in his 3. book De Doctrinâ Christianâ he says that the Sacrament is a figure of our Lord's Passion which when we receive we ought to lay up in our memory that his flesh was crucified and wounded for us But on the other side I know that as when S. Austin says in his 9. Tract upon S. John that the conversion of water into wine was a figure of the spiritual conversion of the Law into the Ghospel He dos not deny the substantial change of water into wine so when he says the Sacrament is a figure of Christ's Passion He dos not deny Transubstantiation In the 9. ch of
whether it be true or no is the Question which the Fathers of the first four Ages are to answer S. Ignatius in his epistle to the Romans speaking of this bread of God says it is the Flesh of Jesus Christ S. Justin martyr in his Apology to Antoninus Pius says We are taught that it is the Body Blood of Jesus Incarnate S. Ireneus in his fifth book against heresies ch 11. speaking of the bread wine says that by the word of God they are made the Eucharist which is the Body Blood of Christ Origen in his 7. homilie upon the 6. of Numbers says Then in a figure Manna was their meat but now in reality the Flesh of God the Word is our true meat Optatus in his 6. book against Parmenian gives the Sacrament no other name What is the Altar says he but the seat of Christ's Body Blood He repeats it over over again And if all the while he meant only a figure 't is strange he should never call it by the right name S. Ephrem the Deacon in his book De Naturâ Dei curiosè non scrutandâ says Our Saviour has given us his Body Blood and that this gift of his exceeds all admiration all expression all understanding Which he would never have said if he had thought it had been but a figure To all these proofs several more which I omit the Author of a late Dialogue in which the mysteries of Trinity Transubstantiation are compared returns this answer that the Reformers themselves generall say the Eucharist is the Body of Christ And yet they all deny the mystery of Transubstantiation This is soon said amounts to no more than this That the Reformers say as we do think otherwise They say it is his body they think it is not But you must give me leave to tell you that although their words look one way their thoughts another I have no reason to suspect this fallacy of speech in the good Fathers of the first four Centuries What they receiv'd in plain terms from our Saviour his Apostles They deliverd with the same sincerity candour to succeeding Ages Hear what S. Hilary of Poictiers tells you in his 8. book De Trinitate where taking notice of our Saviour's words in the 6. ch of S. John He says There is no place lest for doubting of the Truth of his Body Blood for now by our Lord's Profession our Faith 't is truly his Body truly his Blood. Hear S. Epiphanius in his Ancorat where to oppose the Allegorical Sense of Origen in the Creation of Paradise He alledges several places out of Scripture which though they are hard to understand are universally believ'd in the plain literal sense Amongst the rest he produces the example of the Eucharist thus discourses upon it We see it is not equal nor like the Body of Christ yet our Saviour would pronounce This is my Body Nor is there any one who dos not believe these words of his For he who dos not believe them to be true falls absolutely from the state of Grace of Salvation What think ye of this Do ye think these great Men did not understand the faith of the Age they lived in Do ye think they were not able to inform the World concerning the Faith of former Ages much better than our late Reformers who came into the World above a thousand years after them They tell us The literal Sense is matter of Faith that they who do not believe it are neither in the State of Grace nor of Salvation If it be said that any Real Presence of Christ's Body or the Impanation of his Person is enough What need is there of Transubstantiation to verifie the literal Sense The Answer is obvious clear 1. Our Saviour did not say My Body is here but This is my Body And although any real presence is enough to make good the former Assertion yet nothing less than a Substantial change can verifie the later 2. Although by virtue of an hypostatick union it may be as true to say This bread is Christ as to say This Man is God yet still 't will be as false to say This Bread is the Body of Christ as to say This Humanity is the Divinity Besides it falls out a little unluckily that this Invention only serves to pull down the old Transubstantiation to set up a new one by changing the subsistence of bread into the divine Subsistence the Second Person of the B. Trinity It cannot be litterally verified that This Bread or This thing which was bread is the Flesh of Christ unless the bread be chang'd into his flesh that is cease to be bread and begin to be his flesh And this is the substantial change which we call Transubstantiation There are two sorts of changes one accidental as when cold water is made warm another substantial as when our Saviour chang'd water into wine An accidental change may warm the water but only a substantial change can make it wine In the same manner an accidental change may make bread a Sacrament but nothing less than a substantial change can make it the Flesh or Body of Christ * The Fathers often compare these changes but never confound the one with the other S. Cyril of Hierusalem in his 1. Mystagogick Catechise observes that as Bread by invocation of the Trinity is made the Body of Christ so meats offer'd to Devils are made impure by invocation of them In his 3. Catechise he says As bread after the invocation is the Body of Christ so the Oyntment after consecration is the Chrisme of Christ S. Ambrose in his 4. book De Sacramentis ch 4. proves that Christ can effect great changes above nature because by his grace We are new Creatures in Him. But yet the Fathers do not say These changes are equal to That by which Bread is made the Body of Christ These Assertions This meat is impure This oyntment is the Chrism of Christ This man is a new creature in Christ All This is evidently verified in the plain literal Sense by a meer accidental change But when the Fathers say This bread is the Flesh of Christ Nothing but a substantial change can verifie the plain Sense of the Letter Nothing can make it literally true but Transubstantiation Bread is one Body one corporeal Substance The Flesh of Christ is another Body another corporeal Substance Change that into this You change one Body into another one Substance into another And then I pray What change is this if it be not Substantial What is it if it be not Transubstantiation T is clear that when the Fathers of the first four Ages speak of the wonderfull change made in the Sacrament they speak of the change of Bread into the Flesh or Body of Christ They speak not of an Accidental change but a Substantial one which now the Church calls Transubstantiation And
