Nor am I insensible how wary and Cautious Divines are what they say and how they unfold their thoughts of this matter Indeed it is that which requires of us a great deal of Consideration and Pains aswell to Conceive a Right notion of it as to Express it so as to make it Intelligible to others But not withstanding the Difficulty of the thing it being so very Usefull and Necessary for the Satisfaction of every mans mind I shall take upon me to discourse of it at large but without trangressing I hope the due bounds of Modesty and Truth To clear my way as I go from one foul mistake we are to note that Christ is not so present in the Sacrament as to be eaten after a Carnal and Gross manner neither are the Elements so changed by any act of Consecration as to be turned out of one substance into another out of the Substance of Bread and Wine into the Substance of our Lords Natural Flesh and Bloud This indeed is the Faith of the whole Roman Church and they have Invented the word Transubstantiation to signifie and Express their Faith and it implyeth these three things 1. That the Nature and Matter of the Elements vanisheth away 2. That the Accidents thereof as they call it meaning the Colour the Smell the Taste the Quantity of the Elements do all remain without their Proper and Natural suject 3. That Christ's Natural Body supplyeth the room of Bread and that this Bloud is in the Place of Wine Now I might pass over this with quick dispatch by referring you to a great many Learned and Unanswerable Books which have been written against this Monstrous Error to say no worse of it but to save you the charge and pains of so much travel I desire you 1. To Consider in general that there are four things which are Infallibly able to satisfie a mans Judgement as to the Truth or Falsity of any thing whatsoever viz. The Use of our Senses the Suffrage of Right Reason the Authority of Divine Revelation and the help of Tradition And if men will pertinaciously contend for a proposition in spight of the Concurrent Evidence which is given against it by all these Demonstrative mediums which ought and are enough to Convince every man they were as good tell us plainly that they are Resolved to be Infidels or Scepticks or to believe no more than what they themselves please for stronger arguments than these four can never be offered to any Now thus stands the case between Us and the Romanists they dispute for their beloved Doctrine of Transubstantiation and to maintain the Controversie they appeal to the Definitious of their own Church that is they will be Parties and Judges too We plead against their Doctrine that 't is contrary to every Test which should govern Rational Creatures in their Sentiments And though the very Mentioning of this palpable Error be enough to Expose it to Scorn and Laughter yet for the further discovery thereof observe in particular 1. How it contradicted the Testimony of our very Senses We cannot conceive but that God gave us our Senses as helps to inform our Understanding nor can it be supposed with any Colour of Truth that all men should be Constantly deceived in the perpetual use of their Senses when their Faculties are Good and the Object of their Sense is Adequate and Proper this would be as Ridiculous and Absurd as to say that none of us yet ever saw the light tho our eyes be open and the Sun every day Appears Now that which we contend for is as clear to our Sense as the Sun is at high Noon For we see it we smell it we taste it we feel it by Four of our Senses we find what we receive at the Communion to be Bread and Wine and why should we fancy our selves deceived in this case more then S. Thomas was when he put his finger into our Saviorus Side why should not we be satisfied by so many of our Senses that it is Bread and Wine when He was convinced by his bare Touch that it was his Lord and his God Upon two accounts it is impossible for Considering men to think that a Fallacy can be put upon us in this matter For 1. should we Suppose the Omnipotent power of God could turn Bread into Flesh the Species of Bread remaining still yet it would not at all answer that great End for which Miracles have been ever wrought and therefore it is not Reasonable for us to believe that God would do it It would be indeed the Greatest of all Miracles and infinitely beyond that which our Saviour Himself did when he turned Water into Wine for there the Colour the Taste the Smell the Operation of Water was changed as well as the Substance And as it is not in the least probable that every the Meanest Priest should every day do a Greater Miracle than ever our Lord himself did so it is not in the least Credible that God Himself would do a Miracle but to convince men of Some Necessary and Important Truth Should he do a Miracle for no other end but onely to shew his Power of necessity it must must be Seen it must be shewed in some sensible instance for otherwise it could not be a Demonstration of his Omnipotence But God never yet did any Miracle for the Miracle-sake but that thereby he might Attest the Truth of some Doctrine and might Convince men of Something which they could not well be convinced of but by Gods setting his own Seal to it after that manner For which reason all Miracles have been still Apparent and Open to the Senses and 't is Necessary they should be so because they would be of no Use were they not perceived neither could they prove any thing unless they themselves were Manifest And if we reckon up all the Miracles that ever were done in the world from the days of Moses to the times of the Gospel we shall find that instead of being Concealed and Hid from men they have been always Exposed and made Plain to mens Senses Now this doth utterly baffle the groundless pretence of Transubstantiation for that Doctrine supposeth God to do the Highest Miracle that ever was done to no Necessary purpose neither to edifie Us not to shew Himself and how can we think that he will make Wonders and his Power Cheap and with an Almighty hand alter the Course and Nature of things so as not to Glorifie himself nor to do Us Good by so doing This would be a Miracle that could not in any wise serve the Ends of all Miracles and it becomes us not to believe that the All-good and All wise God will deceive four of our Senses at once to no End at all since it hath been all along the method of his Providence to satisfie All our Senses for the Best purposes But this is not all there is secondly a Worse thing behind yet The Romanists by crying down the
which is a word derived from an Hebrew Radix that Rab. Levi Ben Gersom Salomon Iarchi Kimchi and others cited by Dr. Outram de Sacrificiis lib. 1. c. 11. signifies to draw near because the Oblations were brought to Gods Altar and the Offerers themselves were thereby brought very nigh unto God And for the same reason divers Hebrew Doctors thought that Peace-offerings were so called because by means thereof Peace and Concord was procured and by the eating of them Confirmed between God and those who presented them Their using of one Common Table was a Token that they were in Gods Grace and Favour that Sacrifical Feast was a Symbol of Friendship between God and all the Communicants And upon the same grounds it was also that at the eating of the Peace-offerings they were wont to rojoyce before the Lord to sing Psalms and Hymns unto him signifying that they Abarbanel loc laud. were at peace with God and that God was at peace with them whereas at the Sacrificing of sin-offerings the People did use to express their Grief and Heaviness such as become Penitents abstaining from all Banquets especially those Sacrifical Banquets which their sins had occasioned for it was not fit for De hostiis Pacificis licebat post effusum sanguinem privatis qui obtulerant eorumque uxoribus liberis epulari in signum amâ—citiae cum deo Id in oblatione simulae non licebat quia id inter privilegia erat Sacerdotalia nec in victim is pro peccato delicto ne de culpa Laetarentur Grot. in Levit. 3. 1. them to rejoyce for their iniquities when the Priests did eat of their sin-offerings as they were wont to rejoyce for Gods Friendship and Kindness to them which they were assured of when they were suffered to eat themselves of their peace-offerings as the learned Grotius hath rightly observed Once more as in general the Sacrifical Feasts among the Jews were Pledges of Gods singular love to them so was the Passeover-Feast in particular The Socinians cannot deny but that at its first institution it was a visible Sign to the Jews that God would be so favourable and Gracious to them as to deliver them out of all their distresses in Egypt for Moses told them in express terms to that purpose Those Idolaters the Egyptians thought themselves sure of the good will of their Gods when they had the Priviledge to Banquet before them Therefore God himself to confirm his own people in the belief of his promise and to make them sure of it that he would infallibly redeem them with a strong hand notwithstanding all the discouragements and difficulties they saw before them ordered them to kill in each house a Lamb and to feast upon it and to be assured thereby that he would certainly deliver them even tho the Egyptians should be never so enraged to see that Creature killed which they thought it unlawful and abominable for men to slay and eat of so that as the Rainbow was a sign of Gods Covenant with Noah and as circumcision was a Token of Gods Covenant with Abraham for so the Scripture calls it expresly not only the Seal of Abrahams righteousness as the Socinians would have it but a Token of Gods Covenant too with Abraham Gen. 17. 11. even so the Passeover Feast was now a sign and Token of his Covenant with Abrahams Children In after ages it continued to be a Pledge still of the Divine favour to them and for that reason it was that no stranger no uncircumcised Man no unclean person could partake of it because being as yet out of Gods favour they were uncapable of receiving the Token the Pledge the Earnest of his Love and Goodness Seeing then that the feasting upon Sacrifices was thought by all mankind to be a Pledge and argument that Heaven was propitious to them Seeing that the feasting upon peace-offerings in general and upon the Paschal-Lamb in particular was concluded by the Jews to be a Pledge and argument of Gods special love to them above all other Nations it evidently followeth that this our feasting upon Christ our Sacrifice this our Eating of Bread instead of his Natural Flesh this our Christian Sacrifical Banquet being Analogous and answerable to the Sacrifical Banquets of Old ought also to be looked upon as those were to be a Token Pledge and Seal of Gods favour goodness and grace to us though the Scriptures had not told us any thing to that effect in express terms But in my opinion St. Paul hath said enough to this purpose if men will but attentively listen to what he saith in 1 Cor. 10. where part of his business is to shew how unlawful it is for Christians to Eat of things that are offered unto Idols And this he doth by shewing the incongruity and inconsistency of the thing and the Evil effects of it because every professor of Christianity doth hereby make himself a most wretched Bankrupt and undoes all his interest in Christ and throws away an inestimable stock and Treasure of Blessings by his sitting at meat in the Idols Temple To make this out he shews in few words what those Blessings are The Cup of blessing which we bless is it not the Communion of the blood of Christ The Bread which we break is it not the Communion Though some Socinians interpret those words as if by the Communion of Christs Body and blood was meant the making and causing us to be of that Society or Church which belongs to Christs Body and Blood which is a very Trissing and far fetch interpretation as Slichtingius in 1 Cor. 10. 16. Yet in the Socinian Catechism they own and confess that such as ducly Celebrate this Rite do Communicate of Christs Body and Blood that is say they of all those good things which Christ hath brought tous by his Death though they trifle again in saying that this Rite is not any cause but only an Attestation of that Communion of the Body of Christ ver 16. were part of the Apostles meaning is this that by rightly receiving the Symbols of Christs Body and Blood we have a share in all those Blessings for which his Body was broken and his Blood was shed We have a Title Claim and Right thereby to all the Mercies of the new Covenant we receive the Vertues and wonderful effects of his Passion and so we are understood in a Mystical sense to participate of Christs Body and Blood 'T is true we do here partake of Christ not mystically only but really too we participate not only of his Bruised and Crucified but also of his most Blessed and Glorified Body as I shall shew at large hereafter in its proper place But that is not to our purpose now Though we do Communicate of Christ now while he is in Heaven yet in the place before quoted St. Paul doth directly point to those blessings which by means of this Sacrament accrue to us from his sufferings on the
