excepted against in that prayer was that these things are ascribed to the merits of the blessed Virgin and the Saints Now he had only spoken of their prayers and he appealed â—o all if the natural meaning of these words was not that he charged on them and the sense the other had offered was not forced M. C. said By merits were understood prayers which had force and merit with God M. B. said That could not be for in another absolution in the office of our Lady they pray for remission of sins through the merits and prayers of the blessed Virgin So that by merits must be meant somewhat else than their prayers M. C. said That as by our prayers on earth we help one anothers Souls so by our giving almes for one another we might do the same so also the Saints in Heaven might be helpful to us by their prayers and merits And as soon as he had spoken this he got to his feet and said he was in great hast and much business lay on him that day but said to D. S. That when he pleased he would wait on him and discourse of the other particulars at more length D. S. assured him that when ever he pleased to appoint it he should be ready to give him a meeting And so he went away Then we all stood and talked to one another without any great order near half an hour the discourse being chiefly about the Nags-head fable D. S. apealed to the publick Registers and challenged the silence of all the popish writers all Queen Elizabeth's Reign when such a story was fresh and well known and if there had been any colour for it is it possible they could keep it up or conceal it S. P. T. said All the Registers were forged and that it was not possible to satisfy him in it no more than to prove he had not four fingers on his hand and being desired to read Doctor Bramhall's book about it he said he had read it six times over and that it did not satisfie him M. B. asked him how could any matter of fact that was a hundred years old be proved if the publick Registers and the instruments of publick Notaries were rejected and this the more that this being a matter of fact which could not be done in a corner nor escape the knowledge of their adversaries who might have drawn great and just advantages from publishing and proving it yet that it was never so much as spoken of while that race was alive is as clear an evidence as can be that the forgery was on the other side D. S. Did clear the objection from the Commission and Act of Parliament that it was only for making the ordination legal in England since in Edward the sixth's time the book of ordination was not joined in the record to the book of Common-Prayer from whence Bishop Bonner took occasion to deny their ordination as not according to Law and added that Saunders who in Queen Elizabeth's time denied the validity of our ordination never alledged any such story But as we were talking freely of this M. W. said once or twice they were satisfied about the chief design they had in that meeting to see if there could be alledged any place of Scripture to prove that Article about the blessed Sacrament and said somewhat that looked like the beginning of a Triumph Upon which D. S. desired all might sit down again that they might put that matter to an issue so a Bible was brought and D. S. Being spent with much speaking desired M. B. to speak to it M. B. turned to the 6th Chap. of S. Iohn verse 54. and read these words Whoso eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath eternal life and added these words were according to the common interpretation of their Church to be understand of the Sacramental manducation This M. W. granted only M. B. had said all the Doctors understood these words so and M. W. said That all had not done so which M. B. did acknowledge but said it was the received exposition in their Church and so framed his argument Eternal life is given to every one that receives Christ in the Sacrament But by Faith only we get eternal life Therefore by Faith only we receive Christ in the Sacrament Otherwise he said unworthy receivers must be said to have eternal life which is a contradiction for as such they are under condemnation yet the unworthy receivers have the external manducation therefore that Manducation that gives eternal life with it must be internal and spiritual and that is by Faith A person whose name I know not but shall henceforth mark him N. N. asked what M. B. meant by Faith only M. B. said By Faith he meanâ— such a believing of the Gospel as carried along with it Evangelical obedience by Faith only he meant Faith as opposite to sense D. S. asked him if we received Christ's body and blood by our senses N. N. said we did D. S. asked which of the senses his taste or touch or sight for that seemed strange to him N. N. said We received Christs body with our senses as well as we did the substance of bread for our senses did not receive the substance of bread and did offer some things to illustrate this both from the Aristotelian and Cartesian Hypothesis D. S. said He would not engage in that subtlety which was a digression from the main argument but he could not avoid to think it a strange assertion to say we received Christ by our senses and yet to say he was so present there that none of our senses could possibly perceive him But to the main argument M. W. denied the minor that by Faith only we have eternal life M. B. proved it thus The Sons of God have eternal life But by Faith only we become the Sons of God Therefore by Faith only we had eternal life M. W. said Except he gave them both Major and Minor in express words of Scripture he would reject the argument M. B. said That if he did demonstrate that both the propositions of his argument were in the strictest construction possible equivalent to clear places of Scripture then his proofs were good therefore he desired to know which of the two propositions he should prove either that the Sons of God have eternal life or that by Faith only we are the Sons of God M. W. said He would admit of no consequences how clear soever they seemed unless he brought him the express words of Scripture and asked if his consequences were infallible D. S. said If the consequence was certain it was sufficient and he desired all would take notice that they would not yield to clear consequences drawn from Scripture which he thought and he believed all impartial people would be of his mind was as great an advantage to any cause as could be desired So we laid aside that argument being satisfied that the Article of our Church which they had called
other body needs interpose on his account But he being now busie it was not worth the giving him the trouble to ask how he would reply upon so weak an answer since its shallowness appears at the first view for is there any comparison to be made between an object that all my senses may perceive if I have a mind to it that I see with mine eyes and touch and feel in my mouth and if it be too big and my throat too narrow I will feel stick there but only to guard against its offensive taste I so wrap or conveigh it that I relish nothing ungrateful in it and the receiving Christ with my senses when yet none of them either do or can though applied with all possible care discern him So that it appears D. S. had very good reason to say it seemed indeed strange to him to say that Christ was received by our senses and yet was so present that none of our senses can perceive him and this answer to it is but meer trifling Here follows the Paper we promised wherein an account is given of the Doctrine of the Church for the first Eight Centuries in the point of the Sacrament which is demonstrated to be contrary to Transubstantiation written in a Letter to my Lady T. Madam YOUR Ladiship may remember That our Meeting at your House on the third Instant ended with a Promise we made of sending you such an account of the sense of the Fathers for the first Six Ages as might sufficiently satisfie every impartial person That they did not believe Transubstantiation This Promise we branched out in three Propositions First That the Fathers did hold That after the Consecration the Elements of Bread and Wine did remain unchanged in their substance The Second was That after the Consecration they called the Elements the Types the Antitypes the Mysteries the Symboles the Signs the Figures and the Commemorations of the Body and Blood of Christ which certainly will satisfie every unprejudiced person That they did not think the Bread and Wine were annihilated and that in their room and under their accidents the substance of the Body and Blood of Christ was there Thirdly we said That by the Doctrine of the Fathers the unworthy Receivers got not the Body and the Blood of Christ from which it must necessarily follow That the substance of his Body and Blood is not under the accidents of Bread and Wine Otherwise all these that unworthily receive them eat Christs Body and Blood Therefore to discharge our selves of our Promise we shall now give your Ladiship such an account of the Doctrine of the Fathers on these Heads as we hope shall convince those Gentlemen that we had a good warrant for what we said The first Proposition is The Fathers believed that after the Consecration the Elements were still Bread and Wine The Proofs whereof we shall divide into three branches The first shall be That after the Consecration they usually called them Bread and Wine Secondly That they expresly assert that the substance of Bread and Wine remained Thirdly That they believed the Sacramental Bread and Wine did nourish our bodies For proof of the First we desire the following Testimonies be considered Iustin Martyr says These who are called Deacons distribute the blessed Bread and Wine and Water to such as are present and carry it to the absents and this nourishment is by us called the Eucharist And a little after We do not receive these as common Bread or common