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 [Page 8]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, ^* 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 [Page 9]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; 'tis only ne­cessary to believe that the body of our Lord is really containd & 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.

'Tis written in the 1. of Samuel; ^* Men look upon the outward appea­rances, but God looks upon the heart. In like manner, our Senses only per­ceive [Page 10]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 [Page 11]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 [Page 12]or after. 'Tis 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 'tis 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 [Page 13]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.^*

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 [Page 15]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 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 'tis 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. 'Tis very hard, in such a case as this, if they who do not un­derstand [Page 16] 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 tis 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 [Page 17]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.

Tis evident that the Catholick Church, by the substance which is be­liev'd [Page 18]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. Tis 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 'twas 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 [Page 19]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,^* 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;^* He dos [Page 20]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 'tis 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 [Page 21]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 begins to come in play again. If we would spend one serious thought upon these Revolutions in the very fun­damentalls of our Natural Philosophy, we should learn the best & the most beneficial knowledg in the world, which is the knowledg of our igno­rance: We should find that the vain hu­mour, which inclines some few to dog­matize in Natural Philosophy, pro­ceeds not from their being wise than their neighbours, but rather from the strength of their imaginations than the [Page 22]power of their Reasons: We should see, that, since the Fall of Adam, even the works of nature are above our reach,^* No man, says Solomon, can find them out from the beginning to the end: When any mystery of Faith seems not to sute so well, as we would have it, with the notions which we fancy most, We should rather sus­pect that we may be mistaken in our principles, than cry it down as a chi­merical absurdity, below God's Majes­ty, above his Art, & beyond the ut­most stretch of his Omnipotence.

As the mystery of the Incarnation seemd meer folly to the Gentiles, and a scandal to the Jews; so now the mystery of Transubstantiation seems impossible to some, incredible to others. It seems impossible, 1. for the Natural Body of Christ to be con­sin'd within so small a compass; 2. for one Body to be at the same time in two places. It seems incredible. 1. that Christ should put himself to the expence of so superfluous a mira­cle, since he might easily haue given us the very same grace without it; 2. that he should humble himself so low as to expose his sacred body & [Page 23]blood to almost all the abuses & in­dignities which bread & wine are sub­ject to. These are the principal consi­derations whence some are pleas'd to draw this inference; That Transubstan­tiation is evidently contrary to Rea­son.

Tis strange to see, when once our minds are prepossesst with an aversion from any doctrine, how blind we are in our enquiries, how partial & une­qual in our judgments. We easily be­lieve the Incarnation, and although we know that God is infinitely grea­ter than our little souls are able to conceive, although we know that there can be no limits in the vast ex­tension of his boundless Being, al­though we know that his Immensity has every where a Center, no where a Circumference, yet because this is an article which we are willing to be­lieve, we make no doubt but all Gods Greatness may be lodg'd within the compass of a man; and that this man, who lived & died amongst us, is the great Creatour & Conserver of the Uni­verse. Why have you not the impu­dence to ridicule this mystery, & say tis evidently contrary to Reason? Why [Page 24]do you not tell the world that it in­volves clear contradiction, infinity mea­sur'd, incomprehensibility comprehen­ded, Immensity containd within the compass of a man? The reason is, be­cause you like this article well enough; your education has not arm'd you a­gainst it; your first institution to piety has been accompanied with dayly per­suasions & inducements to submit your reason to it, & not to admit of every probable appearance of impossi­bility as a sufficient evidence against it. How comes it then, that, in an Age so sceptical in all things else, you are so positive & so, dogmatical in this, That 'tis impossible for the Body of Christ to shrink into the compass of a little bit of bread? or, at the same time, be in several places? You can beleeve one Nature in three Persons really distinguisht, and one Person in two Natures, And yet you can't be­lieve one Body in two Places. Is not this, streining at the lesser difficulty & swallowing the greater? & had not our Saviour reason to complain of the^* blind Guides that strein at a Gnat, & swallow a camel?

The Common Answer to this Ar­gument is: That we are better acquain­ted with the Nature of a Body, than of a Spirit. Bodies are the familiar ob­ject of our Senses, and if we do not know the Nature of them, we know nothing at all: But our Notions of a Spirit are so imperfect, that it is an argument of wisdom, rather than weak­ness, to submit our judgments in things we cannot understand.

I must confess; if we consider only the superficial knowledge of Bodies. our Mathematicians measure very skillfully their three dimensions, we demonstrate many ingenious Truths, both usefull & delightfull, and have knowledge enough to make us proud: But, if we consider the inward con­stitution or nature of these very same bodies which we measure so skillful­ly, we shall soon find we have igno­rance enough to humble us. Tis an easie thing to tell me the length of a Line, & to measure it by so many inches; But, who can tell me what this line is made of? is it a chain of indivisible points immediatly linkt to­gether? or is it compos'd of parts which may be really divided lesse & [Page 26]lesse, for ever & ever, world without end? The first is an unconceivable piece of nonsense: And the second is a Labyrinth which when our Reason enters it can never find the way out. What are we more acquainted with, or what is more familiar to us, than Light & Colour? And yet no body can tell certainly what they are: The Learned have disputed some thousands of years about it, & are not agreed upon the point. We see; and we be­lieve our eyes; And nothing is more certain than that we do so: Yet ne­vertheless when we come to exa­mine strictly, by what means, & how this operation is perform'd; we are as much in the dark as if we were stark blind. We move from place to place; we measure our motion, as to time & space; we know very well, whether one motion be longer or shorter, whether it be swifter or slower, than another: And yet when our Natural Philosophers enquire into the nature of this Motion, nothing is more un­certain: The greatest Wits have ever been at a losse when they pretend to explicate how Motion is possible; And Zeno's argument has never been clear­ly [Page 27]answerd. In the same manner, al­though nothing is more certain than that all the Bodies, which we ever were acquainted with, have three di­mensions, length, bredth, & depth; yet if we strictly enquire into the essen­tiall notion of a Body by which it differs from a Spirit, we shall find it not so easie to determine, but that this matter is very dark, as well as others I haue mentiond. To make it as clear as I can, I suppose; 1. that there is no substance but what is ei­ther a body or a Spirit; 2. that no Spirit either has dimensions, or is ca­pable of having them: From whence I conclude; 1. that every substance which either has dimensions or is ca­pable of having them, is a body and no spirit; 2. that actual dimensions are not the essence of a body, because the Idea of them presupposes the capacity of having them, & this Capacity is the first Idea by which a Body differs from a Spirit. The Question is; Whe­ther 'tis possible for a Body to be stript naked of all its dimensions, & subsist without them?

Tis no wonder, there is such con­fusion [Page 28]in deciding of this Case, be­cause our Philosophers & Mathematici­ans are not Country men; They have each a peculiar language to them­selves; and (which is worst of all) when they use the same words, they understand them in a different sense. A Mathematician never considers the Nature of a Body, neither is it to his purpose; all his business is to mea­sure it. The vulgar part of mankind never consider what a Body is made of, any farther than they can either use it, or make money of it. So that a Body miraculously stript of all its dimensions, being neither measurable, nor usefull, nor marketable, is cer­tainly (in the language of Mathema­ticians, & of the Vulgar) no Body at all. All the trade they drive with Bodies is by weight & measure; and therefore 'tis no wonder, if by the word Body, they conceive nothing but Dimensions. These people, by their own confession, have only a superfi­cial knowledg of a Body: They de­clare frankly, they know nothing of it but the outside. Philosophers are the onely men that consider the inside of Nature: They are not content to gaze [Page 29] without; but endeavour to enter the very Sanctuary, & discover what lies hid behind the Veil. And these men, if the rest of the world would give them a fair hearing & not make too much noise, would soon decide the difficulty. The Question is (putting the Case, that a Body were divested of its natural dimensions) whether the Remainder would be still a Body, or not?

Tis evident that, in the Mathema­tical or Vulgar sense, it would not be so: Neither is that the true mean­ing of the Question. We do not ask, whether the Dimensions would remain when they are gone? We know very well, it implies a most manifest con­tradiction. Our enquiry is only con­cerning the Essence of a natural Body, that is, of a Substance which is not a Spirit. And, without all doubt, when we suppose nothing to be taken from a Body but its actual dimensions, That which we conceive to remain is still a natural Body, because 'tis certainly no Spirit: it still retains a reall capa­city of having its natural dimensions, and this Capacity is absolutely repug­nant to the nature of a Spirit. Thus [Page 30]you plainly see, that the Supposition, we talk of, dos not destroy the Essence of a natural Body; it dos not imply any Contradiction; And therefore dos not leave any reasonable ground of denying the possibility of it. Men may fancy what they please; and will ever do so, without asking their neigh­bours leave; There's no remedy for it: But, after all, He must be a bold man that undertakes to demonstrate the absolute impossibility of the Hypo­thesis I speak of.