Ignatius the Martyr who lived in the Apostolical 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. S. Ignat. Ep. ad Smyrnaeos age that they would not receive the Sacrament because they would not Confess the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour which suffered for our Sins and which was raised again by the goodness of the Father Undoubtedly the Holy Martyr meant that they would not own the Bread to be the Sign and Figure of Christs Body as all Catholicks then believed For the Question was whether our Saviour lived and dyed and rose again in a true Humane Body The Church proved that he did so because he appointed bread to be the Figure of his Body But had they believed the Doctrine of Transubstantiation it would have proved that Christ had a Body which was made of meal not of the substance of the Virgin a Body which did not suffer upon the Cross nor Rise again but it would never have proved that which the Catholicks contented for and so they would have Lost the Question in hand and made Si propterea Corpus sibi finxit quia corporis carebat veritate ergo panem debuit tradere pro nobis Faciebat ad vanitatem Marcionis ut panis cruâ—ifigeretur Tertull. adv Marcion lib 4. themselves Ridiculous to their Adversaries Seeing then the Church in those times believed the bread to be the Figure and Image of Christs Body as Tertullian and Origen affirmed and S. Ignatius meant it is Nonsence to conceive that they believed it to be his very Natural Flesh For how can it be the Figure of a thing and the very real thing too How can I call this the Picture of Christ if I believe it to be Christ himself How can I say it is the Image Nemo potest ipse sibiâ— Imago sui esse Ambros de Fide lib. 1. Neque ipse sibi quisquam imago Hilar. Imago corporis non potest esse ipsum divinum Corpus Concil Nicaen 2. Actione 6. Pignus imago alterius rei sunt id est non adse sed ad aliud aspiciunt Bertram de Corp. Sang. Christi of his Flesh if it be the very Same This doth evidently shew that the Ancient Church did not in the least imagine that the bread is turnd into his very natural Body 3. It is observable that the Primitive Christians aknowledged two distinct Natures in the Sacrament meaning the material Element and that blessed Spiritual thing which goes along with it Thus we are told by Ireneus who was but one remove from the Apostles that the bread which is of the Earth after the calling upon God is no longer || E terra panis percipiens invocationem Dei jam non communis panis est sed Eucharistia ex duabus rebus constans terrena caelesti Iren. adv Haer. l. 4. c. 34. Common bread but the Eucharist consisting of two things an Earthly and an Heavenly thing Thus also Origen doth distinguish the Typical and Symbolical body of Christ meaning the †Materia Panis Orig. in Matth. c. 25. Haec quidem de Typico Symbolicoque corpore Multa porro de ipso verbo dici possunt quod factum est caro verus cibus Ibid. Bread from his True Humane Nature which he calls the Word that was made Flesh the true Food of life So likewise * Nec panem reprobavit Christus quo ipsum corpus suum representavit Tertull. adv Marcion l. 1. Tertullian doth distinguish the Bread which represents Christs Body from the Body it self which is represented by it In like manner the Author of the book de Caena Domini ascribed to S. Cyprian doth distinguish between the bodily Substance of the Holy Viands and that Divine Virtue which is present with them Lastly S. Austin Hoc est quod dicimus hoc modis omnibus approbare contendimus Sacrificium scilicet Ecclesiae duobus confici duobus constare visibili Elementorum specie invisibili Domini nostri Jesu Christi carne sanguine Sacramento Re Sacramenti id est Corpore Christi August apud Gratian. de Consecratione distinct 2. c. 48. as he is quoted by the Collector of the Decrees is positive and plain that the Sacrifice of the Church is made up of two things consisteth of two things the visible Substance of the Elements for that is the meaning of the word species among the Ancients and the Invisible Flesh and Bloud of our Lord Jesus Christ the Sacrament and the thing of the Sacrament or the thing Communicated by the Sacrament namely the Body of Christ To which purpose S. Austin speaks himself up and down in many places of his Writings By this it doth appear that the Christian Doctors for the Quia omnis res illarum rerum naturam veritatem in se continet ex quibus conficitur Id. Ibid. first 400. years acknowledged two distinct and real natures to make up the Eucharist for every thing contains in it the Nature and Truth of those things whereof it doth consist saith S. Augustin which they could not have acknowledged had they conceived the Nature and Substance of the Elements to be turned into the Nature and Substance of Christs Body and Bloud Transubstantiation implyes the total Destruction of the Earthly Nature and Substance which is utterly repugnant to the sense of the Ancients of whom we confidently affirm that as with one mouth they still called it Bread even when 't is broken distributed and received so they distinguisht it still from that which is Represented by the Bread And so true is this that the Whereas in the genuine Epistle of Ignatius ad Philadelph it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Interpolator renders it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. very Interpolator of Ignatius and the Ancient Interpreter of his Epistles speaking of the Eucharist say There is one Flesh of our Lord Jesus and one Bloud which was shed for us and there is one Bread or Loaf which is broken for all Which Observation makes it clear that the Bread and Christs Flesh were believed to be two distinct Natures and so that the Doctrine of Transubstantiation was not thought of in that age wherein that Interpolator and Interpreter did live whensoever that was 4. For the further clearing of this thing yet it is observable in the fourth place of the Primitive Fathers that they Resembled the Union of those two Natures in the Sacrament to the Union of the Two Natures in our Saviours Person To this purpose Justin Martyr discoursing of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 leg 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 meaning the words of Institution 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Justin Mart. Apol. 2. Eucharist saith we do not receive those things as common bread or common drink but as Jesus Christ our Saviour was by the word of God made Flesh and had Flesh and Bloud for our salvation so we believe that Food which is blessed by Prayer and by
so much of Tradition They that had the management of the Belgick Index were somewhat more modest for they profest they would use all arts to Extenuate and excuse Bertrams errors and to put some convenient sense to them or by some device or other tell a lye for him and they were content that his Book should be mutilated and some things purged and taken away from it this I say was more modest usage then what poor Beriram received at the hands of the Other Censors and yet this was very dishonest too and a plain Sign of a very weak cause that needed such disingenuous Artifices So they might have dealt with Amalarius too the Archbishop of Triers in the same age who trod in the steps of S. Austin affirming Amalar. de Ecclesii Offic. l. 3. c. 25. the Elements to represent Christs Body and Bloud as Signes of things and that the Priest offereth up Bread and Wine instead of Christ and that the Bread and Wine in the Sacrament are in the Place and Room of Christ Body and Bloud T is true Paschasius Rabertus who lived at the same time differed much in his opinion from these great men though it be hard to tell what his opinion was so very Inconsistent was the man with himself as it usually happens to Heady Opiniators especially when they are on the wrong side and will be venturing upon new discoveries This is allowed that Paschasius had a Notion by himself but I think if it be searcht well into it will be found to come nearer to the Lutheran Doctrine of Consubstantiation Paschas de Euchar. c. 41. 13. then to the Romish Conceit For since he affirm'd as Rabanus did that Christ is not to be torn with mens teeth that because it was necessary for Christ to be in heaven he lest us this Sacrament to be the visible Figure and Character of his Flesh and Bloud that we drink of Christ Spiritually and that we eat his Spiritual Flesh and the like whether do these Expression and Notions tend but to destroy the fancy of eating Christs Natural Body after a gross manner as the Doctrine of Transubstantiation doth import In the 10th Century we meet with Theo-phylact who spake of the Sacrament in a Lofty strain as many others before him did and used the Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to express the Mutation of the Elements Which Expression the Romanists greedily catcht hold of as if he intended the changing of things out of one Substance into another But this is very wide of Theophylacts meaning who plainly intended not a Real Essential change of the Substance and Nature of the Bread and Wine but a Mystical and Sacramental change of their Quality and Condition so that upon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Justin Martyr Apolog. 2 -Qui est e terrâ Panis percipiens invocationem Dei jam non communis panis est sed Eucharistie ex duabus rebus constans c. Iren. adv Har. l. 4. c. 34. Consecration they are no longer Common things as Justin Martyr and Ireneus said of old but the Elements of Divine things unto us so that thereby the Divine body of Christ is communicated to every Holy Soul The learned Cranmer explains him rightly that as hot and burning Iron is Iron still so Defenc. lib. 3. the Sacramental bread and Wine remain bread and Wine still tho to every worthy Communicant they be turned into the Virtue of Christs flesh and blood And that this was the sense of Theophylact is clear from his own words that the kind or substance of Bread remaining and continuing a Transelementation is made in Theophylact in Marc. 14. to the Virtue of Christs Flesh which notion I shall explain hereaster In the mean time I desire the Reader to note once for all that the Romanists to support their new Doctrine of Transubstantiation have grosly abused the ancient Writers of the Church by rendring the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Species as if they signified no more then shew and appearance And this they call the accidents of the Bread and Wine which they grant to remain but without the Natural substance or essence of them so that mens senses are cousened as to the things which they see Whereas the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 among the Greeks signifieth not the appearance or shew but the sort and kind of a thing and when it relates to things of matter as Bread and Wine it signifies the Essence or substance of those things And thus the words form likeness and fashion are used by St. Paul himself in the second of Philippians at the seventh Verse where speaking of our Saviour he saith that he took upon him the form of a Servant 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Phil 2. 7. and was made in the likeness of Men being found in fashion as a Man Meaning that he was really in a servile Condition and a Man in substance essence and Nature In like manner the word species among the Latines signifies the sort the kind the substance of the thing and being spoken of the Bread and Wine in the Sacrament it signifies the very natural Essence or matter not barely the appearance of the Elements And this is the true meaning of Theophylact in this place where he saith that God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth preserve the kind the Essence the substance of the Bread and Wine but doth Transelementate or change them into the Virtue of Flesh and Blood However we grant that this expression of Theophylacts gave occasion though wrongfully to the School men in after Ages to lose their time in enquiring after the manner of that change which is consest to be in the Elements But even they were divided in their opinions so that the poin was not agreed upon for some time after Theophylact. For until the controversie arose about Berengarius which was towards the end of the eleventh Century it was matter of Dispute some being of one opinion and some of another They were only agreed in this that Christ is really present in the Sacrament but they could not tell how But Berengarius raised a dust which blinded other mens eyes and his own too His true Crime seems to me to have been this not that he erroneously disputed about the manner of Christs presence but that he denied him to So his Schooll-fellow Adelmannus chargeth him in an Epistle to him which Is yet extant in the Bibliotheca Patrum wherein speaking of the Novel Doctrine which was reported to have been spread abroad by him he saith hoc est ut illorum dictis utar non esse verum corpùs Christi neque verum sanguinem sed figuram quandam similitudinem be present at all in the Sacrament affirming not only that the Elements were Bread and Wine but that they were bare bread and Wine and nothing else which was the opinion of those who in the beginning of the reformation
