Doctrines and Practices of the Ancient Church Relating to the Eucharist, Chapter 6

Doctrines and Practices of the Ancient Church Relating to the Eucharist · Chapter 6

p. 31CHAP. VI. The Sixth Difference. The Church of Rome (ſuitably to the ſtrange Doctrine it teaches about Chriſt's Body and Blood) teaches us not to believe the Report our Senſes make, That the Subſtance of Bread and Wine remain in the Sacrament; but to paſs a contrary Judgment to what they inform us herein. But the Fathers teach the contrary, That we may ſecurely relie upon the Evidence of our Senſes, as to any Body, even as to the true Body of Chriſt.

THat the Church of Rome would not have us in this Matter to attend to the Evidence of Senſe, is needleſs to prove, ſince nothing is more common than to hear them call upon us to diſtruſt them, and to believe againſt their Report. Thus the Trent Catechiſm **Ad Paroch. de Euchar. part. 2. num. 25. —Nullam Elementorum ſubſtantiam remanere, quamvis nihil magis à ſenſibus alienum & remotum videri poſſit.teaches us to believe, That no Subſtance of the Elements remains in the Euchariſt, tho' nothing ſeems more strange and remote from our Senſes than this. And again ††Ib. n. 46. Corpus & ſanguinem Domini ita ſumimus, ut tamen quod verè ſit, ſenſibus percipi non poteſt., We ſo receive the Body and Blood of Chriſt, that yet we cannot perceive by our Senſes that it is truly ſo.

As for the Fathers, they are Strangers to this Doctrine, nor did they betray the Chriſtian Cauſe in this manner, by taking away all Certainty from the Teſtimony of our Senſes. They, on the contrary, proved the Truth of Chriſt's Body againſt the Valentinians, the Marcionites, and other Hereticks, by this Argument, which the Church of Rome rejects; they made their Appeals frequently (as S. John had done before them) to what had been ſeen with Mens Eyes, to what their Ears had heard, and their Hands had handled, without any ſuſpicion of their being deceived.

Thus Irenaeus (a)(a)Lib. 3. adv. Haereſ. c. 20. Hoc autem & illis occurrit, qui dicunt eum putativè paſſum: Si enim non verè paſſus eſt, nulla gratia ei, cùm nulla fuerit paſſio. Et nos cùm incipiemus verè pati, ſeducens videbitur, adhortans nos vapulare & alteram praebere maxillam, ſi ipſe illud non prior in veritate paſſus eſt. Et quemadmodum illos ſeduxit, ut videretur ipſe hoc quod non erat, & nos. ſeducit adhortans perferre ea quae ipſe non pertulit.. This meets with them who ſay, That Chriſt ſuffered only ſeemingly. For if he did not truly ſuffer, no Thanks are due to him, when there was no Paſſion. And when he ſhall begin truly to ſuffer, he will ſeem a Seducer, when he p. 32exhorts us to ſuffer Stripes, and to turn the other Cheek, if he firſt did not ſuffer this in truth. And as he ſeduced them, in ſeeming to be that which he was not; ſo he ſeduces us, whilſt he exhorts us to ſuffer the things which he did not ſuffer.

Again (b)(b)Id. lib. 5. cap. 1. citante Theodoreto, Dial. 2. foreign.. Theſe things were not done ſeemingly only, but in reality of truth; for if he appeared to be a Man when he was not ſo, he neither did remain the Spirit of God, which he truly was, ſince a Spirit is inviſible, nor was there any Truth in him; for he was not that which he appeared to be. He thought it, you ſee, abſurdity enough to ſay, That Chriſt appeared what he was not. But what abſurdity can this be to them that ſay, it is conſtantly ſo in the Sacrament, where that appears ſo and ſo, which is not ſo, as the Bread and Wine, according to them, do's?

Again (c)(c)Id. lib. 5. cap. 7. Quomodo igitur Chriſtus in carnis ſubſtantia reſurrexit & oſtendit diſcipulis figuram clavorum & apertionem lateris; haec autem ſunt indicia carnis ejus quae ſurrexit à mortuis; ſic & nos, inquit, ſuſcitabit per virtutem ſuam.. As Chriſt therefore roſe again in the Subſtance of our Fleſh, and ſhewed to his Diſciples the Print of the Nails and the Opening of his Side, and theſe are Indications of his Fleſh which aroſe from the Dead; ſo alſo, he ſays, he will raiſe us up by his Power.

