in the one being intrinsecal and substantial the other extrinsecal and accidental And that Hypostasis is the same with the Divine Nature and yet is most closely united with the Human Nature which is so different from the Divine so that it is incomprehensible by us how in that Union the Natures are not confounded or the Hypostasis divided Pr. Suppose now we grant all this that there is an incomprehensible Mystery in the Incarnation what follows from thence Have I not hitherto owned that there must be something incomprehensible by us in what relates to the Divine Nature And it is the less wonder it is so in the Incarnation wherein an Union is implied between an Infinite and Finite Nature when the Union of the Soul and Body though both Finite is above our Comprehension though we our selves consist of Souls and Bodies so united But what Consequence is it if we are not able to explain this that then we must admit that the same Body may be not meerly in two but in ten thousand places at the the same time i. e. If we cannot explain the Hypostatical Union then all manner of Absurdities must go down with us that relate to things of a very different Nature from it P. I am glad to find you are set at last and that now you have a Difficulty before you which you can never get through Pr. Be not too confident I have only hitherto denied the Consequence as to the Difficulties of Transubstantiation But it is possible that setting aside the Confusion of School-Terms I may be able to give a far more intelligible and reasonable Account of the Incarnation it self than you can ever do of Transubstantiation P. First shew that it is possible and then explain the manner of it Pr. But let us in the first place agree what we mean by it P. By the Incarnation I mean the Union of the Divine and Humane Nature so as to make one Person in Christ. Pr. If this be not possible it must either be 1. Because two Natures different from each other cannot be united to make one Person The contrary whereof appears in the union of Soul and Body to the Person of a Man. Or 2. because it is impossible that an Infinite Nature should be united to a Finite P. How can there be an Union possible between two Beings infinitely distant from each other Pr. Not in that respect wherein the Distance is Infinite but if there be nothing destructive to either Nature in such an Union and the Infinite Nature do condescend to it why may it not be so united to an Intelligent Finite Being as to make one Person together with it For in respect of Union the Distance is not so great between Finite and Infinite as between Body and Spirit P. The Distance is Infinite in one Case but not in the other Pr. I do not speak of them with Respect to Perfections but to Union and an infinite Distance in that must imply an absolute Repugnancy which you can never prove For since Body and Spirit may be united to make one Person an Infinite Spirit may be united to a Finite Nature P. But the manner of the Hypostatical Union is impossible to be conceived Pr. Let the thing be granted possible and the difficulty of conceiving the manner may be as great in the Union of Soul and Body Will you undertake to explain that to me and yet I hope you believe it But let us hear your Difficulties again which you object from Bellarmine P. That there should be but one Hypostasis in two Natures and that in the Union the Natures should not be confounded nor the Hypostasis divided Pr. All these Difficulties arise from the sense of the word Hypostasis Which originally signifies a Real Being and not such which depends only on Fancy and Imagination from thence its signification was enlarged not only to things real in opposition to meer Appearances and Creatures of the Mind but to such a thing which did subsist of it self and had not its subsistence in another as Accidents had So that an Hypostasis was a real Substance which had subsistence in it self But such are of two kinds as the Greek Fathers observe 1. Such as are real Substances in themselves but yet are capable of being joined with another to make up a Person thus the Soul and Body have two different Hypostases and make up but one Person of a Man. 2. It is taken for a compleat individual Subsistence which is not joined with any other as a Part and so Hypostasis is the same with a Person which is nothing else but a compleat intelligent individual Hypostasis And in this sense there can be but one Hypostasis in Christ i. e. one Person tho there be two Natures P. But our Divines say that the Humane Nature after the Union hath no Hypostasis it being swallowed up by the Divine Pr. I know they do but if they mean that the Humane Nature after the Union loses that subsistence which is proper to the Humane Nature it is impossible for them to avoid the Eutychian Heresy condemned by the Council of Chalcedon but if they mean no more than that there is a