Ireneus tells us particularly of that Wizard Marcus Iren. adv Haer. l. 1. c. 9. that he became familiar with Demons and fascinated his Disciples especially of the female Sex after this manner Now this I take to be the full importance and design of that Phrase 1 Cor. 10. 20. where S. Paul saith I would not that ye should have fellowship with Divels 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be Communicants with and Partakers of Divels meaning that they should not have any the least society with them lest by sitting at their Tables they should come to be governed acted and inspired by them as Demoniacks were And this gives a great deal of Light to those places of Scripture where we are said to have the Communication of the Body and of the Bloud of Christ and to be partakers of the Lords Table For the full meaning of these expressions is that by feasting together at the Table of the Lord we do participate of our Lords Spiritual Body and of his Spiritual Bloud so as that we are Influenced by him and receive Spiritual Virtue Power and Energy from him that as the Possessed of old were thought to have a Divine Numen in them so every devout Receiver of the Lords Supper may be said to have God and Christ in them because they are lead by Hence Demoniacks were called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Maxim in Pseudodyonis de Eccl. c. 3. So the Saints of Christ were ancienly called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Ignatius the Martyr was called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Clem. Alex. Trajanus dixit Quis est Theophorus Ignatius respondit Qui Christum habet in pectore vide Acta Ignatii pag. 3. c. the Spirit and receive the Graces of the Spirit of God Christ in Virtue of Christs Body and Bloud The Socinians go a great way round about to fetch a wrested interpretation of these words of S. Paul The Cup of bessing which we bless is it not the Communion of the Bloud of Christ the bread which we break is it not the Communion of the Body of Christ 1 Cor. 10. 16. For whereas they understand those words to this effect that our celebration of the Eucharist is a Declaration of that Communion we have with that sacred Society the Church which is the Mystical Body of Christ the Interpretation is Impertinent Idle and Ridiculous because that place of Scripture doth plainly signifie a Communication of Christs Bloud as well as of his Body nay of that bloud which was shed and of that Body which was given for us and this cannot be meant of his Body Mystical Some again are as wide on the other hand who though they grant a Communication of Christs very Body yet never the less Deny the Reality of its presence which is a meer Riddle and an unintelligible notion for how can we conceive that we really partake of Christs Body at the Sacrament if it be not really there to deny him to be Present and yet to affirm that we receive him Spiritually Mystically and Sacramentally is nothing else but to use so many dark expressions to cover Non sense it being impossible to imagine how we can Communicate of that which is Not and 't is as plain a Contradiction to say that we eat of Christs Body and drink of his Bloud if his Body and Bloud be not Present as it is to say that we receive Christ and yet not receive him at the same time Nor doth it mend the matter to say that we receive Christ by faith For if Christ be not Present and at our hand I cannot see how all the faith in the world can help us to receive him Christ doth dwell indeed in every Believers heart and faith doth dispose and qualifie us for the reception of him but how can faith bring that to me which is not nigh me and which is not her below to be gime Faith is a perswasion of the mind and this perswasion worketh upon mine own heart but cannot work upon the object of my faith so as to bring that to me which is really above in heaven onely Nay we must suppose the Body and Bloud of our Saviour to be in the Sacrament or else we cannot Rightly believe that we do receive him for to believe that I receive Christ at the Sacrament when at the same time I believe that he is not Really there is a Lying faith that contradicteth and confuteth it self Seeing then 't is reasonable to believe that Christs Body and Bloud are actually and verily in the Sacrament it must be granted that they are there either in respect of their Natural Substance or in respect of their Spiritual but Real Virtues and in respect of those Divine Influences which are by means of the Sacrament derived from the man Christ Jesus But the first of these is a proposition so uncouth so irrational so repugnant to Scripture and all Antiquity and upon every account so impossible to be true that it nomore agreeth with Christianity then darkness doth agree with light Therefore if men well understand and speak sense they must grant S. Paul to speak in the fore-cited place of the Communication of Christs Spiritual Body and Bloud and so the thing will be obvious rational and intelligible for in regard that by the use of the blessed Sacrament we receive virtues and influences from our Lords Glorified Humanity we are very rightly said to Communicate of his Body In regard that these Virtues are not imaginary Ideas but Real things Real in themselves and of real effect and operation it is very proper to affirm that Christ is Really present in the Sacrament Lastly in regard that these virtues are of a Spiritual Nature and flow from him who is a Quickning Spirit and are dispensed by the Holy Spirit and are receive by and work upon our Spirits and are efficacious in order to our Spiritual Life and do make us partakers of the Divine Nature it is easie to conceive the reason why Christ is said to be present in the Eucharist after a Spiritual manner and so by this construction of the matter the Doctrine of Christs Real but Spiritual Presence and of the Real but Spiritual Communication of his Body and Bloud is secured and the darkest part of this Mystery lyes open and fair and easie to be understood by men of the most Vulgar capacities To this purpose Anselm understands those In 1. ad Cor. cap. 10. words of the Apostle the Cup of blessing which we bless is it not the Communication of Christs Bloud that is doth it not make those who drink of it worthily partakers of the Life of Christ which is designed by his Bloud doth it not make us partakers of his blessedness and Glory wherein our souls are made One with his by the Communication of the same Glory And so the Bread which we break is it not the participation of the
and if my Desires now are to Express this my Duty to your Grace alone I know such is my Good Lords Affection to Your Grace that he will not think it a Fault in me or if the World shall think it so will easily pardon it if your Grace will be pleased to forgive my presumption Madam I have no more to add now but to beg that your Grace will favourably accept of my humblest Acknowledgements and to beseech God whose good Providence hath knit both your Graces together that the fortunate Band may prosperously continue neither dissolved nor weakened through the long Succession of many the most happy years That those mutual Affections which are so Eminently between You Both may Vigorously Hold to a good old age and make your Graces equally Examples of the sincerest Love as of Vertue and Piety That your Grace may be a fruitful Mother of a great Race of Noble Children to inherit your Fortunes Honour and Vertue and to perpetuate your Names to the Worlds end That my Young Lord that is now in the Arms of your Love may long live a Blessing to his Parents and to the whole Nation That in the midst of those Uncertainties which the Course of this World makes us subject unto the Goodness of God may ever Rest upon your Graces and on your whole Family That God will vouchsafe to protect guide prosper and preserve you and bless you with all the blessings of heaven and earth which is the sincere and Earnest Prayer of Madam Your Graces most Humble most Obedient and Dutiful Servant and Chaplain EDWARD PELLING THE CONTENTS THe Introduction page 1 Chap. 1. Of the Nature of this Sacrament That it is a sacrifical Feast Sacrifical Feasts used both by Heathens and Jews The Analogy between those Ancient Feasts and This Especially between This and the Paschal Supper The usefulness of this observation against the Socinians p. 9. Chap. 2. Of the Ends of this Sacrament First it is a Memorial of Christs Love proved from Christs own words From its Analogy to other sacrifical Banquets and from the Proctice of the Ancient Church Two inferences the one against Romanists the other against our Dissenters p. 31 Chap. 3. The second end of the Holy Sacrament to be a Covenant Feast The Ancient and general use of Covenant-Feasts That this is such proved from its Analogy to those Ancient Covenant-Feasts among Heathens and Jews and from the Words of Christ at the Institutions Two conclusions p. 53 Chap. 4. A third end of this Sacrament is to engage us to observe the Laws of that Religion to which it doth belong Proved from the Notion of the new Covenant From the design of of Mysteries in general From its Analogy to Mystical Banquets in particular both among Heathens and Jews especially the Paschal-Supper The sense of the Church touching this matter p. 78 Chap. 5. It is to be a Pledge and a Token of Gods favour Proved from its Analogy to the Antient Feasts both among Heathens and Jews and from the words of St. Paul Two Conclusions p. 104 Chap. 6. Of the blessings we receive by a due use of this Ordinance First we Mystically participate of Christs Body and Bloud What that Mystical participation is Secondly that we receive the Pardon of Sin Proved from the correspondency of this Feast to the Ancient Sacrifical Banquets in general And from its Analogy to those Feasts which were used after Sin-offerings in particular and from the words of Christ at the Institution p. 128 Chap 7. Thirdly We really communicate of Christ Glorified The Doctrine of Transubstantiation condemned as utterly contrary to sence Reason and the Holy Scriptures p. 152 Chap. 8. The Doctrine of Transubstantiation inconsistent with and contrary to the Doctrine of the Primitive Church Proved by five Observations touching the common sense of Christians in the most ancient times A short account of the Doctrine of the Church in succeeding Ages till the twelfth Century p. 188 Chap. 9. That though there be no Transubstantiation yet Christs Body is really in the Sacrament A distinction between Christs Natural and Spiritual Body What is meant by his Spiritual Body Why so called That such a Spiritual Body there is And that it is received in and by the Sacrament p. 224 Chap. 10. That Christs Spiritual Body is actually verily and really taken and received by the Faithful in the Lords Supper Proved from the Analogy thereof to other Sacrifical Feasts among Jews and Heathens From S. Pauls Discourse 1 Cor. 10. and from the sense of the Catholick Church Several advantages gained by this Notion p. 252 Chap. 11. Other Blessings which we receive by the Sacrament As the Assistance of the Holy Spirit Proved from the Words of Christ and S. Paul The Confirmation of our Faith An intimate Union with Christ What that Union is explained and proved Lastly a Pledge of an Happy Resurrection p. 275 Chap. 12. Two Practical Conclusions from the Whole Discourse p. 306 A DISCOURSE OF THE SACRAMENT OF THE LORDS SUPPER The Introduction COnsidering the wretched state this distemper'd Age is in beyond the condition of former Times how many Spirits among us are infected with Atheism how Debauchery of all sorts prevaileth over our Land how negligent and supine some are that talk of Religion how hypocritical others are who make use of Religion only as a Tool to further their Factious and Seditious ends how miserably we are divided into several Parties how each Party struggles for its own preservation as if the pangs of death were come upon all how the interest of our Religion is hereby weakened and its honour blemish't how the Peace of the Kingdom is endanger'd and hoâ— mischeivous these evils are likely to prove to our establisht Government in Church and State I say considering these things I humbly conceive that the most effectual way to reform and recover us is by all possible and justifiable methods to bring men to a right Christian use of that solemn Ordinance commonly called The Sacrament of the Lords Supper For to this Ordinance Men are bound to come with all gravity and seriousness with minds possest with a deep sense of vertue and true Piety with humble and holy Souls with Spirits that are ingenuous candid and tractable with hearts void of all rancour and baseness and full of Peaceableness Goodness and Charity so that were this Ordinance duly and regularly used and with a real design to do our Souls good by the use of it it would prove a blessed Restorative of the Life of Religion a certain instrument of Concord and Love and a most excellent means of making us all what we should be Good men would be at ease in their thoughts and the evil part of the World would be under a necessity of being brought to Repentance and we should soon find a new heaven and a new earth wherein Righteousness and Peace and whatsoever is desirable by rational Creatures would then dwell among us
the Holy Sacrament is there if men flinch from their Duty and willfully draw back the Crime is of such a high nature that Gods Soul will have no pleasure in such Apostates Heb 10. 38. The very Heathens accounted the violation of Contracts especially such Contracts as had been made at the Altars of their Gods to be one of the most Execrable Villanies in the World Nay they looked upon those Covenants which were made only by Bread and Salt to have been very 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Origen cont Cels lib. 2. pag. 74. Sacred tyes and obligations For which reason Celsus the Pagan argued against the Credibility of that story concerning the treachery of Judas For said he when one man eateth with another they scorn to betray one another and therefore he thought it impossible for any man to be false to his God when he communicates with him at the same Table Now in this Celsus was guilty of a manifest untruth as Origen rightly answer'd for many such perfidious fellows there have been who have betrayed those of whose Bread they have eaten Origen instanced in Lycambas who was upbraided by Parius for violating the Covenant he had made by the Rite of eating Bread and Salt But yet it is true that mankind in general have ever Hated such treachery and despised all such as were guilty and faithless after that manner and Judas his Sin was very great and monstrous beyond expression and comparison And yet there have been more Judases in the world then One Many Traitours have eaten and drank at Gods Table nay have been admired too for their Treachery have been Canoniz'd for it by such as themselves have been numbred by their fellow Traitours among the Blessed in the Saints everlasting rest However the sin is Abominable and when men receive the blessed Sacrament they are deeply obliged to be steady and true to their promises and to their Contracts which they make with the Divine Majesty St Paul calls mens Apostatizing from the duty the treading under foot the Son of God and the counting the blood of the Covenant an unholy or a profane and common thing Heb. 10. 