meant; for 'conversion,' which was their word, could signify nothing of that; but if they meant the change of substance into substance, properly by conversion,- then they have confuted the present doctrine of transubstantiation; which though they call a substantial change, yet an accident is the ❝ terminus mutationis,' that is, it is, by their explication of it, wholly an accidental change, as I have before discoursed * ; for nothing is produced but ubiquity or presentiality; that is, it is only made present, where it was not before. And it is to be observed, that there is a vast difference between conversion and transubstantiation; the first is not denied; meaning by it a change of use, of condition, of sanctification; as a table is changed into an altar, a house into a church, a man into a priest, Matthias into an apostle, the water of the river into the laver of regeneration; but this is not any thing of transubstantiation. For in this new device, there are three strange affirmatives, of which the fathers never dreamed. 1. That the natural being of bread is wholly ceased, and is not at all neither the matter nor the form. 2. That the accidents of bread and wine remain without a subject, their proper subject being annihilated, and they not subjected in the holy body. 3. That the body of Christ is brought into the place of the bread, which is not changed into it, but is succeeded by it. These are the constituent propositions of transubstantiation, without the proof of which, all the affirmations of conversion signify nothing to their purpose, or against ours.

7. Seventhly: When the fathers use the word 'nature' in this question, sometimes saying the nature is changed,' sometimes that the nature remains,' it is evident that they either contradicted each other, or that the word 'nature' hath, amongst them, diverse significations. Now in order to this, I suppose, if men will be determined by the reasonableness of the things themselves, and the usual manners of speech, and not by prejudices and prepossessions,—it will be evident, that when they speak of the change of nature, saying that bread changes his nature, it may be understood of an accidental change: for that the word 'nature' is used for a change of accidents, is, by the Roman doctors, con

e Vide sect. 11. n. 34.

tended for, when it is to serve their turns (particularly in their answer to the words of pope Gelasius): and it is evident in the thing; for we say, a man of a good nature, that is, of a loving disposition. It is natural to me to love or hate this or that; and it is against my nature,' that is, ' my custom or my affection.' But then, as it may signify accidents, and a natural change may yet be accidental, as when water is changed into ice, wine into vinegar; yet it is also certain that'nature' may mean substance:' and if it can, by the analogy of the place, or the circumstances of speech, or by any thing, be declared, when it is that they mean a substance' by using the word nature;' it must be certain, that then substance' is meant when the word 'nature' is used distinctly from, and in opposition to, accidents; or when it is explicated by, and in conjunction with, substance; which observation is reducible to practice, in the following testimonies of Theodoret, Gelasius, and others: "Immortalitatem dedit, naturam non abstulit," says St. Austin f.

8. Eighthly; So also, whatsoever words are used by the ancient doctors seemingly affirmative of a substantial change, cannot serve their interest, that now most desire it; because themselves being pressed with the words of' natura,' and "substantia,' against them, answer, that the fathers using these words, mean them not φυσικῶς, but θεολογικῶς, not naturally,' but theologically,' that is, as I suppose, not 'properly,' but sacramentally:' by the same account, when they speak of the change of the bread into the substance of Christ's body, they may mean the change of substance, not naturally, but sacramentally; so that this ought to invalidate the greatest testimony, which can be alleged by them; because themselves have taken from the words that sense, which only must have done them advantage; for if substantia' and 'natura,' always mean naturally,' then their sentence is oftentimes positively condemned by the fathers: if this may mean sacramentally,' then they can never without a just answer, pretend from their words to prove a ' natural, substantial change.'

9. Ninthly; But that the words of the fathers, in their most hyperbolical expressions, ought to be expounded sacra

f Ad Dardanum.

mentally and mystically, we have sufficient warrant from themselves, affirming frequently that the name of the thing signified is given to the sign. St. Cyprian affirms "ut significantia et significata eisdem vocabulis censeantur," "the same words represent the sign and the thing signified." The same is affirmed by St. Austin, in his epistle' ad Bonifacium. Now upon this declaration of themselves, and of Scripture, whatsoever attributes either of them give to bread after consecration, we are, by themselves, warranted against the force of the words by a metaphorical sense; for if they call the sign by the name of the thing signified, and the thing intended is called by the name of a figure, and the figure by the name of the thing, then no affirmative of the fathers can conclude against them, that have reason to believe the sense of the words of institution to be figurative; for their answer is ready; the fathers and the Scriptures too, call the figure by the name of the thing figurated; the bread by the name of flesh, or the body of Christ, which it figures and represents.

10. Tenthly; The fathers in their alleged testimonies, speak more than is allowed to be literally and properly true, by either side, and, therefore, declare and force an understanding of their words different from the Roman pretension. Such are the words of St. Chrysostom; "Thou seest him, thou touchest him, thou eatest him, and thy tongue is made bloody, by this admirable blood,- thy teeth are fastened in his flesh, thy teeth are made red with his bloodi:" and the author of the book De Cœnâ Domini,' attributed to St. Cyprian, "Cruci hæremus," &c. "We stick close to the cross, we suck his blood, and fasten our tongue between the very wounds of our Redeemer:" and under this head may be reduced very many other testimonies; now how far these go beyond the just positive limit, it will be in the power of any man to say,—and to take into this account, as many as he please, even all that go beyond his own sense and opinion, without all possibility of being confuted.

