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
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
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
Our Saviour dos not say This is Wine S. Paul dos not contradict our Saviour nor dos our Saviour contradict himself Why then do they call it bread and wine The Answer is obvious Not because it was bread wine then but because it was bread wine before Nothing is more familiar in Scripture than this way of speaking S. Iohn in the 9. ch of his Ghospel relating the miraculous cure of the man that was born blind tells us in the 7. v. He went his way washt came seeing and yet afterwards in the 17. v. he calls him blind and tells us what they say to the blind man again Why dos the Scripture call him blind after his sight was restord The reason is not because he was blind then but because he was blind before Turn to the 7. ch of S. Luke and in the 22. v. you 'l read these words of our Saviour The blind see the lame walk the deaf hear he says they see and yet he calls them blind he says they walk yet he calls them lame he says they hear yet he calls them deaf Why dos he call them blind lame deaf when he himself bears witness that they see walk hear The Answer lies before you He calls them so not because they were so then but because they were so before In the 2. ch of S. Iohn the substantial change of water into wine was much the same as Transubstantiation therefore the example is fitter for the purpose In the 9 v. you read that the Ruler of the Feast tasted the water that was made wine You cannot but observe how plainly the Scripture says it was made wine and at the same time plainly calls it water Will any man deny this miracle and say it was not really truly wine because the Scripture calls it water after it was made wine No no 't is clear that when the miracle was done the Scripture calls it water not because it was water then but because it was water before Read the 7. ch of Exodus you 'l find in the 10. v. Aaron cast down his rod before Pharaoh it became a Serpent in the 11. v. The Magicians of Egypt also did in like manner in the 12. v. They cast down every man his rod but Aaron's rod swallowd up their rods Pause here one moment The Scripture plainly tells us that these rods were all chang'd into Serpents and yet after the change the Scripture calls them rods not because they were rods then but because they were rods before If any of our Adversaries have a mind to say these rods were not chang'd into Serpents that Christ never chang'd water into wine that when he told S. Iohn's disciples the blind see the lame walk the deaf hear he sent them back to their master with so many lies in their mouths if they have a mind to say our Saviour never cur'd the man born blind then they may have the same pretence to magnifie this trifling argument But if they are the men which I would willingly believe they are if they are candid sincere if they submit their judgment fairly to the word of God as it is plainly written in their own translation of of the Bible they cannot but ingenuously confess that Transubstantiation is not any way repugnant to plain words of holy Scripture but that Scripture it self contutes the best of all their arguments which they produce against it I will not say t is ignorance but I am sure 't is either that or want of ingenuity which makes men argue that because there are some metaphors in Scripture Therefore the words of Consecration are a Metaphor or Figure No man denies but that we often meet with metaphors in Scripture but then either the common phrase of speaking evidently marks them out or else they are explaind by what fore-runs or follows the expression so explaind that no judicious Reader doubts the meaning of them When in the 6. of S. Iohn our Saviour says I am the bread of life He adds he that comes to me shall never hunger When in the 8. He says I am the light of the world He adds he that follows me shall have the light of life When in the 10. He says I am the door He adds by me if any man enter he shall be saved When in the 14. He says I am the way He adds no man comes to my Father but by me When in the 15. He says I am the Vine He adds he that abides in me brings forth much fruit So when S. Paul tells the Ephesians 5. ch 30. v. We are members of his body of his flesh of his bones He explicared it in the 23. v. that this Body which Christ is the Head and Saviour of is the Church And when he mentions flesh bones he only carries on the metaphor by a mysterious allusion to the 2. of Genesis because as Eve's Body drew its Being from the side of the first Adam when he slept in Paradise so also the Church derives the grace which animates it from the side the flesh bones of the last Adam when he slept his mortal sleep upon the Cross The verse which follows leads directly to the place and gives us word for word the 24. v. of the 2. of Genesis that we may evidently know the Sense and Ground of the Comparison In the same manner no less care is taken in the 1. to the Cor. 10. ch 4. v. to explicate these words That Rock was Christ S. Paul seems to write with as much caution as if he had forseen how much these words would be abused by those who now compare them with the words of Consecration Lest any man might think that when he said that rock was Christ he took the word rock in the literal sense he plainly says he speaks of spiritual meat spiritual drink he says in the same verse they drank of that spiritual rock which followd them and that rock that is that spiritual rock was Christ What could a man say more to acquaint the world with the true meaning of his words give us an assurance that it is not literal but only figurative metaphorical Some people are willing to believe that because Christ's body blood are only metaphorically broken shed for us in the Sacrament therefore they are not really his body blood As if because one word is figurative in a sentence therefore all the rest must be so too meerly for keeping it company or as if we were oblig'd to believe that because Christ's sitting at the right hand of his Father is a meer metaphor therefore he did not really ascend to Heaven When in S. Luke in the 1 Cor. we read these words This Cup is the New Testament in my Blood the Cup is one metaphor the Testament is another but hence it dos not follow that the blood of Christ is meerly metaphorical For in the common
