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
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
they promise we are always ready to come over to them But having been so long in full peaceable possession of a Truth deliver'd to us as an ancient article of Faith they cannot reasonably expect that we should quit our hold before they bring clear evidence against our Title to it Necessity obliges them to make this bold attempt They know if once they grant that all the Torrent of Antiquity runs clear and strong against them they never can be able to bear up against the stream They are sensible how plainly the Fathers speak their mind in favour of this mystery And therefore search amongst the darkest passages of all their Writings where they are glad to meet with any thing that makes a plausible appearance * The Sum of their Objection is this that S. Chrysostom Theodoret and Gelasius expressly affirm that the substance of bread remains after Consecration and therefore it is not chang'd into the body of Christ * This at first sight seems plausible enough nor is it any wonder if it startle those who never heard of it before And yet if all these great Men by their substance meant no more than the true nature of the outward forms sensible qualities there is no danger of their disbelieving Transubstantiation We believe the substance is really chang'd and these Fathers were pleas'd to say the substance is really the same but yet after all the noise they make with it the Fathers and we may agree so far as to be both in the right if we take the same word in different senses they by substance mean one thing whilst we mean another Philosophy both old new distinguishes betwixt the inward substance the outward forms of all corporeal Beings These are the usual and familiar object of our Senses that 's an entity so subtil so metaphysical that nothing but our Understanding can discern it T is not indeed a Spirit but it is no more to be discover'd by our Senses than a human Soul is in a Body Extension figure colour and its other qualities are the Apparel which it wears and these affect our Senses But the naked Substance of all Bodies is perpetually hidden from them However although Philosophers make this distinction betwixt the inward substance the outward forms nevertheless the Generality of Mankind look no farther than their Senses lead them They judge of bodies by their qualities natural effects By these they sensibly discern one Substance from another And this is all they think of when they talk of Substance When any of the Fathers say the Substance or nature of bread wine remains after consecration they onely condescend so far as to accomodate their way of speaking to the vulgar phrase And truly what they mean we all believe We doubt not but all which is vulgarly understood by substance is the same We doubt not but our Senses tell us truth and that all the outward forms qualities of bread wine remain unalter'd The Council of Trent declares there is no change in these * Sess 13. can 2. manentibus speciebus panis vini If therefore the Fathers use sometimes this vulgar notion of Substance what wonder is it if sometimes they tell us that the nature or the Substance is the same What wonder is it if S. Chrysostom in his epistle to Cesarius write thus As before Consecration we call it Bread but after it is no longer call'd Bread but the Body of our Lord although the Nature of Bread remains in it and it dos not become two Bodies but one Body of Christ So here the Divine Nature being joyn'd to the Human they both make one Son one Person By the Nature of a Body we usually aprehend no more than the exteriour qualities which we discover by our Senses And when we find a change in these we usually say the Nature changes although the Body still remain the same And by the same rule when the accidents make still the same impression upon our Senses although the Body by a miracle be chang'd we say the Nature is the same Besides These very words which are produc'd against us shew clearly that S Chrysostom distinguishes betwixt the Nature of bread the Body of bread Dos not he say that although the Nature or accidents of Bread remain yet the Body or Substance of bread dos not remain because there remains but One Body and this one Body if we believe him is not the Body of bread but the Body of Christ * With as little reason they triumph because Theodoret says in his 2. Dialogue The mystical Symboles remain in their former Substance form figure may be seen toucht as before And Gelasius in his book De duabus in Christo naturis says the Substance or Nature of bread wine dos not cease .... they remain in the propriety of their Nature * Theodoret dos not speak of the corporeal Substance of bread by which it differs from a Spirit but expressly names the mystical Symboles which are the outward forms accidents of bread wine And Gelasius urging the same argument against the Eutychians uses the word Substance only once and the word Nature twice to let us see that by the Substance of the mystical Symboles or as he calls them the Sacraments which we receive he only means the nature or the essence of the sensible Accidents * And now I desire to know what wonder there is in all this Is it any unheard of News to Men of Letters that such words as substance nature essence are promiscuously made use of even by Philosophers and that by them they mean to signifie the notion of any other predicament or any real being as well as that of substance S. Austin was undoubtedly a great Philosopher yet He calls every real Being by the name of Substance In his Enarration upon the 68. Psalm he says Quod nulla substantia est nihil omnino est That which has no substance is nothing at all * If this be true you 'l say their argument against the Eutychians will be good for nothing Excuse me The Eutychians held that there was onely One Nature in Christ because they were pleas'd to fancy that his human nature was absorpt in the Divinity chang'd into it To prove the substantial change of human nature into the Divinity they argued from the miraculous change of bread into the body of Christ which argument they never would have urged if they had not known that the Catholicks of that Age believ'd the mystery of Transubstantiation Theodoret and Gelasius answer that the outward forms of bread wine remain the same as formerly from whence it follows evidently that not only the accidents of human nature but also the very subsiance of it still remains in Christ Because the accidents of human nature separated from the substance of it are neither capable of hypostatick union with God nor of exercising the vital