29. Which expressions are Emphatically applicable to the sin I now speak of the sin of Unfaithfulness after we have participated of Christ after we have drank of his blood this is indeed to despise the Son of God as one of no value and to trample upon his blood as an unprofitable as a contemptible as a vile thing and of what sore punishments shall not such be thought worthy It was an old custome among some people to make Covenants by giving and taking a little quantity of Wool which they had shorn Quibus foederibus qui contrairet turpissimo facinore in expiabili scelere tenebatur Alex. ab Alexand ubi supra from the top of a Lambs Head and they who violated such Covenants were held guilty of the foulest Crime and inexpiable wickedness If Covenants between man and man made by such frivolous and inconsiderable tokens were reputed sacred by the very Pagans how Sacred ought we Christians to count such Contracts as we make with the Divine being by eating the Flesh and drinking the Blood of the very Lamb of God I conclude this consideration with those words of Solomon Eccles. 5. 4 5. When thou vowest a Vow unto God defer not to pay it for he hath no pleasure in fools pay that which thou hast vowed Better is it that thou shouldest not vow than that thou shouldest vow and not pay CHAP. IV. A third end of this Sacrament is to engage us to observe the Laws of that Religion to which it doth belong Proved from the Notion of the new Covenant From the design of Mysteries in general From its Analogy to Mystical Banquets in particular both among Heathens and Jews especially the Paschal-Supper The sense of the Church touching this matter TO proceed now to another end of this Sacrament It being already demonstrated that this Mystery was instituted as a Foederal or Covenant Rite to be used under the Gospel it necessarily followeth that a Third End of it is to engage all such as use it to the strict observation of that Religion which is establisht by the Gospel This will evidently appear if we consider well these three things 1. If we consider only the Nature and Notion of the Evangelical Covenant to which this Mystery doth belong 2. If we consider besides the design an Importance of all Mystical Rites in general 3. If we consider also the Analogy which this Rite beareth to the ancicient Mystical Banquets in particular 1. As to the First of these the Nature and Notion of a Covenant is this that it is a Pact Contract or agreement containing certain Conditions and Promises for the performance whereof each party bindeth himself and undertaketh to the other And the Evangelical Covenant is a Pact of this nature For as it containeth promises which it lyeth on Gods part to make good as that he will pardon our sins in this world and take such care of our Souls and Bodies that we shall be everlastingly happy in the next World so it contains certain conditions and terms which it lyes on Our part to perform in order thereunto as that we will believe on his Son whom he sent into the World to be our Propitiation that we will sincerely repent of all the miscarriages we have committed and that we will make it our care and business to lead a Life of Vertue and Holiness without which no man shall see the Lord. Seeing then that this is the Covenant that is between God and us now seeing that this Mystery was appointed pursuant to this Covenant and seeing that at the due Celebration of it the Covenant is Ratified and confirmed it must undeniably follow whatever the Socinians and others affirm to the contrary that by this Sacred Rite God himself is supposed to Seal his part of the Covenant unto us and moreover that we are supposed to Seal Our part of the Covenant unto him I mean we are understood hereby visibly to profess engage and stipulate that we do and will stedfastly believe heartily repent and by the help of Gods Grace unfeignedly resolve to lead our lives so as the Laws of Christ's Religion do require us If it be a Foederal rite as I have sufficiently proved this must be the design and meaning of it in short 2. But besides this we are to observe in the second place that all those Mystical Rites which ever were used in the World by any Sect or Society of men were always designed to engage people to be obedient and True to that Religion to which those Rites did appertain This I note not as if any Religion in the World could compare with the Christian Institution nor as if any Mystical Rites in the World ever were of that importance and dignity as ours are but only to shew what the general sense of Mankind hath
man finds himself named in Gods promise but to all Believers in general Now as it was necessary that the Divine Grace should be first purchased for all at large and then some means used for the conveyance of this purchase to every individual Believer so is it necessary that besides the confirmation and sealing of the promises by Christs Death to all in general there should be another obsignation to the Soul of every person in particular that gives up himself to him that died for him because otherwise every ones mind would fluctuate in endless doubtings and uncertainties Now we say that this obsignation is transacted at this Covenant-Feast And how so Why here every particular Communicant that is duly prepared receives the Seal when he receives the Elements which are the Tokens and Pledges upon the Divine favour In that I am admitted to participate here of the Sacrifice of the Cross it is an evident sign and strong argument to me that that Sacrifice shall be imputed to me shall be available and effectual for me as the Sacrifice was imputed to the Jews was available and effectual for the Jews and was declared to be so when they were admitted to partake of the Peace-offerings and to feast upon them as we do here upon Bread and Wine CHAP. VI. Of the blessings we receive by a due use of this Ordinance First we Mystically participate of Christs Body and Blood What that Mystical participation is Secondly that we receive the Pardon of Sin Proved from the correspondency of this Feast to the Ancient Sacrifical Banquets in general And from its Analogy to those Feasts which were used after Sin-offerings in particular and from the words of Christ at the Institution HAving thus discoursed of the Nature and Ends of this Sacrament I proceed next according to the usual method to discourse of the Blessings which it brings us by our due Reception of it 1. And first it is the joynt Confession of all the Christian Churches in the world for I do not reckon upon the Blasphemous Socinians that we do hereby receive the Body and Blood of our Redeemer This I mention in the first place and must take the greater care and pains to clear because the proof hereof will strongly and evidently prove the conveyance of divers other blessings hereafter to be mentioned in their order Now we are said to partake of Christs Body and Blood in a twofold sense that is after a Mystical and after a real manner 1. In a Mystical sense we do partake here of our Saviours Body as it was Broken and of his Blood as it was shed for us upon the Cross that is our Feasting together at the Holy Table is by interpretation a feeding upon our Crucified Jesus in the account of God and construction of the Gospel We are reputed and esteemed to partake of that Sacrifice which he offered up and so are entitled to all those mercies which that Sacrifice was offered up for For the opening of this matter we must remember how Mankind were wont of old to participate of those things which they had first offered up in Sacrifice as the Jews for instance were wont to participate of their Peace-offerings and of the Paschal Lamb. Now this Feast being Analogous and answerable to those according to the Vulgar course and the Ordinary manner of Feasting Christians must have fed upon Their Sacrifice that is upon Christs own Natural Flesh as Jews and Gentiles were wont to seed upon their Oblations But considering that this would have been an * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Cyril Alexand in Catena Thomae in Luc. 22. vide e◠ad Calofyr Item Theophylact in Marc 14. Inhumane way of feasting and considering that one and the same Body could not have served 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Athanas in illud quicunque dixerit verbum c. for all Christians in all Ages and considering too that the feeding upon Christs very Flesh was not necessary in it self but that the ends and purposes of this Feast might be very well answer'd by our feeding upon something else in the Place of Christ therefore at the institution of this Ordinance he appointed us the use of Bread and Wine instead of giving us his very Body and Blood which he gave to God as a Sacrifice for us These Creatures are the Symbols and Representations of his Body and Blood they are substituted in the place and room of them and the manducation of the one and the drinking of the other is to all intents as valid and effectual to us as if we did actually partake of those things which they do represent and in lieu of which they are appointed This I take to be part of the meaning of our Saviours words this is my Body and this is my Blood As if he had said this Bread is instead of my Flesh and this Wine is in the Room of my blood This is a Natural and an easie interpretation 't is fair and rational and full of sense and 't would serve to silence a great many controversies among Christians were it but admitted would they put in but this one word instead and understand our Saviour to mean this is instead of that in the place and room of it Nor do I see any reason in the World against this interpretation For all men know that the Jews were wont to speak after a concise manner meaning something which they did not fully express of which there are a thousand instances and examples in Holy Writ and why may we not allow that our Saviour spake now as other Jews did nay as he himself did at other times after a short concise manner saying of the Bread this is my Body but intending thus much This is instead of my Body The Analogy of this Feast to other Sacrifical Banquets doth plainly and infallibly argue that our Saviours words are thus to be interpreted because we feed here upon Bread instead of eating the very Flesh of our Sacrifice And I am confirmed in this opinion by an observation that Bishop Taylor of the real presence Sect. 4. in fine And Dr. Hammond in his Annot on Matth. 26. 26. hath been made by two learned Doctors of our Church who have noted that the Lamb for the Paschal Supper being drest and set upon the Table the Jews were wont to call it the Body of the Passeover and the Body of the Paschal Lamb. If this be so it is reasonable to believe that our Saviour alluded to a Jewish Phrase that was ready at hand when he said this is my Body or this is in the room of me the true Passeover When he took the Bread into his Holy hands and told his Disciples that that was his Body he gave them to understand that they were not to expect to eat of his very Natural Flesh as they were wont to eat of the Flesh of a Lamb but instead of that they were to eat Bread which should be as
though no such thing hath been allowed hitherto at any Sacrifical Solemnity Which shews that our whole Sacrifice is fully imputed to every worthy Communicant for his forgiveness Dr. Patricks Menfa Myst cap. 4. 5. 3. and as a Learned Man hath well observed that we are fully justified by Christ from all those things which we could not be justified from by the Law of Moses 3. Thus the Analogy of this Sacrifical Banquet doth prove that every worthy partaker thereof hath the strongest and most substantial reasons to hope in God firmly and to depend upon Gods goodness and promise for his Pardon But thirdly the words of our Saviour himself do seem to argue this beyond all manner of controversie though the Socinians endeavour to Evade the force of them For speaking of the Cup he said expresly Drink ye all of it for this is my Blood of the new Covenant which is shed for many for the Remission of Sins Though it be granted what the Socinians object that those words for the Remission of Sins do immediately relate to the shedding of Christs Blood which was spoken of just before yet they endeavour in vain to Lud. Wolzogenius in Loc. conclude thence that they have no reference to the drinking of the Cup. Nor have they reason enough to affirm that Remission of sins is the fruit of Christs Passion only but not the effect of our drinking because he said not drink ye all for the Remission of Sins but drink ye of the Wine that represents my Blood which is shed for the Remission of sins For since our forgiveness is the certain immediate and necessary consequence of his sufferings it will undeniably follow that it we participate of his Blood as I have shew'd we do we must be supposed to partake also of that which is the inseparable effect of his Blood shedding That which brings the cause must also bring the effect which is the Natural result of it The same action which makes us partakers of the Sacrifice it self must likewise make us partakers of the fruit and Benefit of the Sacrifice So that it matters not how our Saviour exprest the thing as long as he exprest it enough Since he first tells us that his Blood was for our Remission and then bids us to Drink of that Blood and then assures us that our drinking thus of Wine is in effect the drinking of his very Blood we have all the reason in the World to believe that by our thus drinking we obtain Remission and that our Lord commanded us to drink in Order thereunto The truth is Pardon of sin is the Blessed fruit both of Christs dying and of our receiving Of the former as the meritorious Cause that purchased pardon for all in general Of the latter as the ordinary instrument that conveys the pardon to every Holy Soul in particular The shedding of Christs Blood did procure and ratifie Gods promise of Grace to all Mankind and the receiving of this Wine which is the Symbol of that Blood is the Seal of that promise to all worthy Communicants when Christ was slain upon the Cross he obtained this favour of God that all Men were then put into a salvable condition into a Capacity of forgiveness into a way whereby they might be pardoned actually and fully if they would not be wanting to themselves perfect Peace and reconciliation was then merited and it was merited for all that should accept of it whether Jews or Gentiles bond or free for he tasted Death for every Man Heb. 2. 