in a sense that was common to that Nation And from all these set together we are confident we have a great deal of Reason and strong and convincing Authorities from the Scriptures to prove Christ's words This is my Body are to be understood spiritually mystically and sacramentally There remains only to be considered what weight there is in what N. N. says He answered to D. S. That Christ might be received by our senses though not perceived by any of them as a bole is swallowed over though our taste does not relish or perceive it That Great Man is so very well furnished with Reason and Learning to justifie all he says that no other body needs interpose on his account But he being now busie it was not worth the giving him the trouble to ask how he would reply upon so weak an Answer since its shallowness appears at the first view for is there any comparison to be made between an Object that all my senses may perceive if I have a mind to it that I see with mine eyes and touch and feel in my mouth and if it be too big and my Throat too narrow I will feel stick there but only to guard against its offensive taste I so wrap or convey it that I relish nothing ungrateful in it and the receiving Christ with my senses when yet none of them either do or can though applied with all possible care discern him So that it appears D. S. had very good reason to say it seemed indeed strange to him to say that Christ was received by our senses and yet was so present that none of our senses can perceive him and this Answer to it is but mere trifling Here follows the Paper we promised wherein an Account is given of the Doctrine of the Church for the first Eight Centuries in the point of the Sacrament which is demonstrated to be contrary to Transubstantiation written in a Letter to my Lady T. Madam YOur Ladiship may remember That our Meeting at your House on the Third Instant ended with a Promise we made of sending you such an account of the sense of the Fathers for the first six Ages as might sufficiently satisfie every impartial Person That they did not believe Transubstantiation This Promise we branched out in three Propositions first That the Fathers did hold That after the Consecration the Elements of Bread and Wine did remain unchanged in their substance The second was that after the Consecration they called the Elements the Types the Antitypes the Mysteries the Symbols the Signs the Figures and the Commemorations of the body and blood of Christ which certainly will satisfie every unprejudiced Person That they did not think the Bread and Wine were annihilated and that in their room and under their accidents the substance of the body and blood of Christ was there Thirdly we said That by the Doctrine of the Fathers the unworthy Receivers got not the body and the blood of Christ from which it must necessarily follow That the substance of his body and blood is not under the accidents of Bread and Wine otherwise all these that unworthily receive them eat Christ's body and blood Therefore to discharge our selves of our Promise we shall now give your Ladiship such an account of the Doctrine of the Fathers on these Heads as we hope shall convince those Gentlemen that we had a good warrant for what we said The first Proposition is The Fathers believed that after the Consecration the Elements were still Bread and Wine The Proofs whereof we shall divide into three branches The first shall be That after the Consecration they usually called them Bread and Wine Secondly That they expresly assert that the substance of Bread and Wine remained Thirdly That they believed the Sacramental Bread and Wine did nourish our bodies For proof of the first we desire the following Testimonies be considered Iustin Martyr says These who are called Deacons distribute the blessed Bread and Wine and Water to such as are present and carry it to the absents and this nourishment is by us called the Eucharist And a little after We do not receive these as common Bread or common Drink for as by the word of God Iesus Christ our Saviour being made Flesh had both Flesh and Blood for our Salvation so we are taught that that food by which our blood and flesh are nourished by its change being blessed by the word of Prayer which he gave us is both the flesh and the blood of the Incarnate Iesus Thus that Martyr that wrote an hundred and fifty years after Christ calls the Elements Bread and Wine and the nourishment which being changed into Flesh and Blood nourishes them And saying it is not common Bread and VVine he says that it was still so in substance and his illustrating it with the Incarnation in which the Humane Nature did not lose nor change its substance in its union with the eternal Word shews he thought not the Bread and Wine lost their substance when they became the flesh and blood of Christ. The next Witness is Irenaeus who writing against the Valentinians that denied the Father of our Lord Jesus to be the Creator of the World and also denied the Resurrection of the Body confutes both these Heresies by Arguments drawn from the Eucharist To the first he says If there be another Creator than the Father of our Lord then our offering