no Creature could deserve Divine Worship and he deliver'd that as part of his own Doctrine and therefore those Words where he is said to make himself equal with God must be understood of Nature and not of Office. P. But St. John 17. 22. saith that Christ prayed to his Father for his Disciples That they may be one as we are one and that is not by Unity of Nature Pr. I grant it But our Saviour there speaks of a true but a lower kind of Unity or else the Socinians must think every Believer as capable of Divine Honour as Christ himself if they take those Words strictly That they may be one as we are one P. St. Paul saith He that planteth and he that watereth is one 1 Cor. 3. 8. Pr. Who doubts but there are other sorts of Unities besides that of Nature But doth this prove that there is no Unity of Nature between the Father and the Son If we have no better Arguments against Transubstantiation we will give over disputing P. I know you have other Arguments for the Trinity but they prove as little without the Authority of the Church as from those places where Christ is called God as Joh. 1. 1 2. Rom. 9. 5 c. Pr. And I think the Argument from those places very good and strong especially from John 1. 1 2 3. and it seems directly contrary to the whole design of Scripture to call any one God over all Blessed for evermore as Christ is called Rom. 9. 5. but he that is God by Natuce P. How do you prove that John 1. 1. relates to any thing beyond the beginning of the Gospel and that Christ the Word was before John the Baptists Preaching Pr. I desire any one to read the Text impartially and he will find the Socinian sense to be unnatural forced obscure and jejune proving a thing of no moment at that time but the Sense we give to be strong weighty consistent and of very great Consequence at that time when the Cerinthians denied the Divinity of Christ. The Sentences are short the Words lofty and significant the manner of beginning unusual so that any one would expect some great and extraordinary matter to be said in these few Verses but what a frustration were this if after all they intended no more than that altho John Baptist preached in publick before Christ yet that Christ was in being before that Which is a Sense so mean so remote from the occasion of his Writing as it is deliver'd by the Ancients that nothing but a miserable necessity could make Men of Wit and Subtilty to put such a Sense upon St. John's Words P. But they deny there was any such occasion of St. John's writing as the Cerinthians Heresy at that time Pr. I know Socinus doth so but he might as well have denied that there was any such Person as Cerinthus And I think the Cerinthian Heresy not only to have been the occasion of St. John's Writing but that the understanding of it gives the greatest and truest light to the Words of the Evangelist shewing the force and importance of them P. Wherein I pray did that Heresy consist Pr. I shall not meddle with other parts of it but only what relates to the present Subject and that lay in these things 1. That there was a Supreme and unknown Father who was before the Beginning and therefore they called him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 who was the Fountain of all Emanations Iren. l. 1. c. 1. 19. 2. That the World was not made by him but by a Power at a distance from him called Demiurgus Iren. l. 1. c. 25. And in the Egyptian School where Cerinthus was educated the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Word was one of the intermediate Emanations between the Father and the Demiurgus Iren. l. 1. c. 23. 3. That this World was in a state of Darkness and Confusion as to the supreme Father of all only some few had some beams of Light from him by which they knew him 4. That Jesus was a mere Man born as other Men are of Joseph and Mary but of extraordinary Goodness Wisdom and Sanctity 5. That the Supreme Father at his Baptism did send down a Divine Power upon him in the shape of a Dove which enabled him to declare the unknown Father and to work Miracles which returned to its own 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Fulness above when Jesus suffer'd This is a short Scheme of that Heresy as delivered by the ancient Fathers And now let any one compare St. Johns Words with it and he will find his design was to countermine this Heresy by two things 1. That the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Word was Eternal For the Cerinthians said the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was not in the beginning but made a great space of time between the eternal Being of the Father and the Emanation of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 wherein he was in perfect Silence as Irenoeus expresses it l. 1. c. 1. And so in the beginning doth imply the Eternity of the Word But that is not all for he saith it was with God and was God and was the Demiurgus or the Maker of the World and the Revealer of God to Mankind Joh. 1. 