Drink for as by the word of God Iesus Christ our Saviour being made Flesh had both Flesh and Blood for our salvation so we are taught that that food by which our blood and flesh are nourished by its change being blessed by the word of Prayer which he gave us is both the Flesh and the Blood of the Incarnate Jesus Thus that Martyr that wrote an hundred and fifty years after Christ calls the Elements Bread and Wiâ—e and the nourishment which being changed into Flesh and Blood nourishes them And saying it is not common Bread and Wine he says that it was still so in substance and his illustrating it with the Incarnation in which the Humane Nature did not lose nor change its substance in its union with the Eternal Word shews he thought not the Bread and Wine lost their substance when they became the Flesh and Blood of Christ. The next Witness is Irenaeus who writing against the Valentinians that denied the â—ather of our Lord Jesus to be the Creator of the world and also denied the Resurrection of the Body confutes both these Heresies by arguments drawn from the Eucharist To the first he says If there be another Creator than the Father of our Lord then our offering Creatures to him argues him covetous of that which is not his own and so we reproach him rather than bless him And adds How does it appear to any of them that that Bread over which thanks are given is the Body of his Lord and the Cup of his Blood if he be not the Son of the Creator And he argues against their saying our bodies should not rise again that are fed by the Body and Blood of Christ for says he that Bread which is of the Earth having had the Invocation of God over it is no more common Bread but the Eucharist consisting of two things an earthly and an heavenly so our bodies that receive the Eucharist are no more corruptible having the Hope of the Resurrection Tertullian proving against Marcion that Christ was not contrary to the Creator among other proofs which he brings to shew that Christ made use of the Creatures and neither rejected Water Oil Milk or Honey he adds neither did he reject Bread by which he represents his own Body And further says Christ calls Bread his Body that from thence you may understand that he gave the figure of his Body to the Bread Origen says We eat of the Loaves set before us with thanksgiving and prayers over what is given to us which by the prayer are become a certain holy Body that sanctifies those who use them with a sound purpose Saint Cyprian says Christ calls the Bread that was compounded of many grains joined together his Body to shew the union of our people which he bore upon himself and calls the Wine which is pressed out of many Grapes and Berries his Blood he signifies our flock which is joined together in the mixture of an united multitude And writing against those who only put Water in the Chalice he says Since Christ said I am the true Vine the blood of Christ is not only Water but Wine neither can we see his Blood by which we are redeemed and quickened in the Chalice when Wine is not in it by which the Blood of Christ is shewed And that whole Epistle is all to the same purpose Epiphanius says Christ in the Supper rose and took these things
much in credit In those Ages the Civil powers being ready to serve the rage of Church-men against any who should oppose it it was not safe for any to appear against it And yet it cannot be denied but from the days of the second Council of Nice which made a great step towards Transubstantiation till the fourth Council of Lâ—teran there was great opposition made to it by the most eminent persons in the Latin Church and how great a part of Christendome has departed from the Obedience of the Church of Rome in every age since that time and upon that account is well enough known Now is it to be imagined that there should have been such an opposition to it these Nine hundred years last past and yet that it should have been received the former Eight hundred years with no opposition and that it should not have cost the Church the trouble of one General Council to decree it or of one Treatise of a Father to establish it and answer those objections that naturally arise from our reasons and senses against it But in the end there are many things which have risen out of this Doctrine as its natural consequences which had it been sooner taught and received must have been apprehended sooner and those are so many clear presumptions of the Novelty of this Doctrine The Elevation Adoration Processions the Doctrine of Concomitance with a vast superfaetation of Rites and Rubricks about this Sacrament are lately sprung up The age of them is well known and they have risen in the Latin Church out of this Doctrine which had it been sooner received we may reasonably enough think must have been likewise ancienter Now for all these things as the primitive Church knew them not so on the other hand the great simplicity of their forms as we find them in Justin Martyr and Cyril of Ierusalem in the Apostolical Constitutions and the pretended Denis the Arcopagite are far from that pomp which the latter ages that believed this Doctrine brought in the Sacraments being given in both kinds being put in the hands of the Faithful being given to the children for many ages being sent by boys or common persons to such as were dying the eating up what remained which in some places were burnt in other places were consumed by Children or by the Clergy their making Cataplasms of it their mixing the consecrated Chalice with ink to sign the Excommunication of Hereticks These with a great many more are such convictions to one that has carefully compared the ancient forms with the Rubricks and Rites of the Church of Rome since this Doctrine was set up that it is as discernable as any thing can be that the present belief of the Church of Rome is different from the Primitive Doctrine And thus far we have set down the reasons that perswade us that Transubstantiation was not the belief of the first seven or eight Centuries of the Church If there be any part of what we have asserted questioned we have very formal and full proofs ready to shew for them though we thought it not fit to enter into the particular proofs of any thing but what we undertook to make out when we waited on your Ladyship Now there remains but one thing to be done which we also promised and that was to clear the words of St. Cyril of Jerusalem We acknowledg they were truly cited but for clearing of them we shall neither alledg any thing to the lessening the authority of that Father though we find but a slender character given of him by Epiphanius and others Nor shall we say any thing to lessen the authority of these Catechisms though much might be said But it is plain St. Cyril's design in these Catechisms was only to posses his Neophites with a just and deep sense of these holy Symboles But even in his 4 th Catechism he tells them not to consider it as meer Bread and Wine for it is the Body and Blood of Christ. By which it appears he thought it was Bread still though not meer Bread And he gives us else-where a very formal account in what sense he thought it was Christ's Body and Blood which he also insinuates in this 4 th Cathechism For in his first Mist. Catechism when he exhorts his young Christians to avoid all that belonged to the Heathenish Idolatry he tells that on the solemnities of their Idols they had Flesh and Bread which by the Invocation of the Devils were defiled as the Bread and Wine of the Eucharist before the holy Invocation of the Blessed Trinity was bare bread and Wine but the Invocation being made the Bread becomes the Body of Christ. In like manner says he those victuals of the pomp of Satan which of their own nature are common or bare victuals by the Invocation of the Devils become prophane From this Illustration which he borrowed from Iustin Martyr his second Apology it appears that he thought the Consecration of the Eucharist was of a like sort or manner with the profanation of the Idolatrous Feasts so that as the substance of the one remained still unchanged so also according to him must the substance of the other remain Or if this will not satisfy them let us see to what else he compares this change of the Elements by the Consecration in his third Mist. Catechism treating of the Consecrated Oil he says As the Bread of the Eucharist after the Invocation of the Holy Ghost is no more common Bread but the Body of Christ so this holy Ointment is no more bare Ointment nor as some may say common but it is a gift of Christ and the presence of the Holy Ghost and becomes energetical of his Divinity And from these places let it be gathered what can be drawn from St. Cyril's testimony And thus we have performed likewise what we promised and have given a clear account of St. Cyril's meaning from himself from whose own words and from these things which he compares with the sanctification of the Elements in the Eucharist it appears he could not think of Transubstantiation otherwise he had neither compared it with the Idol-Feasts nor the consecrated Oil in neither of which there can be supposed any Transubstantiation Having thus acquitted our selves of our engagement before your Ladiship we shall conclude this Paper with our most earnest and hearty prayers to the Father of Lights that he may of his great mercy redeem his whole Christian Church from all Idolatry that he may open the eyes of those who being carnal look only at carnal things and do not rightly consider the excellent Beauty of this our most holy Faith which is pure simple and spiritual And that he may confirm all those whom he has called to the knowledg of the Truth so that neither the pleasures of Sin nor the snares of this World nor the fear of the Cross tempt them to make shipwrack of the Faith and a good Conscience And that God may pour out