true Nature but no Person save only that which results from both Natures they then agree with the Sense of the Church which condemned the Eutychians For as much as the Heresies of Nestorius and Eutyches differ'd in themselves they were both built on the same Ground viz. that there could be no true Nature but there must be a Person and that two Natures could not make one Person From whence Nestorius asserted there were two Persons in Christ and Eutyches denied that there were two Natures P. What doth all this signify but that the Authority of the Church must determine whether there be two Natures or two Persons in Christ Pr. It seems then the whole Business wherein the General Councils were so warmly concerned was only to make an Ecclesiastical Dictionary and to appoint what words are to be used and what not Do you think then there were no such real Heresies as Nestorianism and Eutychianism but only they happened to take the words Nature and Person in another sense than the Church would have Men use them P. I trust the Church for all these things Pr. Then if the Church would have you affirm two Persons and one Nature or two Natures and one Person it were all one to you P. Why not since the Church must determine Pr. What if you had been to dispute with Nestorius and Eutyches P. I would have told them they must submit to the Church about the use of words Pr. And they would have laughed at you for your pains For the Controversy was really about the Truth of Christ's Incarnation as the Fathers proved and the Councils determined which in Consequence was rejected by both of them as I will evidently prove if you have any longer Patience P. I beg your pardon Sir I
relate to a real Body as Tertullian argued in this Case And Ignatius in the same Epistle mentions the trial Christ made of his true Body by the Senses of his Disciples Take hold of me and handle me and see for I am no incorporeal Doemon and immediately they touched him and were convinced Which happen'd but a few days after Christ had said This is my Body and our Saviour gave a Rule for judging a true Body from an appearance or spiritual Substance A Spirit hath not Flesh and Bones as ye see me have Therefore it is very improbable that Ignatius so soon after should assert that Christ's true and real Body was in the Eucharist where it could be neither seen nor felt For then he must overthrow the force of his former Argument And to what purpose did Christ say That a Spirit had not Flesh and Bones as they saw him to have if a Body of Christ might be so much after the manner of a Spirit as tho it had Flesh and Bones yet they could not possibly be discerned But after all suppose Ignatius doth speak of the Substance of Christ's Flesh as present in the Eucharist yet he saith not a word of the changing of the Substance of the Bread into the Substance of Christ's Body which was the thing to be proved P. But Justin Martyr doth speak of the change and his Words are produced by all three And they are thus rendred in the single Sheet For we do not receive this as common Bread or common Drink but as by the Word of God Jesus Christ our Redeemer being made Man had both Flesh and Blood for our Salvation so also we are taught that this Food by which our Blood and Flesh are by a change nourished being consecrated by the Power of the Word is the Flesh and Blood of Jesus Christ incarnate What say you to this Pr. I desire you to consider these things 1. That Justin Martyr doth not say That the Bread and Wine are by Consecration changed into the Individual Flesh and Blood in which Christ was Incarnate but that as by the Power of the Word Christ once had a Body in the Womb of the Virgin so by the Power of the same Word upon Consecration the Bread and Wine do become the Flesh and Blood of Christ Incarnate so that he must mean a parallel and not the same Individual Body i. e. that as the Body in the Womb became the Body of Christ by the Power of the Holy Spirit so the Holy Spirit after Consecration makes the Elements to become the Flesh and Blood of Christ not by an Hypostatical Union but by Divine Influence as the Church is the Body of Christ. And this was the true Notion of the Ancient Church as to this matter and the expressions in the Greek Liturgies to this day confirm the same 2. He doth not in the least imply that the Elements by this change do lose their Substance for he mentions the nourishment of our Bodies by it but he affirms that notwithstanding their Substance remain yet the Divine Spirit of Christ by its Operation doth make them become his Body For we must observe that he attributes the Body in the Womb and on the Altar to the same 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Divine Word For he did not think Hypostatical Union necessary to make the Elements become the Body of Christ but a Divine Energy was sufficient as the Bodies assumed by