Nor am I insensible how wary and Cautious Divines are what they say and how they unfold their thoughts of this matter Indeed it is that which requires of us a great deal of Consideration and Pains aswell to Conceive a Right notion of it as to Express it so as to make it Intelligible to others But not withstanding the Difficulty of the thing it being so very Usefull and Necessary for the Satisfaction of every mans mind I shall take upon me to discourse of it at large but without trangressing I hope the due bounds of Modesty and Truth To clear my way as I go from one foul mistake we are to note that Christ is not so present in the Sacrament as to be eaten after a Carnal and Gross manner neither are the Elements so changed by any act of Consecration as to be turned out of one substance into another out of the Substance of Bread and Wine into the Substance of our Lords Natural Flesh and Bloud This indeed is the Faith of the whole Roman Church and they have Invented the word Transubstantiation to signifie and Express their Faith and it implyeth these three things 1. That the Nature and Matter of the Elements vanisheth away 2. That the Accidents thereof as they call it meaning the Colour the Smell the Taste the Quantity of the Elements do all remain without their Proper and Natural suject 3. That Christ's Natural Body supplyeth the room of Bread and that this Bloud is in the Place of Wine Now I might pass over this with quick dispatch by referring you to a great many Learned and Unanswerable Books which have been written against this Monstrous Error to say no worse of it but to save you the charge and pains of so much travel I desire you 1. To Consider in general that there are four things which are Infallibly able to satisfie a mans Judgement as to the Truth or Falsity of any thing whatsoever viz. The Use of our Senses the Suffrage of Right Reason the Authority of Divine Revelation and the help of Tradition And if men will pertinaciously contend for a proposition in spight of the Concurrent Evidence which is given against it by all these Demonstrative mediums which ought and are enough to Convince every man they were as good tell us plainly that they are Resolved to be Infidels or Scepticks or to believe no more than what they themselves please for stronger arguments than these four can never be offered to any Now thus stands the case between Us and the Romanists they dispute for their beloved Doctrine of Transubstantiation and to maintain the Controversie they appeal to the Definitious of their own Church that is they will be Parties and Judges too We plead against their Doctrine that 't is contrary to every Test which should govern Rational Creatures in their Sentiments And though the very Mentioning of this palpable Error be enough to Expose it to Scorn and Laughter yet for the further discovery thereof observe in particular 1. How it contradicted the Testimony of our very Senses We cannot conceive but that God gave us our Senses as helps to inform our Understanding nor can it be supposed with any Colour of Truth that all men should be Constantly deceived in the perpetual use of their Senses when their Faculties are Good and the Object of their Sense is Adequate and Proper this would be as Ridiculous and Absurd as to say that none of us yet ever saw the light tho our eyes be open and the Sun every day Appears Now that which we contend for is as clear to our Sense as the Sun is at high Noon For we see it we smell it we taste it we feel it by Four of our Senses we find what we receive at the Communion to be Bread and Wine and why should we fancy our selves deceived in this case more then S. Thomas was when he put his finger into our Saviorus Side why should not we be satisfied by so many of our Senses that it is Bread and Wine when He was convinced by his bare Touch that it was his Lord and his God Upon two accounts it is impossible for Considering men to think that a Fallacy can be put upon us in this matter For 1. should we Suppose the Omnipotent power of God could turn Bread into Flesh the Species of Bread remaining still yet it would not at all answer that great End for which Miracles have been ever wrought and therefore it is not Reasonable for us to believe that God would do it It would be indeed the Greatest of all Miracles and infinitely beyond that which our Saviour Himself did when he turned Water into Wine for there the Colour the Taste the Smell the Operation of Water was changed as well as the Substance And as it is not in the least probable that every the Meanest Priest should every day do a Greater Miracle than ever our Lord himself did so it is not in the least Credible that God Himself would do a Miracle but to convince men of Some Necessary and Important Truth Should he do a Miracle for no other end but onely to shew his Power of necessity it must must be Seen it must be shewed in some sensible instance for otherwise it could not be a Demonstration of his Omnipotence But God never yet did any Miracle for the Miracle-sake but that thereby he might Attest the Truth of some Doctrine and might Convince men of Something which they could not well be convinced of but by Gods setting his own Seal to it after that manner For which