1 2 3 4 5 9 10. And so there was no place for those several Emanations between God and the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Demiurgus as the Cerinthians said 2. That the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Word was Incarnate which he affirms v. 14. And the Word was made Flesh and dwelt among us c. and was the only begotten Son of the Father and so he not only cuts off the other Emanations but declares that Jesus was far from being a mere Man. And to this purpose he brings in the Testimony of John Baptist v. 15. and applies what he had said to the Person of Jesus Christ v. 17. Now this being St. Johns design his Words afford a Demonstration to us of the Union of the Divine and Human Nature in Christ when he saith The Word was made Flesh. P. But doth not the Scripture in other places imply that there is a subordination in Christ to his Father which is not consistent with such an Equality of Nature see Heb. 1. 8 9. 1 Cor. 8. 4 5. 15. 27 28. Rev. 3. 12. Pr. The first place is a proof for the Divinity of Christ for the Words are But unto the Son he saith Thy Throne O God is for ever and ever c. It is true in the next verse it is said with respect to his Office Therefore God even thy God hath anointed thee c. But we do not deny that Christ was anointed as Mediator and in that respect God was his God but doth this prove that he that is Mediator cannot have a Divine Nature in Conjunction with the Human The second Place I suppose is mistaken 1 Cor. 8. not 4. and 5. but 6 verse But unto us there is but one God the Father of whom
my Point Pr. I leave you to try your Skill upon them The first shall be from the Proofs of the Truth of Christ's Incarnation and I hope this will not hold against the Trinity And those Arguments which they brought to prove Christ Incarnate do overthrow Transubstantiation effectually So that either we must make the Fathers to reason very ill against Hereticks or if their Arguments be good it was impossible they should believe Transubstantiation For can you suppose that any can believe it who should not barely assert but make the force of an Argument to lie in this that the Substance of the Bread doth not remain after Consecration And this I now prove not from any slight inconsiderable Authors but from some of the greatest Men in the Church in their time I begin with St. Chrysostom whose Epistle to Coesarius is at last brought to light by a learned Person of the Roman Communion who makes no question of the Sincerity of it and faith The Latin Translation which only he could find entire was about five hundred years old but he hath so confirm'd it by the Greek Fragments of it quoted by Ancient Greek Authors that there can be no suspicion left concerning it P. What means all this ado before you come to the Point Pr. Because this Epistle hath been formerly so confidently denied to be St. Chrysostom's and such care was lately taken to suppress it P. But what will you do with it now you have it Pr. I will tell you presently This Epistle was written by him for the satisfaction of Caesarius a Monk who was in danger of being seduced by the Apollinarists P. What have we to do with the Apollinarists Do you think all hard words are akin and so the affinity rises between Apollinarists and Transubstantiation Pr. You shall find it comes nearer the matter than you imagined For those Hereticks denied the Truth of the Human Nature of Christ after the Union and said that the Properties of it did then belong to the Divine Nature as appears by that very Epistle P. And what of all this Do we deny the truth of Christ's Human Nature Pr. No but I pray observe the force of his Parallel He is proving that each Nature in Christ contains its Properties for saith he as before Consecration we call it Bread but after it by Divine Grace sanctifying it through the Prayer of the Priest it is no longer called Bread but the Body of our Lord altho the nature of Bread remains in it and it doth not become two Bodies but one Body of Christ so here the Divine Nature being joyned to the Human they both make one Son and one Person P. And what do you infer from hence Pr. Nothing more but that the Nature of Bread doth as certainly remain after Consecration as the Nature of Christ doth after the Union P. Hold a little For the Author of the single Sheet saith That the Fathers by Nature and Substance do often mean no more than the natural Qualities or visible Appearances of Things And why may not St. Chrysostom mean so here Pr. I say it is impossible he should For all the Dispute was about the Substance and not about the Qualities as appears by that very Epistle for those Hereticks granted that Christ had all the Properties of a Body left still they do not deny that Christ could suffer but they said the Properties of a Body after the Union belonged to the Divine Nature the Human Nature being swallowed up by the