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
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
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