hidden under them And thus the Council of Trent expressely declares in the 1. ch of the 13. Session not that the sensible things themselves are truly the Body of Christ but that under them his Body is containd 'T is written in the 1. of Samuel * c. 16. v. 7. Men look upon the outward appearances but God looks upon the heart In like manner our Senses only perceive the outward appearances of their objects but our Understanding by which we are made to the image of God is the onely Faculty which can discern the inward substance The naked notion of subsistent Being cannot be perceiv'd by any sense because it neither has dimension motion posture figure colour nor any of those modifications which affect our senses The qualities and modes of matter intercept our sight no sense can penetrate the superficies of it discern the nakedness of substance through the cloaths it wears we neither see it nor feel it more than we see or feel the substance of the Soul which animates our Body Now I must needs acknowledge that if when we receive the Sacrament we saw it round and yet believd it square if we saw it white yet believd it black if we felt it rough yet believd it smooth if we felt it dry yet believd it moist if we tasted sweetness in it and yet believd it bitter No man could then deny but that our Faith would teach things evidently contrary to what our Senses tell us But as the case stands with us in this article I never yet could see how any thing but ignorance can possibly excuse all those who flap us ore the mouth with the absurdity of contradicting all our senses We really believe the superficies or outward form is round and white just as we see it if we feel it rough and dry we take it to be such and when we tast it sweet we do not question but it is so We firmly without any hesitation believe all that our Senses represent unto us we declare to all the world that we believe our Senses we live dy in a persuasion that in this mystery our Senses tell us nothing but what 's true And yet some people have the face to tell us that we contradict our senses A strange world it is we live in now that makes no conscience of saying any thing I know very well you 'l readily object that after consecration we see the Substance of bread and we believe the Substance is not there is not this contradicting of our Senses I grant that after consecration we see the substance as plainly as we did before but this I flatly deny that any man ever saw the substance of bread either before or after 'T is true most men who do not understand Philosophy are apt to think that when they see bread lie before them they see the substance of it They never imagine that there is as much difference betwixt seeing bread seeing the substance of bread as there is betwixt seeing substance with all its cloaths on and seeing of it naked When they see the length breadth depth the figure texture colour of the parts of bread they think they see the substance and 't is no wonder that they are mistaken because they do not understand what substance is But if they would go to school to Aristotle or Cartesius the two chief Masters of the old new Philosophy the First would reach them that when they think they see or feel the substance of any body they only see feel the accidents the quantity qualities that cover it The second would easily inform them and let them know they only see feel the superficies modes of matter which may remain the same to all intents purposes and make the same impression upon our senses although the entity of matter be entirely chang'd If any of you are so curious you may read Cartesius himself upon this subject in the end of his Meditations pag. 137 of the 5. edition printed at Amsterdam in the year 1670. * Notandum denique per supersiciem panis aut vini alteriusve corporis non hic intelligi partem ullam substantiae nec quantitatis .... fed tantummodo terminum illum qui medius esse concipitur inter singulas ejus particulas corpora ipsas ambientia quique nullam planè entitatem habeat nisi modalem Iam verò cum in solo termino contactus fiat nihil nisi per contactum sentiatur manifestum est ex hoc uno quod dicantur panis vini substantiae in alicujus alterius rei substantiam Ita mutari ut haec nova substantia sub eisdem planè terminis contineatur sub quibus aliae ..... jam existerent si adessent sequi necessatiò illam novam substantiam eodem planè modo sensus omnes nostros afficere debere quo panis vinum illos afficerent si nulla transubstantiatio facta esset loc cit Praeterea nihil est incomprehensibile aut difficile in eo quod Deus Creator omnium possit unam substantiam in aliam mutare quodque haec posterior substantia sub eâdem planè superficie remaneat sub quâ prior continebatur Nec etiam quidquam rationi magis consentancum dici potest nec vulgo apud Philosophos magis receptum quà m non modo omnem sensum sed omnem corporis in corpus actionem fieti per contactum huncque contactum in solâ superficie esse posse Vnde sequitur evidenter eandem superficiem quantumvis substantia quae sub eâ est mutetur eodem semper modo agere ac pati debere Quapropter ausim sperare ventutum tempus aliquando quo illa opinio quae ponit accidentia realia .... explodetur mea ut certa indubitata in ejus locum recipietur ibid. pag. 139. Some of my Auditory may perhaps be a little surprised to hear so much Philosophy deliverd in a pulpit whence they usually expect the Law of God Christian Doctrine If without Philosophy we cannot find the way to Heaven what will become of all those Christians who never found the way to school Pray give me leave There are a great many Christians let them be as ignorant as you please especially in matters of Philosophy who never the less think they are wise enough to judge the greatest mysteries and secrets of it And when they hear the Catholick Church affirm that in the Eucharist the interiour substances of bread wine are chang'd into the body blood of Christ nothing remaining but the outward forms of bread wine in stead of receiving humbly the Christian Doctrine which the Church proposes they immediatly take upon them to condemn it as an errour cry it down as a ridiculous absurdity which contradicts our senses All this while they never consider how little it becomes them to pretend to judge of things they do not understand Tell them that