this advantage that no former Decision had been made against them for none ever thought of condemning any Heresie before it had a being Secondly This Errour did in the outward found agree with the words of the Institution and the forms used in the former Liturgies in which the Elements were said to be changed into the true and undefiled Body of Christ. A Doctrine then that seemed to establish nothing contrary to the ancient Liturgies might easily have been received in an Age in which the outward sound and appearance was all they looked to Thirdly The passage from the believing any thing in general with an indistinct and confused apprehension to any particular way of explaining it is not at all hard to be conceived especially in an Age that likes every thing the better the more mysterious it seem In the preceding Ages it was in general received that Christ was in the Sacrament and that by the Consecration the Elements were changed into his Body and Blood And although many of the Fathers did very formally explain in what sense Christ was present and the Elements were changed yet there having been no occasion given to the Church to make any formal decision about the manner of it every one thought he was left at liberty to explain it as he pleased And we may very reasonably suppose that many did not explain it at all especially in these Ages in which there was scarce any preaching or instructing the people By this means the people did believe Christ was in the Sacrament and that the Elements were changed into his Body and Blood without troubling themselves to examin how it was whether spiritually or corporally Things being brought to this in these Ages by the carelesness of the Clergy the people were by that sufficiently disposed to believe any particular manner of that presence or change their Pastors might offer to them Fourthly There being no visible change made in any part of the Worship when this Doctrine was first brought in it was easie to innovate in these Ages in which people looked only at things that were visible and sensible Had they brought in the Adoration Processions or other consequences of this Doctrine along with it it was like to have made more noise for people are apt to be startled when they see any notable change in their Worship But this belief was first infufed in the people and Berengarius was condemned The Council of Lateran had also made the Decree about it before ever there were any of these signal alterations attempted And after that was done then did Honorius decree the adoration and Urban the fourth upon some pretended Visions of Eve Julian and Isabella did appoint the Feast of the Body of Christ called now generally The Feast of God or Corpus Christi Feast which was confirmed by Pope Clement the fifth in the Council of Vienna and ever since that time they have been endeavouring by all the devices possible to encrease the devotion of the people to the Hoft So that Mr. Arnaud in many places acknowledges they are most gross Idolaters if their Doctrine be not true which I desire may be well considered since it is the opinion of one of the most considering and wisest and most learned persons of that Communion who has his whole life set his thoughts chiefly to the examining of this Sacrament and knows as well as any man alive what is the real sense of the Worshippers in that Church But to return to that I am about it is very unreasonable to think that the people in those dark Ages did concern themselves in the speculative opinions were among Divines so that the vulgar could not busie themselves about it but when this Opinion was decreed and generally received and infused in the Laity for almost one age together then we need not wonder to see notable alterations following upon it in their worship without any opposition or contest for it was very reasonable such Consequences should have followed such a Doctrine But that before that time there was no adoration of the Elements is a thing so clear that it is impudence to deny it there was no prostration of the body or kneeling to be made either on Lords dayes or all the time between Easter and Pentecost by the twentieth Canon of the Council of Nice None of the ancient Liturgies do so much as mention it but the contrary is plainly insinuated by S. Cyril of Ierusalem None of that great number of Writers about Divine Offices that lived in the seventh eighth ninth and tenth Centuries published by Hittorpius so much as mention it Though they be very particular in giving us an account of the most inconsiderable parts of the Divine Offices and of all the circumstances of them Honorius when he first decreed it does not alledge presidents for it but commands the Priests to tell the people to do it whereas if it had been appointed before he must rather have commanded the Priests to have told the people of their sacrilegious contempt of the Body of Christ notwithstanding the former Laws and Practice of the Church But it is apparent his way of enjoyning it is in the style of one that commands a new thing and not that sets on the execution of what was formerly used Yet this was more warily appointed by Honorius who enjoyned only an inclination of the Head to the Sacrament but it was set up bare faced by his Successor Gregory the ninth who appointed as the Historians tell us though it be not among his Decretals a Bell to be rung to give notice at the consecration and elevation that all who heard it might kneel and joyn their hands in adoring the Host. So that any passages of the Fathers that speak of Adoration or Veneration to the Sacrament must either be understood of the inward Adoration the Communicant offers up to God the Father and his blessed Son in the commemoration of so great a mystery of Love as appeared in his death then represented and remembred Or these words are to be taken in a large sense and so we find they usually called the Gospels their Bishops Baptism the Pascha and almost all other sacred things venerable And thus from many particulars it is apparent that the bringing in the Doctrine of Transubstantiation is no unaccountable thing But I shall pursue this yet further for the Readers full satisfaction and shew the steps by which this Doctrine was introduced We find in the Church of Corinth the receiving the Sacrament was looked on but as a common entertainment and was gone about without great care or devotion which S. Paul charges severely on them and tells them what heavy judgments had already fallen on them for such abuses and that heavier ones might be yet looked for since they were guilty of the Body and Blood of the Lord by their unworthy receiving Upon this the whole Christian Church was set to consider in very good earnest how to
in question was clearly proved from Scripture Then N. N. insisted to speak of the corporal presence and desired to know upon what grounds we rejected it M. B. said If we have no better reason to believe Christ was corporally present in the Sacrament than the Jews had to believe that every time they did eat their Pascha the Angel was passing by their houses and smiting the first born of the AEgyptians then we have no reason at all but so it is that we have no more reason N. N. denied this and said we had more reason M. B. said All the reason we had to believe it was because Christ said This is my body but Moses said of the Paschal festivity This is the Lords Passover which was always repeated by the Jews in that anniversary Now the Lords Passover was the Lords passing by the Israelites when he slew the first-born of AEgypt If then we will understand Christs words in the strictly literal sense we must in the same sense understand the words of Moses But if we understand the words of Moses in any other sense as the commemoration of the Lords Passover then we ought to understand Christs words in the same sense The reason is clear for Christ being to substitute this Holy Sacrament in room of the Jewish Pascha and he using in every thing as much as could agree with his blessed designs forms as neaâ— the Jewish customes as could be there is no reason to think he did use the words this is my body in any other sense than the Jews did this is the Lords Passover N. N. said The disparity was great First Christ had promised before-hand he would give them his body Secondly It was impossible the Lamb could be the Lords Passover in the literal sense because an action that had been past some hundred of years before could not be performed every time they did eat the Lamb but this is not so Thirdly The Jewish Church never understood these words literally but the Christian Church hath ever understood these words of Christ literally Nor is it to be imagined that a change in such a thing was possible for how could any such opinion have crept in in any age if it had not been the Doctrine of the former age M. B. said Nothing he had alledged was of any force For the first Christ's promise imported no more than what he performed in the Sacramental institution If then it be proved that by saying This is my body be only meant a commemoration his promise must only relate to his death commemorated in the Sacrament To the second the literal meaning of Christ's words is as impossible as the literal meaning of Moses's words for besides all the other impossibilities that accompany this corporal presence it is certain Christ gives us his body in the Sacrament as it was given for us and his blood as it was shed for us which being done only on the Cross above 1600 years ago it is as impossible that should be literally given at every consecration as it was that the Angel should be smiting the AEgyptians every Paschal Festivity And here was a great mistake they went on securely in that the body of Christ we receive in the Sacrament is the body of Christ as he is now glorified in Heaven for by the words of the institution it is clear that we receive his body as it was