66

·་

but the fettled Tradition must neceffarily be kept fafe and unfhaken; for T. p. 142.

the Catholick Church of Chrift difowns and Anathematizes those who tranfgrefs,

If this had indeed been. The most antient Tradition and Confeffion of the Catholick Church concerning this Sacrament, both Latins and Greeks might have had good reason to boast themselves and Triumph over us; But I must still think that if Dositheus, and the rest of thefe Greeks, had but candidly examin'd their own old Liturgies; or would but have judged of this matter, by what they might have found in their own Antient Authors, they would have found fufficient Reafon to have concluded the quite contrary. For befides the feveral Remarks which I have already made concerning this Point, if they will own Chryfoftom's Epistle to Cefarius to be Genuine (as I think now amongst the Learned there is no great doubt of it,) what can they fay to that remarkable Paffage in it. The Bread before it is Sanctified, we name Bread, but Divine Grace fan. Bafa. edit. ctifying it by the Priest mediating, it is deliver'd from the Appellation of P. 22. (or is no longer called) Bread, and is counted worthy of the Appellation of (or to be called) the Lord's Body, although the Nature of Bread remained in it, and it is called (or we declare it) not two Bodies but one Body of the Sou. Ler the Divine Prefence herein imployed be what it will, it cannot confist with Tranfubftantiation; for the very Nature of the Bread still remains. And this exactly agrees with what before is noted out of Irenæus Q. p. 9, 10. and Justin Martyr; the Bread after Confecration is not common Bread; but Bread (till) Sanctified; it hath now its own former Earthly Nature and with it a Heavenly. And though this alone feems to me no finall argument that this Epiftle of Chryfoftom is Genuine, because it is fo exactly conformable to the Doctrine of those Fathers before him, yet I cannot but here add also, as a better Argument to confirm the fame thing, thofe moft Noted and Famous pallages in Theodoret, who was Chryfoftom's Scholar; for they do most admirably and fully both confirm and alfo explain this Paffage in his Master, having the very fame Seife and almoft the very fame words. First, noting In dialog. 1: that our Saviour fometimes calls his Body Bread; fometimes Bread his Body; he gives this account of it, ἠβελήθη τές τῶν θείων μυτηρίων μεταλαγκάwortas, be would have those who partake of the Divine Sacraments, not to Mind the Nature of the Things which are feen, but, by reafon of this altering of Names, to believe the Change which is made by Grace; for be who call'd his Natural Body, Wheat, and Bread, and again named himself a Vine, he hath bonoured the Visible Symbols with the Appellation (or Name) of Body and Blood, not Changing their Nature, but adding Grace to their Nature. And St. Augustin hath exprefs'd himself in Contr. Maxim. the very fame Terms; Hæc funt Sacramenta in quibus non quid fint, fed quid oftendant (femper attenditur, quoniam figna funt rerum, aliud existentia & aliud fignificantia, Thefe are Sacraments in which it is always minded, not what they are, but what they Reprefent, (or fhew) for they are figns of Things (the figns being or exifting one Thing and fignifying another. The other Paffage in Theodoret is in his fecond Dialogue. His Antagonist had faid, a' cúμbora 8 denoting ouμat, The Symbols of the Lord's Body and Blood are other P. 38. á things before the Invocation of the Prieft, but after the Invocation they are Changed, and made other Things; To which he Anfwers, de meta Tov ageaquera pugina outora, The mystical Symbols after Confecration do not depart (or are not Changed) from their own Proper Nature; for they remain in their former Substance and Shape and Form, and they may be feen and touched, and are fuch things as they were before; but they are conceived by the Understanding to be what they are made and believed to be, and are WorShipped as if they were the Things which they are believed to be. This great Mafter, Chryfoftom, and his Scholar, fo exprefly and plainly contradict Tranfubftantiation, as if by a Prophetick Spirit they had forefeen that, That Abfund and Monftrous Opinion would one day be obtruded and craftily Impofed

upon

Joh. 12. 24.

3. c. 22. T. P. 143.

de fide. T. 2. P.

§. 36. §. 28.

§. 29.

Heb. 10.

Si 37.

18.

12.