therefore I have nothing more to do but cite the Fathers words so conclude S. Gaudentius is his 2. Tract upon Exodus says He the Creator Lord of Nature who produces bread out of the earth produces also his own proper body out of bread because he can do it promis'd to do it And He who produc'd wine out of water produces also his blood out of wine .... For when he gave the consecrated bread wine to his disciples He said This is my Body This is my Blood. Let us believe him whom we have believ'd Truth cannot tell a lie S. Chrysostom in his 83. homilie upon S. Matthew has these excellent words Let us every where believe God Almighty nor contradict him although what He says seem contrary to our Reason and our Eyes ..... His word cannot deceive us Our Sense is easily deceiv'd That never erres This often is mistaken Since therefore He says This is my Body Let us be persuaded of it believe it .... These are not the works of human power He who did these things at his last supper He it is who now performs them We only are his Ministers 't is He that Sanctifies He that Transmutes the bread wine into his Body Blood. So that as the same Saint says in his 25. homily upon the 1. to the Corinthians That which is in the Chalice is that which flow'd from his side that we are partakers of S. Ambrose in his book De his qui mysteriis initiantur ch 9. Perhaps you 'l say says he I see quite another thing How do you assure me that I receive the Body of Christ And this is that which remains for us to prove How great says he are the examples which we use to shew that it is not the thing which Nature form'd but the thing which the Blessing has consecrated and that the Blessing has greater force than Nature because by the Blessing even the Nature it self is chang'd Afterwards He instances in the change of rods into Serpents and of water into blood and thus pursues his discourse If says he the word of Elias was powerfull enough to command fire down from Heaven shall not the word of Christ be able to change the Nature of the Elements You have read of the whole Creation He said they were made He commanded they were created The Word therefore of Christ which could make out of nothing that which was not cannot it change those things which are into what they were not S. Gregory Nyssen in his Catechistical Discourse ch 37. professes the same faith I do believe says he that by the word of God the Sanctified bread is transmuted into the Body of God the Word ... Not that by mediation of nourishment it becomes the body of the Word but that immediatly by the Word it is transmuted into his body by these words This is my Body .... the Nature of the things which appear being transelemented that is transubstantiated into it S. Cyril Patriarch of Hierusalem in his 4. Mystagogick Catechise discourses thus Do not consider it as meer bread wine for now it is the Body Blood of Christ according to our Lord 's own words Although your Sense suggest otherwise let your faith confirm you that you may not judge the thing by the Tast .... and a little after he goes on knowing says he holding for certain that the bread which we see is not bread although it tast like bread the wine which we see is not wine although it tast like wine S. Hierome in his Catalogue Theodoret in his 2. Dialogue are witnesses that S. Cyril was the Author of this work And now I appeal to the judgment of my Auditory whether I may not venture to defy any Catholick of this present Age to express in plainer terms our Faith of Transubstantiation * However T is very strange you 'l say if this were the faith of the first Ages that None of the Heathens nor so much as Julian the Apostat should take notice of it This if we believe a late Author is to a wise man instead of a thousand Demonstrations that no such doctrine was then believ'd * As for Julian the Apostat Of three books which he wrote we have but one that imperfect Had he objected it 't is certain S. Cyril of Alexandria never would have taken notice of it in his Answer So cautious he is in speaking even of Baptism that he passes it over in these terms I should say many more things .... if I did not fear the ears of the profane For commonly they laugh at things they cannot understand * As for the Heathens 't is sufficient to reflect what care was taken by the primitive Christians to hide the mysteries of our Religion to keep our books out of the hands of Infidels This privacy of ours made Celsus call our Doctrine Clancular and Origen in his first book against him answers that it is proper not only to Christian Doctrine but also to Philosophy to have some things in it which are not communicated to every one Tertullian in his 4. book Ad Uxorem ch 5 for this reason would not allow Christian women to marry Pagan husbands will not your Husband says he know what you tast in Secret before you eat of any other meat And S. Basil in his book Concerning the Holy Ghost ch 27. says that The Apostles Fathers in the beginning of the Church by