meaning of this by and so by a progress for ever we must contend about the true meaning of every Place Therefore when we enquire into the sense of any controverted place we must judge of it by the rules of common Sense and Reason of Religion and Piety and if a meaning be affixed to any Place contrary to these we have good reason to reject it For we knowing all external things only by our Senses by which only the Miracles and Resurrection of Christ could be proved which are the means God has given us to converse with and enjoy his whole Creation and evidence our senses give being such as naturally determines our Perswasions so that after them we cannot doubt if then a sense be offered to any place of Scripture that does overthrow all this we have sufficient reason on that very account to reject it If also any meaning be fastened on a place of Scripture that destroys all our Conceptions of things is contrary to the most universally receiv'd Maxims subverts the Notions of matter and accidents and in a word confounds all our clearest Apprehensions we must also reject every such gloss since it contradicts the evidence of that which is God's Image in us If also a sense of any place of Scripture be proposed that derogates from the glorious Exaltation of the humane Nature of our blessed Saviour we have very just reasons to reject it even though we could bring no confirmation of our meaning from express words of Scripture therefore this Dispute being chiefly about the meaning of Christ's Words he that shews best Reasons to prove that his sense is consonant to Truth does all that is necessary in this case But after all this we decline not to shew clear Scriptures for the meaning our Church puts on these words of Christ. It was Bread that Christ took blessed brake and gave his Disciples Now the Scripture calling it formally bread destroys Transubstantiation Christ said This is my Body which are declarative and not imperative words such as Let there be light or Be thou whole Now all declarative words suppose that which they affirm to be already true as is most clear therefore Christ pronounces what the Bread was become by his former blessing which did sanctifie the Elements and yet after that blessing it was still bread Again the reason and end of a thing is that which keeps a proportion with the means toward it so that Christ's words Do this in remembrance of me shew us that his Body is here only in a vital and living Commemoration and Communication of his Body and Blood Farther Christ telling us it was his Body that was given for us and his Blood shed for us which we there receive it is apparent he is to be understood present in the Sacrament not as he is now exalted in Glory but as he was on the Cross when his Blood was shed for us And in fine if we consider that those to whom Christ spake were Jews all this will be more easily understood for it was ordinary for them to call the Symbol by the Name of the Original it represented So they called the Cloud between the Cherubims God and Iehovah according to these words O thou that dwellest between the Cherubims and all the symbolical Apparitions of God to the Patriarchs and the Prophets were said to be the Lord appearing to them But that which is more to this purpose is that the Lamb that was the symbol and memorial of their Deliverance out of Egypt was called the Lord's Passover Now though the Passover then was only a Type of our Deliverance by the Death of Christ yet the Lamb was in proportion to the Passover in Egypt as really a Representation of it as the Sacrament is of the Death of Christ. And it is no more to be wondered that Christ called the Elements his Body and Blood though they were not so corporally but only mystically and sacramentally than that Moses called the Lamb the Lord 's Passover So that it is apparent it was common among the Jews to call the Symbol and Type by the Name of the Substance and Original Therefore our Saviour's Words are to be understood in the sense and stile that was usual among these to whom he spake it being the most certain rule of understanding any doubtful Expression to examine the ordinary stile and forms of speech in that Age People and Place in which such Phrases were used This is signally confirmed by the Account which Maimonides gives us of the sense in which eating and drinking is oft taken in the Scriptures First he says it stands in its natural signification for receiving bodily Food Then because there are two things done in eating the first is the destruction of that which is eaten so that it loseth its first form the other is the increase and nourishment of the substance of the Person that eats therefore he observes that eating has two other significations in the Language of the Scriptures the one is destruction and desolation so the Sword is said to eat or as we render it to devour so a Land is said to eat its Inhabitants and so Fire is said to eat or consume The other sense it is taken in does relate to Wisdom Learning and all Intellectual Apprehensions by which the form or soul of man is conserved from the perfection that is in them as the body is preserved by food For proof of this he cites divers places out of the Old Testament as Isa. 55. 2. come buy and eat and Prov. 25. 27. and Prov. 24. 13. he also adds that their Rabbins commonly call Wisdom eating and cites some of their Sayings as come and eat flesh in which there is much fat and that whenever eating and drinking is in the Book of the Proverbs it is nothing else but Wisdom or the Law So also Wisdom is often called Water Isa. 55. 1. and he concludes that because this sense of eating occurs so often and is so manifest and evident as if it were the primary and most proper signification of the Word therefore Hunger and Thirst do also stand for a privation of Wisdom and Understanding as Amos. 8. 21. To this he also refers that of thirsting Psal. 42. 3. and Isa. 12. 3. and Ionathan paraphrasing these Words Ye shall draw water out of the Wells of Salvation renders it Ye shall receive a new Doctrine with joy from the select ones among the Iust which is farther confirmed from the words of our Saviour Iohn 7. 37. And from these Observations of the Learnedest and most Judicious among all the Rabbins we see that the Iews understood the Phrases of eating and eating of flesh in this spiritual and figurative sense of receiving VVisdom and Instruction So that this being an usual form of Speech among them it is no strange thing to imagine how our Saviour being a Iew according to the Flesh and conversing with Iews did use these Terms and Phrases
of many grains ioyned together his Body to shew the Union of our People which he bore upon himself and calls the Wine which is pressed out of many Grapes and Berries his Blood he signifies our Flock which is joyned together in the mixture of an united Multitude And writing against those who only put Water in the Chalice Epist. 63. he says Since Christ said I am the true Vine the Blood of Christ is not only Water but Wine neither can we see his Blood by which we are redeemed and quickened in the Chalice when Wine is not in it by which the Blood of Christ is shewed And that whole Epistle is all to the same purpose Epiphanius in Anchorat says Christ in the Supper rose and took these things and having given Thanks said This is my c. Now we see it is not equal to it nor like it neither to his Incarnate Likeness nor his invisible Deity nor the Lineaments of his Members for it is round and without feeling as to its Vertue And this he says to shew how Man may be said to be made after the Image of God though he be not like him Gregory Nyssen in Orat. de Bap. Christ. shewing how common things may be sanctified as Water in Baptism the Stones of an Altar and Church dedicated to God he adds So also Bread in the Beginning is common but after the Mystery has consecrated it is said to be and is the Body of Christ so the Mystical Oyl so the Wine before the Blessing are things of little value but after the Sanctification of the Spirit both of them work excellently He also adds That the Priest by his Blessing is separated and sanctified from which it appears he no more believed the Change of the Substance of the Bread and Wine than of the consecrated Oil the Altar or the Priest Ambrose Lib. De Bened. Patriarc cap. 9. speaking of Bread which was Asher's Blessing says This Bread Christ gave his Apostles that they might divide it to the People that believed and gives it to us to day which the Priest consecrates in his Words this Bread is made the Food of the Saints St. Chrysostome Homil. 24. in Epist. ad Cor. on these Words The Bread which we brake is it not the Communion of the Body of Christ says What is the Bread The Body of Christ. What are they made who take it The Body of Christ. From whence it appears he thought the Bread was so the Body of Christ as the worthy Receivers are which is not by the Change of their Substance but by the Sanctification of their Natures St. Ierom Epist. ad Hedib says Let us hear the Bread which Christ brake and gave his Disciples to be the Body of our Lord. And he says Comment S. Mat. c. 26. After the Typical Pascha was fulfilled Christ took Bread that comforts the Heart of Man and went to the true Sacrament of the Pascha that as Melchisedeck in the Figure had done offering Bread and Wine so he might also represent the Truth of his Body and Blood Where he very plainly calls the Elements Bread and Wine and a Representation of Christ's Body and Blood St. Austin as he is cited by Fulgentius de Baptismo and divers others in his Exhortation to these that were newly baptized speaking of this Sacrament says That which you see is the Bread and the Cup which your Eyes witness but that which your Faith must be instructed in is that the Bread is the Body of Christ and the Cup is his Blood And then he proposes the Objection how that could be And answers it thus These things are therefore called Sacraments because one thing is seen and another is understood What you see has a bodily Appearance but what you understand has a Spiritual Fruit and if you will understand the Body of Christ hear what the Apostle says to the Faithful Ye are the Body of Christ and his Members If therefore you be the Body and Members of Christ your Mystery is placed on the Table of the Lord and you receive the Mystery of the Lord. And at large prosecutes this to shew how the Faithful are the Body of Christ as the Bread is made up of many Grains from whence it appears that he believed that the conscrated Elements were still Bread and Wine And speaking of St. Paul's breaking Bread at Troas he says Epist. 86. being to break Bread that night as it is broken in the Sacrament of the Body of Christ. He also says Serm. 9. De Divers The Eucharist is our daily Bread but let us so receive it that not only our Belly but our Mind be refreshed by it Besides in a great many places St. Austin calls the Eucharist the Sacrament of Bread and Wine And speaking of things made use of to signify somewhat else he adds for one Lib. 3. De Trinit c. 10. The Bread that is made for this is consumed in our receiving the Sacrament He also says Lib. 17. De Civ Dei To eat Bread is in the New Testament the Sacrifice of Christians He likewise says Lib. Cont. Donat. c. 6. Both Iudas and Peter received a part of the same Bread out of the same hand of our Lord. And thus from twelve Witnesses that are beyond all Exception it does appear That the Fathers believed the Elements to be still Bread and Wine after the Consecration We have not brought any Proofs from the Fathers that are less known or read for then we must have swelled up this Paper beyond what we intend it One thing is so considerable that we cannot forbear to desire it be taken notice of and that is That we see those great Fathers and Doctors of the Church call the consecrated Elements without any mincing of the matter Bread Wine but when they call it the Body and Blood of Christ they often use some mollifying and less hardy Expression So St. Austin says Serm. 53. De Verb. Dom. Almost all call the Sacrament his Body And again says Lib. 3. De Trinit c. 4. We call that only the Body and Blood of Christ which being taken of the Fruits of the Earth and consecrated by the Mystical Prayer we rightly receive for our Spiritual Health in the Commemoration of the Passion of our Lord for us And he says Epist. 23. ad Bonifac. After some sort the Sacrament of the Body of Christ is his Body and the Sacrament of his Blood is the Blood of Christ. And also says Serm. 2. in Psal. 33. He carried himself in his own Hands in some sort when he said This is my Body St. Chrysostom says Epist. ad Caesar. The Bread is thought worthy to be called the Body of our Lord. And on these Words The Flesh lusteth against the Spirit among the improper acceptions of Flesh says Comm. in Epist. ad Galat. c. 5. The Scriptures use to call the Mysteries by the name of Flesh and sometimes the whole Church saying She is the Body of Christ.