T. p. 143. upon their distressed Greeks; and therefore they endeavour'd to fore-arm them with this Solid and truly Primitive Doctrine, that the very Nature and the very Subftance of the Elements in the Eucharift, After the Confecration, remain'd as abfolutely unchanged as their Shape and Form; and that they were the very fame things fill as they were before. Give me leave here Sermo major. to add a remarkable paffage out of the great Athanafius, which is lately come to light in Monfaucon's Collection. Athanafius all along in that Difcourfe diftinguishes between the human Nature of Chrift and that which was Divine; fhewing that, Ta's Taevas λéges, the mean and ordinary expressions concerning Chrift in Scripture, must be refer'd to his Humanity, a deerd Ęα rgáμuara, but the lofty or Glorious Texts must be apply'd to his Divinity. Gen. 49. 11. Amongst others he expounds those words, he wash'd his Garments in Wine, and his Cloaths in the Blood of Grapes, that they relate to the Body which Chrift was to have; and faith before at large, that Chrift's Body is in Heaven, and explains his fitting at the right hand of God, as meant of the very Acts 7. 55. fame Body which was born of the Virgin Mary; At laft he faith, therefore let them be ashamed, diftogiorres, who separate, or divide the Son from the Father, as the Vine from the Vine-dreffer, being affured by the Holy Scriptures that the Parable is spoken of the Lord's Body, and not in Relation to his Divinity; For (Chrift) performing the Holy Mystery, having Blessed it, faid, Drink you all of this, this is my Blood of the new Teftament which is fed for you, καίπερ ἐχ αιμα τὸ κυρία ἐστὶν ὁ δνβ, ἀλλὰ τῆς ἀμπέλε, and yet the Wine is not the Blood of the Lord, but (the Blood) of the Vine. It is very strange that Athanafius here fhould fo much as dream of Tranfubftantiation; or that he who before had fo often faid expreffly, that the Body of Chrift is at the right Hand of God, and confounds them that can think, that the Son can be divided from the Father in Heaven, could think that his very Body and Blood are in ten thousand places on Earth at once; and here fay, that when Chrift had Bleffed and faid, this is my Blood, yet the Wine was (Wine fill) not Chrift's Blood but the Blood of the Vine. Therefore the Greeks in this Decree of the pretended Synod of Jerufalem have Manifeftly deferted their Antient and Primitive Fathers in their Theology; and I think it as plain, that they have as much abandon'd their old Philofophy. For I would fain know whence they had this new Doctrine of Accidents. As R. Simon truly faith, utterly unknown to the home bred Greeks. Or what Greek Author taught him to use the word, ad, Kind, Form, Shape, Refemblance, for only Accidents without a Subject? Or Species in the Roman Senfe. Their old Master AriAnteced. Categy ftotle places the very Being of an Accident, in Being in fome Subject; ev ὑποκειμένῳ δὲ λέγω, ὃ ἔν τινι μὴ ὡς μές©· ὑπάρχον, ἀδύνατον χωρὶς εἶναι τὸ ἐν ᾧ ἐστὶν, and he makes that to be in a Subject, which being in any Thing not as a part of it, cannot poffibly be (or Exift) without (or Separated from) that, in which it is; or as Porphyry expreffes it, an Accident de dé év év oxeμévo Spigaμeror, is always Subfifting in a Subject. And their beloved Father Job. Damafcen in his Logick teach them the very fame Doctrine, ouμfenxos to μÙ Juráμerov ev EXUT@ voy, an Accident is what cannot Exist by it felf? It hath no Existence (idíav) of its own; It hath its being only whilst it is in a Subject; All Accidents are incorporeal and of themselves, avúraguтa, have no Exiflence without a Subject. And therefore whatever Damafcen may any where feem to fay in Favour of the Schoolmen in this Point, if they will make him confifting with himself, and expound it according to this his Logick, it must deftroy their Tranfubftantiation quite. Therefore that an Accident can fubfift without a Subject, is abfolutely a new Chimærical Notion, hatcht in the Latins Schools; and nourish'd by the Jargon and Subtle Sophiftry of T.Aquinas, and his Fellows. He tells us, the Accidents of the Bread and Wine, after Confecration, are not in the Subftance of the Bread and Wine; nor in their Subftantial Forms; nor in the Body and Blood of Chrift; nor in the Air. For he faith, all these are Impoffible. But feeing he is fo bold and free with

Apolog. 112.