Union And therefore St. Chrysostom by Nature must understand Substance and not Qualities or else he doth by no means prove that which he aimed at So that St. Chrysostom doth manifestly assert the Substance of the Bread to remain after Consecration P. But doth not St. Chrysostom suppose then that upon Consecration The Bread is united to the Divinity as the Human Nature is to the Divine else what Parallel could he make Pr. I will deal freely with you by declaring that not St. Chrysostom only but many others of the Fathers did own the Bread after Consecration to be made the real Body of Christ but not in your Sense by changing the Substance of the Elements into that Body of Christ which is in Heaven but by a Mystical Union caused by the Holy Spirit whereby the Bread becomes the Body of Christ as that was which was conceived in the Womb of the Blessed Virgin. But this is quite another thing from Transubstantiation and the Church of England owns that after Consecration The Bread and Wine are the Body and Blood of Christ. P. But altho this be not Transubstantiation it may be something as hard to believe or understand Pr. By no means For all the difficulties relating to the taking away the Substance of the Bread and the Properties of Christ's Body are removed by this Hypothesis P. Let us then keep to our Point but methinks this is but a slender appearance yet St. Chrysostom stands alone for all that I see Pr. Have but a little Patience and you shall see more of his mind presently But I must first tell you that the Eutychians afterwards were condemned in the Council of Chalcedon for following this Doctrine of Apollinaris and that Council defines that the differences of the two Natures in Christ were not destroyed by the Union but that their Properties were preserved distinct and concur to one Person And against these the other Fathers disputed just as St. Chrysostom had done before against the Apollinarists Theodoret brings the same Instance and he affirms expresly That the Nature of the Elements is not changed that they do not lose their proper Nature but remain in their former Substance Figure and Form and may be seen and touched as before Still this is not to prove any Accidental Qualities but the very Substance of Christ's Body to remain P. But was not Theodoret a Man of suspected Faith in â—he Church and therefore no great matter can be made of his Testimony Pr. Yield it then to us and see if we do not clear Theodoret but your own learned Men never question him as to this matter at least and the ancient Church hath vindicated his Reputation And he saith no more than St. Chrysostom before him and others of great Esteem â—fter him P. Who were they Pr. What say you to a Pope whom you account Head of the Church Pope Gelasius writing against the same Hereticks produces the same Example and he expresly saith The Substance of the Bread and Wine doth not cease P. I thought I should find you tripping Here you put a Fob-head of the Church upon us For the Author of the single Sheet saith this was another Gelasius as is prov'd at large by Bellarmin Pr. In truth I am ashamed of the Ignorance of such small Authors who will be medling with things they understand not For this Writer since Bellarmin's time hath been evidently proved from Testimonies of
relate to a real Body as Tertullian argued in this Case And Ignatius in the same Epistle mentions the trial Christ made of his true Body by the Senses of his Disciples Take hold of me and handle me and see for I am no incorporeal Doemon and immediately they touched him and were convinced Which happen'd but a few days after Christ had said This is my Body and our Saviour gave a Rule for judging a true Body from an appearance or spiritual Substance A Spirit hath not Flesh and Bones as ye see me have Therefore it is very improbable that Ignatius so soon after should assert that Christ's true and real Body was in the Eucharist where it could be neither seen nor felt For then he must overthrow the force of his former Argument And to what purpose did Christ say That a Spirit had not Flesh and Bones as they saw him to have if a Body of Christ might be so much after the manner of a Spirit as tho it had Flesh and Bones yet they could not possibly be discerned But after all suppose Ignatius doth speak of the Substance of Christ's Flesh as present in the Eucharist yet he saith not a word of the changing of the Substance of the Bread into the Substance of Christ's Body which was the thing to be proved P. But Justin Martyr doth speak of the change and his Words are produced by all three And they are thus rendred in the single Sheet For we do not receive this as common Bread or common Drink but as by the Word of God Jesus Christ our Redeemer being made Man had both Flesh and Blood for our Salvation so also we are taught that this Food by which our Blood and Flesh are by a change nourished being consecrated by the Power of the Word