their former Substance Figure and Form and are both visible and palpable as they were before but they are understood to be that which they are made and are believed and venerated as being those things which they are believed to be And from thence he bids the Heretick compare the Image with the Original for the Type must be like the Truth and shews that Christ's Body retains its former Form and Figure and the Substance of his Body though it be now made Immortal and Incorruptible Thus he And having now set down very faithfully the Words of these Fathers we desire it may be considered that all these Words are used to the same Effect to prove the Reality of Christ's Body and the Distinction of the two Natures the Divine and the Human in him For though St. Chrysostom lived before Eutyches his days yet in this Point the Eutychians and the Apollinarists against whom he writes held Opinions so like others that we may well say all these Words of the Fathers we have set down are to the same purpose Now first it is evident that if Transubstantiation had been then believed there needed no other Argument to prove against the Eutychians that Christ had still a real Body but to have declared that his Body was corporally present in the Eucharist which they must have done had they believed it and not spoken so as they did since that alone well proved had put an end to the whole Controversy Further they could never have argued from the Visions and Apparitions of Christ to prove he had still a real Body for if it was possible the Body of Christ could appear under the accidents of Bread and Wine it was as possible the Divinity should appear under the accidents of an Humane Body Thirdly They could never have argued against the Eutychians as they did from the absurdity that followed upon such a substantial mutation of the Humane Nature of Christ into his Divinity if they had believed this substantial conversion of the Elements into Christ's Body which is liable unto far greater Absurdities And we can as little doubt but the Eutychians had turned back their Arguments on themselves with these Answers if that Doctrine had been then received It is true it would seem from the last Passage of Theodoret that the Eutychians did believe some such change but that could not be for they denied the Being of the Body of Christ and so could not think any thing was changed into that which they believed was not Therefore we are to suppose him arguing from some commonly received expressions which the Father explains In fine The design of those Fathers being to prove that the two Natures might be united without the change of either of their substances in the Person of Christ it had been inexcusable Folly in them to have argued from the sacramental Mysteries being united to the Body and Blood of Christ if they had not believed they retained their former Substance for had they believed Transubstantiation what a goodly Argument had it been to have said Because after the Consecration the Accidents of Bread and Wine remain therefore the Substance of the Humanity remained still tho united to the Divine Nature in Christ Did ever Man in his Wits argue in this fashion Certainly these four Bishops whereof three were Patriarchs and one of these a Pope deserved to have been hissed out of the World as Persons that understood not what it was to draw a Consequence if they had argued so as they did and believed Transubstantiation But if you allow them to believe as certainly they did that in the Sacrament the real Substances of Bread and Wine remained tho after the Sanctification by the Operation of the Holy Ghost they were the Body and Blood of Christ and were to be called so then this is a most excellent illustration of the Mystery of the Incarnation in which the Human Nature retains its proper and true Substance tho after the Union with the Divinity Christ be called God even as he was Man by virtue of his Union with the Eternal Word And this shews how unreasonable it is to pretend that because Substance and Nature are sometimes used even for accidental Qualities they should be therefore understood so in the cited places for if you take them in that sense you destroy the force of the Argument which from being a very strong one will by this means become a most ridiculous Sophisin Yet we are indeed beholden to those that have taken pains to shew that Substance and Nature stand often for accidental Qualities for tho that cannot be applied to the former places yet it helps us with an excellent Answer to many of those Passages with which they triumph not a little Having so far considered these Four Fathers we shall only add to them the Definition of the Seventh General Council at Constantinople Ann. 754. Christ appointed us to offer the Image of his Body to wit the substance of the Bread The Council is indeed of no Authority with these we deal with But we do not bring it as a Decree of a Council but as a Testimony that so great a number of Bishops did in the Eighth Century believe That the substance of the Bread did remain in the Eucharist and that it was only the Image of Christ's Body and if in this Definition they spake not more consonantly to the Doctrine of the former Ages than their Enemies at Nice did let what has been set down and shall be yet adduced declare And now we advance to the third Branch of our first Assertion that the Fathers believed that the Consecrated Elements did nourish our Bodies and the Proofs of this will also give a further Evidence to our former Position that the substance of the Elements does remain And it is a Demonstration that these Fathers who thought the Sacrament nourished our Bodies could not believe a Transubstantiation of the Bread and Wine into the Body and Blood of Christ. For the proof of this Branch we desire the following Testimonies be considered First Iustin Martyr as was already cited not only calls the Eucharist our Nourishment but formally calls it that Food by which our Flesh and Blood through its transmutation into them are nourished Secondly Irenaeus Lib. 5. adv Heret c. 2. proving the Resurrection of the Body by this Argument That our Bodies are fed by the Body and Blood of Christ and that therefore they shall rise again he hath these Words He confirmed that Cup which is a Creature to be His Blood by which He encreases our Blood and the Bread which is a Creature to be His Body by which He encreases our Body And when the mixed Cup and the Bread receive the Word of God it becomes the Eucharist of the Body and Blood of Christ by which the substance of our Flesh is encreased and subsists How then do they deny the Flesh to be capable of the gift of God which is Eternal Life
me but I have recommended a Sacrament to you which being spiritually understood shall quicken you and tho it be necessary that it be celebrated visibly yet it must be understood invisibly From which it is as plain as can be that St. Austin believed that in the Eucharist we do not eat the natural Flesh and drink the natural Blood of Christ but that we do it only in a Sacrament and spiritually and invisibly But the force of all this will appear yet clearer if we consider that they speak of the Sacrament as a Memorial that exhibited Christ to us in his absence For tho it naturally follows that whatsoever is commemorated must needs be absent yet this will be yet more evident if we find the Fathers made such Reflections on it So Gaudentius says Tract in Exod. This is the hereditary Gift of his New Testament which that Night he was betrayed to be crucified he left as the Pledg of his Presence this is the Provision for our Iourney with which we are fed in this way of our Life and nourished till we go to him out of this World for he would have his Benefits remain with us He would have our Souls to be always sanctified by his precious Blood and by the Image of his own Passion Primasius Comm. in 1 Epist. ad Cor. compares the Sacrament to a Pledg which one when he is dying leaves to any whom he loved Many other places may be brought to shew how the Fathers speak of Memorials and Representations as opposite to the Truth and Presence of that which is represented And thus we doubt not but we have brought Proofs which in the Judgment of all that are unprejudiced must demonstrate the truth of this our second Proposition which we leave and go on to the third which was That by the Doctrine of the Fathers the unworthy Receivers did not receive Christ's Body and Blood in the Sacrament For this our first Proof is taken from Origen Com. in Mat. c. 15. who after he had spoken of the Sacraments being eaten and passing to the Belly adds These things we have said of the typical and symbolical Body but many things may be said of the Word that was made Flesh and the true Food whom whosoever eats he shall live for ever whom no wicked Person can eat for if it were possible that any who continues wicked should eat the Word that was made Flesh since he is the Word and the Living Bread it had never been written Whoso eats this Bread shall live for ever Where he makes a manifest difference between the typical and symbolical Body received in the Sacrament and the incarnate Word of which no wicked Person can partake And he also says Hom. 3. in Mat. They that are Good eat the Living Bread that came down from Heaven and the Wicked eat Dead Bread which is Death Zeno Bishop of Verona that as is believed lived near Origen's time Tom. 2. Spir. Dach says as he is cited by Ratherius Bishop of Verona There is cause to fear that he in whom the Devil dwells does not eat the Flesh of our Lord nor drink his Blood tho he seems to communicate with the Faithful since our Lord hath said He that eats my Flesh and drinks my Blood dwells in me and I in him St. Ierom on the 66th of Isaiah says They that are not holy in Body and Spirit do neither eat the Flesh of Iesus nor drink his Blood of which he said He that eats my Flesh and drinks my Blood hath Eternal Life And on the 8th Chapter of Hosea he says They eat not his Flesh whose Flesh is the Food of them that believe To the same purpose he writes in his Comments on the 22d of Ieremy and on the 10th of Zechariah St. Austin says Tract 26. in Ioan. He that does not abide in Christ and in whom Christ does not abide certainly does not spiritually eat his Flesh nor drink his Blood tho he may visibly and carnally break in his Teeth the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ But he rather eats and drinks the Sacrament of so great a matter to his Iudgment And speaking of those who by their Uncleanness become the Members of an Harlot he says Lib. 21. de Civ Dei c. 25. Neither are they to be said to eat the Body of Christ because they are not his Members And besides he adds He that says whoso eats my Flesh and drinks my Blood abides in me and I in him shews what it is not only in a Sacrament but truly to eat the Body of Christ and drink his Blood To this we shall add that so oft cited Passage Tract 54. in Ioan. Those did eat the Bread that was the Lord the other he means Iudas the Bread of the Lord against the Lord. By which he clearly insinuates he did believe the unworthy Receivers did not receive the Lord with the Bread And that this hath been the constant Belief of the Greek Church to this day shall be proved if it be thought necessary for clearing this matter And thus far we have studied to make good what we undertook to prove But if we had enlarged on every Particular we must have said a great deal more to shew from many undeniable Evidences that the Fathers were Strangers to this new Mystery It is clear from their Writings that they thought Christ was only spiritually present that we did eat his Flesh and drink his Blood only by Faith and not by our bodily Senses and that the words of eating his Flesh and drinking his Blood were to be understood spiritually It is no less clear that they considered Christ present only as he was on the Cross and not as he is now in the Glory of the Father And from hence it was that they came to order their Eucharistical Forms so as that the Eucharist might represent the whole History of Christ from his Incarnation to his Assumption Besides they always speak of Christ as absent from us according to his Flesh and Human Nature and only present in his Divinity and by his Spirit which they could not have said if they had thought him every day present on their Altars in his Flesh and Human Nature for then he were more on Earth than he is in Heaven since in Heaven he is circumscribed within one place But according to this Doctrine he must be always in above a Million of places upon Earth so that it were very strange to say he were absent if they believed him thus present But to give yet further Evidences of the Fathers not believing this Doctrine let us but reflect a little on the Consequences that necessarily follow it which be 1. That a Body may be by the Divine Power in more places at once 2. That a Body may be in a place without Extension or Quantity so a Body of such Dimensions as our blessed Lord's Body can be in so small a room as a thin Wafer and not only