given for us when his blood was shed on the Cross which being impossible to be reproduced now we only can receive Christ by Faith For his third difference that the Christian Church ever understood Christ's words so we would willingly submit to the decision of the Church in the first 6 ages Could any thing be more express than Theodoret who arguing against the Eutychians that the humanity and Divinity of Christ were not confounded nor did depart from their own substance illustrates it from the Eucharist in which the Elements of Bread and Wine do not depart from their own substance M. W. said We must examine the Doctrine of the Fathers not from some occasional mention they make of the Sacrament but when they treat of it on design and with deliberation But to Theodoret he would oppose S. Cyrill of Jerusalem who in his fourth Mist. Catechism saies expresly Though thou see it to be bread yet believe it is the flesh and the blood of the Lord Jesus doubt it not since he had said This is my body And for a proof instances Christs changing the water into wine D. S. said He had proposed a most excellent Rule for examining the Doctrine of the Fathers in this matter not to canvase what they said in eloquent and pious Treaties or Homilies to work on peoples Devotion in which case it is natural for all persons to use high expressions but we are to seek the real sense of this Mystery when they are dogmatically treating of it and the other Mysteries of Religion where Reason and not Eloquence takes place If then it should appear that at the same time both a Bishop of Rome and Constantinople and one of the greatest Bishops in Africk did in asserting the Mysteries of Religion go downright against Transubstantiation and assert that the substance of the bread and wine did remain He hoped all would be satisfied the Fathers did not believe as they did M. W. desired we would then answer the words of Cyrill M. B. said It were a very unreasonable thing to enter into a verbal dispute about the passages of the Fathers especially the Books not being before us Therefore he promised an answer in writing to the testimony of S. Cyrill But now the matter was driven to a point and we willingly underook to prove that for eight or nine Centuries after Christ the Fathers did not believe Transubstantiation but taught plainly the contrary The Fathers generally call the Elements Bread and Wine after the Consecration they call them Mysteries Types Figures Symbols Commemorations and signs of the body and blood of Christ They generally deliver that the wicked do not receive Christ in the Sacrament which shews they do not believe Transubstantiation All this we undertook to prove by undenyable evidences within a very few days or weeks M. W. said He should be glad to see it D. S. said Now we left upon that point which by the Grace of God we should perform very soon but we had offered to satisfy them in the other grounds of the Separation from the Church of Rome if they desired to be further informed we should wait on them when they pleased So we all rose up and took leave after we had been there about three hours The Discourse was carried on on both sides with great civility and calmness without heat or clamour This is as far as my Memory after the most fixed attention when present and careful Recollection since does suggest to me without any biass or partiality not having failed in any one material thing as far as my
memory can serve me This I declare as I shall answer to God Signed as follows Gilbert Burnet April 6. 1676. This Narrative was read and I do hereby attest the truth of it Edw. Stillingfleet Being present at the Conference April 3. 1676. I do according to my best memory judge this a just and true Narrative thereof Will. Nailor The Addition which N. N. desired might be subjoined to the Relation of the Conference if it were published but wished rather that nothing at all might be made publick that related to the Conference THE substance of what N. N. desired me to take notice of was that our eating Christ's flesh and drinking his blood doth as really give everlasting life as almsgiving or any other good workâ— gives it where the bare external action if separated from a good intention and principle is not acceptable to God So that we must necessarily understand these words of our Saviour with this addition of Worthily that whoso eats his Flesh and drinks his Blood in the Sacrament Worthily hath everlasting life for he said he did not deny but the believing the death of Christ was necessary in communicating but it is not by Faith only we receive his Body and Blood For as by Faith we are the Sons of God yet it is not only by Faith but also by Baptism that we become the Sons of God so also Christ saith he that believeth and is Baptized shall be saved yet this doth not exclude repentance and amendment of life from being necessary to Salvation therefore the universality of the expression whoso eats does not exclude the necessity of eating worthily that we may have everlasting life by it And so did conclude that since we believe we have all our Faith in the Holy Scriptures we must prove from some clear Scriptures by arguments that consist of a Major and Minor that are either express words of Scripture or equivalent to them that Christ was no otherwise present in the Sacrament than spiritually as he is received by Faith And added that it was impertinent to bring impossibilities either from sense or reason against this if we brought no clear Scriptures against it To this he also added that when D. S. asked him by which of his senses he received Christ in the Sacrament he answered that he might really receive Christ's Body at his mouth though none of his senses could perceive him as a â—ole or pill is taken in a sirrup or any other liquor so that I really swallow it over though my senses do not tast it in like manner Christ is received under the accidents of bread and wine so that though our senses do not perceive it yet he is really taken in at our Mouth and goes down into our Stomach Answer HAving now set down the strength of N.N. his plea upon second thoughts I shall next examine it The stress of all lies in this whether we must necessarily supply the words of Christ with the addition of worthily he affirms it I deny it for these reasons Christ in this discourse was to shew how much more excellent his Doctrine was than was Moses his Law and that Moses gave Manna from Heaven to nourish their Bodies notwithstanding which they died in the wilderness But Christ was to give them food to their Souls which if they did eat they should never die for it should give them life Where it is apparent the bread and nourishment must be such as the life was which being internal and spiritual the other must be such also And verse 47. he clearly explains how that food was received he that believeth on me hath everlasting life Now having said before that this bread gives life and here saying that believing gives everlasting life it very reasonably follows that believing was the receiving this food Which is yet clearer from verse 34. where the Jews having desired him evermore to give them that bread he answers verse 35. I am the bread of life he that comes to me shall never hunger and he that believeth on me shall never thirst Which no man that is not strangely prepossessed can consider but he must see it is an answer to their question and so in it he tells them that their coming to him and believing was the mean of receiving that bread And here it must be considered that Christ calls himself bread and says that a Man must eat thereof which must be understood figuratively and if Figures be admitted in some parts of that discourse it is unjust to reject the applying the same Figures to other parts of it In fine Christ tells them this bread was his flesh which he was to give for the life of the World which can be applied to nothing but the offering up himself on the Cross. This did as it was no wonder startle the Jews so they murmured and said How can this man give us his flesh to eat To which Christs answer is so clear that it is indeed strange there should remain any doubting about it He first tells them except they eat the flesh and drink the blood of the Son of man they had no life in them Where on the way mark that drinking the blood is as necessary as eating the flesh and these words being expounded of the Sacrament cannot but discover them extreamly guilty who do not drink the blood For suppose the Doctrine of the bloods concomitating the flesh were true yet even in that case they only eat the blood but cannot be said to drink the blood But from these words it is apparent Christ must be speaking chiefly if not only of the spiritual Communicating for otherwise no man can be saved that hath not received the Sacrament The words are formal and positive and Christ having made this a necessary condition of life I see not how we dare promise life to any that hath never received it And indeed it was no wonder that those Fathers who understood these words of the Sacrament appointed it to be given to infants immediately after they were baptized for that was a necessary consequence that followed this exposition of our Saviours words And yet the Church of Rome will not deny but if any die before he is adult or if a person converted be in such circumstances that it is not possible for him to receive the Sacrament and so dies without it he may have everlasting life therefore they must conclude that Christs flesh may be eaten by faith even without the Sacrament Again in the next verse he says Whoso eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath eternal life These words must be understood in the same sense they had in the former verse they being indeed the reverse of it Therefore since there is no addition of worthily necessary to the sence of the former verse neither is it necessary in this But it must be concluded Christ is here speaking of a thing without which none can have life and by which all have life therefore when
