accidents of Bread and Wine For proof of this we shaâ—â— only bring the testimonies of four â—aâ—hâ—rs that lived almost within one age and were the greatest men of the age Their authority is as generally received as their testimonies are formal and decisive and these are Pope Gelasius St. Chrysostome Ephrem Patriarch of Antioch and Theodoret whom we shall find delivering to us the Doctrine of the Church in their age with great consideration upon a very weighty occasion So that it shall appear that this was for that age the Doctrine generally received both in the Churches of Rome and Constantinople Antioch and Asiâ— the less We shall begin with Gelasius who though he lived later than some of the others yet because of the eminence of his See and the authority those we deal with must needs acknowledge was in him ought to be set first He says the Sacraments of the Body and Blood of Christ are a Divine thing for which reason we become by them partakers of the Divine Nature and yet the substance or nature of Bread and Wine does not cease to be and the image and likeness of the Body and Blood of Christ are indeed celebrated in the action of the Mysteries therefore it appears evidently â—nough that we ought to think thâ—t of Christ our Lord which we profess and celebrate and receive in his image that as they to wit the Elements pass into that divine substance the Holy Ghost working it their nature remaining still in its own property So that principal Mystery whose efficiency and virtue these to wit the Sacraments represent to us remains one entire and true Christ those things of which he is compounded to wit his two natures remaining in their properties These words seem so express and decisive that one would think the bare reading them without any further reflections should be of force enough But before we offer any considerations upon them we shall set down other passages of the other Fathers and upon them altogether make such remarks as we hope may satisfy any that will hear reason St. Chrysostom treating of the two Natures of Christ against the Apollinarists who did so confound them as to consubstantiate them he makes use of the Doctrine of the Sacrament to illustrate that Mystery by in these words As before the Bread is sanctified we call it Bread but when the Divine Grace has sanctified it by the mean of the Priest it is freed from the name of Bread and is thought worthy of the name of the Lord's Body though the nature of Bread remains in it and yet it is not said there are two Bodies but one Body of the Son so the Divine Nature being joyned to the Body both these make one Son and one Person Next this Patriarch of Constantinople let us hear Ephrem the Patriarch of Antioch give his testimony as it is preserved by Photius who says thus In like manner having before treated of the two Natures united in Christ the Body of Christ which is received by the faithful does not depart from its sensible substance and yet remains inseparated from the Intellectual Grace So Baptism becoming wholly spiritual and one it preserves its own sensible substance and does not lose that which it was before To these we shall add what Theodoret on the same occasion says against those who from that place the word was made flesh believed that in the Incarnation the Divinity of the Word was changed into the Humanity of the Flesh. He brings in his Heretick arguing about some mystical expressions of the Old Testament that related to Christ at length he comes to shew how Christ called himself Bread and Corn so also in the delivering the Mysteries Christ called the Bread his Body and the mixed Cup his Blood and our Saviour changed the names calling his Body by the name of the Symbole and the Symbole by the name of his Body And when the Heretick asks the reason why the names were so changed the Orthodox answers That it was manifest to such as were initiated in Divine things for he would have those who partake of the Mysteries not look to the nature of those things that were seen but by the change of the names to believe that change that was made through Grace for he who called his natural Body Corn and Bread does likewise honour the visible Symboles with the name of his Body and Blood not changing the Nature but adding Grace to Nature And so goes on to ask his Heretick whether he thought the holy Bread was the Symbole and Type of his Divinity or of his Body and Blood and the other acknowledging they were the Symboles of his Body and Blood He concludes that Christ had a true Body The second Dialogue is against the Eutychians who believed that after Christ's assumption his Body was swallowed up by his Divinity And there the Eutychian brings an argument to prove that change from the Sacament it being granted that the Gifts before the Priests Prayer were Bread and Wine He asks how it was to be called after the Sanctification the Orâ—hodox answers the Body and Blood of Christ and that he believed he received the Body and Blood of Christ. From thence the Heretick as having got a great advantage argues That as the Symboles of the Body and Blood of our Lord were one thing before the Priestly Invocation and after that were changed and are different from what they were So the Body of our Lord after the assumption was changed into the Divine substance But the Orthodox replies that he was catched in the net be laid for others for the Mystical Symboles after the sanctification do not depart from their own nature for they continue in their former substance figure and form and are both visible and palpable as they were before but they are understood to be that which they are made and are believed and venerated as being