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
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
hidden under them And thus the Council of Trent expressely declares in the 1. ch of the 13. Session not that the sensible things themselves are truly the Body of Christ but that under them his Body is containd 'T is written in the 1. of Samuel * c. 16. v. 7. Men look upon the outward appearances but God looks upon the heart In like manner our Senses only perceive the outward appearances of their objects but our Understanding by which we are made to the image of God is the onely Faculty which can discern the inward substance The naked notion of subsistent Being cannot be perceiv'd by any sense because it neither has dimension motion posture figure colour nor any of those modifications which affect our senses The qualities and modes of matter intercept our sight no sense can penetrate the superficies of it discern the nakedness of substance through the cloaths it wears we neither see it nor feel it more than we see or feel the substance of the Soul which animates our Body Now I must needs acknowledge that if when we receive the Sacrament we saw it round and yet believd it square if we saw it white yet believd it black if we felt it rough yet believd it smooth if we felt it dry yet believd it moist if we tasted sweetness in it and yet believd it bitter No man could then deny but that our Faith would teach things evidently contrary to what our Senses tell us But as the case stands with us in this article I never yet could see how any thing but ignorance can possibly excuse all those who flap us ore the mouth with the absurdity of contradicting all our senses We really believe the superficies or outward form is round and white just as we see it if we feel it rough and dry we take it to be such and when we tast it sweet we do not question but it is so We firmly without any hesitation believe all that our Senses represent unto us we declare to all the world that we believe our Senses we live dy in a persuasion that in this mystery our Senses tell us nothing but what 's true And yet some people have the face to tell us that we contradict our senses A strange world it is we live in now that makes no conscience of saying any thing I know very well you 'l readily object that after consecration we see the Substance of bread and we believe the Substance is not there is not this contradicting of our Senses I grant that after consecration we see the substance as plainly as we did before but this I flatly deny that any man ever saw the substance of bread either before or after 'T is true most men who do not understand Philosophy are apt to think that when they see bread lie before them they see the substance of it They never imagine that there is as much difference betwixt seeing bread seeing the substance of bread as there is betwixt seeing substance with all its cloaths on and seeing of it naked When they see the length breadth depth the figure texture colour of the parts of bread they think they see the substance and 't is no wonder that they are mistaken because they do not understand what substance is But if they would go to school to Aristotle or Cartesius the two chief Masters of the old new Philosophy the First would reach them that when they think they see or feel the substance of any body they only see feel the accidents the quantity qualities that cover it The second would easily inform them and let them know they only see feel the superficies modes of matter which may remain the same to all intents purposes and make the same impression upon our senses although the entity of matter be entirely chang'd If any of you are so curious you may read Cartesius himself upon this subject in the end of his Meditations pag. 137 of the 5. edition printed at Amsterdam in the year 1670. * Notandum denique per supersiciem panis aut vini alteriusve corporis non hic intelligi partem ullam substantiae nec quantitatis .... fed tantummodo terminum illum qui medius esse concipitur inter singulas ejus particulas corpora ipsas ambientia quique nullam planè entitatem habeat nisi modalem Iam verò cum in solo termino contactus fiat nihil nisi per contactum sentiatur manifestum est ex hoc uno quod dicantur panis vini substantiae in alicujus alterius rei substantiam Ita mutari ut haec nova substantia sub eisdem planè terminis contineatur sub quibus aliae ..... jam existerent si adessent sequi necessatiò illam novam substantiam eodem planè modo sensus omnes nostros afficere debere quo panis vinum illos afficerent si nulla transubstantiatio facta esset loc cit Praeterea nihil est incomprehensibile aut difficile in eo quod Deus Creator omnium possit unam substantiam in aliam mutare quodque haec posterior substantia sub eâdem planè superficie remaneat sub quâ prior continebatur Nec etiam quidquam rationi magis consentancum dici potest nec vulgo apud Philosophos magis receptum quà m non modo omnem sensum sed omnem corporis in corpus actionem fieti per contactum huncque contactum in solâ superficie esse posse Vnde sequitur evidenter eandem superficiem quantumvis substantia quae sub eâ est mutetur eodem semper modo agere ac pati debere Quapropter ausim sperare ventutum tempus aliquando