11. Eleventhly; In vain will it be for any of the Roman doctors, to allege the words of the fathers proving the con

VOL. X.

Serm. de Unit.

h Vide infra, n. 30.

Hom. 83. in S. Mat. Hom. 60. et 6. ad Antioch. pop.

F

version of bread into Christ's body or flesh, and of the wine into his blood; since they say the same thing of us, that we also are turned into Christ's flesh, and body, and blood. So St. Chrysostom; "He reduces us into the same mass, or lump, neque id fide solùm sed reipsâ; and in very deed makes us to be his body."-So Pope Leo: "In mysticâ distributione spiritualis alimoniæ, hoc impertitur et sumitur, ut, accipientes virtutem cœlestis cibi, in carnem ipsius, qui caro nostra factus est, transeamus."—And in his 24th sermon of the passion, “Non alia igitur participatio corporis, quàm ut in id quod sumimus transeamus:" "There is no other participation of the body, than that we should pass into that which we receive. In the mystical distribution of the spiritual nourishment, this is given and taken, that we receiving the virtue of the heavenly food, may pass into his flesh who became our flesh."-And Rabanus' makes the apology fit to this question; "Sicut illud in nos convertitur, dum id manducamus et bibimus: sic et nos in corpus Christi convertimur, dum obedienter, et piè vivimus:" "As that Christ's body is converted into us while we eat it, and drink it; so are we converted into the body of Christ, while we live obediently and piously."- So Gregory Nyssen"; Tò ἀθανατὸν σῶμα ἐν τῷ ἀναλαβόντι αὐτὸ γινόμενον, πρὸς τὴν ἑαυτοῦ φύσιν καὶ τὸ πᾶν μετεποίησεν. “ The immortal body being in the receiver, changes him wholly into his own nature:"— and Theophylact useth the same word; "He that eateth me, liveth by me, whilst he is in a certain manner mingled with me, is transelementated (μɛTαTотαι or changed) into me.” Now let men of all sides do reason, and let one expound the other, and it will easily be granted, that as we are turned into Christ's body, so is that into us, and so is the bread into that.

12. Twelfthly: Whatsoever the fathers speak of this, they affirm the same also of the other sacrament, and of the sacramentals, or rituals of the church. It is a known similitude used by St. Cyril of Alexandria: "As the bread of the Eucharist after the invocation of the Holy Ghost is no longer common bread, but it is the body of Christ: so this holy

* Homil. 68. in S. Mat, ad Cler. Const. 1 De Instit. Cler. lib. xi, c. 31. Orat. Catech. 37.

n

unguent is no longer mere and common ointment, but it is (χάρισμα Χριστοῦ,) the grace of Christ: χρίσμα Χριστοῦ it uses to be mistaken, the 'Chrism' for the grace or gift of Christ; and yet this is not spoken properly, as is apparent; but it is in this, as in the Eucharist:"-so says the comparison. Thus St. Chrysostom says, that "the table or altar is as the manger in which Christ was laid;" that "the priest is a seraphim, and his hands are the tongs taking the coal from the altar."-But that which I instance in, is that 1. They say that they that hear the word of Christ, eat the flesh of Christ of which I have already given account in sect. 3. num. 10. &c. As hearing is eating, as the word is his flesh, so is the bread after consecration in a spiritual sense. 2. That' which comes most fully home to this, is their affirmative concerning baptism, to the same purposes, and in many of the same expressions which they use in this other sacrament. St. Ambrose speaking of the baptismal waters, affirms "naturam mutari per benedictionem," "the nature of them is changed by blessing;”—and St. Cyril, of Alexandria, saith, By the operation of the Holy Spirit, the waters are reformed to a divine nature, by which the baptized cleanse their body."-For in these, the ground of all their great expressions is, that which St. Ambrose expressed in these words: "Non agnosco usum naturæ ; nullus est hic naturæ ordo, ubi est excellentia gratiæ:" "Where grace is the chief ingredient, there the use, and the order of nature, is not at all considered." But this whole mystery is most clear in St. Austin P, affirming; that "we are made partakers of the body and blood of Christ, when, in baptism, we are made members of Christ; and are not estranged from the fellowship of that bread and chalice, although we die before we eat that bread, and drink that cup."-" Tingimur in passione Domini;" "We are baptized into the passion of our Lord," says Tertullian;-" into the death of Christ," saith St. Paul: for by both sacraments we show the Lord's death."

66

13. Thirteenthly; Upon the account of these premises we may be secured against all the objections, or the greatest part of those testimonies from antiquity, which are pretended

n Lib. iv. de Sacram, et lib. de iis qui initiantur myster. c. 9.

。 Lib. ii. in Johan. c. 42.

P Ad infantes apud Bedam in 1 Cor. x. lib. de bap.