privacy silence preserv'd the dignity of their Mysteries * But because my Author thinks this Demonstration worth a Thousand I am the more willing to answer him in his own words that though I have untied the knot I could with more ease have cut it For since 't is plain evident from all the Records of the first eight Centuries that Transubstantiation always was believ'd it is the wildest and the most extravagant thing in the world to set up a pretended Demonstration of Reason against plain experience matter of Fact. This is just like Zeno's Demonstration against Motion when Diogenes walkt before his eyes A man may demonstrate till his head heart ake before he shall ever be able to prove that which certainly was never to have been All the Reason in the World is too weak to Cope with so tough obstinate a difficulty I have now perform'd my promise I have in three Sermons prov'd 1. that Transubstantiation is neither contrary to Sense nor Reason 2. that it follows clearly from the plainest words in Scripture 3. that it has been the perpetual faith of the Catholick Church not only since Paschasius but ever since the first foundation of Christian Religion And now I not only beg of you but earnestly conjure you by all that ought to be most dear to you by all your desires expectations of eternal Happyness to consider seriously leisurely three fundamental principles of Christianity 1. That without Faith 't is
THREE SERMONS UPON THE SACRAMENT IN WHICH Transubstantiation is impartially considerd as to Reason Scripture and Tradition To which is added a Sermon upon the Feast of S. George By N. N. Preacher in Ordinary to their Majesties LONDON M.DC.LXXXVIII A SERMON Preacht before the KING AT WHITE-HALL June 14. 1688. Quomodo fiet istud How shall this be done Luke 1.34 THe Enemies of Christ's Divinity abhorr the Faith of it as contrary to Sense because all those who saw him plainly saw he was a Man and opposite to Reason because it seems to them impossible either for Immensity to be comprehended in the compass of a man or for one Person to subsist in two Natures The Enemies of Transubstantiation urge the same arguments against it They say 't is contrary to Sense because all those who see it plainly see 't is bread and opposite to Reason because it seems to them impossible either for Christ's body to be comprehended in so small a compass or for one body to be at the same time in two places Never was S. Paul's advice more seasonable than in this Age of ours He tells us that it is our Duty * 2. Cor. 10.5 to cast down imaginations and every high thing that exalteth it self against the knowledge of God bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ I must confess 't is naturall enough to entertain a doubtfull thought of what is far above the reach of Reason When things are so extremely difficult that no man can conceive the manner how they are perform'd we presently are apt to think they are impossible How shall this be done But this is a proud thought that must be humbled 't is a rebellious imagination which if S. Paul says true must be cast down it exalts it self against the knowledg of God and must be brought into captivity S. Iohn Damascen in his Orthodox Faith * 3. b. 14. ch proposes an illustrious example of our Duty in a parallell betwixt the Incarnation Eucharist and by the Blessed Virgin 's humble submission to that mystery shews how we ought to captivate our understanding in believing this Thus he discourses compares both mysteries How shall this be done said the Blessed Virgin seeing I know not a man The Archangel Gabriel answerd The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee the Power of the Highest shall overshadow thee You also ask me the like Question How can bread be made the body of Christ wine mixt with water become the blood of Christ I also give you the same answer The Holy Ghost descends effects such things as far exceed not only our expressions but our understandings The mysteries of Faith would be no longer mysteries if Reason comprehended them much less would they deserve that Name if Sense discoverd them We commonly say that Seeing is Believing and amongst Men acquainted with the cheats of a deceitfull world we find the wisest are the slowest in believing what they do not see But yet the word of God has so much credit with us that we confidently trust him farther than we see him and when we hear him say This is my body we believe it though we do not see it Nor is it any wonder that we boldly venture to believe such things as are beyond the reach of Sense more than it is that we believe such points as are above the reach of Reason If Transubstantiation were either contrary to Sense or Reason then indeed the clamours of our Adversaries would be something plausible But if it be neither contrary to Sense as I shall plainly shew in my first part nor contrary to Reason as I shall endeavour to prove in my second all their unreasonable clamours will be little valued and all their noise which is the last and weakest refuge of a baffed Cause will signifie just nothing Permit me only in the first place to beg the assistance of my Saviour whose cause I plead and to desire his Virgin Mother with all the Angels Saints in Heaven to joyn their prayers with mine FIRST PART We are all of us willing to believe our eyes and truly we have reason to believe them especially when all mens eyes agree and in all times places give the same information to our understandings Not that I think it is impossible for the Almighty to deceive the eyes of all men by a constant miracle of his Omnipotence but that I have good reason to suppose he uses methods more