quo illa opinio quae ponit accidentia realia .... explodetur mea ut certa indubitata in ejus locum recipietur ibid. pag. 139. Some of my Auditory may perhaps be a little surprised to hear so much Philosophy deliverd in a pulpit whence they usually expect the Law of God Christian Doctrine If without Philosophy we cannot find the way to Heaven what will become of all those Christians who never found the way to school Pray give me leave There are a great many Christians let them be as ignorant as you please especially in matters of Philosophy who never the less think they are wise enough to judge the greatest mysteries and secrets of it And when they hear the Catholick Church affirm that in the Eucharist the interiour substances of bread wine are chang'd into the body blood of Christ nothing remaining but the outward forms of bread wine in stead of receiving humbly the Christian Doctrine which the Church proposes they immediatly take upon them to condemn it as an errour cry it down as a ridiculous absurdity which contradicts our senses All this while they never consider how little it becomes them to pretend to judge of things they do not understand Tell them that
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
is Whether 't is possible for a Body to be stript naked of all its dimensions subsist without them T is no wonder there is such confusion in deciding of this Case because our Philosophers Mathematicians are not Country men They have each a peculiar language to themselves and which is worst of all when they use the same words they understand them in a different sense A Mathematician never considers the Nature of a Body neither is it to his purpose all his business is to measure it The vulgar part of mankind never consider what a Body is made of any farther than they can either use it or make money of it So that a Body miraculously stript of all its dimensions being neither measurable nor usefull nor marketable is certainly in the language of Mathematicians of the Vulgar no Body at all All the trade they drive with Bodies is by weight measure and therefore 't is no wonder if by the word Body they conceive nothing but Dimensions These people by their own confession have only a superficial knowledg of a Body They declare frankly they know nothing of it but the outside Philosophers are the onely men that consider the inside of Nature They are not content to gaze without but endeavour to enter the very Sanctuary discover what lies hid behind the Veil And these men if the rest of the world would give them a fair hearing not make too much noise would soon decide the difficulty The Question is putting the Case that a Body were divested of its natural dimensions whether the Remainder would be still a Body or not T is evident that in the Mathematical or Vulgar sense it would not be so Neither is that the true meaning of the Question We do not ask whether the Dimensions would remain when they are gone We know very well it implies a most manifest contradiction Our enquiry is only concerning the Essence of a natural Body that is of a Substance which is not a Spirit And without all doubt when we suppose nothing to be taken from a Body but its actual dimensions That which we conceive to remain is still a natural Body because 't is certainly no Spirit it still retains a reall capacity of having its natural dimensions and this Capacity is absolutely repugnant to the nature of a Spirit Thus you plainly see that the Supposition we talk of dos not destroy the Essence of a natural Body it dos not imply any Contradiction And therefore dos not leave any reasonable ground of denying the possibility of it Men may fancy what they please and will ever do so without asking their neighbours leave There 's no remedy for it But after all He must be a bold man that undertakes to demonstrate the absolute impossibility of the Hypothesis I speak of To return to my argument I would now gladly enquire since in the Incarnation and Trinity it is no argument of weakness but of wisdom to submit our judgments Why is it not so in this If the Nature of God the divine Persons are objects so spiritual and so much out of our reach that it dos not become us to dogmatize in matters belonging to them Pray tell me what acquaintance have we with a Body divested of all its natural dimensions reduced to the condition of a Spirit All our Mathematical Vulgar notions of which we are so confident are in this case so far from giving us any light that they are rather like so much dust in our eyes that hinders us from seeing T is no part of our Faith that Christ in the Sacrament has all his natural dimensions if it were Then indeed these Notions might furnish something to say against it One might argue as S. Augustin dos against Faustus that Christ as to his corporal presence could not at the same time be in the Sun Moon on the Cross But in our present Hypothesis all our experimental knowledge of a Body is out of doors And all our pretended demonstrations are meer nonsense T is evident that without local extension a Body is neither confin'd by being in one place nor divided by being in two And 't is as easie a matter to measure a line without length an angle without space or a circle without diameter as it is to find work for Mathematical conclusions in a Body without dimensions Some will ingenuously confess they do not think that Transubstantiation is impossible but they are apt to think it is incredible either that Christ should work so great a miracle without necessity or humble himself to all those great indignities to which the Sacrament is every day exposed * Rom. 9. 