of the counterpoise had inclined them to say many things of the Sacrament that require a fair and can did interpretation Yet after all this they say no more but that in the Sacrament they did truly and really communicate on the Body and Blood of Christ which we also receive and believe And in many other Treatises when they are in colder blood examining things they use such expressions and expositions of this as no way favour the belief of Transubstantiation of which we have given some account in a former Paper But though that were not so formally done and their Writings were full of passages that needed great allowances it were no more than what the Fathers that wrote against the Arrians confess the Fathers before the Council of Nice were guilty of who writing against Sabellius with too much veliemence did run to the opposite extream So many of S. Ciril's passages against Nestorius were thought to favour Eutychianism So also Theodoret and two others writing against the Entychians did run to such excesses as drew upon them the condemnation of the Fifth General Council The first time we find any Contestor canvassing about the Sacrament was in the Controversie about Images in the eighth Century That the Council of Constantinople in the condenming of Images declared there was no other Image of Christ to be received but the Blessed Sacrament in which the substance of Bread and Wine was the Image of the Body and Blood of Christ making a difference between that which is Christs Body by nature and the Sacrament which is his Body by Institution Now it is to be considered that whatever may be pretended of the violence of the Greek Emperors over-ruling that Council in the matter of condemning Images yet there having been no Contest at all about the Sacrament we cannot in reason think they would have brought it into the dispute if they had not known these two things were the received Doctrine of the Church The one that in the Sacrament the substance of Bread and Wine did remain the other that the Sacrament was the Image or Figure of Christ and from thence they acknowledged all Images were not to be rejected but denied any other Images besides that in the Sacrament Now the second Council of Nice being resolved to quarrel with them as much as was possible do not at all condemn them for that which is the chief testimony for us to wit That the Sacrament was still the substance of Bread and Wine and Damascene the zealous Defender of Images clearly insinuates his believing the substance of Bread and Wine remained and did nourish our Bodies Let it be therefore considered that when that Council of Nice was in all the bitterness imaginable canvassing every word of the Council of Constantinople they never once blame them for saying The substance of Bread and Wine was in the Sacrament It is true they condemned them for saying the Sacrament was the Image of Christ denying that any of the Fathers had called it so alledging that the Symboles were called Antit pes by the Fathers only before the consecration and not after in which they followed Damascene De Fid. orth lib. 4. cap. 14. who had fallen in the same Errour before them But this is so manifest a mistake in matter of fact that it gives a just reason for rejecting the authority of that Council were there no more to be said against it For this was either very gross ignorance or effronted impudence since in above twenty Fathers that were before them the Sacrament is called the Figure and Antitype of Christ's Body and at the same time that Damascene who was then looked on as the great Light of the East did condemn the calling the Sacrament the Figure of Christ's Body The venerable Bede Bed in Psal. 3. Mark 14. that was looked on as the great Light of the West did according to the stile of the Primitive Church and in S. Austin's words call it The Figure of Christ's Body I shall not trace the other forgeries and follies of that pretended General Council because I know a full account of them is expected from a better Pen only in this particular I must desire the Reader to take notice that the Council of Constantinople did not innovate any thing in the Doctrine about the Sacrament and did use it as an Argument in the other Controversie concerning Images without any design at all about the Eucharist But on the other hand the second Council of Nice did innovate and reject a form of speech which had been universally received in the Church before their time and being engaged with all possible spight against the Council of Constantinople resolved to contradict every thing they had said as much as could be So that in this we ought to look on the Council of Constantinople as delivering what was truly the Tradition of the Church and on the second Council of Nice as corrupting it About thirty years after that Council Paschase Radbert Abbot of Corbie wrote about the Sacrament and did formally assert the Corporal Presence in the Ninth Century The greatest Patrons of this Doctrine such as Bellarmin and Sirmondus both Jesuites confess he was the first that did fully and to purpose explain the verity of Christ's Body and Blood in the Eucharist And Paschase himself in his Letter to his Friend Frudegard regrates that He was so flow in believing and assenting to his Doctrine and does also acknowledge that by his Book he had moved many to the understanding of that Mystery and it is apparent by that Letter that not only Frudegard but others were scandalized at his Book for he writes I have spoken of these things more fully and more expresly because I understand that some challenge me that in the Book I have published of the Sacraments of Christ I have ascribed either more or some other thing than is consonant to Truth to the words of our Lord. Of all the Writers of that Age or near it only one and his Name we know not the Book being anonymous was of Paschase's opinion But we find all the great men of that Age were of another mind and did clearly assert that in the Sacrament the Substance of Bread and Wine remained and did nourish our Bodies as other meats do These were Rabanus Maurus Archbishop of Mentz Amalarius Archbishop of Treves or as others say Metz Heribald Bishop of Auxerre Bertram Iohn Scot Erigena Walafridus Strabo Florus and Christian Druthmar And three of these set themselves on purpose to refute Paschase The anonymous Writer that defends him says That Raban did dispute at length against him in an Epistle to Abbot Egilon for saying it was that Body that was born of the Virgin and was crucified and raised again that was daily offered for the life of the World That is also condemned by Raban in his Penitential cap. 33. who refers his Reader to that Epistle to Abbor Egilon And for Bertram he was commanded
possible Advantages out of that vast stock of Learning and Iudgment he is Master of was so taken up with other work cut out for him by some of these Gentlemens Friends of which we shall see an excellent account very speedily that it was not possible for him to spare so much time for writing these so that it fell to the others share to do it and therefore the Reader is not to expect any thing like those high strains of Wit and Reason which fill all that Authors Writings but must give allowance to one that studies to follow him though at a great distance Therefore all can be said from him is that what is here performed was done by his Direction and Approbation which to some degree will again encourage the Reader and so I leave him to the perusal of what follows The RELATION OF THE CONFERENCE D. S. and M. B. went to M. L. T 's as they had been desired by L. T. to confer with some Persons upon the Grounds of the Church of England separating from Rome and to shew how unreasonable it was to go from our Church to theirs About half an hour after them came in S. P. T. Mr. W. and three more There were present seven or eight Ladies three other Church-men and one or two more When we were all set D. S. said to S. P. T. that we were come to wait on them for justifying our Church that he was glad to see we had Gentlemen to deal with from whom he expected fair dealing as on the other hand he hoped they should meet with nothing from us but what became our Profession S. P. said they had Protestants to their Wives and there were other Reasons too to make them wish they might turn Protestants therefore he desired to be satisfied in one thing and so took out the Articles of the Church and read these Words of the Sixth Article of the Holy Scriptures So that whatsoever is not read therein nor may be proved thereby is not to be required of any man that it should be believed as an Article of Faith or be thought requisite or necessary to Salvation Then he turned to the twenty eighth Article of the Lord's Supper and read these Words And the mean whereby the Body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper is Faith and added he desired to know whether that was read in Scripture or not and in what place it was to be found D. S. said He must first explain that Article of the Scripture for this method of proceeding was already sufficiently known and exposed he clearly saw the snare they thought to bring him in and the advantages they would draw from it But it was the Cause of the Church he was to defend which he hoped he was ready to seal with his Blood and was not to be given up for a Trick The Meaning of the sixth Article was That nothing must be Received or Imposed as an Article of Faith but what was either expresly contained in Scripture or to be deduced and proved from it by a clear Consequence so that if in any Article of our Church which they rejected he should either shew it in the express Words of Scripture or prove it by a clear Consequence he performed all required in this Article If they would receive this and fix upon it as the meaning of the Article which certainly it was then he would go on to the proof of that other Article he had called in question M. W. said They must see the Article in express Scripture or at least in some places of Scripture which had been so interpreted by the Church the Councils or Fathers or any one Council or Father And he the rather pitched on this Article because he judged it the only Article in which all Protestants except the Lutherans were agreed D. S. said It had been the art of all the Hereticks from the Marcionites days to call for express Words of Scripture It was well known the Arrians set up their rest on this That their Doctrine was not condemned by express words of Scripture but that this was still rejected by the Catholick Church and that Theodoret had written a Book on purpose to prove the unreasonableness of this Challenge therefore he desired they would not insist on that which every body must see was not fair dealing and that they would take the Sixth Article entirely and so go to see if the other Article could not be proved from Scripture though it were not contained in express words M. B. Added that all the Fathers writing against the Arrians brought their proofs of the Consubstantiality of the Son from the Scriptures though it was not contained in the express words of any place And the Arrian Council that rejected the words Equisubstantial and Consubstantial gives that for the reason that they were not in the Scripture And that in the Council of Ephesus S. Cyril brought in many propositions