those things which they are believed to be And from thence he bids the Heretick compare the Image with the Original for the type must be like the truth and shews that Christ's Body retains its former form and figure and the substance of his Body though it be now made Immortal and Incorruptible Thus he And having now set down very faithfully the words of these Fathers we desire it may be considered that all these words are used to the same effect to prove the Reality of Christ's Body and the Distinction of the two Natures the Divine and the Humane in him For though St. Chrysostom lived before Eutyches his days yet in this Point the Eutychians and the Apollinarists against whom he writes held opinions so like others that we may well say all these words of the Fathers we have set down are to the same purpose Now first it is evident that if Transubstantiation had been then believed there needed no other argument to prove against the Eutychians that Christ had still a real Body but to
have declared that his Body was corporally present in the Eucharist which they must have done had they believed it and not spoken so as they did since that alone well proved had put an end to the whole Controversy Further they could never have argued from the visions and apparitions of Christ to prove he had still a real Body for if it was possible the Body of Christ could appear under the accidents of Bread and Wine it was as possible the Divinity should appear under the accidents of an Humane Body Thirdly they could never have argued against the Eutychians as they did from the absurdity that followed upon such a substantial mutation of the Humane Nature of Christ into his Divinity if they had believed this substantial conversion of the Elements into Christ's Body which is liable unto far greater absurdities And we can as little doubt but the Eutychians had turned back their arguments on themselves with these answers if that Doctrine had been then received It is true it would seem from the last passage of Theodoret that the Eutychians did believe some such change but that could not be for they denied the Being of the Body of Christ and so could not think any thing was changed into that which they believed was not Therefore we are to suppose him arguing from some commonly received expressions which the Father explains In fine The design of those â—athers being to prove that the two Natures might be united without the change of either of their substances in the person of Christ it had been inexcusable folly in them to have argued from the sacramental Mysteries being united to the Body and Blood of Christ if they had not believed they retained their former substance for had they believed Transubstantiation what a goodly argument had it been to have said Because after the consecration the accidents of Bread and Wine remain therefore the substance of the Humanity remained still though united to the Divine Nature in Christ. Did ever man in his wits argue in this fashion Certainly these four Bishops whereof three were Patriarchs and one of these a Pope deserved to have been hissed out of the world as persons that understood nor what it was to draw a consequence if they had argued so as they did and believed Transubstantiation But if you allow them to believe as certainly they did that in the Sacrament the real substances of Bread and Wine remained though after the sanctification by the operation of the Holy Ghost they were the Body and Blood of Christ and were to be called so then this is a most excellent illustration of the Mystery of the Incarnation in which the Humane Nature retains its proper and true substance though after the union with the Divinity Christ be called God even as he was Man by vertue of his union with the Eternal Word And this shews how unreasonable it is to pretend that because substance and nature are someâ—imes used even for accidental qualities they should be therefore understood so in the cited places for if you take them in that sense you destroy the force of the argument which from being a very strong one will by this means become a most ridiculous Sophism Yet we are indeed beholding to those that have taken much pains to shew that substance and nature stand often for accidental qualities for though that cannot be applied to the former places yet it helps us with an excellent answer to many of those passages with which they triumph not a little Having so far considered these Four Fathers we shall only add to them the Definition of the Seventh General Council at Constantinople ann 754. Christ appointed us to offer the Image of his Body to wit the substance of the Bread This Council is indeed of no authority with these we deal with But we do not bring it as a Decree of a Council but as a Testimony that so great a number of Bishops did in the Eighth Century believe That the substance of the Bread did remain in the Eucharist and that it was only the Image of Christ's Body and if in this Definition they spake not more consonantly to the Doctrine of the former ages than their enemies at Nice did let what has been set down and shall be yet adduced declare And now we advance to the third Branch of our first Assertion that the Fathers believed that the Consecrated Elements did nourish our Bodies and the proofs of this will also give a further evidence to our former Position that the substance of the Elements does remain And it is a demonstration that these Fathers who thought the Sacrament nourished our Bodies could not believe a Transubstantiation of the Bread and Wine into the Body and Blood of Christ. For the proof of this Branch we desire the following Testimonies be considered