conformable to reasonable nature One great occasion of men's thinking that their senses are imposed upon is but a false persuasion that when they see the Sacrament they must believe the outward form the surface the qualities which we see touch tast to be the true Body Blood of Christ If this were so they would have reason to be jealous of their senses being contradicted But if these people would reflect that all this outward form the surface and the qualities which we observe are really in all respects the very same as they are represented to our senses that they are not believed by us to be the true Body and Blood of Christ but only the coat which cloaths it the curtain which is drawn before it the veil which shrouds it and hides it from our senses that when we fall down on our knees to adore our Saviour Jesus Christ whom we firmly believe to be really and substantially present by a miracle insensible and imperceptible to all our senses we do not adore the coat which cloaths him nor the curtain which is drawn before him nor the veil which shrouds hides him from us we only adore the God of our Salvation who in the mystery of the Incarnation hid his Divinity in flesh in the mystery of Transubstantiation hides his flesh blood under the forms of bread wine Verily says the Prophet Isaiah * c 45. v. 15. Thou art a God that hidest thy self O God of Israel the Saviour If people would but leisurely reflect that all which they perceive by any of their senses is really and truly the same as they perceive it that Faith dos not oblige them to believe the contrary but only to believe that under the superficies of these outward forms the Body and Blood of Christ are hid miraculously conceal'd from all their senses Then they would easily conclude that Transubstantiation is not contrary to sense My word alone perhaps has not sufficient credit with you you may hear S. Anselm in the end of the eleventh Century after the condemnation of Berengarius In the 1. ch of his Tract de Sacramento Altaris he plainly says That similitude of bread which upon the Altar appears to our corporeal eyes considerd in it self is not the body of our Lord. No no you may believe your eyes that all the exteriour forms of bread are truly there 't is only necessary to believe that the body of our Lord is really containd
way of speaking when we say This Glass is a new Health in Wine the glass is one metaphor the health is another and yet the wine is truly substantially Wine Having thus exposed the weakness of their arguments by which they undertake to shew that Transubstantiation is repugnant to plain words of holy Scripture I shall now endeavour to make out that Transubstantiation may if any thing can be plainly provd by holy Writ the proof of which shall make the second part of my Discourse SECOND PART In the 6. ch of S. Iohn our Saviour promises that he will give us his flesh that sacred flesh which he design'd to sacrifice upon the Cross for our Redemption In the 51. v. he says the Bread that I will give is my Flesh which I will give for the life of the world I know very well that in the former verses from 26. to 51. He uses some expressions which are purely metaphorical But whatsoever a few modern Authors may say of this matter I can never be persuaded that this chapter talks of nothing else but Faith that from 50. to 60. the Eating which is so much talkt of signifies nothing but Believing We have appeal'd to Scripture Let it judge the Case betwixt us When in the 52 v. we read how the Jews strove amongst themselves saying How can this man give us his flesh to eat we know they understood him in the literal Sense wonderd how it could be true If he had spoken only in a figurative Sense it had been easy to have told them so In other matters of much less importance 't was his usual custom to expound his meaning Iohn the 3. ch 4. v. Nicodemus said to him How can a man be born again when he is old He let him understand He did not mean it in the literal sense but that He spoke of Baptism Except a man be born of water the Spirit he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God. Matth. 13. He proposed to his Disciples the Parable of the Sower They understood it not He presently expounded it to them The Parable of Tares they understood as little but as soon as they desir'd him He declar'd to them the whole mystery of it In these other occasions when he had spoken any thing obscurely He was always willing to interpret it And there was never more necessity than when the Jews were scandaliz'd to hear him say the Bread that I will give is my Flesh. If he only design'd to give them Bread not his Flesh. I will not say He ought to have explain'd himself because to punish their perversness He might lawfully have left them in their ignorance and though he were the Light of the world yet He might justly leave those in the dark who obslinately shut their eyes against him But that our Saviour should not only refuse to explicate his words but also make it his business to confirm them in an errour that He who came to instruct the world should labour to deceive it that He who left the ninety nine sheep in the Desert should endeavour to drive the lost sheep farther from the true way home Let who will say it A Christian must be asham'd to think it If he were then resolv'd to give us nothing else to eat drink but bread wine is it probable that He would so industriously repeat the eating of his Flesh drinking of his Blood Is it possible that he should tell them in the 55. v. My Flesh is meat indeed my Blood is drink indeed if really the meat drink were neither Flesh nor Blood When in the 24. of S. Luke our