Tertullian alſo argues thus againſt Marcion (d)(d)De carne Chriſti, c. 5. Maluit, crede, naſci, quam aliqua ex parte mentiri, & quidem in ſemetipſum; ut carnem geſtaret ſine oſſibus duram, ſine muſculis ſolidam, ſine ſanguine cruentam, ſine tunica veſtitam, ſine fame eſurientem, ſine dentibus edentem, ſine lingua loquentem, ut phantaſma auribus fuerit ſermo ejus per imaginem vocis.. Believe it, he choſe rather to be born (which Marcion thought abſurd) than in any reſpect to lie, and that against himſelf; ſo as to carry Fleſh about him hard without Bones, ſolid without Muſcles, bloody without Blood, cloathed without a Garment, craving Food without Hunger, eating without Teeth, ſpeaking without a Tongue, ſo that his Speech was a Phantaſm to Mens Ears by the Image only of a Voice. Then he inſtances in Chriſt's ſhewing his Hands and Feet to his Diſciples after his Reſurrection: Behold, ſays he, it is I my ſelf; for a Spirit has not Fleſh and Bones. But, as he goes on, Ecce fallit & decipit & circumvenit omnium oculos, omnium ſenſus, omnium acceſſus & contactus. Ergo jam Chriſtum non de coelo deferre debueras, ſed de aliquo circulatorio coetu, &c.according to Marcion's Interpretation, Behold, he cozens, and deceives, and circumvents p. 33all Mens Eyes, all Mens Senſes, all their Approaches and Touches. Thou therefore ſhouldſt not have brought down Chriſt from Heaven, but from ſome Society of Juglers, &c.

Again (e)(e)Idem. adv. Marcion. l. 3. c. 8. Jam nunc cùm mendacium deprehenditur Chriſti caro; ſequitur ut & omnia quae per carnem Chriſti geſta ſunt, mendacio geſta ſunt, congreſſus, contactus, convictus, ipſae quoque virtutes. Ibid. An credam ei de interiore ſubſtantiae, qui ſit de exteriore fruſtratus? Quomodo verax habebitur in occulto, qui fallax repertus in aperto?. Now when the Fleſh of Chriſt is found to be a Falſity, it follows alſo, That all the things done by the Fleſh of Chriſt, are falſly acted; ſuch as his meeting Perſons, his touching them, his Converſation, and even his Miracles themſelves, &c.

And when Marcion had inſtanced in the Appearances of Angels to Abraham and to Lot, like Men, meeting with them, and eating, and doing that they were commanded, Tertullian anſwers (f)(f)Ibid. c 9. Scito, nec illud concedi tibi, ut putativa fuerit in Angelis caro, ſed verae & ſolidae ſubſtantiae humanae., Know that this is not granted neither, that thoſe Angels had only ſeeming Fleſh, but of a true, ſolid, humane Substance.

He adds afterwards (g)(g)Ibid. c. 10. Sufficit mihi hoc definire, quod Deo congruit, veritatem ſcilicet illius rci, quam tribus teſtibus ſenſibus objecit, viſui, tactui, auditui., It ſuffices me to define that, which is agreeable to God, viz. the truth of that thing, which he has made the Object of three Senſes that teſtifie it, viz. Sight, Touch, and Hearing.

And again (h)(h)Ibid. c. 11. Jam Deum tuum honoras fallaciae titulo, ſi aliud ſe eſſe ſciebat, quam quod homines fecerat opinari., Thou now honoureſt thy God with the Title of Fallaciouſneſs, if he knew himſelf to be another thing, than what he made Men to believe he was.

And in his next Book againſt Marcion (i)(i)Lib. 4. c. 18. Illius peccatricis feminae argumentum eò pertinebit, ut cùm pedes Domini oſculis figeret, lacrymis inundaret, crinibas detergeret, unguento perduceret, ſolidi corporis veritatem, non phantaſma inane tractaverit.. The Argument of the Woman that was a Sinner belongs to this, to prove that when ſhe kiſſed our Lord's Feet, watred them with her Tears, wiped them with her Hairs, and anointed them, ſhe then handled the Truth of a ſolid Body, and not an empty Phantôme.

