the Arrians against the Consubstantiality the third objection is That it was added by the Council of Niâ—â— but ought not to be received because it is no-where written But he answers it was a foolish thing to be afraid of a word when the thing eâ—pressed by the word has no difficulty We find likewise in the Conference St. Austin had with Maximinus the Arrian Bishop iâ— the very beginning the Arrian tells him That he must hearken to what he brought out of the Scriptures which were common to them all but for words that were not in Scripture they were in no case received by them And afterwards he says we receive with a full veneration every thing that is brought out of the holy Scriptures for the Scriptures are not in our dominion â—hat they may be mended by us And a little after adds Pâ—aâ—h is not gathered out of Arguments but is proved by sure testimonies therefore he seeks a testimony of the Hâ—ly Ghost's being God But to that St. Austin makes answer that from the things that we read we must understand the things that we read not And giving an account of another Conference he had with Count Pascentius that was an Arrian he tells that the Arrian did most earnestly press that the word Consubstantial might be shewed in Scripture repeating this frequently and canvassing about it invidiously To whom St. Austin answers nothing could be more contenâ—ious than to strive about a Word when the Thing was certain and asks him where the word Unbegotten which the Arrians used was in Scripture And since it was no-where in Scripture he from thence concludes there might be a very good account given why a word that was not in Scripture might be well used And by how many consequences he proves the Consubstantiality we cannot number except that whole Epistle were set down And again in that which is called an Epistle but is an account of another Conference between that same Person and St. Austin the Arriâ—n desired the Consubstantiality might be accursed because it was no-where to be found written in the Scriptures and adds that it was a grievous trampling on the Authority of the Scripture to set down that which the Scripture had not said for if any thing be set down without Authority from the Divine Volumes it is proved to be void against which St. Austin argues at great length to prove that it necessarily follows from other places oâ— Scripture In the Conference between Photinus Sabellus Arrius and Athanasius first published by Cassander as a work of Vigilius but believed to be the work of Gelâ—sius an African where we have a very full account of the Pleas of these several parties Arrius challenges the Council of Nice for having corrupted the Faith with the addition of new words and complains of the Consubstantial and says the Apostles their Disciples and all their successors downward that had lived in the Confession of Christ to that â—ime were ignorant of that word And on this he insists with great vehemency urging it over and over again pressing Athanasius either to read it properly set down in Scripture or to cast it out of his Confession against which Athanasius replies and shews him how many things they acknowledged against the other Hereticks which were not written Shew me these things says he not from conjectures or probabilities or things that do neighbour on reason not from things that provoke us to understand them so nor from the piety of Faith perswading such a profession but shew it written in the pure and naked property of words that the Father is Unbegotten or Impassible And then he tells Arrius that when he went about to prove this he should not say the reason of Faith required this piety teaches it the consequence from Scripture forces me to this profession I will not allow you says he to obtrude these things on meâ— because you reject me when I bring you such like things for the profession of the Consubstantial In the end he says either permit me to prove the Consubstantial by consequences or if you will not you must deny all those things which you your self grant And after Athanasius had urged this further Probus that sate Judg in the debate said Neither one nor other could shew all that they believed properly and specially in Scripture Therefore he desired they would trifle no longer in such a childish contest but prove either the one or the other by a just consequence from Scripture In the Macedonian Controversy against the Divinity of the Holy Ghost we find this was also their Plea a hint of it was already mentioned in the Conference betwixt Maximiâ—us the Arrian Bishop and S. Austin which wehave more fully in St. Gregory Nazianzen who proving the Divinity of the Holy Ghost meets with that objection of the Macedonians that it was in no place of Scripture to which he answers Some things seemed to be said in Scripture that truly are not as when God is said to sleep some things truly are but are no-where said as the Fathers being Unbegotten which they themselves believed and concludes that these things are drawn from these things out of which they are gathered though they be not mentioned in Scripture Therefore he upbraids those for serving the letter and joyning themselves to the wisdom of the Jews and that leaving Things they followed Syllables And shews how valid a good consequence is As if a man says he speaks of a living creature that is reasonable but mortal I conclude it must be a man Do I for that seem to rave not at all for these words are not more truly his that says them than his that did make the saying of them necessary So he infers that he might without fear believe such things as he either found or gathered from the Scriptures though they either were not at all or not clearly in the Scriptures We find also in a Dialogue between an Orthodox and a Macedonian that is in Athanasius's Works but believed to be written by Maximus after he had proved by a great many Arguments that the attributes of the Divine Nature such as the Omniscience and Omnipresence were ascribed to the Holy Ghost In end the Macedonian flies to this known refuge that it was no-where written that he was God and so challenges him for saying that which was not in Scripture But the Orthodox answers that in the Scriptures the Divine Nature was ascribed to the Holy Ghost and since the Name follows the Nature he concludes if the Holy Ghost did subsist in himself did sanctifie and was increated he must be God whether the other would or not Then he asks where it was written That the Son was like the Father in his Essence The Heretick answers That the Fathers had declared the Son Consubstantial as to his Essence But the Orthodox replies which we desire may be well considered Were they moved to that from the sense of the