THREE SERMONS UPON THE SACRAMENT IN WHICH Transubstantiation is impartially considerd as to Reason Scripture and Tradition To which is added a Sermon upon the Feast of S. George By N. N. Preacher in Ordinary to their Majesties LONDON M.DC.LXXXVIII A SERMON Preacht before the KING AT WHITE-HALL June 14. 1688. Quomodo fiet istud How shall this be done Luke 1.34 THe Enemies of Christ's Divinity abhorr the Faith of it as contrary to Sense because all those who saw him plainly saw he was a Man and opposite to Reason because it seems to them impossible either for Immensity to be comprehended in the compass of a man or for one Person to subsist in two Natures The Enemies of Transubstantiation urge the same arguments against it They say 't is contrary to Sense because all those who see it plainly see 't is bread and opposite to Reason because it seems to them impossible either for Christ's body to be comprehended in so small a compass or for one body to be at the same time in two places Never was S. Paul's advice more seasonable than in this Age of ours He tells us that it is our Duty * 2. Cor. 10.5 to cast down imaginations and every high thing that exalteth it self against the knowledge of God bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ I must confess 't is naturall enough to entertain a doubtfull thought of what is far above the reach of Reason When things are so extremely difficult that no man can conceive the manner how they are perform'd we presently are apt to think they are impossible How shall this be done But this is a proud thought that must be humbled 't is a rebellious imagination which if S. Paul says true must be cast down it exalts it self against the knowledg of God and must be brought into captivity S. Iohn Damascen in his Orthodox Faith * 3. b. 14. ch proposes an illustrious example of our Duty in a parallell betwixt the Incarnation Eucharist and by the Blessed Virgin 's humble submission to that mystery shews how we ought to captivate our understanding in believing this Thus he discourses compares both mysteries How shall this be done said the Blessed Virgin seeing I know not a man The Archangel Gabriel answerd The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee the Power of the Highest shall overshadow thee You also ask me the like Question How can bread be made the body of Christ wine mixt with water become the blood of Christ I also give you the same answer The Holy Ghost descends effects such things as far exceed not only our expressions but our understandings The mysteries of Faith would be no longer mysteries if Reason comprehended them much less would they deserve that Name if Sense discoverd them We commonly say that Seeing is Believing and amongst Men acquainted with the cheats of a deceitfull world we find the wisest are the slowest in believing what they do not see But yet the word of God has so much credit with us that we confidently trust him farther than we see him and when we hear him say This is my body we believe it though we do not see it Nor is it any wonder that we boldly venture to believe such things as are beyond the reach of Sense more than it is that we believe such points as are above the reach of Reason If Transubstantiation were either contrary to Sense or Reason then indeed the clamours of our Adversaries would be something plausible But if it be neither contrary to Sense as I shall plainly shew in my first part nor contrary to Reason as I shall endeavour to prove in my second all their unreasonable clamours will be little valued and all their noise which is the last and weakest refuge of a baffed Cause will signifie just nothing Permit me only in the first place to beg the assistance of my Saviour whose cause I plead and to desire his Virgin Mother with all the Angels Saints in Heaven to joyn their prayers with mine FIRST PART We are all of us willing to believe our eyes and truly we have reason to believe them especially when all mens eyes agree and in all times places give the same information to our understandings Not that I think it is impossible for the Almighty to deceive the eyes of all men by a constant miracle of his Omnipotence but that I have good reason to suppose he uses methods more conformable to reasonable nature One great occasion of men's thinking that their senses are imposed upon is but a false persuasion that when they see the Sacrament they must believe the outward form the surface the qualities which we see touch tast to be the true Body Blood of Christ If this were so they would have reason to be jealous of their senses being contradicted But if these people would reflect that all this outward form the surface and the qualities which we observe are really in all respects the very same as they are represented to our senses that they are not believed by us to be the true Body and Blood of Christ but only the coat which cloaths it the curtain which is drawn before it the veil which shrouds it and hides it from our senses that when we fall down on our knees to adore our Saviour Jesus Christ whom we firmly believe to be really and substantially present by a miracle insensible and imperceptible to all our senses we do not adore the coat which cloaths him nor the curtain which is drawn before him nor the veil which shrouds hides him from us we only adore the God of our Salvation who in the mystery of the Incarnation hid his Divinity in flesh in the mystery of Transubstantiation hides his flesh blood under the forms of bread wine Verily says the Prophet Isaiah * c 45. v. 15. Thou art a God that hidest thy self O God of Israel the Saviour If people would but leisurely reflect that all which they perceive by any of their senses is really and truly the same as they perceive it that Faith dos not oblige them to believe the contrary but only to believe that under the superficies of these outward forms the Body and Blood of Christ are hid miraculously conceal'd from all their senses Then they would easily conclude that Transubstantiation is not contrary to sense My word alone perhaps has not sufficient credit with you you may hear S. Anselm in the end of the eleventh Century after the condemnation of Berengarius In the 1. ch of his Tract de Sacramento Altaris he plainly says That similitude of bread which upon the Altar appears to our corporeal eyes considerd in it self is not the body of our Lord. No no you may believe your eyes that all the exteriour forms of bread are truly there 't is only necessary to believe that the body of our Lord is really containd
hidden under them And thus the Council of Trent expressely declares in the 1. ch of the 13. Session not that the sensible things themselves are truly the Body of Christ but that under them his Body is containd 'T is written in the 1. of Samuel * c. 16. v. 7. Men look upon the outward appearances but God looks upon the heart In like manner our Senses only perceive the outward appearances of their objects but our Understanding by which we are made to the image of God is the onely Faculty which can discern the inward substance The naked notion of subsistent Being cannot be perceiv'd by any sense because it neither has dimension motion posture figure colour nor any of those modifications which affect our senses The qualities and modes of matter intercept our sight no sense can penetrate the superficies of it discern the nakedness of substance through the cloaths it wears we neither see it nor feel it more than we see or feel the substance of the Soul which animates our Body Now I must needs acknowledge that if when we receive the Sacrament we saw it round and yet believd it square if we saw it white yet believd it black if we felt it rough yet believd it smooth if we felt it dry yet believd it moist if we tasted sweetness in it and yet believd it bitter No man could then deny but that our Faith would teach things evidently contrary to what our Senses tell us But as the case stands with us in this article I never yet could see how any thing but ignorance can possibly excuse all those who flap us ore the mouth with the absurdity of contradicting all our senses We really believe the superficies or outward form is round and white just as we see it if we feel it rough and dry we take it to be such and when we tast it sweet we do not question but it is so We firmly without any hesitation believe all that our Senses represent unto us we declare to all the world that we believe our Senses we live dy in a persuasion that in this mystery our Senses tell us nothing but what 's true And yet some people have the face to tell us that we contradict our senses A strange world it is we live in now that makes no conscience of saying any thing I know very well you 'l readily object that after consecration we see the Substance of bread and we believe the Substance is not there is not this contradicting of our Senses I grant that after consecration we see the substance as plainly as we did before but this I flatly deny that any man ever saw the substance of bread either before or after 'T is true most men who do not understand Philosophy are apt to think that when they see bread lie before them they see the substance of it They never imagine that there is as much difference betwixt seeing bread seeing the substance of bread as there is betwixt seeing