reason all Miracles have been still Apparent and Open to the Senses and 't is Necessary they should be so because they would be of no Use were they not perceived neither could they prove any thing unless they themselves were Manifest And if we reckon up all the Miracles that ever were done in the world from the days of Moses to the times of the Gospel we shall find that instead of being Concealed and Hid from men they have been always Exposed and made Plain to mens Senses Now this doth utterly baffle the groundless pretence of Transubstantiation for that Doctrine supposeth God to do the Highest Miracle that ever was done to no Necessary purpose neither to edifie Us not to shew Himself and how can we think that he will make Wonders and his Power Cheap and with an Almighty hand alter the Course and Nature of things so as not to Glorifie himself nor to do Us Good by so doing This would be a Miracle that could not in any wise serve the Ends of all Miracles and it becomes us not to believe that the All-good and All wise God will deceive four of our Senses at once to no End at all since it hath been all along the method of his Providence to satisfie All our Senses for the Best purposes But this is not all there is secondly a Worse thing behind yet The Romanists by crying down the
and therefore St. Paul calls it the Annunciation the Declaration or the shewing forth of the Lords death 1 Cor. 11. 26. alluding manifestly to the Haggadah at the Jewish Passeover By this that has been spoken it doth plainly appear that this Holy Solemnity is Analogous and answerable to those Religious Feasts which were used of old and especially to the Paschal Feast which observation will help us not only to understand fully the purport of this Mystery but also to baffle the pretences of those Monsters of Hereticks the Socinians who give a very mean and contemptuous account of the Lords Supper For they take no notice of any strict engagements it lays upon us to an Holy Life they believe not the Sacrament to be a Seal of Gods favour and Grace so far are they from owning this that Socinus had the confidence Multo praestantior sine dubio respectu veteris faederis fuit sanguis ille pecudum quam respectu novi sit panis ille vinum Socin ad Epist Niemojevii to say that the blood of Beasts under the Law was of Greater efficacy and value than the Bread and Wine in this Ordinance They utterly deny that we hereby Receive any thing at the hands of God nor will they indure us to say that Gods Spirit is here given or that our Faith is here increased or that pardon of sin is here tendered or that we receive here any Pledge of a blessed Resurrection and a glorious Immortality No they explode all doctrines of this nature and teach Is finis est vitûs istius usurpandi ut beneficium a Christo nobis praestitum commemoremus seu Annunciemus nec ullus alius Cat. Eccles. Pol. that the proper end for which the Lords Supper was instituted is this that we may Commemorate the Lords Passion Nay Socinus was of opinion In caena Domini ne ipsam quidem mentionem Christi corporis pro nobis traditi sanguinis fusi disertis verbis faciendam necessariam plane esse Socin de usu fine Caenae Dom. that 't is not necessary so much as to make express mention of Christs Body being delivered or of his blood being poured out for us which yet is inconsistent with his own Principle for how can we Commemorate the Death of our Blessed Saviour without making mention of it Briefly these Blasphemous Hereticks look upon this Holy Ordinance only as the memorial Vide Excerpta ex ore Socini in fine disputationis de usu fine caenae Domini of a Friends kindness This is all they will allow and so they conclude that we may Celebrate it either sitting or standing or with our Heads covered or with Water if we will instead of Wine but to kneel or so much as to sigh with eyes lifted up at the Celebration is in their account a kind of Idolatry I confess these ill conclusions do for the most part follow from that unsound Principle that the Supper of the Lord was intended only in Commemoration of him But what reason and ground have they for this Principle Why Non ullus alius praeter hunc a Christo est indicatus finis Cat. Eccl. Pol. because say they at the institution Christ mentioned only this end Do this in remembrance of me But this is not a reason and ground sufficient For the mentioning of one end is not the excluding of others though Christ in express terms had said no more yet it doth not follow that no more was intended The very Analogy which this Feast beareth to other the like Sacrifical Feasts of old and especially to the Paschal Feast is enough to shew us the several Ends of it had our Saviour mentioned no end at all And this is the Reason that I have now taken notice of that Analogy For if such Feasts were commonly reputed to be Covenant-Rites between God and Man then we may reasonably believe that this is to be reputed so too If to eat the body of a roasted Lamb was a Pledge of Gods favour to the Jews then we may infer that to eat Bread instead of Christs body is a pledge of Gods favour to us Christians If the use of other Sacrifical Feasts did entitle the partakers to all those Benefits for which the Sacrifices were