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
and yet they were of the meaner sort and of very ordinary capacities to whom he addressed his discourses If then such as they were might have understood him how should it come about that now there should be such a wondrous mysteriousness in the words of Christ and his Apostles For the same reason by which it is proved that Christ designed to be understood and spake suitably to that design will conclude as strongly that the Discourses of the Apostles in matters that concern our salvation are also intelligible We have a perfect understanding of the Greek Tongue and though some phrases are not so plain to us which alter every age and some other passages that relate to some customs opinions or forms of which we have no perfect account left us are hard to be understood Yet what is of general and universal concern may be as well understood now as it was then for sense is sense still So that it must be acknowledged that men may still understand all that God will have us believe and do in order to salvation And therefore if we apply and use our faculties aright joyning with an unprejudiced desire and search for truth earnest prayers that God by his Grace may so open our understandings and present Divine truths to them that we may believe and follow them Then both from the nature of our own souls and from the design and end of revelation we may be well assured that it is not only very possible but also very easy for us to find out truth We know the pompous Objection against this is How comes it then that there are so many errors and divisions among Christians especially those that pretend the greatest acquaintance with Scriptures To which the Answer is so obvious and plain that we wonder any body should be wrought on by so fallacious an Argument Does not the Gospel offer Grace to all men to lead holy lives following the Commandments of God And is not Grace able to build them up and make them perfect in every good word and work And yet how does sin and vice abound in the World If then the abounding of error proves the Gospel does not offer certain ways to preserve us from it then the abounding of sin will also prove there are no certain ways in the Gospel to avoid it Therefore as the sins mankind generally live in leave no imputation on the Gospel so neither do the many Heresies and Schisms conclude that the Gospel offers no certain ways of attaining the knowledg of all necessary truth Holiness is every whit as necessary to see the face of God as knowledg is and of the two is the more necessary since low degrees of knowledg with an high measure of holiness are infinitely preferable to high degrees of knowledg with a low measure of holiness If then every man have a sufficient help given him to be holy why may we not much rather conclude he has a sufficient help to be knowing in such things as are necessary to direct his belief and life which is a less thing And how should it be an imputation on Religion that there should not be an infallible way to end all Controversies when there is no infallible way to subdue the corrupt lusts and passions of men since the one is more opposite to the design and life of Religion than the other In sum there is nothing more sure than that the Scriptures offer us as certain ways of attaining the knowledg of what is necessary to salvation as of doing the will of God But as the depravation of our natures makes us neglect the helps towards an holy life so this and our other corruptions lusts and interests make us either not to discern Divine truth or not embrace it So that Error and Sin are the Twins of the same Parents But as every man that improves his natural powers and implores and makes use of the supplies of the Divine Grace shall be enabled to serve God acceptably so that though he fail in many things yet he continuing to the end in an habit and course of well doing his sins shall be forgiven and himself shall be saved So upon the same grounds we are assured that every one that applies his rational faculties to the search of Divine truth and also begs the illumination of the Divine Spirit shall attain such knowledg as is necessary for his eternal salvation And if he be involved in any errors they shall not be laid to his charge And from these we hope it will appear that every man may attain all necessary knowledg if he be not wanting to himself Now when a man attains this knowledg he acquires it and must use it as a rational being and so must make judgments upon it and draw consequences from it in which he has the same reason to be assured that he has to know the true meaning of Scripture and therefore as he has very good reason to reject any meaning of a place of Scripture from which by a necessary consequence great absurdities and impossibilities must follow So also he is to gather such inferences as flow from a necessary connexion with the true meaning of any place of Scripture To instance this in the argument we insisted on to prove the mean by which Christ is received in the Sacrament is Faith from these words Whoso eats my Flesh and drinks my Blood hath eternal life If these words have relation to the Sacrament which the Roman Church declares is the true meaning of them there cannot be a clearer demonstration in the World And indeed they are necessitated to stand to that exposition for if they will have the words This is my Body to be understood literally much more must they assert the phrases of eating his Flesh and drinking his Blood must be literal for if we can drive them to allow a figurative and spiritual meaning of these words it is a shameless thing for them to deny such a meaning of the words This is my Body they then expounding these words of St. Iohn of the Sacrament there cannot be imagined a closser Contexture than this which follows The eating Christ's Flesh and drinking his Blood is the receiving him in the Sacrament therefore everyone that receives him in the Sacrament must have eternal life Now all that is done in the Sacrament is either the external receiving the Elements Symboles or as they phrase it the accidents of Bread and Wine and under these the Body of Christ or the internal and spiritual communicating by Faith If then Christ received in the Sacrament gives eternal life it must be in one of these ways either as he is received externally or as he is received internally or both for there is not a fourth Therefore if it be not the one at all it must be the other only Now it is undeniable that it is not the external eating that gives eternal life For St. Paul tells us of some that eat and drink