against the Nestorians with a vast collection of places of Scripture to prove them by and though the quotations from Scripture contained not those propositions in express words yet the Council was satisfied from them and condemned the Nestorians Therefore it was most unreasonable and against the Practice of the Catholick Church to require express words of Scripture and that the Article was manifestly a disjunctive where we were to chuse whether of the two we would chuse either one or other S. P. T. said Or was not in the Article M. B. said Nor was a negative in a disjunctive proposition as Or was an affirmative and both came to the same meaning M. W. said That S. Austin charged the Heretick to read what he said in the Scripture M. B. said S. Austin could not make that a constant rule otherwise he must reject the Consubstantiality which he did so zealously assert though he might in disputing urge an Heretick with it on some other account D. S. said The Scripture was to deliver to us the Revelation of God in matters necessary to Salvation but it was an unreasonable thing to demand proofs for a negative in it for if the Roman Church have set up many Doctrines as Articles of Faith without proof from the Scriptures we had cause enough to reject these if there was no clear Proofs of them from Scripture but to require express words of Scripture for a Negative was as unjust as if Mahomet had said the Christians had no reason to reject him because there was no place in Scripture that called him an Impostor Since then the Roman Church had set up the Doctrine of Transubstantiation and the Sacrifice of the Mass without either express Scripture or good Proofs from it their Church had good cause to reject these M. W. said The Article they desired to be satisfied in was if he understood any thing a positive Article and not a negative M. B. said The positive Article was that Christ was received in the Holy Sacrament but because they had
Merits of Jesus Christ but that several things may concur in several orders or ways to produce the same effects so although we are pardoned and saved only through Jesus Christ yet without Holiness we shall never see God we must also suffer whatever Crosses he tries us with So that these in another sense procure the pardon of our sins and eternal salvation Thus in like manner the Prayers of the blessed Virgin and the Saints are great helps to our obtaining these therefore though these be all joyned together in the same Prayer yet it was an unjust Charge on their Church to say they make them equal in their value or efficiency M. B. said The thing he had chiefly excepted against in that Prayer was that these things are ascribed to the Merits of the blessed Virgin and the Saints Now he had only spoken of their Prayers and he appealed to all if the natural meaning of these words was not that he charged on them and the sense the other had offered was not forced M. C. said By Merits were understood Prayers which had force and merit with God M. B. said That could not be for in another Absolution in the Office of our Lady they pray for Remission of sins through the Merits and Prayers of the blessed Virgin so that by Merits must be meant somewhat else than their Prayers M. C. said That as by our Prayers on earth we help one anothers souls so by our giving alms for one another we might do the same so also the Saints in Heaven might be helpful to us by their Prayers and Merits And as soon as he had spoken this he got to his feet and said he was in great haste and much business lay on him that day but said to D. S. That when he pleased he would wait on him and discourse of the other particulars at more length D. S. assured him that whenever he pleased to appoint it he should be ready to give him a meeting And so he went away Then we all stood and talked to one another without any great order near half a hour the Discourse being chiefly about the Nags-head Fable D. S. appealed to the publick Registers and challenged the silence of all the Popish Writers all Queen Elizabeth's Reign when such a story was fresh and well known and if there had been any colour for it is it possible they could keep it up or conceal it S. P. T. said All the Registers were forged and that it was not possible to satisfie him in it no more than to prove he had not four fingers on his hand and being desired to read Dr. Bramhali's Book about it he said he had read it six times over and that it did not satisfie him M. B. asked him How could any matter of Fact that was a hundred years old be proved if the publick Registers and the instruments of publick Notaries were rejected and this the more that this being a matter of fact which could not be done in a corner nor escape the knowledge of their Adversaries who might have drawn great and just advantages from publishing and proving it yet that it was never so much as spoken of while that Race was alive is as â— an Evidence as can be that the Forgery was on the other side D. S. did clear the Objection from the Commission and Act of Parliament that it was only for making the Ordination legal in England since in Edw. 6. time the Book of Ordination was not joyned in the Record to the Book of Common-Prayer from whence Bishop Bonner took occasion to deny their Ordination as not according to Law and added that Saunders who in Queen Elizabeth's time denied the validity of our Ordination never alledged any such story But as we were talking freely of this M. W. said once or twice they were satisfied about the chief Design they had in that meeting to see if there could be alledged any place of Scripture to prove that Article about the blessed Sacrament and said somewhat that looked like the beginning of a Triumph Upon which D. S. desired all might sit down again that they might put that matter to an issue so a Bible was brought and D. S. being spent with much speaking desired M. B. to speak to it M. B. turned to the 6th Chap. of Iohn vers 54. and read these words Whose eateth my Flesh and drinketh my blood hath eternal Life and added These words were according to the common Interpretation of their Church to be understood of the sacramental Manducation This M. W. granted only M. B. had said all the Doctors understood these words so and M. W. said That all had not done so which M. B. did acknowledge but said it was the received Exposition in their Church and so framed his Argument Eternal Life is given to every one that receives Christ in the Sacrament But by Faith only we get eternal Life therefore by Faith only we receive Christ in the Sacrament Otherwise he said unworthy Receivers must be said to have eternal Life which is a contradiction for as such they are under Condemnation yet the unworthy Receivers have the external Manducation therefore that Manducation that gives eternal Life with it must be internal and spiritual and that is by Faith A Person whose Name I know not but shall henceforth mark him N. N. asked what M. B. meant by Faith only M. B. said By Faith he meant such a believing of the Gospel as carried along with it Evangelical Obedience by Faith only he meant Faith as opposite to sense D. S. asked him if we received Christ's Body and Blood by our Senses N. N. said we did D. S. asked which of the senses his Taste or Touch or Sight for that seemed strange to him N. N. said We received Christ's Body with our senses as well as we did the substance of Bread for our senses did not receive the substance of Bread and did offer some things to illustrate this both from the Aristotelian and Cartesian Hypothesis D. S. said He would not engage in that Subtlety which was a digression from the main Argument but he could not avoid to think it a strange Assertion to say we received Christ by our senses and yet to say he was so present there that none of our senses could possibly perceive him But to the main Argument M. W. denied the Minor that by Faith only we have eternal Life M. B. proved it thus The Sons of God have eternal Life but by Faith only we become the Sons of God therefore by Faith only we had eternal Life M. W. said Except he gave them both Major and Minor in express words of Scripture he would reject the Argument M. B. said That if he did demonstrate that both the Propositions of his Argument were in the strictest Construction possible equivalent to clear places of Scripture then his Proofs were good therefore he desired to know which of the two Propositions he should prove either that
the Sons of God have eternal Life or that by Faith only we are the Sons of God M. W. said He would admit of no consequences how clear soever they seemed unless he brought him the express words of Scripture and asked if his consequences were infallible D. S. said If the Consequence was certain it was sufficient and he desired all would take notice that they would not yield to clear Consequences drawn from Scripture which he thought and he believed all impartial People would be of his Mind was as great an advantage to any cause as could be desired So we laid aside that Argument being satisfied that the Article of our Church which they had called in question was clearly proved from Scripture Then N. N. insisted to speak of the corporal presence and desired to know upon what grounds we rejected it M. B. said If we have no better reason to believe Christ was corporally present in the Sacrament than the Jews had to believe that every time they did eat their Pascha the Angel was passing by their Houses and smiting the first born of the AEgyptians then we have no reason at all but so it is that we have no more reason N. N. denied this and said we had more reason M. B. said All the reason we had to believe it was because Christ said This is my body but Moses said of the Paschal festivity This is the Lords Passover which was always repeated by the Jews in that Anniversary Now the Lords Passover was the Lords passing by the Israelites when he slew the first born of AEgypt If then we will understand Christs words in the strictly literal sense we must in the same sense understand the words of Moses But if we understand the words of Moses in any other sense as the commemoration of the Lords Passover then we ought to understand Christs words in the same sense The reason is clear for Christ being to substitute this Holy Sacrament in room of the Jewish Pascha and he using in every thing as much as could agree with his blessed designs forms as near the Jewish Customs as could be there is no reason to think he did use the words this is my body in any other sense than the Jews did this is the Lords Passover N. N. said The disparity was great First Christ had promised before-hand he would give them his body Secondly It was impossible the Lamb could be the Lords Passover in the literal sense because an action that had been past some hundreds of years before could not be performed every time they did eat the Lamb but this is not so Thirdly The Jewish Church never understood these words literally but the Christian Church hath ever understood these words of Christ literally Nor is it to be imagined that a change in such a thing was possible for how could any such Opinion have crept in in any Age if it had not been the Doctrine of the former Age M. B. said Nothing he had alledged was of any force For the first Christ's promise imported no more than what he performed in the Sacramental institution If then it be proved that by saying This is my body he only meant a Commemoration his promise must only relate to his Death commemorated in the Sacrament To the second the literal meaning of Christ's words is as impossible as the literal meaning of Moses's words for besides all the other impossibilities that accompany this corporal Presence it is certain Christ gives us his body in the Sacrament as it was given for us and his Blood as it was shed for us which being done only on the Cross above 1600 years ago it is as impossible that should be literally given at every Consecration as it was that the Angel should be smiting the AEgyptians every Paschal Festivity And here was a great mistake they went on securely in that the body of Christ we receive in the Sacrament is the Body of Christ as he is now glorified in Heaven for