First Iustin Martyr as was already cited not only calls the Eucharist our nourishment but formally calls it that food by which our flesh and blood through its transmutation into them are nourished Secondly Irenaeus proving the Resurrection of the Body by this Argument That our bodies are fed by the Body and Blood of Christ and that therefore they shall rise again he hath these words He confirmed that Cup which is a creature to be his Blood by which He increases our Blood and the Bread which is a creature to be His Body by which He encreases our Body and when the mixed Cup and the Bread receive the word of God it becomes the Eucharist of the Body and Blood of Christ by which the substance of our flesh is encreased and subsists How then do they deny the flesh to be capable of the gift of God which is Eternal Life that is nourished by the Body and Blood of Christ and is made His member We hope it will be observed that as these words are express and formal so the design on which He uses them will admit of none of those distinctions they commonly rely on Tertullian says the flesh is fed with the Body and Blood of Christ. Saint Austin after he had called the Eucharist our daily Bread he exhorts us so to receive it that not only our bellies but our minds might be refreshed by it Isidore of Sevil says The substance of the visible Bread nourishes the outward man or as Bertram cites his words all that we receive externally in the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ is proper to refresh the body Next let us see what the 16 th Council of Toledo says in Anno. 633. condemning those that did not offer in the Eucharist entire loaves but only round crafts they did appoint one entire loaf carefully prepared to be set on the Altar that it might be sanctified by the Priestly Benediction and order that what remained after Communion should be either put in some bag or if it was needful to eat it up that it might not oppress the belly of him that took it with
much in credit In those Ages the Civil powers being ready to serve the rage of Church-men against any who should oppose it it was not safe for any to appear against it And yet it cannot be denied but from the days of the second Council of Nice which made a great step towards Transubstantiation till the fourth Council of Lâ—teran there was great opposition made to it by the most eminent persons in the Latin Church and how great a part of Christendome has departed from the Obedience of the Church of Rome in every age since that time and upon that account is well enough known Now is it to be imagined that there should have been such an opposition to it these Nine hundred years last past and yet that it should have been received the former Eight hundred years with no opposition and that it should not have cost the Church the trouble of one General Council to decree it or of one Treatise of a Father to establish it and answer those objections that naturally arise from our reasons and senses against it But in the end there are many things which have risen out of this Doctrine as its natural consequences which had it been sooner taught and received must have been apprehended sooner and those are so many clear presumptions of the Novelty of this Doctrine The Elevation Adoration Processions the Doctrine of Concomitance with a vast superfaetation of Rites and Rubricks about this Sacrament are lately sprung up The age of them is well known and they have risen in the Latin Church out of this Doctrine which had it been sooner received we may reasonably enough think must have been likewise ancienter Now for all these things as the primitive Church knew them not so on the other hand the great simplicity of their forms as we find them in Justin Martyr and Cyril of Ierusalem in the Apostolical Constitutions and the pretended Denis the Arcopagite are far from that pomp which the latter ages that believed this Doctrine brought in the Sacraments being given in both kinds being put in the hands of the Faithful being given to the children for many ages being sent by boys or common persons to such as were dying the eating up what remained which in some places were burnt in other places were consumed by Children or by the Clergy their making Cataplasms of it their mixing the consecrated Chalice with ink to sign the Excommunication of Hereticks These with a great many more are such convictions to one that has carefully compared the ancient forms with the Rubricks and Rites of the Church of Rome since this Doctrine was set up that it is as discernable as any thing can be that the present belief of the Church of Rome is different from the Primitive Doctrine And thus far we have set down the reasons that perswade us that Transubstantiation was not the belief of the first seven or eight Centuries of the Church If there be any part of what we have asserted questioned we have very formal and full proofs ready to shew for them though we thought it not fit to enter into the particular proofs of any thing but what we undertook to make out when we waited on your Ladyship Now there remains but one thing to be done which we also promised and that was to clear the words of St. Cyril of Jerusalem We acknowledg they were truly cited but for clearing of them we shall neither alledg any thing to the lessening the authority of that Father though we find but a slender character given of him by Epiphanius and others Nor shall we say any thing to lessen the authority of these Catechisms though much might be said But it is plain St. Cyril's design in these Catechisms was only to posses his Neophites with a just and deep sense of these holy Symboles But even