is the Flesh and Blood of Jesus Christ incarnate What say you to this Pr. I desire you to consider these things 1. That Justin Martyr doth not say That the Bread and Wine are by Consecration changed into the Individual Flesh and Blood in which Christ was Incarnate but that as by the Power of the Word Christ once had a Body in the Womb of the Virgin so by the Power of the same Word upon Consecration the Bread and Wine do become the Flesh and Blood of Christ Incarnate so that he must mean a parallel and not the same Individual Body i. e. that as the Body in the Womb became the Body of Christ by the Power of the Holy Spirit so the Holy Spirit after Consecration makes the Elements to become the Flesh and Blood of Christ not by an Hypostatical Union but by Divine Influence as the Church is the Body of Christ. And this was the true Notion of the Ancient Church as to this matter and the expressions in the Greek Liturgies to this day confirm the same 2. He doth not in the least imply that the Elements by this change do lose their Substance for he mentions the nourishment of our Bodies by it but he affirms that notwithstanding their Substance remain yet the Divine Spirit of Christ by its Operation doth make them become his Body For we must observe that he attributes the Body in the Womb and on the Altar to the same 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Divine Word For he did not think Hypostatical Union necessary to make the Elements become the Body of Christ but a Divine Energy was sufficient as the Bodies assumed by Angels are their Bodies tho there be no such vital Union as there is between the Soul and Body of a Man. P. I go on to Irenoeus from whom two places are produced one by the Consensus Veterum where he saith That which is Bread from the Earth perceiving the call of God now is not common Bread but the Eucharist consisting of two things one Earthly and the other Spiritual Pr. Very well Then there is an Earthly as well as a Spiritual thing in the Eucharist i. e. a Bodily Substance and Divine Grace P. No he saith The Earthly is the Accidents Pr. Doth Irenoeus say so P. No but he means so Pr. There is not a word to that purpose in Irenoeus and therefore this is downright Prevarication I grant Irenoeus doth suppose a change made by Divine Grace but not by destroying the Elements but by super-adding Divine Grace to them and so the Bread becomes the Body of Christ and the Wine his Blood. P. The other place in Irenoeus is where he saith That as the Bread receiving the Word of God is made the Eucharist which is the Body and Blood of Christ so also our Bodies being nourished by it and laid in the Earth and there dissolved will arise at their time c. Pr. What do you prove from this place P. That the same Divine Power is seen in making the Eucharist the Body and Blood of Christ which is to be in the Resurrection of the Body Pr. But doth this prove that the Substance of the Bread is changed into the Substance of Christ's Body P. Why not Pr. I will give you a plain Argument against it for he saith Our Bodies are nourished by the Body and Blood of Christ. Do you think that Irenoeus believed the substance of Christ's Body was turned into the substance of our Bodies in order to their nourishment No he explained himself just before in the same place De Calice qui est Sanguis ejus nutritur de pane qui est Corpus ejus augetur So that he attributes the nourishment to the Bread and Wine and therefore must suppose the substance of them to remain since it is impossible a substantial nourishment should be made by meer Accidents And withal observe he saith expresly That the Bread is the Body of Christ which your best Writers such as Bellarmin Suarez and Vasquez say is inconsistent with Transubstantiation P. My next Author is Tertullian who is produced by the Consensus Veterum and the Single Sheet but omitted by the Nubes Testium but the other proves That Bread which was the Figure of Christ's Body in the Old Testament now in the New is changed into the real and true Body of Christ. Pr. This is a bold Attempt upon Tertullian to prove that by the Figure of Christ's Body he means his true and real Body For his Words are Acceptum panem distributum Discipulis Corpus illum suum fecit Hoc est Corpus meum dicendo id est Figura Corporis mei He took the bread and gave it to his Disciples and made it his Body saying This is my Body i. e. this is the Figure of my Body How can those men want Proofs that can draw Transubstantiation from these Words which are so plain against it P. You are mistaken Tertullian by Figure meant it was a Figure in the Old Testament but it was now his real Body Pr. You put very odd Figures upon Tertullian I appeal to any reasonable man whether by the latter words