Adversaries read our Lord is risen indeed or in the 4. of S. Iohn this is indeed the Saviour of the world They understand it believe it in the literal sense But when they read these words my Flesh is meat indeed my Blood is drink indeed they believe 't is nothing else but sacred bread wine Is this Believing Scripture No no When Scripture speaks as plainly in one place as in another no convincing reason can be given why they force the sense of this place more than that if they believe that not this They do not believe the Scripture but themselves They do not believe because they read it but because they like it When the Disciples saw how seriously their Master taught the literal sense they cryd out in the 60. v this is a hard saying who can hear it They consider'd it foolishly says S. Austin * In Psal 98. they understood it carnally thought our Lord would chop of morsels of his flesh give it them They were not only startled at the seeming impossibility but also at the barbarousness of the design And the three following verses shew us how our Saviour endeavour'd to let them know it neither was impossible nor barbarous Dos this offend you says He Do you think I am not able to make good my words Surely you know not who I am you would not otherwise mistrust my Almighty Power But what if you shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before Then I suppose you 'l know that I am God and from that miracle conclude that this is easy to me that I have not only wisdom to contrive but power to execute my promise Dos this offend you It is the Spirit that quickneth the flesh profiteth nothing The words that I speak unto you they are Spirit they are Life I do not intend to give dead morsels of my flesh which being separated from my Spirit Divinity will profit nothing because they will not give your souls the lise of grace You shall not eat it in the natural form of human flesh that is indeed a carnal and a barbarous way of eating it But nevertheless under the form of bread you shall receive the true real substance of my flesh and this is that spiritual way of eating which you are not yet acquainted with This is the mystery which I expect you should believe This neither is impossible nor barbarous This is not contrary to Reason though it be above it But yet says he v. 64. there are some of you that believe not And v. 65. he tells the reason why because says he no man can come unto me unless it be given to him of my Father Proud Silly Wretches as we are We think it is sufficient to read Gods word we think there goes no more than reading to believe it we never reflect that no man can believe the word of God the Son unless he first receive the powerfull grace of Christian Humility from God the Father that Grace by which we willingly submit our Reason to such mysteries as are above it The 66. v. laies before our eyes the sad example of those many disciples who from that time went back walkt no more with him They heard the same words which our Adversaries
they promise we are always ready to come over to them But having been so long in full peaceable possession of a Truth deliver'd to us as an ancient article of Faith they cannot reasonably expect that we should quit our hold before they bring clear evidence against our Title to it Necessity obliges them to make this bold attempt They know if once they grant that all the Torrent of Antiquity runs clear and strong against them they never can be able to bear up against the stream They are sensible how plainly the Fathers speak their mind in favour of this mystery And therefore search amongst the darkest passages of all their Writings where they are glad to meet with any thing that makes a plausible appearance * The Sum of their Objection is this that S. Chrysostom Theodoret and Gelasius expressly affirm that the substance of bread remains after Consecration and therefore it is not chang'd into the body of Christ * This at first sight seems plausible enough nor is it any wonder if it startle those who never heard of it before And yet if all these great Men by their substance meant no more than the true nature of the outward forms sensible qualities there is no danger of their disbelieving Transubstantiation We believe the substance is really chang'd and these Fathers were pleas'd to say the substance is really the same but yet after all the noise they make with it the Fathers and we may agree so far as to be both in the right if we take the same word in different senses they by substance mean one thing whilst we mean another Philosophy both old new distinguishes betwixt the inward substance the outward forms of all corporeal Beings These are the usual and familiar object of our Senses that 's an entity so subtil so metaphysical that nothing but our Understanding can discern it T is not indeed a Spirit but it is no more to be discover'd by our Senses than a human Soul is in a Body Extension figure colour and its other qualities are the Apparel which it wears and these affect our Senses But the naked Substance of all Bodies is perpetually hidden from them However although Philosophers make this distinction betwixt the inward substance the outward forms nevertheless the Generality of Mankind look no farther than their Senses lead them They judge of bodies by their qualities natural effects By these they sensibly discern one Substance from another And this is all they think of when they talk of Substance When any of the Fathers say the Substance or nature of bread wine remains after consecration they onely condescend so far as to accomodate their way of speaking to the vulgar phrase And truly what they mean we all believe