9. He died for all that were dead 2 Cor. 5. 14. Thus far the Scripture speaketh in general terms but it saith nothing of Me or of Thee as to our particular Persons We find not our names there much less can we find our Names in the book of Eternity All that we can do is to judge of our selves by examining our state by fair probabilities and rational Collection And to strengthen our hopes and to establish every mans humble confidence this Ordinance was appointed that as offen as we eat this Bread and drink this Cup of the Lord after a worthy manner we may be comfortably and reasonably well perswaded that our sins and transgressions are done away For that pardon is by this Ordinance applyed to every one in particular which before was bought for all universally and any man that is but satisfied of the truth of his Faith and of the sincerity of his Repentance may go away from the Holy Table well satisfied to that he now stands fair in the eye and favour of God and so shall stand still if he doth but hold up his goings in Gods ways so that his footsteps do not slide back into Sin and Perdition I hope that by this time I have fully proved and illustrated this matter But yet before I let it go I would note this one thing that our Saviour spake expresly of the Remission of our sins when he spake of the administration of the Cup. Neither of the three Evangelists who have recorded the History of the institution of this Mystery nor St. Paul who hath repeated it takes any notice of that expression when our Lord spake of the distribution of the Bread Indeed it is not to be doubted but our Saviours Body was broken for our forgiveness nor do I doubt but his meaning was so when he said this is my body which is given for you that is for your Atonement and Pardon but that particular expression touching the Remission of Sin was used by him for ought we know only in reference to the Drinking of the Wine Hence I infer that for the Peace of a Mans Conscience and for the satisfaction of his mind that he is in an hopeful state of Salvation it is necessary for him to receive the Sacrament in both kinds Seeing forgiveness of sin is the effect of the whole Ordinance seeing our Saviour seems to have a particular and special regard to our drinking of the Cup and seeing he gives us this reason for it because it is the Sacrament of his blood that is for our Remission I say seeing that the thing standeth thus I cannot see what substantial and solid grounds men can have to be confident of their Pardon if they participate not of the Wine as well as of the Bread If the thing were not prejudicial to the Peace of mens Souls yet it would be impossible to Vindicate the Church of Rome from the guilt of Impiety Sacriledge and Innovation for Denying the Cup to all the Lay-People of her Communion For the Holy Jesus himself administred both the Bread and the Wine to his Disciples and as He had done he commanded them to do also nay as if he then fore-saw and was minded to prevent that abuse which hath lately crept into the Roman Church he Positively commanded his Disciples when he reached out the Cup to them that they should All drink of it and his Reason was this because his Bloud of
Which a little before he calls five several times Bread and the Bread of Lord. Origen in Matth. cap. 15. Sacramental Bread though Bellarmine doth onely trifle upon the Argument interpreting it of the Corruption of the Species or Accidents onely that is of Nothing or of things without matter and Substance which is as good as nothing The truth is the Learned Jesuite was not able to answer this objection and therefore Bellarm. de Euch lib. 1. cap. 14. he tells men that they should stop their ears at it and say nothing to it But let them endeavour to Shuttle it off what they can it is a most Horrid Conclusion which followeth their Principle of Transubstantiation which renders the Principle it self highly wicked and Blasphemous as well as Unreasonable 3. But yet did the Holy Scriptures say expresly that what we taste and see at the Lords Table is the very natural Flesh and Bloud of Christ we ought rather to disbelieve our senses and reason too than contradict the Word of God But they speak nothing to this purpose but do plainly say and argue the contrary and this is the third thing which we justly blame the Romanists for that they will not suffer the Scripture to determine the point between us though it be a Book which They acknowledge as well as We to contain the Word of God and which one would think should be judged a certain Rule of Faith and of sufficient authority to oblige every Christians Judgement to Acquiesce by Now 1. as touching the Body of Christ the Scripture tells us that it is gone up into Heaven there to abide till the day of final Judgement To this purpose S. John tells us chap. 14. and 16. that Christ spake to his Disciples before his death telling them that he was about to leave them and to depart from them that he was going his way to the Father and was leaving the world Which expressions must necessarily be understood of his Bodily absence that his Humane Nature was to be no longer here below or else the sense would be Impertinent and to no purpose For his design was to Prepare the minds of his followers that they might not be dejected at his departure nor surprized with it And to that end he told them of it before hand and assured them withal that in lieu of his Corporal presence he would give them his Spirit to be with his Church to the end of the world Now to what purpose were these Expressions and Promises if he was to be with them still in Person and if his Body was to be handled by them still at the Sacrament The Poor said he ye have with you always but Me ye have not always Matth. 26. 11. This is contradicted by those of the Church of Rome for they say we have him with us still even in his person though he be not visible to our eyes nay they pretend to have him much better than the Jews had for they saw him and heard him and touched him only but these pretend to eat him too and to take him down into their very Stomachs And S. Peter speaking of him affirmed that he was in Heaven and there was to be until the times of Restitution Act. 3. 21. In respect of his Body he is at the right hand of God in Heaven and thence we look for him saith S. Paul Phil. 3. 20. not in the Sacrament on the Patin or in the Chalice but we look for him from Heaven at the general Resurrection Lord what can a man in his wits collect out of all these Texts but this that though Christ be with us by his Spirit yet he is at such an infinite distance from us in his Humane nature that till the end of all things we cannot have so much as a Glimpse of him unless Heaven be opened to us by a Miracle as it was to S. Stephen Men were as good take the Holy Writers by the Throats and with violent hands keep them from speaking at all as dispute against such plain and Full Evidence touching the absence of our Saviours Natural Body And then secondly as touching that which we take into our hands at the Sacrament the Scripture still calleth it Bread and Wine At the institution our Lord pointed to the contents in the Cup and termed it the fruit of the Vine And so he is said to have taken Bread to have blessed it to have broken it and to have given it to his Disciples requiring them to eat it meaning plainly that which he took into his hands and that was Bread S. Luke calls the Distribution of the Sacrament the breaking of Bread Act. 2. 42. And S. Paul says 't is Bread which we break 1 Cor. 10. 16. that we are Partakers of Bread vers 17. and that as often as we eat of it we eat of Bread 1 Cor. 11. 26. whence it appears that 't is Bread after Consecration as well as before though the Use and Condition of it be changed so that by it the Body of Christ be communicated to us yet the Nature and Substance of it is the same still even Bread as the Scripture calls For 't is an eternal truth that where things are of a Different Nature as bread and flesh are the one cannot be said to be the other with any Propriety of speech as Bertram rightly argued that nothing is more absurd than to call Bertran de Corp. Sang. Dom. bread flesh or wine bloud without a Figure for 't is as absurd as to call a Man an Elephant or a Fish a Scorpion Either then it is not Bread and then the Scripture deceives us or if it be Bread it is not Christs Natural Flesh and then the Church of Rome cousens us and there is the point The utmost that they can pretend from Scripture is that one expression this is my Body and will you not say they believe our Saviour himself Yes we do firmly believe that to be true which our Saviour did mean but the question is what his meaning was Now that those words are not to be taken strictly and according to the first Sound of them will be clear from these following considerations 1. That before men grew Hot and Angry and Magisterial about this matter several Doctors even of the Roman Church could not find that our Saviour meant any thing of Transubstantiation by that Phrase That Doctrine was defined first at the Lateran Council a little above 400. years ago and yet Scotus and Cameracensis who lived after that Council did hold that without the Churches Declaration there is no place of Scripture which forceth men to believe Transubstantiation Nay Bellarmine himself confesseth the thing to be Probable enough which those Bellarm. de Euch. lib. 3. c. 23. Doctors said and by this 't is manifest that in their own opinion Christs words may be allowed to bear a very doubtful sense so that had it not been out of pure respects to the
third book of the Arch-Bishops defence This I shall presume to say that Church Writers about Damascens time and Damascen himself spake for the most part as other of the Ancients did They spake to the same purpose and in many places to my apprehension very clearly and very agreeably to the sense of our own Church viz. of the real presence of Christs Spiritual body which in the next discourses I shall endeavour to explain tho possibly here and there we may light upon some few expressions which may seem somewhat harsh to such as do not rightly understand the Catholick Faith in this particular point Indeed Cardinal Bellarmine doth insinuate Bellarm. de Euchar. lib. 1. c. 1. that the Doctrine of Christs Corporal presence in the Sacrament was believed at the Second Council at Nice about the year of Christ 787. And herein the Jesuite is followed by some Divines of our own who have taken the insinuation from Bellarmine at the second hand and have thence concluded that the Doctrine of Transubstantiation had its rise at that Council that thereby the Practice of Image-Worship might be the better settled and supported But this is false and I cannot tell whether this error proceeds from inadvertency or from a willingness some have to disgrace the Catholick Church as if it had been guilty of such a foul mistake in those ancient times I am sure that upon looking into the Nicene Council 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Synod Nicen 2. Actione Sexta I cannot find any such matter They determined indeed that after Consecration the bread and Wine are rightly called the body and blood of Christ But why must this be meant of Christs Natural Body Why might they not intend his Spiritual body and his real Spiritual presence of which anon Do but observe the occasion of this their assertion and the thing will evidently appear The Council at Constantinople were against the bringing of Images into Churches for this reason among many others because Christ left no Image of himself but the Sacrament At this expression the Nicene Council afterwards took pet and would not endure such Language that the materials of the Sacrament are the Images of Christs body and blood for they supposed the meaning to be that they are bare Images naked and empty Figures without the presence of Christs body and blood and this they exploded as unsound and uncatholick Doctrine Here was the quarrel as to that point For whereas the Constantinopolitan Council had said that the Eucharist became a Divine body the Nicene Council accused them for contradicting themselves for said they if it be the Image of a Body it cannot be a Divine Body too They denied the Sacrament to be a bare Image they affirmed it to be not so much an Image as the very Body of Christ and that so it ought to be called but that they hold a corporal presence of Christs Natural flesh and blood in the Sacrament there is nothing in the whole History o that Council that constraineth us to believef and therefore the Doctrine of Transubstantiation had not its first rise then In the ninth Century Dum quidam fidelium corporis sanguinisque christi quod in Ecclesia quotidie celebratur Mysterium dicunt quod nulla sub figura nulla sub obvelatione fiat sed ipsius veritatis nuda manifestatione peragatur Quidam vero restantur quod haec sub mysterii figura contineantur aliud sit quod corporeis sensibus appareat aliud artem quod fides aspiciat non parva diversitas inter eos esse dignoscitur Bertram de Corp. Sang. Christ indeed some began to speak variously 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ibid. and doubtfully concerning the manner of Christs presence in the Sacrament which in a little time was the occasion of Bertrams writing his excellent book of the Body and Blood of Christ to Carolus Calvus then Emperor De Char. c. 11. But even in that Age Rabanus Maurus taught as the received Doctrine of the Church that it is unlawful as well as im impossible Nefas is his word to eat the body of Christ with our Teeth that Christ is in Heaven and ought to be there according to his flesh and that therefore he left us this Sacrament as the visible figure and character of his flesh and Blood He distinguisheth as many of the Ancients before him did between the Sacrament De institut Cleric lib. 1. c. 13. and the virtue of the Sacrament affirming the one to be eaten with the mouth and the Inward man to be satiated with the other so that though the Sacrament De Institut Cleric lib. 1. c. 31. it self turneth to our Bodily nourishment yet eternal life is obtained by the virtue of the Sacrament And whereas Paschasius Radbertus and his followers had now vended some new conceits which had a tendency towards the introduction of the Doctrine of Transubstantiation he wrote purposely against them as erronous conceits some of late says he being not rightly perswaded of the Sacrament of Christs Body and Bloud have affirmed it to be that very Body and Bloud of our Lord which was born of the virgin and wherein the Lord Suffered upon the Cross and rose again out of the Sepulchre De Euchar. 