by the words of the Institution it is clear that we receive his Body as it was given for us when his Blood was shed on the Cross which being impossible to be reproduced now we only can receive Christ by Faith For his third difference that the Christian Church ever understood Christ's words so we would willingly submit to the decision of the Church in the first six Ages Could any thing be more express than Theodoret who arguing against the Eutychians that the Humanity and Divinity of Christ were not confounded nor did depart from their own substance illustrates it from the Eucharist in which the Elements of Bread and Wine do not depart from their own Substance M. W. said We must examine the Doctrine of the Fathers not from some occasional mention they make of the Sacrament but when they treat of it on Design and with Deliberation But to Theodoret he would oppose S. Cyril of Ierusalem who in his fourth Mist. Catechism says expresly Though thou see it to be bread yet believe it is the Flesh and the Blood of the Lord Jesus doubt it not since he had said This is my Body And for a proof instances Christ's changing the Water into Wine D. S. said He had proposed a most excellent Rule for examining the Doctrine of the Fathers in this matter not to canvase what they said in eloquent and pious Treaties or Homilies to work on Peoples Devotion in which case it is natural for all Persons to use high Expressions but we are to seek the real sense of this Mystery when they are dogmatically treating of it and the other Mysteries of Religion where Reason and not Eloquence takes place If then it should appear that at the same time both a Bishop of Rome and Constantinople and one of the greatest Bishops in Africk did in asserting the Mysteries of Religion go downright against Transubstantiation and assert that the substance of the Bread and Wine did remain he hoped all would be satisfied the Fathers did not believe as they did M. W. desired we would then answer the Words of Cyril M. B. said It were a very unreasonable thing to enter into a verbal Dispute about the Passages of the Fathers especially the Books not being before us therefore he promised an Answer in Writing to the Testimony of S. Cyril But now the matter was driven to a point and we willingly undertook to prove that for eight or nine Centuries after Christ the Fathers did not believe Transubstantiation but taught plainly the contrary the Fathers generally call the Elements Bread and Wine after the Consecration they call them Mysteries Types Figures Symbols Commemorations and Signs of the body and blood of Christ They generally deliver that the wicked do not receive Christ in the Sacrament which shews they do not believe Transubstantiation All this we undertook to prove by undeniable Evidences within a very few days or weeks M. W. said He should be glad to see it D. S. said Now
Sacrament and so dies without it he may have everlasting Life therefore they must conclude that Christs Flesh may be eaten by Faith even without the Sacrament Again in the next verse he says Whoso eateth my Flesh and drinketh my Blood hath eternal Life These words must be understood in the same sense they had in the former verse they being indeed the reverse of it Therefore since there is no addition of worthily necessary to the fence of the former Verse neither is it necessary in this But it must be concluded Christ is here speaking of a thing without which none can have Life and by which all have Life therefore when ever Christs Flesh is eaten and his Blood is drunk which is most signally done in the Sacrament there eternal Life must accompany it and so these words must be understood even in relation to the Sacrament only of the spiritual Communicating by Faith As when it is said a man is a reasonable Creature though this is said of the whole man Body and Soul yet when we see that upon the Dissolution of Soul and Body no Reason or Life remains in the Body we from thence positively conclude the Reason is seated only in the Soul though the Body has Organs that are necessary for its Operations So when it is said we eat Christs Flesh and drink his Blood in the Sacrament which gives eternal Life there being two things in it the bodily eating and the spiritual communicating though the eating of Christs Flesh is said to be done in the worthy receiving which consists of these two yet since we may clearly see the bodily receiving may be without any such Effects we must conclude that the eating of Christs Flesh is only done by the inward Communicating though the other that is the bodily part be a divine Organ and conveyance of it And as Reason is seated only in the Soul so the eating of Christs Flesh must be only inward and spiritual and so the mean by which we receive Christ in the Supper is Faith All this is made much clearer by the words that follow my Flesh is Meat indeed and my blood is drink indeed Now Christs Flesh is so eaten as it is meat which I suppose none will question it being a prosecution of the same discourse Now it is not meat as taken by the Body for they cannot be so gross as to say Christs Flesh is the Meat of our Body therefore since his Flesh is only the Meat of the Soul and spiritual Nourishment it is only eaten by the Soul and so received by Faith Christ also says He that eateth my flesh and drinks my blood dwells in him and he in him This is the definition of that eating and drinking he had been speaking of so that such as is the dwelling in him such also must be the eating of him the one therefore being spiritual inward and by faith the other must be such also And thus it is as plain as can be from the words of Christ that he spake not of a carnal or corporal but of a spiritual eating of his Flesh by Faith All this is more confirmed by the Key our Saviour gives of his whole Discourse when the Iews were offended for the hardness of his sayings It is the Spirit that quickneth or giveth the Life he had been speaking of the flesh profiteth nothing the words I speak unto you are spirit and they are Life From which it is plain he tells them to understand his words of a spiritual Life and in a spiritual manner But now I shall examine N. N. his Reasons to the contrary His chief Argument is that when eternal Life is promised upon the giving of Alms or other good Works we must necessarily understand it with this Proviso that they were given with a good intention and from a good Principle therefore we must understand these words of our Saviour to have some such Proviso in them All this concludes nothing It is indeed certain when any promise is past upon an external Action such a reserve must be understood And so St. Paul tells us if he bestowed all his goods to feed the Poor and had no Charity it profited him nothing And if it were clear our Saviour were here speaking of an external action I should acknowledge such a proviso must be understood but that is the thing in question and I hope I have made it appear Our Saviour is speaking of an internal action and therefore no such proviso is to be supposed For he is speaking of that eating of his Flesh which must necessarily and certainly be worthily done and so that objection is of no force He must therefore prove that the eating his Flesh is primarily and simply meant of the bodily eating in the Sacrament and not only by a denomination from a Relation to it as the whole man is called reasonable though the reason is seated in the Soul only What he says to shew that by Faith only we are not the Sons of God since by Baptism also we are the Sons of God is not to the purpose for the design of the Argument was to prove that by Faith only we are the Sons of God so as to be the Heirs of eternal Life Now the Baptism of the adult for our debate runs upon those of ripe years and understanding makes them only externally and Sacramentally the Sons of God for the inward and vital Sonship follows only upon Faith And this Faith must be understood of such a lively and operative Faith as includes both repentance and amendment of Life So that when our Saviour says he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved that believing is a complex of all evangelical Graces from which it appears that none of his Reasons are of force enough to conclude that the universality of these words of Christ ought to be so limited and restricted For what remains of that which he desired might be taken notice of that we ought to prove that Christs Body and Blood was present in the Sacrament only spiritually and not corporally by express Scriptures or by Arguments whereof the Major and Minor were either express words of Scripture or equivalent to them it has no force at all in it I have in a full discourse examined all that is in the Plea concerning the express words of Scripture and therefore shall say nothing upon that head referring the Reader to what he will meet with on that Subject afterwards But here I only desire the Reader may consider our Contest in this particular is concerning the true meaning of our Saviours words This is my body in which it is very absurd to ask for express words of Scripture to prove that meaning by For if that be setled on as a necessary method of proof then when other Scriptures are brought to prove that to be the meaning of these words it may be asked how can we prove the true meaning of that place we bring to prove the
that is nourished by the Body and Blood of Christ and is made His Member We hope it will be observed that as these Words are express and formal so the Design on which He uses them will admit of none of those Distinctions they commonly rely on Tertullian says Lib. de Resur c. 8. the Flesh is fed with the Body and Blood of Christ. St. Austin Serm. 9. de Divers after he had called the Eucharist our daily Bread he exhorts us so to receive it that not only our Bellies but our Minds might be refreshed by it Isidore of Sevil says The substance of the visible Bread nourishes the outward Man or as Bertram cites his Words all that we receive externally in the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ is proper to refresh the Body Next let us see what the 16th Council of Toledo says in Anno 633. condemning those that did not offer in the Eucharist entire Loaves but only round Crusts they did appoint one entire Loaf carefully prepared to be set on the Altar that it might be sanctified by the Priestly Benediction and order that what remained after Communion should be either put in some Bag or if it was needful to eat it up that it might not oppress the Belly of him that took it with the burden of an heavy surcharge and that it might not go to the Digestion but that it might feed his Soul with spiritual Nourishment From which Words one of two Consequences will necessarily follow either that the Consecrated Elements do really nourish the Body which we intend to prove from them or that the Body of Christ is not in the Elements but as they are Sacramentally used which we acknowledg many of the Fathers believed But the last Words we cited of the Spiritual Nourishment shew those Fathers did not think so and if they did we suppose those we deal with will see that to believe Christ's Body is only in the Elements when used will clearly leave the Charge of Idolatry on that Church in their Processions and other Adorations of the Host. But none is so express as Origen Comment in Mat. c. 15. who on these words 'T is not that which enters within a Man which defiles a Man says If every thing that enters by the Mouth goes into the Belly and is cast into the Draught then the Food that is sanctified by the Word of God and by Prayer goes also to the Belly as to what is material in it and from thence to the Draught but by the Prayer that was made over it it is useful in proportion to our Faith and is the mean that the Understanding is clear-sighted and attentive to that which is profitable and it is not the matter of Bread but the Word pronounced over it which profits him that does not eat in a way unworthy of our Lord. This Doctrine of the Sacraments being so digested that some parts of it turned to Excrement was likewise taught by divers Latin Writers in the 9th Age as Rabanus Maurus Arch-bishop of Mentz and Heribald Bishop of Auxerre Divers of the Greek Writers did also hold it whom for a Reproach their Adversaries called Stercoranists It is true other Greek Fathers were not of Origen's Opinion but believed that the Eucharist did entirely turn into the Substance of our Bodies So Cyril of Ierusalem says Mystic Catech. 