To return to my argument, I would now gladly enquire; since, in the In­carnation and Trinity, it is no argu­ment of weakness, but of wisdom, to submit our judgments; Why is it not so in this? If the Nature of God, & the divine Persons, are objects so spiri­tual, and so much out of our reach, that it dos not become us to dogma­tize in matters belonging to them: Pray, tell me what acquaintance have we with a Body divested of all its natural dimensions, & reduced to the condition of a Spirit? All our Mathe­matical & Vulgar notions, of which we are so confident, are (in this case) so far from giving us any light, that [Page 31]they are rather like so much dust in our eyes that hinders us from seeing. Tis no part of our Faith, that Christ in the Sacrament has all his natural dimensions: if it were, Then indeed these Notions might furnish something to say against it. One might argue, as S. Augustin dos against Faustus, that Christ as to his corporal presence could not, at the same time, be in the Sun & Moon, & on the Cross. But, in our present Hypothesis, all our experimen­tal knowledge of a Body is out of doors; And all our pretended demon­strations are meer nonsense. Tis evident, that without local extension a Body is neither confin'd by being in one place, nor divided by being in two: And 'tis as easie a matter to measure a line without length, an angle with­out space, or a circle without diame­ter, as it is to find work for Mathe­matical conclusions in a Body without dimensions.

Some will ingenuously confess, they do not think that Transubstantiation is impossible; but they are apt to think it is incredible, either that Christ should work so great a miracle with­out necessity, or humble himself to [Page 32]all those great indignities to which the Sacrament is every day exposed.^* O man, says the Apostle, who art thou that replyest against God? His Goodness is as infinite as his Omnipo­tence; and tis as great an insolence to give laws to the one, as to give limits to the other. He seems to value more the reputation of his Goodness than of his Power; and if we trace his Provi­dence throughout the Conduct of the Moral World, we cannot but observe that He has taken much more pains to shew his goodness than to shew his greatness. In the Creation of the Universe He shewd his Power: But what was that to the Incarnation of the Son of God? All the Perfections of Creatures disappear, & shrink to nothing, when compar'd to the per­fection of their great Creatour; And the whole Universe, by which God shews his Greatness, is nothing in comparison of Jesus Christ by whom he shews his Kindness to us. You all are scandaliz'd at their ingratitude, who will not give God thanks for this inestimable favour; will not be­lieve that he has been so good, so [Page 33]mercifull, so kind. They say, that though 't were possible it is not credible that God should work so great a miracle without necessity; that there was none at all for him to come him­self in person; that he might have sent a holy man for our instruction, he might have charg'd him with our sins, he might have pardon'd both him and us without condign satisfaction: Tis true, The Scripture seems to speak in plain terms the Divinity of Christ; but yet may bear another sense, and may admit a much more credible interpretation. If a Socinian should urge this argument against you, you would scarce have patience to hear him. Why then do you object the same against the mystery of Transub­stantiation? Why do you tell us, 'tis incredible that God should work so great a miracle without necessity? that the real presence is not absolute­ly necessary? that the Sacrament might have sufficient efficacy to give grace without it? Why do you say, that though the Scripture plainly speaks in favour of this mystery, yet we are not obliged to take it in the literal sense? that the figurative sense [Page 34]is much more easie to conceive, & therefore is a much more credible interpretation? O man, says S. Paul to the Romans, ^* Who art thou that replyest against God? ^* How unsearch­able are his judgments, and his ways past finding out! Who has known the mind of the Lord, or who has been his Counsellour! This is the onely answer you can give to a Socinian; Apply it to your selves, & rest con­tent: Your argument is just the same, and either proves both mysteries in­credible, or neither.

When you object, that nothing can be more incredible, than that the Body & Blood, the sacred Humanity of Christ is shrouded under the outward forms of bread & wine, and conse­quently exposed to all indignities which they are subject to. Pray, give me leave to ask you, whether or no it be not more incredible, which we read in S. Paul, & in the Prophet Isaiah; that^* God was manifest in flesh; that in this flesh^* He was despised & rejected of men, and we esteem'd him not: He bore our griefs, [Page 35]& carried our sorrows: He was woun­ded for our transgressions, & bruised for our iniquities: He was oppresst, he was afflicted: ^* He made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant; & being found in fashion as man, humbled himself & became obedient unto death? Is not this more incredible than all that you can say of the Sacrament?

Ah! my dear Jesus! it grieves my heart to see, that thou hast made thy self of no reputation, by taking upon thee the form of bread; and that, by being found in fashion as bread, thou hast humbled thy self so low, as to be still despised, rejected, & disesteem'd by men. But yet it is a comfort to me, when I think that thy most sacred Body in the Sacrament is now im­mortal & impassible; thou dost not now bear all our griefs, & carry all our sorrows; thou art not wounded there for our transgressions, nor bruised for our iniquities; thou art not capable of being now afflicted & oppresst. Compute then, if you please, all the indignities the Sacrament is subject to; and by the way take notice that [Page 36]it is a Sacrament no longer than the Sacramental forms are incorrupted; Remember that the natural altera­tions, which they undergo, can never operate upon him; Take these consi­derations along with you, And, if you have that candour & sincerity which I am willing to suppose you have, you will ingenuously confesse that these indignities which Christ now seems to suffer in the forms of bread & wine, are nothing in com­parison of those which once He sufferd in the form of man.

S. Paul writes to the Colossians; ^* Beware least any man deceive you, by Philosophy & vain fallacy, accor­ding to the Tradition of men, and the elements of the world, & not accor­ding to Christ. He writes to the Co­rinthians, that tis their duty to^* cast down imaginations, and every high thing that exalts it self against the knowledg of God, bringing into capti­vity every thought to the obedience of Christ. He writes to the Romans, that they^* stand by faith; bids them not be high-minded, but fear; [Page 37]& in the following chapter bids them have a care of being^* wise in their own conceits. These Admonitions of the Apostle were superscribed to the Colossians, Corinthians, & Romans; they were not written to us; but yet they were written for us, & for our instruction. Tis a great insolence for human Reason to exalt it self against Omnipotence: an insolence much greater than the Pride of Lucifer: He only sayd, he would be like the Highest; but we are not content with that, we will be Higher than the Highest. We summon the Highest God of Heaven and Earth before the high Tribunal of our Reason; we make him accountable to us for his actions; And by our arbitrary notions of precarious Philosophy We make no scruple to pronounce, what sentence we think fit, upon his Wisdom, Power, and Goodness. But the day will come, when they who thus exalt themselves shall certainly be humbled; and (as S. Peter assures us) They who now^* humble themselves under the mighty hand of God, shall be [Page 38] exalted in due time: which happy­ness may the Almighty grant us through the grace and merits of his onely beloved Son our Saviour Jesus Christ, Amen.

FIRST PART.

That all men do not rightly under­stand the word of God in Scripture, is a Truth which no man can deny that has a grain of common sense. Every man plainly sees how in our Nation the reformed religion is crum­bled into multitudes of Sects, as oppo­site in many things to one another, as they are to us. They all read Scrip­ture, follow Scripture, prove & dis­prove what they please by Scripture; and all the while, as they agree in nothing more than in the book, so they agree in nothing lesse than in [Page 41]the sense. No man is bound to think his neighbour, or the whole Church, wiser than himself; but every man has as much liberty, as he has vanity, to think himself the best interpreter of Scripture for himself. Amidst this great confusion, what wonder is it, if we find that many, with as little modesty as reason, face us down, that Transubstantiation is repugnant to plain words of holy Scripture?

The Text, which first appears against us, is in the 3. ch. of the Acts where it is said of Christ, that^* the Heavens must receive him till the time of restitution of all things: whence it plainly follows, that his body is in heaven, & must be in heaven till the time of restitution, that is, till the day of judgment. All this is very true; and we believe it as much as any of our neighbours. But how comes this Text to contradict his real presence in the Sacrament? The Scripture tells us that our Saviours Body is in hea­ven; but where dos it teach us that it is not at the same time upon earth? Where dos it plainly say, No miracle can make one body at the same time [Page 42]be in several places? Shew us but this deliverd plainly in the Scripture, and then wee'l grant that Transubstantia­tion is repugnant to it. Some, upon this occasion, produce the Angel's words, who in the last chapter of S. Matthew, told the women at the se­pulchre, He is not here, for He is risen: where the Angel seems to con­clude, that because his body was in another place, therefore it was not in that place. All the whole stress of this argument depends upon a word of so little moment, that the last of S. Mark quite leaves it out; & the last of S. Luke not only leaves it cut, but puts another in the place: in S. Mark, the Angel says, He is risen, He is not here; in S. Luke he says, He is not here, but is risen. But however, if the Angel's Reasoning in S. Matthew must be so much magnified; when they have made the best they can of it, 'twill amount to neither more nor less than this; He is not here, because he is risen, that is, He is not here because he is gone from hence; which infe­rence is not a jot the worse, although we should suppose that the same body may be, at the same time, in a thou­sand [Page 43]places. Let us suppose his Body at the same time, if you please, in millions of places; yet, if it be true, that he is risen & gone from hence, it follows evidently that he is not here.