33. which error saith he we have exposed with the best of our skill in an Epistle to Egilo the Abbot That Epistle indeed is not now extant but the matter of fact is certain and the faith of that great man Rabanus was so well know to be utterly destructive of the Fancy of Transubstantiation that Waldensis in an Epistle to Pope Martin the 5th almost 600 years after had the confidence to censure Rabanus for an Heretick though he were no less then Archbishop of Mentz and for all sorts of learning had few in the Christian world that were his Match Haymo likewise affirmed that the Bread and Wine for so he call the Elements In 1. Cor. 11. after Consecration are replenished with the virtue of our Lords Divinity and so become his Body but this doth no more argue Transubstantiation then it argues that Christs Humane Nature is turned into his Divine Substance because that in him the fulness of the God-head dwelleth bodily Bertram was a very learned and judicious Divine in the same age and he in the Book I mentioned but now gives the Cause against the Romanists so fully and argues against Christ's Corporal presence in the Sacrament so strongly from the Nature and Notion of a Sacramant from sense from Scripture and from Tradition that the Knavish Compilers of the Spanish Index Expurgatorius had no way Bertram de corp ' Sang. Christi left them but to forbid the Use of the Book which to my sense was the same thing as if they had said we will damn all Authors or cut out their Tongues that we can find to Speak against us Behold the Honesty and Ingenuity of those who vaunt
were properly called Sacramentaries and which is the opinion of those black-mouth'd Hereticks the Socinians now This was an Heterodox conceit indeed that was utterly against the Faith of the Catholick Church from the beginning and out of hatreed and detestation of this foul Error the Bishop of Rome and others presently fell into another extreme as foul as that as usually men do when they are in Heat and Passion Then the Doctrine not so much of Christs real as of his corporal presence was laid upon the Anvil and Lancfranck and Guitmund Berengarius his Enemies See the Confession which was extorted from Beren garius at Rome and which he afterwards retracted in Gratian de Consec dist 2. c. 24. fell a hammering at it and then they would not be satisfyed with this which yet had satisfied Christians for above a thousand years that Christs Divine Body is verily communicated after a Spiritual manner to the faithful But they would needs have it that his Natural Body is actually eaten with mens mouths and handled with their hands However this was the sense but of a few men as yet and all men were yet at liberty to opine and dispute as long as they did it Modestly For Fulbertus was against the new opinion and at the second Synod at Rome against Berengarius under Gregory the seventh Anno 1079 they did declare that there was great variety of opinions about the Body Habitus est Sermo de Corpore Sanguine Domini nostri multis haec nonnullis alia sentientibus and Bloud of Christ in the Sacrament as may be seen in the Acts of that Synod and Adelmannus though he blamed Berengarius yet was he against Lancfranck not owning that Conceit of Christs Corporal presence Lancfranck maintain'd it here in England and he was the first man that planted that weed in this Island but all men were not of his opinion here though he was a man of great Authority and in Foreign parts the point continued disputable for a long time for S. Bernard who lived in the twelfth Century current was of another opinion and Peter Lombard who was fifty years after him found it to be a moot point even in his days and he tells us himself what various opinions there were about it then so that for a matter of 1200. years together P. Lomb. Sentent l. 4. dist 11. the Doctrine of Transubstantation you see was not determin'd In the Primitive times and for some Centuries after it was not thought of In later ages it was but dreamt of and when men began to talk of it they talked as if they were asleep and they declared their several opinions as men tell their Dreams 't was no Article of Faith no not in the Church of Rome till the Lateran Council Anno 1215. nay some Learned men are of opinion that it was Vide Mr. Thorndike of the Laws of the Church p. 37 Bish Taylor of the Real Pres p. 267. not determined then neither but some time after But let that rest for me I will enquire after it no further now since we have found it already a child of Fancy and an upstart too that was Begotten of Late and brought into the World by the midwifry of time but cannot derive its Pedigree from any of the Holy Fathers we must lay the Brat at the Church of Romes door it is their own and since they are so fond of it without any sense or reason let them keep it if they please so they keep it to themselves though we wish it had been an Abortive or had dyed a Chrisom specially since it hath cost so much Christian Bloud to Foster and Breed it up CHAP. IX That though there be no Transubstantiation yet Christs Body is really in the Sacrament A distinction between Christs Natural and Spiritual Body What is meant by his Spiritual Body Why so called That such a Spipiritual there is And that it is received in and by the Sacrament TO proceed though there be no grounds in the World for the opinion of Transubstantiation yet we must not conceive that Christ is not verily really and of a truth in the Sacrament he may be really present though there be no reason to believe that he is present after a Corporal manner For two different Substances and Natures may be joyned and go together though they remain distinct in themselves and in their properties as the Soul and Flesh of a man are united in the same Person and as the Humanity and Divinity of Christ were united together in the same Lord. Though we should suppose that Pillar to have been a real cloud which went before the Israelites yet it will not follow that God was not in it though we shoiuld suppose those shapes to have been true Bodies wherein the Spirits of God were wont to appear to the old Patriarchs yet this doth not argue that Angelical Substances were not present in them though we should suppose that to have been a real Dove which lighted on our Saviour and that to have been real Fire which sate upon his Apostles yet this will not argue but that the Holy Ghost was in both In like manner though we grant the Elements in the Eucharist to be Substantially and really Bread and Wine yet it will not follow by any means that Christ is not present in the Sacrament it is easy to conceive it possible for it to be Bread still and Christs Body too and to be wine still and Christs Bloud too There may be an union of these two things though we do not suppose the Nature of the one to be destroyed or turned into the nature of the other And that this is not only possible but is certainly so de facto the Scripture doth strongly oblige us to believe For 1. S. Paul tells us that the administration of the Sacrament is the Communion of Christs Body and Bloud 1 Cor. 10 16. which words are to be understood not only of that foederal Vid. S. Chrysostâ—n 1 Cor. 10. 16. Communion which we have thereby with Christ but moreover of that real Comunication which we have of him so that by drinking of the Wine we participate of Christs Bloud which streamed out of his side and which he gives us here as well as he shed it on the Cross and by eating of the Bread we do not only Partake of his Body but also obtain thereby a close Conjunction and Coherence with him whose Body it is we are united to him by the Bread even as our Flesh is united to Christ himself as S. Chrysostom affirms which doth plainly argue the real presence and communication of his Body and Bloud 2. Again whereas S. Paul saith I Cor. II. 27. Whosoever shall eat this Bread and drink this Cup of the Lord unworthily shall be guilty of the Body and Bloud of the Lord he doth seem manifestly to conclude that Christs Body and Bloud is really in the Eucharist that all worthy
Communicants do indeed receive Christs very Body and Bloud by receiving the Elements and that Christs Body and Bloud are verily tendred and offer'd even to the unworthy though they receive them not For were it not thus I would gladly understand how it cometh to pass that unworthy receiving brings upon a mans Soul some peculiar and extraordinary Guilt If it be a special sin as S. Pauls words argues it to be against the Body and Bloud of our Lord it must follow that the Body and Bloud of our Lord are there For a sin is of a peculiar nature and consideration when it is acted against an Object that is more peculiarly Interested and Concern'd so the sin against the Holy Ghost seems strictly and and properly to be a malicious resisting and reproaching of the Truth in spight of those Miracles which are wrought by the Holy Ghost for the Confirmation of the Truth A man is then said to be peculiarly guilty of the sin against the Holy Ghost because in the working of Miracles the Holy Ghost is concern'd and interested after a peculiar manner To this purpose it is observable that when our Saviour spoke of this sin it was after some Miracle that he had done and by occasion of the Jews reproaching it as if it had been done not by the Power and Spirit of God but by Beelzebub It was especially a sin against the Holy Ghost because in the Miracle the Holy Ghost was specially concern'd Even so here unworthy receiving makes a man guilty of a sin against our Lords Body and Bloud because his Body and Bloud are peculiarly Interested in the Sacrament Evil men strike at Christ then after a most sinful sort because his Body and Bloud are present there after a singular manner and therefore doth the sin bring an extraordinary guilt because it is the doing despight to the very Body and Bloud of Him who made himself an offering for us For these and the like reasons the Catholik Church of Christ hath in all ages believed a real presence of his Body and Bloud in the Sacrament nor do I know any one Doctrine of Christianity which hath come unto us with less Contradiction then this came down from the very days of the Apostles even to the times of Berengarius And so true is this that the Learned know well that the Ancients grounded their Faith of our real Union with Christ upon this Principle because his very Body and Bloud are really communicated to us by our receiving the Eucharist As they believed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 S. Chrys in 1 Cor. 10. 16. vide Iren. multos alios a Supernatural Union between the Natures in Christ so they believed a Mystical Union between all the Faithful and Christ and this they concluded because they believed a Sacramental Union between Christ and those Creatures of Bread and Wine whereby we receive Christ S. Hilary calls our Conjunction Hilar. de Trinit lib. 8. with Christ a Natural conjunction because as Our Nature was before united to his by his Incarnation so now his Nature is United to Ours by the Communion Our Church calls it the Communion of the Body and Bloud of the Lord in a marvellous Incorporation and S. Austin himself Homily of the Sacram 1. Part. used the same Expression and all the Ancients acknowledged this real Union to be wrought by means of that Real S. August Ep. ad Iren. Communion of our Saviours very Body and Bloud at and by the Holy Sacrament For the Opening now of this great Mystery I shall shew these Five things 1. That we are to distinguish between Christs Natural and his Spiritual Body 2. What is meant by his Spiritual Body 3. Why it is so called 4. That Christ hath a Spiritual Body indeed 5. That this Spiritual Body is received by us in the Sacrament 1. We are to distinguish Christs Spiritual from his Natural Body not as if he had two different Bodies but because that One and the same Body of his is to be considered after a different manner Now this is S. Pauls own distinction 1 Cor. 15. 44. There is a Natural or Animal Body and there is a Spiritual Body The Apostle there treats of that Exalted state our bodies shall be in after the Resurrection how they shall be delivered from all Mortality and Corruption and shall be the everlasting Temples of the Divine Spirit and shall shine with light like the Stars and shall be like Angelical Substances and Spirits in Comparison and all this because our Saviour is risen and gone before us into heaven and there remaines in a Glorious Body as 't is called Philip. 3. 21. Now this Body of Christ may be considered either in respect of its own Natural Substance as it consisteth of Flesh Bones and Bloud and other Constituent and Perfective parts of humane nature and in this sense no man can partake of the Lords Body Or else it may be considered with respect to his Divinity as that is united to it as it is clothed with infinite Majestie as it is replenisht with the Presence and energy of the God-head as it casteth live Influences upon his Church by virtue of the God-head dwelling in it and filleth all things with Spiritual rayes and emanations of his Grace In this respect our Lord is called a Quickning Spirit 1 Cor. 15. 45. the first man Adam was made a living soul the last Adam was made a Quickning Spirit because he giveth life to every Humble and Obedient heart here below and through his Humane Nature dispenseth to every one the Vertues of his Passion and in this respect every good Christian participates of Christs Body that is of the Spiritualities of his glorious Body The Ancient Christians acknowledged and insisted much upon this distinction between the Natural and the Spiritual body of Christ confessing the one to be in the Sacrament but not the other There is Saith Clemens Alexandrinus a Twofold 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Clem. Alex. Paedag. l. 2. in mitio Blond of our Lord there is his Fleshly Bloud whereby we were redeemed from destruction and there is his Spiritual Bloud whereby we are now Anointed and this is to drink the Bloud of Jesus to be made partakers of our Lords Incorruption In like manner Origen Shewing that even in the New Testament there is a letter which killeth if men do not understand that which is said after a Spiritual Si enim secundum liberam sequaris hoc ipsum quod dictum est nisi manducaveretis carnem mean biberitis Sanguinem meum occider haec litera Orig. in Lev. 10. Homilt manner instanceth in that Phrase of eating Christs Flesh and drinking his Bloud for saith he if you understand this according to the sound and clink of the Expression it is a killing letter S. Jerome also tells us that the Bloud and Flesh of Christ is to be Duplicitur verè sanguis Christi caro intelligitur