§. 5.

Inflit. c. 5.

C. 4.

C. 29.

c. 46.

c. 51.

3. 977. I.

c. 1, 2, 3.

2

the

Supra. 2.

the Almighty's Power, I wonder why he fhould fo poffitively limit it; why is T. p. 143. it more poffible for the Subftances of the Elements to be annihilated, and the Accidents to be without any Subject, than for them to be in their own Subftances or Subjects ftill, and fo for the Elements and Chrift's Body and Blood to be in one Individual place? For why is it not as poffible for two Bodies diftinct, to be at one and the fame time, in one and the fame Place, as for one and the fame Body (according to him) to be in ten thousand places at once? Nay, their fublime Doctrine of Conconcitancy, makes two diftinct Bodies, that is the entire Body of Chrift, and all his Blood, to be always in the fame place, and in the fame individual Particle, be it of the Bread or of the Wine. Again, why is it not as poffible for the Subftantial Forms to remain as Subjects for their Accidents; as for the Accidents to remain without any Subject at all? Again, why is it not as poffible for a Human Body, or the Air, T. p. 144. to loofe or change their own Accidents, and receive thele new ones of Bread and Wine, as for thefe Accidents to loofe their own Subjects, and have none at all in their ftead? Again, why is it more Impoffible, or more Inglorious, for Chrift's Glorious Body to receive thefe harmlefs Accidents, then to be Cut and Divided, and to go into the Mouth and Stomach of the Receiv ers, both Bad and Good? Yet ftill he owns that piece of old Philofophy, that one and the fame Numerical Accident cannot go from one Subject to another; but why is not this as Poffible as that it should be, or fubfift with out a Subject? He does fo Majefterially tell us what can, or what cannot be done, nay, fo poffitively what is done; as if he had, not only been caught up above the third Heaven, but even fat in the divine Council it felf. But to fhew a very Sublime and refined piece of his Sophiftry, he quarrels at the old Definitions of a Subftance and an Accident. Non eft Definitio Subftantiæ, ens per fe fine Subjecto nec Definitio Accidentis, ens in Subjecto; fed Quidditati feu Effentiæ Subftantiæ competit habere effe non in Subjecto; Quidditati autem five Effentiæ Accidentis competit habere effe in Subjecto. Et ideo non definunt effe Accedentia, quia nec feparatur ab eis Definitio Accidentis, quæ eft Aptitudo ad Subjectum quæ femper manet in iis, non actualis Inlærentia. Nec competit eis Definitio Subftantiæ. It is not the Definition of a Subftance, a Being by it felf without a Subject; nor the Definition of an Accident, a Being in a Subject. But to the Quiddity (in as plain English as I can peak, to the Whatnefs) or Effence of a Subftance belongs (or is applicable) to have to Be (or a Being) not in a Subject; but to the Whatness or Effence of an Accident belongs (or is applicable) to have to Be (or a Being) in a Subject. -And therefore they do not ceafe to be Accidents, because the Definition of an Accident is not feparated from them; which is an Aptitude (or good Difpofition) to a Subject, which always remains in them, not an actual Inherence. Neither do the Definition of a Subftance belong (or is applicable) to them. If this be not Superexcellent, treble refin'd stuff, I know not what is. He faith, ens non eft genus an ens, or Being, is not the Genus of a Subftance or of an Accident. Why then in both his Defcriptions he defines a Nonentity or Nothing. If one ask, quid est Subftantia, quid cft Accidens, what is a Substance, what is an Accident, you must not anfwer, eft Ens, Res, Aliquid, id quod, quod cunque. It is a Being, a Thing, Something, that Thing which, what foever Thing, or the like; for all thele are pofitive and imply fomewhat actually exifting; but it is whim wham) a Nothing, or an it may be, to whofe Quiddity or Effence &c. So that he hath wonderfully and moft accutely tyed a Knot upon a Ray of Moonshine. I demand whether the Colour, Taft, Smell, Shape, or the Species (as they are pleafed to call them) of the Elements after Confecration do verily Exist, as they then feem to our Senfes; or are they all an Illufion or a meer Phantom? If they Exift, they are Entia or Beings. To fay that they are only, Aptitudines ad Subjectum, very nothing, but yet apt or difpofed to a Subject, is another piece of as wild Meraphyficks; I always thought No