Christ and following his example But when we were for some years thus tried in the fire then did God again bless us with the protection of the rightful and lawful Magistrate Then did our Church do as the Primitive Church had done under Theodosius when she got out from a long and cruel persecution of the Arrians under those enraged Emperours Constantius and Valens They reformed the Church from the Arrian Doctrine but would not imitate them in their persecuting spirit And when others had too deep resentments of the ill usage they had met with under the Arrian Tyranny Nazianzen and the other holy Bishops of that time did mitigate their animosities So that the Churches were only taken from the Arrians but no storms were raised against them So in the beginning of Queen Elizabeths reign it cannot be denied that those of that Church were long suffered to live at quiet among us with little or no disturbance save that the Churches were taken out of their hands Nor were even those who had bathed themselves in so much blood made examples so entirely did they retain the meekness and lenity of the Christian spirit And if after many years quiet those of that Religion when they met with no trouble from the government did notwithstanding enter into so many plots and conspiracies against the Queens person and the established government was it any wonder that severe Laws were made against them and those Emissaries who under a pretence of coming in a mission were sent as spies and agents among us to fill all with blood and confusion Whom had they blame for all this but themselves or was this any thing but what would have been certainly done in the gentlest and mildest government upon earth For the Law of self-preservation is engraven on all mens natures and so no wonder every State and government sees to its own security against those who seek its ruine and destruction and it had been no wonder if upon such provocations there had been some severities used which in themselves were unjustifiable for few take reparation in an exact equality to the damage and injury they have received But since that time they have had very little cause to complain of any hard treatment and if they have met with any they may still thank the officious insolent deportment of some of their own Church that have given just cause of jealousie and fear But I shall pursue this discourse no farther hoping enough is already said upon the head that engaged me to it to make it appear that it was possible the Doctrine of the Church should be changed in this matter and that it was truly changed From which I may be well allowed to subsume that our Church discovering that this change was made had very good reason and a sufficient authority to reform this corruption and restore the Primitive Doctrine again And now being to leave my Reader I shall only desire him to consider a little of how great importance his eternal concerns are and that he has no reason to look for endless happiness if he does not serve God in a way suitable to his will For what hopes soever there may be for one who lives and dies in some unknown error yet there are no hopes for those that either neglect or despise the truth and that out of humour or any other carnal account give themselves up to errours and willingly embrace them Certainly God sent not his Son in the world nor gave him to so cruel a death for nothing If he hath revealed his Counsels with so much solemnity his designs in that must be great and worthy of God The true ends of Religion must be the purifying our Souls the conforming us to the Divine Nature the uniting us to one another in the most tender bonds of Love Truth Justice and Goodness the raising our minds to a Heavenly and contemplative temper and our living as Pilgrims and strangers on this earth ever waiting and longing for our change Now we dare appeal all men to shew any thing in our Religion or Worship that obstructs any of these ends on the contrary the sum and total of our Doctrine is the conforming our selves to Christ and his Apostles both in faith and life So that it can scarce be devised what should make any body that hath any sense of Religion or regard to his Soul forsake our Communion where he finds nothing that is not highly suitable to the Nature and ends of Religion and turn over to a Church that is founded on and cemented in carnal interests the grand design of all their attempts being to subject all to the Papal tyranny which must needs appear visibly to every one whose eyes are opened For attaining which end they have set up such a vast company of additions to the simplicity of the Faith and the purity of the Christian Worship that it is a great work even to know them Is it not then a strange choice to leave a Church that worships God so as all understand what they do and can say Amen to go to a Church where the worship is not understood so that he who officiats is a Barbarian to them A Church which worships God in a spiritual unexceptionable manner to go to a Church that is scandalously to raise this charge no higher full of images and pictures and that of the blessed Trinity before which prostrations and adorations are daily made A Church that directs her devotions to God and his Son Jesus Christ to go to a Church that without any good warrant not only invocates Saints and Angels but also in the very same form of words which they offer up to God and Jesus Christ which is a thing at least full of scandal since these words must be strangely wrested from their natural meaning otherwise they are high blasphemies A Church that commemorates Christs death in the Sacrament and truly communicates in his body and blood with all holy reverence and due preparationâ— to go to a Church that spends all her devotion in an outward adoring the Sacrament without communicating with any due care but resting in the Priestly absolution allows it upon a single attrition A Church that administers all the Sacraments Christ appointed and as he appointed them to go to a Church that hath added many to those he appointed and hath maimed that he gave for a pledge of his presence when he left this earth In a word that leaves a Church that submits to all that Christ and his Apostles taught and in a secondary order to all delivered to us by the Primitive Church to go to a Church that hath set up an authority that pretends to be equal to these sacred oracles and has manifestly cancelled most of the Primitive Constitutions But it is not enough to remain in the Communion of our Church for if we do not walk conform to that holy Faith taught in it we disgrace it Let all therefore that have zeal