We doubt not but all which is vulgarly understood by substance is the same We doubt not but our Senses tell us truth and that all the outward forms qualities of bread wine remain unalter'd The Council of Trent declares there is no change in these * Sess 13. can 2. manentibus speciebus panis vini If therefore the Fathers use sometimes this vulgar notion of Substance what wonder is it if sometimes they tell us that the nature or the Substance is the same What wonder is it if S. Chrysostom in his epistle to Cesarius write thus As before Consecration we call it Bread but after it is no longer call'd Bread but the Body of our Lord although the Nature of Bread remains in it and it dos not become two Bodies but one Body of Christ So here the Divine Nature being joyn'd to the Human they both make one Son one Person By the Nature of a Body we usually aprehend no more than the exteriour qualities which we discover by our Senses And when we find a change in these we usually say the Nature changes although the Body still remain the same And by the same rule when the accidents make still the same impression upon our Senses although the Body by a miracle be chang'd we say the Nature is the same Besides These very words which are produc'd against us shew clearly that S Chrysostom distinguishes betwixt the Nature of bread the Body of bread Dos not he say that although the Nature or accidents of Bread remain yet the Body or Substance of bread dos not remain because there remains but One Body and this one Body if we believe him is not the Body of bread but the Body of Christ * With as little reason they triumph because Theodoret says in his 2. Dialogue The mystical Symboles remain in their former Substance form figure may be seen toucht as before And Gelasius in his book De duabus in Christo naturis says the Substance or Nature of bread wine dos not cease .... they remain in the propriety of their Nature * Theodoret dos not speak of the corporeal Substance of bread by which it differs from a Spirit but expressly names the mystical Symboles which are the outward forms accidents of bread wine And Gelasius urging the same argument against the Eutychians uses the word Substance only once and the word Nature twice to let us see that by the Substance of the mystical Symboles or as he calls them the Sacraments which we receive he only means the nature or the essence of the sensible Accidents * And now I desire to know what wonder there is in all this Is it any unheard of News to Men of Letters that such words as substance nature essence are promiscuously made use of even by Philosophers and that by them they mean to signifie the notion of any other predicament or any real being as well as that of substance S. Austin was undoubtedly a great Philosopher yet He calls every real Being by the name of Substance In his Enarration upon the 68. Psalm he says Quod nulla substantia est nihil omnino est That which has no substance is nothing at all * If this be true you 'l say their argument against the Eutychians will be good for nothing Excuse me The Eutychians held that there was onely One Nature in Christ because they were pleas'd to fancy that his human nature was absorpt in the Divinity chang'd into it To prove the substantial change of human nature into the Divinity they argued from the miraculous change of bread into the body of Christ which argument they never would have urged if they had not known that the Catholicks of that Age believ'd the mystery of Transubstantiation Theodoret and Gelasius answer that the outward forms of bread wine remain the same as formerly from whence it follows evidently that not only the accidents of human nature but also the very subsiance of it still remains in Christ Because the accidents of human nature separated from the substance of it are neither capable of hypostatick union with God nor of exercising the vital
whether it be true or no is the Question which the Fathers of the first four Ages are to answer S. Ignatius in his epistle to the Romans speaking of this bread of God says it is the Flesh of Jesus Christ S. Justin martyr in his Apology to Antoninus Pius says We are taught that it is the Body Blood of Jesus Incarnate S. Ireneus in his fifth book against heresies ch 11. speaking of the bread wine says that by the word of God they are made the Eucharist which is the Body Blood of Christ Origen in his 7. homilie upon the 6. of Numbers says Then in a figure Manna was their meat but now in reality the Flesh of God the Word is our true meat Optatus in his 6. book against Parmenian gives the Sacrament no other name What is the Altar says he but the seat of Christ's Body Blood He repeats it over over again And if all the while he meant only a figure 't is strange he should never call it by the right name S. Ephrem the Deacon in his book De Naturâ Dei curiosè non scrutandâ says Our Saviour has given us his Body Blood and that this gift of his exceeds all admiration all expression all understanding Which he would never have said if he had thought it had been but a figure To all these proofs several more which I omit the Author of a late Dialogue in which the mysteries of Trinity Transubstantiation are compared returns this answer that the Reformers themselves generall say the Eucharist is the Body of Christ And yet they all deny the mystery of Transubstantiation This is soon said amounts to no more than this That the Reformers say as we do think otherwise They say it is his body they think it is not But you must give me leave to tell you that although their words look one way their thoughts another I have no reason to suspect this fallacy of