he doth not explain the former For he puts the Sense upon Corpus meum by adding dicendo to them i. e. This is the meaning of that speech when he calleth the Bread his Body P. Doth not Tertullian say That it had not been the Figure unless it had been the Truth Pr. This is again perverting his words which are Figuratum non fuisset nisi veritatis esset Corpus i. e. there had been no place for a Figure of Christ's Body unless Christ had a true body For he was proving against Marcion that Christ had a true Body and among other Arguments he produces this from the Figure of his Body which he not only mentions here but in other places where he saith That Christ gave the Figure of his Body to the Bread which cannot relate to any Figure of the Old Testament P. But doth not Tertullian say afterwards That the Bread was the figure of Christ's body in the Old Testament Pr. What then He had Two Designs against Marcion one to prove that Christ had a true body which he doth here from the figure of his body and the other that there was a Correspondency of both Testaments and for that purpose he shews that the bread in Jeremiah was the figure of Christ's body P. But the Author of the Single Sheet cites another place of Tertullian where he saith that our flesh feeds on the body and blood of Christ that our soul may be filled with God. Pr. By the body and blood of Christ he means there the Elements with Divine Grace going along with them as appears by his design which is to shew how the body and soul are joyned together in Sacramental Rites The flesh is washed and the soul is cleansed the flesh is anointed and the soul consecrated the flesh is signed and the soul confirmed the flesh hath hands laid upon it and the soul enlighten'd the flesh feeds on the body and blood of Christ that the soul may be filled with God. Now unless Tertullian meant the Elements the Parallel doth not proceed for all the rest are spoken of the external Symbols and so this doth not at all contradict what he saith elsewhere no more than the Passage in the second Book adUxorem doth For there he speaks of Christ with respect to the invisible Grace as he doth here as to the outward Symbols P. Clemens Alexandrinus saith That Melchisedeck gave Bread and Wine in figure of the Eucharist Pr. And what then What is this to Transubstantiation P. Origen saith When you eat and drink the body and blood of our Lord then our Lord enters under your roof c. Pr. Are you sure that Origen said this But suppose he did must he enter with his flesh and bones and not much rather by a peculiar presence of his Grace For is it not Origen who so carefully distinguishes the Typical and Symbolical body of Christ from the Divine Word and so expresly mentions the material part of the Elements after Consecration which pass into the Draught c. Is all this meant of the Accidents only P. What say you to St. Cyprian de Coena Domini Pr. I beg your pardon Sir this is now known and acknowledged to be a late Author in comparison and cannot come within your 600 years and therefore is not ancient enough to be considered P. But in his genuine Writings he speaks of those who offer'd Violence to the body and blood of our Lord in the Eucharist Pr. And I pray what follows That the substance of the Elements is gone Where lies the Consequence But St. Cyprian saith the bread was his body and the wine his blood therefore their substance must remain P. What say you to Eusebius Emesenus Pr. That he is not within our compass and withal that he is a known Counterfeit P. I perceive you are hard to please Pr. You say very true as to supposititious Writers P. I hope you have more Reverence for the Council of Nice Pr. But where doth that speak of Transubstantiation P. It calls the Eucharist the body of Christ. Pr. And so doth the Church of England therefore that holds Transubstantiation I pray bring no more such Testimonies which prove nothing but what we hold P. I perceive you have a mind to cut me short Pr. Not in the least where you offer any thing to the purpose But I pray spare those who only affirm that the Eucharist is the body and blood of Christ after Consecration For I acknowledg it was the Language of the Church especially in the fourth Century when the Names of the Elements were hardly mention'd to the Catechumens and all the Discourses of the Fathers to them tended to heighten the Devotion and Esteem of the Eucharist By which Observation you may easily understand the meaning of the Eloquent Writers of that Age who speak with so much Mystery and Obscurity about it If you have any that go beyond lofty expressions and Rhetorical flights I pray produce them P. I perceive you are afraid of S. Greg. Nazianzen and S. Basil but especially S. Chrysostom you fence so much beforehand against Eloquent Men. Pr. As to the other two there is nothing material alledged by any to this purpose but S. Chrysostom I confess doth speak very lofty things concerning the Sacrament in his popular Discourses but yet nothing that doth prove Transubstantiation P. What think you of his Homilies 51 and 83. on S. Mat. 46. Homily on S. John 