perswasions so that after them we cannot doubt if then a sense be offered to any place of Scripture that does overthrow all this we have sufficient reason on that very account to reject it If also any meaning be fastened on a place of Scripture that destroyes all our conceptions of things is contrary to the most universally received maxims subverts the notions of matter and accidents and in a word confounds all our clearest apprehensions we must also reject every such gloss since it contradicts the evidence of that which is Gods image in us If also a sense of any place of Scripture be proposed that derogates from the glorious exaltation of the humane nature of our blessed Saviour we have very just reasons to reject it even though we could bring no confirmation of our meaning from express words of Scripture Therefore this dispute being chiefly about the meaning of Christ's words he that shews best reasons to prove that his sense is consonant to truth does all that is necessary in this case But after all this we decline not to shew clear Scriptures for the meaning our Church puts on these words of Christ. It was bread that Christ took blessed brake and gave his Disciples Now the Scripture calling it formally bread destroyes Transubstantiation Christ said This is my body which are declarative and not imperative words such as Let there be light or Be thou whole Now all declarative words suppose that which they affirm to be already true as is most clear therefore Christ pronounces what the bread was become by his former blessing which did sanctity the Elements and yet after that blessing it was still bread Again the reason and end of a thing is that which keeps a proportion with the means toward it so that Christs words Do this in remembrance of me shew us that his Body is here only in a vital and living commemoration and communication of his Body and Blood Further Christ telling us it was his Body that was given for us and his Blood shed for us which we there receive it is apparent he is to be understood present in the Sacrament not as he is now exalted in glory but as he was on the Cross when his blood was shed for us And in fine if we consider that those to whom Christ spake were Jews all this will be more easily understood for it was ordinary for them to call the symbole by the name of the original it represented So they called the cloud between the Cherubims God and Iehovah according to these words O thou that dwellest between the Cherubims and all the symbolical apparitions of God to the Patriarchs and the Prophets were said to be the Lord appearing to them But that which is more to this purpose is that the Lamb that was the symbole and memorial of their deliverance out of AEgypt was called the Lords Passover Now though the Passover then was only a type of our deliverance by the death of Christ yet the Lamb was in proportion to the Passover in AEgypt as really a representation of it as the Sacrament is of the death of Christ. And it is no more to be wondered that Christ called the Elements his Body and Blood though they were not so corporally but only mystically and sacramentally than that Moses called the lamb the Lords Passover So that it is apparent it was common among the Jews to call the Symbole and Type by the name of the Substance and Original Therefore our Saviours words are to be understood in the sense and stile that was usual among these to whom he spake it being the most certain rule of understanding any doubtful expression to examine the ordinary stile and forms of speech of that Age People and Place in which such phrases were used This is signally confirmed by the account which Maimonides gives us of the sense in which eating and drinking is oft taken in the Scriptures First he saies it stands in its natural signification for receiving bodily food Then because there are two things done in eating the first is the destruction of that which is eaten so that it loseth its first form the other is the encrease and nourishment of the substance of the person that eats therefore he observes that eating has two other significations in the language of the Scriptures The one is destruction and desolation so the Sword is said to eat or as we render it to devour so a Land is said to eat its Inhabitants and so Fire is said to eat or consume The other sense it is taken in does relate to Wisdom Learning and all Intellectual apprehensions by which the form or soul of man is conserved from the perfection that is in them as the body is preserved by food For proof of this he cites divers places out of the Old Testament as Isai. 55.2 come buy and eat and Prov. 25. 27. and Prov. 24. 13. he also adds that their Rabbins commonly call Wisdom eating and cites some of their sayings as come and eat flesh in which there is much fat and that when ever eating and drinking is in the Book of the Proverbs it is nothing else but Wisdom or the Law So also Wisdom is often called Water Isai. 55.1 and he concludes that because this sense of eating occurs so often and is so manifest and evident as if it were the primary and most proper signification of the word therefore hunger and thirst do also stand for a privation of Wisdom and Vnderstanding as Amos 8. 21. to this he also refers that of thirsting Psalm 42. 3. and Isai. 12. 3. and Ionathan paraphrasing these words ye shall draw Water out of the Wells of Salvation renders it ye shall receive a new Doctrine with joy from the Select ones among the Iust which is further confirmed from the words of our Saviour Iohn 7. 37. And from these observations of the I earnedest and most Judicious among all the Rabbins we see that the Iewes understood the phrases of eating and eating of flesh in this Spiritual and figurative sense of receiving Wisdom and Instruction So that this being an usual form of speech among them it is no strange thing to imagin how our Saviour being a Iew according to the flesh and conversing with Iews did use these Terms and Phrases in a sense that was common to that Nation And from all these set together we are confident we have a great deal of reason and strong and convincing authorities from the Scriptures to prove Christs words This is my Body are to be understood Spiritually Mystically and Sacramentally There remains only to be considered what weight there is in what N. N. says He answered to D. S. that Christ might be received by our senses though not perceived by any of them as a bole is swallowed over though our taste does not relish or perceive it That Great Man is so very well furnished with reason and learning to justify all he says that no
the burden of an heavy surcharge and that it might not go to the digestion but that it might feed his soul with spiritual nourishment From which words one of two consequences will necessarily follow either that the Consecrated Elements do really nourish the Body which we intend to prove from them or that the Body of Christ is not in the Elements but as they are Sacramentally used which we acknowledg many of the Fathers believed But the last words we cited of the Spiritual nourishment shew those Fathers did not think so and if they did we suppose those we deal with will see that to believe Christ's Body is only in the Elements when used will clearly leave the charge of Idolatry on that Church in their Processions and other adorations of the Host. But none is so express as Origen who on these words ' T is not that which enters within a man which defiles a man says If every thing that enters by the mouth goes into the belly and is cast into the draught then the food that is sanctified by the word of God and by Prayer goes also to the belly as to what is material in it and from thence to the draught but by the Prayer that was made over it it is useful in proportion to our Faith and is the mean that the understanding is clear-sighted and attentive to that which is profitable and it is not the matter of Bread but the word pronounced over it which profits him that does not eat it in a way unworthy of our Lord. This Doctrine of the Sacraments being so digested that some parts of it turned to excrement was likewise taught by divers Latin Writers in the 9 th age as Rabanus Maurus Arch-Bishop of Mentz and Heribald Bishop of Auxerre Divers of the Greek Writers did also hold it whom for a reproach their adversaries called Stercoranists It is true other Greek Fathers were not of Origen's opinion but believed that the Eucharist did entirely turn into the substance of our bodies So Cyril of Ierusalem says that the Bread of the Eucharist does not go into the belly nor is cast into the draught but is distributed thorough the whole substance of the Communicant for the good of body and soul. The Homily of the Eucharist in a dedication that is in St. Chrysostom's works says Do not think that this is Bread and that this is Wine for they pass not to the draught as other victuals do And comparing it to wax put to the fire of which no ashes remain he adds So think that the Mysteries are consumed with the substance of our bodies John Damascene is of the same mind who says that the Body and the Blood of Christ passes into the consistence of our souls and bodies without being consumed corrupted or passing into the draught God forbid but passing into our substance for our conservation Thus it will appear that though those last-cited-Fathers did not believe as Origen did that any part of the Eucharist went to the draught yet they thought it was turned into the substance of our bodies from which we may well conclude they thought the substance of Bread and Wine remained in the Eucharist after the consecration and that it nourished our bodies And thus we hope we have sufficiently proved our first