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
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
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
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
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
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