quis dixerit verbum contra filium c. Tom. 1. P. 979. Edit Par. into Heaven that he might draw off their minds from Gross and Carnal Apprehensions and that they might thenceforth know that the Flesh he speak of was to be Food from above Heavenly and Spiritual nourishment that he S. Cyril Alex. in Joan. lib. 4. c. 22. was to give them And this was no more impossible for him to do than it was impossible for him to fly through the air he could as easily make his Body Spiritual and vital as he could make an Heavenly of an Earthly Substance especially since he was God which he put them in mind of by telling them that he was in Heaven before 2. But to clear the matter fully he Id. 16. c. 23. Interpreted himself to them vers 63. It is the Spirit that Quickneth the Flesh profiteth nothing meaning as S. Cyril excellently understands it that though his Flesh considered in it self could not quicken any thing as standing in need it self of a quickning principle yet considering the Mystery of the Incarnation and how the Word dwelleth in the Flesh we are to conclude that even the Body of Christ hath a quickning Faculty being united to that Word which giveth life to all For the corruptible Nature of Man did not degrade the Word by being joyned unto it but became it self exalted into a far better condition so that though it Quickneth not of it self yet it doth by the Energy and Operation of the Word the Spirit or Deity of Christ the plenitude whereof dwelleth in our Saviours Flesh bodily and so maketh it Vivisick This truth being laid down that our Lords Body is full of Vital virtue by being united to the Godhead it followeth very plainly that we must not think of eating the Natural and Heavenly Substance of our Lords Body after a Bodily manner with our mouths But of receiving into our Hearts and Souls the Spiritual Virtues of his glorified Flesh with a lively Faith the words that I speak Ubi supra unto you they are Spirit and they are Life saith Christ meaning thus much according to Athanasius that my Body which is given for the World shall be given for food to be ministred to every one after a Spiritual manner his words are Spiritual and to be spiritually understood as S. Cyril S. Chrysostom and the rest all say that is to be interpreted of that Spirit which is Life and which giveth life and of those Spiritual Influences which come from Christs Heavenly Body by the virtue energy and operation of that Eternal vivifick Word which abideth in it From this whole discourse of our Saviour especially as it is explained by those two great Luminaries of the Church S. Cyril and Athanasius we are to conceive that the Humane Nature of Christ being taken 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 S. Cyril in Joan. lib. 4. c. 24. into God at his Incarnation and being vested with the Glories of Heaven upon his Ascension is so full of the Energy of the Divine Spirit that it is become a Spiritual Body Not that it hath lost the Nature of Flesh but because it is Hypostatically united to the Godhead by reason of which Union it is endued with an enlivening Quid est eundem nisi quia eum quem etiam nos S. Aug. Tom. 10. Hom. 27. Power and the Man Christ Jesus that Quickning Spirit doth through his Glorified Humanity dispense those Spiritual Virtues which are the proper Food and Nutriment of the Soul and are fitly called Christs Spiritual Body Christs Spiritual Flesh and Bloud This may be further illustrated yet by considering what S. Paul saith 1 Cor. 10. 3 4. how that our Fathers in the wilderness did all eat the same spiritual meat and did all drink the same Spiritual drink meaning that they had the same Spiritual meat and drink with us For they drank of that Spiritual Rock that went with them and that Rock was Christ And how did they eat and drink of Christ but by receiving from him those Graces and Vertues which have all along been the Portion and Sustenance of the Faithful For Christ was with all Believers under the Law before his manifestation in the Flesh they were continually under his care and Providence their Souls lived by his Divine Influence as their Bodies were supported with Manna and were refresht by waters out of the Rock Now these were Figures of good things to come that when Christ the true Manna should descend from Heaven and should be smitten upon the Cross as the Rock which prefigur'd him was smitten with Moses Rod he would ever be life and aliment to those that should believe on his Name and that that Body of his which was to be smitten as the Rock was should send forth such abundant salutary streams of Living waters as would Quench the thirst of every true Israelite to all Eternity And this real but Ineffable presence of Christs Grace and Virtues is that which the Doctors of the Christian Church meant when they speak with such ravishment of the Presence of the Holy Jesus with us poor mortals in this vale of misery They entertain'd not any mean and nauseous conceits of the presence of Christs Natural Body whether in or out of the Sacrament but they were taken up with Noble and Lofty speculations and they fixt their minds upon the Divine and Mysterious consideration of those Beatifying streams of Grace which spring from Christ the Fountain of everlasting life and are conveyed unto his Church through his Humanity by the efficacious operation of his Divine Spirit The Anciens considered that the eating of Christ Natural Flesh and the drinking of his Natural Bloud were the thing possible and consistent with Humanity could not be profitable could not be to any purpose in comparison of those vital and operative Virtues which flow from Christ and Quicken all that are capable and apt to be quickned and therefore their meditations soared high they listed up their own minds to Heaven instead of bringing down Christ upon the Earth they minded and spake of the real presence of his Spiritual Body only And when we find some of them to speak as if the Nature and Substance of Christ were exhibited to us we should consider what they themselves meant by those and the like expressions For they spake like Divines that were full of Lofty and Seraphick notions and were forced to speak of Mysteries in a high strain giving the Elements in the Sacrament becoming and honourable 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 S. Cyril ubi Supr Names but intending by the Flesh and Bloud of Christ the Virtue the Grace the Spirituallities and Efficacy of his Humane Nature as it is Quickned and made quickning to us by the Power of the Eternal Word in conjunction with it As S. Austin says Secundam Majestatem suam secundum providentiam secundum Ineffabilem Invisibilem Gratiam impletur quod ab
the Root doth Convey its Quality to the Boughs so doth the Son of God give Cyril Alex. in Joan. l. 10. c. 13. to his Saints an affinity of his Own and his Fathers Nature by giving them his Spirit so that by the participation of his Spirit whereby we are conjoyned unto him we Communicate of his Nature To the same purpose are those words Jo. 17. 21. where the Holy Jesus prayed that his Disciples might be One that as the Father is in him and he in the Father so his Disciples might be One in or with them Which words do import something more than an Unity of Affection and Will for the Son is One with the Father and the Father One with the Son by being Both of the same Divine Essence so that we may conceive the full meaning of that Prayer to be that all Christians might be One not onely with themselves by the Unity of Faith and Love and with God by Consent and Agreement of Will but that they might be One with the Son and the Father by bearing in them the Divine Image by a likeness Similitude and Resemblance of Nature though they cannot be One by Identity of Substance Thus I am sure some of the Ancients understood this and the other place of Scripture where Christ is called a Vine And the Faith of the Old Catholick Church was this that by the efficacious Energy of Gods Spirit some Rays of his Divinity are conveyed into us whereby we are made partakers of the Divine Nature and that this Participation of Nature is the closest Ligament * S. Ignatius calls it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ep. ad Ephes pag. 22. Bandage and Instrument of Union between Us and our Redeemer This will evidently appear by this one Argument Some Hereticks did of old as the the Socinians do now Deny the Divinity of our Saviour and when they were put hard to it by the Catholick Doctors who argued against them from those words of Christ himself I and my Father are One and from other places of the like importance the Hereticks returned this answer that Christ is One with the Father by * Id quod ait Ego Pater unum sumus tentant Haeretici ad unanimitatis referre consensum ut voluntatis in his Unit as sit non naturae id est ut non per id quod idem Sunt sed per id quod idem volunt unum sunt Hilar nitate lib. 8. pag. 119. Ed. Par. Unity of Love and by agreement of Will but not by Identity of Essence But this would not by any means Satisfie the Catholicks who proved an Unity of Nature between Christ and his Father by shewing that Unity of Nature which is between Christ and Us in some Cvril Alex. in Joan. lib. 10. c. 13. measure and Degree We do not deny saith S. Cyril but that we are joyned to Christ by a True Faith and Sincere Love but that there is no Union at all between him and Us in respect of his Flesh that saith he we do utterly Deny For Christ is in Us by the Communication of his Nature And again besides the Unity of Consent and Will Id lib. 11. c. 26. there is saith he a Natural Union whereby we are Tyed unto God And again we are made the Sons of God and Heavenly men being made one with Christ by the participation of the Divine Nature and so we are One not onely by Affection and Consent but one also by the Communion of his Holy Flesh and one by the Participation of One Holy Spirit S. Cyril was very prolix and very Positive and Dogmatical upon this point and so was S. Hilary before him for he did argue the same way and did plainly assert a Natural * Eos nunc qui inter patrem filium voluntatis ingerant unitatem interrogo utrumne per naturae veritatem bodie Christus in nobis sit an per concordiam voluntatis Si enim vere verbum caro factum est nos vere verbum carnem cibo Dominico sumimus quomodo non naturaliter manere in nobis existimandus est qui naturam carnis nostrae jam insepar abilem sibi homo natus assumpsit naturam carnis suae ad naturam aternitatis sub Sacramento nobis communicanda carnis admiscuit Hilar. de Trin. lib. 8. Haec vitae nostrae causa est quod in nobis carnablibus manentem per carnem Christum habemus victuris nobis per euin ea conditione qua vivit ille per patrem Si ergo nos naturaliter secunduim carnem per eum vivimus id est naturam carnis suae adepti quomodo non naturaliter secundum spiritum in se patrem habeat cum vivat ipse per Patrem Id. ibid. Unity between Christ and Us meaning such an Union as is wrought by the Communion of his Nature This is saith he the cause of our Life that we have Christ abiding in us according to his Flesh that is his Spiritual Flesh and we live by him as he himself liveth by the Father c. Now Christ liveth by his Father through the Communication of his Divine Substance and we live by Christ through the Communication of his Holy Nature * By the Communication of Christs Nature to us is meant the Communinication of the Divine Virtues of his Flesh which are like sparks conveyed into Our nature and by means of this Communication of Christs Virtues that Union is wrought between him Us which S. Hillary and S. Cyril call a Natural Union Sensus est Christum in nobis esse non per corporis sui Substantiam sed per Efficaciam carnis suae quam in Eulogia Mystica participamus unde resultat cum eo inter nos vera Unitas Quis enim negare posset aut participationem efficaciae earnis ejus veram ac Realem esse aut ex ejusmodi participatione veram Realem unitatem inter illum nos consurgere Albertinus de Sacr. Euchar. lib. 2. pag. 765. The Notion of our Union with Christ being thus explained it is easie to prove now that this strict and most blessed Union is effected by a due use of this Holy Sacrament For since we do hereby participate of his Blessed Body and Bloud and are endued with a plentiful measure of his Spirit it necessarily and plainly followeth that we receive such a portion of his Nature as is suitable to our Capacities and so that we are One with him because we receive of His and are enlivened and quickned by the same Spirit which dwelleth in him and are of one and the same Nature with him But besides the words of Christ himself are plain Jo. 6. 56. He that eateth my Flesh and drinketh my bloud dwelleth in me and I in Him Perhaps the words are to be understood as if they were to be read Thus as he dwelleth in me so I dwell in him meaning that as our Nature was United to
