therefore I have nothing more to do but cite the Fathers words so conclude S. Gaudentius is his 2. Tract upon Exodus says He the Creator Lord of Nature who produces bread out of the earth produces also his own proper body out of bread because he can do it promis'd to do it And He who produc'd wine out of water produces also his blood out of wine .... For when he gave the consecrated bread wine to his disciples He said This is my Body This is my Blood. Let us believe him whom we have believ'd Truth cannot tell a lie S. Chrysostom in his 83. homilie upon S. Matthew has these excellent words Let us every where believe God Almighty nor contradict him although what He says seem contrary to our Reason and our Eyes ..... His word cannot deceive us Our Sense is easily deceiv'd That never erres This often is mistaken Since therefore He says This is my Body Let us be persuaded of it believe it .... These are not the works of human power He who did these things at his last supper He it is who now performs them We only are his Ministers 't is He that Sanctifies He that Transmutes the bread wine into his Body Blood. So that as the same Saint says in his 25. homily upon the 1. to the Corinthians That which is in the Chalice is that which flow'd from his side that we are partakers of S. Ambrose in his book De his qui mysteriis initiantur ch 9. Perhaps you 'l say says he I see quite another thing How do you assure me that I receive the Body of Christ And this is that which remains for us to prove How great says he are the examples which we use to shew that it is not the thing which Nature form'd but the thing which the Blessing has consecrated and that the Blessing has greater force than Nature because by the Blessing even the Nature it self is chang'd Afterwards He instances in the change of rods into Serpents and of water into blood and thus pursues his discourse If says he the word of Elias was powerfull enough to command fire down from Heaven shall not the word of Christ be able to change the Nature of the Elements You have read of the whole Creation He said they were made He commanded they were created The Word therefore of Christ which could make out of nothing that which was not cannot it change those things which are into what they were not S. Gregory Nyssen in his Catechistical Discourse ch 37. professes the same faith I do believe says he that by the word of God the Sanctified bread is transmuted into the Body of God the Word ... Not that by mediation of nourishment it becomes the body of the Word but that immediatly by the Word it is transmuted into his body by these words This is my Body .... the Nature of the things which appear being transelemented that is transubstantiated into it S. Cyril Patriarch of Hierusalem in his 4. Mystagogick Catechise discourses thus Do not consider it as meer bread wine for now it is the Body Blood of Christ according to our Lord 's own words Although your Sense suggest otherwise let your faith confirm you that you may not judge the thing by the Tast .... and a little after he goes on knowing says he holding for certain that the bread which we see is not bread although it tast like bread the wine which we see is not wine although it tast like wine S. Hierome in his Catalogue Theodoret in his 2. Dialogue are witnesses that S. Cyril was the Author of this work And now I appeal to the judgment of my Auditory whether I may not venture to defy any Catholick of this present Age to express in plainer terms our Faith of Transubstantiation * However T is very strange you 'l say if this were the faith of the first Ages that None of the Heathens nor so much as Julian the Apostat should take notice of it This if we believe a late Author is to a wise man instead of a thousand Demonstrations that no such doctrine was then believ'd * As for Julian the Apostat Of three books which he wrote we have but one that imperfect Had he objected it 't is certain S. Cyril of Alexandria never would have taken notice of it in his Answer So cautious he is in speaking even of Baptism that he passes it over in these terms I should say many more things .... if I did not fear the ears of the profane For commonly they laugh at things they cannot understand * As for the Heathens 't is sufficient to reflect what care was taken by the primitive Christians to hide the mysteries of our Religion to keep our books out of the hands of Infidels This privacy of ours made Celsus call our Doctrine Clancular and Origen in his first book against him answers that it is proper not only to Christian Doctrine but also to Philosophy to have some things in it which are not communicated to every one Tertullian in his 4. book Ad Uxorem ch 5 for this reason would not allow Christian women to marry Pagan husbands will not your Husband says he know what you tast in Secret before you eat of any other meat And S. Basil in his book Concerning the Holy Ghost ch 27. says that The Apostles Fathers in the beginning of the Church by privacy silence preserv'd the dignity of their Mysteries * But because my Author thinks this Demonstration worth a Thousand I am the more willing to answer him in his own words that though I have untied the knot I could with more ease have cut it For since 't is plain evident from all the Records of the first eight Centuries that Transubstantiation always was believ'd it is the wildest and the most extravagant thing in the world to set up a pretended Demonstration of Reason against plain experience matter of Fact. This is just like Zeno's Demonstration against Motion when Diogenes walkt before his eyes A man may demonstrate till his head heart ake before he shall ever be able to prove that which certainly was never to have been All the Reason in the World is too weak to Cope with so tough obstinate a difficulty I have now perform'd my promise I have in three Sermons prov'd 1. that Transubstantiation is neither contrary to Sense nor Reason 2. that it follows clearly from the plainest words in Scripture 3. that it has been the perpetual faith of the Catholick Church not only since Paschasius but ever since the first foundation of Christian Religion And now I not only beg of you but earnestly conjure you by all that ought to be most dear to you by all your desires expectations of eternal Happyness to consider seriously leisurely three fundamental principles of Christianity 1. That without Faith 't is
read They heard the 63. v. which is so much magnified They heard with great attention curiosity if from those expressions they had so clearly understood that by his flesh he only meant a holy sign or figure of it they never would have damnd themselves eternally by walking no more with him They watchfully observ'd his countenance his way of speaking and as we better understand a friend when we discourse with him than when we only read his Letters so these disciples having the advantage of our Saviours presence familiar conversation could not but understand him much better than those who only read in Scripture a small part of those discourses with which He entertaind them They plainly understood that though he smooth'd the difficulty by telling them He did not speak of carnal eating yet nevertheless he still spoke positively as to the literal Sense They had not that great grace of Christian Humility without which none can universally submit their Reason to Divine Authority They could not come to God the Son because they were not drawn by God the Father Proud as they were away they went walkt no more with Jesus Christ because this mystery was something above their small capacity their weak imaginations could not reach it See here an ancient Model of the modern Reformation They heard the Church teach as our Saviour taught that the Sacramental Bread is Flesh indeed the Sacramental Wine is Blood indeed And so away they went with these words in their mouths This is a hard saying who can hear it away they went walkt with her no more Our Saviour who saw them thus abandon Him and much more feelingly resented their eternal losse than the contempt of his Voracity did not so much as offer to call them back again as certainly He would have done had they been only guilty of mistaking what he meant but turn'd immediatly to his Apostles and in the 67. v. said to them Will you also go away Whereupon Simon Peter answerd him Lord to whom shall we go Thou hast the words of eternal life and we believe are sure that Thou art Christ the Son of the living God We believe and are sure that Thou art able to make good thy words although some people think them hard cannot hear them What our Saviour promis'd in the 6. of S. Iohn He performd at his last supper And t is no wonder that he talkt of it so much before hand because he dearly lov'd those whom he died for and always had his eye upon the Legacy which he design'd to leave them The night before his death in his last Will Testament He left us this holy Sacrament as a perpetual monument of his Affection We wrangle dispute about it what This is whether it is truly Bread or truly the Body of Christ We agree that Holy Writ shall be the Iudge We find in Holy Writ four Copies of our Saviour's Will Testament in the 26. of S. Matthew the 14. of S. Mark the 22. of S. Luke the 11. of the 1. to the Corinthians We open all of them resolving to stand or fall by their determination In all the Copies of his Testament the words are plain This is my Body And as soon as the words are read They presently tell us t is true Our Saviour plainly says This is my Body but yet He only means it is a sacred piece of bread a holy figure of his body For my part I have ever admir'd but never can sufficiently admire in this occasion the confidence of some men that make such noise with Scripture and yet as soon as ever the book is open tell us the Scripture says one thing means another quite contrary to what it says If it be said that nothing is more usual than to give Signs the names of what they signifie I easily confess t is very true when things are certainly known to be Signs because Signs being only Substitutes our thoughts never stop at them but are presently fixt upon the things they signifie and by the same reason that they put another thing in our minds 't is no wonder if they put another name in our mouths Thus Joseph plainly answerd Pharaoh's question when he said * Genes 49.26 The seven Kine are seven years But when God instituted Circumcision in the 17. of Genesis He did not say in the 10. verse This Circumcision is my Covenant but in the 11. it shall be a token of my Covenant So in the 12. of Exodus when he instituted first the eating of the Paschal Lamb from the 5. v. to the 10. it plainly appears there was something in it more than ordinary and that it was not insignificant so that it is no wonder we find it written in the 11. v. It is the Passeover of the Lord Moreover the following verses explicate the figurative sense the 26 v. puts the question what mean you by this service What dos it signifie and the 27. gives the answer it is the Sacrifice of the Lords Passeover that is it signifies the Passeover But in our present case 1. the Scripture dos not insinuate before hand that bread was an empty Sign of Christ's body 2. there is nothing in Scripture that gives evidence for such interpretation of our Saviour's words as I have shewd in the first part of my Discourse If any one object that Bread and Flesh are opposite therefore the sense must of necessity be figurative For a full answer to this difficulty I referr you to the 7. of S. Luke where in the 22. v our Saviour says the blind see the lame walk the deaf hear the dead are rais'd To be blind and see to be lame and walk to be deaf and hear to be dead and alive are things quite disparate and opposite yet our Saviour's words were evidently true in the plain literal sense From whence we may also inferr that as these words the dead are rais'd cannot be literally true unless the carkasse be substantially chang'd into a living man so when our Saviour says This is my Body these words can never be true in the plain literal sense unlesse the Bread be by a miracle substantially chang'd into his Flesh. To prove the literal sense to convince us of it what can we wish for more than the unanâ—mous consent of all the four Evangelists and the subscription of S. Paul There is not one of them that writes This is only a Sign of my body a meer Figure of my flesh T is impossible the Sense should every where be figurative in so many several places yet be no where explicated in the figurative sense In other things of lesse concern we find that what is metaphorically writ by one is explicated by another S. Luke in his 11. ch writes if I in the finger of God cast out Devils S. Matthew in the 12. ch explains it if I cast out Devils by the Spirit of God. S.
