kind of meat and therefore no wonder if they called this most solid and super substantial Food Bread. I come now to examin his other Arguments and first §. 78. Objections from Fathers and Schoolmen First from St Chrysostoms Epistle to Casarius that drawn from an obscure passage in an Epistle of St. Chrysostom to Caesarius which he has managed with all the artifice he could because it stood in need of it The Words literally rendred are these For as before Bread be Sanctified we all it Bread but the Divine Grace by the Ministry of the Priest having Sanctified it it is freed indeed from the Appellation or name of Bread but esteemed worthy of the Appellation or name of our Lords Body altho' the nature of Bread hath remained in it and it is not called two Bodys but one Body of the Son So also here the Divine Nature having overflowed the Body both these have made up one Son one Person But however we must acknowledge an unconfused and inaivisible manner not in one Nature only but in two perfect Natures From this obscure passage the Defender argues first Defence Appendix pag. 138 139 140. that the Expressions are plainly against Transubstantiation because it says the Nature of Bread remains in the Eucharist after Consecration and that which was called Bread before by being Consecrated is become worthy to be called the Body of Christ 2. That the design of this Allusion shews it to be plainly against our Tenets For Caesarius being fallen into the Apollinarian Heresy which held but one Nature in Christ affirming the Human to be converted into the Divine by being united to it this Argument would have concluded nothing against him unless it had supposed the substance of Bread to remain with the Body of Christ in the Eucharist In answer to this §. 79. Answer First it is worthy to be taken notice of what poor shifts our Adversaries are driven to that when they may find multitudes of clear Expressions in St. Chrysostoms undoubted works shewing his belief of a Real and Substantial presence of Christs Body in the Sacrament and the absence of the Substance of Bread in so much as that he was deservedly called the Doctor of the Eucharist as Bigotius has well observed and the Defender takes notice nay censured even by (a) See the Centuriators and Musculus quoted by the Protestant Apology Tr. 1. Sect. 2. Sub. 2. §. 2 at 2. in the Marg. pag. 82. Protestants themselves to have taught or confirmed Transubstantiation yet an obscure passage must be picked out of a controverted Epistle A passage to which the Original Greek is no where to be found taken out of a (b) Hee verum esse de codice hujus Epistolae sateri cegor qui licet annâ—rum sit 500. parum tamea emen latè Scriptus est opem a Graeco praetipuè codice aut ab alio saliem Latino postulat In eo quem vidi aliquando voces continuae sunt verbis aliquando ita coâ—uptis ut ad sa â—â—tatem reduci mâ—n me possint absque subsidio aliorum cedicum Quae scribarum incuria deterruit opiner Petrum Martyrem ab ea edendâ— Taceo inâ—erp etationem quae minus accurata imo plane barbara videtur Thus Bigetius cited by our Defender in his Appendix pag. 147. Latin Copy which is acknowledged to be so very full of faults that it stands in need especially of the Greek or at least of other Latin Copies to Correct it In which the words are so corrupted that it is impossible as Bigotius himself acknowledges to make them right without the assistance of other Books A Book where the Interpretation was so little Correct that it seemed to be wholy Barbarous yet an obscure passage I say must be picked out of this controverted uncorrected Barbarously interpreted Epistle and the world made to believe that it is not only sound and authentick but moreover that it bears a sense which they who examin the connexion will find to be very different from the Authors intention Secondly it is no less worth taking notice of §. 80. that they are not so sollicitous to defend their own Teners as to ruine ours in so much that they care not what Doctrin they establish from this passage nor how they make St. Chrysostom oppose St. Chrysostom and the other Fathers of his time nor what absurdities they make him fall into so they do but find some pretence to make the world believe they have something against our Doctrin If St. Chrysosiom brought this Parallel in opposition to the Heresy of Appollinarius and meant as our Defender would have it that as Cesarius believed the Substance of Bread remained after consecration together with the Substance of Christs Body unconfused in the Eucharist so ought he also to believe that both the Divine and Human nature did remain unconfused in one Christ It must necessarily follow that St. Chrysostom believed the Body of Christ was as really in the Eucharist as he believed the Divinity to be Really in Christ And if so it would as necessarily follow that as Christ is to be adored because he is God tho' he be man also so