Creatures to him argues him covetous of that which is not his own and so we reproach him rather than bless him And adds How does it appear to any of them that that Bread over which thanks are given is the body of his Lord and the Cup of his blood if he be not the Son of the Creator And he argues against their Saying our bodies should not rise again that are fed by the body and blood of Christ for says he that bread which is of the Earth having had the Invocation of God over it is no more common bread but the Eucharist consisting of two things an earthly and an heavenly so our Bodies that receive the Eucharist are no more corruptible having the Hope of the Resurrection Tertullian Lib. 1. adv Marc. c. 14. proving against Marcion that Christ was not contrary to the Creator among other Proofs which he brings to shew that Christ made use of the Creatures and neither rejected Water Oil Milk or Hony he adds neither did he reject Bread by which he represents his own Body And further says Lib. 3. adv Marc. c. 19. Christ calls Bread his Body that from thence you may understand that he gave the Figure of his Body to the Bread Origen says Lib. 8. cont Celsum We eat of the Loaves set before us with Thanks giving and Prayers over what is given to us which by the Prayer are become a certain holy Body that sanctifies those who use them with a sound purpose St. Cyprian says Epist. 76. Christ calls the Bread that was compounded
no place of Scripture to which he answers Some things seemed to be said in Scripture that truly are not as when God is said to sleep some things truly are but are no-where said as the Fathers being Unbegotten which they themselves believed and concludes that these things are drawn from those things out of which they are gathered though they be not mentioned in Scripture Therefore he upbraids those for serving the letter and joyning themselves to the wisdom of the Jews and that leaving Things they followed Syllables And shews how valid a good consequence is As if a man says he speaks of a living creature that is reasonable but mortal I conclude it must be a man Do I for that seem to rave not at all for these words are not more truly his that says them than his that did make the saying of them necessary So he infers that he might without fear believe such things as he either found or gathered from the Scriptures though they either were not at all or not clearly in the Scriptures We find also in a Dialogue between an Orthodox and a Macedonian that is in Athanasius's Works but believed to be written by Maximus after he had proved by a great many Arguments that the attributes of the Divine Nature such as the Omniscience and Omnipresence were ascribed to the Holy Ghost In end the Macedonian flies to this known refuge that it was no-where written that he was God and so challenges him for saying that which was not in Scripture But the Orthodox answers that in the Scriptures the Divine Nature was ascribed to the Holy Ghost and since the Name follows the Nature he concludes if the Holy Ghost did subsist in himself did sanctifie and was increated he must be God whether the other would or not Then he asks where it was written That the Son was like the Father in his Essence The Heretick answers That the Fathers had declared the Son Consubstantial as to his Essence But the Orthodox replies which we desire may be well considered Were they moved to that from the sense of the Scripture or was it of their own authority or arrogance that they said any thing that was not written The other confesses it was from the sense of the Scripture that they were moved to it from this the Orthodox infers that the sense of the Scripture teaches us that an uncreated Spirit that is of God and quickens and sanctifies is a Divine Spirit and from thence he concludes He is God Thus we see clearly how exactly the Macedonians and these Gentlemen agree and what arguments the Fathers furnish us with against them The Nestorian History followed this tract and we find Nestorius both in his Letters Act. Syn. Eph. to Cyril of Alexandria to Pope Celestin and in these writings of his that were read in the Council of Ephesus Action 1. gives that always for his reason of denying the Blessed Virgin to have been the Mother of God because the Scriptures did no-where mention it but call Her always the Mother of Christ and yet that General Council condemned him for all that and his friend Iohn Patriarch of Antioch earnestly pressed him by his Letters not to reject but to use that word since the sense of it was good and it agreed with the Scriptures and it was generally used by many of the Fathers and had never been rejected by any one This was also Eutyches his last refuge Act. 6. Syn. Constantin in Act. 2. Chalcedon when he was called to appear before the Council at Constantinople he pretended sickness and that he would never stir out of his Monastery but being often cited he said to those that were sent to him In what Scripture were the two Natures of Christ to be found To which they replied In what Scripture was the Consubstantial to be found Thus turning his Plea back on himself as the Orthodox had done before on the Arrians