speech in the good Fathers of the first four Centuries What they receiv'd in plain terms from our Saviour his Apostles They deliverd with the same sincerity candour to succeeding Ages Hear what S. Hilary of Poictiers tells you in his 8. book De Trinitate where taking notice of our Saviour's words in the 6. ch of S. John He says There is no place lest for doubting of the Truth of his Body Blood for now by our Lord's Profession our Faith 't is truly his Body truly his Blood. Hear S. Epiphanius in his Ancorat where to oppose the Allegorical Sense of Origen in the Creation of Paradise He alledges several places out of Scripture which though they are hard to understand are universally believ'd in the plain literal sense Amongst the rest he produces the example of the Eucharist thus discourses upon it We see it is not equal nor like the Body of Christ yet our Saviour would pronounce This is my Body Nor is there any one who dos not believe these words of his For he who dos not believe them to be true falls absolutely from the state of Grace of Salvation What think ye of this Do ye think these great Men did not understand the faith of the Age they lived in Do ye think they were not able to inform the World concerning the Faith of former Ages much better than our late Reformers who came into the World above a thousand years after them They tell us The literal Sense is matter of Faith that they who do not believe it are neither in the State of Grace nor of Salvation If it be said that any Real Presence of Christ's Body or the Impanation of his Person is enough What need is there of Transubstantiation to verifie the literal Sense The Answer is obvious clear 1. Our Saviour did not say My Body is here but This is my Body And although any real presence is enough to make good the former Assertion yet nothing less than a Substantial change can verifie the later 2. Although by virtue of an hypostatick union it may be as true to say This bread is Christ as to say This Man is God yet still 't will be as false to say This Bread is the Body of Christ as to say This Humanity is the Divinity Besides it falls out a little unluckily that this Invention only serves to pull down the old Transubstantiation to set up a new one by changing the subsistence of bread into the divine Subsistence the Second Person of the B. Trinity It cannot be litterally verified that This Bread or This thing which was bread is the Flesh of Christ unless the bread be chang'd into his flesh that is cease to be bread and begin to be his flesh And this is the substantial change which we call Transubstantiation There are two sorts of changes one accidental as when cold water is made warm another substantial as when our Saviour chang'd water into wine An accidental change may warm the water but only a substantial change can make it wine In the same manner an accidental change may make bread a Sacrament but nothing less than a substantial change can make it the Flesh or Body of Christ * The Fathers often compare these changes but never confound the one with the other S. Cyril of Hierusalem in his 1. Mystagogick Catechise observes that as Bread by invocation of the Trinity is made the Body of Christ so meats offer'd to Devils are made impure by invocation of them In his 3. Catechise he says As bread after the invocation is the Body of Christ so the Oyntment after consecration is the Chrisme of Christ S. Ambrose in his 4. book De Sacramentis ch 4. proves that Christ can effect great changes above nature because by his grace We are new Creatures in Him. But yet the Fathers do not say These changes are equal to That by which Bread is made the Body of Christ These Assertions This meat is impure This oyntment is the Chrism of Christ This man is a new creature in Christ All This is evidently verified in the plain literal Sense by a meer accidental change But when the Fathers say This bread is the Flesh of Christ Nothing but a substantial change can verifie the plain Sense of the Letter Nothing can make it literally true but Transubstantiation Bread is one Body one corporeal Substance The Flesh of Christ is another Body another corporeal Substance Change that into this You change one Body into another one Substance into another And then I pray What change is this if it be not Substantial What is it if it be not Transubstantiation T is clear that when the Fathers of the first four Ages speak of the wonderfull change made in the Sacrament they speak of the change of Bread into the Flesh or Body of Christ They speak not of an Accidental change but a Substantial one which now the Church calls Transubstantiation And
in the principles both of the old new Philosophy we never see the nakedness of any substance whatsoever but only the outward forms which hide it from us and therefore if the Almighty have a mind to change the substance only not the accidents we may watch him as narrowly as we please never discover any alteration because all that our senses can perceive remains the same and as before the substance was miraculously chang'd we could not see it so after 't is miraculously chang'd we cannot miss it Talk to them of these notions in the plainest terms you can they 'l ask you what you mean. wonder what you would be at They neither know the nature of the substance nor the accidents they know not whether Transubstantiation be contrary to sense or no and yet they still will tell a man it contradicts their senses 'T is very hard in such a case as this if they who do not understand Philosophy may tell us we deny our senses and they who understand it may not be allow'd to tell them fairly they are very much mistaken