Proposition in all its three Branches So leaving it we go on to the second Proposition which is That the Fathers call the consecrated Elements the Figures the Signs the Symboles the Types and Antitypes the Commemoration representation the Mysteries and the Sacraments of the Body and Blood of Christ. Tertullian proving against Marcion that Christ had a real Body he brings some Figures that were fulfilled in Christ and says He made the Bread which he took and gave his Disciples to be his Body saying This is my Body that is the Figure of my Body but it had not been a Figure if his Body had not been true for an empty thing such as a Phantasm cannot have a Figure Now had Tertullian and the Church in his time believed Transubstantiation it had been much more pertinent for him to have argued Here is corporally present Christ's Body therefore he had a true Body than to say Here is a Figure of his Body therefore he had a true Body such an escape as this is not incident to a man of common sense if he had believed Transubsubstantiation And the same Father in two other places before cited says Christ gave the Figure of his Body to the Bread and that he represented his own Body by the Bread St. Austin says He commended and gave to his Disciples the Figure of his Body and Blood The same expressions are also in Bede Alcuine and Druthmar that lived in the Eighth and Ninth Centuries But what St. Austin says elsewhere is very full in this matter where treating of the Rules by which we are to judg what expressions in Scripture are figurative and what not he gives this for one Rule If any place seem to command a crime or horrid action it is figurative and to instance it cites these words Except ye eat the Flesh and drink the Blood of the Son of Man you have no life in you which says he seems to command some crime or horrid action therefore it is a Figure commanding us to communicate in the Passion of our Lord and sweetly and profitably to lay up in our memory that his Flesh was crucified and wounded for us Which words are so express and full that whatever those we deal with may think of them we are sure we cannot devise how any one could have delivered our Doctrine more formally Parallel to these are Origen's words who calls the understanding the words of our Saviour of eating his Flesh and drinking his Blood according to the Letter a Letter that kills The same St. Austin calls the Eucharist a sign of Christ's Body in his Book against Adimantus who studied to prove that the Author of the Old and New Testament was not the same God and among other arguments he uses this That Blood in the Old Testament is called the Life or Soul contrary to the New Testament To which St. Austin answers that it was so called not that it was truly the Soul or Life but the Sign of it and to shew that the sign does sometimes bear the name of that whereof it is a sign he says Our Lord did not doubt to say This is my Body when he was giving the sign of his Body Where if he had not believed the Eucharist was substantially different from his Body it had been the most impertinent illustration that ever was and had proved just against him that the sign must be one and the same with that which is signified by it For the Sacrament being called the Type the Antitype the Symbole and Mystery of Christs Body and Blood The ancient Liturgies and Greek Fathers use these phrases so frequently that since
it is not so much as denied we judg we need not laboriously prove it Therefore we pass over this believing it will be granted for if it be denied we undertake to prove them to have been used not only on some occasions but to have been the constant stile of the Church Now that Types Antitypes Symboles and Mysteries are distinct from that which they shadow forth and mystically hold out we believe can be as little disputed In this sense all the Figures of the Law are called Types of Christ by the Fathers and both the Baptismal Water and the Chrism are called Symboles and Mysteries And though there was not that occasion for the Fathers to discourse on Baptism so oft which every body received but once and was administred ordinarily but on a few days of the year as they had to speak of the Eucharist which was daily consecrated so that it cannot be imagined there should be near such a number of places about the one as about the other yet we fear not to undertake to prove there be many places among the Ancients that do as fully express a change of the Baptismal Water as of the Eucharistical Elements From whence it may appear that their great zeal to prepare persons to a due value of these holy actions and that they might not look on them as a vulgar ablution or an ordinary repast carried them to many large and high expressions which cannot bear a literal meaning And since they with whom we deal are sain to fly to Metaphors and Allegories for for cleaning of what the I athers say of Baptism it is a most unreasonable thing to complain of us for using such expositions of what they say about the Eucharist But that we may not leave this without some proof we shall set down the words of Facundus who says The Sacrament of Adoption that is Baptism may be called Adoption as the Sacrament of his Body and Blood which is in the consecrated Bread and Cup is called his Body and Blood not that the Bread is properly his Body or the Cup properly his Blood but because they contain in them the mystery of his Body and Blood and hence it was that our Lord called the Bread that was blessed and the Cup which he gave his Disciples his Body and Blood Therefore as the Believers in Christ when they receive the Sacrament of his Body and Blood are rightly said to have received his Body and Blood so Christ when he received the Sacrament of the adoption of Sons may be rightly said to have received the Adoption of Sons And we leave every one to gather from these words if the cited Father could believe Transubstantiation and if he did not think that Baptism was as truly the Adoption of the Sons of God as the Eucharist was his Body and Blood which these of Rome acknowledge is only to be meant in a moral sense That the Fathers called this Sacrament the Memorial and Representation of the Death of Christ and of his Body that was broken and his Blood that was shed we suppose will be as little denied for no man that ever looked into any of their Treatises of the Eucharist can doubt of it St. Austin says That Sacraments must have some similitude of these things of which they be the Sacraments otherwise they could not be Sacraments So he says the Sacrament of the Body of Christ is after some manner his Blood So the Sacrament of Faith that is Baptism is Faith But more expresly speaking of the Eucharist as a sacrifice of praise he says The flesh and blood of this sacrifice was promised before the coming of Christ by the sacrifices of the types of it In the passion of Christ it was done in the truth it self And after his ascent is celebrated by the Sacrament of the remembrance of it But he explains this more fully on the 98 th Psalm where he having read ver 5. Worship his footstool and seeking for its true meaning expounds it of Christ's Body who was flesh of this earth and gives his flesh to be eaten by us for our salvation which since none eats except he have first adored it He makes this the footstool which we worship without any sin and do sin if we do not worship it So far the Church of Rome triumphs with this place But let us see what follows where we shall find that which will certainly abate their joy He goes on and tells us not to dwell on the Flesh lest we be not quickned by the spirit and shews how they that heard our Lord's words were scandalized at them as hard words for they understood them says he foolishly and carnally and thought he was to have cut off some parcels of his Body to be given them But they were hard not our Lord 's saying for had they been meek and not hard they should have said within themselves He says not this without a cause but because there is some Sacrament hid there for had they come to him with his Disciples and asked him he had instructed them For he said it is the spirit that quickens the flesh profiteth nothing the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life And adds understand spiritually that which I have said for it is not this Body which you 〈◊〉 that you are to eat or to drink this 〈◊〉 which they are to shed who shall 〈◊〉 me But I have recommended a Sacrament to you which being spiritually understood shall quicken you and though it be necessary that it be celebrated visibly yet it must be understood invisibly From which it is as plain as can be that St. Austin believed that in the Eucharist we do not eat the natural Flesh and drink the natural Blood of Christ but that we do it only in a Sacrament and spiritually and invisibly But the force of all this will appear yet clearer if we consider that they speak of the Sacrament as a Memorial that exhibited Christ to us in his absence For though it naturally followes that whatsoever is commemorated must needs be absent yet this will be yet more evident if we find the Fathers made such reflections on it So Gaudentius says This is the hereditary gift of his New Teststament which that night he was betrayed to be crucified he left as the pledg of his presence this is the provision for our journey with which we are fed in this way of our life and nourished till we go to him out of this World for he would have his benefits remain with us He would have our souls to be always sanctified by his precious Blood and by the image of his own passion Primasius compares the Sacrament to a pledg which one when he is dying leaves to any whom he loved Many other places may be brought to shew how the Fathers speak of memorials and representations as opposite to the truth and presence of that which is represented And thus