5. that the Bread of the Eucharist does not go into the Belly nor is cast into the Draught but is distributed thorough the whole Substance of the Communicant for the good of Body and Soul The Homily of the Eucharist in a Dedication that is in St. Chrysostom's Works Tom. 5. says Do not think that this is Bread and that this is Wine for they pass not to the Draught as other Victuals do And comparing it to Wax put to the Fire of which no Ashes remain he adds So think that the Mâ—teries are consumed with the Substance of our Bodies Iohn Damascene is of the same mind who says Lib. 4. de Orthod fide c. 14. That the Body and the Blood of Christ passes into the Consistence of our Souls and Bodies without being consumed corrupted or passing into the Draught God forbid but passing into our Substance for our Conservation Thus it will appear that tho those last-cited Fathers did not believe as Origen did that any part of the Eucharist went to the Draught yet they thought it was turned into the Substance of our Bodies from which we may well conclude they thought the Substance of Bread and Wine remained in the Eucharist after the Consecration and that it nourished our Bodies And thus we hope we have sufficiently proved our first Proposition in all its three Branches So leaving it we go on to the second Proposition which is That the Fathers call the consecrated Elements the Figures the Signs the Symbols the Types and Antitypes the Commemoration Representation the Mysteries and the Sacraments of the Body and Blood of Christ. Tertullian proving against Marcion Lib. 4 cont Marc. c. 40. that Christ had a real Body he brings some Figures that were fulfilled in Christ and says He made the Bread which he took and gave his Disciples to be his Body saying This is my Body that is the Figure of my Body but it had not been a Figure of his Body had it not been true for an empty thing such as a Phantasm cannot have a Figure Now had Tertullian and the Church in his time believed Transubstantiation it had been much more pertinent for him to have argued Here is corporally present Christ's Body therefore he had a true Body than to say Here is a Figure of his Body therefore he had a true Body such an escape as this is not incident to a Man of common Sense if he had believed Transubstantiation And the same Father in two other places before cited says Christ gave the Figure of his Body to the Bread and that he represented his own Body by the Bread St. Austin says Com. in Psal. 3 He commended and gave to his Disciples the Figure of his Body and Blood The same Expressions are also in Bede Alcuine and Druthmar that lived in the Eighth and Ninth Centuries But what St. Austin says elsewhere Lib. 3. de Doct. Chr. c. 16. is very full in this matter where treating of the Rules by which we are to judg what Expressions in Scripture are figurative and what not he gives this for one Rule If any place seem to command a Crime or horrid Action it is figurative and to instance it cites these words Except ye eat the Flesh and drink the Blood of the Son of Man you have no Life in you which says he seems to command some Crime or horrid Action therefore it is a Figure commanding us to communicate in the Passion of our Lord and sweetly and profitably to lay up in our Memory that his Flesh was crucified and wounded for us Which words are so express and full that whatever
those we deal with may think of them we are sure we cannot devise how any one could have delivered our Doctrine more formally Parallel to these are Origen's words Homil. 7. in Lev. who calls the understanding the Words of our Saviour of eating his Flesh and drinking his Blood according to the Letter a Letter that kills The same St. Austin calls the Eucharist a Sign of Christ's Body in his Book against Adimantus Lib. cont Adimant manich c. 12. who studied to prove that the Author of the Old and New Testament was not the same God and among other Arguments he uses this That Blood in the Old Testament is called the Life or Soul contrary to the New Testament To which St. Austin answers That it was so called not that it was truly the Soul or Life but the Sign of it and to shew that the Sign does sometimes bear the Name of that whereof it is a Sign he says Our Lord did not doubt to say This is my Body when he was giving the Sign of his Body Where if he had not believed the Eucharist was substantially different from his Body it had been the most impertinent Illustration that ever was and had proved just against him that the Sign must be one and the same with that which is signified by it For the Sacrament being called the Type the Antitype the Symbol and Mystery of Christ's Body and Blood The ancient Liturgies and Greek Fathers use these Phrases so frequently that since it is not so much as denied we judg we need not laboriously prove it Therefore we pass over this believing it will be granted for if it be denied we undertake to prove them to have been used not only on some occasions but to have been the constant Style of the Church Now that Types Antitypes Symbols and Mysteries are distinct from that which they shadow forth and mystically hold out we believe can be as little disputed In this Sense all the Figures of the Law are called Types of Christ by the Fathers and both the Baptismal Water and the Chrism are called Symbols and Mysteries And tho there was not that occasion for the Fathers to discourse on Baptism so oft which every body received but once and was administred ordinarily but on a few days of the Year as they had to speak of the Eucharist which was daily consecrated so that it cannot be imagined there should be near such a number of places about the one as about the other yet we fear not to undertake to prove there be many places among the Ancients that do as fully express a change of the Baptismal Water as of the Eucharistical Elements From whence it may appear that their great Zeal to prepare Persons to a due value of these holy Actions and that they might not look on them as a vulgar Ablution or an ordinary Repast carried them to many large and high Expressions which cannot bear a literal meaning And since they with whom we deal are fain to fly to Metaphors and Allegories for clearing of what the Fathers say of Baptism it is a most unreasonable thing to complain of us for using such Expositions of what they say about the Eucharist But that we may not leave this without some Proof we shall set down the words of Facundus Desens Conc. Chalced. lib. 9. who says The Sacrament of Adoption that is Baptism may be called Adoption as the Sacrament of his Body and Blood which is in the consecrated Bread and Cup is called his Body and Blood not that the Bread is properly his Body or the Cup properly his Blood but because they contain in them the Mystery of his Body and Blood and hence it was that our Lord called the Bread that was blessed and the Cup which he gave his Disciples his Body and Blood Therefore as the Believers in Christ when they receive the Sacrament of his Body and Blood are rightly said to have received his Body and Blood so Christ when he received the Sacrament of the Adoption of Sons may be rightly said to have received the Adoption of Sons And we leave every one to gather from these words if the cited Father could believe Transubstantiation and if he did not think that Baptism was as truly the Adoption of the Sons of God as the Eucharist was his Body and Blood which these of Rome acknowledg is only to be meant in a moral Sense That the Fathers called this Sacrament the Memorial and Representation of the Death of Christ and of his Body that was broken and his Blood that was shed we suppose will be as little denied for no Man that ever looked into any of their Treatises of the Eucharist can doubt of it St. Austin says Epist. 23. ad Bonifac. That Sacraments must have some Similitude of these things of which they be the Sacraments otherwise they could not be Sacraments So he says the Sacrament of the Body of Christ is after some manner his Blood So the Sacrament of Faith that is Baptism is Faith But more expresly speaking of the Eucharist as a Sacrifice of Praise he says Lib. 20. cont Faust. Manich. c. 21. The Flesh and Blood of this Sacrifice was promised before the coming of Christ by the Sacrifices of the Types of it In the Passion of Christ it was done in the Truth it self And after his Ascent is celebrated by the Sacrament of the remembrance of it But he explains this more fully on the 98th Psalm where he having read ver 5. Worship his Footstool and seeking for its true meaning expounds it of Christ's Body who was Flesh of this Earth and gives his Flesh to be eaten by us for our Salvation which since none eats except he have first adored it He makes this the Footstool which we worship without any Sin and do sin if we do not worship it So far the Church of Rome triumphs with this place But let us see what follows where we shall find that which will certainly abate their Joy He goes on and tells us not to dwell on the Flesh lest we be not quickened by the Spirit and shews how they that heard our Lord's words were scandalized at them as hard words for they understood them says he foolishly and carnally and thought he was to have cut off some parcels of his Body to be given them But they were hard not our Lord 's saying for had they been meek and not hard they should have said within themselves He says not this without a cause but because there is some Sacrament hid there for had they come to him with his Disciples and asked him he had instructed them For he said it is the Spirit that quickens the Flesh profiteth nothing the words that I have spoken to you are Spirit and Life And adds understand spiritually that which I have said for it is not this Body which you see that you are not to eat or to drink this Blood which they are to shed who shall crucify
any account of them as being Fallible and Uncertain and so they can never secure us from Error nor be a just ground to found our Faith of any Proposition so proved upon Therefore no Proposition thus proved can be acknowledged an Article of Faith This is the breadth and length of their Plea which we shall now examine And first If there be any Strength in this Plea it will conclude against our submitting to the express Words of Scripture as forcibly Since all words how formal soever are capable of several Expositions Either they are to be understood literally or figuratively either they are to be understood positively or interrogatively With a great many other Varieties of which all Expressions are capable So that if the former Argument have any force since every place is capable of several meanings except we be infallibly sure which is the true meaning we ought by the same parity of Reason to make no account of the most express and formal Words of Scripture from which it is apparent that what noise soever these Men make of express Words of Scripture yet if they be true to their own Argument they will as little submit to these as to Deductions from Scripture Since they have the same Reason to question the true meaning of a place that they have to reject an Inference and Deduction from it And this alone may serve to satisfy every body that this is a Trick under which there lies no fair dealing at all But to answer the Argument to all Mens Satisfaction we must consider the Nature of the Soul which is a reasonable Being whose chief Faculty is to discern the Connexion of things and to draw out such Inferences as flow from that Connexion Now though we are liable to great Abuses both in our Judgments and Inferences yet if we apply thefe Faculties with due care we must certainly acquiesce in the result of such reasonings otherwise this being God's Image in us and the Standard by which we are to try things God has given us a false Standard which when we have with all possible care managed yet we are still exposed to Fallacies and Errors This