in his 4 th Catechism he tells them not to consider it as meer Bread and Wine for it is the Body and Blood of Christ. By which it appears he thought it was Bread still though not meer Bread And he gives us else-where a very formal account in what sense he thought it was Christ's Body and Blood which he also insinuates in this 4 th Cathechism For in his first Mist. Catechism when he exhorts his young Christians to avoid all that belonged to the Heathenish Idolatry he tells that on the solemnities of their Idols they had Flesh and Bread which by the Invocation of the Devils were defiled as the Bread and Wine of the Eucharist before the holy Invocation of the Blessed Trinity was bare bread and Wine but the Invocation being made the Bread becomes the Body of Christ. In like manner says he those victuals of the pomp of Satan which of their own nature are common or bare victuals by the Invocation of the Devils become prophane From this Illustration which he borrowed from Iustin Martyr his second Apology it appears that he thought the Consecration of the Eucharist was of a like sort or manner with the profanation of the Idolatrous Feasts so that as the substance of the one remained still unchanged so also according to him must the substance of the other remain Or if this will not satisfy them let us see to what else he compares this change of the Elements by the Consecration in his third Mist. Catechism treating of the Consecrated Oil he says As the Bread of the Eucharist after the Invocation of the Holy Ghost is no more common Bread but the Body of Christ so this holy Ointment is no more bare Ointment nor as some may say common but it is a gift of Christ and the presence of the Holy Ghost and becomes energetical of his Divinity And from these places let it be gathered what can be drawn from St. Cyril's testimony And thus we have performed likewise what we promised and have given a clear account of St. Cyril's meaning from himself from whose own words and from these things which he compares with the sanctification of the Elements in the Eucharist it appears he could not think of Transubstantiation otherwise he had neither compared it with the Idol-Feasts nor the consecrated Oil in neither of which there can be supposed any Transubstantiation Having thus acquitted our selves of our engagement before your Ladiship we shall conclude this Paper with our most earnest and hearty prayers to the Father of Lights that he may of his great mercy redeem his whole Christian Church from all Idolatry that he may open the eyes of those who being carnal look only at carnal things and do not rightly consider the excellent Beauty of this our most holy Faith which is pure simple and spiritual And that he may confirm all those whom he has called to the knowledg of the Truth so that neither the pleasures of Sin nor the snares of this World nor the fear of the Cross tempt them to make shipwrack of the Faith and a good Conscience And that God may pour out
other body needs interpose on his account But he being now busie it was not worth the giving him the trouble to ask how he would reply upon so weak an answer since its shallowness appears at the first view for is there any comparison to be made between an object that all my senses may perceive if I have a mind to it that I see with mine eyes and touch and feel in my mouth and if it be too big and my throat too narrow I will feel stick there but only to guard against its offensive taste I so wrap or conveigh it that I relish nothing ungrateful in it and the receiving Christ with my senses when yet none of them either do or can though applied with all possible care discern him So that it appears D. S. had very good reason to say it seemed indeed strange to him to say that Christ was received by our senses and yet was so present that none of our senses can perceive him and this answer to it is but meer trifling Here follows the Paper we promised wherein an account is given of the Doctrine of the Church for the first Eight Centuries in the point of the Sacrament which is demonstrated to be contrary to Transubstantiation written in a Letter to my Lady T. Madam YOUR Ladiship may remember That our Meeting at your House on the third Instant ended with a Promise we made of sending you such an account of the sense of the Fathers for the first Six Ages as might sufficiently satisfie every impartial person That they did not believe Transubstantiation This Promise we branched out in three Propositions First That the Fathers did hold That after the Consecration the Elements of Bread and Wine did remain unchanged in their substance The Second was That after the Consecration they called the Elements the Types the Antitypes the Mysteries the Symboles the Signs the Figures and the Commemorations of the Body and Blood of Christ which certainly will satisfie every unprejudiced person That they did not think the Bread and Wine were annihilated and that in their room and under their accidents the substance of the Body and Blood of Christ was there Thirdly we said That by the Doctrine of the Fathers the unworthy Receivers got not the Body and the Blood of Christ from which it must necessarily follow That the substance of his Body and Blood is not under the accidents of Bread and Wine Otherwise all these that unworthily receive them eat Christs Body and Blood Therefore to discharge our selves of our Promise we shall now give your Ladiship such an account of the Doctrine of the Fathers on these Heads as we hope shall convince those Gentlemen that we had a good warrant for what we said The first Proposition is The Fathers believed that after the Consecration the Elements