12. ch he says Our Lord did not doubt to say This is my Body when He gave them a sign of his Body And why should he doubt If a man give his friend a purse of money He dos not doubt to say This is my Money although the Purse be only a sign of it If a purse be empty t is an empty sign But if it be full it then contains all that it signifies and what it represents is truly substantially present Bread in the Old Law was an empty sign of Christ's Body The outward form of Bread is still a sign of it but not an empty sign because it really contains the selfsame Body which it represents I take no notice of S. Austin's words in the 3. book of his Christian Doctrine where he saies Our Saviour * ch 16. seems to command a heinous wickedness ... therefore 't is a figure I take no notice of it because He dos not say it is an empty figure He only says our Saviours speech is figurative in opposition to the literal sense of the Capernaites that barbarous sense in which indeed it is a heinous crime to eat our Saviour's flesh * I also pass over Tertullian's words in his 4. book against Marcion * ch 40. This is my Body that is This figure of my Body I pass them over because the true sense amounts to no more than that This bread which in the Old Law was but a figure of my Body now in the New Law is my Body The obscurity of this great man is well enough known to all that are acquainted with him Nor can any who converse with him be ignorant that the figure Hyperbaton is often in his mouth In the same book ch 11. he says To a Parable will I open my mouth that is Similitude and in his book against Praxeas Christ is dead that is Anointed This is enough to shew the affected transposition of his words And for the sense it may be easily conjectur'd by the design of his book the principal end of which is to shew the correspondency betwixt the Old Law and the New to which purpose it was a very pertinent observation that the Form of Bread in the Old Law was an empty figure of what is fullfill'd in the New. In the same sense Tertullian says in his 1. book against Marcion that * ch 14. Christ by Bread represents his Body that is by the outward form of Bread He exhibits it substantially present So in his 4 book he says that * ch 22. God the Father represented Christ on Mount Thabor saying This is my Son. So likewise in his book of Prayer he says * ch 5. We pray for the representation that is the real presence of God's Kingdom And again speaking of the Day of judgment in his book concerning the Resurrection he says * ch 14. it cannot be without the representation that is the personal presence of all all Mankind They who delight in reading Tertullian may find a great deal more to this effect But this is enough to satisfie any rational man that my interpretation is not forc'd * Facundus of Hermian speaks in the same Dialect when in his 〈◊〉 for the defence of the Tria Capitula He says the Sacrament ... is call'd his Body Blood not that the Bread is properly his Body and the Cup his Blood but because they contain the mysteries of his Body Blood. He explicates there how signs are call'd by the names of what they signifie And argues that the Sacrament of Adoption may be call'd Adoption as the outward forms of bread wine are call'd the body blood of Christ The Argument is good because these outward forms of bread wine consider'd in themselves are only signs they are not properly the body of our Lord they are only call'd so because they are types and figures of it But that they are not empty signs the same Author tells us when he says in the same place that they are call'd so because they contain the mysteries of his body blood * If some of you perhaps still think it strange that such expressions as these should be made use of frequently by men who really believ'd this mystery For your farther satisfaction you may please to reflect that not only the Fathers of the first six Centuries but also our most eminent Authors who have written since the Condemnation of Berengarius who undoubtedly held Transubstantiation nevertheless use the very same phrase of speaking It would be tedious to run over many instances One out of S. Anselm will be enough to satisfie your curiosity About the end of the eleventh Century when by our English Reformers confession the Doctrine of Transubstantiation was fully settled establisht He writes thus in his Treatise De Sacramento Altaris That similitude of bread which upon the Altar appears to our corporeal eyes consider'd in it self is not the Body of our Lord. * Some people have such little souls they cannot raise their thoughts above their vulgar notions they are not much acquainted with those signs which signifie things present those signs which are not appointed to supply the defect of real presence but only to supply the want of visible appearance And therefore they will not allow that there are any such signs in the World. Say what you will they mind not what you say but tell you over over again that if the outward form of the Sacrament be a sign of his Body 't is certain his Body is not really and truly present Have but a little patience and I shall quickly clear this point My Speech and Motion are signs of Life Soul in me And must I believe a Sophister if any were so silly as to tell me Therefore I am a dead man because it is the nature of all signs to exclude the real presence of what they signifie The form of a Serpent in Paradise was in some manner a sign of the Evil Spirit that tempted Eve and was not this Evil Spirit really truly present The form of a Dove appearing at our Saviour's Baptism the forms of fiery tongues appearing on the day of Pentecost represented the Holy Ghost And will you say the Holy Ghost was never really present neither one time nor other The human forms which in the old Testament the Angels usually assumed represented the Angels And were those Angels never truly substantially present Such instances as these I may presume our Adversaries do not well consider if they did they never would conclude that the Fathers denied the mystery of Transubstantiation because they call the outward form a type a sign or figure * Besides this mighty difficulty which I now have clearly satisfied There remains one more which is that according to the Doctrine of the Fathers the Substance of bread remains after Consecration Here I must needs confess they charge us home And if they can perform what
they promise we are always ready to come over to them But having been so long in full peaceable possession of a Truth deliver'd to us as an ancient article of Faith they cannot reasonably expect that we should quit our hold before they bring clear evidence against our Title to it Necessity obliges them to make this bold attempt They know if once they grant that all the Torrent of Antiquity runs clear and strong against them they never can be able to bear up against the stream They are sensible how plainly the Fathers speak their mind in favour of this mystery And therefore search amongst the darkest passages of all their Writings where they are glad to meet with any thing that makes a plausible appearance * The Sum of their Objection is this that S. Chrysostom Theodoret and Gelasius expressly affirm that the substance of bread remains after Consecration and therefore it is not chang'd into the body of Christ * This at first sight seems plausible enough nor is it any wonder if it startle those who never heard of it before And yet if all these great Men by their substance meant no more than the true nature of the outward forms sensible qualities there is no danger of their disbelieving Transubstantiation We believe the substance is really chang'd and these Fathers were pleas'd to say the substance is really the same but yet after all the noise they make with it the Fathers and we may agree so far as to be both in the right if we take the same word in different senses they by substance mean one thing whilst we mean another Philosophy both old new distinguishes betwixt the inward substance the outward forms of all corporeal Beings These are the usual and familiar object of our Senses that 's an entity so subtil so metaphysical that nothing but our Understanding can discern it T is not indeed a Spirit but it is no more to be discover'd by our Senses than a human Soul is in a Body Extension figure colour and its other qualities are the Apparel which it wears and these affect our Senses But the naked Substance of all Bodies is perpetually hidden from them However although Philosophers make this distinction betwixt the inward substance the outward forms nevertheless the Generality of Mankind look no farther than their Senses lead them They judge of bodies by their qualities natural effects By these they sensibly discern one Substance from another And this is all they think of when they talk of Substance When any of the Fathers say the Substance or nature of bread wine remains after consecration they onely condescend so far as to accomodate their way of speaking to the vulgar phrase And truly what they mean we all believe We doubt not but all which is vulgarly understood by substance is the same We doubt not but our Senses tell us truth and that all the outward forms qualities of bread wine remain unalter'd The Council of Trent declares there is no change in these * Sess 13. can 2. manentibus speciebus panis vini If therefore the Fathers use sometimes this vulgar notion of Substance what wonder is it if sometimes they tell us that the nature or the Substance is the same What wonder is it if S. Chrysostom in his epistle to Cesarius write thus As before Consecration we call it Bread but after it is no longer call'd Bread but the Body of our Lord although the Nature of Bread remains in it and it dos not become two Bodies but one Body of Christ So here the Divine Nature being joyn'd to the Human they both make one Son one Person By the Nature of a Body we usually aprehend no more than the exteriour qualities which we discover by our Senses And when we find a change in these we usually say the Nature changes although the Body still remain the same And by