Angels are their Bodies tho there be no such vital Union as there is between the Soul and Body of a Man. P. I go on to Irenoeus from whom two places are produced one by the Consensus Veterum where he saith That which is Bread from the Earth perceiving the call of God now is not common Bread but the Eucharist consisting of two things one Earthly and the other Spiritual Pr. Very well Then there is an Earthly as well as a Spiritual thing in the Eucharist i. e. a Bodily Substance and Divine Grace P. No he saith The Earthly is the Accidents Pr. Doth Irenoeus say so P. No but he means so Pr. There is not a word to that purpose in Irenoeus and therefore this is downright Prevarication I grant Irenoeus doth suppose a change made by Divine Grace but not by destroying the Elements but by super-adding Divine Grace to them and so the Bread becomes the Body of Christ and the Wine his Blood. P. The other place in Irenoeus is where he saith That as the Bread receiving the Word of God is made the Eucharist which is the Body and Blood of Christ so also our Bodies being nourished by it and laid in the Earth and there dissolved will arise at their time c. Pr. What do you prove from this place P. That the same Divine Power is seen in making the Eucharist the Body and Blood of Christ which is to be in the Resurrection of the Body Pr. But doth this prove that the Substance of the Bread is changed into the Substance of Christ's Body P. Why not Pr. I will give you a plain Argument against it for he saith Our Bodies are nourished by the Body and Blood of Christ. Do you think that Irenoeus believed the substance of Christ's Body was turned into the substance of our Bodies in order to their nourishment No he explained himself just before in the same place De Calice qui est Sanguis ejus nutritur de pane qui est Corpus ejus augetur So that he attributes the nourishment to the Bread and Wine and therefore must suppose the substance of them to remain since it is impossible a substantial nourishment should be made by meer Accidents And withal observe he saith expresly That the Bread is the Body of Christ which your best Writers such as Bellarmin Suarez and Vasquez say is inconsistent with Transubstantiation P. My next Author is Tertullian who is produced by the Consensus Veterum and the Single Sheet but omitted by the Nubes Testium but the other proves That Bread which was the Figure of Christ's Body in the Old Testament now in the New is changed into the real and true Body of Christ. Pr. This is a bold Attempt upon Tertullian to prove that by the Figure of Christ's Body he means his true and real Body For his Words are Acceptum panem distributum Discipulis Corpus illum suum fecit Hoc est Corpus meum dicendo id est Figura Corporis mei He took the bread and gave it to his Disciples and made it his Body saying This is my Body i. e. this is the Figure of my Body How can those men want Proofs that can draw Transubstantiation from these Words which are so plain against it P. You are mistaken Tertullian by Figure meant it was a Figure in the Old Testament but it was now his real Body Pr. You put very odd Figures upon Tertullian I appeal to any reasonable man whether by the latter words
are all things and we in him and one Lord Jesus Christ by whom are all things and we by him And this is one of the strongest holds of the Socinians But two Considerations will take off the seeming force of it 1. That the Apostle in his disputes with the Gentile Idolaters concerning whom he speaks v. 4 5. doth utterly deny any Divinity in the Beings they worshipped instead of God when he saith An Idol is nothing in the world and that there is none other God but one He knew very well that they worshipped many v. 5. As there be Gods many and Lords many among them but unto us Christians there is but one God and one Lord i. e. we have but one Supreme God to whom we give Divine Worship and instead of the multitude of Mediators we have but one Mediator and so his design is in opposition to their many Gods to assert the Unity of the Divine Nature not so as to exclude a distinction of Persons but thereby to exclude other Gods as the proper Object of Worship and the Unity of a Mediator in opposition to their many Lords 2. That if this place excludes Christ from the Unity of Nature with God it doth exclude him from being the Object of Divine Worship for it saith That there is no other God but One therefore no Creature can be made God And to us there is but One God the Father therefore the Son cannot be God. If therefore the name Lord be taken in opposition to God then Christ cannot be God in any sense for we must have but One God but the plain meaning of the Apostle was That by one Lord he meant one Mediator by whom alone we have in this new frame of things by the Gospel access unto God the Father The third place 1 Cor. 15. 