were still Bread and Wine The Proofs whereof we shall divide into three branches The first shall be That after the Consecration they usually called them Bread and Wine Secondly That they expresly assert that the substance of Bread and Wine remained Thirdly That they believed the Sacramental Bread and Wine did nourish our bodies For proof of the First we desire the following Testimonies be considered Iustin Martyr says These who are called Deacons distribute the blessed Bread and Wine and Water to such as are present and carry it to the absents and this nourishment is by us called the Eucharist And a little after We do not receive these as common Bread or common Drink for as by the word of God Iesus Christ our Saviour being made Flesh had both Flesh and Blood for our salvation so we are taught that that food by which our blood and flesh are nourished by its change being blessed by the word of Prayer which he gave us is both the Flesh and the Blood of the Incarnate Jesus Thus that Martyr that wrote an hundred and fifty years after Christ calls the Elements Bread and Wiâ—e and the nourishment which being changed into Flesh and Blood nourishes them And saying it is not common Bread and Wine he says that it was still so in substance and his illustrating it with the Incarnation in which the Humane Nature did not lose nor change its substance in its union with the Eternal Word shews he thought not the Bread and Wine lost their substance when they became the Flesh and Blood of Christ. The next Witness is Irenaeus who writing against the Valentinians that denied the â—ather of our Lord Jesus to be the Creator of the world and also denied the Resurrection of the Body confutes both these Heresies by arguments drawn from the Eucharist To the first he says If there be another Creator than the Father of our Lord then our offering Creatures to him argues him covetous of that which is not his own and so we reproach him rather than bless him And adds How does it appear to any of them that that Bread over which thanks are given is the Body of his Lord and the Cup of his Blood if he be not the Son of the Creator And he argues against their saying our bodies should not rise again that are fed by the Body and Blood of Christ for says he that Bread which is of the Earth having had the Invocation of God over it is no more common Bread but the Eucharist consisting of two things an earthly and an heavenly so our bodies that receive the Eucharist are no more corruptible having the Hope of the Resurrection Tertullian proving against Marcion that Christ was not contrary to the Creator among other proofs which he brings to shew that Christ made use of the Creatures and neither rejected Water Oil Milk or Honey he adds neither did he reject Bread by which he represents his own Body And further says Christ calls Bread his Body that from thence you may understand that he gave the figure of his Body to the Bread Origen says We eat of the Loaves set before us with thanksgiving and prayers over what is given to us which by the prayer are become a certain holy Body that sanctifies those who use them with a sound purpose Saint Cyprian says Christ calls the Bread that was compounded of many grains joined together his Body to shew the union of our people which he bore upon himself and calls the Wine which is pressed out of many Grapes and Berries his Blood he signifies our flock which is joined together in the mixture of an united multitude And writing against those who only put Water in the Chalice he says Since Christ said I am the true Vine the blood of Christ is not only Water but Wine neither can we see his Blood by which we are redeemed and quickened in the Chalice when Wine is not in it by which the Blood of Christ is shewed And that whole Epistle is all to the same purpose Epiphanius says Christ in the Supper rose and took these things
and having given thanks said This is my c. Now we see it is not equal to it nor like it neither to his incarnate likeness nor his invisible Deity nor the lineaments of his Members for it is round and without feeling as to its vertue And this he says to shew how man may be said to be made after the Image of God though he be not like him Gregory Nyssen shewing how common things may be sanctified as Water in Baptism the Stones of an Altar and Church dedicated to God he adds So also Bread in the beginning is common but after the Mystery has consecrated it is said to be and is the Body of Christ so the mystical Oyl so the Wine before the blessing are things of little value but after the sanctification of the Spirit both of them work excellently He also adds that the Priest by his blessing is separated and sanctified from which it appears He no more believed the change of the substance of the Bread and Wine than of the consecrated Oyl the Altar or the Priest Ambrose speaking of Bread which was Ashers blessing says This Bread Christ gave his Apostles that they might divide it to the people that believed and gives it to us to day which the Priest consecrates in his words this Bread is made the food of the Saints St. Chrysostome on these words The Bread which we break it is not the Communion of the Body of Christ says What is the Bread the Body of Christ. What are they made who take it the Body of Christ. From whence it appears he thought the Bread was so the Body of Christ as the worthy Receivers are which is not by the change of their substance but by the sanctification of their natures St. Jerome says Let us hear the Bread which Christ brake and gave his Disciples to be the Body of our Lord. And he says After the Typical Pascha was fulfilled Christ took Bread that comforts