the same rule when the accidents make still the same impression upon our Senses although the Body by a miracle be chang'd we say the Nature is the same Besides These very words which are produc'd against us shew clearly that S Chrysostom distinguishes betwixt the Nature of bread the Body of bread Dos not he say that although the Nature or accidents of Bread remain yet the Body or Substance of bread dos not remain because there remains but One Body and this one Body if we believe him is not the Body of bread but the Body of Christ * With as little reason they triumph because Theodoret says in his 2. Dialogue The mystical Symboles remain in their former Substance form figure may be seen toucht as before And Gelasius in his book De duabus in Christo naturis says the Substance or Nature of bread wine dos not cease .... they remain in the propriety of their Nature * Theodoret dos not speak of the corporeal Substance of bread by which it differs from a Spirit but expressly names the mystical Symboles which are the outward forms accidents of bread wine And Gelasius urging the same argument against the Eutychians uses the word Substance only once and the word Nature twice to let us see that by the Substance of the mystical Symboles or as he calls them the Sacraments which we receive he only means the nature or the essence of the sensible Accidents * And now I desire to know what wonder there is in all this Is it any unheard of News to Men of Letters that such words as substance nature essence are promiscuously made use of even by Philosophers and that by them they mean to signifie the notion of any other predicament or any real being as well as that of substance S. Austin was undoubtedly a great Philosopher yet He calls every real Being by the name of Substance In his Enarration upon the 68. Psalm he says Quod nulla substantia est nihil omnino est That which has no substance is nothing at all * If this be true you 'l say their argument against the Eutychians will be good for nothing Excuse me The Eutychians held that there was onely One Nature in Christ because they were pleas'd to fancy that his human nature was absorpt in the Divinity chang'd into it To prove the substantial change of human nature into the Divinity they argued from the miraculous change of bread into the body of Christ which argument they never would have urged if they had not known that the Catholicks of that Age believ'd the mystery of Transubstantiation Theodoret and Gelasius answer that the outward forms of bread wine remain the same as formerly from whence it follows evidently that not only the accidents of human nature but also the very subsiance of it still remains in Christ Because the accidents of human nature separated from the substance of it are neither capable of hypostatick union with God nor of exercising the vital
whether it be true or no is the Question which the Fathers of the first four Ages are to answer S. Ignatius in his epistle to the Romans speaking of this bread of God says it is the Flesh of Jesus Christ S. Justin martyr in his Apology to Antoninus Pius says We are taught that it is the Body Blood of Jesus Incarnate S. Ireneus in his fifth book against heresies ch 11. speaking of the bread wine says that by the word of God they are made the Eucharist which is the Body Blood of Christ Origen in his 7. homilie upon the 6. of Numbers says Then in a figure Manna was their meat but now in reality the Flesh of God the Word is our true meat Optatus in his 6. book against Parmenian gives the Sacrament no other name What is the Altar says he but the seat of Christ's Body Blood He repeats it over over again And if all the while he meant only a figure 't is strange he should never call it by the right name S. Ephrem the Deacon in his book De Naturâ Dei curiosè non scrutandâ says Our Saviour has given us his Body Blood and that this gift of his exceeds all admiration all expression all understanding Which he would never have said if he had thought it had been but a figure To all these proofs several more which I omit the Author of a late Dialogue in which the mysteries of Trinity Transubstantiation are compared returns this answer that the Reformers themselves generall say the Eucharist is the Body of Christ And yet they all deny the mystery of Transubstantiation This is soon said amounts to no more than this That the Reformers say as we do think otherwise They say it is his body they think it is not But you must give me leave to tell you that although their words look one way their thoughts another I have no reason to suspect this fallacy of speech in the good Fathers of the first four Centuries What they receiv'd in plain terms from our Saviour his Apostles They deliverd with the same sincerity candour to succeeding Ages Hear what S. Hilary of Poictiers tells you in his 8. book De Trinitate where taking notice of our Saviour's words in the 6. ch of S. John He says There is no place lest for doubting of the Truth of his Body Blood for now by our Lord's Profession our Faith 't is truly his Body truly his Blood. Hear S. Epiphanius in his Ancorat where to oppose the Allegorical Sense of Origen in the Creation of Paradise He alledges several places out of Scripture which though they are hard to understand are universally believ'd in the plain literal sense Amongst the rest he produces the example of the Eucharist thus discourses upon it We see it is not equal nor like the Body of Christ yet our Saviour would pronounce This is my Body Nor is there any one who dos not believe these words of his For he who dos not believe them to be true falls absolutely from the state of Grace of Salvation What think ye of this Do ye think these great Men did not understand the faith of the Age they lived in Do ye think they were not able to inform the World concerning the Faith of former Ages much better than our late Reformers who came into the World above a thousand years after them They tell us The literal Sense is matter of Faith that they who do not believe it are neither in the State of Grace nor of Salvation If it be said that any Real Presence of Christ's Body or the Impanation of his Person is enough What need is there of Transubstantiation to verifie the literal Sense The Answer is obvious clear 1. Our Saviour did not say My Body is here but This is my Body And although any real presence is enough to make good the former Assertion yet nothing less than a Substantial change can verifie the later 2. Although by virtue of an hypostatick union it may be as true to say This bread is Christ as to say This Man is God yet still 't will be as false to say This Bread is the Body of Christ as to say This Humanity is the Divinity Besides it falls out a little unluckily that this Invention only serves to pull down the old Transubstantiation to set up a new one by changing the subsistence of bread into the divine Subsistence the Second Person of the B. Trinity It cannot be litterally verified that This Bread or This thing which was bread is the Flesh of Christ unless the bread be chang'd into his flesh that is cease to be bread and begin to be his flesh And this is the substantial change which we call Transubstantiation There are two sorts of changes one accidental as when cold water is made warm another substantial as when our Saviour chang'd water into wine An accidental change may warm the water but only a substantial change can make it wine In the same manner an accidental change may make bread a Sacrament but nothing less than a substantial change can make it the Flesh or Body of Christ * The Fathers often compare these changes but never confound the one with the other S. Cyril of Hierusalem in his 1. Mystagogick Catechise observes that as Bread by invocation of the Trinity is made the Body of Christ so meats offer'd to Devils are made impure by invocation of them In his 3. Catechise he says As bread after the invocation is the Body of Christ so the Oyntment after consecration is the Chrisme of Christ S. Ambrose in his 4. book De Sacramentis ch 4. proves that Christ can effect great changes above nature because by his grace We are new Creatures in Him. But yet the Fathers do not say These changes are equal to That by which Bread is made the Body of Christ These Assertions This meat is impure This oyntment is the Chrism of Christ This man is a new creature in Christ All This is evidently verified in the plain literal Sense by a meer accidental change But when the Fathers say This bread is the Flesh of Christ Nothing but a substantial change can verifie the plain Sense of the Letter Nothing can make it literally true but Transubstantiation Bread is one Body one corporeal Substance The Flesh of Christ is another Body another corporeal Substance Change that into this You change one Body into another one Substance into another And then I pray What change is this if it be not Substantial What is it if it be not Transubstantiation T is clear that when the Fathers of the first four Ages speak of the wonderfull change made in the Sacrament they speak of the change of Bread into the Flesh or Body of Christ They speak not of an Accidental change but a Substantial one which now the Church calls Transubstantiation And