27 28. speaks plainly of Christs Kingdom as Mediator The fourth place Rev. 3. 12. where Christ speaks several times of my God proves no more than his words on the Cross My God my God why hast thou forsaken me For surely Christ might own a particular Relation to God and Interest in him as he was in human Nature without overthrowing the Divine Nature in him P. But he owns That though he is to be our Judg he knows not the time Mark 13. 32. Which seems inconsistent with the Divine Nature which knoweth all things Pr. The Son there spoken of was Christ as endued with a human Soul when he was upon earth which could not understand a secret so much out of the reach of mans understanding without immediate Revelation But it was not necessary by virtue of the Union of both Natures that the Divine Nature should communicate to the human Soul of Christ all Divine Mysteries but as the human Body was notwithstanding subject to Passions and Infirmities incident to it so the human Soul might continue ignorant of the Day of Judgment in this state both to let us know how great that secret is and that Christ had the proper capacity of a human Soul which could not extend to such things without Divine Revelation P. There is one Argument more which seems to prove Christs Divinity and doth not viz. The making of all things visible and invisible being attributed to him John 1. 3. Heb. 1. 10. Col. 1. 16 17 18 19. Pr. Now I confess this doth more than seem to me to be a very strong Argument and that for this Reason the Apostle saith The invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen being understood by the things which are made even his Eternal Power and Godhead Rom. 1. 20. Was this Argument of the Apostle good or not P. No doubt it was Pr. Then the Creation of the World is an Invincible Proof of the true God. P. What follows Pr. Then if the making of all things be attributed to Christ he must be true God but this is plain in the New Testament in which the making of all things is as clearly attributed to the Son as it is to the Father All things saith St. John were made by him and without him was not any thing made that was made John 1. 3. For by him were all things created saith St. Paul that are in heaven and that are in earth visible and invisible whether they be thrones or dominions or principalities or powers all things were created by him and for him Col. 1. 16. Thou Lord in the beginning hast laid the Foundation of the earth and the heavens are the work of thy hands Heb. 1. 10. Now compare these expressions with those wherein the Creation is attributed to the Father The world is said to be made by bim Rom. 1. 20. That he hath created all things Rev. 4. 11. That of him and for him and to him are all things Rom. 11. 36. And let any impartial mind discern the difference Therefore we have as much Reason from Scripture to believe Christ to be God as we have from the Creation of things to believe a God. P. But you do not take notice of the different expressions in Scripture concerning the Father and the Son All things are said to be of the Father and by the Son 1 Cor. 8. 6. And that the Father created all things by Jesus Christ Eph. 3. 9. which proves no more than that the Son was Gods Instrument in the Creation Pr. What do you mean by Gods Instrument in the Creation Do you think one Creature can create another How then can the Creation prove an Infinite Power If you believe the Instrument uncreated then you must assert him to be true God by Nature and then we have all we desire P. But the Socinians do not like this Answer of the Arians and therefore they interpret these places of the state of things under the Gospel and not of the Creation of the World. Pr. They have not one jot mended the matter for 1. Where the new Creation is spoken of some circumstances are added which limit the sense to it as when St. Paul saith We are created in Christ Jesus unto good works that we shoul walk in them Eph. 2. 10. VVho could possibly understand this of the old Creation And so If any man be in Christ Jesus he is a new Creature 2 Cor. 5. 17. But in the other places the same Expressions are used which are attributed to the old Creation without limitation from circumstances or from the Context and occasion of them 2. There are some things said to be created by Christ Jesus which cannot relate to the new Creation for by him were all things created that are in heaven and that are in earth visible and invisible whether they be thrones or dominions or principalities or Powers Col. 1. 16. How are these created by Preaching the Gospel when they are uncapable of the proper means of it which are the Doctrine of the remission of Sins upon Repentance and the Renewing and Sanctifiing Grace of God P. But St. Paul doth not