thing

T. p. 144. thing was Nothing, non entis nullæ funt affectiones, and therefore cannot be faid apt or difpofed to this or that or any thing before it be fuppofed to Exift. Therefore to fay, to the Quiddity or Effence of an Accident belongs to have its Being in a Subject, if it hath any meaning, it can be no more, nor \no less than this, the Nature of an Accident requires a Subject to its actual Subfiftence Now let this be the Idea of an Accident in the Eternal Mind beT. p. 145. fore the World was made. According to him thefe fenfible Qualities of the Elements may now agree with this Idea, though they no more Actually inhere (that is indeed no more actually Exist,) now, then they did then in the Divine Mind, fo that as he and his Brethren the Schoolmen, have quite Annihilated the Subftance of the Elements, fo they have quite fhuffled away the actual Being of the Accidents too; though they appear indeed, fomething to our Senfes, yet really they are now no more actual Accidents, then they were before the Creation it felf. And thus both the Subftances and the Accidents of the Elements, are both alike only Metaphyfical or Intellectual Ideas of Potential Things, or of, what may be, but by no means actual Beings or really exiftent Things. He concludes with this Sentence, neither do the Definition of a Subftance belong to them, that is, to the Accidents. But I muft fay, if the Accidents in the Eucharift do really Subfift or rather Exift, they are real Substances according to his own defcription of a Subftance; To the Quiddity, faith he, or Effence of a Subftance belongs to have its being not in a Subject, or without a Subject; but according to Him, and the other School-men, the Accidents at the Sacrament, have not only this Aptitude to Be, but really are without a Subject; and if they are actually fo, they must be actual Subftances. Again, he confeffes juftly above, (what may ferve and is applicable to all the other Abfurdities;) Hoc non fiat miraculofe virtute confecrationis, quia verba &c. That the Accidents remain withont any Subject, cannot be done Miraculously by virtue of the Confecration; because the words of it, do not fignify thus much; and the words effect no more then what they fignify; And I think, the words of Chrift fignify altogether as little to warrant any other of the Scholaftick frantick Inventions, as they do this; and therefore cannot by their Virtue effect them; but then he gives a general Salvo for all; Though by the course of Nature these things cannot be, yet by a special gracious Privilege; by a special Reafon according to the courfe of Grace; by a divine Power fuftaining them; though not by the Force or Power of their Effence; Accidents may be without a Subject. This was the plausible Evasion of Lancfranc of old, and hath been made the common c. 18. p. 244. Shift or Subterfuge of all the School-men ever fince. But it can never ftand against that folid Reply of the Learned Chemnicius; Non quia Deus omnipoTrid. part. 2. tens eft, ideo quicquid &c. Because God is Omnipotent, it doth not therefore pag. 76. follow that we, without the Teftimony of his Word, fhould attribute to Him

C.

1, 2, 3.

c. 17. p. 242.

Exam. conc.

whatever we think fit. Turtullian faith, God could have made Man a flying Creature, but because he could have made him so, it doth not therefore follow that he hath made him fo. Therefore the Scripture gives us this Rule. He made all things what foever he would; But the will of God in matters of Faith is to be Learned and Judged of from his Word; and when we are assured of the Will of God from his certain Word, then an Argument from his Omnipotency will be valid. Therefore the Angel speaks Significantly, when he affirms that every Word, that is, whatsoever be Luke. 1. 37. hath plainly expreft in his Word, with God is not Impoffible. Therefore Tranfubftantiation must be clearly proved and fhewed from the Words of Chrift, and then by the help of the Holy Spirit, we will freely Captivate our Understanding in Obedience to Chrift. This I take to be an Irrefragable, and therefore a most fatisfactory, Aufwer to all that Aquinas and the rest of the Crazy School- men have Invented to cover, not only his freakish Doctrine of Accidents, but all thofe other infinite Abfurdities, which attend that monstrous Article of Tranfubftantiation. The whole Bread, or the whole Wafer, is

made

lica. In Euchar.