THREE SERMONS UPON THE SACRAMENT IN WHICH Transubstantiation is impartially considerd as to Reason Scripture and Tradition To which is added a Sermon upon the Feast of S. George By N. N. Preacher in Ordinary to their Majesties LONDON M.DC.LXXXVIII A SERMON Preacht before the KING AT WHITE-HALL June 14. 1688. Quomodo fiet istud How shall this be done Luke 1.34 THe Enemies of Christ's Divinity abhorr the Faith of it as contrary to Sense because all those who saw him plainly saw he was a Man and opposite to Reason because it seems to them impossible either for Immensity to be comprehended in the compass of a man or for one Person to subsist in two Natures The Enemies of Transubstantiation urge the same arguments against it They say 't is contrary to Sense because all those who see it plainly see 't is bread and opposite to Reason because it seems to them impossible either for Christ's body to be comprehended in so small a compass or for one body to be at the same time in two places Never was S. Paul's advice more seasonable than in this Age of ours He tells us that it is our Duty * 2. Cor. 10.5 to cast down imaginations and every high thing that exalteth it self against the knowledge of God bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ I must confess 't is naturall enough to entertain a doubtfull thought of what is far above the reach of Reason When things are so extremely difficult that no man can conceive the manner how they are perform'd we presently are apt to think they are impossible How shall this be done But this is a proud thought that must be humbled 't is a rebellious imagination which if S. Paul says true must be cast down it exalts it self against the knowledg of God and must be brought into captivity S. Iohn Damascen in his Orthodox Faith * 3. b. 14. ch proposes an illustrious example of our Duty in a parallell betwixt the Incarnation Eucharist and by the Blessed Virgin 's humble submission to that mystery shews how we ought to captivate our understanding in believing this Thus he discourses compares both mysteries How shall this be done said the Blessed Virgin seeing I know not a man The Archangel Gabriel answerd The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee the Power of the Highest shall overshadow thee You also ask me the like Question How can bread be made the body of Christ wine mixt with water become the blood of Christ I also give you the same answer The Holy Ghost descends effects such things as far exceed not only our expressions but our understandings The mysteries of Faith would be no longer mysteries if Reason comprehended them much less would they deserve that Name if Sense discoverd them We commonly say that Seeing is Believing and amongst Men acquainted with the cheats of a deceitfull world we find the wisest are the slowest in believing what they do not see But yet the word of God has so much credit with us that we confidently trust him farther than we see him and when we hear him say This is my body we believe it though we do not see it Nor is it any wonder that we boldly venture to believe such things as are beyond the reach of Sense more than it is that we believe such points as are above the reach of Reason If Transubstantiation were either contrary to Sense or Reason then indeed the clamours of our Adversaries would be something plausible But if it be neither contrary to Sense as I shall plainly shew in my first part nor contrary to Reason as I shall endeavour to prove in my second all their unreasonable clamours will be little valued and all their noise which is the last and weakest refuge of a baffed Cause will signifie just nothing Permit me only in the first place to beg the assistance of my Saviour whose cause I plead and to desire his Virgin Mother with all the Angels Saints in Heaven to joyn their prayers with mine FIRST PART We are all of us willing to believe our eyes and truly we have reason to believe them especially when all mens eyes agree and in all times places give the same information to our understandings Not that I think it is impossible for the Almighty to deceive the eyes of all men by a constant miracle of his Omnipotence but that I have good reason to suppose he uses methods more conformable to reasonable nature One great occasion of men's thinking that their senses are imposed upon is but a false persuasion that when they see the Sacrament they must believe the outward form the surface the qualities which we see touch tast to be the true Body Blood of Christ If this were so they would have reason to be jealous of their senses being contradicted But if these people would reflect that all this outward form the surface and the qualities which we observe are really in all respects the very same as they are represented to our senses that they are not believed by us to be the true Body and Blood of Christ but only the coat which cloaths it the curtain which is drawn before it the veil which shrouds it and hides it from our senses that when we fall down on our knees to adore our Saviour Jesus Christ whom we firmly believe to be really and substantially present by a miracle insensible and imperceptible to all our senses we do not adore the coat which cloaths him nor the curtain which is drawn before him nor the veil which shrouds hides him from us we only adore the God of our Salvation who in the mystery of the Incarnation hid his Divinity in flesh in the mystery of Transubstantiation hides his flesh blood under the forms of bread wine Verily says the Prophet Isaiah * c 45. v. 15. Thou art a God that hidest thy self O God of Israel the Saviour If people would but leisurely reflect that all which they perceive by any of their senses is really and truly the same as they perceive it that Faith dos not oblige them to believe the contrary but only to believe that under the superficies of these outward forms the Body and Blood of Christ are hid miraculously conceal'd from all their senses Then they would easily conclude that Transubstantiation is not contrary to sense My word alone perhaps has not sufficient credit with you you may hear S. Anselm in the end of the eleventh Century after the condemnation of Berengarius In the 1. ch of his Tract de Sacramento Altaris he plainly says That similitude of bread which upon the Altar appears to our corporeal eyes considerd in it self is not the body of our Lord. No no you may believe your eyes that all the exteriour forms of bread are truly there 't is only necessary to believe that the body of our Lord is really containd
in the principles both of the old new Philosophy we never see the nakedness of any substance whatsoever but only the outward forms which hide it from us and therefore if the Almighty have a mind to change the substance only not the accidents we may watch him as narrowly as we please never discover any alteration because all that our senses can perceive remains the same and as before the substance was miraculously chang'd we could not see it so after 't is miraculously chang'd we cannot miss it Talk to them of these notions in the plainest terms you can they 'l ask you what you mean. wonder what you would be at They neither know the nature of the substance nor the accidents they know not whether Transubstantiation be contrary to sense or no and yet they still will tell a man it contradicts their senses 'T is very hard in such a case as this if they who do not understand Philosophy may tell us we deny our senses and they who understand it may not be allow'd to tell them fairly they are very much mistaken Mistakes in matters of religion are dangerous And certainly so much Philosophy as is needfull to set us right cannot but be allowable when such mistakes as these proceed from want of understanding it I shall conclude this part of my discourse with shewing in as easie terms as the matter will bear that t is impossible for any of our senses to give evidence against our faith of Transubstantiation If we believd that Transubstantiation were a sensible change a change of any thing that is sensible in the bread wine then indeed our senses being judges of sensible things might easily give evidence against our faith They might depose that nothing sensible is chang'd but that all things sensible remain the same as formerly they were and no man could deny but that our Faith would contradict our Senses But on the contrary if we do not believe that Transubstantiation is a sensible change if we believe no change of any thing which is sensible then truly our senses not being judges of insensible things cannot give evidence against us they cannot depose that no insensible thing is chang'd because insensible matters fall not within their cognizance and therefore whether they are chang'd or not is more than they can tell If there should happen a dispute concerning difference of colours whether they are chang'd or not Would you remit it to the arbitration of five blind men Since therefore the dispute betwixt us is about the insensible difference of substance whether it be chang'd or not How can our senses give their sentiment one way or other either for it or against it This argument is so convincing that it will not bear the least appearance of a solid Answer and withall so plain that any man without Philosophy may clearly understand it To which I shall only add a word or two more to put a stop to all the cavills which may possibly arise from the diversity of schoolmen's fancies T is evident that the Catholick Church by the substance which is believ'd to be chang'd in the Sacrament dos not understand any thing that is sensible in bread wine The Council of Trent in the 2. Canon of the 13. Session supposes as a certain undoubted truth that all things sensible remain the same manentibus speciebus panis vini And in the 1. ch of the same Session tells us that the body blood of Christ are contain'd under them sub specie illarum rerum sensibilium T is true the Council dos not offer to define what substance is it dos not tell us what it understands by substance it meddles not with definitions of Philosophy but only definitions of Faith determining what Truths were first deliver'd to the Church by Christ his Apostles But though we know not in particular what 't was the Council meant by substance This we know for certain that it meant not any of those sensible things but only that insensible subsistent Being which is hidden under them And this is enough to silence all disputes about the Evidence of Sense Let who will tell us that the substances of bread wine are sensible we always shall have this to say That if by substance they mean something which is sensible the Council dos not mean the same They mean one sort of substance The Council means another therefore all their arguments from evidence of sense are every one misplac'd they are levell'd against a chimerical Transubstantiation of their own invention and not against that which the Council has defin'd In a word if any Transubstantiation be contrary