Interpretation for them Pr. No such matter It is the proper and genuine Sense of their Words as will appear from hence 1. They assert the very same as to the Chrism and Baptism which they do as to the Eucharist 2. That which they say our Senses cannot reach is something of a spiritual Nature and not a Body And here the Case is extremely different from the Judgment of Sense as to a material Substance And if you please I will evidently prove from the Fathers that that wherein they excluded the Judgment of Sense in the Eucharist was something wholly Spiritual and Immaterial P. No no we have been long enough upon the Fathers unless their Evidence were more certain one way or other For my part I believe on the account of Divine Revelation in this matter This is my Body here I stick and the Fathers agreed with us herein that Christ's words are not to be taken in a figurative Sense Pr. The contrary hath been so plainly proved in a late excellent Discourse of Transubstantiation that I wonder none of your Party have yet undertaken to answer it but they write on as if no such Treatise had appear'd I shall therefore wave all the Proofs that are there produced till some tolerable Answer be given to them P. Methinks you have taken a great Liberty of talking about the Fathers as tho they were all on your side but our late Authors assure us to the contrary and I hope I may now make use of them to shew that Transubstantiation was the Faith of the Ancient Church Pr. With all my heart I even long to hear what they can say in a matter I think so clear on our side P. Well Sir I begin with the Consensus Veterum written by one that professed himself a Minister of the Church of England Pr. Make what you can of him now you have him but I will meddle with no personal Things I desire to hear his Arguments P. What say you to R. Selomo interpreting the 72. Psal. v. 16. Of Wafers in the days of the Messias to R. Moses Haddarsan on Gen. 39. 1. and on Psal. 136. 25 to R. Cahana on Gen. 49. 1. who was long before the Nativity of Christ R. Johai on Numb 28. 2. and to R. Judas who was many years before Christ came Pr. Can you hold your Countenance when you repeat these things But any thing must pass from a New Convert What think you of R. Cahana and R. Judas who lived so long before our Saviour when we know that the Jews have no Writings preserved near to our Saviour's time besides the Bible and some say the Paraphrasts upon it I would have been glad to have seen these Testimonies taken from their Original Authors and not from Galatinus who is known to have been a notorious Plagiary as to the main of his Book and of little or no Credit as to the rest But it is ridieulous to produce the Testimonies of Jewish Rabbins for Transubstantiation when it is so well known that it is one of their greatest objections against Christianity as taught in the Roman Church as may be seen in Joseph Albo and others But what is all this to the Testimony of the Christian Fathers P. Will not you let a Man shew a little Jewish Learning upon occasion But if you have a mind to the Fathers you shall have enough of them for I have a large Catalogue of them to produce from the Consensus Veterum Nubes Testium and the single Sheet which generally agree Pr. With Coccius or Bellarmin you mean but before you produce them I pray tell me what you intend to prove by them P. The Doctrine of our Church Pr. As to what P. What have we been about all this while Pr. Transubstantiation Will you prove that P. Why do you suspect me before I begin Pr. I have some Reason for it Let us first agree what we mean by it Do you mean the same which the Church of Rome doth by it in the Council of Trent P. What can we mean else Pr. Let us first see what that is The Council of Trent declares That the same Body of Christ which is in Heaven is really truly and substantially present in the Eucharist after Consecration under the Species of Bread and Wine And the Roman Catechism saith It is the very Body which was born of the Virgin and sits at the right hand of God. 2. That the Bread and Wine after Consecration lose their proper Substances and are changed into that very Substance of the Body of Christ. And an Anathema is denounced against those who affirm the contrary Now if you please proceed to your Proofs P. I begin with the Ancient Liturgies of St. Peter St. James and St. Matthew Pr. Are you in earnest P. Why what is the matter Pr. Do not you know that these are rejected as Supposititious by your own Writers And a very late and learned Dr. of the Sorbon hath given full and clear Evidences of it P. Suppose they are Yet they may be of Antiquity enough to give some competent Testimony as to Tradition Pr. No such matter For he proves St. Peter 's Liturgy to be later than the Sacramentary of St. Gregory and so can prove nothing for the first 600 years