Again, in the laſt Chapter (k)(k)Ibid. c. 43. Cur autem inſpectui eorum manus & pedes ſuos offert, quae membra ex offibus conſtant, ſi oſſa non habebat? Cur adjecit, & ſcitote quod ego ſum, quem ſcilicet corporeum retro noverant?. Why do's he offer to their inſpection his Hands and his Feet, which are Members conſiſting of Bones, if he had no Bones? Why did he add, and know that it is I my ſelf, to wit, whom they had known before to have had a Body?

p. 34May not we ask, agreeably to this Reaſoning of Tertullian, Why do's Chriſt offer to our ſight the Accidents of Bread and Wine, if there be no Bread and Wine remaining in the Euchariſt; eſpecially when what we ſee, we knew to be Bread and Wine before?

But the moſt remarkable Teſtimony of Tertullian's is in his Book de Anima (l)(l)De Anima, cap. 17., where on ſet purpoſe he oppoſes the Academicks, that would not have Men give credit to their Senſes. He urges-againſt them, Nulla ſenſuum fruſtratio cauſâ caret, quod ſi cauſae fallunt ſenſus, & per ſenſus opiniones, jam nec in ſenſibus conſituenda fallacia eſt, qui cauſas ſequuntur, nec in opinionibus qui ſenſibus diriguntur ſequentibus cauſas— Quid agis, Academia procaciſſima? Totum vitae ſtatum evertis, omnem naturae ordinem turbas, ipſius Dei providentiam excoecas, qui cunctis operibus ſuis intelligendis, incolendis, diſpenſandis, fruendiſque fallaces & mendaces Dominos praefecerit ſenſus, &c.That there is no Abuſe of the Senſes but has a Cauſe of it; and if thoſe Cauſes deceive the Senſes, and our Opinions by them, the Fallacy is not to be charged upon our Senſes, that follow thoſe Cauſes; nor upon our Opinions, that are directed by our Senſes, which follow thoſe Cauſes. —And aftewards he cries out, O thou malapert Academy, what doſt thou do? (in charging Deceit upon the Senſes) Thou overturneſt the whole State of Life, thou diſturbeſt all the Order of Nature, thou blindeſt the Providence of God himſelf, who (according to thee) has ſet lying and deceitful Senſes as Lords over all his Works, for to underſtand, inhabit, diſpenſe, and enjoy them, &c.

—It is no ways lawful and fit to call thoſe Senſes in queſtion, —Non licet, non licet nobis in dubium ſenſus iſtos devocare, ne & in Chriſto de fide eorum deliberetur; nè fortè dicatur, quod falſo Satanam proſpectarit de coelo praecipitatum; aut falſo vocem Patris audierit de ipſo teſtificatam; aut deceptus ſit cùm Petri ſocrum tetigit, aut alium poſteà unguenti ſpiritum ſenſerit, quod in ſepulturam ſuam acceptavit; alium poſte à vini ſaporem, quod in ſanguinis ſui memoriam conſecravit. — Atqui nè in Apoſtolis quidem ejus ludificata natura eſt. Fidelis fuit & viſus & auditus in monte; fidelis & guſtus vini illius, licet aquae ante, in nuptiis Galilaeae; fidelis & tactus exinde creduli Thomae.leſt we ſhould doubt of their Credit even in Chriſt himſelf; leſt it ſhould be ſaid, that he falſly ſaw Satan thrown down from Heaven, or falſly heard his Fathers Voice teſtifying concerning him, or was deceived when he touched Peter's Wives Mother, or perceived afterwards a different Scent of the Ointment which he accepted for his Burial, and afterwards a different Taſte of the Wine which he conſecrated in memory of his Blood. —Neither was Nature abuſed in his Apoſtles. Faithful was their Sight and Hearing in the Mount; faithful and true was the Taſte of that Wine which was Water before, at the Marriage in Galilee; faithful was Thomas's Touch, who thereupon believed.

p. 35Recite John's Teſtimony: Recita Johannis teſtatimem: Quod vidimus, inquit, quod audivimus, oculis noſtris vidimus, & manus noſtrae contrectaverunt de ſermone vitae. Falſa utique teſtatio, ſi oculorum & aurium & manuum ſenſus natura mentitur.That which we have ſeen, ſays he, which we have heard, which we have ſeen with our Eyes, and our Hands have handled of the Word of Life. This is all a falſe Teſtification, if the Nature of the Senſe of our Eyes, and Ears, and Hands is a Lie and a Cheat.

And in the next Chapter (m)(m)Cap. 18. Videtur intellectus duce uti ſenſu, & auctore & principali fundamento, nec ſine illo veritates poſſe contingi.. The Underſtanding ſeems to uſe Senſe as a Leader, an Author, and principal Foundation; neither can Truths be laid hold of without it.