is the Eucharist to be adored because the Body of Christ is there tho' Bread ought not to be adored It would also necessarily follow that Christs Body would be in as many places at once as there were Hosts That his Body and Bread would be both in one place That his Body would be in Heaven and upon our Altars at the same time c. So that whilst he endeavours to make St. Chrysostom deny Transubstantiation he makes him espouse all the difficulties of it and Consubstantiation mixed together For if this Parallel be exact as our Defender would have it St. Chrysostom must have held this opinion concerning the Eucharist That as there are two different Natures in Christ the Human and Divine which being Hypostatically united together make up but one Person Christ So are there two Natures in the Eucharist Bread and the Body of Christ both which make up but one Substance the Body of Christ and that as in Christ the Divinity Hypostatically united to the Humanity makes but one Subsistence one Person in two different Natures and that truly called Divine So in the Eucharist the Nature of Christ united to the Nature of Bread makes up but one Body and that worthy to be called the Body of Christ And that as the Human Nature of Christ by being united to the Divine has many Epithets given it which properly belong to the Divinity so the Bread it self by the Union of the Body of Christ with it is worthy to receive the Epithets I may add also the Adoration due to the Body of Christ If this be the Doctrin of the Church of England let our Defender speak if not let him confess either that St. Chrysostom did not agree with them or that he has a wrong conception of his Parallel
But 3ly Supposing this Epistle genuin and that part of it uncorrupted §. 81. let us see whether it make for them or us and to do this we must consider the scope and drift of St. Chrysostom in bringing that Parallel and gather the Sense of the Epistle as well as we can from such a barbarous Translation and uncorrect Copy After St. Chrysostom had testified his regret that his friend Caesarius had fallen into the Apollinarian Heresie by Reading of a Book which taught Verum tamen nos revordantes tuae nobiscum conversationis sentientes autem ex his quae scrapsistis errorem subsistere erga tuam dilâ—ctionem ex illorum insipientiâ non solum ergâ— dispensationis Mysterium magis autem erga Nominum conjunctionen excogitavimus Deo cooper ante nostrae Infirmaitati de emnibus manifestam ostentati nem facere adredorguâ—ionem quidem malae opinionis corum qui haereticum libi protulerunt librum correctionem autem tuae venerationis Deum ergo quando dicis Dilectissime agnovisti id quod simplex est naturae quod incompositum qued inconvertible quod invisible quod immortale quod incircumscriptibile istis similia Hominem autem dicens significasti id quod naturae est infirmum esuritionem sitim super Lazarum lachrymas metum sudoris ejectionem his similia quibus id quod divinum est extrae est Christum autem quando dicis conjunxistâ— utrumque unde passibilis dicatur idgm ipse impassibilis passibilis quidem carne impassibilis autem Deitate Eadem ipsa de Filio Christo Jesu Domino praedicantur Communia enim ista suscepttbilia duarum Essentiarum nomina sunt quarum conjunctio in baereticis quidem errorem facit proprie pro communi utentes nomine Christi uno His autem communibus istis uti oportet Nominibus quando dispensationis consitendum est Mysterium Si enim Deum dixeris pertulisse qualicunque cogitatione quod impossibile est dixisti id quod Blasphemum est in manetis in aliorum haeresim declinasti Impietatem si iterum hominem dixer qui pertulit invenirâ—â— purum aedificans Templum Templum Crucis extra inhabitantem nunquam dicitur quia jam non est Templum that the Essential concourse and Sacred Vnion betwixt the Divinity and Flesh made up but one Nature he exhorts him to return again and possess himself and tells him that he Erred not only in the Mystery of the Incarnation and Passion of our Saviour but more especially as to the Conjunction of Natures viz. of God and Man which Errors he endeavors to Reform in him And first begins with that of the Names telling him that when he mentions God he acknowledges a Being whose Nature is Simple Vncompounded Vnchangeable Invisible c. But when he mentions Man he signifies a Being whose Nature is infirm subject to Hunger Thirst Tears Fear Sweat c. But when he mentions Christ he joyns both these Natures together so that he the same Person is called Passible and Impassible Passible in his Flesh Impassible in his Divinity And the same may be said of the Names of Son of Christ of Jesus and of Lord these being common Names including the Names of both the Essential Natures of God and Man the joyning of which Natures causes the Error in Hereties who use the proper Name God where they should use the one common Name Christ For these common Names continues he we must use when we speak