24. Homily on 1st to the Corinth the Homilies on Philogonius and the Cross Are there not strange things in them concerning the Eucharist About eating Christ and seeing him lie before them slain on the Altar about touching his Body there and the Holy Spirit with an innumerable Host hovering over what is there proposed with much more to that purpose Pr. You need not to recite more for I yield that St. Chrysostom delighted in the highest flights of his Eloquence on this Subject in his Homilies and he tells for what Reason to excite the Reverence and Devotion of the People But yet himself doth afford us a sufficient Key to these expressions if we attend to these things concerning his manner of speaking 1. That he affirms those things which no side can allow to be literally understood As when he so often speaks of our seeing and touching Christ upon the Altar which is inconsistent with the Doctrine of Transubstantiation For Christ is utterly invisible on the Altar even by Divine Power saith Suarez He is invisible in the Sacrament saith Bellarmin and he saith also that he cannot be touched What then is to be said to such expressions of S. Chrysostom Behold thou seest him thou touchest him thou eatest him It is not his Sacrament only which is offer'd us to touch but himself What if you do not hear his Voice do you not see him lying before you Behold Christ lying before you slain Christ lies on the holy
Table as a Sacrifice slain for us Thou swearest upon the holy Table where Christ lies slain When thou seest our Lord lying on the Table and the Priest praying and the by-standers purpled with his Blood. See the Love of Christ he doth not only suffer himself to be seen by those who desire it but to be touched and eaten and our Teeth to be fixed in his Flesh. Now these Expressions are on all sides granted to be literally absurd and impossible and therefore we must say of him as Bonaventure once said of S. Augustin Plus dicit sanctus minus vult intelligi We must make great allowance for such Expressions or you must hold a Capernaitical Sense And it is denied by your selves that Christ is actually slain upon the Altar and therefore you yield that such Expressions are to be figuratively understood 2. That he le ts fall many things in such Discourses which do give light to the rest As 1. That Flesh is improperly taken when applied to the Eucharist 2. He calls the Sacrament the Mystical Body and Blood of Christ. 3. That the eating of Christ's Flesh is not to be understood literally but spiritually 4. He opposes Christ's sacramental Presence and real corporal Presence to each other 5. He still exhorts the Communicants to look upwards towards Heaven And now if you lay these things together this Eloquent Father will not with all his Flights come near to Transubstantiation P. No! In one place he asserts the Substance of the Elements to be lost Pr. Thanks to the Latin Translators for the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as the Criticks observe doth not signify to destroy but to refine and purify a Substance But I do not rely upon this for the plain answer is that S. Chrysostom doth not there speak of the Elements upon Consecration but what becomes of them after they are taken down into the Stomach St. Chrysostom thought it would lessen the Peoples Reverence and Devotion if they passed into the draught as Origen affirmed and therefore he started another Opinion viz. That as Wax when it is melted in the fire throws off no superfluities but it passes indiscernably away so the Elements or Mysteries as he calls them pass imperceptibly into the substance of the Body and so are consumed together with it Therefore saith he approach with Reverence not supposing that you receive the divine body from a Man but as with Tongs of Fire from the Seraphims Which the Author of the Consensus Veterum translates but Fire from the Tongues of Seraphims S. Chrysostom's Words are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And the Sense is that the divine Body i. e. the Eucharist after Consecration being by the divine Spirit made the divine Body as in St. Chrysostom's Liturgy there is a particular Prayer for the Holy Ghost to come and so make the Bread to be the divine Body or the holy Body of Christ is to be taken not with our Mouths which can only receive the Elements but after a divine manner as with Tongs of fire from Seraphims by which he expresses the spiritual acts of Faith and Devotion as most agreeable to that divine Spirit which makes the Elements to become the holy Body of Christ. But that St. Chrysostom did truly and firmly believe the Substance of the Bread to remain after Consecration I have already proved from his Epistle to Coesarius P. I pray let us not go backward having so much ground to run over still Pr. I am content if you will produce only those who speak of the change of Substance and not such as only mention the Body and Blood of Christ after