and the Aethiopick Liturgy or St. Matthew's he shews to be very late That of St. James he thinks to have been some time before the Five General Councils but by no means to have been St. James's P. What think you of the Acts of St. Andrew and what he saith therein about eating the Flesh of Christ Pr. I think he saith nothing to the purpose But I am ashamed to find one who hath so long been a Minister in this Church so extreamly ignorant as to bring these for good Authorities which are rejected with scorn by all Men of Learning and Ingenuity among you P. I am afraid you grow angry Pr. I confess Ignorance and Confidence together are very provoking things especially when a Man in years pretends to leave our Church on such pitiful Grounds P. But he doth produce better Authorities Pr. If he doth they are not to his purpose P. That must be tried What say you to Ignatius I hope you allow his Epistles Pr. I see no reason to the contrary But what saith he P. He saith That some Hereticks then would not receive the Eucharist and Oblations because they will not confess the Eucharist to be the Flesh of our Saviour Christ. And this is produced by both Authors Pr. The Persons Ignatius speaks of were such as denied Christ to have any true Body and therefore did forbear the Eucharist because it was said to be his Body And in what ever Sense it were taken it still supposed that which they denied viz. that he had a true Body For if it were figuratively understood it was as contrary to their Doctrine as if it were literally For a Figure must
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
in the one being intrinsecal and substantial the other extrinsecal and accidental And that Hypostasis is the same with the Divine Nature and yet is most closely united with the Human Nature which is so different from the Divine so that it is incomprehensible by us how in that Union the Natures are not confounded or the Hypostasis divided Pr. Suppose now we grant all this that there is an incomprehensible Mystery in the Incarnation what follows from thence Have I not hitherto owned that there must be something incomprehensible by us in what relates to the Divine Nature And it is the less wonder it is so in the Incarnation wherein an Union is implied between an Infinite and Finite Nature when the Union of the Soul and Body though both Finite is above our Comprehension though we our selves consist of Souls and Bodies so united But what Consequence is it if we are not able to explain this that then we must admit that the same Body may be not meerly in two but in ten thousand places at the the same time i. e. If we cannot explain the Hypostatical Union then all manner of Absurdities must go down with us that relate to things of a very different Nature from it P. I am glad to find you are set at last and that now you have a Difficulty before you which you can never get through Pr. Be not too confident I have only hitherto denied the Consequence as to the Difficulties of Transubstantiation But it is possible that setting aside the Confusion of School-Terms I may be able to give a far more intelligible and reasonable Account of the Incarnation it self than you can ever do of Transubstantiation P. First shew that it is possible and then explain the manner of it Pr. But let us in the first place agree what we mean by it P. By the Incarnation I mean the Union of the Divine and Humane Nature so as to make one Person in Christ. Pr. If this be not possible it must either be 1. Because two Natures different from each other cannot be united to make one Person The contrary whereof appears in the union of Soul and Body to the Person of a Man. Or 2. because it is impossible that an Infinite Nature should be united to a Finite P. How can there be an Union possible between two Beings infinitely distant from each other Pr. Not in that respect wherein the Distance is Infinite but if there be nothing destructive to either Nature in such an Union and the Infinite Nature do condescend to it why may it not be so united to an Intelligent Finite Being as to make one Person together with it For in respect of Union the Distance is not so great between Finite and Infinite as between Body and Spirit P. The Distance is Infinite in one Case but not in the other Pr. I do not speak of them with Respect to Perfections but to Union and an infinite Distance in that must imply an absolute Repugnancy which you can never prove For since Body and Spirit may be united to make one Person an Infinite Spirit may be united to a Finite Nature P. But the manner of the Hypostatical Union is impossible to be conceived Pr. Let the thing be granted possible and the difficulty of conceiving the manner may be as great in the Union of Soul and Body Will you undertake to explain that to me and yet I hope you believe it But let us hear your