substance with all its cloaths on and seeing of it naked When they see the length breadth depth the figure texture colour of the parts of bread they think they see the substance and 't is no wonder that they are mistaken because they do not understand what substance is But if they would go to school to Aristotle or Cartesius the two chief Masters of the old new Philosophy the First would reach them that when they think they see or feel the substance of any body they only see feel the accidents the quantity qualities that cover it The second would easily inform them and let them know they only see feel the superficies modes of matter which may remain the same to all intents purposes and make the same impression upon our senses although the entity of matter be entirely chang'd If any of you are so curious you may read Cartesius himself upon this subject in the end of his Meditations pag. 137 of the 5. edition printed at Amsterdam in the year 1670. * Notandum denique per supersiciem panis aut vini alteriusve corporis non hic intelligi partem ullam substantiae nec quantitatis .... fed tantummodo terminum illum qui medius esse concipitur inter singulas ejus particulas corpora ipsas ambientia quique nullam planè entitatem habeat nisi modalem Iam verò cum in solo termino contactus fiat nihil nisi per contactum sentiatur manifestum est ex hoc uno quod dicantur panis vini substantiae in alicujus alterius rei substantiam Ita mutari ut haec nova substantia sub eisdem planè terminis contineatur sub quibus aliae ..... jam existerent si adessent sequi necessatiò illam novam substantiam eodem planè modo sensus omnes nostros afficere debere quo panis vinum illos afficerent si nulla transubstantiatio facta esset loc cit Praeterea nihil est incomprehensibile aut difficile in eo quod Deus Creator omnium possit unam substantiam in aliam mutare quodque haec posterior substantia sub eâdem planè superficie remaneat sub quâ prior continebatur Nec etiam quidquam rationi magis consentancum dici potest nec vulgo apud Philosophos magis receptum quà m non modo omnem sensum sed omnem corporis in corpus actionem fieti per contactum huncque contactum in solâ superficie esse posse Vnde sequitur evidenter eandem superficiem quantumvis substantia quae sub eâ est mutetur eodem semper modo agere ac pati debere Quapropter ausim sperare ventutum tempus aliquando quo illa opinio quae ponit accidentia realia .... explodetur mea ut certa indubitata in ejus locum recipietur ibid. pag. 139. Some of my Auditory may perhaps be a little surprised to hear so much Philosophy deliverd in a pulpit whence they usually expect the Law of God Christian Doctrine If without Philosophy we cannot find the way to Heaven what will become of all those Christians who never found the way to school Pray give me leave There are a great many Christians let them be as ignorant as you please especially in matters of Philosophy who never the less think they are wise enough to judge the greatest mysteries and secrets of it And when they hear the Catholick Church affirm that in the Eucharist the interiour substances of bread wine are chang'd into the body blood of Christ nothing remaining but the outward forms of bread wine in stead of receiving humbly the Christian Doctrine which the Church proposes they immediatly take upon them to condemn it as an errour cry it down as a ridiculous absurdity which contradicts our senses All this while they never consider how little it becomes them to pretend to judge of things they do not understand Tell them that
in the principles both of the old new Philosophy we never see the nakedness of any substance whatsoever but only the outward forms which hide it from us and therefore if the Almighty have a mind to change the substance only not the accidents we may watch him as narrowly as we please never discover any alteration because all that our senses can perceive remains the same and as before the substance was miraculously chang'd we could not see it so after 't is miraculously chang'd we cannot miss it Talk to them of these notions in the plainest terms you can they 'l ask you what you mean. wonder what you would be at They neither know the nature of the substance nor the accidents they know not whether Transubstantiation be contrary to sense or no and yet they still will tell a man it contradicts their senses 'T is very hard in such a case as this if they who do not understand Philosophy may tell us we deny our senses and they who understand it may not be allow'd to tell them fairly they are very much mistaken Mistakes in matters of religion are dangerous And certainly so much Philosophy as is needfull to set us right cannot but be allowable when such mistakes as these proceed from want of understanding it I shall conclude this part of my discourse with shewing in as easie terms as the matter will bear that t is impossible for any of our senses to give evidence against our faith of Transubstantiation If we believd that Transubstantiation were a sensible change a change of any thing that is sensible in the bread wine then indeed our senses being judges of sensible things might easily give evidence against our faith They might depose that nothing sensible is chang'd but that all things sensible remain the same as formerly they were and no man could deny but that our Faith would contradict our Senses But on the contrary if we do not believe that Transubstantiation is a sensible change if we believe no change of any thing which is sensible then truly our senses not being judges of insensible things cannot give evidence against us they cannot depose that no insensible thing is chang'd because insensible matters fall not within their cognizance and therefore whether they are chang'd or not is more than they can tell If there should happen a dispute concerning difference of colours whether they are chang'd or not Would you remit it to the arbitration of five blind men Since therefore the dispute betwixt us is about the insensible difference of substance whether it be chang'd or not How can our senses give their sentiment one way or other either for it or against it This argument is so convincing that it will not bear the least appearance of a solid Answer and withall so plain that any man without Philosophy may clearly understand it To which I shall only add a word or two more to put a stop to all the cavills which may possibly arise from the diversity of schoolmen's fancies T is evident that the Catholick Church by the substance which is believ'd to be chang'd in the Sacrament dos not understand any thing that is sensible in bread wine The Council of Trent in the 2. Canon of the 13. Session supposes as a certain undoubted truth that all things sensible remain the same manentibus speciebus panis vini And in the 1. ch of the same Session tells us that the body blood of Christ are contain'd under them sub specie illarum rerum sensibilium T is true the Council dos not offer to define what substance is it dos not tell us what it understands by substance it meddles not with definitions of Philosophy but only definitions of Faith determining what Truths were first deliver'd to the Church by Christ his Apostles But though we know not in particular what 't was the Council meant by substance This we know for certain that it meant not any of those sensible things but only that insensible subsistent Being which is hidden under them And this is enough to silence all disputes about the Evidence of Sense Let who will tell us that the substances of bread wine are sensible we always shall have this to say That if by substance they mean something which is sensible the Council dos not mean the same They mean one sort of substance The Council means another therefore all their arguments from evidence of sense are every one misplac'd they are levell'd against a chimerical Transubstantiation of their own invention and not against that which the Council has defin'd In a word if any Transubstantiation be contrary to sense Let them look to 't we are not at all concern'd in the matter such a Transubstantiation is not ours but theirs I humbly recommend this