we doubt not but we have brought proofs which in the judgment of all that are unprejudiced must demonstrate the truth of this our second Proposition which we leave and go on to the third which was That by the Doctrine of the Fathers the unworthy Receivers did not receive Christ's Body and Blood in the Sacrament For this our first Proof is taken from Origen who after he had spoken of the Sacraments being eaten and passing to the belly adds These things we have said of the typical and symbolical Body but many things may be said of the Word that was made Flesh and the true food whom whosoever eats he shall live for ever whom no wicked person can eat for if it were possible that any who continues wicked should eat the Word that was made Flesh since He is the Word and the Living Bread it had never been written whoso eats this Bread shall live for ever Where he makes a manifest difference between the typical and symbolical Body received in the Sacrament and the incarnate Word of which no wicked person can partake And he also says They that are good eat the Living Bread that came down from Heaven and the wicked eat Dead Bread which is Death Zeno Bishop of Verona that as is believed lived near Origen's time says as he is cited by Ratherius Bishop of Verona There is cause to fear that be in whom the Devil dwells does not eat the flesh of our Lord nor drink his Blood though he seems to communicate with the faithful since our Lord hath said He that eats my Flesh and drinks my Blood dwells in me and I in him St. Jerom on the 66 th of Isa. says They that are not holy in body and spirit do neither eat the Flesh of Jesus nor drink his Blood of which he said He that eats my Flesh and drinks my Blood hath eternal life And on the 8 th chap. of Hos. he says They eat not his flesh whose flesh is the food of them that believe To the same purpose he writes in his Comments on the 22 th of Jeremy and on the 10 th of Zech. St. Austin says He that does not abide in Christ and in whom Christ does not abide certainly does not spiritually eat his Flesh nor drink his Blood though he may visibly and carnally break in his teeth the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ. But he rather eats and drinks the Sacrament of so great a matter to his judgment And speaking of those who by their uncleanness become the members of an Harlot he says Neither are they to be said to eat the Body of Christ because they are not his members And besides he adds He that says whoso eats my Flesh and drinks my Blood abides in me and I in him shews what it is not only in a Sacrament but truly to eat the Body of Christ and drink his Blood To this we shall add that so oft cited passage Those did eat the Bread that was the Lord the other he means Judas the Bread of the Lord against the Lord. By which he clearly insinuates he did believe the unworthy Receivers did not receive the Lord with the Bread And that this hath been the consâ—ant belief of the Greek-Church to this day shall be proved if it be thought necessary for clearing this matter And thus far we have studied to make good what we undertook to prove But if we had enlarged on every particular we must have said a great deal more to shew from many undeniable evidences that the Fathers were strangers to this new Mystery It is clear from their writings that they thought Christ was only spiritually present that we did eat his Flesh and drink his Blood only by Faith and not by our bodily senses and that the words of eating his Flesh and drinking his Blood were to be understood spiritually It is no less clear that they considered Christ present only as he was on the Cross and not as he is now in the glory of the Father And from hence it was that they came to order their Eucharistical forms so as that the Eucharist might represent the whole History of Christ from his Incarnation to his Assumption Besides they always speak of Christ as absent from us according to his Flesh and Human Nature and only present in his Divinity and by his Spirit which they could not have said if they had thought him every day present on their Altars in his Flesh and Human Nature for then he were more on Earth than he is in Heaven since in Heaven he is circumscribed within one place But according to this Doctrine he must be always in above a million of places upon earth so that it were very strange to say he were absent if they believed him thus present But to give yet further evidences of the Fathers not believing this Doctrine let us but reflect a little on the consequences that necessarily follow it which be 1. That a Body may be by the Divine power in more places at once 2. That a Body may be in a place without extension or quantity so a Body of such dimensions as our blessed Lord's Body can be in so small a room as a thin Wafer and not only so but that the whole Body should be entirely in every crumb and point of that Wafer 3. That a Body can be made or produced in a place that had a real Being before and yet is not brought thither but produced there 4. That the accidents of any substance such as colour smell taste and figure can remain without any Body or substance in which they subsist 5. That our senses may deceive us in their clearest and most evident representations 6. Great doubts there are what becomes of the Body of Christ after it is received or if it should come to be corrupted or to be snatched by a Mouse or eat by any vermine All these are the natural and necessary effects of this Doctrine and are not only to be perceived by a contemplative and searching understanding but are such as stare every body full in the face And hence it is that since this was submitted to in the Western Church the whole Doctrine of Philosophy has been altered and new Maxims and Definitions were found out to accustom the youth while raw and easy to any impression to receive these as principles by which their minds being full of those first prejudices might find no difficulty to believe this Now it is certain had the Fathers believed this they who took a great deal of pains to resolve all the other Mysteries of our Faith and were so far from being short or defective in it that they rather over-do it and that not only about the Mysteries of the Trinity and Incarnation but about Original sin the derivation of our Souls the operation of the Grace of God in our hearts and the Resurrection of our bodies should yet have been so
constantly silent in those Mysteries though they ought rather to have been cleared than the other Because in the other Heads the difficulties were more speculative and abstracted and so scruples were only incident to men of more curious and diligent enquiries But here it is otherwise where the matter being an object of the senses every mans senses must have raised in him all or most of those scruples And yet the Fathers neither in their Philosophical Treatises nor in their Theological Writings ever attempt the unridling those difficulties But all this is only a negative and yet we do appeal to any one that has diligently read the Fathers St. Austin in particular if he can perswade himself that when all other Mysteries and the consequences from them were explained with so great care and even curiosity these only were things of so easy a digestion that about them there should have been no scruple at all made But it is yet clearer when we find the Fathers not only silent but upon other occasions delivering Maxims and Principles so directly contrary to these consequences without any reserved exceptions or provisions for the strange Mysteries of Transubstantiation They tell us plainly creatures are limited to one place and so argued against the Heathens believing their inferior Deities were in the several Statues consecrated to them From this they prove the Divinity of the Holy Ghost that he did work in many places at once and so could not be a creature which can only be in one place Nay they do positively teach us that Christ can be no more on Earth since his Body is in Heaven and is but in one place They also do tell us that that which hath no bounds nor figure and cannot be touched nor seen cannot be a Body and that all Bodies are extended in some place and that Bodies cannot exist after the manner of Spirits They also tell us in all their reasonings against the eternity of matter that nothing could be produced that had a Being before it was produced They also teach us very formally that none of the qualities of a Body could subsist except the Body it self did also subsist And for the testimonies of our senses they appeal to them on all occasions as Infallible and tell us that it tended to reverse the whole state of our Life the order of Nature and to blind the Providence of God to say he has given the knowledg and enjoyment of all his works to Liars and Deceivers if our Senses be false Then we must doubt of our Faith if the testimony of the eyes hands and ears were of a nature capable to be deceived And in their contests with the Marcionites and others about the truth of Christ's Body they appeal always to the testimony of the Senses as infallible Nay even treating of the Sacrament they say it was Bread as their eyes witnessed and truly Wine that Christ did consecrate for the memory of his Blood telling that in this very particular we ought not to doubt the testimony of our senses But to make this whole matter yet plainer It is certain that had the Church in the first ages believed this Doctrine the Heathens and Jews who charged them with every thing they could pos ms = sibly invent had not passed over this against which all the powers of reason and the authorities of sense do rise up They charge them for believing a God that was born a God of Flesh that was crucified and buried They laughed at their belief of a Iudgment to come of endless Flames of an Heavenly Paradise and the Resurrection of the Flesh. The first Apologists for