of the Mystery of the Incarnation Death and Passion of our Saviour For if thou shouldst say it was God that suffered which is impossible in any Sense thou speakest Blasphemy and art fallen into the Heresie of Manes and others If again thou say it was Man that suffered thou buildest a Pure Temple But it is never called a Temple of the Cross without an Inhabitan Divinity for then it is no Temple Then he brings an Objection But perhaps they will say with our Lord Et forsitan dicunt quomodo Dominus dixit ut quid me vultis occidere hominem qul verltatem vobis locutus sum quam audiâ—i à Deo Benè omnino sapienter hee dicendum est Neque cuim ex hoe ab Inhabi anti defraudabatur sed figuificare volens yatientem naturam he ainis memoriam fecit propter quod Dâ—us Homo Christus Deus propter impassibilitatem Home propter Passionem Vnus Filius Vnus Deminus idem ipse proculdubis unitarum Naturarum unam dominationem unam potâ—statem possidens etiamst non consubstantiales existunt unaquaeque incommixtam Propriatatis conservat agâ—iâ—ionem propter hoc quod incoufusa Sunt dico Sicut enim antequam sanctificetur Panis Panem nominamus Divinâ autem illum sendificante Gratiâ mediante saoerdote liberatus est quidem Appellatione Panis dignus autem babitus est Dominici Corporis Appellatione eliamst Natura Panis inapso permansit non duo Corpora sed unum Corpus filil praedicatur Siâ— hic Divinâ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. inundante Corporis naturâ unum filium unam personam uâ—raque haee ficerunt * Sint duo why will you slay me a Man who have spoken the Truth to you which I have heard from God And he answers it thus This is well and altogether wisely said neither do's this shew him to be deprived of the Inhabitant Divinity But being desirous to express the suffering Nature he mentioned that of Man because Christ is God and Man God as being Impassible Man as Capable to suffer And yet but one Son one Lord as without doubt Possessing one Dominion one Power of the Vnited Natures altho' they be not Consubstantial but each of them retain their own Properties being two unconfused Natures Then follows the Example For as before Bread be Sanctified we call it Bread but the Divine Grace by the Ministry of the Priest having Sanctified it it is freed indeed from the name of Bread but esteemed worthy of the Name of the Body of our Lord altho' the Nature of Bread hath remained in it and is called not two Bodies but one Body of the Son Even so here the Divine Nature overflowing the Human Body they both make but one Son one Person Any one §. 82. The true sense of St. Chrysostom who has not a mind to wrest St. Chrysostoms sense may see that the comparison is here betwixt the Person in Christ and the Body or Substance in the Sacrament And that as there is but one Body one Substance and That the Substance the Body of Christ in the Sacrament tho' the Nature that is all the Qualities of Bread Remain so also in Christ there is but one Person one Subsistence tho' there be two different Natures All the difficulty lies in the word Nature which our Defender thinks ought to be taken in the same sense as where it is applied to the Human and Divine Nature I
shall not question whether this be not one of the less faithful Translations in this Epistle because we know not what the word may be in Greek neither will I go about to shew that the Accidents themselves are often said to have their nature and That sometimes called the Nature of the Substance of which they are the Accidents But I must say that if the word Nature in that Place meant Substance or Body so that the sense should be this tho' the Substance or Body of Bread remain the Parallel would have been false and St. Chrysostom instead of disswading Caesarius from the Heresy of Apollinarius would have drawn him to that of Nestorius For Caesarius must necessarily have Argued thus Your Parallel is betwixt the Body of Christ in the Eucharist and the Person or Subsistence of Christ in the Mystery of the Incarnation If then there be two Substances in the Eucharist there are also two Subsistences in Christ But this was far from St. Chrysostoms design His intention was therefore to shew Caesarius that as in the Blessed Sacrament after Consecration there is but one Substance one Body of Christ tho' the Accidents of Bread remain and that this Substance is truly called the Body of Christ so in the Mystery of the Incarnation there is but one Son one Person and that Divine tho' the Nature of the Manhood do remain Now what can be more clear for Transubstantiation than this that in the Eucharist there should be but one Body one Substance and that the Body of Christ But our Defender objects that St. Chrysostom only says it is worthy to be called the Body of Christ and it is called not two Bodyes but one Body of the Son and therefore the change is only in the Appellation and not in the thing it self But certainly if Caesarius had understood St. Chrysostom in that sense Caesarius might have answered him You would perswade me I see to be an Arian and believe there is only a change in Christ as to Appellation and that he is not truly God but only called so But this Great Saint and Learned Doctor was far from erring in these Points For Lastly §. 