to your serious thoughts undertake to prove that Transubstantiation is not contrary to Reason in the second part of my Discourse SECOND PART The Oracles of Holy Scripture in the book of Iob assure us * 36.26 God is great and we know him not As we do not know him so we do not know his power and therefore it is written in the following chapter * 37.5 He dos great things which we cannot comprehend His works are great we cannot comprehend them But hence it dos not follow that they are impossible because He can do great things which we cannot comprehend We all of us agree that mysteries of Faith are far above the reach of Reason but 't is our great misfortune and one of the worst effects of our original Corruption That though we thus agree in generalls yet in the examen of particulars we easily confound their being above Reason with their being contrary and presently conclude them contrary because they are above it All this proceeds from nothing but a secret pride or vanity which make us willing to suppose that we are wiser than we are that we comprehend the secret Natures of things understand clearly the essentiall constitution of their Beings see evidently all the attributes appropriated to them all the qualities irreconcileably repugnant to their natures Supposing this we readily pronounce This is impossible That cannot be This is a meer chimera That 's a contradiction And all this while reflect not that we may perhaps be very much mistaken in our arbitrary notions from whence we draw so easily these bold Conclusions We do not consider the History as well as Theory of Natural Philosophy if we did we should find such strange varieties alterations in it as would demonstrate the uncertainty of of all its principles Corpuscular Philosophy was well enough received in ancient times under Democritus Epicurus Afterwards it was in a manner quite laid by Aristotle's Notions succeeded in the place And now the world begins to seem unsatisfied his matter form his quantity qualities begin to look a little out of countenance and the Corpuscular Philosophy
begins to come in play again If we would spend one serious thought upon these Revolutions in the very fundamentalls of our Natural Philosophy we should learn the best the most beneficial knowledg in the world which is the knowledg of our ignorance We should find that the vain humour which inclines some few to dogmatize in Natural Philosophy proceeds not from their being wise than their neighbours but rather from the strength of their imaginations than the power of their Reasons We should see that since the Fall of Adam even the works of nature are above our reach * Eccles 3.11 No man says Solomon can find them out from the beginning to the end When any mystery of Faith seems not to sute so well as we would have it with the notions which we fancy most We should rather suspect that we may be mistaken in our principles than cry it down as a chimerical absurdity below God's Majesty above his Art beyond the utmost stretch of his Omnipotence As the mystery of the Incarnation seemd meer folly to the Gentiles and a scandal to the Jews so now the mystery of Transubstantiation seems impossible to some incredible to others It seems impossible 1. for the Natural Body of Christ to be consin'd within so small a compass 2. for one Body to be at the same time in two places It seems incredible 1. that Christ should put himself to the expence of so superfluous a miracle since he might easily haue given us the very same grace without it 2. that he should humble himself so low as to expose his sacred body blood to almost all the abuses indignities which bread wine are subject to These are the principal considerations whence some are pleas'd to draw this inference That Transubstantiation is evidently contrary to Reason T is strange to see when once our minds are prepossesst with an aversion from any doctrine how blind we are in our enquiries how partial unequal in our judgments We easily believe the Incarnation and although we know that God is infinitely greater than our little souls are able to conceive although we know that there can be no limits in the vast extension of his boundless Being although we know that his Immensity has every where a Center no where a Circumference yet because this is an article which we are willing to believe we make no doubt but all Gods Greatness may be lodg'd within the compass of a man and that this man who lived died amongst us is the great Creatour Conserver of the Universe Why have you not the impudence to ridicule this mystery say t is evidently contrary to Reason Why do you not tell the world that it involves clear contradiction infinity measur'd incomprehensibility comprehended Immensity containd within the compass of a man The reason is because you like this article well enough your education has not arm'd you against it your first institution to piety has been accompanied with dayly persuasions inducements to submit your reason to it not to admit of every probable appearance of impossibility as a sufficient evidence against it How comes it then that in an Age so sceptical in all things else you are so positive so dogmatical in this That 't is impossible for the Body of Christ to shrink into the compass of a little bit of bread or at the same time be in several places You can beleeve one Nature in three Persons really distinguisht and one Person in two Natures And yet you can't believe one Body in two Places Is not this streining at the lesser difficulty swallowing the greater had not our Saviour reason to complain of the * Math. 23.24 blind Guides that strein at a Gnat swallow a camel The Common Answer to this Argument is That we are better acquainted with the Nature of a Body than of a Spirit Bodies are the familiar object of our Senses and if we do not know the Nature of them we know nothing at all But our Notions of a Spirit are so imperfect that it is an argument of wisdom rather than weakness to submit our judgments in things we cannot understand I must confess if we consider only the superficial knowledge of Bodies our Mathematicians measure very skillfully their three dimensions we demonstrate many ingenious Truths both usefull delightfull and have knowledge enough to make us proud But if we consider the inward constitution or nature of these very same bodies which we measure so skillfully we shall soon find we have ignorance enough to humble us T is an easie thing to tell me the length of a Line to measure it by so many inches But who can tell me what this line is made of is it a chain of indivisible points immediatly linkt together or is it compos'd of parts which may be really divided lesse lesse for ever ever world without end The first is an unconceivable piece of nonsense And the second is a Labyrinth which when our Reason enters it can never find the way out What are we more acquainted with or what is more familiar to us than Light Colour And yet no body can tell certainly what they are The Learned have disputed some thousands of years about it are not agreed upon the point We see and we believe our eyes And nothing is more certain than that we do so Yet nevertheless when we come to examine strictly by what means how this operation is perform'd we are as much in the dark as if we were stark blind We move from place to place we measure our motion as to time space we know very well whether one motion be longer or shorter whether it be swifter or slower than another And yet when our Natural Philosophers enquire into the nature of this Motion nothing is more uncertain The greatest Wits have ever been at a losse when they pretend to explicate how Motion is possible And Zeno's argument has never been clearly answerd In the same manner although nothing is more certain than that all the Bodies which we ever were acquainted with have three dimensions length bredth depth yet if we strictly enquire into the essentiall notion of a Body by which it differs from a Spirit we shall find it not so easie to determine but that this matter is very dark as well as others I haue mentiond To make it as clear as I can I suppose 1. that there is no substance but what is either a body or a Spirit 2. that no Spirit either has dimensions or is capable of having them From whence I conclude 1. that every substance which either has dimensions or is capable of having them is a body and no spirit 2. that actual dimensions are not the essence of a body because the Idea of them presupposes the capacity of having them this Capacity is the first Idea by which a Body differs from a Spirit The Question