Christianity Iustin Tertullian Origen Arnobiâ—s and Cyril of Alexandria give us a full account of those Blasphemies against our most holy Faith and the last hath given us what Iulian objected in his own words who having apostatized from the Faith in which he was initiated and was a Reader in the Church must have been well acquainted with and instructed in their Doctrine and Sacraments He then who laughed at every thing and in particular at the ablution and sanctification in Baptism as conceiving it a thing impossible that Water should cleanse and wash a Soul Yet neither he nor Celsus nor any other ever charged on the Christians any absurdities from their belief of Transubstantiation This is it is true a negative argument yet when we consider the malice of those ingenious Enemies of our Faith and their care to expose all the Doctrines and Customs of Christians and yet find them in no place charge the strange consequences of this Doctrine on them We must from thence conclude there was no such Doctrine then received for if it had been they at least Iulian must have known it and if they knew it can we think they should not have made great noise about it We know some think their charging the Christians with the eating of Humane flesh and Thyeâ—tean Suppers related to the Sacrament but that cannot be for when the Fathers answer that charge they tell them to their teeth it was a plain lye and do not offer to explain it with any relation to the Eucharist which they must have done if they had known it was founded on their Doctrine of receiving Christs Body and Blood in the Sacrament But the truth is those horrid Calumnies were charged on the Christians from the execrable and abominable practiâ—es of the Gnosticks who called themselves Christians and the enemies of the Faith either believing these were the practices of all Christians or being desirous to have others think so did accuse the whole Body of Christians as guilty of these abominations So that it appears those Calumnies were not at all taken up from the Eucharist and there being nothing else that is so much as said to have any relation to the Eucharist charged on the Christians we may well conclude from hence that this Doctrine was not received then in the Church But another Negative argument is That we find Heresies rising up in all Ages against all the other Mysteries of our Faith and some downright denying them others explaining them very strangely and it is indeed very natural to an unmortified and corrupt mind to reject all Divine Revelation more particularly that which either choakes his common notions or the deductions of appearing reasonings but most of all all men are apt to be startled when they are told They must believe against the clearest evidences of sense for men were never so meek and tame as easily to yeild to such things How comes it then that for the first seven Ages there were no Heresies nor Hereticks about this We are ready to prove that from the Eighth and Ninth Centuries in which this Doctrine began to appear there has been in every Age great opposition made to all the advances for setting it up and yet these were but dark and unlearned Ages in which implicite obedience and a blind subjection to what was generally proposed was
Christ and following his example But when we were for some years thus tried in the fire then did God again bless us with the protection of the rightful and lawful Magistrate Then did our Church do as the Primitive Church had done under Theodosius when she got out from a long and cruel persecution of the Arrians under those enraged Emperours Constantius and Valens They reformed the Church from the Arrian Doctrine but would not imitate them in their persecuting spirit And when others had too deep resentments of the ill usage they had met with under the Arrian Tyranny Nazianzen and the other holy Bishops of that time did mitigate their animosities So that the Churches were only taken from the Arrians but no storms were raised against them So in the beginning of Queen Elizabeths reign it cannot be denied that those of that Church were long suffered to live at quiet among us with little or no disturbance save that the Churches were taken out of their hands Nor were even those who had bathed themselves in so much blood made examples so entirely did they retain the meekness and lenity of the Christian spirit And if after many years quiet those of that Religion when they met with no trouble from the government did notwithstanding enter into so many plots and conspiracies against the Queens person and the established government was it any wonder that severe Laws were made against them and those Emissaries who under a pretence of coming in a mission were sent as spies and agents among us to fill all with blood and confusion Whom had they blame for all this but themselves or was this any thing but what would have been certainly done in the gentlest and mildest government upon earth For the Law of self-preservation is engraven on all mens natures and so no wonder every State and government sees to its own security against those who seek its ruine and destruction and it had been no wonder if upon such provocations there had been some severities used which in themselves were unjustifiable for few take reparation in an exact equality to the damage and injury they have received But since that time they have had very little cause to complain of any hard treatment and if they have met with any they may still thank the officious insolent deportment of some of their own Church that have given just cause of jealousie and fear But I shall pursue this discourse no farther hoping enough is already said upon the head that engaged me to it to make it appear that it was possible the Doctrine of the Church should be changed in this matter and that it was truly changed From which I may be well allowed to subsume that our Church discovering that this change was made had very good reason and a sufficient authority to reform this corruption and restore the Primitive Doctrine again And now being to leave my Reader I shall only desire him to consider a little of how great importance his eternal concerns are and that he has no reason to look for endless happiness if he does not serve God in a way suitable to his will For what hopes soever there may be for one who lives and dies in some unknown error yet there are no hopes for those that either neglect or despise the truth and that out of humour or any other carnal account give themselves up to errours and willingly embrace them Certainly God sent not his Son in the world nor gave him to so cruel a death for nothing If he hath revealed his Counsels with so much solemnity his designs in that must be great and worthy of God The true ends of Religion must be the purifying our Souls the conforming us to the Divine Nature the uniting us to one another in the most tender bonds of Love Truth Justice and Goodness the raising our minds to a Heavenly and contemplative temper and our living as Pilgrims and strangers on this earth ever waiting and longing for our change Now we dare appeal all men to shew any thing in our Religion or Worship that obstructs any of these ends on the contrary the sum and total of our Doctrine is the conforming our selves to Christ and his Apostles both in faith and life So that it can scarce be devised what should make any body that hath any sense of Religion or regard to his Soul forsake our Communion where he finds nothing that is not highly suitable to the Nature and ends of Religion and turn over to a Church that is founded on and cemented in carnal interests the grand design of all their attempts being to subject all to the Papal tyranny which must needs appear visibly to every one whose eyes are opened For attaining which end they have set up such a vast company of additions to the simplicity of the Faith and the purity of the Christian Worship that it is a great work even to know them Is it not then a strange choice to leave a Church that worships God so as all understand what they do and can say Amen to go to a Church where the worship is not understood so that he who officiats is a Barbarian to them A Church which worships God in a spiritual unexceptionable manner to go to a Church that is scandalously to raise this charge no higher full of images and pictures and that of the blessed Trinity before which prostrations and adorations are daily made A Church that directs her devotions to God and his Son Jesus Christ to go to a Church that without any good warrant not only invocates Saints and Angels but also in the very same form of words which they offer up to God and Jesus Christ which is a thing at least full of scandal since these words must be strangely wrested from their natural meaning otherwise they are high blasphemies A Church that commemorates Christs death in the Sacrament and truly communicates in his body and blood with all holy reverence and due preparationâ— to go to a Church that spends all her devotion in an outward adoring the Sacrament without communicating with any due care but resting in the Priestly absolution allows it upon a single attrition A Church that administers all the Sacraments Christ appointed and as he appointed them to go to a Church that hath added many to those he appointed and hath maimed that he gave for a pledge of his presence when he left this earth In a word that leaves a Church that submits to all that Christ and his Apostles taught and in a secondary order to all delivered to us by the Primitive Church to go to a Church that hath set up an authority that pretends to be equal to these sacred oracles and has manifestly cancelled most of the Primitive Constitutions But it is not enough to remain in the Communion of our Church for if we do not walk conform to that holy Faith taught in it we disgrace it Let all therefore that have zeal