the heart of man and went to the true Sacrament of the Pascha that as Melchifedeck in the figure had done offering Bread and Wine so he might also represent the truth of his Body and Blood Where he very plainly calls the Elements Bread and Wine and a Representation of Christs Body and Blood Saint Austin as he is cited by Fulgentius de Baptismo and divers others in his Exhortation to these that were newly baptized speaking of this Sacrament says that which you see is the Bread and the Cup which your eyes witness but that which your faith must be instructed in is that the Bread is the Body of Christ and the Cup is his Blood And then he proposes the Objection how that could be and answers it thus These things are therefore called Sacraments because one thing is seen and another is understood What you see has a bodily appearance but what you understand has a spiritual fruit and if you will understand the Body of Christ hear what the Apostle says to the faithful Ye are the Body of Christ and his members if therefore you be the Body and Members of Christ your Mystery is placed on the Table of the Lord and you receive the Mystery of the Lord. And at large prosecutes this to shew how the faithful are the Body of Christ as the Bread is made up of many grains from whence it appears that he believed that the consecrated Elements were still Bread and Wine And speaking of St. Pauls breaking Bread at Troas he says being to break Bread that night as it is broken in the Sacrament of the Body of Christ. He also says The Eucharist is our daily Bread but let us so receive it that not only our belly but our mind be refreshed by it Besides in a great many places St. Austin calls the Eucharist the Sacrament of Bread and Wine And speaking of things made use of to signifie somewhat else he adds for one The Bread that is made for this is consumed in our receiving the Sacrament He also says To eat Bread is in the new Testament the Sacrifice of Christians He likewise says Both Judas and Peter received a part of the same Bread out of the same hand of our Lord. And thus from Twelve Witnesses that are beyond all exception it does appear That the Fathers believed the Elements to be still Bread and Wine after the consecration We have not brought any proofs from the Fathers that are less known or read for then we must have swelled up this Paper beyond what we intend it One thing is so considerable that we cannot forbear to desire it be taken notice of and that is That we see those great Fathers and Doctors of the Church call the consecrated Elements without any mincing of the matter Bread and Wine but when they call it the Body and Blood of Christ they often use some mollifying and less hardy expression So St. Austin says Almost all call the Sacrament his Body And again says We call that only the Body Blood of Christ which being taken of the fruits of the earth and consecrated by the mystical prayer we rightly receive for our spiritual health in the Commemoration of the Passion of our Lord for us And he says After some sort the Sacrament of the Body of Christ is his Body and the Sacrament of his Blood is the Blood of Christ. And also says He carried himself in his own hands in some sort when he said This is my Body St. Chrysostome says The Bread is thought worthy to be called the Body of our Lord. And on these words The flesh lusteth against the Spirit among the improper acceptions of flesh says the Scriptures use to call the Mysteries by the name of Flesh and sometimes the whole Church saying She is the Body of Christ. Tertullian says Christ calls the Bread his Body and a little after he names the Bread his Body Isidore Hispal says We call this after his command the Body and Blood of Christ which being made of the fruits of the earth is sanctified and made a Sacrament Theodoret says In the giving of the Mysteries Christ called the Bread his Body and the mixed Cup his Blood And says He who called his natural Body Corn and Bread and also calls himself a Vine likewise honoured these visible Symboles with the names of his Body and Blood But now we go to bring our proofs for the next Branch of our first proposition in which we assert That the Fathers believed that the very substance of the Bread and Wine did remain after the Consecration By which all the proofs brought in the former Branch will receive a further evidence since by these it will appear the Fathers believed the substance of the Elements remained and thence we may well conclude that where-ever we find mention made of Bread and Wine after Consecration they mean of the substance and not of the
prepare themselves aright for so holy an action and the receiving the Sacrament as it was the greatest Symbole of the Love of Christians so it was the end of all Penitence that was enjoyned for publick or private sins but chiefly for Apostacy or the denying the Faith and complying with Idolatry in the times of Persecution Therefore the Fathers considering both the words of the Institution and S. Paul's Epistle to the Corinthians did study mightily to awaken all to great preparation and devotion when they received the Sacrament For all the primitive devotion about the Sacrament was only in order to the receiving it and that modern worship of the Church of Rome of going to hear Mass without receiving was a thing so little understood by them that as none were suffered to be present in the action of the Mysteries but those who were qualified to receive so if any such had gone out of the Church without participating they were to be separated from the Communion of the Church as the authors of disorder in it Upon this Subject the Fathers employed all their