more be without a Subject than Water without Moisture or Fire without Heat or a Stone without Hardness which are so joined together that they cannot be separated Methodius confutes Origen's Fancy about the Soul having the Shape of a Body without the Substance because the Shape and the Body cannot be separated from each other St. Augustin proves the Immortality of the Soul from hence because meer Accidents can never be separated from the Body so as the mind is by abstraction And in another place he asserts it to be a monstrous absurd Doctrine to suppose that whose Nature is to be in a Subject to be capable of subsisting without it Claudianus Mamertus proves That the Soul could not be in the Body as its Subject for then it could not subsist when the Body is destroy'd P. I hope you have now done with this Third Argument Pr. Yes and I shall wait your own time for an Answer I go on to a Fourth And that is from the Evidence of Sense asserted and allowed by the Fathers with respect to the Body of Christ. P. I expected this before now For as the Author of the Single Sheet observes This is the Cock-Argument of one of the Lights of your Church and it so far resembles the Light that like it it makes a glaring shew but go to grasp it and you find nothing in your hand Pr. Then it 's plain our Senses are deceived P. Not as to Transubstantiation for he believes more of his Senses than we do for his Eyes tell him there is the Colour of Bread and he assents to them his Tongue that it has the Taste of Bread and he agrees to it and so for his Smelling and Feeling But then he hath a notable fetch in his Conclusion viz. That his Ears tell him from the Words spoken by Christ himself that it is the Body of Christ and he believes these too Is not here one Sense more than you believe And yet you would persuade the World that we do not believe our Senses Pr. This is admirable Stuff but it must be tenderly dealt with For I pray what doth he mean when he saith he believes from Christ's own Words that it is the Body of Christ What is this It Is it the Accidents he speaks of before Are those Accidents then the Body of Christ Is it the Substance of Bread But that is not discerned by the Senses he saith and if it were will he say that the Substance of Bread is the Body of Christ If neither of these then his believing It is the Body of Christ signifies nothing for there can be no sense of it P. However he shews That we who believe Transubstantiation do not renounce our Senses as you commonly reproach us For we believe all that our Senses represent to us which is only the outward appearance For as he well observes If your Eyes see the Substance of things they are most extraordinary ones and better than ours For our parts we see no farther than the Colour or Figure c. of things which are only Accidents and the entire Object of that Sense Pr. Is there no difference between the Perception of Sense and the Evidence of Sense We grant that the Perception of our Senses goes no farther than to the outward Accidents but that Perception affords such an Evidence by which the Mind doth pass Judgment upon the thing represented by the outward Sense I pray tell me have you any certainty there is such a thing as a material Substance in the World P. Yes Pr. Whence comes the certainty of the Substance since your Senses cannot discover it Do we live among nothing but Accidents Or can we know nothing beyond them P. I grant we may know in general that there are such things as Substances in the World. Pr. But can we not know the difference of one Substance from another by our Senses As for instance can we not know a Man from a Horse or an Elephant from a Mouse or a piece of Bread from a Church Or do we only know there are such and such Accidents belong to every one of these but our Senses are not so extraprdinary to discover the Substances under them I pray answer me one Question Did you ever keep Lent P. What a strange Question is this Did you not tell me you would avoid Impertinencies Pr. This is none I assure you P. Then I answer I think my self obliged to keep it Pr. Then you thought your self bound to abstain from Flesh and to eat Fish. P. What of all that Pr. Was it the Substance of Flesh you abstained from or only the Accidents of it P. The Substance Pr. And did you know the difference between the Substance of Flesh and Fish by your Tast P. Yes Pr. Then you have an extraordinary Tast which goes to the very Substance P. But this is off from our Business which was about the Fathers and not our own Judgment about the Evidence of Sense Pr. I am ready for you upon that Argument And I only desire to know whether you think the Evidence of Sense sufficient as to the true Body of Christ where it is supposed to be present P. By no means For then we could not believe it to be present where we cannot perceive it Pr. But the Fathers did assert the Evidence of Sense to be sufficient as to the true Body of Christ so Irenoeus Tertullian Epiphanius Hilary and St. Augustin I will produce their