to sense Let them look to 't we are not at all concern'd in the matter such a Transubstantiation is not ours but theirs I humbly recommend this to your serious thoughts undertake to prove that Transubstantiation is not contrary to Reason in the second part of my Discourse SECOND PART The Oracles of Holy Scripture in the book of Iob assure us * 36.26 God is great and we know him not As we do not know him so we do not know his power and therefore it is written in the following chapter * 37.5 He dos great things which we cannot comprehend His works are great we cannot comprehend them But hence it dos not follow that they are impossible because He can do great things which we cannot comprehend We all of us agree that mysteries of Faith are far above the reach of Reason but 't is our great misfortune and one of the worst effects of our original Corruption That though we thus agree in generalls yet in the examen of particulars we easily confound their being above Reason with their being contrary and presently conclude them contrary because they are above it All this proceeds from nothing but a secret pride or vanity which make us willing to suppose that we are wiser than we are that we comprehend the secret Natures of things understand clearly the essentiall constitution of their Beings see evidently all the attributes appropriated to them all the qualities irreconcileably repugnant to their natures Supposing this we readily pronounce This is impossible That cannot be This is a meer chimera That 's a contradiction And all this while reflect not that we may perhaps be very much mistaken in our arbitrary notions from whence we draw so easily these bold Conclusions We do not consider the History as well as Theory of Natural Philosophy if we did we should find such strange varieties alterations in it as would demonstrate the uncertainty of of all its principles Corpuscular Philosophy was well enough received in ancient times under Democritus Epicurus Afterwards it was in a manner quite laid by Aristotle's Notions succeeded in the place And now the world begins to seem unsatisfied his matter form his quantity qualities begin to look a little out of countenance and the Corpuscular Philosophy
body at the same time be in several places Shew us but this deliverd plainly in the Scripture and then wee 'l grant that Transubstantiation is repugnant to it Some upon this occasion produce the Angel's words who in the last chapter of S. Matthew told the women at the sepulchre He is not here for He is risen where the Angel seems to conclude that because his body was in another place therefore it was not in that place All the whole stress of this argument depends upon a word of so little moment that the last of S. Mark quite leaves it out the last of S. Luke not only leaves it cut but puts another in the place in S. Mark the Angel says He is risen He is not here in S. Luke he says He is not here but is risen But however if the Angel's Reasoning in S. Matthew must be so much magnified when they have made the best they can of it 't will amount to neither more nor less than this He is not here because he is risen that is He is not here because he is gone from hence which inference is not a jot the worse although we should suppose that the same body may be at the same time in a thousand places Let us suppose his Body at the same time if you please in millions of places yet if it be true that he is risen gone from hence it follows evidently that he is not here The second Text is found in the 3. ch of S. Paul to the Colossians where he gives both them us good counsel bids us * v. 1.2 seek for things above things which are only to be found in heaven where Christ sits at the right hand of God joys which are heavenly everlasting which in the same chapter he calls the * v. 24. reward of our inheritance He bids us raise our hearts above the world above the vanities the pleasures temptations of it Alas all this is nothing to our present purpose all this we believe although we know his body is as really on earth as 't is in heaven Did not our Saviour preach the same to his Apostles And yet he lived amongst them upon Earth The third Text lies before us in the 14. of S. Mark where our Redeemer makes a plain Antithesis betwixt him the poor compares himself with them shews the difference betwixt their case his * v. 7. You have the poor with you always says he and when you will you may do them good but me you have not always as if he should say you will always have the poor in a condition of doing them good but as for me you will not always have me in that indigent condition you will not hereafter be in a capacity of doing me any good When he was visible amongst us before his resurrection he was subject to our natural necessities and it was in our power to relieve ease him But in the Sacrament he is immortal impassible incapable of being injur'd by the malice of his enemies or betterd by the service of his friends This Text not being able to support so weak a cause a fourth is borrowd from the 1. Cor. in the 11. chapter where the Apostle says * v. 26. We shew the Lord's death till he comes therefore he is not come yet and if he be not come How is he really present in the Sacrament Let us reflect a little examine the sense of these words till he comes This coming of our Saviour is repeated frequently in Scripture in the 1. ch of the Acts we read * v. 11. He shall come in like manner as you have seen him go in the 14. of S. Mark * v. 62. You shall see him coming in the clouds in the 24. of S. Math. * v. 30. They shall see him coming in power great glory Every man that can but say his Creed is well acquainted with this coming which is so much celebrated in the Scripture we all believe that this his coming is so judge the quick the dead When they read in the Bible we shew the Lords death till he comes they inferr Therefore he is not come yet Very true The Lord's Day is not come the Day of judgment is not come and onely God knows when it will come But is it therefore evident that in the Sacrament there is no Transubstantiation no Real Presence because the Day of judgment is not come I am inclin'd to think that when it dos come when Christ comes to judge the world calls all those to an account who have pretended every one according to their fancy to reform his Church they then will wish too late that either they had let the Church alone or else had had much better evidence than this to justifie the Reformation The fifth Text seems to promise more yet performs as little as the rest We find it in the 22 of S. Luke where our Saviour says * v. 19. Do this in remembrance of me Now say they we cannot remember any thing but what is absent and therefore the Body of Christ must of necessity be absent from the Sacrament cannot be really truly present in it Pray cannot I remember God take delight in thinking of his goodness Remember my own sinfull soul pity her condition And is not my soul present in my Body Is not the Almighty present every where * v. 1. Remember thy Creatour in the days of thy youth says Solomon in the last chapter of Ecclesiastes and yet this great Creatour is not absent from us S. Paul says in the 17. ch of the Acts * v. 27. He is not far from every one of us Though He is always present yet we easily forget him because he is not present to our senses And I am afraid because we do not see the invisible body blood of Christ I am afraid we now then forget how great a treasure we receive when we approach the Sacrament I am afraid because we neither see nor feel our souls we oftentimes neglect almost quite forget the great concern of our salvation differring it from time to time till by God's judgment death surprises us and we are lost for all Eternity The two last Texts as they have most appearance so they have the least of substance when they are examin'd S. Paul says in his 1. Cor. 11. ch * v. 28. Let a man examine himself so let him eat of that bread Our Saviour says in the 26. ch of S. Math. * v. 29. I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the Vine Both of them speak thus after consecration Both of them call it bread wine And therefore after consecration it still remains true bread wine You see how fairly I propose the difficulty and now I humbly beg your best attention to the Answer S. Paul dos not say This is Bread
Our Saviour dos not say This is Wine S. Paul dos not contradict our Saviour nor dos our Saviour contradict himself Why then do they call it bread and wine The Answer is obvious Not because it was bread wine then but because it was bread wine before Nothing is more familiar in Scripture than this way of speaking S. Iohn in the 9. ch of his Ghospel relating the miraculous cure of the man that was born blind tells us in the 7. v. He went his way washt came seeing and yet afterwards in the 17. v. he calls him blind and tells us what they say to the blind man again Why dos the Scripture call him blind after his sight was restord The reason is not because he was blind then but because he was blind before Turn to the 7. ch of S. Luke and in the 22. v. you 'l read these words of our Saviour The blind see the lame walk the deaf hear he says they see and yet he calls them blind he says they walk yet he calls them lame he says they hear yet he calls them deaf Why dos he call them blind lame deaf when he himself bears witness that they see walk hear The Answer lies before you He calls them so not because they were so then but because they were so before In the 2. ch of S. Iohn the substantial change of water into wine was much the same as Transubstantiation therefore the example is fitter for the purpose In the 9 v. you read that the Ruler of the Feast tasted the water that was made wine You cannot but observe how plainly the Scripture says it was made wine and at the same time plainly calls it water Will any man deny this miracle and say it was not really truly wine because the Scripture calls it water after it was made wine No no 't is clear that when the miracle was done the Scripture calls it water not because it was water then but because it