is Whether 't is possible for a Body to be stript naked of all its dimensions subsist without them T is no wonder there is such confusion in deciding of this Case because our Philosophers Mathematicians are not Country men They have each a peculiar language to themselves and which is worst of all when they use the same words they understand them in a different sense A Mathematician never considers the Nature of a Body neither is it to his purpose all his business is to measure it The vulgar part of mankind never consider what a Body is made of any farther than they can either use it or make money of it So that a Body miraculously stript of all its dimensions being neither measurable nor usefull nor marketable is certainly in the language of Mathematicians of the Vulgar no Body at all All the trade they drive with Bodies is by weight measure and therefore 't is no wonder if by the word Body they conceive nothing but Dimensions These people by their own confession have only a superficial knowledg of a Body They declare frankly they know nothing of it but the outside Philosophers are the onely men that consider the inside of Nature They are not content to gaze without but endeavour to enter the very Sanctuary discover what lies hid behind the Veil And these men if the rest of the world would give them a fair hearing not make too much noise would soon decide the difficulty The Question is putting the Case that a Body were divested of its natural dimensions whether the Remainder would be still a Body or not T is evident that in the Mathematical or Vulgar sense it would not be so Neither is that the true meaning of the Question We do not ask whether the Dimensions would remain when they are gone We know very well it implies a most manifest contradiction Our enquiry is only concerning the Essence of a natural Body that is of a Substance which is not a Spirit And without all doubt when we suppose nothing to be taken from a Body but its actual dimensions That which we conceive to remain is still a natural Body because 't is certainly no Spirit it still retains a reall capacity of having its natural dimensions and this Capacity is absolutely repugnant to the nature of a Spirit Thus you plainly see that the Supposition we talk of dos not destroy the Essence of a natural Body it dos not imply any Contradiction And therefore dos not leave any reasonable ground of denying the possibility of it Men may fancy what they please and will ever do so without asking their neighbours leave There 's no remedy for it But after all He must be a bold man that undertakes to demonstrate the absolute impossibility of the Hypothesis I speak of To return to my argument I would now gladly enquire since in the Incarnation and Trinity it is no argument of weakness but of wisdom to submit our judgments Why is it not so in this If the Nature of God the divine Persons are objects so spiritual and so much out of our reach that it dos not become us to dogmatize in matters belonging to them Pray tell me what acquaintance have we with a Body divested of all its natural dimensions reduced to the condition of a Spirit All our Mathematical Vulgar notions of which we are so confident are in this case so far from giving us any light that they are rather like so much dust in our eyes that hinders us from seeing T is no part of our Faith that Christ in the Sacrament has all his natural dimensions if it were Then indeed these Notions might furnish something to say against it One might argue as S. Augustin dos against Faustus that Christ as to his corporal presence could not at the same time be in the Sun Moon on the Cross But in our present Hypothesis all our experimental knowledge of a Body is out of doors And all our pretended demonstrations are meer nonsense T is evident that without local extension a Body is neither confin'd by being in one place nor divided by being in two And 't is as easie a matter to measure a line without length an angle without space or a circle without diameter as it is to find work for Mathematical conclusions in a Body without dimensions Some will ingenuously confess they do not think that Transubstantiation is impossible but they are apt to think it is incredible either that Christ should work so great a miracle without necessity or humble himself to all those great indignities to which the Sacrament is every day exposed * Rom. 9. 20. O man says the Apostle who art thou that replyest against God His Goodness is as infinite as his Omnipotence and t is as great an insolence to give laws to the one as to give limits to the other He seems to value more the reputation of his Goodness than of his Power and if we trace his Providence throughout the Conduct of the Moral World we cannot but observe that He has taken much more pains to shew his goodness than to shew his greatness In the Creation of the Universe He shewd his Power But what was that to the Incarnation of the Son of God All the Perfections of Creatures disappear shrink to nothing when compar'd to the perfection of their great Creatour And the whole Universe by which God shews his Greatness is nothing in comparison of Jesus Christ by whom he shews his Kindness to us You all are scandaliz'd at their ingratitude who will not give God thanks for this inestimable favour will not believe that he has been so good so mercifull so kind They say that though 't were possible it is not credible that God should work so great a miracle without necessity that there was none at all for him to come himself in person that he might have sent a holy man for our instruction he might have charg'd him with our sins he might have pardon'd both him and us without condign satisfaction T is true The Scripture seems to speak in plain terms the Divinity of Christ but yet may bear another sense and may admit a much more credible interpretation If a Socinian should urge this argument against you you would scarce have patience to hear him Why then do you object the same against the mystery of Transubstantiation Why do you tell us 't is incredible that God should work so great a miracle without necessity that the real presence is not absolutely necessary that the Sacrament might have sufficient efficacy to give grace without it Why do you say that though the Scripture plainly speaks in favour of this mystery yet we are not obliged to take it in the literal sense that the figurative sense is much more easie to conceive therefore is a much more credible interpretation O man says S. Paul to the Romans * 9.20 Who art
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
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