Consecration which I have already told you was the Language of the Church and therefore all those Testimonies are of no force in this matter P. Then I must quit the greatest part of what remains as Optatus Gaudentius S. Jerom and others but I have some still left which will set you hard What say you then to Gregory Nyssen who saith the sanctified bread is changed into the body of the Word of God. And he takes off your Answer of a mystical Body for he puts the Question How the same Body can daily be distributed to the faithful throughout the World it remaining whole and entire in it self Pr. Gregory Nyssen was a Man of Fancy and he shewed it in that Catechetical Discourse However Fronto Ducoeus thought it a notable place to prove Transubstantiation which I wonder at if he attended to the Design of it which was to shew that as our Bodies by eating became subject to Corruption so by eating they become capable of Immortality and this he saith Must be by receiving an immortal Body into our B dies such as the Body of Christ was But then saith he how could that body which is to remain whole in it self be distributed to all the faithful over the whole Earth He answers by saying That our Bodies do consist of Bread and Wine which are their proper Nourishment and Christ's Body being like ours that was so too which by the Uniâ—n with the Word of God was changed into a Divine Dignity But what is this to the Eucharist you may say He goes on therefore so I believe the sanctified Bread by the power of the Word of God to be changed into the Body of God the Word Not into that Individual Body but after the same manner by a Presence of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or God the Word in it and that this was his meaning doth evidently appear by what follows For saith he that Body viz. to which he was Incarnate was sanctified by the Inhabitation of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 dwelling in the Flesh therefore as the Bread was then changed into a Divine Dignity in the Body so it is now and the Bread is changed into the Body of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not of Jesus Christ as it was said by the Word This is my Body And so by receiving this Divine Body into our bodies they are made capable of Immortality And this is the true Account of Gregory Nyssen's meaning which if it prove any thing proves an Impanation rather than Transubstantiation P. But Hilary's Testimony cannot be so avoided who saith That we as truly eat Christ's Flesh in the Sacrament as he was truly Incarnate and that we are to judg of this not by carnal Reason but by the Words of Christ who said My Flesh is meat indeed and my Blood is drink indeed Pr. I do not deny this to be Hilary's Sense But yet this proves nothing like to Transubstantiation For it amounts to no more than a Real Presence of the Body of Christ in the Sacrament and you can make no Argument from hence unless you can prove that the Body of Christ cannot be present unless the Substance of the Bread be destroy'd which is more than can be done or than Hilary imagined All that he aimed
at was to prove a real Union between Christ and his People That Christ was in them more than by meer consent and to prove this he lays hold of those words of our Saviour My Flesh is meat indeed c. But the substantial Change of the Bread into the Substance of Christ's Body signifies nothing to his purpose and Bellarmin never so much as mentions Hilary in his proofs of Transubstantiation but only for the real Presence But I must add something more viz. that Hilary was one of the first who drew any Argument from the literal Sense of John 6. I do not say who did by way of Accommodation apply them to the Sacrament which others might do before him But yet there are some of the eldest Fathers who do wholly exclude a literal Sense as Tertullian look'd on it As an Absurdity that Christ should be thought truly to give his Flesh to eat Quasi vere carnem suam illis edendam determinasset And Origen saith It is a killing Letter if those Words be literally understood But this is to run into another debate whereas our Business is about Transubstantiation If you have any more let us now examine their Testimonies P. What say you then to St. Ambrose who speaks home to the Business for he makes the Change to be above Nature and into the Body of Christ born of the Virgin There are long Citations out of him but in these words lies the whole strength of them Pr. I answer several things for clearing of his meaning 1. That St. Ambrose doth parallel the Change in the Eucharist with that in Baptism and to prove Regeneration therein he argues from the miraculous Conception of Christ in the Womb of the Virgin but in Baptism no body supposes the Substance of the Water to be taken away and therefore it cannot hold as to the other from the Supernatural Change which may be only with respect to such a Divine Influence which