was water before Read the 7. ch of Exodus you 'l find in the 10. v. Aaron cast down his rod before Pharaoh it became a Serpent in the 11. v. The Magicians of Egypt also did in like manner in the 12. v. They cast down every man his rod but Aaron's rod swallowd up their rods Pause here one moment The Scripture plainly tells us that these rods were all chang'd into Serpents and yet after the change the Scripture calls them rods not because they were rods then but because they were rods before If any of our Adversaries have a mind to say these rods were not chang'd into Serpents that Christ never chang'd water into wine that when he told S. Iohn's disciples the blind see the lame walk the deaf hear he sent them back to their master with so many lies in their mouths if they have a mind to say our Saviour never cur'd the man born blind then they may have the same pretence to magnifie this trifling argument But if they are the men which I would willingly believe they are if they are candid sincere if they submit their judgment fairly to the word of God as it is plainly written in their own translation of of the Bible they cannot but ingenuously confess that Transubstantiation is not any way repugnant to plain words of holy Scripture but that Scripture it self contutes the best of all their arguments which they produce against it I will not say t is ignorance but I am sure 't is either that or want of ingenuity which makes men argue that because there are some metaphors in Scripture Therefore the words of Consecration are a Metaphor or Figure No man denies but that we often meet with metaphors in Scripture but then either the common phrase of speaking evidently marks them out or else they are explaind by what fore-runs or follows the expression so explaind that no judicious Reader doubts the meaning of them When in the 6. of S. Iohn our Saviour says I am the bread of life He adds he that comes to me shall never hunger When in the 8. He says I am the light of the world He adds he that follows me shall have the light of life When in the 10. He says I am the door He adds by me if any man enter he shall be saved When in the 14. He says I am the way He adds no man comes to my Father but by me When in the 15. He says I am the Vine He adds he that abides in me brings forth much fruit So when S. Paul tells the Ephesians 5. ch 30. v. We are members of his body of his flesh of his bones He explicared it in the 23. v. that this Body which Christ is the Head and Saviour of is the Church And when he mentions flesh bones he only carries on the metaphor by a mysterious allusion to the 2. of Genesis because as Eve's Body drew its Being from the side of the first Adam when he slept in Paradise so also the Church derives the grace which animates it from the side the flesh bones of the last Adam when he slept his mortal sleep upon the Cross The verse which follows leads directly to the place and gives us word for word the 24. v. of the 2. of Genesis that we may evidently know the Sense and Ground of the Comparison In the same manner no less care is taken in the 1. to the Cor. 10. ch 4. v. to explicate these words That Rock was Christ S. Paul seems to write with as much caution as if he had forseen how much these words would be abused by those who now compare them with the words of Consecration Lest any man might think that when he said that rock was Christ he took the word rock in the literal sense he plainly says he speaks of spiritual meat spiritual drink he says in the same verse they drank of that spiritual rock which followd them and that rock that is that spiritual rock was Christ What could a man say more to acquaint the world with the true meaning of his words give us an assurance that it is not literal but only figurative metaphorical Some people are willing to believe that because Christ's body blood are only metaphorically broken shed for us in the Sacrament therefore they are not really his body blood As if because one word is figurative in a sentence therefore all the rest must be so too meerly for keeping it company or as if we were oblig'd to believe that because Christ's sitting at the right hand of his Father is a meer metaphor therefore he did not really ascend to Heaven When in S. Luke in the 1 Cor. we read these words This Cup is the New Testament in my Blood the Cup is one metaphor the Testament is another but hence it dos not follow that the blood of Christ is meerly metaphorical For in the common
way of speaking when we say This Glass is a new Health in Wine the glass is one metaphor the health is another and yet the wine is truly substantially Wine Having thus exposed the weakness of their arguments by which they undertake to shew that Transubstantiation is repugnant to plain words of holy Scripture I shall now endeavour to make out that Transubstantiation may if any thing can be plainly provd by holy Writ the proof of which shall make the second part of my Discourse SECOND PART In the 6. ch of S. Iohn our Saviour promises that he will give us his flesh that sacred flesh which he design'd to sacrifice upon the Cross for our Redemption In the 51. v. he says the Bread that I will give is my Flesh which I will give for the life of the world I know very well that in the former verses from 26. to 51. He uses some expressions which are purely metaphorical But whatsoever a few modern Authors may say of this matter I can never be persuaded that this chapter talks of nothing else but Faith that from 50. to 60. the Eating which is so much talkt of signifies nothing but Believing We have appeal'd to Scripture Let it judge the Case betwixt us When in the 52 v. we read how the Jews strove amongst themselves saying How can this man give us his flesh to eat we know they understood him in the literal Sense wonderd how it could be true If he had spoken only in a figurative Sense it had been easy to have told them so In other matters of much less importance 't was his usual custom to expound his meaning Iohn the 3. ch 4. v. Nicodemus said to him How can a man be born again when he is old He let him understand He did not mean it in the literal sense but that He spoke of Baptism Except a man be born of water the Spirit he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God. Matth. 13. He proposed to his Disciples the Parable of the Sower They understood it not He presently expounded it to them The Parable of Tares they understood as little but as soon as they desir'd him He declar'd to them the whole mystery of it In these other occasions when he had spoken any thing obscurely He was always willing to interpret it And there was never more necessity than when the Jews were scandaliz'd to hear him say the Bread that I will give is my Flesh. If he only design'd to give them Bread not his Flesh. I will not say He ought to have explain'd himself because to punish their perversness He might lawfully have left them in their ignorance and though he were the Light of the world yet He might justly leave those in the dark who obslinately shut their eyes against him But that our Saviour should not only refuse to explicate his words but also make it his business to confirm them in an errour that He who came to instruct the world should labour to deceive it that He who left the ninety nine sheep in the Desert should endeavour to drive the lost sheep farther from the true way home Let who will say it A Christian must be asham'd to think it If he were then resolv'd to give us nothing else to eat drink but bread wine is it probable that He would so industriously repeat the eating of his Flesh drinking of his Blood Is it possible that he should tell them in the 55. v. My Flesh is meat indeed my Blood is drink indeed if really the meat drink were neither Flesh nor Blood When in the 24. of S. Luke our Adversaries read our Lord is risen indeed or in the 4. of S. Iohn this is indeed the Saviour of the world They understand it believe it in the literal sense But when they read these words my Flesh is meat indeed my Blood is drink indeed they believe 't is nothing else but sacred bread wine Is this Believing Scripture No no When Scripture speaks as plainly in one place as in another no convincing reason can be given why they force the sense of this place more than that if they believe that not this They do not believe the Scripture but themselves They do not believe because they read it but because they like it When the Disciples saw how seriously their Master taught the literal sense they cryd out in the 60. v this is a hard saying who can hear it They consider'd it foolishly says S. Austin * In Psal 98. they understood it carnally thought our Lord would chop of morsels of his flesh give it them They were not only startled at the seeming impossibility but also at the barbarousness of the design And the three following verses shew us how our Saviour endeavour'd to let them know it neither was impossible nor barbarous Dos this offend you says He Do you think I am not able to make good my words Surely you know not who I am you would not otherwise mistrust my Almighty Power But what if you shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before Then I suppose you 'l know that I am God and from that miracle conclude that this is easy to me that I have not only wisdom to contrive but power to execute my promise Dos this offend you It is the Spirit that quickneth the flesh profiteth nothing The words that I speak unto you they are Spirit they are Life I do not intend to give dead morsels of my flesh which being separated from my Spirit Divinity will profit nothing because they will not give your souls the lise of grace You shall not eat it in the natural form of human flesh that is indeed a carnal and a barbarous way of eating it But nevertheless under the form of bread you shall receive the true real substance of my flesh and this is that spiritual way of eating which you are not yet acquainted with This is the mystery which I expect you should believe This neither is impossible nor barbarous This is not contrary to Reason though it be above it But yet says he v. 64. there are some of you that believe not And v. 65. he tells the reason why because says he no man can come unto me unless it be given to him of my Father Proud Silly Wretches as we are We think it is sufficient to read Gods word we think there goes no more than reading to believe it we never reflect that no man can believe the word of God the Son unless he first receive the powerfull grace of Christian Humility from God the Father that Grace by which we willingly submit our Reason to such mysteries as are above it The 66. v. laies before our eyes the sad example of those many disciples who from that time went back walkt no more with him They heard the same words which our Adversaries