thou that replyest against God * 11.33 34. How unsearchable are his judgments and his ways past finding out Who has known the mind of the Lord or who has been his Counsellour This is the onely answer you can give to a Socinian Apply it to your selves rest content Your argument is just the same and either proves both mysteries incredible or neither When you object that nothing can be more incredible than that the Body Blood the sacred Humanity of Christ is shrouded under the outward forms of bread wine and consequently exposed to all indignities which they are subject to Pray give me leave to ask you whether or no it be not more incredible which we read in S. Paul in the Prophet Isaiah that * 1. Tim. c. 3. v. 16. God was manifest in flesh that in this flesh * Isai ch 53. He was despised rejected of men and we esteem'd him not He bore our griefs carried our sorrows He was wounded for our transgressions bruised for our iniquities He was oppresst he was afflicted * Phil. ch 2. v 6.7 He made himself of no reputation and took upon him the form of a servant being found in fashion as man humbled himself became obedient unto death Is not this more incredible than all that you can say of the Sacrament Ah! my dear Jesus it grieves my heart to see that thou hast made thy self of no reputation by taking upon thee the form of bread and that by being found in fashion as bread thou hast humbled thy self so low as to be still despised rejected disesteem'd by men But yet it is a comfort to me when I think that thy most sacred Body in the Sacrament is now immortal impassible thou dost not now bear all our griefs carry all our sorrows thou art not wounded there for our transgressions nor bruised for our iniquities thou art not capable of being now afflicted oppresst Compute then if you please all the indignities the Sacrament is subject to and by the way take notice that it is a Sacrament no longer than the Sacramental forms are incorrupted Remember that the natural alterations which they undergo can never operate upon him Take these considerations along with you And if you have that candour sincerity which I am willing to suppose you have you will ingenuously confesse that these indignities which Christ now seems to suffer in the forms of bread wine are nothing in comparison of those which once He sufferd in the form of man. S. Paul writes to the Colossians * 2. ch 8. v. Beware least any man deceive you by Philosophy vain fallacy according to the Tradition of men and the elements of the world not according to Christ He writes to the Corinthians that t is their duty to * 2. Ep. 10. ch 5. v. cast down imaginations and every high thing that exalts it self against the knowledg of God bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ He writes to the Romans that they * 11. ch 20. v. stand by faith bids them not be high-minded but fear in the following chapter bids them have a care of being * 12. ch 16. n. wise in their own conceits These Admonitions of the Apostle were superscribed to the Colossians Corinthians Romans they were not written to us but yet they were written for us for our instruction T is a great insolence for human Reason to exalt it self against Omnipotence an insolence much greater than the Pride of Lucifer He only sayd he would be like the Highest but we are not content with that we will be Higher than the Highest We summon the Highest God of Heaven and Earth before the high Tribunal of our Reason we make him accountable to us for his actions And by our arbitrary notions of precarious Philosophy We make no scruple to pronounce what sentence we think fit upon his Wisdom Power and Goodness But the day will come when they who thus exalt themselves shall certainly be humbled and as S. Peter assures us They who now * 1. Ep. 5. ch 6. v. humble themselves under the mighty hand of God shall be exalted in due time which happyness may the Almighty grant us through the grace and merits of his onely beloved Son our Saviour Jesus Christ Amen A SERMON Preacht before their MAIESTIES AT WINDSOR August 26. 1688. Hoc est Corpus meum This is my Body Math. 26.26 AMongst the nine thirty articles of the pretended Reformation the twenty eighth asserts 1. that Transubstantiation cannot be prov'd by holy Writ 2. that it is repugnant to plain words of holy Scripture It neither is my inclination nor design to throw dirt in the face of any men but only to wipe it inoffensively fairly of our own by appealing to their own Translation of the Bible and shewing 1. that Transubstantiation is not any way repugnant to plain words of holy Scripture 2. that nothing can be better provd by holy Writ This is in short the whole extent of my design and shall be the subject of your entertainment as soon I have begg'd the assistance of my Saviour desiring his Virgin Mother with all the Angels Saints to second my petition FIRST PART That all men do not rightly understand the word of God in Scripture is a Truth which no man can deny that has a grain of common sense Every man plainly sees how in our Nation the reformed religion is crumbled into multitudes of Sects as opposite in many things to one another as they are to us They all read Scripture follow Scripture prove disprove what they please by Scripture and all the while as they agree in nothing more than in the book so they agree in nothing lesse than in the sense No man is bound to think his neighbour or the whole Church wiser than himself but every man has as much liberty as he has vanity to think himself the best interpreter of Scripture for himself Amidst this great confusion what wonder is it if we find that many with as little modesty as reason face us down that Transubstantiation is repugnant to plain words of holy Scripture The Text which first appears against us is in the 3. ch of the Acts where it is said of Christ that * v. 21. the Heavens must receive him till the time of restitution of all things whence it plainly follows that his body is in heaven must be in heaven till the time of restitution that is till the day of judgment All this is very true and we believe it as much as any of our neighbours But how comes this Text to contradict his real presence in the Sacrament The Scripture tells us that our Saviours Body is in heaven but where dos it teach us that it is not at the same time upon earth Where dos it plainly say No miracle can make one
body at the same time be in several places Shew us but this deliverd plainly in the Scripture and then wee 'l grant that Transubstantiation is repugnant to it Some upon this occasion produce the Angel's words who in the last chapter of S. Matthew told the women at the sepulchre He is not here for He is risen where the Angel seems to conclude that because his body was in another place therefore it was not in that place All the whole stress of this argument depends upon a word of so little moment that the last of S. Mark quite leaves it out the last of S. Luke not only leaves it cut but puts another in the place in S. Mark the Angel says He is risen He is not here in S. Luke he says He is not here but is risen But however if the Angel's Reasoning in S. Matthew must be so much magnified when they have made the best they can of it 't will amount to neither more nor less than this He is not here because he is risen that is He is not here because he is gone from hence which inference is not a jot the worse although we should suppose that the same body may be at the same time in a thousand places Let us suppose his Body at the same time if you please in millions of places yet if it be true that he is risen gone from hence it follows evidently that he is not here The second Text is found in the 3. ch