20. O man says the Apostle who art thou that replyest against God His Goodness is as infinite as his Omnipotence and t is as great an insolence to give laws to the one as to give limits to the other He seems to value more the reputation of his Goodness than of his Power and if we trace his Providence throughout the Conduct of the Moral World we cannot but observe that He has taken much more pains to shew his goodness than to shew his greatness In the Creation of the Universe He shewd his Power But what was that to the Incarnation of the Son of God All the Perfections of Creatures disappear shrink to nothing when compar'd to the perfection of their great Creatour And the whole Universe by which God shews his Greatness is nothing in comparison of Jesus Christ by whom he shews his Kindness to us You all are scandaliz'd at their ingratitude who will not give God thanks for this inestimable favour will not believe that he has been so good so mercifull so kind They say that though 't were possible it is not credible that God should work so great a miracle without necessity that there was none at all for him to come himself in person that he might have sent a holy man for our instruction he might have charg'd him with our sins he might have pardon'd both him and us without condign satisfaction T is true The Scripture seems to speak in plain terms the Divinity of Christ but yet may bear another sense and may admit a much more credible interpretation If a Socinian should urge this argument against you you would scarce have patience to hear him Why then do you object the same against the mystery of Transubstantiation Why do you tell us 't is incredible that God should work so great a miracle without necessity that the real presence is not absolutely necessary that the Sacrament might have sufficient efficacy to give grace without it Why do you say that though the Scripture plainly speaks in favour of this mystery yet we are not obliged to take it in the literal sense that the figurative sense is much more easie to conceive therefore is a much more credible interpretation O man says S. Paul to the Romans * 9.20 Who art
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.
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
operations of a Man. But mang learned men who read Gelasius and Theodoret want either skill or patience to understand them They find these words the substance of bread remains and are so much transported with the joyfull news of any thing that looks but like an argument against the Old Religion they have undertaken to reform they do not well consider what the word may signifie but willingly suppose the Sense is just the same as they would have it set their hearts at rest and look no farther * I have now sufficiently examin'd what the Fathers say concerning the outward form of the Sacrament what they mean by calling it a type a sign or figure what they understand when they call it the substance or nature of bread I now come close to the main point of the Question What they have taught constantly believ'd during the first eight Centuries concerning the inward substance of the Sacrament Whether they believ'd it was the substance of bread wine or the substance of Christ's body blood SECOND PART Paschasius Rathertus a French Monk Native of Soisson in Picardy wrote a book in the year 831. de Corpore Sanguine Domini at the request of one of his Scholars call'd Placidius an Abbot to whom he dedicated it He makes it his business to explain prove three points 1. that the body blood of Christ are truly and substantially present 2. that the substances of bread wine remain no longer after Consecration 3. that the body is the very same which was born of the Virgin suffer'd on the Cross rose from the Sepulcre He was the more willing to write this book because some people out of ignorance began to doubt of several truths relating to the Sacrament This I gather from an epistle of Paschasius to Frudegard where I find these words Although some people are out of ignorance mistaken nevertheless as yet no body openly contradicts this doctrine which all the World believes professes Our Adversaries take a great deal of pains to persuade us that Paschasius was the first broacher of this Doctrine from him they date the first Rise of it about the beginning of the IX Age although it did not take root nor was fully settled established till towards the end of the eleventh They add that this was the most likely time for the Enemy to sow his Tares when the Christian World was lull'd asleep in ignorance and superstition that the generality of people being quiet secure were ready to receive any thing that came in under a pretence of mystery in religion but the men most eminent for piety learning in that time made great resistance against it This is the Account which now is generally given by our modern Writers