The second Text is found in the 3. ch. of S. Paul to the Colossians; where he gives both them & us good coun­sel; bids us^* seek for things above, things which are only to be found in heaven, where Christ sits at the right hand of God; joys which are heavenly & everlasting, which in the same chapter he calls the^* reward of our inheritance; He bids us raise our hearts above the world, above the vanities the pleasures & temptations of it: Alas! all this is nothing to our present purpose; all this we believe, although we know his body is as really on earth, as 'tis in heaven. Did not our Saviour preach the same to his Apos­tles? And yet he lived amongst them upon Earth.

The third Text lies before us in the 14. of S. Mark, where our Re­deemer makes a plain Antithesis be­twixt him & the poor, compares [Page 44]himself with them, & shews the diffe­rence betwixt their case & his.^* You have the poor with you always, says he, and when you will you may do them good, but me you have not al­ways: as if he should say; you will always have the poor in a condition of doing them good; but, as for me, you will not always have me in that indigent condition, you will not here­after be in a capacity of doing me any good. When he was visible amongst us before his resurrection, he was subject to our natural necessities, and it was in our power to relieve & ease him: But in the Sacrament he is im­mortal & impassible, incapable of being injur'd by the malice of his enemies, or betterd by the service of his friends.

This Text not being able to sup­port so weak a cause, a fourth is borrowd from the 1. Cor. in the 11. chapter, where the Apostle says,^* We shew the Lord's death till he comes: therefore he is not come yet; and, if he be not come. How is he really present in the Sacrament? Let us re­flect a little, & examine the sense of [Page 45]these words, till he comes. This coming of our Saviour is repeated frequently in Scripture: in the 1. ch. of the Acts, we read,^* He shall come in like manner as you have seen him go, in the 14. of S. Mark, ^* You shall see him coming in the clouds; in the 24. of S. Math. ^* They shall see him coming in power & great glory. Every man that can but say his Creed, is well acquainted with this coming, which is so much celebrated in the Scripture; we all believe that this his coming is so judge the quick & the dead. When they read in the Bible, we shew the Lords death till he comes; they inferr. Therefore he is not come yet: Very true: The Lord's Day is not come; the Day of judgment is not come; and onely God knows when it will come: But, is it therefore evident that in the Sacrament there is no Transubstantiation, no Real Presence, because the Day of judgment is not come? I am inclin'd to think that, when it dos come, when Christ comes to judge the world, & calls all those to an account who have pretended, every one according to their fancy, to [Page 46]reform his Church, they then will wish too late that, either they had let the Church alone, or else had had much better evidence than this to justifie the Reformation.

The fifth Text seems to promise more, & yet performs as little as the rest: We find it in the 22, of S. Luke, where our Saviour says,^* Do this in remembrance of me. Now, say they, we cannot remember any thing but what is absent, and therefore the Body of Christ must of necessity be absent from the Sacrament, cannot be really & truly present in it. Pray, cannot I remember God, & take delight in thinking of his goodness? Remember my own sinfull soul, & pity her con­dition? And is not my soul present in my Body? Is not the Almighty pre­sent every where?^* Remember thy Creatour in the days of thy youth, says Solomon in the last chapter of Ecclesiastes; and yet this great Crea­tour is not absent from us: S. Paul says, in the 17. ch. of the Acts, ^* He is not far from every one of us. Though He is always present, yet we easily forget him, because he is not [Page 47]present to our senses: And I am afraid, because we do not see the invisible body & blood of Christ, I am afraid we now & then forget how great a treasure we receive when we approach the Sacrament: I am afraid, because we neither see nor feel our souls, we of­tentimes neglect & almost quite forget the great concern of our salvation, differring it from time to time, till by God's judgment death surprises us, and we are lost for all Eternity.

The two last Texts as they have most appearance so they have the least of substance when they are examin'd. S. Paul says in his 1. Cor. 11. ch.^* Let a man examine himself, & so let him eat of that bread: Our Saviour says, in the 26. ch. of S. Math. ^* I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the Vine: Both of them speak thus after consecration; Both of them call it bread & wine; And therefore, after consecra­tion, it still remains true bread & wine. You see how fairly I propose the diffi­culty, and now I humbly beg your best attention to the Answer. S. Paul dos not say, This is Bread: Our Saviour dos not say, This is Wine: S. Paul dos [Page 48]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 [Page 49]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; 'tis 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 [Page 50]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 tis ignorance, but I am sure 'tis either that, or want of ingenuity, which makes men argue that, because there are some metaphors [Page 51]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 [Page 52]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 [Page 53]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 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 [Page 54]& 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 [Page 55]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, 'twas 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 [Page 56]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, [Page 57]& 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 'tis 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)^* they understood it carnally, & thought our Lord would chop of morsels of his flesh, & give it them: [Page 58]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 [Page 59]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 read; They heard the 63. v. which is [Page 60]so much magnified; They heard with great attention & curiosity; & if from those expressions they had so clearly understood, that by his flesh he only meant a holy sign or figure of it, they never would have damnd themselves eternally by walking no more with him. They watchfully observ'd his counte­nance; his way of speaking; and, as we better understand a friend when we discourse with him than when we only read his Letters, so these disciples ha­ving the advantage of our Saviours pre­sence & familiar conversation could not but understand him much better than those who only read in Scripture a small part of those discourses with which He entertaind them. They plain­ly understood that, though he smooth'd the difficulty by telling them He did not speak of carnal eating, yet never­theless he still spoke positively, as to the literal Sense: They had not that great grace of Christian Humility, without which none can universally submit their Reason to Divine Autho­rity: They could not come to God the Son, because they were not drawn by God the Father: Proud, as they were, away they went & walkt no [Page 61]more with Jesus Christ, because this mystery was something above their small capacity; their weak imagina­tions could not reach it.

See here an ancient Model of the modern Reformation! They heard the Church teach as our Saviour taught, that the Sacramental Bread is Flesh indeed, & the Sacramental Wine is Blood indeed, And so away they went with these words in their mouths, This is a hard saying; who can hear it? away they went, & walkt with her no more.

Our Saviour, who saw them thus abandon Him, and much more fee­lingly resented their eternal losse, than the contempt of his Voracity, did not so much as offer to call them back again, as certainly He would have done, had they been only guilty of mistaking what he meant; but turn'd immediatly to his Apostles, and in the 67. v. said to them, Will you also go away? Whereupon Simon Peter ans­werd him; Lord, to whom shall we go? Thou hast the words of eternal life; and we believe & are sure that Thou art Christ the Son of the living God: We believe, and are sure that Thou [Page 62]art able to make good thy words, although some people think them hard, & cannot hear them.

What our Saviour promis'd in the 6. of S. Iohn, He performd at his last supper: And tis no wonder that he talkt of it so much before hand, be­cause he dearly lov'd those whom he died for, and always had his eye upon the Legacy which he design'd to leave them. The night before his death, in his last Will & Testament, He left us this holy Sacrament as a perpetual monument of his Affection. We wran­gle & dispute about it, what This is? whether it is truly Bread, or truly the Body of Christ? We agree that Holy Writ shall be the Iudge. We find, in Holy Writ, four Copies of our Saviour's Will & Testament; in the 26. of S. Matthew, the 14. of S. Mark, the 22. of S. Luke, & the 11. of the 1. to the Corinthians. We open all of them; resolving to stand or fall by their determination. In all the Copies of his Testament, the words are plain, This is my Body: And, as soon as the words are read, They presently tell us; tis true, Our Saviour plainly says, This is my Body; but yet He only [Page 63]means, it is a sacred piece of bread, a holy figure of his body. For my part, I have ever admir'd, but never can sufficiently admire, in this occasion, the confidence of some men, that make such noise with Scripture; and yet, as soon as ever the book is open, tell us the Scripture says one thing, & means another, quite contrary to what it says.