of S. Paul to the Colossians where he gives both them us good counsel bids us * v. 1.2 seek for things above things which are only to be found in heaven where Christ sits at the right hand of God joys which are heavenly everlasting which in the same chapter he calls the * v. 24. reward of our inheritance He bids us raise our hearts above the world above the vanities the pleasures temptations of it Alas all this is nothing to our present purpose all this we believe although we know his body is as really on earth as 't is in heaven Did not our Saviour preach the same to his Apostles And yet he lived amongst them upon Earth The third Text lies before us in the 14. of S. Mark where our Redeemer makes a plain Antithesis betwixt him the poor compares himself with them shews the difference betwixt their case his * v. 7. You have the poor with you always says he and when you will you may do them good but me you have not always as if he should say you will always have the poor in a condition of doing them good but as for me you will not always have me in that indigent condition you will not hereafter be in a capacity of doing me any good When he was visible amongst us before his resurrection he was subject to our natural necessities and it was in our power to relieve ease him But in the Sacrament he is immortal impassible incapable of being injur'd by the malice of his enemies or betterd by the service of his friends This Text not being able to support so weak a cause a fourth is borrowd from the 1. Cor. in the 11. chapter where the Apostle says * v. 26. We shew the Lord's death till he comes therefore he is not come yet and if he be not come How is he really present in the Sacrament Let us reflect a little examine the sense of these words till he comes This coming of our Saviour is repeated frequently in Scripture in the 1. ch of the Acts we read * v. 11. He shall come in like manner as you have seen him go in the 14. of S. Mark * v. 62. You shall see him coming in the clouds in the 24. of S. Math. * v. 30. They shall see him coming in power great glory Every man that can but say his Creed is well acquainted with this coming which is so much celebrated in the Scripture we all believe that this his coming is so judge the quick the dead When they read in the Bible we shew the Lords death till he comes they inferr Therefore he is not come yet Very true The Lord's Day is not come the Day of judgment is not come and onely God knows when it will come But is it therefore evident that in the Sacrament there is no Transubstantiation no Real Presence because the Day of judgment is not come I am inclin'd to think that when it dos come when Christ comes to judge the world calls all those to an account who have pretended every one according to their fancy to reform his Church they then will wish too late that either they had let the Church alone or else had had much better evidence than this to justifie the Reformation The fifth Text seems to promise more yet performs as little as the rest We find it in the 22 of S. Luke where our Saviour says * v. 19. Do this in remembrance of me Now say they we cannot remember any thing but what is absent and therefore the Body of Christ must of necessity be absent from the Sacrament cannot be really truly present in it Pray cannot I remember God take delight in thinking of his goodness Remember my own sinfull soul pity her condition And is not my soul present in my Body Is not the Almighty present every where * v. 1. Remember thy Creatour in the days of thy youth says Solomon in the last chapter of Ecclesiastes and yet this great Creatour is not absent from us S. Paul says in the 17. ch of the Acts * v. 27. He is not far from every one of us Though He is always present yet we easily forget him because he is not present to our senses And I am afraid because we do not see the invisible body blood of Christ I am afraid we now then forget how great a treasure we receive when we approach the Sacrament I am afraid because we neither see nor feel our souls we oftentimes neglect almost quite forget the great concern of our salvation differring it from time to time till by God's judgment death surprises us and we are lost for all Eternity The two last Texts as they have most appearance so they have the least of substance when they are examin'd S. Paul says in his 1. Cor. 11. ch * v. 28. Let a man examine himself so let him eat of that bread Our Saviour says in the 26. ch of S. Math. * v. 29. I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the Vine Both of them speak thus after consecration Both of them call it bread wine And therefore after consecration it still remains true bread wine You see how fairly I propose the difficulty and now I humbly beg your best attention to the Answer S. Paul dos not say This is Bread
his 2. book Contra Adv. Legis Prophetarum he says that with faithfull hearts mouths we receive the Mediatour of God men Christ Jesus giving us his flesh to eat his Blood to drink although it seems more horrible to eat man's flesh than to kill it or to drink man's blood than to shed it In this place he first distinguishes two ways of eating oral and spiritua then asserts them both And I could wish they would take a little notice of this place who so much please themselves with popular declamations against the pretended barbarousness of this Mystery In his Comments upon the 33. Psalm He makes no difficulty of admitting all the real consequences of this mystery which to our Adversaries seem absurd impossible as for example that Christ's Body should be at the same time in two places that he should hold himself in his own hand give himself to his Disciples keep himself to himself the like First he moves the difficulty Who is carried in his own hands In another's hands one may be carried No man is carried in his own Afterwards he answers Christ was carried in his own hands when commending to them his own Body He said This is my Body For he carried that Body in his own hands I will only mention one more testimony of this Father but so plain a one that 't is impossible any man in his wits should have utter'd if he had not believ'd the Doctrine of Transubstantiation In his Comments upon the 98. Psalm Christ says he took flesh of the flesh of Mary in this flesh he walkt here with us this flesh he gave us to eat that we may be saved No body eats this flesh but first Adores it Observe his words He plainly speaks of oral eating he dos not mean only believing if he did he would not say we always adore before we eat because 't is evident we do not adore before we believe Pray what is this we adore before we eat is it only apiece of bread a wafer a sacred figure of Christ's body Surely you will not make S. Austin all the Christians of his time Idolaters Adore a thing which they believ'd was not their God No no They believ'd that although before the words of Consecration it was only a piece of bread yet after Consecration it was by God's Omnipotence substantially chang'd into the Body of Christ so became their God as well as their Food And therefore the Christians of that Age ador'd the Sacrament before they durst approach to eat it S. Austin was so zealous for this Adoration that he says in the same place It is not only lawfull to adore but a Sin not to adore The Dispute that was betwixt Nestorius S Cyril of Alexandria plainly shews that in those times this mystery was universally believ'd Nestorius fancied there were two persons in Christ the one true God the other true Man and pretended to prove that the Flesh of Christ and his Divinity are not united in one Person The Scripture plainly told him that we eat the Flesh of Christ But said he We do not eat the Divinity Therefore the Flesh the Divinity are not united in one Person If S. Cyril had believ'd that what we eat with our mouths is meer bread He might easily have answerd That this argument only proves the nature of bread the Divine nature are not united in one Person But because he believ'd that the Sacrament which seems meer bread is not any longer bread but the true substance of Christ's Body therefore he answerd that although we do not eat the Divine Nature yet the holy Flesh of Christ is not common Flesh .... 