operations of a Man. But mang learned men who read Gelasius and Theodoret want either skill or patience to understand them They find these words the substance of bread remains and are so much transported with the joyfull news of any thing that looks but like an argument against the Old Religion they have undertaken to reform they do not well consider what the word may signifie but willingly suppose the Sense is just the same as they would have it set their hearts at rest and look no farther * I have now sufficiently examin'd what the Fathers say concerning the outward form of the Sacrament what they mean by calling it a type a sign or figure what they understand when they call it the substance or nature of bread I now come close to the main point of the Question What they have taught constantly believ'd during the first eight Centuries concerning the inward substance of the Sacrament Whether they believ'd it was the substance of bread wine or the substance of Christ's body blood SECOND PART Paschasius Rathertus a French Monk Native of Soisson in Picardy wrote a book in the year 831. de Corpore Sanguine Domini at the request of one of his Scholars call'd Placidius an Abbot to whom he dedicated it He makes it his business to explain prove three points 1. that the body blood of Christ are truly and substantially present 2. that the substances of bread wine remain no longer after Consecration 3. that the body is the very same which was born of the Virgin suffer'd on the Cross rose from the Sepulcre He was the more willing to write this book because some people out of ignorance began to doubt of several truths relating to the Sacrament This I gather from an epistle of Paschasius to Frudegard where I find these words Although some people are out of ignorance mistaken nevertheless as yet no body openly contradicts this doctrine which all the World believes professes Our Adversaries take a great deal of pains to persuade us that Paschasius was the first broacher of this Doctrine from him they date the first Rise of it about the beginning of the IX Age although it did not take root nor was fully settled established till towards the end of the eleventh They add that this was the most likely time for the Enemy to sow his Tares when the Christian World was lull'd asleep in ignorance and superstition that the generality of people being quiet secure were ready to receive any thing that came in under a pretence of mystery in religion but the men most eminent for piety learning in that time made great resistance against it This is the Account which now is generally given by our modern Writers and particularly by the Author of a late Discourse against Transubstantiation T is easily said and the contrary is as easily prov'd Read Leo Allatius in his 3. book of the perpetual agreement betwixt East West and you will find Nicephorus Patriarch of Constantinople saying that the bread wine are not an image or a figure But that they are transmuted into the body blood of Christ Read Haymo Bishop of Halberstadt in his Treatise De Corpore Sanguine Domini you may find it in the 12. Tome of the Spicilegium his words are these We believe therefore and faithfully confess hold that the substance of bread wine by the operation of the Divine Virtue is substantially chang'd into another substance that is Body Blood ..... The tast of bread wine remains the figure the nature of the substances being wholly chang'd into the body blood of Christ Read Theodorus 〈◊〉 Abucara in the Bibliotheca Patrum printed at Lions you will find that in his 22. Opuscule he says The Holy Ghost descends by his Divinity changes the bread wine into the body blood of Christ I omit several others who lived in the same Age with Paschasius and all witness that the Church believd the mystery of Transubstantiation T is well known that the 3. part of Paschasius's doctrine occasion'd some disputes about the manner of speaking They allow'd the body to be the same in substance but not altogether the same because it is not in the same form it has no corporal motion or action in a word it is present in some respects after the manner of a spirit imperceptible to sense all in the whole all in every part This Spiritual presence of his body was much urg'd against Paschasius to prove the body is not absolutely the same But nevertheless if we do not preferr darkness before light we cannot but see that They who wrote against the third part did not write against the second and they who quarreld with his way of speaking did not deny the mystery of Transubstantiation as appears by the testimonies of his pretended Adversaries Amalarius in the 24. ch of his 3. book says We believe the simple nature of bread wine mixt with water to be chang'd into a reasonable nature to wit the body blood of Christ Rabanus Archbishop of Mentz in the 10. ch of his 7. book to Theotmarus De sacris ordinibus Who says he would ever have believ'd that bread could have been chang'd into flesh wine into blood unless our Saviour himself had said it who created bread wine all things out of nothing These men were also Authors of the same IX Age And after all these testimonies I leave you to judge whether the IX Age did not generally believe the mystery of Transubstantiation or whether Paschasius was the first that broacht it in the Western Church I do not insist upon the authority of Bertram either one way or other but however I shall give you a short account of him as much as may suffice to justifie my letting him alone The first question which he proposes in the beginning is * pag 1. whether the body of Christ be done in a mystery or in truth that is to say according to his own words whether it contain some secret thing or whether the bodily sight do outwardly behold whatsoever is done I have not hitherto met with any Author of the IX Age that ever said Our eye sees all that our faith believes but we are to suppose that some body said so or else that Bertram was mistaken He answers with a great deal of truth that * p. 5. it cannot be call'd a mystery wherein there is nothing covered with some veil removed from our bodily senses Outwardly says he the form of bread is set out but inwardly a thing far differing * p. 6. London-Edit 1687. which is not discern'd to be Christ's body by the carnal senses Afterward he compares this Sacrament with that of Baptism and finally in the 18. page he concludes Therefore the things that are seen things that are believ'd are not all one This was indeed a