Iohn 6. ch writes Jesus the Son of Joseph S. Luke 3. ch explains it Jesus being as was supposed the Son of Joseph Our Saviour frequently invites the thirsty to him promises them living water S. Iohn in the 7. ch explains it He spoke this of the spirit which they who believd on him should receive But these words which we read in all of them are not explain'd by any one of them From whence 't is easy to inferr that all these sacred Pen-men never understood our Adversaries figurative sense They literally understood it as we do believd it as they understood it writ as they believ'd it S. Mark 4. ch 34. v. says of our Saviour that when they were alone He expounded all things to his Disciples If then our Saviour us'd a Figure when he said This is my Body 't is certain that when they were alone at least he expounded this figure to them Perhaps the four Evangelists the Apostle knew well enough this exposition but forgot to write it This will not serve the turn Our Saviour promis'd them their memory should ever be assisted by his holy Spirit In the 14. ch of S. Iohn * v. 26. the Holy Ghost says he shall bring all things into your remembrance whatsoever I have said unto you Perhaps they every one thought of it when they writ but did not think it worth the writing But if our Adversaries well consider the sixth Article of Reformation which tells us all things necessary to Salvation are contain'd in Scripture they will scarce find room for this reply because this exposition would have been so necessary to prevent the Idolatry which they accuse us of consequently necessary to Salvation Since therefore this Interpretation never could have been forgot if ever they had known it Since it could not be omitted if they had remember'd it it follows clearly that this explication was never known amongst them but only is a new invention of the modern Reformation directly contradictory to Scripture I cannot but admire when I reflect how thick a mist mens passions and prejudices raise before their eyes And this is undoubtedly the reason why so many able men of the reforming Party study Transubstantiation in Scripture search with diligence great appearance of sincerity yet never find it If they were equal impartial judges of the Texts which lie before them they soon would see how grievously they are mistaken in the true intent meaning of them By the example of this instance they would judge the rest acknowledge the injustice of the Reformation return home joyfully to their old Mother-Church full of admiration of God's mercy to them * 1. Pet. 2.9 shew forth the praises of Him who call'd them out of darkness into his wonderfull light which guides us through this vale of misery to the everlasting joys of Heaven Amen A SERMON Preacht before the KING AT WORCESTER August 24. 1687. Interroga Majores tuos dicent tibi Ask thy Elders They will tell thee Deut. 32.7 T Is now no less than six thirty years Most Sacred MAJESTY since our City of Worcester has been honour'd with the Presence of our King. Our Loyalty was then sufficiently try'd and now it is aboundantly rewarded ward Our Loyalty which then was so well known to all the world invited your Royal Brother to this Refuge And we employ'd our best endeavours to preserve his sacred Person But 't was too great an Honour for us The Almighty took it wholly to himself and by a surprising miracle of Providence afterwards granted to our earnest Prayers what He before denied to our unfortunate Arms. As we have never forfeited the credit of our Loyalty we hope your MAJESTY is well assured we shall be always ready to expose our lives fortunes in your MAJESTY's service It is not in the power of Subjects to give their Prince a more convincing assurance that they always will be Loyal than that they always have been so I only wish with all my heart that we had ever been as Loyal to the Church as to the State and that we had as zealously opposed the Reformation of our Faith as we withstood the Alteration of our Government When I first appear'd in this Place I made it my business to prove that according to principles of Natural Philosophy the Mystery of Transubstantiation is neither contrary to Sense nor Reason In my second Sermon I endeavour'd to shew it is so far from being contrary to Holy Writ that no judicious Reader who is free from prejudice can understand Scripture without it And this being my third appearance where it is expected I should finish what I have begun I now undertake to prove it is so far from being contrary to the purer faith of the first Ages that for the first eight Centuries the Fathers universally believ'd it Remember the days of old says Moses Consider the years of many generations Ask thy Fathers they will shew thee thy Elders they will tell thee My time is short considering the work I have before me But yet I hope it will not be accounted losse of time to spend one moment on my knees in begging the assistance of my Saviour and desiring his Virgin-Mother with all the Blessed Spirits to accompany my prayers upon Earth with theirs in Heaven FIRST PART * Before I enter upon our proofs of Transubstantiation it will be worth observing how almost all our Adversaries are mistaken upon a groundless supposition that if they can find expressions in the Fathers which import that the Sacrament is a type a sign a figure They need not seek any farther The question is already decided The Fathers never believ'd the mystery of Transubstantiation Now I must needs conless if we denied the Sacrament to be a type a sign or figure we ought to stand corrected Or if all this were inconsistent with the mystery of Transubstantiation we ought to own our Fathers Belief was contrary to ours But if in both these points our Adversaries are mistaken we must beg their pardon if we still persever in our ancient Faith. * If they would only consider the difference betwixt the inward substance the outward form betwixt the infide the outside of the Sacrament They would easily reconcile the different expressions which they meet with in the Fathers writings When the Fathens were intent upon the outward form They call it a type a sign a figure They say it is not his Body Blood but that it signifies it represents it contains it * S. Austin in his 23. epistle to Bonifacius says the Sacrament of the Body of Christ is in some manner Christ's Body .... as the Sacrament of Faith is Faith. The parity is good betwixt the outward form of bread and Baptism in this respect that both are signs Only this difference there is the first contains what it signifies the other dos not So in his book against Adimantus
Sacrifice of Mass in memory honour of S George * Council of Trent sess 22. chap. 3. we offer not the Sacrifice to him but to God alone who crown'd him with immortal Glory offering our humble Thanks to God both for his Victory his Eternal Triumph By our Thanksgiving we direct the Sacrifice no more to this great Saint than to your Sacred MAJESTIES for in the selfâ—ame Sacrifice we offer our most hearty thanks to the same God for the inestimable Blessing of your Sacred MAJESTIES Coronation upon Earth the Annual Solemnity of which returns this Day with that of S. George's Coronation in Heaven We joyn our Thanks with his He joyns his Prayers with ours If it be such an Honour to this great glorious Saint that we poor Sinners bear him Company attend wait upon him to the Throne of Grace to offer up our Thanks with his Consider well and tell me whether or no it be not a great Honour to us miserable Sinners that this great glorious Saint appears before us introduces us presents us to our God his offers up his Prayer his Petition his Address with ours Can you imagine a more honourable Testimony of our Excellency than that the Blessed Saints in Heaven notwithstanding all their glorious advantages above poor Sinners nevertheless esteem so much set so great a value on God's Image in us as to offer up their humble Supplications for us and to interpose with such profound Humility betwixt our angry God us as if in Heaven they so highly prised us as to solemnise Humiliation-Days in favour of us This I confess appears to me enough to counterballance all our Holy-Day-Thanksgivings upon Earth But I have yet more weight to put into the Scale which will not fail to bear it down If it be such an Honour to the Saints above that Sinners here below keep Holy Days to celebrate their Victories with marks of joy thanks surely we must allow that 't is no little Honour to repentant Sinners that the Angels and Saints in Heaven celebrate with jubilation and thanksgiving all the Victories of Grace by which we overcome our Enemies on Earth I do not say They keep our Holy Days because all such expressions transferr'd from Earth to Heaven loose their sense and we are always at a loss for words when ever we pretend to talk of things so far above us But yet I am inclin'd to think that all those Days in which a Sinner is converted are Thanksgiving-Days in Heaven * Luke 15.7 10. There is Ioy in Heaven There is Joy in presence of the Angels Saints of God over one Sinner that repenteth Consider this and you will easily conclude that we receive great honour whilst we give it and that we are ungratefull if we think we give too much In the third last place if the Honour we allow to Saints be of the self-same kind with what we do to one another We cannot then be reasonably scandaliz'd at the excess we cannot surely be