Eutyches also when he made his appearance he ended his defence with this That he had not found that to wit of the two Natures plainly in the Scripture and that all the Fathers had not said it But for all that he was condemned by that Council which was afterwards ratified by the Universal Council of Chalcedon Yet after this repeated condemnation the Eutychians laid not down this Plea but continued still to appeal to the express words of Scripture which made Theodoret write two Discourses to shew the unreasonableness of that pretence they are published in Athanasius his Works Tom. 2. op Athan. among these Sermons against Hereticks But most of these are Theodoret's as appears clearly from Photius Bibl. Cod. 46. his account of Theodoret's Works the very titles of them lead us to gather his opinion of this Plea The 12th Discourse which by Photius's account is the 16th has this title To those that say we ought to receive the Expression and not look to the Things signified by them as transcending all men The 19th or according to Photius the 23d is To those who say we ought to believe simply as they say and not consider what is convenient or inconvenient If I should set down all that is pertinent to this purpose I must set down the whole Discourses but I shall gather out of them such things as are most proper He first complains of those who studied to subvert all humane things and would not suffer men to be any longer reasonable that would receive the words of the Sacred Writings without consideration or good direction not minding the pious scope for which they are written For if as they would have us we do not consider what they mark out to us but simply receive their words then all that the Prophets and Apostles have written will prove of no use to those that hear them for then they will hear with their ears but not understand with their hearts nor consider the consequence of the things that are said according to the Curse in Isaias And after he had applied this to those who misunderstood that place the Word was made Flesh he adds Shall I hear a saying and shall I not enquire into its proper meaning where then is the proper consequence of what is said or the profit of the hearer Would they have men changed into the nature of bruits If they must only receive the sound of words with their ears but no fruit in their soul from the understanding of them Contrariwise did St. Paul tell us They who are perfect have their senses exercised to discern good and evil but how can any discern aright if he do not apprehend the meaning of what is said And such he compares to beasts and makes them worse than the clean beasts who chew the cud and as a man is to consider what meats are set before him so he must not snatch words stripp'd of their meaning but must carefully consider what is suitable to God and profitable to us what is the force of Truth what agrees
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
we left upon that Point which by the Grace of God we should perform very soon but we had offered to satisfie them in the other grounds of the Separation from the Church of Rome if they desired to be farther informed we should wait on them when they pleased So we all rose up and took leave after we had been there about three hours The Discourse was carried on on both sides with great Civility and Calmness without Heat or Clamour This is as far as my Memory after the most fixed attention when present and careful Recollection since does suggest to me without any Biass or Partiality not having failed in any one material thing as far as my memory can serve me This I declare as I shall answer to God Signed as follows Gilbert Burnet This Narrative was read and I do hereby attest the truth of it Edw. Stillingfleet Being present at the Conference I do according to my best memory judge this a just and true Narrative thereof Will. Nailor The Addition which N. N. desired might be subjoined to the Relation of the Conference if it were published but wished rather that nothing at all might be made publick that related to the Conference THe substance of what N. N. desired me to take notice of was That our eating Christ's flesh and drinking his blood doth as really give everlasting life as Almsgiving or any other good Works gives it where the bare external Action if separated from a good Intention and Principle is not acceptable to God So that we must necessarily understand these words of our Saviour with this Addition of Worthily that whoso eats his flesh and drinks his blood in the Sacrament Worthily hath everlasting life for he said he did not deny but the believing the Death of Christ was necessary in communicating but it is not by Faith only we receive his body and blood For as by Faith we are the sons of God yet it is not only by Faith but also by Baptism that we become the sons of God so also Christ saith He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved yet this doth not exclude Repentance and amendment of Life from being necessary to Salvation therefore the universality of the Expression whoso eats does not exclude the necessity of eating worthily that we may have everlasting life by it And so