made the whole Body of Chrift, and the leaft Crumb of it separated from T. p. 145. the reft, is the fame whole and entire Body ftill, part of the Bread equal to the whole. It is the Body of Chrift in the Mouth of the Receiver, but Bread again in the Mouth of a Dog or a Moufe, or in the Bowels or Entrals of Men, before it is caft out into the draught. The Bread by Con. T. p. 146. comitancy is made both Body and Blood, and the Wine both Blood and Body. Mat. 151 17. There may be (a Fraction or) a Breaking where nothing is Broken. The fame Body may be in ten thousand places, nay, ten thousand thousand times over and over diftinctly (as in every the leaft Crumb or Particle of the Bread and Wine) at the fame time upon the Altars; and an Innumerable more fuch wild Dreams and extravagant Fancies, (for he that would go about to rummage the voluminous Schoolmen, and to mention all would be as mad as they) I fay, all these are boldly and pofitively afferted, not only as Things poffible, Summa Angebut as Things really and actually done every day by the Almighty Power. They have no Word or declared Will of God, for all this, the Words of Chrift (or of the Confecration) confeffedly fignify, (and therefore by their Virtue can Effect,) no fuch Thing; what warrant then have they for afcribing all this incomprehenfible ftuff, to a special Privilege, to a fingular Grace, appropriated to the Eucharift alone? They may better maintain, by fuch another Privilege, that old Ridiculous conceit, that ten thousand Angels may dance Booted and Spur'd upon the Point of an Needle; for it seems to be a more rational Object of the Divine Omnipotency. What is plainly Recorded as matter of Fact, in the Infallible word of God, I will believe as an Act of his Almighty Power; He faid, Let there be Light, and there was Light, and Gen. 1.3. &cị fo all the rest of his Works at the Creation, are plainly faid to be wrought by his Command and Power; and if it had been as plainly fet down in God's Word, that Chrift at the Inftitution of the Eucharift had faid, "This is, no lon"ger Bread, whatever it seems to you, but it is Transubstantiated into my very Body, my very Flesh, and my Bones; and This is, no longer Wine, but is Subftantially converted into my very Blood, the Substance of both Bread and Wine being Annihilated, and only the fenfible Accidents remaining; This that "I gave you like Bread, is both my Body and Blood; And this like Wine, "is both my Blood and Body entire; Both are I my Self, and in them I twice "give you my very Self entire, in the whole, and in every particle of them; I lay, if all this had been declared by the infallible Word as Actually done, the Met ufiafts might juftly have pleaded the Divine Omnipotency for it; But if from the Divine Omnipotency only, they will without God's word argue matter of Fact, that all this was litterally fo, I will undertake by the very fame Arguments, and the very fame School-Sophiftry, to maintain, that the Rock in the Wilderness was very Chrift, Body, Blood, and Bones. The hardness of it, the Colour, Shape, bignefs and the like outward Accidents, were only Species without a Subject; the Subftance of the Rock was for a time Annihilated, and under the Species was the Subftance of Chrift's entire Body (though yet unborn;) and whether it was the whole Rock, or a piece of it, or the Water, that followed the Ifraelites; every Particle of the Rock and drop of the Water might be by Concomitancy entire Chrift, though he was not yet upon Earth. And thus for a Conclufion I fhall make bold to propound this Nice Paradox (which just now come into my Mind) to the Angelical and Irrefragable Doctors at the Schools; and I humbly beg that by their known Subtilty and Cunning in making Ropes of Sand, they would be pleased to make it out for me at their own good Pleasure and Convenience. All the Bloody Sacrifices, and many other Obfervances in Mofes his Law, have been accounted by all, Types of Chrift. Now if 1 fhould venture to fay, that all the Oxen and Calves; The Sheep and Lambs; The Goats and Kids; the Pigeons, and all other Animals that were Sacrificed; nay, that the very Scape Goat, were every one of them verily, and indeed Chrift Himfelf, (Body, Flesh, Bones, Blood,) only under the Accidents and Species of thofe Creatures. Help, Help, O Help me ye mighty Contrivers and Builders of new Baby

T

Lon.