and particularly by the Author of a late Discourse against Transubstantiation T is easily said and the contrary is as easily prov'd Read Leo Allatius in his 3. book of the perpetual agreement betwixt East West and you will find Nicephorus Patriarch of Constantinople saying that the bread wine are not an image or a figure But that they are transmuted into the body blood of Christ Read Haymo Bishop of Halberstadt in his Treatise De Corpore Sanguine Domini you may find it in the 12. Tome of the Spicilegium his words are these We believe therefore and faithfully confess hold that the substance of bread wine by the operation of the Divine Virtue is substantially chang'd into another substance that is Body Blood ..... The tast of bread wine remains the figure the nature of the substances being wholly chang'd into the body blood of Christ Read Theodorus 〈◊〉 Abucara in the Bibliotheca Patrum printed at Lions you will find that in his 22. Opuscule he says The Holy Ghost descends by his Divinity changes the bread wine into the body blood of Christ I omit several others who lived in the same Age with Paschasius and all witness that the Church believd the mystery of Transubstantiation T is well known that the 3. part of Paschasius's doctrine occasion'd some disputes about the manner of speaking They allow'd the body to be the same in substance but not altogether the same because it is not in the same form it has no corporal motion or action in a word it is present in some respects after the manner of a spirit imperceptible to sense all in the whole all in every part This Spiritual presence of his body was much urg'd against Paschasius to prove the body is not absolutely the same But nevertheless if we do not preferr darkness before light we cannot but see that They who wrote against the third part did not write against the second and they who quarreld with his way of speaking did not deny the mystery of Transubstantiation as appears by the testimonies of his pretended Adversaries Amalarius in the 24. ch of his 3. book says We believe the simple nature of bread wine mixt with water to be chang'd into a reasonable nature to wit the body blood of Christ Rabanus Archbishop of Mentz in the 10. ch of his 7. book to Theotmarus De sacris ordinibus Who says he would ever have believ'd that bread could have been chang'd into flesh wine into blood unless our Saviour himself had said it who created bread wine all things out of nothing These men were also Authors of the same IX Age And after all these testimonies I leave you to judge whether the IX Age did not generally believe the mystery of Transubstantiation or whether Paschasius was the first that broacht it in the Western Church I do not insist upon the authority of Bertram either one way or other but however I shall give you a short account of him as much as may suffice to justifie my letting him alone The first question which he proposes in the beginning is * pag 1. whether the body of Christ be done in a mystery or in truth that is to say according to his own words whether it contain some secret thing or whether the bodily sight do outwardly behold whatsoever is done I have not hitherto met with any Author of the IX Age that ever said Our eye sees all that our faith believes but we are to suppose that some body said so or else that Bertram was mistaken He answers with a great deal of truth that * p. 5. it cannot be call'd a mystery wherein there is nothing covered with some veil removed from our bodily senses Outwardly says he the form of bread is set out but inwardly a thing far differing * p. 6. London-Edit 1687. which is not discern'd to be Christ's body by the carnal senses Afterward he compares this Sacrament with that of Baptism and finally in the 18. page he concludes Therefore the things that are seen things that are believ'd are not all one This was indeed a
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
begins to come in play again If we would spend one serious thought upon these Revolutions in the very fundamentalls of our Natural Philosophy we should learn the best the most beneficial knowledg in the world which is the knowledg of our ignorance We should find that the vain humour which inclines some few to dogmatize in Natural Philosophy proceeds not from their being wise than their neighbours but rather from the strength of their imaginations than the power of their Reasons We should see that since the Fall of Adam even the works of nature are above our reach * Eccles 3.11 No man says Solomon can find them out from the beginning to the end When any mystery of Faith seems not to sute so well as we would have it with the notions which we fancy most We should rather suspect that we may be mistaken in our principles than cry it down as a chimerical absurdity below God's Majesty above his Art beyond the utmost stretch of his Omnipotence As the mystery of the Incarnation seemd meer folly to the Gentiles and a scandal to the Jews so now the mystery of Transubstantiation seems impossible to some incredible to others It seems impossible 1. for the Natural Body of Christ to be consin'd within so small a compass 2. for one Body to be at the same time in two places It seems incredible 1. that Christ should put