but remained perfectly United to it by a Substantial Conjunction and by reason of that Conjunction it was restored to life after so many hours In like manner when we give up the Ghost the Body parteth with the Soul and during this state hath no manner of sensation or Motion having lost the Natural Principle of Both but yet it is not separated from Christ though it Corrupteth in the Grave while its Mate is in the enjoyment of Bliss yet it is still United to its Lord by a Mystical Conjunction and by reason of that Union it shall be reunited to the soul in Gods good time that Both may have their Partnership in the fruition of an endless Life 3. This consideration were it duely weighed would be of very great Use and Comfort to good men when they are going out of this world But there is besides a third thing to be considered viz. that as we are united to Christ so Christs Nature is also communicated to Us by means of this Sacrament which doth further conclude an Assurance of an Happy Resurrection This Nature thus communicated is as it were a Spark of the Divine Nature which gives the Body a Disposition and Aptitude to Rise again like that Vital Principle in wheat that makes it Apt to spring out of the earth again when 't is committed to the ground though it hath been laid up a long time in the Granary S. Cyril calls Christs 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Cyril where 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is a living Body and so corpus vitae in some of the Latines as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is a Glorious Body Phil. 3. 21. Living Body meaning the Virtue of it or his Spiritual Body the Quickning Seed that is in us For Christ by Divine Influences from his body giveth vitality to our mortal Bodies by that vivifick Virtue which is communicated by the Bread it entreth into the bodies of the Faithful though it be Substantially absent And hence he argues that if the dead in our Saviours time were raised to Life onely by being touched with his Holy Body out of which there went Virtue certainly the vital 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Cyril in Joan. lib. 4. cap. 14. Blessing must be much more abundant which we receive who even Taste and Communicate of it because it transforms Communicants into its own Blessed Condition that is into Immortality In like manner Ireneus proved the Certainty of a Resurrection from the Virtue and efficacy of this Sacrament supposing it a thing very Unreasonable to deny that Flesh to be capable of Incorruption which is nourished with This is plainly the meaning and force of those words of Irenaeus Quomodo dicunt Haeretici carnem in corruptionem scilicet finalem devenire non percipere vitam quae a corpore Domini sanguine alitur Quemadmodum qui est e terra panis percipiens invocationem Dei jam non communis panis est sed Eucharistia ex duabus rebas constans terrena caelisti sic corpora nostra percipientia Eucharistiam jam non sunt corruptibilia spem Resurrectionis habentia Adv. Haeres lib. 4. cap. 34. Quando mixtus calix fractus panis percipit verbum Dei fit Eucharistia sanguinis corporis Christi ex quibus augetur consistit carnis nostrae substantia quomodo negant carnem capacem esse donationis Dei quae est vita aeterna quae sanguine corpore Christi nutritur membrum ejus est Id. lib. 5. cap. 2. that Bread which carrieth with it the vital Virtues of the Flesh of our Lord because those Virtues turn to the advantage of that Body as well as of the soul by reason that our Flesh being United to the Flesh of Christ by the Spirit is by the Eucharist Prepared and Disposed for and made capable of the gift of God which is eternal Life But to conclude this point besides these arguments drawn from the Reason of the thing it self and from the sense and suffrage of Antiquity our Saviours own words are abundantly demonstrative of this matter in S. Jo. 6. The bread of God is be with cometh down from heaven and giveth Life unto the world I am that bread of Life Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness and are dead this is the bread which cometh down from Heaven that a man may eat thereof and not dye for ever I am the Living bread which came down from heaven if any man eat of this bread he shall Live for ever and the bread that I will give is my Flesh which I will give for the Life of the world Who so eateth my Flesh and drinketh my bloud hath eternal Life and I will raise him up at the last day for my Flesh is meat indeed and my bloud is drink indeed As the living Father hath sent me and I live by the Father so he that eateth me even he shall live by me These words are so plain that they need no Explication if by eating the Bread the Meat the Flesh here spoken of we understand not of Believing the Doctrines of Christianity as some most Absurdly imagine nor of eating the very Substance of Christs Body as others most Ridiculously conceive but our partaking and communicating of the Virtues of his Flesh and Bloud which is the genuine and Catholick construction Now by a right use of this Holy Sacrament we do this effectually and consequently may be assured that as we are blest with the Spirit and Life and Communion of Christ in this world by so doing so we have an undoubted Title to a Life of Glory and Immortality in the next CHAP. XII Two Practical Conclusions from the Whole Discourse I Have now done with the Speculative or Doctrinal part of this Subject having after a plain Didactical manner delivered and asserted the true Catholick Faith concerning this Sacrament and from the consideration of those blessings which it brings with it I shall briefly draw these following Inferences and so conclude the whole matter 1. That we are not to rate this Mystery according to its Face and Outward Appearance nor judge of its efficacy and Dignity by the Elements For though our Senses do infallibly assure us that it is Bread and Wine yet our Faith ought to assure us too that it is not Common bread or Bare Wine but something more By the word and Prayer and by the Secret but effectual operation of the Holy Ghost there is besides the Natural and true Substance of the materials an Addition of Grace which is chrefly und principally to be considered by us And this is that Change of the Elements which the Catholick Church ever did believe meaning not a change of their Nature but of their Use of their Quality of their Condition As when we say such a man is turned a Christian or such a Christian is turned a Minister or such a Fabrick is turned into a Church our meaning is not that
his word whereby our Flesh and Bloud are by alteration nourisht to be the Flesh and Bloud of our Incarnate Saviour As Christ was God and man by the union of two real and distinct Substances the Humane and divine Substance so must the Eucharist be believed to consist of two real and distinct Natures the visible and invisible nature which Joannes Langus observed to be so strong an Argument against Transubstantiation that the Expurgatory Indexes have ordered his Annotations upon those words of Justin to be Quod Transubstantiationem non agnoseit sed apertè contendat cum corpore sanguine Christi remanere veram panis vini Substantiam Ind. Belgic p. 76. blotted out So he that wrote the forementioned book of the Lords Supper affirmeth that as in the Person of Christ the Humanity was seen and the Divinity was hid so in the visible Sacrament the Divine Essence infuseth it self after an invisible and ineffable manner S. Augustin S. Hillary and others of the Antients use the very same similitude and conclude that the Mystery of the Eucharist where two real Vide Augustin in Gratian de Consecr Distinct 2. c. 72. Hilar. de Trin. 1. 8. Ibid. c. 82. Natures go together in the same Sacrament is like the Mystery of the Incarnation where two real Substances were united together in the same Person For the Romanists themselves dare not say that only the Accidents of Humanity were in our Lord at his Incarnation and therefore they ought not to say neither that only the Accidents of bread and wine are in the Eucharist after Consecration At least they ought not to appeal to Antiquity for this conceit it being plainly the sense of the Primitive Church that as the Nature of Man was neither abolisht nor changed into Christs Divinity when 't was united to it so neither is the nature of bread abolisht or changed into Christs Body when 't is administred with it 5. It is observable that whereas some Hereticks in the Ancient times denyed our Saviour to have two several Natures the Catholicks proved he had so by this known received Principle because there are two several Natures in the Sacrament which is a Figure of Christ This is a thing which requires particular observation because it will clearly and undeniably prove that the sense of the Church which I have shewn for the first 300. years was the same still and indeed more plain if possible for the two Centuries next following The occasion of their speaking so plainly was this Between the third and fourth Century there brake out the pestilent heresie of Apollinaris S. Aug. de Haeres c. 55. who held that our Lord took not his Body of the holy Virgin but that the Word was made Flesh so that the Deity was turned and transubstantiated into the Manhood Against this Heresie S. Chrysostom undertook the defence of the Catholick Faith that Christ at his Incarnation was both God and Man one Person of two Natures joyned together which are not one Substance but each hath its Properties distinct from the other And how doth he prove this Why he argues from the condition of the Holy Sacrament wherein there are two Natures so that neither is the Bread turned into Christs Flesh nor his Flesh into Bread but both are distinct Sicut enim antequam Sanctisicetur panis panem nominamus Divina autem illum Sanctificante gratia medinate Sacerdote liberatus est quidem ab appellatione Panis dignus autem habitus est Dominici Corporis â—appellatione ersi Natura panis in ipso Permansâ—t non duo corpora sed unum flii corpus praedicatur sic hîc divina insidente corpori natura unum filium unam personam utraque haec fecerunt S. Chrysoft Ep. ad Caesarium contra Appollinarem in themselves though they go As saith S. Chrysostom before the Consecration of the bread we call it bread but when the Grace of God hath sanctified it by the Priest it is delivered from the name of Bread and is exalted to the Lords Body though the Nature of Bread remaineth still and so two things make one Eucharist so here the Divine Nature is in the Body of Christ but these two Substances are distinct and make one Son and one Person This is a very plain testimony on our side Afterwards the Apollinarians were divided in their opinions for they shifted and were Unstable for want of truth and then Theodoret took up the quarrel against them all in his book entitled Polymorphos For then the Heresie of Eutyches appeared abroad whose opinion was that though Christ had at First two Natures yet after the Union of them the Humanity ceased was quite absorpt and Transubstantiated into the Divinity To prove this those Hereticks drew an argument from the Eucharist Christs Body said they was turned into his Deity at the Ascension even as the Bread and Wine are turned into his Flesh 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Theodoret Dialog 1. and Bloud upon Consecration But to his Theodoret answered roundly that Christ honoured the visible Symbols with the name of his Body and Bloud not changing their Nature but to their Nature adding Grace And whereas it was urged again by those Hereticks that the Symbols of the Lords Body and Bloud are one thing before Invocation and another thing after Theodoret told them that they were taken in their own nets because the Mystical Signs do not Id. Dialog 2. depart from their own Nature after Sanctification but Remain in their former Substance aswell as in their Figure and form If this be not Home and Plain I know not what can be and yet we have a Further Testimony from the mouth of Gelasius who was Bishop of Rome too about 500 years after our Saviour He wrote an Excellent Book of the Two Natures of Christ against the Eutychians and Nestorians and how doth he argue Why he clears the Catholick Faith by arguing from the Eucharist too and these Gelas de duabus Naturis in Christo are his words Indeed the Sacraments of Christ Body and Bloud which we receive are a Divine thing for by them we are made partakers of the Divine Nature and yet it doth not cease to be the Substance or Nature of Bread and Wine The Image and Similitude of Christs Body and Bloud is in the Action of the Mysteries and by this it appears that we must think that to be in Christ which we Profess celebrate and take in the Image that as they pass into a Divine Substance by the Operation of the Holy Spirit the Nature of the things remaining still in their own Propriety so is the Principal Mysterie the Efficiency and Virtue whereof the Sacraments do Represent by their Continuing what they were it appears that they shew one entire and true Christ to continue also If this be not enough yet we will produce Ephraim the Patriarch for another witness after Gelasius He wrote very learnedly against