83. That he did believe the Real and Substantial presence of Christs Body and Blood in the Sacrament and that a change was there made of the Substance of Bread into the Sustance of his Body appears by many plain expressions in his undoubted works Bigotius mentioned two passages in his suppressed Epistle which I will here give the Reader in English tho' the Defender did not think it convenient so to do and add two or three more a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hom. 2. ad pop Antioch in fine pag. 43. B. edit Frontoduc 1616. Elias says he left his Mantle to his Disciple but the Son of God left us his Flesh Elias stripped himself indeed to leave it but Christ both left us his Flesh and retaining it himself ascended Let us not therefore lose courage nor lament nor fear the difficulty of Times For he who did not refuse to shed his Blood for all and has communicated to us his Flesh and also that very Blood what will he refuse for our Salvation The second passage cited by Bigotius is thus at length b 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hom. 83 in Matth. pag. 703. D. edit Commel 1003. Let us therefore every where believe God neither let us resist him although what he says may seem absurd to our sense or cogitation Let his word rule our Sense and Reason which we perform in all but especially in the Mysteries not only looking upon those things which lye before us but retaining also his words For we cannot be deceived by his words but our senses are easily to be deceived Those cannot be false but these are often and often deceived Seeing therefore he has said This is my Body let us not be doubtful but believe and view it with the eyes of our Vnderstanding And a little after he says c 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ib. p. 704. A. How many are there now who say I would gladly see his form his shape I would see his very Garments I would see his shoos Behold Thou seest answers he himself thou touchest him thou eatest him and thou art still desirous to see his Garments And a little further Who will declare the power of our Lord and who will publish all his praises What Shepherd ever yet fed his Flock with his own members And why do I mention Shepherds There are many Mothers who give their Children to other Nurses but he Christ not so he nourishes us with his own Blood and closely knits himself to us in all things d 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ib. p. 705. A. The things we propose are not done by Human power He who wrought these things at the last Supper is the Author of what is done here We hold but the place of Ministers but he who Sanctifies and changes them is Christ himself To these I may add that in his Liturgy the Priest prays e 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Tom. 5. p. 614. B. edit Frontonduc that God would make that Bread the Pretious Body of his Son c. and that which is in the Chalice the pretions Blood of his Christ c. changing them by his holy Spirit And in his Homily de Proditione Judae he teaches that Judas received the very Body and Blood of Christ which he betrayed his words are these And Judas was present when Christ said these words f 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Tom. 3. Serm. 30. pag. 463. A. This is the Body said he O Judas which thou hast sold for thirty pieces of Silver This is the Blood for which thou hast made a bargain with the Pharisees Oh the Mercy of Christ Oh the Madness of Judas He made a bargain to sell him for Thirty pence and Christ offered him the Blood which he sold that he might have remission of his Sins if he would have ceased to be wicked for Judas was there and was permitted to partake of the Sacrifice g 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ib. C. For it is not man who makes the proposed Elements to be the Body and Blood of Christ but Christ himself who was crueified for us The Priest performs the ceremony and pronounces the words but it is the Vertue and Grace of God which operates the whole He said h 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ib. C. Gen. 1.28 This is my Body This word Transmutes or changes the proposed things or Elements And as the voice which said encrease and multiply and fill the Earth was but once spoken but in all times by the operation of Nature felt the effect as to Generation So that voice was but once uttored but yet gives a firmness to the Sacrifice throughout all the Tables of the Church even to this very day and shall continue it even to his very coming These things being considered Appendix p. 129.