S. Auſtin teaches the ſame (n)(n)De vera Relig. cap. 33. Ne ipſi quidem oculi fallunt; non enim renunciare poſſunt animo niſi affectionem ſuam. — Si quis remum frangi in aqua opinatur, & cum inde aufertur integrari, non habet malum internuncium, ſed malus eſt judex. Nam ille pro natura ſua non potuit aliter in aqua ſentire, nec aliter debuit. Si enim aliud eſt aer, aliud aqua, juſtum eſt ut aliter in aere, aliter in aqua ſentiatur. Quare oculus rectè videt; ad hoc enim factus eſt ut tantum videat: ſed animus perverſe judicat, &c.Doctrine. Our Eyes do not deceive us, for they can only report to the Mind how they are affected.—If one thinks that an Oar is broken in the Water, and when it is taken out of the Water made whole again, he has not a Bad Reporter, but he is an ill Judge. For the Eye, according to its Nature, neither could nor ought to perceive it otherwiſe while in the Water; For if the Air is a different Medium from Water, it muſt perceive it one ways in the Air, and another ways in Water. Therefore the Eye ſees rightly; for it was made only to ſee: But the Mind judges amiſs, &c.

So alſo S. Hillary (o)(o)In Pſal. 137. Tollit ſtultiſſimam eorum temeritatem, qui fruſtrato falſóque corpore Dominum in carne viſum eſſe contendunt; ut eum Pater ementita veritate in habitu falſae carnis oſtenderit; non recordantes poſt reſurrectionem corporis ſpiritum ſe videre credentibus Apoſtolis dictum eſſe, Quid conturbati, &c. videte manus & pedes meos, quoniam ipſe ego ſum, palpate & videte, quoniam ſpiritus carnem & oſſa non habet, ſicut me videtis habere.Ps 137He takes away their fooliſh Raſhneſs, who contend that our Lord was ſeen in the Fleſh in a deceitful and falſe Body; that the Father feigning Truth, ſhewed him in the habit of falſe Fleſh, (as the Romaniſts make Chriſt's Body to be ſhewn in habitu falſi panis) not remembring what was ſaid after his Reſurrection to the Apoſtles that thought they ſaw a Spirit; Why are ye troubled, &c. Behold my Hands and my Feet, that it is I my ſelf; for a Spirit has not Fleſh and Bones, as ye ſee me have.

Epiphanius (p)(p)Hereſ. 42.is very large in arguing the Truth of Chriſt's Body, from what was ſenſibly done to his Body; and if he argues truly, then what is ſenſibly done to the Bread in the Euchariſt, proves the Truth of Bread remaining, and not only the Appearance of it.

p. 36He asks Marcion (q)(q)Ibid. Refut. 4. foreign., How could he be taken and crucified, if, according to thy ſaying, he could not be handled? — For thou canſt not define him to be a Phantôme, whom thou confeſſest to fall under the Touch.

Again (r)(r)Ibid. Refut. 10. & 11. foreign.he argues, That Chriſt had a true Body, becauſe he went into the Phariſee's Houſe and ſat down. That which ſits down, is a bulky Body.

And when the Woman waſhed his Feet with her Tears, foreignhe adds, Not the Feet of a Phantôme. And kiſſed them, perceiving his Body by her Touch. And, What Feet did ſhe kiſs, but the Feet made up of Fleſh and Bones, and other Parts?

So again (s)(s)Ibid. Refut. 14. foreign., the Woman that touched Chriſt and was healed, ſhe did not touch Air, but ſomething Humane that might be touched.

Again (t)(t)Ib. Refut. 16. foreign.. An Imaginary thing, or Wind, or a Spirit or Phantôme, admits neither of Burial nor a Reſurrection. But why may not a Phantôme as well be buried and raiſed, as Accidents be broken and diſtributed, when no Bread remains?

Again, he obſerves (u)(u)Refut. 65.from that of his kneeling down and praying, That all this was done foreign, becauſe his Diſciples ſaw him, and he was found to his Diſciples under their Touch.foreign

So alſo concerning Chriſt's Crucifixion, he obſerves (x)(x)Ibid. Refut. 71., That the piercing his Hands and Feet with Nails, and handling of them to do it, could not be foreign, an imagination or ſhew. But if the Church of Rome ſay true, he is out; for it is only foreign and a Phantôme, when I chew and faſten my Teeth in the Hoſt, there being no Subſtance that I bite.