Difficulties again which you object from Bellarmine P. That there should be but one Hypostasis in two Natures and that in the Union the Natures should not be confounded nor the Hypostasis divided Pr. All these Difficulties arise from the sense of the word Hypostasis Which originally signifies a Real Being and not such which depends only on Fancy and Imagination from thence its signification was enlarged not only to things real in opposition to meer Appearances and Creatures of the Mind but to such a thing which did subsist of it self and had not its subsistence in another as Accidents had So that an Hypostasis was a real Substance which had subsistence in it self But such are of two kinds as the Greek Fathers observe 1. Such as are real Substances in themselves but yet are capable of being joined with another to make up a Person thus the Soul and Body have two different Hypostases and make up but one Person of a Man. 2. It is taken for a compleat individual Subsistence which is not joined with any other as a Part and so Hypostasis is the same with a Person which is nothing else but a compleat intelligent individual Hypostasis And in this sense there can be but one Hypostasis in Christ i. e. one Person tho there be two Natures P. But our Divines say that the Humane Nature after the Union hath no Hypostasis it being swallowed up by the Divine Pr. I know they do but if they mean that the Humane Nature after the Union loses that subsistence which is proper to the Humane Nature it is impossible for them to avoid the Eutychian Heresy condemned by the Council of Chalcedon but if they mean no more than that there is a true Nature but no Person save only that which results from both Natures they then agree with the Sense of the Church which condemned the Eutychians For as much as the Heresies of Nestorius and Eutyches differ'd in themselves they were both built on the same Ground viz. that there could be no true Nature but there must be a Person and that two Natures could not make one Person From whence Nestorius asserted there were two Persons in Christ and Eutyches denied that there were two Natures P. What doth all this signify but that the Authority of the Church must determine whether there be two Natures or two Persons in Christ Pr. It seems then the whole Business wherein the General Councils were so warmly concerned was only to make an Ecclesiastical Dictionary and to appoint what words are to be used and what not Do you think then there were no such real Heresies as Nestorianism and Eutychianism but only they happened to take the words Nature and Person in another sense than the Church would have Men use them P. I trust the Church for all these things Pr. Then if the Church would have you affirm two Persons and one Nature or two Natures and one Person it were all one to you P. Why not since the Church must determine Pr. What if you had been to dispute with Nestorius and Eutyches P. I would have told them they must submit to the Church about the use of words Pr. And they would have laughed at you for your pains For the Controversy was really about the Truth of Christ's Incarnation as the Fathers proved and the Councils determined which in Consequence was rejected by both of them as I will evidently prove if you have any longer Patience P. I beg your pardon Sir I
more be without a Subject than Water without Moisture or Fire without Heat or a Stone without Hardness which are so joined together that they cannot be separated Methodius confutes Origen's Fancy about the Soul having the Shape of a Body without the Substance because the Shape and the Body cannot be separated from each other St. Augustin proves the Immortality of the Soul from hence because meer Accidents can never be separated from the Body so as the mind is by abstraction And in another place he asserts it to be a monstrous absurd Doctrine to suppose that whose Nature is to be in a Subject to be capable of subsisting without it Claudianus Mamertus proves That the Soul could not be in the Body as its Subject for then it could not subsist when the Body is destroy'd P. I hope you have now done with this Third Argument Pr. Yes and I shall wait your own time for an Answer I go on to a Fourth And that is from the Evidence of Sense asserted and allowed by the Fathers with respect to the Body of Christ. P. I expected this before now For as the Author of the Single Sheet observes This is the Cock-Argument of one of the Lights of your Church and it so far resembles the Light that like it it makes a glaring shew but go to grasp it and you find nothing in your hand Pr. Then it 's plain our Senses are deceived P. Not as to Transubstantiation for he believes more of his Senses than we do for his Eyes tell him there is the Colour of Bread and he assents to them his Tongue that it has the Taste of Bread and he