Words at length if you desire them P. It will be but lost labour since we deny not as Cardinal Bellarmin well saith The Evidence of Sense to be a good positive Evidence but not a negative i. e. that it is a Body which is handled and felt and seen but not that it is no Body which is not Pr. Very well And I pray then what becomes of your single Sheet man who so confidently denies Sense to be good positive Evidence as to a real Body but only as to the outward appearance P. You mistake him for he saith We are to believe our Senses where they are not indisposed and no Divine Revelation intervenes which we believe there doth in this Case and therefore unless the Fathers speak of the Sacrament we have no reason to regard their Testimonies in this matter But we have stronger Evidence against you from the Fathers for they say we are not to rely on the Evidence of Sense as to the Sacrament So St. Cyril St. Chrysostom and St. Ambrose Pr. I am glad you offer any thing which deserves to be considered But have you already forgot Bellarmin's Rule That Sense may be a good positive Evidence but not a negative i. e. it may discover what is present as a Body but not what is not and cannot be so present viz. the Invisible Grace which goes along with it and as to this the Fathers might well say we are not to trust our Sense P. This is making an
he doth not explain the former For he puts the Sense upon Corpus meum by adding dicendo to them i. e. This is the meaning of that speech when he calleth the Bread his Body P. Doth not Tertullian say That it had not been the Figure unless it had been the Truth Pr. This is again perverting his words which are Figuratum non fuisset nisi veritatis esset Corpus i. e. there had been no place for a Figure of Christ's Body unless Christ had a true body For he was proving against Marcion that Christ had a true Body and among other Arguments he produces this from the Figure of his Body which he not only mentions here but in other places where he saith That Christ gave the Figure of his Body to the Bread which cannot relate to any Figure of the Old Testament P. But doth not Tertullian say afterwards That the Bread was the figure of Christ's body in the Old Testament Pr. What then He had Two Designs against Marcion one to prove that Christ had a true body which he doth here from the figure of his body and the other that there was a Correspondency of both Testaments and for that purpose he shews that the bread in Jeremiah was the figure of Christ's body P. But the Author of the Single Sheet cites another place of Tertullian where he saith that our flesh feeds on the body and blood of Christ that our soul may be filled with God. Pr. By the body and blood of Christ he means there the Elements with Divine Grace going along with them as appears by his design which is to shew how the body and soul are joyned together in Sacramental Rites The flesh is washed and the soul is cleansed the flesh is anointed and the soul consecrated the flesh is signed and the soul confirmed the flesh hath hands laid upon it and the soul enlighten'd the flesh feeds on the body and blood of Christ that the soul may be filled with God. Now unless Tertullian meant the Elements the Parallel doth not proceed for all the rest are spoken of the external Symbols and so this doth not at all contradict what he saith elsewhere no more than the Passage in the second Book adUxorem doth For there he speaks of Christ with respect to the invisible Grace as he doth here as to the outward Symbols P. Clemens Alexandrinus saith That Melchisedeck gave Bread and Wine in figure of the Eucharist Pr. And what then What is this to Transubstantiation P. Origen saith When you eat and drink the body and blood of our Lord then our Lord enters under your roof c. Pr. Are you sure that Origen said this But suppose he did must he enter with his flesh and bones and not much rather by a peculiar presence of his Grace For is it not Origen who so carefully distinguishes the Typical and Symbolical body of Christ from the Divine Word and so expresly mentions the material part of the Elements after Consecration which pass into the Draught c. Is all this meant of the Accidents only P. What say you to St. Cyprian de Coena Domini Pr. I beg your pardon Sir this is now known and acknowledged to be a late Author in comparison and cannot come within your 600 years and therefore is not ancient enough to be considered P. But in his genuine Writings he speaks of those who offer'd Violence to the body and blood of our Lord in the Eucharist Pr. And I pray what follows That the substance of the Elements is gone Where lies the Consequence But St. Cyprian saith the bread was his body and the wine his blood therefore their substance must remain P. What say you to Eusebius Emesenus Pr. That he is not within our compass and withal that he is a known Counterfeit