Eloquence and no wonder if we consider that it is such a commemoration of the death of Christ as does really communicate to the worthy Receiver his crucified body and his blood that was shed Mark not his glorified body as it is now in heaven which is the Fountain and Channel of all other blessings but is only given to such as being prepared according to the Rules of the Gospel sincerely believe all the mysteries of Faith and live suitably to their Belief Both the advantages of worthy receiving and the danger of unworthy receiving being so great it was necessary for them to make use of all the faculties they had either for awakening reverence and fear that the contemptible Elements of Bread and Wine might not bring a cheapness and disesteem upon these holy Mysteries or for perswading their Communicants to all serious and due preparation upon so great an occasion This being then allowed it were no strange thing though in their Sermons or other devout Treatises they should run out to Meditations that need to be mollified with that allowance that must be given to all Panegyricks or Perswasives where many things are always said that if right understood have nothing in them to startle any body but if every phrase be examined Grammatically there would be many things found in all such Discourses that would look very hideously Is it not ordinary in all the Festivities of the Church as S. Austin observed on this very occasion to say this day Christ was born or died or rose again in 〈◊〉 and yet that must not be taken literally Beside when we hear or read any expressions that sound high or big we are to consider the ordinary stile of him that uses these expressions for if upon all other occasions he be apt to rise high in his Figures we may the less wonder at some excesses of his Stile If then such an Orator as S. Chrysostome was who expatiates on all subjects in all the delighting varieties of a fertile Phancy should on so great a Subject display all the beauties of that â—avishing Art in which he was so great a Master what wonder is it Therefore great allowances must be made in such a case Further we must also consider the tempers of those to whom any Discourse is addressed Many things must be said in another manner to work on Novices or weak persons than were fit or needful for men of riper and stronger understandings He would take very ill measures that would judge of the future state by these Discourses in which the sense of that is infused in younger or weaker capacities therefore though in some Catechismes that were calculated for the understandings of Children and Novices such as S. Cyril's there be some high expressions used it is no strange thing for naturally all men on such occasions use the highest and biggest words they can invent But we ought also to consider what persons have chiefly in their eye when they speak to any point For all men especially when their Fancies are inflamed with much fervor are apt to look only to one thing at once and if a visible danger appear of one side and none at all on the other then it is natural for every one to exceed on that side where there is no danger So that the hazard of a contempt of the Sacrament being much and justly in their eye and they having no cause to apprehend any danger on the other side of excessive adoring or magnifying it No wonder if in some of their Discourses an immoderate use of the counterpoise had inclined them to say many things of the Sacrament that require a fair and candid interpretation Yet after all this they say no more but that in the Sacrament they did truly and really communicate on the Body and Blood of Christ which we also receive and believe And in many other Treatises when they are in colder blood examining things they use such expressions and expositions of this as no way favour the belief of Transubstantiation of which we have given some account in a former Paper But though that were not so formally done and their Writings were full of passages that needed great allowances it were no more than what the Fathers that wrote against the Arrians confess the Fathers before the Council of Nice were guilty of who writing against Sabellius with too much vehemence did run to the opposite extream So many of S. Cyril's passages against Nestorius were thought to favour Eutychianism So also Theodoret and two others writing against the Eutychians did run to such excesses as drew upon them the condemnation of the Fifth General Council The first time we find any Contestor canvassing about the Sacrament was in the Controversie about Images in the eighth Century That the Council of Constantinople in the condemning of Images declared there was no other Image of Christ to be received but the Blessed Sacrament in which the substance of Bread and Wine was the Image of the Body and Blood of Christ making a difference between that which is Christs Body by nature and the Sacrament which is his Body by Institution Now it is to be considered that whatever may be pretended of the violence of the Greek Emperors over-ruling that Council in the matter of condemning Images yet there having been no Contest at all about the Sacrament we cannot in reason think they would have brought it into the dispute if they had not known these two things were the received Doctrine of the Church The one that in the Sacrament the substance of Bread and Wine did remain the other that the Sacrament was the Image or Figure of Christ and from thence they acknowledged all Images were not to be rejected but denied any other Images besides that in the Sacrament Now the second Council of Nice being resolved to quarrel with them as much as was possible