agrees to it and so for his Smelling and Feeling But then he hath a notable fetch in his Conclusion viz. That his Ears tell him from the Words spoken by Christ himself that it is the Body of Christ and he believes these too Is not here one Sense more than you believe And yet you would persuade the World that we do not believe our Senses Pr. This is admirable Stuff but it must be tenderly dealt with For I pray what doth he mean when he saith he believes from Christ's own Words that it is the Body of Christ What is this It Is it the Accidents he speaks of before Are those Accidents then the Body of Christ Is it the Substance of Bread But that is not discerned by the Senses he saith and if it were will he say that the Substance of Bread is the Body of Christ If neither of these then his believing It is the Body of Christ signifies nothing for there can be no sense of it P. However he shews That we who believe Transubstantiation do not renounce our Senses as you commonly reproach us For we believe all that our Senses represent to us which is only the outward appearance For as he well observes If your Eyes see the Substance of things they are most extraordinary ones and better than ours For our parts we see no farther than the Colour or Figure c. of things which are only Accidents and the entire Object of that Sense Pr. Is there no difference between the Perception of Sense and the Evidence of Sense We grant that the Perception of our Senses goes no farther than to the outward Accidents but that Perception affords such an Evidence by which the Mind doth pass Judgment upon the thing represented by the outward Sense I pray tell me have you any certainty there is such a thing as a material Substance in the World P. Yes Pr. Whence comes the certainty of the Substance since your Senses cannot discover it Do we live among nothing but Accidents Or can we know nothing beyond them P. I grant we may know in general that there are such things as Substances in the World. Pr. But can we not know the difference of one Substance from another by our Senses As for instance can we not know a Man from a Horse or an Elephant from a Mouse or a piece of Bread from a Church Or do we only know there are such and such Accidents belong to every one of these but our Senses are not so extraprdinary to discover the Substances under them I pray answer me one Question Did you ever keep Lent P. What a strange Question is this Did you not tell me you would avoid Impertinencies Pr. This is none I assure you P. Then I answer I think my self obliged to keep it Pr. Then you thought your self bound to abstain from Flesh and to eat Fish. P. What of all that Pr. Was it the Substance of Flesh you abstained from or only the Accidents of it P. The Substance Pr. And did you know the difference between the Substance of Flesh and Fish by your Tast P. Yes Pr. Then you have an extraordinary Tast which goes to the very Substance P. But this is off from our Business which was about the Fathers and not our own Judgment about the Evidence of Sense Pr. I am ready for you upon that Argument And I only desire to know whether you think the Evidence of Sense sufficient as to the true Body of Christ where it is supposed to be present P. By no means For then we could not believe it to be present where we cannot perceive it Pr. But the Fathers did assert the Evidence of Sense to be sufficient as to the true Body of Christ so Irenoeus Tertullian Epiphanius Hilary and St. Augustin I will produce their Words at length if you desire them P. It will be but lost labour since we deny not as Cardinal Bellarmin well saith The Evidence of Sense to be a good positive Evidence but not a negative i. e. that it is a Body which is handled and felt and seen but not that it is no Body which is not Pr. Very well And I pray then what becomes of your single Sheet man who so confidently denies Sense to be good positive Evidence as to a real Body but only as to the outward appearance P. You mistake him for he saith We are to believe our Senses where they are not indisposed and no Divine Revelation intervenes which we believe there doth in this Case and therefore unless the Fathers speak of the Sacrament we have no reason to regard their Testimonies in this matter But we have stronger Evidence against you from the Fathers for they say we are not to rely on the Evidence of Sense as to the Sacrament So St. Cyril St. Chrysostom and St. Ambrose Pr. I am glad you offer any thing which deserves to be considered But have you already forgot Bellarmin's Rule That Sense may be a good positive Evidence but not a negative i. e. it may discover what is present as a Body but not what is not and cannot be so present viz. the Invisible Grace which goes along with it and as to this the Fathers might well say we are not to trust our Sense P. This is making an