offered then we may conclude that the use of this Sacrifical Feast doth entitle the Communicants to all those benefits for which Christ our Sacrifice offered up himself and which he purchased for us Therefore the Socinians do but trifle and are very vain in pretending to teach us the full meaning of this Rite when they take no notice of that correspondence and Analogy which is between this and other ancient Rites of the like nature For this is a principal thing to be taken notice of and we cannot easily conceive what else it was which satisfied the Apostles touching the purport of this Ordinance when it was instituted first For that they presently discerned the meaning of it is clear because we do not find that they desired of our Lord any explanation at all of this mystery In other cases they were very inquisitive and sometimes about matters which we think had little need of explication being obvious to Men of common and ordinary capacities And yet at the institution of this Holy Sacrament tho it containeth some things so difficult and dark to us that they have occasioned Quarrels in all parts of the Christian world yet the Disciples were who ly silent being very sensible what such Sacred Feasts did mean in those days and what the general sense of Mankind was about them They could not but know that by eating of things which bad been offered at the Altar men undertook to observe that Religion to which that sacred Rite did belong and whereof it was a part They could not but know that by such an action they had a right to those benefits which the Sacrifice had been offered up for and so they became very nearly related to God as his Favourites and Family And when they found by our Saviouts discourse that he would offer up himself a Sacrifice for them and heard him now say of the bread in his hands this is my Body they might easily apprehend him to mean that they were to eat of Bread in the Place and Room of his flesh and instead of feeding upon his Natural Body Considering that the Lamb which was drest for the Paschal-Supper was usually called the Body of the Passeover no sooner did Christ call the Loaf His Body but they did instantly conceive it was appointed to be eaten for his Body and in liew of it especially since he had told them before that they were not to feed on him as they were wont to feed upon the Lamb after a carnal and cross manner because the Flesh profiteth nothing Joh. 6. 63. Hence they saw presently that this institution did very much resemble the Sacrifical Banquets which had been observed of old only it was
the same heresies and even he draws one of his Arguments from the blessed Eucharist likewse and he is as Positive as can be that the Body of Christ meaning the Symbolical Body as Origen In Photii Biblioth cod 229. called it that is the Bread which is received by the Faithful doth not depart out of its sensible Substance and Nature and yet remaines undivided from the Spiritual Grace and to clear his meaning fully he shews in the very next words that the Elements in the Eucharist are no more changed than the water is in Baptism which Remaineth still water after Sanctification Thus these four Great men S. Chrysostome Theodoret Gelasius and Ephraim delivered the Sense of the Catholick Church in their times and if you add them to the forementioned Fathers who lived in the Primitive times before them it will be manifest beyond exception that for above 500 years together after Christ the Christian Doctors did no more believe the Elements in the Sacrament to be Transubstantiated into Christ's Flesh and Bloud than they did believe the Manhood of Christ himself to be Transubstantiated into his God-head or his God-head to be abolisht and turned into his Humanity Now the sense of Christians in those ages ought to satisfie the minds of Christians in these for certainly the faith of Christ was never more clearly more Learnedly more solidly maintained than in the first five Centuries and one reason of it as I conceive was this because Heresies of all sorts were then so very thick and Numerous the Providence of God permitting it so to be that the zeal of good men might be exercised continually whereby it came to pass that the Doctors of the Church were industrious and learned and the true faith was throughly sifted and establisht for so it is ever that as evil manners in the State are the occasion of good Laws so evil Doctrines in the Church are the occasion of Sound and Excellent Definitions I do not wonder if in the following ages we have not such great Plenty of witnesses to appeal to They were times wherein learning did much Decay and mens Industry and zeal were much abated for want of those Incentives which had formerly been like goads in the sides of the holy Fathers and I remember what Boniface the Martyr said of the times he lived in that whereas Golden Priests were formerly forced to use wooden Chalices Then wooden Priests did use Chalices of Gold And yet we may well be Astonisht at their Monstrous confidence who tell us that Transubstantiation was believed in those declining times If it had been so indeed the Argument from it would have Signified nothing because there can be no Prescription against truth and the sense