't is the proper Body of the Word which gives life to all things This Argument and Answer you may read in his Apology for his Anathema's The Catholiks the Nestorians both agreed in the common belief that the Sacrament is not bread but the Flesh of Christ Otherwise Nestorius had been the most silly Disputant that ever liv'd S. Cyril had been quite infatuated that did not give another Answer Nestorius argued We do not eat the Divinity Therefore the Flesh is not united to the Divine Person S. Cyril answerd The Flesh which we eat gives life therefore 't is united to the Divine Person without which it profiteth nothing according to our Saviour's words in the sixth chapter of S. John. Gelasius Bishop of Cyzicus in his book De duabus in Christo Naturis proves against the Eutychians that there are two Natures in Christ Because in the Sacrament there are two natures to wit the visible nature of the outward forms and the invisible nature of Christ's substance And explicating how this is perform'd he says The Bread Wine are chang'd by the Operation of the Holy Ghost into the Divine substance The Accidents of bread wine remain according to Gelasius in the propriety of their Nature but yet the bread wine are chang'd into the Divine Substance Think a little of this and tell me what it is if it be not Transubstantiation Theodoret in his first Dialogue taking notice how Jacob in the 49. of Genesis gave our Saviour's Blood the name of Wine and our Saviour in the Ghospel gave Wine the name of his Blood He says The reason is manifest because he would have those who partake of the divine mysteries not to mind the Nature of the things which are seen but by the change of names believe the change which is made by grace In the second Dialogue he says of the Sacramental bread wine They are understood to be what they are made to be and are believ'd to be such and are Ador'd because they are the same which we believe them to be In the first Dialogue he says the Sacramental bread is chang'd In the second he says it is ador'd What change is this which makes the Sacramental bread deserve to be ador'd Consider it a while and you will find it nothing else but Transubstantiation I should be tedious if I undertook to lay before you all the Testimonies of the Fathers who in these three Ages have writ upon this subject These which I have produc'd already are beyond exception They declare the Faith of the Ages they liv'd in They say the Sacramental bread is chang'd into the Substance of Christ They say No body eats it but first adores it They say it is a Sin not to adore it All this They say this is all we understand by Transubstantiation I come now to the first four Centuries and put the Question to those Fathers who had the happyness to flourish in the best purest times of Christianity Whether the inward Substance of the Sacrament be bread wine or whether it be the Body Blood of Christ If it be true that the inward Substance of the Sacrament is really the Body or Flesh of Christ it follows evidently that it is no longer Bread And
therefore I have nothing more to do but cite the Fathers words so conclude S. Gaudentius is his 2. Tract upon Exodus says He the Creator Lord of Nature who produces bread out of the earth produces also his own proper body out of bread because he can do it promis'd to do it And He who produc'd wine out of water produces also his blood out of wine .... For when he gave the consecrated bread wine to his disciples He said This is my Body This is my Blood. Let us believe him whom we have believ'd Truth cannot tell a lie S. Chrysostom in his 83. homilie upon S. Matthew has these excellent words Let us every where believe God Almighty nor contradict him although what He says seem contrary to our Reason and our Eyes ..... His word cannot deceive us Our Sense is easily deceiv'd That never erres This often is mistaken Since therefore He says This is my Body Let us be persuaded of it believe it .... These are not the works of human power He who did these things at his last supper He it is who now performs them We only are his Ministers 't is He that Sanctifies He that Transmutes the bread wine into his Body Blood. So that as the same Saint says in his 25. homily upon the 1. to the Corinthians That which is in the Chalice is that which flow'd from his side that we are partakers of S. Ambrose in his book De his qui mysteriis initiantur ch 9. Perhaps you 'l say says he I see quite another thing How do you assure me that I receive the Body of Christ And this is that which remains for us to prove How great says he are the examples which we use to shew that it is not the thing which Nature form'd but the thing which the Blessing has consecrated and that the Blessing has greater force than Nature because by the Blessing even the Nature it self is chang'd Afterwards He instances in the change of rods into Serpents and of water into blood and thus pursues his discourse If says he the word of Elias was powerfull enough to command fire down from Heaven shall not the word of Christ be able to change the Nature of the Elements You have read of the whole Creation He said they were made He commanded they were created The Word therefore of Christ which could make out of nothing that which was not cannot it change those things which are into what they were not S. Gregory Nyssen in his Catechistical Discourse ch 37. professes the same faith I do believe says he that by the word of God the Sanctified bread is transmuted into the Body of God the Word ... Not that by mediation of nourishment it becomes the body of the Word but that immediatly by the Word it is transmuted into his body by these words This is my Body .... the Nature of the things which appear being transelemented that is transubstantiated into it S. Cyril Patriarch of Hierusalem in his 4. Mystagogick Catechise discourses thus Do not consider it as meer bread wine for now it is the Body Blood of Christ according to our Lord 's own words Although your Sense suggest otherwise let your faith confirm you that you may not judge the thing by the Tast .... and a little after he goes on knowing says he holding for certain that the bread which we see is not bread although it tast like bread the wine which we see is not wine although it tast like wine S. Hierome in his Catalogue Theodoret in his 2. Dialogue are witnesses that S. Cyril was the Author of this work And now I appeal to the judgment of my Auditory whether I may not venture to defy any Catholick of this present Age to express in plainer terms our Faith of Transubstantiation * However T is very strange you 'l say if this were the faith of the first Ages that None of the Heathens nor so much as Julian the Apostat should take notice of it This if we believe a late Author is to a wise man instead of a thousand Demonstrations that no such doctrine was then believ'd * As for Julian the Apostat Of three books which he wrote we have but one that imperfect Had he objected it 't is certain S. Cyril of Alexandria never would have taken notice of it in his Answer So cautious he is in speaking even of Baptism that he passes it over in these terms I should say many more things .... if I did not fear the ears of the profane For commonly they laugh at things they cannot understand * As for the Heathens 't is sufficient to reflect what care was taken by the primitive Christians to hide the mysteries of our Religion to keep our books out of the hands of Infidels This privacy of ours made Celsus call our Doctrine Clancular and Origen in his first book against him answers that it is proper not only to Christian Doctrine but also to Philosophy to have some things in it which are not communicated to every one Tertullian in his 4. book Ad Uxorem ch 5 for this reason would not allow Christian women to marry Pagan husbands will not your Husband says he know what you tast in Secret before you eat of any other meat And S. Basil in his book Concerning the Holy Ghost ch 27. says that The Apostles Fathers in the beginning of the Church by privacy silence