If it be said, that nothing is more usual than to give Signs the names of what they signifie: I easily confess, tis very true; when things are certain­ly known to be Signs: because, Signs being only Substitutes, our thoughts never stop at them, but are presently fixt upon the things they signifie; and, by the same reason that they put ano­ther thing in our minds, 'tis no won­der if they put another name in our mouths. Thus Joseph plainly answerd Pharaoh's question, when he said,^* The seven Kine are seven years. But when God instituted Circumcision in the 17. of Genesis, He did not say, in the 10. verse, This Circumcision is my Covenant; but, in the 11. it shall be a token of my Covenant. So, in the [Page 64]12. of Exodus, when he instituted first the eating of the Paschal Lamb, from the 5. v. to the 10. it plainly appears there was something in it more than ordinary, and that it was not insigni­ficant; so that it is no wonder we find it written in the 11. v. It is the Passeover of the Lord: Moreover, the following verses explicate the figura­tive sense; the 26 v. puts the question, what mean you by this service? What dos it signifie? and the 27. gives the answer, it is the Sacrifice of the Lords Passeover, that is, it signifies the Passe­over. But, in our present case, 1. the Scripture dos not insinuate before hand, that bread was an empty Sign of Christ's body; 2. there is nothing in Scripture that gives evidence for such interpretation of our Saviour's words, as I have shewd in the first part of my Discourse.

If any one object, that Bread and Flesh are opposite, & therefore the sense must of necessity be figurative: For a full answer to this difficulty I referr you to the 7. of S. Luke, where in the 22. v our Saviour says, the blind see, the lame walk, the deaf hear, the dead are rais'd. To be blind [Page 65]and see, to be lame and walk, to be deaf and hear, to be dead and alive, are things quite disparate and oppo­site, & yet our Saviour's words were evidently true in the plain literal sense. From whence we may also inferr, that as these words the dead are rais'd cannot be literally true, unless the carkasse be substantially chang'd into a living man; so when our Saviour says This is my Body, these words can never be true in the plain literal sense, unlesse the Bread be by a mi­racle substantially chang'd into his Flesh.

To prove the literal sense, & to convince us of it, what can we wish for more than the unan [...]mous consent of all the four Evangelists, and the subscription of S. Paul? There is not one of them that writes, This is only a Sign of my body, a meer Figure of my flesh. Tis impossible the Sense should every where be figurative in so many several places & yet be no where explicated in the figurative sense. In other things, of lesse concern, we find that, what is metaphorically writ by one is explicated by another. S. Luke in his 11. ch. writes, if I in [Page 66]the finger of God cast out Devils: S. Matthew in the 12. ch. explains it, if I cast out Devils by the Spirit of God. S. Iohn, 6. ch. writes. Jesus the Son of Joseph, S. Luke 3. ch. explains it, Jesus being, as was supposed, the Son of Joseph. Our Saviour frequently invites the thirsty to him, & promises them living water: S. Iohn in the 7. ch. explains it, He spoke this of the spirit which they, who believd on him, should receive. But these words, which we read in all of them, are not ex­plain'd by any one of them. From whence 'tis easy to inferr, that all these sacred Pen-men never understood our Adversaries figurative sense: They literally understood it, as we do; be­lievd it as they understood it; & writ as they believ'd it.

S. Mark 4. ch. 34. v. says of our Saviour, that when they were alone He expounded all things to his Disci­ples. If then our Saviour us'd a Figure, when he said, This is my Body, 'tis certain that when they were alone (at least) he expounded this figure to them. Perhaps the four Evangelists & the Apostle knew well enough this exposition, but forgot to write it. This [Page 67]will not serve the turn. Our Saviour promis'd them their memory should ever be assisted by his holy Spirit: In the 14. ch. of S. Iohn; ^* the Holy Ghost, says he, shall bring all things into your remembrance whatsoever I have said unto you. Perhaps they every one thought of it when they writ, but did not think it worth the wri­ting. But if our Adversaries well con­sider the sixth Article of Reforma­tion, which tells us all things necessary to Salvation are contain'd in Scripture, they will scarce find room for this reply: because this exposition would have been so necessary to prevent the Idolatry which they accuse us of, & consequently necessary to Salvation. Since therefore this Interpretation ne­ver could have been forgot, if ever they had known it; Since it could not be omitted if they had remem­ber'd it; it follows clearly that this explication was never known amongst them, but only is a new invention of the modern Reformation, directly con­tradictory to Scripture.

I cannot but admire when I reflect, how thick a mist mens passions and [Page 68]prejudices raise before their eyes. And this is undoubtedly the reason why so many able men of the reforming Party study Transubstantiation in Scrip­ture, search with diligence, & great appearance of sincerity, yet never find it. If they were equal & impartial judges of the Texts which lie before them, they soon would see how grie­vously they are mistaken in the true intent & meaning of them. By the example of this instance they would judge the rest; acknowledge the in­justice of the Reformation; return home joyfully to their old Mother-Church, & full of admiration of God's mercy to them^* shew forth the praises of Him who call'd them out of darkness into his wonderfull light, which guides us through this vale of misery to the everlasting joys of Heaven. Amen.

FIRST PART.

* Before I enter upon our proofs of Transubstantiation it will be worth observing, how almost all our Adver­saries are mistaken, upon a groundless supposition, that if they can find ex­pressions in the Fathers which import that the Sacrament is a type a sign a figure, They need not seek any farther; The question is already decided; The Fathers never believ'd the mystery of Transubstantiation. Now, I must needs conless, if we denied the Sacrament to be a type a sign or figure, we ought to stand corrected: Or, if all this were inconsistent with the mystery of Tran­substantiation, we ought to own our Fathers Belief was contrary to ours. But if in both these points our Adver­saries are mistaken, we must beg their pardon if we still persever in our an­cient Faith.

* If they would only consider the difference betwixt the inward substance & the outward form, betwixt the in­fide & the outside, of the Sacrament; They would easily reconcile the diffe­rent expressions which they meet with [Page 73]in the Fathers writings. When the Fathens were intent upon the outward form, They call it a type, a sign, a figure; They say it is not his Body & Blood, but that it signifies it, represents it, & contains it.

* S. Austin in his 23. epistle to Bonifacius, says, the Sacrament of the Body of Christ is in some manner Christ's Body, .... as the Sacrament of Faith is Faith. The parity is good betwixt the outward form of bread, and Baptism, in this respect, that both are signs: Only this difference there is, the first contains what it signifies, the other dos not. So in his book against Adimantus, 12. ch. he says. Our Lord did not doubt to say, This is my Body, when He gave them a sign of his Body. And why should he doubt? If a man give his friend a purse of money, He dos not doubt to say, This is my Money, although the Purse be only a sign of it. If a purse be empty, tis an empty sign: But if it be full, it then contains all that it signifies, and what it represents is truly & substantially present. Bread in the Old Law was an empty sign of Christ's Body: The outward form of [Page 74]Bread is still a sign of it; but not an empty sign, because it really contains the selfsame Body which it represents. I take no notice of S. Austin's words in the 3. book of his Christian Doc­trine, where he saies, Our Saviour^* seems to command a heinous wicked­ness, ... therefore 'tis a figure: I take no notice of it, because He dos not say it is an empty figure. He only says, our Saviours speech is figurative in opposition to the literal sense of the Capernaites, that barbarous sense in which, indeed, it is a heinous crime to eat our Saviour's flesh.

* I also pass over Tertullian's words, in his 4. book against Marcion; ^* This is my Body, that is, This figure of my Body: I pass them over because the true sense amounts to no more, than that This bread, which in the Old Law was but a figure of my Body, now in the New Law is my Body. The obscurity of this great man is well enough known to all that are acquainted with him: Nor can any, who converse with him, be ignorant that the figure Hyperbaton is often in his mouth. In the same book, ch. 11. [Page 75]he says, To a Parable will I open my mouth, that is, Similitude: and (in his book against Praxeas) Christ is dead, that is, Anointed This is enough to shew the affected transposition of his words: And, for the sense, it may be easily conjectur'd by the design of his book; the principal end of which, is to shew the correspondency betwixt the Old Law and the New; to which purpose it was a very pertinent obser­vation, that the Form of Bread, in the Old Law was an empty figure of what is fullfill'd in the New. In the same sense Tertullian says in his 1. book against Marcion, that^* Christ by Bread represents his Body: that is, by the outward form of Bread He exhibits it substantially present. So, in his 4 book, he says, that^* God the Father repre­sented Christ on Mount Thabor saying, This is my Son. So likewise in his book, of Prayer, he says,^* We pray for the representation (that is, the real presence) of God's Kingdom. And, again, speaking of the Day of judg­ment, in his book concerning the Re­surrection, he says;^* it cannot be without the representation (that is, the [Page 76]personal presence) of all all Mankind: They who delight in reading Tertul­lian may find a great deal more to this effect; But this is enough to satis­fie any rational man that my inter­pretation is not forc'd.