must needs reflect on the Veracity of that God that has made us of such a Nature that we can never be reasonably assured of any thing Therefore it must be acknowledged that when our Reasons are well prepared according to those eternal Rules of Purity and Vertue by which we are fitted to consider of Divine Matters and when we carefully weigh things we must have some certain means to be assured of what appears to us And though we be not Infallible so that it is still possible for us by Precipitation or undue Preparation to be abused into Mistakes yet we may be well assured that such Connexions and Inferences as appear to us certain are infallibly true If this be not acknowledged then all our Obligation to believe any thing in Religion will vanish For that there is a God That he made all things and is to be acknowledged and obeyed by his Creatures That our Souls shall out-live their Union with our Bodies and be capable of Rewards and Punishments in another state That Inspiration is a thing possible That such or such Actions were above the Power of Nature and were really performed In a word all the Maxims on which the belief either of Natural Religion or Revealed is founded are such as we can have no certainty about them and by consequence are not obliged to yield to them if our Faculty of reasoning in its clear Deductions is not a sufficient Warrant for a sure belief But to examin a little more home their beloved Principle that their Church cannot err Must they not prove this from the Divine Goodness and Veracity from some Passages of Scripture from Miracles and other extraordinary things they pretend do accompany their Church Now in yielding assent to this Doctrine upon these Proofs the Mind must be led by many Arguments through a great many Deductions and Inferences Therefore we are either certain of these Deductions or we are not If we are certain this must either be founded on the Authority of the Church expounding them or on the strength of the Arguments Now we being to examine this Authority not having yet submitted to it this cannot determine our Belief till we see good Cause for it But in the discerning this good Cause of believing the Church Infallible they must say that an uncontroulable evidence of Reason is ground enough to fix our Faith on or there can be no certain ground to believe the Church Infallible So that it is apparent we must either receive with a firm persuasion what our Souls present to us as uncontroulably true or else we have no reason to believe there is a God or to be Christians or to be as they would have us Romanists And if it be acknowledged there is cause in some Cases for us to be determined by the clear evidence of Reason in its Judgments and Inferences Then we have this Truth gained that our Reasons are capable of making true and certain Inferences and that we have good Cause to be determined in our Belief by these and therefore Inferences from Scripture ought to direct our Belief Nor can any thing be pretended against this but what must at the same time overthrow all Knowledg and Faith and turn us sceptical to every thing We desire it be in the next place considered what is the end and use of Speech and Writing which is to make known our Thoughts to others those being artificial signs for conveying them to the understanding of others Now every Man that speaks pertinently as he designs to be understood so he chooses such Expressions and Arguments as are most proper to make himself understood by those he speaks to and the clearer he speaks he speaks so much the better And every one that wraps up his meaning in obscure words he either does not distinctly apprehend that about which he discourses or does not design that those to whom he speaks should understand him meaning only to amuse them If likewise he say any thing from which some absurd Inference will easily be apprehended he gives all that hear him a sufficient ground of Prejudice against what he says For he must expect that as his Hearers senses receive his Words or Characters so necessarily some Figure or Notion must be at thâ— same time imprinted on their Imagination or presented to their Reason this being the end for which he speaks and the more genuinely that his words express his meaning the more certainly and clearly they to whom he directs them apprehend it It must also be acknowledged that all Hearers must necessarily pass Judgments on what they hear if they do think it of that importance as to examin it And this they must do by that natural Faculty of making Judgments and Deductions the certainty whereof we have proved to be the Foundation of
all Faith and Knowledg Now the chief Rule of making true Judgments is to see what Consequences certainly follow on what is laid before us If these be found absurd or impossible we must reject that from which they follow as such Further because no Man says every thing that can be thought or said to any Point but only such things as may be the Seeds of further Enquiry and Knowledg in their Minds to whom he speaks when any thing of great Importance is spoken all Men do naturally consider what Inferences arise out of what is said by a necessary Connexion And if these Deductions be made with due care they are of the same force and must be as true as that was from which they are drawn These being some of the Laws of Converse which every Man of common Sense must know to be true can any Man think that when God was revealing by inspired Men his Counsels to Mankind in Matters that concerned their eternal Happiness he would do it in any other way than any honest Man speaks to another that is plainly and dinstinctly There were particular Reasons why Prophetical Visions must needs be obscure but when Christ appeared on Earth tho many things were not to be fully opened till he had triumphed over Death and the Powers of Darkness yet his design being to bring Men to God what he spoke in order to that we must think he intended that they to whom he spake it might understand it otherwise why should he have spoken it to them And if he did intend they should understand him then he must have used such Expressions as were most proper for conveying this to their Understandings and yet they were of the meaner sort and of very ordinary Capacities to whom he addressed his Discourses If then such as they were might have understood him how should it come about that now there should be such a wondrous Mysteriousness in the Words of Christ and his Apostles For the same Reason by which it is proved that Christ designed to be understood and spake sutably to that design will conclude as strongly that the Discourses of the Apostles in Matters that concern our Salvation are also intelligible We have a perfect understanding of the Greek Tongue and tho some Phrases are not so plain to us which alter every Age and some other Passages that relate to some Customs Opinions or Forms of which we have no perfect Account left us are hard to be understood Yet what is of general and universal concern may be as well understood now as it was then for Sense is Sense still So that it must be acknowledged that Men may still understand all that God will have us believe and do in order to Salvation And therefore if we apply and use our Faculties aright joyning with an unprejudiced desire and search for Truth earnest Prayers that God by his Grace may so open our Understandings and present Divine Truths to them that we may believe and follow them Then both from the nature of our own Souls and from the design and end of Revelation we may be well assured that it is not only very possible but also very easy for us to find out Truth We know the pompous Objection against this is How comes it then that there are so many Errors and Divisions among Christians especially those that pretend the greatest Acquaintance with Scriptures To which the Answer is so obvious and plain that we wonder any body should be wrought on by so fallacious an Argument Does not the Gospel offer Grace to all Men to lead holy Lives following the Commandments of God And is not Grace able to build them up and make them perfect in every good Word and Work And yet how does Sin and Vice abound in the World If then the abounding of Error proves the Gospel does not offer certain ways to preserve us from it then the abounding of Sin will also prove there are no certain ways in the Gospel to avoid it Therefore as the Sins Mankind generally live in leave no Imputation on the Gospel so neither do the many Heresies and Schisms conclude that the Gospel offers no certain ways of attaining the Knowledg of all necessary Truth Holiness is every whit as necessary to see the Face of God as Knowledg is and of the two is the more necessary since low degrees of Knowledg with an high measure of Holiness are infinitely preferable to high degrees of Knowledg with a low measure of Holiness If then every Man have a sufficient help given him to be holy why may we not much rather conclude he has a sufficient help to be knowing in such things as are necessary to direct his Belief and Life which is a less thing And how should it be an Imputation on Religion that there should not be an infallible way to end all Controversies when there is no infallible way to subdue the corrupt Lusts and Passions of Men since the one is more opposite to the Design and Life of Religion than the other In sum there is nothing more sure than that the Scriptures offer us as certain ways of attaining the Knowledg of what is necessary to Salvation as of doing the Will of God But as the depravation of our Natures makes us neglect the Helps towards an holy Life so this and our other Corruptions Lusts and Interests make us either not to discern Divine Truth or not embrace it So that Error and Sin are the Twins of the same Parents But as every Man that improves his natural Powers and implores and makes use of the Supplies of the Divine Grace shall be enabled to serve God acceptably so that tho he fail in many things yet he continuing to the end in an habit and course of well-doing his Sins shall be forgiven and himself shall be saved So upon the same grounds we are assured that every one that applies his rational Faculties to the search of Divine Truth and also begs the Illumination of the Divine Spirit shall attain such Knowledg as is necessary for his eternal Salvation And if he be involved in any Errors they shall not be laid to his charge And from these we hope it will appear that every Man may attain all necessary Knowledg if he be not wanting to himself Now when a Man attains this Knowledg he acquires it and must use it as a rational Being and so must make Judgments upon it and draw Consequences from it in which he has the same Reason to be assured that he has to know the true meaning of Scripture and therefore as he has very good Reason to reject any meaning of a place of Scripture from which by a necessary Consequence great Absurdities and Impossibilities must follow So also he is to gather such Inferences as flow from a Necessary Connexion with the true meaning of any place of Scripture To instance this in the Argument we insisted on to prove the mean by which Christ is received