He afterwards (y)(y)Ibid. Refut. 77. foreign.challenges Marcion from that Expreſſion, He was known in breaking of Bread. How, ſays he, was this breaking of Bread performed? was it by a Phantôme, or from a Body (z)(z)foreign.bulky, and really acting it?

p. 37Here I may well obſerve, That if the very breaking of Bread, argues a true Body that did perform that thing; how much more forcible is our Queſtion to the Romaniſts, What means the mention of Bread broken in the Euchariſt, (as Chriſt is ſaid to break Bread) if nothing be broken at all but only in ſhew and appearance?

Epiphanius alſo elſewhere (a)(a)Haereſ. 64. ſec. 36. foreign.ſays, when Chriſt ſhewed to them Moſes and Elias in the Mount, He did not preſent an Image or a Phantôme, as intending to deceive his Apoſtles; but ſhew'd what they were really.

Athanaſius (b)(b)Orat. 2. de Aſcen. Chriſti.ſays, Chriſt did both eat Meat, and permitted his Body to be touched by his Diſciples, that not only their Eyes, but alſo their Fingers might be brought in for Witneſſes of the Truth; foreignſo removing all ſuſpicion of a Phantôme or Ghoſtly Appearance.

S. Chryſoſtome (c)(c)De Reſurrect. Hom. 9. Lat. Pariſ. 1588. Tom. 3. pag. 775. Non eſt meum meos ludificare phantaſmate; vanam imaginem viſus ſi timet, veritatem corporis manus & digitus exploret. Poteſt fortaſſe aliqua oculos caligo decipere, palpatio corporalis verum corpus agnoſcat.brings in Chriſt ſaying thus. It is not my way to mock or abuſe mine with a falſe appearance. If the Sight is afraid of a vain Image, the Hands and Fingers may find out the Truth of my Body. Perhaps ſome Miſt may deceive the Eyes; but a corporal Touch owns a Body.

Alſo elſewhere (d)(d)Hom. 29. in Joan. foreign., ſpeaking of Seeing and Hearing, he ſays, By theſe Senſes we learn all things exactly, and ſeem Teachers worthy of credit, concerning ſuch things which we receive by our Sight or Hearing, ſeeing we neither feign, nor ſpeak falſly.

But leſt any one ſhould pretend, that the Euchariſt is a Myſtery, and that in ſuch things our Senſes may impoſe on us, and deceive us, it is very remarkable how this Father diſtinguiſhes betwixt them.

He tells us (e)(e)Hom. 13. in Ep. ad Epheſ. foreign.wherein Deception do's conſiſt, viz. when a thing do's not appear to be what it is, but appears to be what it is not. But he makes a Myſtery to be another thing (f)(f)Hom. 7. in 1 ad Cor. foreign, &c., viz. when we ſee not what we believe, but ſee one thing, and believe another thing: For this, ſays he, is the Nature of our Myſteries.

p. 38S. Auſtin (g)(g)Serm. de Temp. 161. Cujus praſentiam agnoſcat oculus, attrectet manus, digitus perſcrutetur. —Si fortè diceremus Thomae oculos fuiſſe deceptos, at non poſſemus dicere manus fruſtratas; in reſurrectionis enim manifeſtatione de aſpectu ambigi poteſt, de tactu non poteſt dubitari.makes the concurrent Teſtimony of Senſe, eſpecially that of Feeling, to give ſufficient aſſurance to us. Thus he ſays. There is no cauſe to doubt of Chriſt's Reſurrection, whoſe preſence the Eye do's own, the Hand handles, and the Fingers examine. —If we perhaps ſhould ſay, That Thomas his Eyes were deceived, yet we cannot ſay ſo of his Hands; for in clearing the Reſurrection, doubt may be made of the Sight, but no doubt can be made of Feeling.

Again elſewhere (h)(h)Contra Fauſtum, l. 14. c. 10. Qui niſi Daemones, quibus amica fallacia eſt, iſtis perſuaderent, Quod Chriſtus fallaciter paſſus, fallaciter mortuus ſit, fallaciter cicatrices oſtenderit?. Who but Devils, that are Friends to Cozenage, could perſuade them, that Chriſt deceived Men, when he ſuffered, when he died, and when he ſhowed his Scars?