* Facundus of Hermian speaks in the same Dialect, when in his [...] for the defence of the Tria Capitula, He says; the Sacrament... is call'd his Body & Blood; not that the Bread is properly his Body and the Cup his Blood, but because they contain the mysteries of his Body & Blood. He explicates there, how signs are call'd by the names of what they signifie: And argues, that the Sacrament of Adoption may be call'd Adoption, as the outward forms of bread & wine are call'd the body & blood of Christ. The Argu­ment is good: because these outward forms of bread & wine, consider'd in themselves, are only signs; they are not properly the body of our Lord; they are only call'd so, because they are types and figures of it; But, that they are not empty signs the same Author tells us, when he says in the same place, that they are call'd so because they contain the mysteries of his body & blood.

* If some of you, perhaps, still think it strange that such expressions as these should be made use of fre­quently, by men who really believ'd this mystery; For your farther satis­faction you may please to reflect, that not only the Fathers of the first six Centuries, but also our most eminent Authors who have written since the Condemnation of Berengarius, & who undoubtedly held Transubstantiation, nevertheless use the very same phrase of speaking. It would be tedious to run over many instances: One, out of S. Anselm, will be enough to satisfie your curiosity. About the end of the eleventh Century when, by our En­glish Reformers confession, the Doc­trine of Transubstantiation was fully settled & establisht, He writes thus, in his Treatise De Sacramento Altaris, That similitude of bread, which upon the Altar appears to our corporeal eyes, consider'd in it self, is not the Body of our Lord.

* Some people have such little souls, they cannot raise their thoughts above their vulgar notions; they are not much acquainted with those signs which signifie things present; those [Page 78] signs which are not appointed to sup­ply the defect of real presence, but only to supply the want of visible ap­pearance: And therefore they will not allow that there are any such signs in the World. Say what you will, they mind not what you say, but tell you over & over again, that, if the out­ward form of the Sacrament be a sign of his Body, 'tis certain his Body is not really and truly present. Have but a little patience; and I shall quickly clear this point. My Speech and Mo­tion are signs of Life & Soul in me: And must I believe a Sophister, if any were so silly as to tell me, Therefore I am a dead man, because it is the nature of all signs to exclude the real presence of what they signifie? The form of a Serpent in Paradise was in some manner a sign of the Evil Spirit that tempted Eve; and was not this Evil Spirit really & truly present? The form of a Dove appearing at our Saviour's Baptism; & the forms of fiery tongues appearing on the day of Pentecost, represented the Holy Ghost; And will you say the Holy Ghost was never really present, neither one time nor other? The human forms which, [Page 79]in the old Testament, the Angels usual­ly assumed, represented the Angels; And were those Angels never truly & substantially present? Such instances as these, I may presume, our Adversaries do not well consider: if they did, they never would conclude that the Fathers denied the mystery of Transubstantia­tion, because they call the outward form a type, a sign, or figure.

* Besides this mighty difficulty, which I now have clearly satisfied, There remains one more; which is, that according to the Doctrine of the Fathers, the Substance of bread remains after Consecration. Here, I must needs confess, they charge us home: And, if they can perform what 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 [Page 80]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 [Page 81]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. Tis 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 [Page 82]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;^* 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 [Page 83]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 [Page 84] 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 [Page 85]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 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, [Page 86]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 [Page 87]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. [Page 88]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.

Tis 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 [Page 89]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. Tis 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 [Page 90]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^* 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^* 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, ^* 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 [Page 92]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^* our Fathers that were under a Cloud: when he inquires so serious­ly^* how the grosseness of a very thick air could sanctifie the people? and tells us how^* 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^* 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, [Page 93]& argues that^* 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 &^* 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 tis 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 [Page 94]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? Tis 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 [Page 95]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 [Page 96]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; [Page 97]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 [Page 98]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 his 2. book, Contra Adv. Legis & Prophe­tarum, he says, that with faithfull hearts & mouths we receive the Media­tour of God & men Christ Jesus, giving us his flesh to eat, & his Blood to drink; although it seems more horrible, to eat man's flesh, than to kill it, or to drink man's blood, than to shed it. In this place, he first distinguishes two ways of eating; oral, and spiritua; & then as­serts them both. And I could wish they would take a little notice of this place, who so much please themselves with popular declamations against the pretended barbarousness of this Mystery. In his Comments upon the 33. Psalm, He makes no difficulty of ad­mitting all the real consequences of this mystery, which to our Adversaries seem absurd & impossible; as for exam­ple; that Christ's Body should be at the same time in two places, that he should hold himself in his own hand, give himself to his Disciples, keep himself to himself, & the like. First he moves the difficulty: Who is carried in his own [Page 99]hands? In another's hands one may be carried; No man is carried in his own. Afterwards he answers; Christ was car­ried in his own hands; when commen­ding to them his own Body, He said, This is my Body; For he carried that Body in his own hands. I will only men­tion one more testimony of this Father; but so plain a one, that 'tis impossible any man in his wits should have utter'd if he had not believ'd the Doctrine of Transubstantiation. In his Comments upon the 98. Psalm; Christ, says he, took flesh of the flesh of Mary; in this flesh he walkt here with us; this flesh he gave us to eat, that we may be sa­ved: No body eats this flesh, but first A­dores it. Observe his words: He plainly speaks of oral eating; he dos not mean only believing: if he did, he would not say, we always adore before we eat; be­cause 'tis evident, we do not adore be­fore we believe. Pray, what is this we adore before we eat? is it only apiece of bread, a wafer, a sacred figure of Christ's body? Surely you will not make S. Austin, & all the Christians of his time. Idolaters? Adore a thing which they believ'd was not their God? No, no: They believ'd that although before [Page 100]the words of Consecration it was only a piece of bread, yet after Conse­cration it was by God's Omnipotence substantially chang'd into the Body of Christ, & so became their God as well as their Food; And therefore the Christians of that Age ador'd the Sa­crament before they durst approach to eat it; & S. Austin was so zealous for this Adoration, that he says in the same place, It is not only lawfull to adore, but a Sin not to adore.

The Dispute that was betwixt Nesto­rius & S Cyril of Alexandria, plainly shews that in those times this mystery was universally believ'd. Nestorius fan­cied there were two persons in Christ, the one true God, the other true Man, and pretended to prove that the Flesh of Christ and his Divinity are not uni­ted in one Person. The Scripture plain­ly told him that we eat the Flesh of Christ; But, said he, We do not eat the Divinity; Therefore the Flesh & the Divinity are not united in one Person. If S. Cyril had believ'd that what we eat with our mouths is meer bread, He might easily have answerd; That this argument only proves, the nature of bread & the Divine nature are not uni­ted [Page 101]in one Person. But, because he be­liev'd that the Sacrament which seems meer bread, is not any longer bread, but the true substance of Christ's Body; therefore he answerd that although we do not eat the Divine Nature, yet the holy Flesh of Christ is not common Flesh .... 'tis the proper Body of the Word, which gives life to all things. This Argument and Answer you may read in his Apology for his Anathema's. The Catholiks & the Nestorians both agreed in the common belief, that the Sacrament is not bread, but the Flesh of Christ: Otherwise Nestorius had been the most silly Disputant that ever liv'd, & S. Cyril had been quite infatuated that did not give another Answer. Nesto­rius argued: We do not eat the Divini­ty; Therefore the Flesh is not united to the Divine Person. S. Cyril answerd: The Flesh, which we eat, gives life; therefore 'tis united to the Divine Per­son; without which it profiteth nothing, according to our Saviour's words in the sixth chapter of S. John.

Gelasius Bishop of Cyzicus in his book De duabus in Christo Naturis, proves against the Eutychians that there are two Natures in Christ; Because in the Sa­crament [Page 102]there are two natures, to wit, the visible nature of the outward forms, and the invisible nature of Christ's sub­stance: And explicating how this is per­form'd, he says; The Bread & Wine are chang'd, by the Operation of the Holy Ghost, into the Divine substance. The Accidents of bread & wine remain ac­cording to Gelasius, in the propriety of their Nature; but yet the bread & wine are chang'd into the Divine Substance. Think a little of this; and tell me, what it is, if it be not Transubstantiation.

Theodoret in his first Dialogue, taking notice how Jacob in the 49. of Genesis, gave our Saviour's Blood the name of Wine, and our Saviour in the Ghospel gave Wine the name of his Blood, He says, The reason is manifest; because he would have those who partake of the di­vine mysteries, not to mind the Nature of the things which are seen; but, by the change of names, believe the change which is made by grace. In the second Dialogue, he says of the Sacramental bread & wine: They are understood to be, what they are made to be; and are believ'd to be such; and are Ador'd, be­cause they are the same which we be­lieve them to be. In the first Dialogue, [Page 103]he says, the Sacramental bread is chang'd; In the second, he says, it is ador'd. What change is this which makes the Sacramental bread deserve to be ador'd? Consider it a while, and you will find it nothing else but Tran­substantiation.