P. I perceive you are hard to please Pr. You say very true as to supposititious Writers P. I hope you have more Reverence for the Council of Nice Pr. But where doth that speak of Transubstantiation P. It calls the Eucharist the body of Christ. Pr. And so doth the Church of England therefore that holds Transubstantiation I pray bring no more such Testimonies which prove nothing but what we hold P. I perceive you have a mind to cut me short Pr. Not in the least where you offer any thing to the purpose But I pray spare those who only affirm that the Eucharist is the body and blood of Christ after Consecration For I acknowledg it was the Language of the Church especially in the fourth Century when the Names of the Elements were hardly mention'd to the Catechumens and all the Discourses of the Fathers to them tended to heighten the Devotion and Esteem of the Eucharist By which Observation you may easily understand the meaning of the Eloquent Writers of that Age who speak with so much Mystery and Obscurity about it If you have any that go beyond lofty expressions and Rhetorical flights I pray produce them P. I perceive you are afraid of S. Greg. Nazianzen and S. Basil but especially S. Chrysostom you fence so much beforehand against Eloquent Men. Pr. As to the other two there is nothing material alledged by any to this purpose but S. Chrysostom I confess doth speak very lofty things concerning the Sacrament in his popular Discourses but yet nothing that doth prove Transubstantiation P. What think you of his Homilies 51 and 83. on S. Mat. 46. Homily on S. John 24. Homily on 1st to the Corinth the Homilies on Philogonius and the Cross Are there not strange things in them concerning the Eucharist About eating Christ and seeing him lie before them slain on the Altar about touching his Body there and the Holy Spirit with an innumerable Host hovering over what is there proposed with much more to that purpose Pr. You need not to recite more for I yield that St. Chrysostom delighted in the highest flights of his Eloquence on this Subject in his Homilies and he tells for what Reason to excite the Reverence and Devotion of the People But yet himself doth afford us a sufficient Key to these expressions if we attend to these things concerning his manner of speaking 1. That he affirms those things which no side can allow to be literally understood As when he so often speaks of our seeing and touching Christ upon the Altar which is inconsistent with the Doctrine of Transubstantiation For Christ is utterly invisible on the Altar even by Divine Power saith Suarez He is invisible in the Sacrament saith Bellarmin and he saith also that he cannot be touched What then is to be said to such expressions of S. Chrysostom Behold thou seest him thou touchest him thou eatest him It is not his Sacrament only which is offer'd us to touch but himself What if you do not hear his Voice do you not see him lying before you Behold Christ lying before you slain Christ lies on the holy
at was to prove a real Union between Christ and his People That Christ was in them more than by meer consent and to prove this he lays hold of those words of our Saviour My Flesh is meat indeed c. But the substantial Change of the Bread into the Substance of Christ's Body signifies nothing to his purpose and Bellarmin never so much as mentions Hilary in his proofs of Transubstantiation but only for the real Presence But I must add something more viz. that Hilary was one of the first who drew any Argument from the literal Sense of John 6. I do not say who did by way of Accommodation apply them to the Sacrament which others might do before him But yet there are some of the eldest Fathers who do wholly exclude a literal Sense as Tertullian look'd on it As an Absurdity that Christ should be thought truly to give his Flesh to eat Quasi vere carnem suam illis edendam determinasset And Origen saith It is a killing Letter if those Words be literally understood But this is to run into another debate whereas our Business is about Transubstantiation If you have any more let us now examine their Testimonies P. What say you then to St. Ambrose who speaks home to the Business for he makes the Change to be above Nature and into the Body of Christ born of the Virgin There are long Citations out of him but in these words lies the whole strength of them Pr. I answer several things for clearing of his meaning 1. That St. Ambrose doth parallel the Change in the Eucharist with that in Baptism and to prove Regeneration therein he argues from the miraculous Conception of Christ in the Womb of the Virgin but in Baptism no body supposes the Substance of the Water to be taken away and therefore it cannot hold as to the other from the Supernatural Change which may be only with respect to such a Divine Influence which it had not before Consecration 2. He doth purposely talk