of some in latter ages ought not carry the cause against the general Judgement of the Primitive and best times But in good earnest upon the strictest search I can make I do not find any grounds for the credit of the present Romish Doctrine either in * Unus idemque secundum humanam substantiam absens caelo cum esset in terra dereliquens terram cum ascendisset in caelum Secundum divinam verò immensamque substantiam nec caelum dimittens cum de caelo descendit nec terram deserens cum ad caelum ascendit c. Fulgent ad Trasimud l. 2. c. 17. Fulgentius or in Christi sanguis non jam in manus infidelium sed in or a fidelium funditur Gregor apud Gratian. de Consec dist 2. c. 73. Mysterium est quod aliud videtur aliud intelligitur Quod videtur speciem habet corporalem quod intelligitur fructum babet spiritualem sed cum Mysterium sit unde corpus sanguis Christi dicitur Consulens ommipotens Deus infirmitati nostrae qui non habemus usum comedere carnem crudam Sanguinem bibere facit ut in pristina remaneant forma illa duo munera est in veritate Corpus Christe Sanguis Id. in Glossa ex Alcuino ibdi Gregory the Great who lived in the sixth Century or in * Christus in caelum ascendens discessit quidem carne sed presens est majestate c. Isid Hisp Sentent lib. 1. Sacrificium dictum quasi sacrum factum quia prece mystica consecratur in memoriam pro nobis Dominicae passionis Unde hoc eo jubente corpus Christi sanginem dicimus quod dum fit ex Fructibus terrae sanctificatur fit Sacramentum operante invisibiliter Spititu Dei Id. Origin lib. 6. c. 19. Isidore Hispalensis who flourisht in the seventh or in venerable Finitis veteris Paschae solenniis quae in commemorationem antiquae de Egypto liberation is agebantur transit in novum quod in suae redemptionis memoriam Ecclesia frequent are desiderat ut videlicet pro agni carne sanguine suae carnis sanguinisque Sacramentum in panis ac vini figura substituens c Beda in Luc. 22. Panis ac Vini Creatura in Sacramentum carnis sanguinis Christi ineffabili Spiritus sanctificatione transfertur sicque corpus sanguis illius non infidelium manibus ad perniciem ipsorum funditur occiditur sed fidelium ore sumitur asl salutem Id. Homil. de Sanctis Bede who was in the eighth Age no not in Damascen himself neither tho he be brought forth by the Romanists as a Champion on their side The Learned Arch Bishop Cranmer hath drawn up the sense of Damascen into this sum that the Bread and Wine are not so changed into the flesh and bloud of Christ that they be made one Nature but they remain still distinct in Nature so that the Bread in it self is not his flesh nor the Wine his blood but unto them that worthily eat and drink the bread and Wine to them the bread and Wine be his flesh and blood that is to say by things natural and which they be accustomed unto they be exalted unto things above Nature For the Sacramental bread and Wine are not bare and naked figures but so Pithy and effectuous that whosoever worthily eateth them eateth spiritually Christs flesh and blood Wherefore saith the Holy Martyr they that gather out of Damascen either the natural presence of Christs body in the Sacraments of bread and Wine or the Adoration of the outward and visible Sacrament or that after Consecration there remaineth no bread nor Wine nor other substance but only the substance of the body and Blood of Christ either they understand not Damascen or else of wilful frowardness they will not understand him which rather seemeth to be true by such collections as they have unjustly gathered and noted out of him For Damascen saith plainly that as a burning coal is not wood only but fire and wood joyned together so the bread of the Communion is not bread only but bread joyned to the Divinity He that desires further satisfaction as to this may peruse the whole vindication of Damascen in the
can we understand it but of that spiritual Energy and Virtue wherewith the Element is indued Epiphan in Anaceph and which efficaciously worketh by the power of Christ upon the soul of every worthy Communicant When Epiphanius speaketh so positively and so home that the Bread in the Eucharist and the Water in Baptism have their Virtue from Christ that 't is not the Bread it self that is efficacious but 't is the Virtue of the Bread wherewith Christ indues it and that the Bread indeed is Food but 't is the Virtue in it which serveth for vivification what can any man desire more plain more emphatical more full when St. Ambrose saith if the Book be his that we take Ambros de Sacram. lib. 6. c. the Sacrament as the Similitude of Christs body but do really receive the Grace and Virtue of Christs Nature 't is plain that he means those spiritual influences which are derived from him When St. Chrysostom Chrysostom Hom. 50. in Matth. to shew what benefits we have by receiving of Christ shews the benefits which they had who touched but the Hem of his garment undoubtedly he meant that we receive these benefits as they did by virtue which goeth out of him When St. Austin so often speaks of not the outward Symbols only but chiefly of the thing in the Sacrament of the Virtue of the Sacrament and of our eating and drinking even to the participation of the Spirit and saith that the Truth and