I should be tedious, if I undertook to lay before you all the Testimonies of the Fathers who, in these three A­ges, have writ upon this subject. These which I have produc'd already, are beyond exception: They declare the Faith of the Ages they liv'd in; They say the Sacramental bread is chang'd into the Substance of Christ; They say, No body eats it, but first adores it; They say it is a Sin not to adore it: All this They say, & this is all we understand by Transubstantiation.

I come now to the first four Cen­turies, and put the Question to those Fathers who had the happyness to flourish in the best & purest times of Christianity; Whether the inward Sub­stance of the Sacrament be bread & wine, or whether it be the Body & Blood of Christ? If it be true, that the inward Substance of the Sacrament is really the Body or Flesh of Christ, it [Page 104]follows evidently that it is no longer Bread: And, 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, 'tis strange he should never call it by the right name.

S. Ephrem the Deacon, in his book, [Page 105] 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 [Page 106]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, 'tis 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 [Page 107]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 'twill 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. [Page 109]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? Tis clear, that when the Fathers of the first four Ages speak of the wonderfull change made in the Sacrament, they speak of the [Page 110]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 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 [Page 111]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; 'tis 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 [Page 112]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 [Page 113]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, Tis 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, 'tis certain S. Cyril of Alexandria never would have [Page 114]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, 'tis 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 [Page 115]& 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 'tis 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 [Page 116]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 'tis impossi­ble to please God. They are the words of S. Paul to the Hebrews, ch. 11. v. 16.

2. That there is but one Body, one Spirit, ... one Lord, one Faith. They are the words of the same Apostle to the Ephesians, ch. 4. v. 4. & 5.

3. That we ought to follow the Direction of this one Lord, to find out this one Faith. This Direction is writ­ten in the Prophet Jeremy, ch 6. v. 16. Thus says the Lord: stand in the ways & see; And ask for the Old Paths, where is the good Way, & walk therein; and you shall find rest for your souls.

Tis natural for men to please [Page 117]themselves with thinking how much they are wiser than their Prede­cessours. Nothing is more agreable to Man's proud inclinations, than to be always finding faults & giving ma­gisterial directions for the mending of them: And this is that which makes the very Name of Reformation plea­sing & delightfull. To give it its due; Reforming is a pretty Thing, if it were well applied. If every Man would make it his chief business to reform himself; O! what a Happy Reforma­tion should we live to see! But this alas, is much the smallest part of all our Business. There is no Vanity, no Pleasure, in Reforming of our selves: We only gain a Victory where we desire it not; & only triumph over our own faults. A proud man would as willingly sit out, as play at such small game as this: All his delight is to reform his Neighbours. And here, I must confess, if Men were only a little overbusy in reforming of their neighbours Manners, the Folly of their Pride were in some measure to­lerable. But when our insolence at­tempts the Reformation of their Faith, [Page 118]& of that Church to which Divine as well as Human Laws require Obe­dience and Submission; the specious Name & popular Pretence will never sanctifie the Crime. If they who, in the last Age, undertook the Reforma­tion of our Church, were known to be infallible; some grains of blind O­bedience might be easily allow'd. But since they may perhaps be grievously mistaken, it very much behoves you to consider it. Tis a common saying; if a man cheat me once, 'tis his fault; but if he cheat me twice, 'tis mine. Tis not the first time that a conside­rable Party in the Catholick Church has separated from the whole, upon these plausible pretences of Reforma­tion, to correct Abuses, Innovations, & Errours. Did not the Arians, thir­teen hundred years since, begin to se­parate upon this popular pretence? Did not they, in the same manner, amuse their Proselytes with plausible sto­ries, of errours, innovations, and abu­ses, crept into the Church? Did not they make as great a noise against the Consubstantiality of God the Son? com­plain as much of Spiritual Tyranny? [Page 119]inveigh as much against the Council of Nice for making, introducing, and imposing, a new, unheard of, Arti­cle of Faith: quite contrary to the belief of three preceding Ages, & plainly opposite to Holy Writ? All This, you know, was false: You know that, though the word was new, the faith was old & plainly prov'd by Scripture: And yet these popular noi­ses which then the Arians buzz'd in­to the peoples ears, amused them so. They never entertain'd the least suspi­cion of their being cheated. Had our Reformers been the first, & you had been deceiv'd, The fault had then been theirs. But, since the same trick has been playd so often in the Church, if now you are deceiv'd, the fault is yours. I have laid before your eyes, this day, a prospect of the eight first Ages. They accuse the Catholick Church of making a new Article of Faith: And, by the most Authentick Records of Antiquity, it has been plainly prov'd that they themselves are guilty of unmaking an old Article of Faith, as ancient as Christ & his Apostles. Remember the days of old; Consider [Page 120]the years of many generations; Ask thy Father, & he will shew thee; thy El­ders, and They will tell thee. Stand in in the ways, & see; and ask for the old paths, where is the good way, & walk therein: There is no other Way which can conduct you safely to the Joys of Heaven; which I wish you all, in the Name of the Father, Son, & Holy Ghost, Amen. VVhen this Sermon was preacht before his Majesty, several paragraphs (which are all marks with a *) were omitted, for brevity sake; but are here printed, as they were found in the Author's papers.

FIRST PART.

From a deep Sense of this impor­tant Truth, which is the first founda­tion of Christian Humility, the Catho­lick Church has ever been persuaded that it is her Duty to appoint the Fes­tivals of Saints, for these two reasons: 1. to offer up our humble Thanks to God, for all the signal instances of his great Power & Mercy, all the Favours He so graciously bestow'd upon his Saints, who could do nothing of them­selves: 2. to offer up our humble Prayers to God, that since we al­so are not able to do any thing without him, He may please to help us with proportionable Graces, such as may enable us to follow their Exam­ple. Humble Thanksgiving, Humble [Page 125] Prayer, are the Duties of this Day-In the performance of the first, we raise our thoughts to Heaven, and contemplating this great Saint be­fore the Throne of God (where he acknowledges, & renders Thanks for, all the miracles of Grace, which rais'd him to so high a Station of Glory there) we fall devoutly down upon our knees, with admiration of God's great Mercy, & Thanksgiving for the powerfull assistance which appear'd so signally in him who of himself was able to do Nothing. In the second, we look down upon our selves, and conscious of our Frailty we begin to Pray with all Humility, that since his Goodness has been heretofore so great, He may continue it to us: And, at the same time, this great Saint, re­membering the danger he has escap'd, compassionates the danger we are in, & humbly Prays that since the same Redeemer died for him and us, the selfsame helps which carried on the work of his Salvation may be em­ployd in ours, Having thus fairly sta­ted & divided the whole Duty of the Day, I shall proceed to justifie the Honour which from hence redounds [Page 126]upon the Saint whose Feast we cele­brate.

I need not tell you, that if any Saint deserve a Festival in honour of his memory, S. George may very well ex­pect it from us more than any other Nation. All Christendom has been am­bitious of his Patronage; and almost every Part been at a holy strife with one another which should honour him most. In Portugal they look upon him as the Souldier's Patron: In Ger­many we find a Military Order dedica­ted to him: In Italy we have seen the great decay of the Italian Souldiery recover'd by S. George's Regiment. In Asia the Georgians, which way soever they employ their forces, carry with them a fair Banner with the Picture of S. George upon it. In the Armenian Churches they religiously observe his Feast. Among the Greeks they keep the same Solemnity; And they who travel in those parts can hardly find two Churches in a Town whereof one is not dedicated to S George. Thus have all Countries studied to outvie each other in the Honour of this Saint. But as the Genius of this Nation sutes more than any with his proper Charac­ter, [Page 127]We bid the fairest for his Patro­nage. What Saint more proper to be Patron of a Warlike Nation, than a Warlike Saint? A Nation whose Va­lour has been always envied & ad­mir'd by all the World, what could could they want to make them Saints as well as Souldiers, but the Patronage & great Example of S. George, a Souldier & a Saint?

But yet, I know not how it comes to passe, there are a certain sort of people in the World so superstitiously over-jealous of God's Honour & so scru­pulous in misinterpreting their Duty to Him, that they dare not upon any terms allow the least proportion of Honour to a Saint, for fear of giving God too little, & the Saint too much. I do not pretend to enter now into the Lists of Disputation; but only to present you some few obvious reflec­tions, relating to the main Dispute, which may contribute something to­wards the removal of these groundless fears & scandalous misapprehensions.