preserv'd the dignity of their Mysteries * But because my Author thinks this Demonstration worth a Thousand I am the more willing to answer him in his own words that though I have untied the knot I could with more ease have cut it For since 't is plain evident from all the Records of the first eight Centuries that Transubstantiation always was believ'd it is the wildest and the most extravagant thing in the world to set up a pretended Demonstration of Reason against plain experience matter of Fact. This is just like Zeno's Demonstration against Motion when Diogenes walkt before his eyes A man may demonstrate till his head heart ake before he shall ever be able to prove that which certainly was never to have been All the Reason in the World is too weak to Cope with so tough obstinate a difficulty I have now perform'd my promise I have in three Sermons prov'd 1. that Transubstantiation is neither contrary to Sense nor Reason 2. that it follows clearly from the plainest words in Scripture 3. that it has been the perpetual faith of the Catholick Church not only since Paschasius but ever since the first foundation of Christian Religion And now I not only beg of you but earnestly conjure you by all that ought to be most dear to you by all your desires expectations of eternal Happyness to consider seriously leisurely three fundamental principles of Christianity 1. That without Faith 't is
He liked well enough to be meddling with State-Affairs the Senators consulted him as an Oracle which unusual honour was enough to make him proud factious and whether it did or not He only knows who sees men's hearts However all this put together is enough to make me suspect him Pallavicini you 'l say being of the Court-party deserves to be suspected too But if that be all you have to say against him we will not quarrel about preliminaries nor loose time in disputing what grains of allowance are due to each of them Upon condition you 'l believe your friend Soave when he speaks well of the Council I am content to believe Pallavicini whensoever he speaks ill of it You remember how easily when I saw you last you agreed with me that if the Council of Trent were as General as free and as legal in all it's circumstances as the first four Councils were you must needs own your self obliged in conscience to submit to it to leave of Protesting against it 'T was fair reasonable what I might expect from a Son of the Church of England I desired no more in hand but was willing to give credit for the rest I might have told you that if the Council had been only Patriarchal it would have bound the English Reformers to the obedience of non-contradiction Three Brittish Bishops sate in the 1. Council of Arles S. Athanasius in his 2. Apol. says that they were present in the Council of Sardice which ratified the Pope's power in decision of Appeals From whence you may conclude that the Brittish Clergy were subject to the canons of Arles Sardice consequently to the Western Patriarch We find them also afterwards in the Council of Constance where voting by Nations the English were one of the four in condemning these doctrines of Huss Wickliff that The Pope is not the immediate Vicar of Christ that The chief Bishop of the Roman Church has no Priâ—nacy over other particular Churches I might have added the testimony of your own Dr. Field who in his book of the Church freely confesses that The Decrees of Popes made with the consent joynt concurrence of the other Western Bishops do bind the Western Provinces that are subject to him as Patriarch of the West But this is not the case the Council of Trent is truly General and if the Reformers cannot manifestly prove the contrary they remain without excuse The Objections which you sent me in your Letter I have considerd at leasure and according to promise have sent you here my Answers but before I set them down I must beg your pardon if I try your patience with some few remarks which follow Ch. Gov. P. IV. 1. A General Council requires either the presence of all the Catholick Patriarchs or their Legates with the Bishops of so many Provinces as can well convene or their Delegates or else in their necessary absence it requires that the Acts Decrees be approved either by all or by the major part of the absent Prelates 2. As for such a General Council as comprehends all the Bishops of the Catholick Universe there never was yet any We find always a greater or lesser number according to divers circumstances propinquity of place peace of Princes numerosity of Sects c. The first four Councils of Nice Constantinople Ephesus Chalcedon by reason of the Oriental Heresies were held in the East consisted principally of Oriental Bishops In the I. were present only the Pope's two Legates three Western Bishops The II. had no Western Bishop at all but only was afterward confirm'd by the Pope his Council The III. had only three Delegates sent by the Pope his Occidental Council They transacted most of their business condemn'd Nestorius without the presence of the Antiochian Patriarch The IV. had only four Legates sent by the Bishop of Rome two African Bishops one Sicilian They acted without Dioscorus the Alexandrian Patriarch They deposed him for favouring Hereticks for his contumacy against the See of Rome 3. If all Catholick Prelates or the much greater part be personally present in the Council there 's no need of farther acceptation to confirm it But this wanting 't is supplied by the after-acceptation of such persons as are capable of a vote and so many as if they had been present would have made it the much greater part of Catholick Prelates that is of such as were not before shut of the Church by Heresie or Schisme The II. V. General Councils became such by the confirmation after acceptation of Damasus Vigilius with their Western Bishops and 't is a fundamental principle of Government not simply Monarchicall that No Laws can be promulgated no Unity preserv'd if of their Governours the lesser part be not regulated by the greater 4. The Council remains General notwithstanding the absence of some considerable Churches 1. if they cannot conveniently come 2. if they refuse without just hindrance 3. if they were formerly cut of by Heresie or Schisme The Catholick Church is narrower than Christianity and a Council may be General though the Church were reduced to one Patriarchate 5. All that were capable of a voice in any General Council were summon'd to Trent The Eastern Bishops in the Turks Dominions could not conveniently come there being war betwixt Christians Turks The Division which occasion'd the Assembly arose only in the West therefore there was less need of their presence Moreover six Greek Bishops sate in the Council And ten years after the Wittenberg Divines sent the Augustan Confession to Hieremy Patriarch of Constantinople whose Answer to them differs very little from the Decrees of Trent T is true Cyril Lucar * 1629. publish'd a Calvinistical Contession But his immediate Successor Cyril of Iberia assembled at Constantinople a Synod of 23. Bishops besides the Patriarchs of Alexandria Hierusalem And again his Successor Parthenius assembled another of 25. Bishops amongst them the Metropolitan of Moscovy Both these Synods anathematiz'd Lucar with his Adherents and also justified these Tenets of the Council the Corporal Presence of Christ's Body Blood with the Symboles Invocation of Saints Veneration of sacred Images Prayer Almes for the Faithfull deceas'd with repentance as betterable in their present condition by them Free will seven Sacraments Church Infallibility c. See Leo Allatius De perpetuo Consensu c. l. 3. See Monsieur Arnauld's Answer to Claude l. 4 ch 7. 6. The absence of the Protestant Clergy from the Council did not hinder it's being General 1. They who are not Bishops have no right to sit there 2. When Bishops contumaciously absent themselves for fear of Censure their presence is not requisite otherwise farewell the Power of all General Councils 3. There is no place due to them whose Doctrines have been anathematiz'd in former General Councils Veneration of Images was declared lawfull in the II. of