it had not before Consecration 2. He doth purposely talk obscurely and mystically about this matter as the Fathers were wont to do to those who were to be admitted to these Mysteries Sometimes one would think he meant that the Elements are changed into Christ's Individual Body born of the Virgin and yet presently after he distinguishes between the true Flesh of Christ which was crucified and buried and the Sacrament of his Flesh. If this were the same what need any distinction And that this Sacramentum Carnis is meant of the Eucharist is plain by what follows for he cites Christ's words This is my Body 3. He best explains his own meaning when he saith not long after That the body of Christ in the Sacrament is a Spiritual body or a body produced by the Divine Spirit and so he parallels it with that spiritual Food which the Israelites did eat in the Wilderness And no man will say that the Substance of the Manna was then lost And since your Authors make the same St. Ambrose to have written the Book De Sacramentis there is a notable passage therein which helps to explain this for there he saith expresly Non iste Panis est qui vadit in Corpus sed ille Panis Vitoe Eternoe qui animoe nostroe Substantiam fulcit It is not the Bread which passes into the Body but the Bread of Eternal Life which strengthens the Substance of our Soul. Where he not only calls it Bread after Consecration which goes to our Nourishment but he distinguishes it from the Bread of Eternal Life which supports the Soul which must be understood of Divine Grace and not of any Bodily Substance P. I perceive you will not leave us one Father of the whole number Pr. Not one And I hope this gives an incomparable Advantage to the Doctrine of the Trinity in point of Tradition above Transubstantiation when I have not only proved that the greatest of the Fathers expresly denied it but that there is not one in the whole number who affirmed it For altho there were some difference in the way of explaining how the Eucharist was the Body and Blood of Christ yet not one of them hitherto produced doth give any countenance to your Doctrine of Transubstantiation which the Council of Trent declared to have been the constant belief of the Church in all Ages which is so far from being true that there is as little ground to believe that as Transubstantiation it self And so much as to this Debate concerning the comparing the Doctrine of the Trinity and Transubstantiation in point of Tradition if you have any thing to say further as to Scripture and Reason I shall be ready to give you Satisfaction the next Opportunity FINIS BOOKS lately Printed for W. Rogers THE Doctrines and Practices of the Church of Rome truly Represented in Answer to a Book Intituled A Papist Misrepresented and Represented c. Quarto Third Edition An Answer to a Discourse Intituled Papists protesting against Protestant Popery being a Vindication of Papists not Misrepresented by Protestants 4to Second Edition An Answer to the Amicable Accommodation of the Differences between the Representer and the Answerer Quarto A View of the whole Controversie between the Representer and the Answerer with an Answer to the Representer's last Reply 4to The Doctrine of the Trinity and Transubstantiation compared as to Scripture Reason and Tradition in a new Dialogue between a Protestant and a Papist the first Part Wherein an Answer is given to the late Proofs of the Antiquity of Transubstantiation in the Books called Consensus Veterum and Nubes Testium c. Quarto The Doctrine of the Trinity and Transubstantiation compared as to Scripture Reason and Tradition in a new Dialogue between a Protestant and a Papist the Second Part Wherein the Doctrine of the Trinity is shewed to be agreeable to Scripture and Reason and Transubstantiation repugnant to both Quarto A Discourse concerning the Nature of Idolatry in which the Bishop of Oxford's true and only Notion of Idolatry is Considered and Confuted 4to The Absolute Impossibility of Transubstantiation demonstrated 4to A Letter to the Superiours whether Bishops or Priests which Approve or License the Popish Books in England particularly to those of the Jesuits Order concerning Lewis Sabran a Jesuit A Preservative against Popery being some Plain Directions to Unlearned Protestants how to Dispute with Romish Priests The First Part. The Fourth Edition The Second Part of the Preservative against Popery shewing how contrary Popery is to the True Ends of the Christian Religion Fitted for the Instruction of Unlearned Protestants The Second Edition A Vindication of both Parts of the Preservative against Popery in Answer to the Cavils of Lewis Sabran Jesuit A Discourse concerning the Nature Unity aed Communion of the Catholick Church wherein most of the Controversies relating to the Church are briefly and plainly stated The First Part. 4to These Four last by William Sherlock D. D. Master of the Temple Imprimatur Guil. Needham