Again (i)(i)Ibid. l. 29. c. 2. Illud eſt quod Magiae ſimile dicimini aſſerere, quod paſſionem mortemque ejus ſpecie tenus factam & fallaciter dicitis adumbratam, ut mori videretur, qui non moriebatur. Ex quo fit, ut ejus quoque reſurrectionem umbraticam, imaginariam fallacemque dicatis: Neque enim ejus, qui non verè mortuus eſt, vera eſſe reſurrectio poteſt: ita fit, ut & cicatrices diſcipulis dubitantibus falſas oſtenderit, nec Thomas veritate confirmatus, ſed fallacia deceptus clamaret, Dominus meus, & Deus meus, &c.. This, which is like Magick, ye are ſaid to aſſert, That Chriſt's Paſſion and Death was only in appearance, and in a deceitful Shadow; ſo that he ſeemed to die, when he did not die. Whence it follows, that you muſt aſſert alſo his Reſurrection to be in ſhew, imaginary, and fallacious. For he cannot be truly raiſed, who did not truly die: And if ſo, then he ſhewed falſe Scars to his doubting Diſciples; neither did Thomas cry out, My Lord and my God, becauſe he was confirmed in the Truth, but becauſe he was deceived by a Cheat.

Suitably to which, he aſſerts in another place (k)(k)Lib. 83. Quaeſtion. Quaeſt. 14. Si phantaſma fuit corpus Chriſti, fefellit Chriſtus: & ſi fallit, veritas non eſt. Eſt autem veritas Chriſtus; non igitur phantaſma fuit corpus ejus., If the Body of Chriſt was a Phantôme, Chriſt deceived us; and if he deceive us, he is not the Truth. But Chriſt is the Truth; therefore the Body of Chriſt was not a Phantaſtical Body.

Now againſt all theſe plain Teſtimonies, I know only one Objection can be made, which we are to conſider, viz. Objection. That ſome of the Fathers call upon us not to believe our Senſes, nor to regard their Information; and that particularly they do ſo in the Caſe of the Euchariſt.

To this Objection, I ſhall give theſe ſatisfactory Anſwers.

p. 39Anſ. 1. It is certain, that the Fathers appeal to our Senſes even in the matter of the Euchariſt. We have ſeen Inſtances before, particularly in Tertullian; to which let me add one remarkable Teſtimony out of S. Auſtin (l)(l)Serm. ad recen. Baptizat. apud Fulgentium, Bedam, &c. Hoc quod videtis in altari Deietiam tranſacta nocte vidiſtis: ſed quid eſſet, quid ſibi vellet, quam magnae rei Sacramentum contineret nondum audiſtis. Quod ergo videtis, panis eſt & calix, quod vobis etiam oculi: veſtri renunciant, &c.. This which you ſee upon God's Altar, you were ſhewn laſt night; but you have not yet heard what it is, what it meaneth, and of how great a Thing it is a Sacrament. That which you ſee, is Bread and the Cup; thus much your own Eyes inform you, &c. He appeals to their Eyes, you ſee, as to the Elements before them, and ſuppoſe, that when they tell them there is Bread and a Cup, they were not deceived. But then he informs them of that which their Senſes could not be judge of, becauſe not an Object of them, which was underſtood by the Bread and the Cup, as we ſhall hear afterwards.

Anſ 2. The Fathers call upon Men not to regard the Information of their Senſes, in matters wherein yet none queſtions the truth and certainty of their Information. Therefore this is no Argument to queſtion the Truth of what our Senſes inform us of in the Euchariſt, becauſe they would not have us to regard them.

Thus Cyril of Jeruſalem (m)(m)Catech. Myſtag. 3. foreign., ſpeaking of holy Chriſm. Take heed you do not think, ſays he, this to be meer ſimple Ointment. Senſe indeed reaches no further than that; but then comparing Chriſm with the Euchariſt, (which is not to be look'd upon as common Bread after Conſecration) he adds, foreign, &c.We are to look upon this Holy Ointment not as bare and common Ointment, after Conſecration; but as the Grace of Chriſt, &c.

So alſo he ſays of Baptiſm (n)(n)Idem Catech. Illum. 3. foreign, &c., Come not to the Font as to ſimple and meer Water, but to the Spiritual Grace that is given together with the Water. And a litle after, Being, ſays he, about to deſcend into the Water, do not attend to the ſimpleneſs of the Water. And yet, for all this, he never intended to deny it to be true Water.