obscurely and mystically about this matter as the Fathers were wont to do to those who were to be admitted to these Mysteries Sometimes one would think he meant that the Elements are changed into Christ's Individual Body born of the Virgin and yet presently after he distinguishes between the true Flesh of Christ which was crucified and buried and the Sacrament of his Flesh. If this were the same what need any distinction And that this Sacramentum Carnis is meant of the Eucharist is plain by what follows for he cites Christ's words This is my Body 3. He best explains his own meaning when he saith not long after That the body of Christ in the Sacrament is a Spiritual body or a body produced by the Divine Spirit and so he parallels it with that spiritual Food which the Israelites did eat in the Wilderness And no man will say that the Substance of the Manna was then lost And since your Authors make the same St. Ambrose to have written the Book De Sacramentis there is a notable passage therein which helps to explain this for there he saith expresly Non iste Panis est qui vadit in Corpus sed ille Panis Vitoe Eternoe qui animoe nostroe Substantiam fulcit It is not the Bread which passes into the Body but the Bread of Eternal Life which strengthens the Substance of our Soul. Where he not only calls it Bread after Consecration which goes to our Nourishment but he distinguishes it from the Bread of Eternal Life which supports the Soul which must be understood of Divine Grace and not of any Bodily Substance P. I perceive you will not leave us one Father of the whole number Pr. Not one And I hope this gives an incomparable Advantage to the Doctrine of the Trinity in point of Tradition above Transubstantiation when I have not only proved that the greatest of the Fathers expresly denied it but that there is not one in the whole number who affirmed it For altho there were some difference in the way of explaining how the Eucharist was the Body and Blood of Christ yet not one of them hitherto produced doth give any countenance to your Doctrine of Transubstantiation which the Council of Trent declared to have been the constant belief of the Church in all Ages which is so far from being true that there is as little ground to believe that as Transubstantiation it self And so much as to this Debate concerning the comparing the Doctrine of the Trinity and Transubstantiation in point of Tradition if you have any thing to say further as to Scripture and Reason I shall be ready to give you Satisfaction the next Opportunity FINIS BOOKS lately Printed for W. Rogers THE Doctrines and Practices of the Church of Rome truly Represented in Answer to a Book Intituled A Papist Misrepresented and Represented c. Quarto Third Edition An Answer to a Discourse Intituled Papists protesting against Protestant Popery being a Vindication of Papists not Misrepresented by Protestants 4to Second Edition An Answer to the Amicable Accommodation of the Differences between the Representer and the Answerer Quarto A View of the whole Controversie between the Representer and the Answerer with an Answer to the Representer's last Reply 4to The Doctrine of the Trinity and Transubstantiation compared as to Scripture Reason and Tradition in a new Dialogue between a Protestant and a Papist the first Part Wherein an Answer is given to the late Proofs of the Antiquity of Transubstantiation in the Books called Consensus Veterum and Nubes Testium c. Quarto The Doctrine of the Trinity and Transubstantiation compared as to Scripture Reason and Tradition in a new Dialogue between a Protestant and a Papist the Second Part Wherein the Doctrine of the Trinity is shewed to be agreeable to Scripture and Reason and Transubstantiation repugnant to both Quarto A Discourse concerning the Nature of Idolatry in which the Bishop of Oxford's true and only Notion of Idolatry is Considered and Confuted 4to The Absolute Impossibility of Transubstantiation demonstrated 4to A Letter to the Superiours whether Bishops or Priests which Approve or License the Popish Books in England particularly to those of the Jesuits Order concerning Lewis Sabran a Jesuit A Preservative against Popery being some Plain Directions to Unlearned Protestants how to Dispute with Romish Priests The First Part. The Fourth Edition The Second Part of the Preservative against Popery shewing how contrary Popery is to the True Ends of the Christian Religion Fitted for the Instruction of Unlearned Protestants The Second Edition A Vindication of both Parts of the Preservative against Popery in Answer to the Cavils of Lewis Sabran Jesuit A Discourse concerning the Nature Unity aed Communion of the Catholick Church wherein most of the Controversies relating to the Church are briefly and plainly stated The First Part. 4to These Four last by William Sherlock D. D. Master of the Temple Imprimatur Guil. Needham