virtue of Christs body is diffused every where what can any reasonable man suppose him to mean but that though Christ be in Heaven in his Body yet he is with us by his spirit and blesseth us all with his Spiritual influences but especially when we Celebrate the memory of his Passion When St. Cyril of Alexandria so frequently affirmeth that the Glorified Body of Christ is vivisick and makes the Sacrament vivisick too and saith that God condescending to our weakness Carene Thomae in Luc. 22. sendeth the Virtue of Life into the Bread and Wine that are before us turning them into the Energy or efficacy of his own flesh so that a quickning principle may be in us the sense is so plain and satisfactory that I will presume to say were St. Cyril alone allowed to be judge in this case there would hardly be any â—â—â—â—â—oversie at all in the Christian World about the blessed Sacrament unless it were this who should receive it oftnest and with the great est reverence This Divine and spiritual virtue derived from Christ and conveyed into the Sacrament is that which Theodoret means by that Grace which he saith Gratian. de Consecdist 2. c. 28. is added to the Nature of the Elements This is that too which Pope Leo and the Synod of Rome meant by the virtue of Theophyl in Marc. 14 Hugo de Mysteriis Eccles cap. 7. Gelas de duab Nat. in Christo this heavenly food that which Theophylact meant by the Virtue of Christs Flesh and Blood that which Hugo de St. Victore meant by the efficacy of the Sacrament by the spiritual Grace and by Christs spiritual Flesh that which Pope Gelasius meant by that Divine thing in the Eucharist whereby we are made partakers of the Divine Nature that which Beriram Bertram de Corp. Sang. de Domini meant by the invisible Bread the Power of the Divine word the Virtue of Christs Body and blood the invisible efficacy the spiritual flesh and blood of our Saviour and abundance of expressions more to the same purpose in his admirable Book to Carolus Calvus 'T is that too which Isidore Hispalensis meant Isidor Hispal de Eccl. Offis by the Divine Virtue which worketh salvation under the cover of earthly things That which Haymo meant by the grace of Haymo in Cor. 11. Sanctification whereby he saith the Plenitude of the Deity and the Divinity of Paschas Ratbert de Euchar. the Eternal Word filleth the Elements That which Paschasius Ratbertus himself meant by the Spiritual Flesh of Christ that vital Portion which every good Communicant receives of the fullness of Christs Divinity Lastly 't is that which Panis iste quem Dominus Discipulis porrigebat non effigie sed leg seu natura mutatus omni potentia Verbi factus est caro Et sicut in persona Christi Humanitas videbatur latebat Divinitas ita Sacramento visibili ineffabiliter Divina se infundit Essentia c. Pseudo-Cyprian de Caen. Dom. Et Superius lumen in inferiora diffusum claritatis suae plentitudine a fine usque ad finem attingens totum apud se manens totum se omnibus commodat caloris illius identitas ita corpori assidet ut a capite non recedat Id. ib. the Pseudo Cyprian meant by that Divine Vertue which he acknowledged to be in the Sacrament that Supersubstantial Bread as he calls it that Divine Essence and Majesty which accompany the Elements that effect of Eternal Life and that Latent Spirit whereof every devout and well disposed Christian doth participate I have not time to look into every particular Church-Writer but this I will presume to affirm that where any of the Ancients do harp upon Christs presence in the Sacrament they mean his presence by his Grace and Virtue and where they speak intelligibly and distinctly of this matter they speak plainly to this purpose intending by the body and bloud of Christ which we receive neither more nor less then those efficacious Virtues which are derived to his Church from his glorified Humanity this they call his Body and Bloud especially when they call it by way of distinction the spiritual Body and the spiritual Bloud of our Blessed Redeemer And this account is the rather to be received by us for several good Reasons 1. Because it makes this great Mystery very easie to be understood so that without any straining of our wits or forcing of Scripture we may readily and clearly conceive how we are said to Communicate of Christs Body and Bloud For do but conceive a notion of Christs spiritual Body and the account is very short and the matter is very intelligible 2. It shews the sense of the Catholick Church in former Ages to be the same with ours now For Christians did ever acknowledge two different things in this Mystery the outward sign and the inward Grace and accordingly they did every set a different Price upon these two things valuing most of all the spiritual Grace but yet Honouring the Element for the Grace sake Many times indeed they called the bread Christs Body because it signifies and represents and exhibits it but usually they called the Elements the Types the Antitypes the Figures the Images the Signs of our Lords Body and Bloud so the Author of the Constitutions Pseudo Dionysius Clemens Alexandrinus Tertullian Theodoret Eusebius Chrysostom Origen Cyril Basil Macarius Jerome Gregory Nazianzen and divers more so that we may well laugh