Gelaſius Cyzic. (o)(o)Diatypoſ. c. 4. foreign.. We are not to conſider our Baptiſm with ſenſitive, but with Intellectual Eyes.

p. 40Or, as S. Auſtin ſays (p)(p)Serm. 2. in Append. Sermon. 40. à Sirmondo Editor. Non debetis aquas illas oculis aeſtimare, ſed mente., You ought not to make an Eſtimate of thoſe Waters with your Eyes, but with your Mind.

Thus alſo S. Ambroſe (q)(q)De his qui initiantur, c. 3. Quod vidiſti aquas utique, ſed non ſolas, Levitas illic miniſtrantes, ſummum Sacerdotem interrogantem & conſecrantem. Primo omnium docuit te Apoſtolus, non ea contemplanda nobis quae videntur, ſed quae non videntur, &c. Non ergo ſolis corporis tui oculis credas. Magis videtur quod non videtur, quia iſtud temporale, illud aeternum aſpicitur, quod oculis non comprehenditur, animo autem & mente cernitur., ſpeaking of Baptiſm. As to what thou haſt ſeen, to wit, the Waters, and not thoſe alone, but Levites there miniſtring, and the Biſhop asking Queſtions and Conſecrating: Firſt of all, the Apostle has taught thee, That we are not to look upon the things that are ſeen, but on the things that are not ſeen, &c. Do not therefore only believe thy bodily Eyes: That is rather ſeen, which is not ſeen; becauſe that is Temporal, this is Eternal, which is not comprehended by our Eyes, but is ſeen by our Mind and Underſtanding.

S. Chryſoſtom (r)(r)In Joan. Hom. 24. foreign., ſpeaking alſo of Baptiſm, thus breaks out. Let us believe God's Affirmation, for this is more faithful than our Sight; for our Sight often is deceived, that is impoſſible to fall to the Ground.

It is ſo frequent an Expreſſion of S. Chryſostome, That God's Word is more to be credited than our Eyes, that he applies it not only to the Sacraments, but even to the Caſe of Alms giving: For thus he ſays (s)(s)Hom. 89. in Matth. foreign.; Let us be ſo affected when we give Alms to the Poor, as if we gave them to Chriſt himſelf: For his Words are more ſure than our Sight. Therefore when thou ſeeſt a poor Man, remember the Words whereby Chriſt ſignified, that he himſelf is fed. For tho' what is ſeen is not Chriſt, yet under this ſhape he receives thy Alms, and asks it.

Anſ. 3. The Fathers in the matter of Signs and Sacraments therefore call upon us not to listen to our Senſes, and credit them, becauſe, in ſuch Caſes, they would have us to conſider things beyond and above their information; ſuch as relate to their Uſe and Efficacy; theſe being ſpiritual things ſignified by what is viſible, wherein they place the Myſtery, and which Senſe can neither diſcover nor judge of.

S. Auſtin has a Rule (t)(t)De Doctr. Chriſt. l. 2. c. 1. De ſignis diſſerens, hoc dico, ne quis in eis attendat quod ſunt, ſed potius quod ſigna ſunt, id eſt, quod ſignificant. Signum eſt enim res, praeter ſpeciem quam ingerit ſenſibus, aliud aliquid ex ſe faciens in cogitationem. venire.in this Caſe. I ſay this, treating of Signs; in which none ought to attend to what they are, but rather that they are p. 41Signs, that is, that they ſignifie. For a Sign is a thing, which, beſides what appears affecting the Senſes, do's of it ſelf make ſomewhat elſe to come into our thoughts.

So alſo Origen (u)(u)In Joan. tom. 18. ad finem. foreign.deſcribes a Sign to be a Note of another thing beſides that which the Senſe gives teſtimony to.

But none has ſo fully declared this Matter, and anſwered the former Objection, as S. Chryſoſtome, in the place forecited, whoſe Words deſerve to be ſet down at large (x)(x)In 1 Cor. Hom. 7. Edit. Savil. Tom. 3. p. 280. foreign.. Where treating of Baptiſm, the Euchariſt, and other Myſteries, after he has told us (as we heard before) what a Myſtery is, viz. When we do not meerly believe what we ſee, but ſee one thing and believe another, he goes on thus.