himself to the expence of so superfluous a miracle since he might easily haue given us the very same grace without it 2. that he should humble himself so low as to expose his sacred body blood to almost all the abuses indignities which bread wine are subject to These are the principal considerations whence some are pleas'd to draw this inference That Transubstantiation is evidently contrary to Reason T is strange to see when once our minds are prepossesst with an aversion from any doctrine how blind we are in our enquiries how partial unequal in our judgments We easily believe the Incarnation and although we know that God is infinitely greater than our little souls are able to conceive although we know that there can be no limits in the vast extension of his boundless Being although we know that his Immensity has every where a Center no where a Circumference yet because this is an article which we are willing to believe we make no doubt but all Gods Greatness may be lodg'd within the compass of a man and that this man who lived died amongst us is the great Creatour Conserver of the Universe Why have you not the impudence to ridicule this mystery say t is evidently contrary to Reason Why do you not tell the world that it involves clear contradiction infinity measur'd incomprehensibility comprehended Immensity containd within the compass of a man The reason is because you like this article well enough your education has not arm'd you against it your first institution to piety has been accompanied with dayly persuasions inducements to submit your reason to it not to admit of every probable appearance of impossibility as a sufficient evidence against it How comes it then that in an Age so sceptical in all things else you are so positive so dogmatical in this That 't is impossible for the Body of Christ to shrink into the compass of a little bit of bread or at the same time be in several places You can beleeve one Nature in three Persons really distinguisht and one Person in two Natures And yet you can't believe one Body in two Places Is not this streining at the lesser difficulty swallowing the greater had not our Saviour reason to complain of the * Math. 23.24 blind Guides that strein at a Gnat swallow a camel The Common Answer to this Argument is That we are better acquainted with the Nature of a Body than of a Spirit Bodies are the familiar object of our Senses and if we do not know the Nature of them we know nothing at all But our Notions of a Spirit are so imperfect that it is an argument of wisdom rather than weakness to submit our judgments in things we cannot understand I must confess if we consider only the superficial knowledge of Bodies our Mathematicians measure very skillfully their three dimensions we demonstrate many ingenious Truths both usefull delightfull and have knowledge enough to make us proud But if we consider the inward constitution or nature of these very same bodies which we measure so skillfully we shall soon find we have ignorance enough to humble us T is an easie thing to tell me the length of a Line to measure it by so many inches But who can tell me what this line is made of is it a chain of indivisible points immediatly linkt together or is it compos'd of parts which may be really divided lesse lesse for ever ever world without end The first is an unconceivable piece of nonsense And the second is a Labyrinth which when our Reason enters it can never find the way out What are we more acquainted with or what is more familiar to us than Light Colour And yet no body can tell certainly what they are The Learned have disputed some thousands of years about it are not agreed upon the point We see and we believe our eyes And nothing is more certain than that we do so Yet nevertheless when we come to examine strictly by what means how this operation is perform'd we are as much in the dark as if we were stark blind We move from place to place we measure our motion as to time space we know very well whether one motion be longer or shorter whether it be swifter or slower than another And yet when our Natural Philosophers enquire into the nature of this Motion nothing is more uncertain The greatest Wits have ever been at a losse when they pretend to explicate how Motion is possible And Zeno's argument has never been clearly answerd In the same manner although nothing is more certain than that all the Bodies which we ever were acquainted with have three dimensions length bredth depth yet if we strictly enquire into the essentiall notion of a Body by which it differs from a Spirit we shall find it not so easie to determine but that this matter is very dark as well as others I haue mentiond To make it as clear as I can I suppose 1. that there is no substance but what is either a body or a Spirit 2. that no Spirit either has dimensions or is capable of having them From whence I conclude 1. that every substance which either has dimensions or is capable of having them is a body and no spirit 2. that actual dimensions are not the essence of a body because the Idea of them presupposes the capacity of having them this Capacity is the first Idea by which a Body differs from a Spirit The Question
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