so vain as to imagine that a Saint in Heaven is not as deserving as a Sinner upon Earth We dayly pray to one another as we pray to them The Honour is no more Divine when we desire the Prayers of a Saint than when we beg the Prayers of a Sinner We injure Christ no more when we demand their intercession there than when we ask the intercession of our Neighbours here The Mediatourship of Christ is still the same whether the Prayers of our Friends be interpos'd on this side or on t'other side of Heaven I cannot but reflect whilst I am talking thus it may perhaps appear a little strange that I employ my time to shew how little honour we allow our Saint when many people are in expectation of a Panegyrick to persuade them that they cannot honour him too much But 't is enough for me if I have done him justice I am sure our Saint desires no more than he deserves And I have said enough to prove that he deserves as much as we allow him By our desiring of his intercession we do him no more honour than we do to one another By our Thanksgiving for his Happyness we only are so gratefull as to honour God in him who honours God in us By our Consideration of his Merit we conceive as humble an Idea of him as our Saint dos of himself and are in that respect as innocent as he O! what a Joy it is to a dejected Sinner that S. George himself was once a Man infirm frail as well as we that the Difference which now we so admire betwixt him our selves is not in any Excellency he can boast of but a pure effect of God's great Mercy to him T is true here what S Bernard saies upon the like occasion This Man was once like us fram'd of the same clay cast in the same mould and subject to the same infirmities of Flesh Blood We have reason to rejoyce to be asham'd rejoyce that He is gone before us be asham'd that though we may we will not follow his Example Which is an Obligation incumbent upon All particularly those of his Profession as I shall shew you in the second part of my Discourse SECOND PART As Nothing is more difficult than for a man to be a Souldier and a Saint So there is Nothing which our God appears more zealously concern'd for than the Reputation of so great a Work Nothing of which He is more jealous than least the admiring World whose eyes are dazled with the splendour of Heroick Actions may rob Him of the Honour assume it to themselves He will not allow the Branch 'to glory in the Fruit it bears because it cannot bear fruit of it self Divide it from the Vine it withers without Fruit Men gather it make fire burn it But though the Branch be fruitless when t is separated from the Root Yet nevertheless as long as it remains united to the Vine it flourishes fructifies * Iohn 15.5 He who abides in me brings forth much Fruit * 1. Iohn ch 5. v. 4. This is the Victory says the Apostle by which we overcome the World Our Faith I mean Our Faith in this our Saviour's Doctrine that though without Him We are able to do nothing Yet with his help we may be able to do all things * Iohn 15.7 If you abide in me if you place all your trust your hope confidence in me ask what you will it shall be done A Diffidence in our own strength A loving Confidence in God is so agreable it charmes him so He in a manner lends us his Omnipotence and by his Grace enables us to conquer all things S. Paul of all men living had the least opinion of his own sufficiency He confess'd he had not of himself the power to think so much as one good thought And yet he doubted not but he
do I find the least syllable of any promise made by the Emperour to him that the Council should not proceed against him according to Law. He came upon his good behaviour and in his own defence confiding in his own prudence and abilities as well as in the Emperour's Letters in which there is no sign of these two promises 1. that he should not be imprison'd if by any misdemeanour he deserv'd it 2. that he should not be executed if legally condemn'd Both these promises were plainly included in the Extraordinary Safe-conduct which the Tridentine Council granted to the Protestants And therefore as I told you in the beginning The Case was quite different Read Soave and if you believe him you 'l begin to be asham'd of your objection * p. 348 Conc. Trid Sess 15. 18. The Synod doth make Faith to all Priests Princes Persons of what condition soever ... Safe conduct to come remain PROPOSE speak IN THE SYNOD to HANDLE EXAMINE WHAT THEY THINK FIT. give Articles confirm them ANSWER the OBJECTIONS of the Council DISPUTE with those whom it doth elect declaring that the CONTROVERSIES in this Council shall be handled according to the HOLY SCRIPTURE Traditions of the APOSTLES approv'd COUNCILS Consent of the CATHOLICK CHURCH Authority of the Holy FATHERS adding that they SHALL NOT BE PUNISH'D upon PRETENCE OF RELIGION or OFFENCES COMITTED or which WILL BE COMMITTED ... and shall RETURN when it shall seem good unto them WITHOUT LET with SAFETY OF THEIR ROBE HONOUR PERSONS but with the knowledg of the Deputies of the Synod that provision may be made for their Security granting that in this Safe conduct ALL those CLAUSES be held to be included which are NECESSARY FOR REAL FULL ASSURANCE Adding that if any of the Protestants either in coming or in Trent or in returning SHALL COMMIT ANY ENORMITY which shall NULLIFIE THE BENEFIT OF THIS PUBLICK FAITH he shall be PUNISH'D BY THEIR OWN Protestant JUDGES so that the Synod may be satisfied and on the other side if any Catholick in coming hither remaining here or returning SHALL COMMIT ANY THING which may VIOLATE THIS SAFE CONDUCT he shall be punish'd by the Synod WITH APPROBATION OF THE GERMAN Protestant 's THEMSELVES who shall be present in Trent .... which things it promiseth faithfully in the name of all faithfull Christians Ecclesiastical Secular If Huss Jerome had come to Constance with such a Safe-conduct they had neither been imprison'd nor executed With such a one as this the Bohemians went afterwards to Basil were civilly used return'd quietly home With this the Wittenberg Protestants went to Trent remain'd quiet there return'd without receiving any affront That no more of the Protestants follow'd their example in going thither was their own fault They knew very well they might have gone remain'd return'd securely if they pleas'd Consider all this at leisure and then tell me if you can what 's become of your Excuse XI The Councils of Constance Sienna had declared it lawfull to break the faith of any Safe-conduct whatsoever A. Read the Decrees you 'l plainly see the contrary The Council of Constance dos not say 't is lawfull for any whosoever they are to violate the faith of their promises but only declares that no Secular Power can legally hinder the exercise of Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction because it is not only independent of it but manifestly superior to it in matters of Religion T is a common Maxim of the Law Superior legibus aut pactis Inferioris non ligatur And in all appearance the design of the Council was to satisfie the World that although the Emperour had pretended to grant an Extraordinary Safe-conduct such as exempts a man from Justice as well as Violence it could not have hindred the supreme Power of Pope Council from proceeding according to the Canons in Causes which are purely of Religion This was the reason why the Protestants would not rely upon the Emperour 's Safe-conduct Nor can I blame them for it See Soave p. 298. Duke Maurice wrote to the Emperour that his Safe-conduct was not sufficient For in the Council of Constance it was determin'd that THEY MIGHT PROCEED AGAINST THOSE THAT CAME TO THE COUNCIL THOUGH THEY HAD SAFE-CONDUCT FROM THE EMPEROUR And that therefore the Bohemians would not go Basil but under the Publick Faith of the whole Council See p. 307. The Ambassadors went all together to the Presidents told them that the Emperour had given the Protestants a Safe-conduct but that they were not contented with it alledging that it was decreed in the Council of Constance and really executed that THE COUNCIL IS NOT BOUND BY THE SAFE-CONDUCT OF ANY WHOSOEVER HE BE therefore they required one from the Synod These Protestants you see understood the Council in the same sense as I do How come you to understand it otherwise Let the Decree speak for it self judge case betwixt us It runs thus Presens Sancta Synodus ex QUOVIS SALVO CONDUCTU per Imperatorem Reges alios Seculi Principes HAERETICIS vel de Haeresi diffamatis putantes eosdem sic a suis erroribus revocare quocunque vinculo se adstrinxerint CONCESSO NULLUM Fidei Catholicae vel JURISDICTIONI ECCLESIASTICAE praejudicium generari vel IMPEDIMENTUM PRAESTARI POSSE seu DEBERE declarat QUOMINUS dicto Salvo-conductu non obstante LICEAT JUDICI competenti ECCLESIASTICO de hujusmodi personarum erroribus IN QUIRERE aliàs contra eos DEBITE PROCEDERE eosdemque PUNIRE QUANTUM JUSTITIA SUADEBIT si suos errores revocare pertinaciter recusaverint etiamsi de Salvo conductu confiss ad locum vonerint Judicii aliàs non venturi Nec sic promittentem cum fecerit quod in ipso est ex hoc in aliquo remansisse obligatum Conc. Const Sess 17. The Council does not say that any one who makes a promise is not obliged in conscience to keep it to the utmost of his just lawfull power But only declares that every man's Promises Obligations of performance are confined within the limits of his own Jurisdiction which he cannot lawfully exceed And that therefore No man either can promise or be by promise oblig'd to perform any more This is the plain sense of those words Nec ipsum promittentem Imperatorem Regem vel alium quemvis Seculi Principem cum fecerit quod in ipso est quod nimirum ex officio jure suo potest ac debet ex hoc Salvo conductu in aliquo quod Jurisdictioni obsit Ecclesiasticae remansisse ulteriùs obligatum Can you blame this Doctrine Does not every body know 1. that any man may promise every man ought to perform what lies in his power 2. that no man can either promise to encroach upon a power superior to his own or be oblig'd to perform it The 1. Act of the Council of Sienna proceeds upon the same principles