did conclude that since we believe we have all our Faith in the Holy Scriptures we must prove from some clear Scriptures by Arguments that consist of a Major and Minor that are either express words of Scripture or equivalent to them that Christ was no otherwise present in the Sacrament than spiritually as he is received by Faith And added That it was impertinent to bring Impossibilities either from sense or reason against this if we brought no clear Scriptures against it To this he also added That when D. S. asked him by which of his senses he received Christ in the Sacrament he answered That he might really receive Christ's body at his mouth though none of his senses could perceive him as a Bole or Pill is taken in a Syrup or any other Liquor so that I really swallow it over though my senses do not taste it in like manner Christ is received under the accidents of Bread and Wine so that though our senses do not perceive it yet he is really taken in at our Mouth and goes down into our Stomach ANSWER HAving now set down the strength of N. N. his Plea upon second Thoughts I shall next examine it The stress of all lies in this Whether we must necessarily supply the Words of Christ with the addition of worthily he affirms it I deny it for these Reasons Christ in this Discourse was to shew how much more excellent his Doctrine was than was Moses's Law and that Moses gave Manna from Heaven to nourish their Bodies notwithstanding which they died in the Wilderness but Christ was to give them Food to their Souls which if they did eat they should never die for it should give them life where it is apparent the bread and nourishment must be such as the life was which being internal and spiritual the other must be such also and vers 47. he clearly explains how that Food was received He that believeth on me hath everlasting life Now having said before that this bread gives life and here saying that believing gives everlasting life it very reasonably follows that believing was the receiving this Food which is yet clearer from verse 34. where the Iews having desired him evermore to give them that bread he answers verse 35. I am the bread of Life be that comes to me shall never hunger and he that believeth on me shall never thirst Which no man that is not strangely prepossessed can consider but he must see it is an Answer to their Question and so in it he tells them that their coming to him and believing was the mean of receiving that Bread And here it must be considered that Christ calls himself Bread and says that a Man must eat thereof which must be understood figuratively and if Figures be admitted in some parts of that discourse it is unjust to reject the applying the same Figures to other parts of it In fine Christ tells them this Bread was his Flesh which he was to give for the Life of the World which can be applied to nothing but the offering up himself on the Cross. This did as it was no wonder startle the Jews so they murmured and said How can this Man give us his Flesh to eat To which Christs Answer is so clear that it is indeed strange there should remain any doubting about it He first tells them except they eat the Flesh and drink the Blood of the Son of Man they had no Life in them Where on the way mark that drinking the Blood is as necessary as eating the Flesh and these words being expounded of the Sacrament cannot but discover them extreamly guilty who do not drink the Blood For suppose the Doctrine of the Blood 's concomitating the Flesh were true yet even in that case they only eat the Blood but cannot be said to drink the Blood But from these words it is apparent Christ must be speaking chiefly if not only of the spiritual Communicating for otherwise no man can be saved that hath not received the Sacrament The words are formal and positive and Christ having made this a necessary Condition of Life I see not how we dare promise Life to any that hath never received it And indeed it was no wonder that those Fathers who understood these words of the Sacrament appointed it to be given to Infants immediately after they were baptized for that was a necessary consequence that followed this exposition of our Saviours words And yet the Church of Rome will not deny but if any die before he is adult or if a Person converted be in such Circumstances that it is not possible for him to receive the
Sacrament and so dies without it he may have everlasting Life therefore they must conclude that Christs Flesh may be eaten by Faith even without the Sacrament Again in the next verse he says Whoso eateth my Flesh and drinketh my Blood hath eternal Life These words must be understood in the same sense they had in the former verse they being indeed the reverse of it Therefore since there is no addition of worthily necessary to the 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
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
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
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
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
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
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