in the Sacrament is Faith from these words Whoso eats my Flesh and drinks my Blood hath eternal Life If these words have relation to the Sacrament which the Roman Church declares is the true meaning of them there cannot be a clearer Demonstration in the World And indeed they are necessitated to stand to that Exposition for if they will have the words This is my Body to be understood literally much more must they assert the Phrases of èating his Flesh and drinking his Blood must be literal for if we can drive them to allow a figurative and spiritual meaning of these words it is a shameless thing for them to deny such a meaning of the words This is my Body they then expounding these words of St. Iohn of the Sacrament there cannot be imagined a closer Contexture than this which follows The eating Christ's Flesh and drinking his Blood is the receiving him in the Sacrament therefore every one that receives him in the Sacrament must have eternal Life Now all that is done in the Sacrament is either the external receiving the Elements Symbols or as they phrase it the Accidents of Bread and Wine and under these the Body of Christ or the internal and spiritual communicating by Faith If then Christ received in the Sacrament gives eternal Life it must be in one of these ways either as he is received externally or as he is received internally or both for there is not a fourth Therefore if it be not the one at all it must be the other only Now it is undeniable that it is not the external eating that gives eternal Life For St. Paul tells us of some that eat and drink unworthily that are guilty of the Body and Blood of the Lord and eat and drink Iudgment against themselves Therefore it is only the internal receiving of Christ by Faith that gives eternal Life from which another necessary Inference directs us also to conclude that since all that eat his Flesh and drink his Blood have eternal Life and since it is only by the internal communicating that we have eternal Life therefore these words of eating his Flesh and drinking his Blood can only be understood of internal communicating therefore they must be spiritually understood But all this while the Reader may be justly weary of so much Time and Pains spent to prove a thing which carries its own Evidence so with it that it seems one of the first Principles and Foundations of all Reasoning for no Proposition can appear to us to be true but we must also assent to every other Deduction that is drawn out of it by a certain Inference If then we can certainly know the true meaning of any place of Scripture we may and ought to draw all such Conclusions as follow it with a clear and just Consequence and if we clearly apprehend the Consequence of any Proposition we can no more doubt the Truth of the Consequence than of the Proposition from which it sprung For if I see the Air full of a clear Day-light I must certainly conclude the Sun is risen and I have the same assurance about the one that I have about the other There is more than enough said already for discovering the vanity and groundlesness of this Method of arguing But to set the thing beyond all dispute let us consider the use which we find our Saviour and the Apostles making of the Old Testament and see how far it favours us and condemns this Appeal to the formal and express words of Scriptures But before we advance further we must remove a Prejudice against any thing may be drawn from such Presidents these being Persons so filled with God and Divine Knowledg as appeared by their Miracles and other wonderful Gifts that gave so full an Authority to all they said and of their being Infallible both in their Expositions and Reasonings that we whose Understandings are darkened and disordered ought not to pretend to argue as they did But for clearing this it is to be observed that when any Person divinely assisted having sufficiently proved his Inspiration declares any thing in the Name of God we are bound to submit to it or if such a Person by the same Authority offers any Exposition of Scripture he is to be believed without farther dispute But when an inspired Person argues with any that does not acknowledg his Inspiration but is enquiring into it not being yet satisfied about it then he speaks no more as an inspired Person In which case the Argument offered is to be examined by the Force that is in it and not by the Authority of him that uses it For his Authority being the thing questioned if he offers an Argument from any thing already agreed to and if the Argument be not good it is so far from being the better by the Authority of him that useth it that it rather gives just ground to lessen or suspect his Authority that understands a Consequence so ill as to use a bad Argument to use it by This being premised When our Saviour was to prove against the Sadducees the Truth of the Resurrection from the Scriptures he cites out of the Law that God was the God of Abraham Isaac and Jacob since then God is not the God of the Dead but of the Living Therefore Abraham Isaac and Jacob did live unto God From which he proved the Souls having a Being distinct from the Body and living after its Separation from the Body which was the principal Point in Controversy Now if these new Maxims be of any force so that we must only submit to the express words of Scripture without proving any thing by Consequence then certainly our Saviour performed nothing in that Argument For the Sadducees might have told him they appealed to the express words of Scripture But alas they understood not these new-found Arts but submitting to the evident force of that Consequence were put to silence and the Multitudes were astonished at his Doctrine Now it is unreasonable to imagine that the great Authority of our Saviour and his many Miracles made them silent for they coming to try him and to take advantage from every thing he said if it were possible to lessen his Esteem and Authority would never have acquiesced in any Argument because he used it if it had not Strength in it self for an ill Argument is an ill Argument use it whoso will For instance If I see a Man pretending that he sits in an Infallible Chair and proving what he delievers by the most impertinent Allegations of Scripture possible as if he attempt to prove the Pope must be the Head of all Powers Civil and Spiritual from the first words of Genesis where it being said In the Beginning and not in the Beginnings in the plural from which he concludes there must be but one Beginning and Head of all Power to wit the Pope I am so far from being put to silence with this that I am only astonished
Tertullian says Lib. 4. cont Marc. c. 40. Christ calls the Bread his Body and a little after he names the Bread his Body Isidore Hispal says Orig. lib. 6. c. 9. We call this after his Command the Body and Blood of Christ which being made of the Fruits of the Earth is sanctified and made a Sacrament Theodoret says Dialog 1. In the giving of the Mysteries Christ called the Bread his Body and the mixed Cup his Blood And says Dialog 1. He who called his Natural Body Corn and Bread and also calls himself a Vine likewise honoured these visible Symbols with the names of his Body and Blood But we now go to bring our Proofs for the next Branch of our first Proposition in which we assert That the Fathers believed that the very Substance of the Bread and Wine did remain after the Consecration By which all the Proofs brought in the former Branch will receive a further Evidence since by these it will appear the Fathers believed the Substance of the Elements remained and thence we may well conclude that wherever we find mention made of Bread and Wine after Consecration they mean of the Substance and not of the Accidents of Bread and Wine For proof of this we shall only bring the Testimonies of four Fathers that lived almost within one Age and were the greatest Men of the Age. Their Authority is as generally received as their Testimonies are formal and decisive And these are Pope Gelasius St. Chrysostom Ephrem Patriarch of Antioch and Theodoret whom we shall find delivering to us the Doctrine of the Church in their Age with great Consideration upon a very weighty Occasion So that it shall appear that this was for that Age the Doctrine generally received both in the Churches of Rome and Constantinople Antioch and Asia the less We shall begin with Gelasius who though he lived later than some of the others yet because of the Eminence of his See and the Authority those we deal with must needs acknowledge was in him ought to be set first He says in lib. de duab nat Christ. The Sacraments of the Body and Blood of Christ are a Divine thing for which reason we become by them Partakers of the Divine Nature and yet the Substance or Nature of Bread and Wine does not cease to be and the Image and Likeness of the Body and Blood of Christ are indeed celebrated in the action of the Mysteries therefore it appears evidently enough that we ought to think that of Christ our Lord which we profess and celebrate and receive in his Image that as they to wit the Elements pass into that Divine Substance the Holy Ghost working it their Nature remaining still in its own Property So that principal Mystery whose Efficiency and Virtue these to wit the Sacraments represent to us remains one entire and true Christ those things of which he is compounded to wit his two Natures remaining in their Properties These words seem so express and decisive that one would think the bare reading them without any further Reflections should be of force enough But before we offer any Considerations upon them we shall set down other Passages of the other Fathers and upon them altogether make such Remarks as we hope may satisfy any that will hear Reason St. Chrysostom treating of the two Natures of Christ against the Apollinarists Epist. ad Caesar. monach who did so confound them as to consubstantiate them he makes use of the Doctrine of the Sacrament to illustrate that Mystery by in these Words As before the Bread is sanctified we call it Bread but when the Divine Grace has sanctified it by the mean of the Priest it is freed from the name of Bread and is thought worthy of the name of the Lord's Body though the Nature of Bread remains in it and yet it is not said there are two Bodies but one Body of the Son so the Divine Nature being joyned to the Body both these make one Son and one Person Next this Patriarch of Constantinople let us hear Ephrem the Patriarch of Antioch give his Testimony as it is preserved by Photius Cod. 229. who says thus In like manner having before treated of the two Natures united in Christ the Body of Christ which is received by the Faithful does not depart from its sensible Substance and yet remains inseparated from the Intellectual Grace So Baptism becoming wholly Spiritual and one it preserves its own sensible Substance and does not lose that which it was before To these we shall add what Theodoret Dialog 1. on the same occasion says against those who from that place the Word was made Flesh believed that in the Incarnation the Divinity of the Word was changed into the Humanity of the Flesh. He brings in his Heretick arguing about some Mystical Expressions of the Old Testament that related to Christ At length he comes to shew how Christ called himself Bread and Corn so also in the delivering the Mysteries Christ called the Bread his Body and the mixed Cup his Blood and our Saviour changed the Names calling his Body by the name of the Symbol and the Symbol by the name of his Body And when the Heretick asks the reason why the Names were so changed the Orthodox answers That it was manifest to such as were initiated in Divine things for he would have those who partake of the Mysteries not look to the Nature of those things that were seen but by the Change of the names to believe that Change that was made through Grace for he who called his Natural Body Corn and Bread does likewise honour the visible Symbols with the name of his Body and Blood not changing the Nature but adding Grace to Nature And so goes on to ask his Heretick whether he thought the holy Bread was the Symbol and Type of his Divinity or of his Body and Blood And the other acknowledging they were the Symbols of his Body and Blood He concludes that Christ had a true Body The second Dialogue is against the Eutychians who believed that after Christ's Assumption his Body was swallowed up by his Divinity And there the Eutychian brings an Argument to prove that Change from the Sacrament it being granted that the Gifts before the Priest's Prayer were Bread and Wine He asks how it was to be called after the Sanctification the Orthodox answers the Body and Blood of Christ and that he believed he received the Body and Blood of Christ. From thence the Heretick as having got a great advantage argues That as the Symbols of the Body and Blood of our Lord were one thing before the Priestly Invocation and after that were changed and are different from what they were So the Body of our Lord after the Assumption was changed into the Divine Substance But the Orthodox replies that he was catched in the Net he laid for others for the Mystical Symbols after the Sanctification do not depart from their own Nature for they continue in