Mistakes in matters of religion are dangerous And certainly so much Philosophy as is needfull to set us right cannot but be allowable when such mistakes as these proceed from want of understanding it I shall conclude this part of my discourse with shewing in as easie terms as the matter will bear that t is impossible for any of our senses to give evidence against our faith of Transubstantiation If we believd that Transubstantiation were a sensible change a change of any thing that is sensible in the bread wine then indeed our senses being judges of sensible things might easily give evidence against our faith They might depose that nothing sensible is chang'd but that all things sensible remain the same as formerly they were and no man could deny but that our Faith would contradict our Senses But on the contrary if we do not believe that Transubstantiation is a sensible change if we believe no change of any thing which is sensible then truly our senses not being judges of insensible things cannot give evidence against us they cannot depose that no insensible thing is chang'd because insensible matters fall not within their cognizance and therefore whether they are chang'd or not is more than they can tell If there should happen a dispute concerning difference of colours whether they are chang'd or not Would you remit it to the arbitration of five blind men Since therefore the dispute betwixt us is about the insensible difference of substance whether it be chang'd or not How can our senses give their sentiment one way or other either for it or against it This argument is so convincing that it will not bear the least appearance of a solid Answer and withall so plain that any man without Philosophy may clearly understand it To which I shall only add a word or two more to put a stop to all the cavills which may possibly arise from the diversity of schoolmen's fancies T is evident that the Catholick Church by the substance which is believ'd to be chang'd in the Sacrament dos not understand any thing that is sensible in bread wine The Council of Trent in the 2. Canon of the 13. Session supposes as a certain undoubted truth that all things sensible remain the same manentibus speciebus panis vini And in the 1. ch of the same Session tells us that the body blood of Christ are contain'd under them sub specie illarum rerum sensibilium T is true the Council dos not offer to define what substance is it dos not tell us what it understands by substance it meddles not with definitions of Philosophy but only definitions of Faith determining what Truths were first deliver'd to the Church by Christ his Apostles But though we know not in particular what 't was the Council meant by substance This we know for certain that it meant not any of those sensible things but only that insensible subsistent Being which is hidden under them And this is enough to silence all disputes about the Evidence of Sense Let who will tell us that the substances of bread wine are sensible we always shall have this to say That if by substance they mean something which is sensible the Council dos not mean the same They mean one sort of substance The Council means another therefore all their arguments from evidence of sense are every one misplac'd they are levell'd against a chimerical Transubstantiation of their own invention and not against that which the Council has defin'd In a word if any Transubstantiation be contrary to sense Let them look to 't we are not at all concern'd in the matter such a Transubstantiation is not ours but theirs I humbly recommend this to your serious thoughts undertake to prove that Transubstantiation is not contrary to Reason in the second part of my Discourse SECOND PART The Oracles of Holy Scripture in the book of Iob assure us * 36.26 God is great and we know him not As we do not know him so we do not know his power and therefore it is written in the following chapter * 37.5 He dos great things which we cannot comprehend His works are great we cannot comprehend them But hence it dos not follow that they are impossible because He can do great things which we cannot comprehend We all of us agree that mysteries of Faith are far above the reach of Reason but 't is our great misfortune and one of the worst effects of our original Corruption That though we thus agree in generalls yet in the examen of particulars we easily confound their being above Reason with their being contrary and presently conclude them contrary because they are above it All this proceeds from nothing but a secret pride or vanity which make us willing to suppose that we are wiser than we are that we comprehend the secret Natures of things understand clearly the essentiall constitution of their Beings see evidently all the attributes appropriated to them all the qualities irreconcileably repugnant to their natures Supposing this we readily pronounce This is impossible That cannot be This is a meer chimera That 's a contradiction And all this while reflect not that we may perhaps be very much mistaken in our arbitrary notions from whence we draw so easily these bold Conclusions We do not consider the History as well as Theory of Natural Philosophy if we did we should find such strange varieties alterations in it as would demonstrate the uncertainty of of all its principles Corpuscular Philosophy was well enough received in ancient times under Democritus Epicurus Afterwards it was in a manner quite laid by Aristotle's Notions succeeded in the place And now the world begins to seem unsatisfied his matter form his quantity qualities begin to look a little out of countenance and the Corpuscular Philosophy