In the first place; If we think as humbly and as meanly of the Saint, as he dos of himself, We cannot there­fore be accounted guilty of Idolatry: [Page 128]The Saint is then no more our Idol than he is his own. You cannot imagine that the Saints in Heaven idolize themselves: If therefore we esteem the Saints no more than they esteem themselves; There is no danger (upon this account) of honouring them too much. The Saints in Heaven are more humble now than ever. Tis true; They see God face to face; They see in him all they desire to see: But yet this Knowledge dos not puff them up with Pride, because they see in Him that He is All, & they are Nothing. They only believ'd it upon Earth; but now they plainly see it. S. Paul is now persua­ded more than ever, that^* if a man think himself to be Something, when he is Nothing, he deceives himself. All the Aposiles plainly see the Evidence of what our Saviour once taught them; without me you are able to do nothing. S George himself is now convinc'd, more sensibly than ever, of the Pro­phet's Doctrine;^* Let not the Migh­ty man glory in his Might; Let not the daring Hero glory in his Courage; Let him rather humble himself so much the more in presence of his [Page 129]God, who made him Great. They All annihilate themselves in presence of their God,^* The Pillars of Hea­ven tremble in his sight; They trem­ble, not so much with fear, as with an awfull & profound Humility; They^* cast down their Crowns before the Throne; & All at once acknowledge they are Nothing of themselves. Pause here one moment, & reflect how little the greatest Saints esteem themselves: Reflect again; We value them no more than this; And then you will inge­nuously. confess, We do not value them too much.

In the second place; if by our Festi­val Thanksgiving to their God & ours, We only honour them as they honour us; that is to say, as Branches of the selfsame Vine without which they, as well as we, are able to do nothing; Then, I suppose, we may conclude, We do not honour them above their merit. And, if we well examine the Design of these Solemnities; if we consider nothing on the one side, but the Honour which accrews to them, because we bear them company in giving Thanks; and, on the other side, the Honour which re­dounds [Page 130]upon us by their gracious return of the like Kindness, their espousing of our Cause, their joyning of their inte­rest with ours; We shall find that, barely by our Festival Thanksgiving-Days, we only honour them as we are honour'd by them. Although we cele­brate this Day the Sacrifice of Mass in memory & honour of S George, ^* we offer not the Sacrifice to him, but to God alone, who crown'd him with im­mortal Glory; offering our humble Thanks to God both for his Victory & his Eternal Triumph. By our Thanks­giving we direct the Sacrifice no more to this great Saint, than to your Sacred MAJESTIES; for in the self [...]ame Sa­crifice we offer our most hearty thanks to the same God for the inestimable Blessing of your Sacred MAJESTIES Coronation upon Earth, the Annual So­lemnity of which returns this Day, with that of S. George's Coronation in Heaven. We joyn our Thanks with his; He joyns his Prayers with ours. If it be such an Honour to this great & glorious Saint, that we poor Sinners bear him Company, attend, & wait upon him to the Throne of Grace, to offer up our [Page 131] Thanks with his: Consider well, and tell me whether or no, it be not a great Honour to us miserable Sinners, that this great & glorious Saint appears be­fore us, introduces us, presents us to our God & his, & offers up his Prayer, his Petition, his Address with ours? Can you imagine a more honourable Testimony of our Excellency, than that the Blessed Saints in Heaven, notwithstanding all their glorious advantages above poor Sinners, nevertheless esteem so much, & set so great a value on, God's Image in us, as to offer up their humble Supplications for us, and to interpose with such profound Humility betwixt our angry God & us, as if in Heaven they so highly prised us, as to solemnise Humiliation-Days in favour of us?

This, I confess, appears to me enough to counterballance all our Holy-Day-Thanksgivings upon Earth. But I have yet more weight to put into the Scale, which will not fail to bear it down. If it be such an Honour, to the Saints above, that Sinners here below keep Holy Days to celebrate their Victories with marks of joy & thanks; surely we must allow that 'tis no little Honour to repentant Sinners, that the Angels and [Page 132] Saints in Heaven celebrate, with jubi­lation and thanksgiving, all the Victories of Grace by which we overcome our Enemies on Earth. I do not say, They keep our Holy Days; because all such expressions, transferr'd from Earth to Heaven, loose their sense, and we are always at a loss for words, when ever we pretend to talk of things so far above us: But yet I am inclin'd to think that all those Days, in which a Sinner is con­verted, are Thanksgiving-Days in Hea­ven:^* There is Ioy in Heaven, There is Joy in presence of the Angels & Saints of God, over one Sinner that repenteth. Consider this, and you will easily con­clude that we receive great honour, whilst we give it; and that we are un­gratefull, if we think we give too much.

In the third, & last place; if the Ho­nour we allow to Saints be of the self­same kind with what we do to one another. We cannot then be reasonably scandaliz'd at the excess; we cannot, surely, be so vain as to imagine that a Saint in Heaven is not as deserving as a Sinner upon Earth. We dayly pray to one another, as we pray to them: The [Page 133] Honour is no more Divine when we de­sire the Prayers of a Saint, than when we beg the Prayers of a Sinner: We in­jure Christ no more when we demand their intercession there, than when we ask the intercession of our Neighbours here: The Mediatourship of Christ is still the same, whether the Prayers of our Friends be interpos'd on this side, or on t'other side of Heaven.

I cannot but reflect, whilst I am tal­king thus, it may perhaps appear a little strange, that I employ my time to shew how little honour we allow our Saint, when many people are in expectation of a Panegyrick to persuade them that they cannot honour him too much. But 'tis enough for me if I have done him justice. I am sure our Saint desires no more than he deserves; And I have said enough to prove that he deserves as much as we allow him. By our desiring of his inter­cession we do him no more honour than we do to one another. By our Thanks­giving for his Happyness, we only are so gratefull, as to honour God in him, who honours God in us. By our Consi­deration of his Merit, we conceive as humble an Idea of him, as our Saint dos of himself; and are, in that respect, as innocent as he.

O! what a Joy it is to a dejected Sinner, that S. George himself was once a Man infirm & frail as well as we; & that the Difference which now we so admire betwixt him & our selves, is not in any Excellency he can boast of, but a pure effect of God's great Mercy to him. Tis true here, what S Bernard saies upon the like occa­sion; This Man was once like us; fram'd of the same clay, cast in the same mould, and subject to the same infirmities of Flesh & Blood: We have reason to rejoyce, & to be asham'd: re­joyce that He is gone before us, & be asham'd that, though we may, we will not follow his Example; Which is an Obligation incumbent upon All, & particularly those of his Profession, as I shall shew you in the second part of my Discourse.

SECOND PART.

As Nothing is more difficult than for a man to be a Souldier and a Saint, So there is Nothing which our God appears more zealously concern'd for, than the Reputation of so great a Work; Nothing of which He is more jealous, [Page 135]than least the admiring World, whose eyes are dazled with the splendour of Heroick Actions, may rob Him of the Honour, & assume it to themselves. He will not allow the Branch 'to glo­ry in the Fruit it bears; because it can­not bear fruit of it self: Divide it from the Vine; it withers without Fruit, Men gather it, make fire, & burn it.

But, though the Branch be fruitless when tis separated from the Root, Yet nevertheless as long as it remains uni­ted to the Vine it flourishes & fructi­fies:^* He who abides in me, brings forth much Fruit ^* This is the Vic­tory, says the Apostle, by which we overcome the World, Our Faith (I mean Our Faith in this our Saviour's Doc­trine) that though without Him We are able to do nothing, Yet with his help we may be able to do all things:^* If you abide in me, if you place all your trust, your hope, & confidence in me, ask what you will, it shall be done. A Diffidence in our own strength, A loving Confidence in God, is so agreable, it charmes him so, He in a [Page 136]manner lends us his Omnipotence, and by his Grace enables us to conquer all things.

S. Paul, of all men living, had the least opinion of his own sufficiency; He confess'd he had not, of himself, the power to think so much as one good thought; And yet he doubted not but he was able to do all things by the Strength of Grace;^* I can do all things, says he, through Christ who strengthens me. Although he was not present when our Saviour encourag'd his Apostles, when He carefully fore­warn'd them of the dangerous Adven­tures they were like to meet with, when He told them that although their Enemies were strong yet He was infi­nitely stronger; Although S. Paul was absent when our Saviour gave them this Encouragement, he was as much assur'd of his Protection, as if he had been present, & had hear'd Him say,^* Take Courage, I have overcome the World.

Nothing could be more seasonable, than this Comsort, to a Souldier, who values above all things the Security of his Salvation, & desires to be a Saint. [Page 137]A Souldier & a Saint are things so hard to reconcile, that He who has the Courage to encounter any Death, & look it in the face as boldly as S. George himself, has seldom Courage to attempt the following of his Exam­ple, but concludes, that in so dange­rous a state of Life, 'tis morally im­possible to be a Saint.

Tis not that Sober men are scrupu­lous upon the Quality of that Profes­sion; or that they think the State of life unlawfull. They know that when S. John the Baptist preacht Repen­tance to the People, & when the Soul­diers came among the rest to learn their Duty, He did not bid them throw away their Arms; he did not tell them their Vocation was crimi­nal, he did not say that there was no Salvation for them if they did not quit those dangerous occasions of Sin: He only gave them such Directions as were proper to their Calling; giving them to understand, that they ought^* not to Do violence, But observe the Order of military Discipline, & be Con­tent with their Pay.