mighty piece of business and one would think that eighteen pages were little enough to prove that things visible things invisible are not all one However the Answer is as wise as the Question dos not contradict the doctrine of Transubstantiation His comparison of Baptism though very unequal is tolerable enough and shews how in all Sacraments the inward virtue is distinguisht from the outward form But when he begins to take a ramble among * pag. 18. our Fathers that were under a Cloud when he inquires so seriously * pag. 19. how the grosseness of a very thick air could sanctifie the people and tells us how * pag. 20. the cloud gave out the cleanness of sanctification in respect that it contain'd invisibly the sanctisication of the Holy Ghost when he makes it an article of our faith * pag. 24. to believe firmly that in the Wilderness Christ made the Manna the Water of the Rock to become his own body blood as truly and as effectually as now he changes the bread wine when he goes on argues that * pag. 26. even as he could do the one a little before he sufferd so likewise he was able to do the other a great while before he was born finally when he tells us further-more that the Sacramental bread wine is as much turn'd into the body * pag. 68.69 blood of the believing people as into the body blood of Christ and proves it stoutly because where there is but one sanctification there must needs follow the like mystery When I consider what stuff this is and how he has put it together I begin to think t is no great matter either what he says or what he would say if he could speak Several learned Men have taken pains to excuse him to shew that all these instances were only intended to prove the difference betwixt the outward form inward substance of the Sacrament If this were all I confess he might mean well but He has expresst himself so very ill that for my part I do not think him worth quarreling for I am very well contented to leave him as I find him to let our Adversaries make the best they can of him If He pursued his notions too far and left the Church He was the first that ever did so in this matter and besides He wander'd by himself for no body in the IX Age follow'd him Let us now consider the VIII Age And we shall see the stream of Truth run clearer as we approach nigher the Fountain S. John Damascen in his Orthodox Faith 3. Book 14. chapter discourses thus The Body truly joyn'd to the Divinity is that which was born of the Virgin not that the Body He assum'd descends from heaven but the bread it self wine are chang'd into the Body Blood of God which if you ask How it can be done T is enough for you to hear it is done by the Holy Ghost .... Nothing says he is more clear and certain than that God's word is true and efficacious and omnipotent ..... After a wonderfull manner they are chang'd into the Body and Blood of Christ and are not two but one the same ... Neither are the Bread Wine a Figure of Christ's Body Blood but the Body it self of our Lord accompanied with his Divinity For our Lord himself said This is not a sign of my Body but my Body nor a sign of my Blood but my Blood. Hitherto ye have heard S. Iohn Damascen Pray what do ye think of him Do ye think that No body in the VIII Age believ'd the mystery of Transubstantiation Well but He was only one man. What say ye then if I produce 350. more I mean the 350. Bishops who sate in the VII general Council call'd in the 87. year of the VIII Age. * The Iconoclast Hereticks would not allow any relative worship and therefore refus'd all worship of any images but the Eucharist All other images of Christs Humanity subsisting by themselves were as they fancied false images and favour'd the Heresie of Nestorius who gave his Humanity a proper subsistence by it self But the outward form of the Sacrament not being a thing subsistent by it self but supported by the invisible substance Person of Christ was a true image and might not only be retain'd but ador'd So clear it is that the Iconoclasts did not deny Transubstantiation but because they believ'd it therefore they allow'd the adoration of the Eucharist They say indeed the Sacramental bread must not be figur'd in the shape of a human body for fear of introducing Idolatry but they only fear'd the introducing of other Image-worship given to other pictures of our Saviour which do not really contain Him. However they did not speak their mind so plain but that the Council doubted of their meaning supposing that by the word image they understood an empty sign the Bishops quarreld with the seeming contradiction of their terms calling the Eucharist sometimes an Image sometimes his Body And argued against them that if it be an empty image it cannot be this Divine Body Read the VI. Action and you will find the Judgment of the whole Council deliverd plainly in these words None of the Trompets of the Holy Ghost the holy Apostles and our illustrious Fathers did ever call our unbloody Sacrifice ... an image of his Body Neither did they learn of our Lord so to say confess ... He did not say Take eat the image of my Body .... The bread wine before they are sanctified are call'd Types but after their sanctification they are properly call'd the Body Blood of Christ They are so are believ'd to be so These are the words of 350. Bishops who all with one voice declare They firmly believe that what was bread before is after consecration properly Christ's body not only an image of it And this is all we understand by Transubstantiation So much for the VIII Age. I come now to the 3. next Ages the V. the VI. and VII And because the Reforming Party is willing to believe S. Austin favours them we will begin with S. Austin I am not ignorant that in his Writings upon the Ghospel of S. John he copiously dilates upon the figurative sense and that in his 3. book De Doctrinâ Christianâ he says that the Sacrament is a figure of our Lord's Passion which when we receive we ought to lay up in our memory that his flesh was crucified and wounded for us But on the other side I know that as when S. Austin says in his 9. Tract upon S. John that the conversion of water into wine was a figure of the spiritual conversion of the Law into the Ghospel He dos not deny the substantial change of water into wine so when he says the Sacrament is a figure of Christ's Passion He dos not deny Transubstantiation In the 9. ch of