I and an Infidel are diverſly affected with them. I hear that Chriſt was crucified, I preſently admire his Benignity: He hears the ſame, and he counts it Infirmity. I hear that he was made a Servant, and I admire his Care: He, when he hears the ſame, counts it Infamy. And ſo he goes on with his Death and Reſurrection, and the different Judgment is made of them, and proceeds to ſpeak of the Sacraments. foreign, &c.The Infidel hearing of the Laver (of Baptiſm) eſteems it ſimply Water; but I do not look meerly upon what I ſee, but regard the cleanſing of the Soul by the Spirit. He thinks that my Body only is waſhed; but I believe that my Soul is made clean and holy; I reckon the Burial, Reſurrection, Sanctification, Righteouſneſs, Redemption, Adoption of Sons, the Inheritance, the Kingdom of Heaven, the Supply of the Spirit. For, I do not judge of the things that appear by my Sight, foreignbut by the Eyes of my Mind. I hear of the Body of Chriſt. I underſtand what is ſaid, one way; an Infidel, another. Which he further illuſtrates admirably thus. As Children looking upon Books, know not the Power of Letters, underſtand not what they look upon; nay, even to a grown Man that is unlearned, it will be the ſame, when a Man of Skill will find out much hidden Virtue, Lives, and Hiſtories contained therein. And if one of no skill receive a Letter, he will judge it only to be Paper and Ink; but he that has p. 42Skill hears an abſent Perſon ſpeak, foreignand diſcourſes with him, and ſpeaks what he pleaſes to him again by his Letters. Juſt thus it is in a Mystery; Unbelievers hearing, ſeem not to hear; but the Believers, being taught Skill by the Spirit, perceive the Power of the hidden things.

This Diſcourſe of S. Chryſoſtome's explains a Place of S. Cyril of Jeruſalem (y)(y)Catech. 4. Myſtag. foreign, &c., and teaches us how to underſtand it; where ſpeaking of the Euchariſt, he ſays, Do not conſider it as bare Bread and Wine; for it is the Body and Blood of Chriſt, according to our Lord's Affirmation. And altho Senſe ſuggeſts this to thee, let Faith confirm thee. Do not judge of the Matter by thy Taſte; but by Faith be undoubtedly perſuaded, that thou art honoured with the Body and Blood of Chriſt.foreign

And afterwards: Being fully perſuaded, that the viſible Bread is not Bread, tho' the Taſte perceive it ſuch, but the Body of Chriſt; and the viſible Wine is not Wine, tho' the Taſte would have it ſo, but the Blood of Chriſt.

All which muſt be only underſtood of the Sacramental Relation that the Bread and Wine have to the Body and Blood of Chriſt, which the Senſe of Taſting acquaints us nothing at all with, and therefore is not a fit Judge of this; but we are to believe, and not doubt of its Truth.

It will alſo help us to underſtand another Place of S. Chryſoſtome, (Homil. 83. in Matth.) where he bids us, foreign, &c.Believe God every where, without contradicting him, tho' what he ſays ſeems contrary to our Reaſonings, and to our Eyes; but let his Word prevail above our Reaſonings and our Eyes. Let us do the ſame in the Myſteries, not fixing our Eyes only upon the things ſet before us, foreign, &c.but let us hold faſt his Words: For his Word cannot deceive us; but our Senſe eaſily may: That can never fall to the ground; but this often fails. Since therefore the Word ſays, foreignThis is my Body, let us be perſuaded of it and believe it, and look upon it with intellectual Eyes: For Chriſt has given us nothing ſenſible, p. 43but in ſenſible things all things intelligible. Thus in Baptiſm, by what is ſenſibly done, there is the Gift of Water; but what is perfected, is intelligible, viz. our Regeneration and Renovation.

If the Reader do's but remember that Baptiſm is as much concerned in this Diſcourſe of S. Chryſoſtome, as the Euchariſt; and that we are as much required not to truſt our Eyes, that may deceive us, but to truſt the Word of God in the one caſe as well as the other; it will not give the leaſt countenance to the Abſurdities of Tranſubſtantiation.

And as for thoſe Words of his, That Chriſt delivered nothing ſenſible to us, they muſt be underſtood with an abatement, That we are not to be intent and to fix our Thoughts meerly upon what we ſee; for elſe it is certain, that there is ſomething ſenſible delivered in the Euchariſt, elſe there would be no Sign nor no Sacrament; and that Father would contradict himſelf, who in the very next Words tells us, That by ſenſible things he has delivered intelligible (that is, ſpiritual) things to us; for which he brings what is beſtowed upon us in Baptiſm as a Proof.