They do not think it is a Sin to [Page 138]be a Souldier; but are afraid that 'tis almost impossible to be a Souldier with­out Sinning. Nor do they think that Piety is inconsistent with the Courage of a Souldier: They know that Vir­tue raises men above the fear of Death; and that No man so much contemns this life as he who values nothing but the next. But yet they observe & by their dayly observation find, the Circumstances are extremely difficult in which a Military life en­gages them; and when they seriously compare their weakness on the one side with the difficulty on the other, they are almost ready to Despair.

To tell these men, The Grace of God is powerfull; to mind them, that although the Enemies of our Eternal Happyness are numerous & strong our Saviour by the power of his Grace has vanquisht all of them; and that he therefore bids them reassume their Courage, because He has overcome the World: This, I confess, may be some comfort to them; though it be not perhaps enough to allay those fears & apprehensions which arise from the im­mense disparity betwixt our God & us. Alas! what great encouragement to [Page 139]him, who knows his frailcy, to consider that our Saviour Jesus Christ has over­come the world? What wonder that a Man, who was true God, could conquer all his Enemies? Shew us a Man, say they, infirm and frail, whose flesh and blood are subject to the same Corrup­tions as ours; Let such a Man divide his whole life betwixt Camp & Garrison; And, if He notwithstanding all this lives and dies a Saint, then we shall have some hopes that we may be enabled by God's Grace to follow his Exam­ple.

If this be all they ask, if this will answer all their fears, and make them asham'd to plead such vain excuses for a loose & irrel gious life; Let them reflect upon the great Example of the Saint whose Feast we celebrate. He was so much a Souldier, & so emi­nent in that Profession, that by the Splendour of his Military Virtues, he obscured & darkned all his other Ex­cellencies: Nothing else appears upon the Authentick Records of his Fame; The rest lies buried in the Rubbish of Antiquity, under the Trophees of a Soul­dier & a Saint. He was no more a God than we are: setting aside God's Grace, he [Page 140]was a man no better than the mea he left behind him: And yet he lived and died a Saint: He now triumphs for all Eternity in Heaven: Thence He looks down upon us with a sensi­ble compassion of their cowardly mis­take, who think it is impossible to fol­low his Example: And, if he might but speak, He would exhort them, in our Saviour's words, Take Courage I have overcome the World: I, who when I lived on Earth, desir'd as much, & more than you do, the Salvation of my soul; who had the selfsame fear­full apprehensions, which you have, of the difficulties which occurr in such a dangerous Vocation: I, who thought it almost impossible to be De­vout in Camp, Sober in Garrison, In­nocent in such corrupted Conversation; Nevertheless, by the assistance of God's Grace I came to be what now I am; Take Courage; I, as frail a man as you are, I have overcome the dangers which you are so much afraid of, I have overcome the World.

I have said enough to shew that Souldiers may, if they please, be Saints: & nothing now remains, but this; that all good Christians, all Saints, must of [Page 141]necessity be Souldiers. Tis not sufficient that the Souldier follow the Exam­ple of the Saint; The Saint must also follow the Example of the Souldier. To let you see, there's no new mystery in what I say, I take the liberty to lay before your eyes the Field of Battel which engages all the World, without exception, under one of these two Standards, either that of Jesus Christ, or that of Lucifer. S. Michael had defeated him in Heaven; But how­ever, upon Earth he reinforc'd his bafled strength; and to make sure of his intended Conquest of our Paradise below, he would not openly invade it, but surpris'd it, by a base inglorious treachery, without proclaiming War. Having thus possess'd himself of this low World, the Prince of Darkness govern'd it, he domineerd & tyran­niz'd, till Jesus Christ the Son of God appear'd against him;^* and was ma­nifested, that he might destroy the works of the Devil. He immediatly set up the standard of the Cross. Tis true; He press'd none to serve him; He only listed Voluntiers;^* If any man will (says he) come after me [Page 142]Let him take up his Cross, & follow me. But yet, to shew there's no Neutrality allowable in such a War, He proclaim'd himself an Enemy to all that fought not for him;^* He who is not with me, is against me.

The Church, in Scripture; is com­pared in several places, to a Vineyard, to a Kingdom, to an Army: To a Vineyard, because under the care of one Husbandman; to a Kingdom, be­cause govern'd by one Prince, and to an Army, because under the Conduct of one General. As in this Vineyard every Branch abiding in the Vine is fruitfull: As in this Kingdom every good man is a Loyal Subject to his Prince: So in this Army all good Chris­tians are Souldiers, fighting every one against the common Enemy, un­der the Standard and Command of Jesus Christ our General.

Raise up your thoughts above the world: Consider all the Blessed Spirits who are happy there: Assure your selves there is not one of them a Saint triumphant now in Heaven, who was not formerly a Souldier militant on Earth. S. Paul assures us, that there [Page 143]is not one who wears a Crown of Glory there, but what he fought for here; ^* He is not crown'd, says he, except he have fought lawfully.

Our Saviour tells us in the Ghospel of S. Luke, Our Enemy the Devil is both^* Strong and Arm'd: And is it not then the Duty of all Christians to arm against him? Hear how S Paul describes a Christian, & tell me what he meant, if not a Souldier?^* Put on the whole Armour of God, your Loyns girded with Truth; taking the Shield of Faith, and the Helmet of Salvation. And why all this?^* That you may be able to stand against the Devil; the^* Old Serpont whose His­tory begins in Genesis and ends in the Apocalypse.

S. George is always pictur'd fight­ing with a Serpent. The Story, which perhaps was first occasion'd by the Picture, is a Fable: But however, if the Maxim of Mythologists be true, that there is seldom any Fable with­out some foundation in History, we may believe the Picture is,^* at least in part, Historical; as being thus con­triv'd [Page 144]of purpose (in those times, & by those men, who most affectionatly were devoted to our Martyr) to pub­lish to Posterity how bravely he refell'd the Devil, that Old Serpent, the old Enemy of Mankind; with how much courage he resisted all his vio­lent assaults; And with how much constancy he stood immoveable^* in the profession of his Faith: the whole Church praying with him, and knee­ling (like the Virgin) by him, in that holy Action, that God would give him strength to live & die victorious in a War which all good Christians are en­gaged in, & a War in which we all are equally oblig'd to follow the example of our then Victorious & now Triumphing Saint.

Whensoever we see the George hang at the Breast of any Knight of that most noble & heroick Order, I could wish it would mind us, How happy all those are who by a frequent me­mory of his Example wear a deep impression of it in their Hearts. I cannot but admire the Piety of that great^* Prince, the Glory of his Times, and Ornament of Europe, who in the [Page 145]Institution of it, took such care to recommend it, with such marks of honour, to Posterity. Nor can I pass without reflection, how sutable the Statutes are to the intention of the Founder & how well they answer his design; by ordering that the George be never laid aside, although the other Ornaments upon occasion may be let alone, and only are of obli­gation upon solemn Days. Because the Spiritual War, in which all Chris­tians are Souldiers, is perpetual & without intermission; Because the Devil, like a cunning Serpent, al­ways lies in ambush ready to sur­prise us; Because he every day so frequently assaults us & obliges us to be upon our guard; Therefore the Image of this Fighting Saint must always be before their eyes, always appear upon their breasts, & always awake the memory of those, who, over & above the common tye of Christianity, are by their Knighthood bound in honour not to lay aside S. George's resolution of encountring the infernal Serpent, the malicious Enemy of their Eternal Happyness, that so [Page 146]they may at length receive an Everlasting Crown of Glory. And this is the reason why, at the Investitre of any of these Knights, when first the George is put about their Necks, the Chancellor of the Order reads an Admonition im­porting that They wear the Image of the Blessed Souldier of Christ, S. George, to the end that by his imitation they may be provok'd, and having stout­ly vanquisht their Enemies both of Body & Soul, they may not only receive the praise of this transient Combat, but be crown'd with the Palm of Eternal Victory. Not only They whose Dignity entitles them to wear the George upon their Breasts, but All who with respect behold it there, are animated & instructed by it, to discharge the Essential Duty of a Christian, whose Life is a continual Warfate upon Earth.

S. George himself had never been Victorious without God's Grace. VVithout Christ, he had been able to do Nothing. The very same Grace we may have for asking, if we are sincere. The whole Courch prays, this Day, that God may grant it us. Let us Therefore Conclude; and joyn our Prayers with Her's: O God, who by thy Blessed Martyr George's intercession & merits dost rejoyce us, mercifully grant, that we who by him crave thy Blessings, may receive them by the Gift of thy Grace, Through Iesus Christ our Lord; Amen.